The economic analysis that we did at the back end of the technical analysis was based on both commodity pricing and premium pricing for people who were prepared to pay for fish that was chemical- and therapeutant-free and raised in a more sustainable manner. The answer for that is yes, because Overwaitea is getting a premium for the first land-based closed containment salmon that they're selling. So a market exists for that, and you have seen it in breadth in both the beef industry and chicken industry.
Moving to the footprint issue, I would argue that in British Columbia—particularly where we have hydro, which is the biggest footprint concern around close containment—we have an advantage, because our power is hydro-based. It's clean.
Power keeps coming up, and I would like to put some stats on the table so that people are very acutely aware of how much power you really need. I'd ask you to think about the industry at full scale, ten years out, with 100,000 tonnes of landed farms, closed containment salmon, and the power that would be associated with supporting that. In your minds, think of one, two, or four nuclear power stations—and you're probably doing a quick calculation about that. But you will be shocked to learn that you can build a 100,000-tonne industry on the back of 0.01 of a nuclear power station, a 10-megawatt plant. In British Columbia, we have Bute Inlet, one of the biggest run-of-river hydro facilities. It's a one gigawatt facility. It's equivalent to a nuclear power station. The average run-of-river project is about 50 megawatts. So we're talking about a very small amount of power to transition this industry. Please do not be mistaken about that fact at all.
My numbers are based on a very conservative design that comes in at seven kilowatt hours per kilogram of landed fish. The best designs from AKVA and AquaMaof require three kilowatt hours per kilogram of landed fish, which would mean that we're at even lower power. That puts you in the realm of one pulp mill of the total power needed for a whole 100,000-tonne industry. So from a footprint point of view, that's very important to consider.
I would also reflect on the fact that the current industry utilizes diesel fuel to transport feed in and fish out, and the total amount of energy required for that transportation is about a tenth of the numbers I've just provided—except that's diesel fossil fuel, not hydro or clean hydro.
So I would recommend that Peter Tyedmers' work be followed up, because his working methodology was excellent, but the data that he has put on the table has errors in it and is old. It was based on a ten-year-old design that pumped water through 60 vertical feet. The modern recirculating designs are incredibly efficient, because two or three feet of head at maximum is all that it is employed in the new designs. They are incredibly efficient, and that must be factored into your thinking.
Thank you.