Vaughn Palmer: Only when Horgan is safely in office will public get straight goods about Site C

After initial problems with seepage in other locations, roller-compacted concrete is “now regarded as an established construction practice,” says McCullough.

Except some concerns have been raised about using the practice in places like Site C, where there is a risk of seismic activity.

“A number of articles have questioned the reliability of this approach if exposed to tectonic shocks. The authors are finding that there is a significant risk of sliding or cracking depending on the nature and preparation of the surface under the roller-compacted concrete.”

McCullough was one of six experts selected to brief the cabinet in late 2017 when the New Democrats were deciding whether to complete Site C. The Portland, Ore.-based consultant recommended cancellation, arguing there were cheaper and more readily available renewable energy alternatives.

But the cabinet decided to go ahead, concluding, as Horgan put it at the time: “We just couldn’t see spending $4 billion for nothing.”

Horgan derived the $4-billion writeoff from the $2.1 billion spent to the end of 2017 and the estimated $1.9 billion it would take to shut down construction, pay off contractors and remediate the riverbanks.

At the time, McCullough discounted Horgan’s argument as an example of the “sunk-costs fallacy,” the economics equivalent of throwing good money after bad.

McCullough revived his side of the argument in this week’s report.

“The nature of politics is such that economic analysis in Site C has always considered sunk costs as a critical item in the decision whether to go forward with the project,” writes McCullough. “Economic theory categorically states that sunk costs are, in fact, sunk. They are not part of the analysis in any economic decision.