Another LNG Export Hopeful
Saturday, March 8, 2014 @ 4:34 AM
Prince George, B.C.- Add another name to the growing list of LNG export hopefuls.
Canada Stewart Energy Group Ltd. , a Canadian corporation registered in B.C. has filed an application with the National Energy Board to export natural gas.
The proposal would see a facility built in Stewart BC, and is in the very early stages of development, exploring land options for the operations.
There are seven approved export licenses for LNG projects in B.C. and four under review, including the submission made by Canada Stewart Energy Group Ltd.
The seven projects given an export license are:
- Kitimat LNG, proposed by Apache Corp. and Chevron Canada.
- LNG Canada, proposed by Shell and co-venture partners.
- Prince Rupert LNG Exports Ltd., proposed by the BG Group.
- Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd., proposed by PETRONAS/Progress Energy.
- WCC LNG Ltd., representing Imperial Oil and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd.
- Woodfibre LNG Export Pte. Ltd., proposed by Woodfibre Natural Gas Limited.
- The Douglas Channel Energy project
The four applications under review by the NEB are:
- Aurora LNG, a joint venture by Nexen Energy ULC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CNOOC Limited, INPEX Corporation and JGC Corporation.
- Triton LNG Limited Partnership, a 50-50 joint-venture between AltaGas Ltd. and Idemitsu Canada Corporation.
- Kitsault Energy Ltd., and
- The Canada Stewart Energy Group
Comments
Sure would be nice if some of BC’s Natural Gas could be used to generate cheap electricity for industry, commercial, business, Government facilities like schools, Hospitals, etc; plus provide cheap heat to farmers so that we can get grow products for local consumption, and export.
Exporting the gas to our competitors so that they have cheap electricity to operate their Countries seems a little lame to me. We could do both.
Is the term **Liberal Leader** an oxymoron??
We already have cheap electricity. Gas is open to market fluxuations and is more expensive.
We HAD cheap electricity. Then Alcan / rio tinto came into the picture. We gave them such cheap power they made more money selling it back to us then they do making aluminum, Canfor got so many millions to build their generators it was basically free, we sell so much power to the states it costs us here. Look at you bill now, two teir billing etc.
Actually P, our ‘competitors’ will be paying triple what we pay on delivery for our nat gas. It will only be the export market that will encourage companies to drill for more, as the free market prices in NA are well below the cost of explorationn and production in BC. Nat gas liqids are the only thing they make any money on right now, so given the huge demand stateside and in Europe for propane one would be wise to fill all your tanks now. Propane will be very costly for a long time
Under all the ‘Free Trade’ deals we’ve entered into we probably couldn’t do that, Palopu, even if it otherwise makes perfect sense.
Seems we are to be forever ‘penalised’ for whatever natural advantages we have in the way of abundant resources, and are destined to forever pay more for our own products here than we sell them to foreigners for.
Makes me wonder what all those past generations who came to settle and develop this country to have ‘life more abundant’ would have done if they’d known they were going to be faced with a proposition like that.
Pval so wrong there Rio has nothing to do with our prices. It is the price Hydro is forced to buy IPP power, let alone the huge taxpayer subsidies. Another cost is the aging infrastructure whichall governments never planned for while sucking money out of Hydro.
If the government hadn’t taken out a billion dollars from Hydro over the past 10 years, all the infrastructure could have been kept up without the increases.
Comment Posted by: Palopu on March 8 2014 7:08 AM
Sure would be nice if some of BC’s Natural Gas could be used to generate cheap electricity for industry, commercial, business, Government facilities like schools, Hospitals, etc; plus provide cheap heat to farmers so that we can get grow products for local consumption, and export.
Exporting the gas to our competitors so that they have cheap electricity to operate their Countries seems a little lame to me. We could do both.
Is the term **Liberal Leader** an oxymoron??
————————————–
Canada’s resources are for corporate profits only.
Of course we “should” be able to benefit from these resources and use them to develop out own industries, improve our domestic standard of living and help reduce the costs of those government operations that utilize significant amounts of energy.
This goes for natural gas, electricity and oil.
The problem is what socredible noted. It would undoubtedly be seen as an unreasonable subsidy and we would get sued under various trade agreements because of it.
Perhaps we should do it anyway. Maybe the benefits to our people and our industries, on a whole, would offset the penalties. Heck, it would even be a start to have a government that discussed how to leverage these assets as part of a domestic energy strategy. Everything doesn’t have to be about our export markets . . .
“There are seven approved export licenses for LNG projects in B.C. and four under review, including the submission made by Canada Stewart Energy Group Ltd.”
Wow, last I heard it was four (4) LNG export companies⦠now we are up to eleven (11). So just how much LNG per cubic metre will we be exporting on a daily basis, when all is said and done?
I can see our “non-renewable” natural gas being sucked dry before our kids get to benefit. Oh but Dragon is right, this isn’t for our kid’s benefit, it for those corporations benefit.
So corporations don’t pay wages or taxes. We live on fairy dust I suppose. I can’t find a thing in my house not made by or provided by a corporation.
Seamut, if you keep that kind of talk up, you might wake people up from the fantasy land they’re living in.
Peeps: “Wow, last I heard it was four (4) LNG export companies⦠now we are up to eleven (11). So just how much LNG per cubic metre will we be exporting on a daily basis, when all is said and done?”
I see you fail to understand what a proposal is. The reality is that maybe 1 or 2 of these will come to fruition.
I see the peanut gallery is out commenting on other’s comments, and not providing anything in the way of facts, discussion points, or the like about the subject.
So I will carry on: The article lists all the LNG project names and the companies involved.
Apache Corp. is foreign owned based out of Houston, Texas; Chevron is another American multi-national corp. based out of San Ramon, California.
Here is something interesting, the LNG Canada project proposed by Shell (which is foreign owned) lists it has “co-venture” partners; and those partners are?â¦.. (drum roll please)â¦; Korea Gas Corp. Mitsubishi Corp., and PetroChina Co. Ltd.
So I list only 2 of the 11 proposed LNG export project proponents, anyone else care to continue the research? Yup, foreign owned multinational corporations are the real beneficiaries here, we get some jobs in the, oh so environmentally friendly, “fracking” industry.
I am not against natural gas extraction and import, but I am against it being on this “massive” scale, it is simply not sustainable!
p.s. I also think we should be using Canadian Companies, instead of foreign owned, to provide the infrastructure to extract and Import “OUR” natural gas! Just my 2 cents on this matter.
From the top of the article: “Add another name to the growing list of LNG export hopefuls.”
Note the word ‘hopefuls’ Peeps. Not sure if I can make it any clearer than that.
Perhaps you can also explain the fixation on ‘Canadian Companies’? The fact is, all of the major players in the oil and gas industry, as well as other industries own assets all over the world, and employ people all over the world, despite the location of their corporate HQ.
NMG:-“Perhaps we should do it anyway. Maybe the benefits to our people and our industries, on a whole, would offset the penalties. Heck, it would even be a start to have a government that discussed how to leverage these assets as part of a domestic energy strategy. Everything doesn’t have to be about our export markets . . .”
——————————————–
I think the problems we’d have doing as Palopu suggested have to do with our being seen as unfairly subsidising Canadian PRODUCERS by our international trading partners. That seems to be the gist of what we’ve agreed not to do to gain access into their markets.
But I doubt there’s anything in any of those so-called ‘Free Trade Agreements’ that have any penalties for our subsidising Canadian CONSUMERS, so long as we didn’t ‘directly’ discriminate against our trading partner’s exports entering our domestic markets. And that’s a whole different ball game. One we could easily win at, if we could ever get our heads off the current sole focus on ‘jobs’, and onto ‘incomes’, (which need not only come from employment). And, even more importantly, what those incomes will actually BUY.
For those who think ‘Canadian companies’ should be the only ones allowed to develop petroleum resources, (until they make a profit, that is, and then it’s ‘open season’ on them, the same as any other ‘corporation’ ~ which leads us back to the notion that some ‘government’ entity, like Petro-Canada once was, should do all the development), we might want to recall that in the two decades prior to the major oil discovery by Imperial Oil at Leduc in Alberta in 1947, over 350 MILES of dry holes were drilled all over Alberta looking for commercial quantities of oil.
Can you imagine the hue and cry that would be raised by the taxpayers if any ‘government’ spent as much money as it took to drill those 350 miles of dusters before oil was found?
so credible; I like your idea about a “Petro-Canada should do all the development”. Norway does this, it’s Statoil corporation is the 11th largest oil & gas company in the world, it is 67% owned by the Norwegian government and is operated by the government’s ministry of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil
It seems we are selling off our resources for a song, without properly leveraging the maximum benefit to us.
Socred: “Can you imagine the hue and cry that would be raised by the taxpayers if any ‘government’ spent as much money as it took to drill those 350 miles of dusters before oil was found? “
Good point. This is the kind of thing that the resident lefties like to ignore.
I have a hunch that it would be the righties complaining about that and not the lefties, but not to get too picky . . .
As an aside, can you imagine the hue and cry that would be raised by corporations if they had to fully fund all of the R&D that allows them to extract and develop resources in such an effective manner?
This is the kind of thing that the resident righties like to ignore ;)
NMG I take it you do not take any advantage of any deductions or tax savings initiatives that come your way.
Can you break down the costs of R&D?
NMG, I saw what you did there. You took my comment and turned it back on me. Very original. ;-)
Oh I’m not talking about tax credits seamutt, that’s all fine and good.
What I am talking about is the fact that the Government already invests a huge amount of dollars into R&D on behalf on industry in Canada through the NRC.
Whether it’s drilling test wells or helping develop better mining processes so that our mining companies can operate more effectively, what’s the difference?
The fact of the matter is that government is very heavily invested in R&D in this country, for the primary benefit of industry. I don’t have a problem with that, I actually support it. Do righties?
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/index.html
People#1, do the good people of Norway pay more or less for a litre of gasoline to run their cars with than we do here? If it’s ‘more’, why so?
That’s the problem, one of them anyways, with ‘socialism’, People#1. Socialists always want to own the “means of production”, but is that what the citizens of every country really want? Or maybe they’d much rather just have the “production” instead, and at a price they can afford.
I don’t like the Norwegian model, nor did I like the original intent of the Trudeau government here when it formed Petro-Canada. For neither of those entities were formed to give the citizens of their respective countries lower-priced fuels, but rather to ensconse politicians in a similar role to that which used to be exercised by the “Divine Right of Kings”, back before Magna Carta.
Where the King didn’t have to get the consent of the governed before he taxed, nor even had to listen to any representation from them. This is exactly the same situation that attends when the ‘government’ can set any retail price it wants on petroleum products, or anything else, from liquor prices, to hydro rate, to auto insurance premiums, just because it’s in a monopoly position to do so. And the public has no ‘sanctions’ to counter that whatsoever. And we pay for our own enslavement.
Far better we look at the Alaskan model. Where ongoing Alaskan oil royalties are paid into the Permanent Fund, invested by it to “protect the capital”, and the “income” from those investments are then distributed equally every year to every man, woman and child in Alaska for them to spend as they so choose. And if they spent it on buying fuel for their cars, or to heat their houses, they’re getting both at a substantial discount from having to pay those costs solely out of their earned incomes.
That’s pretty well the case in every country, NMG. Whether their governemnts are of the right or of the left, or in the center. And it has a lot to do with the way our current money system functions, or tries to.
I would think that at the very least we could get Natural Gas at a very low cost for Hospitals, Schools, Government Buildings, Universities, Colleges, etc;
As it now stands we have to pay to build these facilities, staff them, pay for equipment, and tuition, etc; Then when they burn up the electricity, and gas, we as taxpayers have to pay the bill.
Problem is we actually own the gas that they consume, but have to buy it from some private business. This business could be compelled to provide some lower rates to the host Province.
The sale of Natural Gas to European Countries, Korea, Japan, etc; are done by the various Oil Companies around the world, plus Russia, etc; This gas is sold based on 30 Plus year contracts.
I have no idea how some people on these posts can make a statement about the high price being paid for natural gas on the world market when the contracts are confidential. **Crystal Ball** ?
Our energy is cheap, Palopu. Hospitals, Schools, and Government Buildings, Universities, etc. are already subsidized heavily by taxpayers. Nothing is free.
Palopu don’t forget the carbon tax they pay.
Seamutt:- “Palopu don’t forget the carbon tax they pay.”
——————————————
“THEY pay”? WE pay! All those institutions do is pass it on, same as any other business, Seamutt. There’s only ONE payer, those who ULTIMATELY ‘consume’ their services ‘personally’ ~ and that’s usn’s.
I think Palopu’s contention is that if the Companies’ ‘profits’ were removed from the prices they charge public institutions for the goods or services they provide, we, as the ultimate payers of those public institutions’ services would pay less for them.
And no doubt we would.
That is really the only thing he could mean, since all the Companies’ financial costs have to be fully recovered in their prices, or they’re out of business.
But the story of them making public sacrifice of their profits for the good of humanity doesn’t end there, unfortunately.
The Companies that provide the goods and services had to ‘get’ MONEY, from somewhere, to do that.
And whether they borrowed that money from a Bank directly, or raised it indirectly, by selling shares to the public, virtually ALL that money originated as a DEBT to the banking system at some point in the process.
And the banking system wants it back.
In fact, its continued ‘soundness’, such as it is, depends on getting it back.
And from whence does it return? From ‘profits’, that’s where. No ‘profit’, no repayment of PRINCIPAL. No repayment of principal, under the current set-up, we’d only accelerate what is already happening ~ the transfer of everything REAL into the hands of those who create, and CLAIM AS THEIR OWN, *OUR* financial credit.
And no, this is NOT an argument for having the government own all the banks. Such a move would only worsen the situation, in all likelihood.
In reality, Palopu, though I’m quite sure he doesn’t realise it ~ and most people like him, on the ‘right’ of center politically, don’t either ~ is making the same argument the socialists make.
That ‘profit’ is the great evil that prevents us from affording financially what we’re more than capable of providing in abundance physically. It ISN’T.
The REAL problem lies elsewhere, and is much larger than in eliminating the rather miniscule effects ‘profits’ even have on the whole situation.
Comments for this article are closed.