This is a good first step. We know that natural gas export is preferable to bituman export… but that said there is still a lot of questions… not only environmental questions, but also the impact of energy affordability here in BC, government revenue and how that is all spent, and the impact of large multinational conglomerates dominating the economic and therefor political scene.

Lets not forget that Canada spied on Brazil to get the leg up for the five eyes as it relates to off shore oil rights. Its big stake for multinationals that invest in governments and spying on governments to ensure they get their policy.

Sometimes whats good for the oil and gas company is not what is good for society and the whole economy. Under investment treaties like FIPA with China, and TTP with the Pacific Rim, we know that our government is negotiating the rules around independent third party international tribunals that would adjudicate any disputes involving multinational investments in Canada… this means these treaties enable a foreign entity to rule against the sovereignty of our Canadian, provincial, and local governments.

So if we sideline the Supreme Court of Canada through these trade deals, then do we also sideline the inherent rights recognized by the Canadian Supreme Court to first nations peoples?

It seems to me that if these investment treaties will allow foreign multinationals to sue local and provincial governments for any legislation that diminishes their profit potentials… sidelining the Supreme Court of Canada in these matters… then is it such a stretch to assume this will apply to native ‘rights’ as well?

My advice is they need two eyes… one on the LNG developments themselves and how these will impact the communities in the north, but also these investment trade deals that give away rights to the whims of foreign tribunals.

Hopefully the topic of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) comes up.

Three articles on the topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/eoin-madden/bc-lng-fresh-water_b_3382273.html

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-failure-of-fracking-betting-our.html

http://rt.com/usa/fracking-toxic-water-damage-735/

IMO the politicians involved in this get together representing the provincial and federal government are a couple of the top lightening rods to the ideas of these so called ‘investment treaties’ that will rob us of our local sovereignty.

These politicians need to be shown that keeping local sovereignty is more important than any investment/trade deals, and that business can still be done without giving away self determination.

OTTAWA – Free trade critics say a $250-million damage suit being pursued as a result of Quebec’s moratorium on fracking is proof Canada needs to be careful in negotiating trade pacts around the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/03/quebec-fracking-ban-lawsuit_n_4038173.html

INVITATION ONLY ????? WTH… The Citizen yesterday reported it was open.. What’s with the conflicting stories???

hey Charles, why would hydraulic fracturing be a topic of conversation? The most respected environmental watchdogs in the world approve of it: The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society (England) and the EPA for example find no problems…And by the way, the EPA discovered that a bad water from fracking scare in Pennsylvania was a pure and simple hoax.

from the report of the royal academy of engineers

1. The health, safety and environmental risks can be managed effectively in the UK

2. Fracture propagation is an unlikely cause of contamination

3. Well integrity is the highest priority

4. Robust monitoring is vital

5. An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) should be mandatory

6. Seismic risks are low

7. Water requirements can be managed sustainably

8. Regulation must be fit for purpose

9. Policymaking would benefit from further research

———————–

That is the difference between the engineering profession and gung ho contractors … ;-)

Any more incomplete information you want to share contractor?

When in doubt, check the source ….
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report

BTW, that was not a world wide endorsement of anything … it was for the UK and UK only!!!

Big difference!!!

the above points are all explained with conditions attached.

such as

◾Regulation must be fit for purpose.

Attention must be paid to the way in which risks scale up should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide. Regulatory co-ordination and capacity must be maintained.

◾Policymaking would benefit from further research.

The carbon footprint of shale gas extraction needs further research. Further benefit would also be derived from research into the public acceptability of shale gas extraction and use in the context of the UK’s energy, climate and economic policies.

This should see which native band is interested in at least talking. The ones who flatly refuse to come to the meetings due to there selfish attitude should be ignored when they decide to protest and set up blockades.

maybe you should read a bit instead of just cut and paste gus….as I said, they found no problems with fracking…idyut

Issues that have not been addressed with this LNG BS.

1. No long term contracts signed between any company or country. It seems that a 30 year contract is the standard before anyone will build a LNG plant.

2. What are the tax implications for Oil/Gas companies who would build these plants, and supply the gas. What are the royalties that the BC Government would receive. Are we being kept in the dark about these important issues.

3. If we are building the pipelines, supplying the gas, and building the LNG plant, and supplying the electricity for the plants to operate. Where is the electricity coming from, what rates will be charged, and who will benefit. Will our Hydro rates go up???

4. It costs in excess of $200 Million to build the ships to haul this gas to market. Who will build the ships? Will BC or Canada get any contracts in the construction of these vessels??

5. Where are Japan and China presently getting their natural gas, and at what cost. Can we break into this market and if so what rate will the gas/oil companies get for the gas, and how does that compare to what they pay in royalties.

6. The USA is importing less natural gas, and oil from Canada, and it appears that this will continue for sometime, and might in fact dry up all together, because the USA expects to be self sufficient in their energy needs ie: LNG/Oil by 2020/2030.

7. It is the cheap rates that the US pays Canada for gas and oil that make the Chinese/Japan market look so good, however once the US is out of the picture, then we have to compete on the world market, with Australia, Russia, Borneo, Malaysia, and the mid-east. How will we be able to compete??? Will we have to give the gas to the oil companies for next to nothing??

8. Some of the same companies that presently export LNG to China/Japan are the one involved in promoting the BC projects. Hmmmmm. Looks like a win/win for them. What about us???

9. Are our politicians competent enough to negotiate the best deal possible for BC, or will they just sell us out to get some jobs and win the next election???

Sure contractor, whatever you say.

And you think that all those questions will have answers to them before the government announces the intent to bring BC gas to market sooner rather than later?

The types of questions you pose will need to be answered. But they cannot be answered without making it public what the DIRECTION is that the government will take.

The devil is in the details and those are being work out. They have not let the contract for the plant(s) yet.

Before Christy was elected she wouldn’t know the difference between an LNG Plant and a swimming pool. Now she’s an expert.

Christy is just the Premier. Who cares how little or much she knows about LNG. There are others who advise her.

BTW, did we hear about getting natural gas to market before Christy?

substitute the words “read the news” for “was elected” and the same could be said about you Palupo ;)

ps – I am just buggin ya, you bring up some valid questions

Clark was sworn in as Premier in February 2011.

The LNG plan was made public in September 2011.

Figure out who was at the helm for 7 months. The first two guesses do not count.

Carbon footprint being as mony sucking corrupted science.

Considering that the intent was to build an LNG plant in Kitimat in 2006 (completion date 2010) to import LNG from Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia.for the Canadian and North American market, and we are now doing the reverse make’s one wonder.

Our competitors are now the Countries that we were going to buy LNG from. I say the market is totally screwed up, and in the short term no one knows what the hell will happen.