Why are people still on the Northern Gateway bandwagon? We don’t need it, don’t want it, and it gives us no benefits while threatening our economy and environment.

Really I’d lake to hear from any conbots why we still need Northern Gateway.

*like*

Nexen Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of CNOOC Limited (Chinese) and its joint venture partners INPEX Corp and JGC Corp. (Japanese)

The back grounder information states.

Nexen (Aurora LNG) and the Government of BC announced a sole proponent agreement with Aurora LNG. The sole proponent agreement provides Aurora LNG with the exclusive rights to pursue long-term Crown land tenure at this location.(Grassy Plain)

The right to acquire the land for construction or long term use remains a matter of future negotiations.

What actually happened so far with this project is that Aurora LNG will pay the Government $12 Million upon signing the sole proponent agreement. Another $12 Million will be paid by Aurora LNG on, or before, the first anniversary of the agreement, as long as the proponent wants the arrangement to continue. If the property is purchased then the $24 Million will be deducted from the purchase price

So at this point we have an agreement to consider purchasing some property for an LNG plant sometime in the future. Certainly no real plans at this time to build a LNG Plant.

Putting down $12 million is alot if the company is not serious about the proposal. Therefore, I am seeing this a good sign for the future of this particular proposal.

Herb, you are a tool.

*like* both Herbster and Palopu’s comments. dow’s comment? Not so much!

Sometimes Clark’s eager beaver approach leaves me thinking she might be naive when it comes to dealing with these large multinationals and state owned enterprises. Putting the cart before the horse.

We still haven’t heard if they will pay a carbon tax on the LNG, if they will produce their own power or try to be subsidized by BC Hydro rates, and how we will tax the export of these resources or how we will protect BC rate payers who need access to the commodities to heat their homes… not all of us will realize revenues from these projects, but we all have to heat our homes in the winter.

“We still haven’t heard if they will pay a carbon tax on the LNG, if they will produce their own power or try to be subsidized by BC Hydro rates”

I think the deal should be as green as possible. That means hydro is to be used to liquefy the gas. Even if the rate is kept low, it should not be lower than our rate for industrial use and it will pay for part of the cost of the site C dam.

Better get that dam built fast, or we may have to import very dirty electricity from Alberta.

I fundamentally disagree with you Gus. The industrial rate in BC is a reduced from cost and a subsidized rate to industry… home owners already subsidize enough industry.

If it did come to BC Hydro selling to the LNG plants they should at minimum be paying for the incremental cost of production that BC Hydro would incur to generate the extra power needed including the full cost of construction and operation.

If we don’t have the additional incremental cost covered, then its the home owners that will be subsidizing the cheep export of our domestic LNG for the profits of foreign multinationals and state owned enterprises. BC Hydro customers should not under any circumstances be subsidizing LNG exports.

So how is it any greener if we export the natural gas to be burned in third world countries, rather than here to insulate the local energy market from the inflation brought on by LNG exports? The gas will be burned either here or over there.

Also at best the Site C dam if built would not be built until 2025. These LNG plants would need the power well before 2020. So how does BC Hydro source the power for the five year gap, and at who’s cost for the incremental increase that would have to likely be sourced out of province?

Does BC Hydro have to build LNG powered generation to meet this demand anyways do to the production time gap with Site C?

Bottom line is these plants need to figure out their own power source to supply their LNG plants and not off load that cost on BC home owners. This is a hugely important issue for the people of BC.

People: “*like* both Herbster and Palopu’s comments. dow’s comment? Not so much!”

What are we now, 13 year old Facebook wannabes?

As for Nexen, it has assets all over the world, Canada included.

Best case scenario is we get regulation to force the LNG plants to be powered by bio-fuel power generation and thus enable the clean up of the pine beetle infestation (and replanting) and provide another split off product for market to help subsidize the total revenue of a sawmill operation.

Huge bio fuel power generation potential in Mackenzie, Vanderhoof, Burns Lake, Houston, Quesnel, and the North Coast… so why not? Is it because they can save money using BC Hydro thereby avoiding carbon taxes on their massive LNG exports?

Dow and Johnnybelt. My question still stands- why would anyone still support Northern Gateway?

Is it because I have a computer and drive a car? Is that the reason we need Northern Gateway?

Uh herb, there are many people that support the NG pipeline project. Maybe you should study the economics of it (and Kinder Morgan’s project) you might learn something. I doubt it, but you seem to be typical of the NG haters: complete ignorance of pipeline construction and just how important these projects are to the economy and security of our country.
Regards biomass power generation, there is a huge one being built in Fort St. James this winter. The other locations above had proposals as well, but the fob. raw supply costs were apparently way too high to be justified.

Herbster, LNG and Northern Gateway are two different projects. One is the liquefying of natural gas and exporting it by ships to Asia. The other is a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast of BC to transport bitumen(an unprocessed oil product). This story is about an LNG announcement.

Contractor- just because there are many supporters of NG doesn’t mean there is one good reason to support it. And you have not been able to reply to my question that given the multitude of LNG pipeline proposals, then why do we need NG?

Merely repeating Harpers propaganda about pipeline safety and national interest does not cut it, and qualifies you as an A1 conbot. I have considered this project evidently a lot more than you have, and can tell you on the face of it, Northern Gateway is a disaster waiting to happen.
1- Enbridge evades responsibility for spills by spinning NG into a third party entity that has no assets except the pipeline.
2. Enbridge will have at most $1.5 billion
liability, whereas we have seen other oil spills cost up to $40 billion.
3. NG will take up to 800 thousand barrels of unrefined bitumen out of Canada at a time when eastern refineries are importing 1.2 million barrels of Middle Eastern, African, and Venezuelan crude, and paying world price to do so.
4. NG is the greatest threat to Canadian security, short of Harper and his unthinking, unblinking minions, that we have seen in a long time.

Streetwise: put on your thinking cap, and ask yourself why anyone should support Northern Gateway, a $5 billion project with great risks for BC and Canada (and very little reward),when Petronas has announced a $35 billion project for LNG, and there are 9 more LNG projects in the waiting?

I’m not trying to be a troll or anything, I’m just naive about LNG and was hoping someone could answer a question. It’s still transportted via pipeline, likely to the Kitimat area, likely from the northeast. What happens in the event of a pipeline rupture? Does the LNG turn to gas once exposed to the air, or does the liquid actually hit the ground and penetrate like any other liquid? what’s involved in an LNG clean-up? thanks in advance!

mikmak,

Natural Gas is liquid when its in compressed form.. For example the Nat Gas is liquid when it is in pipes to your house. When its exposed to air it gasses out. Its no differnent than propane.. Pick up a propane bottle and shake it and you will know what i mean. If a Nat Gas pipe line ruptures it will vaporize and hopefully there is no ignition sources present. The main risk with LNG lines or any high volume gas line is its interface with populated areas and accidental ruptures.

Cheers.

Herb: “Dow and Johnnybelt. My question still stands- why would anyone still support Northern Gateway? “

Mainly because we need another market for our oil which isn’t the US. I’m sure you already know this.

ahhh, thanks northman! makes sense.

Wrong again Johnnybelt. As is commonly known, Canada has more than enough demand for all of Northern Gateways’ capacity. All is lacking is leadership to build a pipeline east.

Herb, their is an application currently to reverse a line and ship to Eastern Canada. That won’t be enough though. Oilsand production is increasing dramatically in the next 10 years so we need more than a few refineries in Canada to accommodate.

The benefit of NG, as JB said, is increased markets. This will narrow the current discount producers get. This will increase taxes and royalties to Provincial and Federal coffers, which will pay the bills for our society. Is that clear enough for you A1dipper?

Exactly dow. I know herb doesn’t like that answer, but that doesn’t change the situation and reality we currently face.

Pie in the sky dreaming, if you believe that the chinese are going to pay a huge premium for unrefined bitumen over what US refiners are willing to pay. No one has seen any firm prices that the Chinese are willing to pay, and they wont either. Once the pipeline is built, Nexen and Suncor will funnel the stuff as cheaply as possible to China. Remember that they are owned by the chinese government.They are not in business to maximize Canadian profit, but to protect Chinese long term interests. Forget that at your peril.

Building the pipeline east eliminates the need for Northern Gateway, and the Kinder Morgan expansion. In 10 years, we shall see what kind of production comes out of the bitumen sands. Remember that SAGD production is heavily reliant on cheap natural gas. Once LNG exports happen, you can expect close to world prices for natural gas prices in North America as well. At world price , the input energy costs for SAGD will jump from $7/barrel to $34/barrel. Think that might have an impact on bitumen sand production? You bet it will.

Herbster, an economy needs diversity. Sticking your eggs into one basket gets you into a Mackenzie or Tumbler Ridge situation when economies change

Also can’t add this so I apologize for the second post: Many economists have looked at the ‘east pipeline’ idea and although ‘good’ for the east in terms of fuel prices it does not build the economy on either end. Exports build an economy. In an economy there is a difference in selling your brother a chocolate bar than selling the same one to your neighbour.

Slinky, stop and think about what you are saying. Alberta didn’t want an NEP because they thought eastern canada wouldn’t pay world prices. Now are you saying they dont want to sell their oil east at world price, because somehow it is better to export at a lower price than they could get in Canada? Give your head a shake man.

As far as diversifying our economy, we all would be wise to avoid accelerating development of the bitumen sands. At the moment Alberta is running a massive deficit, and has not increased its Heritage Fund in over 20 years. This despite exporting 2 million barrels/day. if you are in a hole, stop digging! Alberta should learn how to make a profit on what it has, rather than always trying to increase production to try and lower costs.

Herb,stop spewing bs as fact. Suncor isn’t owned by the Chinese government and oilsands exporters most certainly will sell at the highest price. Do you really believe Suncor, which has spent billions over many decades, is same kind of pawn to supply China with cheap oil? Your typical leftard arguments are tough for a rational thinker to stomach.

The problem with your convoluted nutbar logic is that oil producers want more pipeline capacity, period. They want to sell to anyone. Hence the push for keystone, KM,NG
and transcanada east.

Further, Alberta’s finances have been hampered by the lack of pipeline capacity,hence much lower realized prices and exponential economic growth, hence increased costs. They don’t produce it, they get royalties based on price from it. Not defending them. But I don’t think they need a lesson in Suzuki economics from a dipper.

Lastly, do you even know what the NEP was?