HUG Siphon System • The water level behind the Otto Holden Hydro Dam on the Ottawa River can be maintained at 179.5 m above sea level, while the water level in Lake Huron is 176.5 m. This difference of 3 m is the basis of water transfer through a HUG Siphon System for 171 km. • The HUG Siphon system can be buried under any populated built up areas. HUG can also be raised to189.5 m above sea level. • It will be difficult to say NO to Water Export Revenue of $433 Million/year at the auction price of $0.13/ m3s for 135 m3 • Each of the 150 million people whose needs could be served by the project would pay the reasonable rate of $50 per year. In this case, annual income from the exports would be $7.5 billion. • The total initial cost of this mega project is $347.5 + $232.25 = $580 million. • HUG has a potential of Hydro Revenue of $210 Million/yr (11 kW/m2) • HUG has a potential of Water Export Revenue of 56 m3s@auction price of $0.13/ m3s of $180 Million/yr / HUG System • Water Export Revenue of 2000 m3s = $6.4 Billion/yr for 35 HUG Siphon Systems • Return on Investment : $180 +$210 / $580 million = 67%/yr for 1 HUG System. • An alternative desalination plant (1.2 m3s) is twice the price, because it is energy intensive and it incurs high-pollution costs that could escalate as energy price increase. • Nine bodies of 265 m3s water share the same environment: only a distance of 1.5 m to 12 km apart, which can be diverted to Lake Superior.

14. A Canadian Solution to Water Crisis in South Western U.S. Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010

16. Many Other Fresh Water Projects Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 FRESH WATER PROJECTS Distance Volume Central Valley Project Sacramento 85% irrigation 600 km 274 m 3 s Central Arizona Project Colorado $4Billion 1968-1994to Phoenix and Tucson 90% irrigation 528 km 59 m 3 s Central Utah: Project Colorado 242 km 10.6 m 3 s Chicago Diversion to the Mississippi River 40 km 91 m 3 s Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant: $158 M 1.1 m 3 s Las Vegas: $2 billion by 2014 40,000 acre foot (Buried water pipeline: 150 million gallons/ day) 400 km 1.56 m 3 s The Alaska-California Subsea Pipeline Project 644 -3380 km $110 Billion NARA projected at US$390M/yr. (FOB Great Lakes) Add $1.25M/ mile or $780,00/km for pipeline (2007) 570 km 1,074 m 3 s

17. Inter-basin Water Proposals are Not New SOURCE: P.H. Pearce, F. Bertrand and J.W. MacLaren, "Currents of Change", FINAL REPORT OF THE INQUIRY ON FEDERAL WATER POLICY [Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1985] p.127 Magnum Plan {Magnusson} - Peace R. , Athabasca R. , & N. Saskatchewan Rivers Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 PROPOSED PROJECT ( No C ost E stimates A vailable ) Volume of Fresh Water (m 3 s ) Great Lakes-Pacific Waterways plan { Decker } Skeena R ., Nechako R . & Fraser R ., of B.C., Peace R. , Athabasca R. , & Saskatchewan R . 4 , 500 983 NAPAWA-MUSCHEC or Mexican-United States Hydroelectric Commission {Parsons} – NAPAWA sources, plus lower Mississippi & Sierra Madre , Oriental Rivers of South Mexico. 5 , 517 North American Waters, A Master Plan [NAWAMP] { Tweed } - Yukon & Mackenzie Rivers, plus drainage to Hudson Bay. 58 , 663

18. There were High Priced Proposals * T his plan would involve 240 dams and reservoirs, 112 water diversions and 17 aqueducts and canals . Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 PROPOSED PROJECT S Volume of Water ( m 3 s ) Estimated Price (200 8 ) North American Water And Power Alliance [NAWAPA] {Parsons} – Pacific & Arctic drainage of Alaska, Yukon & B.C. * 9830 $16 6 Billion Kuiper Plan {Kuiper} – Peace R. , Athabasca R. , and N. Saskatchewan R. in Alberta; Nelson R. and Churchill R. in Manitoba. 5865 $8 3 Billion Central North American Water Project [CeNAWP] {Tinney} – Mackenzie, Peace , Athabasca, N. Saskatchewan, Nelson & Churchill Rivers. 5865 $ 50 Billion to $8 3 Billion Western States Water Augmentation Concept {Smith} – Liard R. & Mackenzie River. 5865 $14 9 Billion

48. The Helical Turbine is the Most Efficient: 35% Propeller turbine s have an efficiency of 20% compared to the Helical Turbine ( 35% ). Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010

60. HUG Pilot Project * The designated Fee is initially offered to promoters (under contract). The fees for succeeding systems will be allocated to management fees (5%), community development (4%) and patent fee (1%). 80% utilization: 7 ,015 MWh [x $79 (Quebec)] $ 554 ,000: ROI = 7 % in first year only. Annual Return on Investment: (Ontario FIT) (using $131/M W h) $ 919 ,000 = 12.7 % The First 1.0 MW Prototype HUG System HUG Length: 31 m ; Diameter/Depth: 6 m ; Twin Oval Helical Turbines: 28 Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 28 Turbines @ $8,750 $245,000 28 Submersible Generator @ $5,000 140,000 1 Module Cylindrical HUG 1,250,000 Civil Works 1,625,000 Control System 407,000 Electric Power Converter/Generator for 6.7MW DFIG 593,000 Transmission and Grid Connection 86,000 Electrical Connections 550,000 Electrical and Mechanical Overhead 114,000 Subtotal $5,010,000 Contingency, Insurance, Legal costs, Bank fees, Interest: (15%) 752,000 Total Helical Turbine System Cost $5,762,000 Engineering Planning and Design (15%) 864,000 Patent Promotion Fee* (10%) 576,000 Total Costs : 1.0 MW $1075/kW (.153/kWh) $7,202,000