250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 9:02 pm

Zimmer Introduces Pro-LNG Petition

Monday, September 26, 2016 @ 3:22 PM

Ottawa, Ont. – Bob Zimmer, Member of Parliament for  Prince George- Peace River- Northern Rockies,  has  risen in the House of Commons to present an e-petition in support of LNG projects.

The petition,  which carried  just over 1,900 signatures,  was  first initiated in Fort St. John and is one of a number of  initiatives  residents of  Zimmer’s constituency have  undertaken to  show  support for LNG development in  Northern B.C.

In presenting the petition, M.P. Zimmer said  “The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support residents, families, communities, and businesses of Canada by saying yes to liquefied natural gas and approve B.C. LNG projects such as Pacific NorthWest LNG; to establish as a clean energy global leader by providing access to much needed LNG resources to markets in areas such as Asia, assisting in the reduction of global GHG emissions; to reduce the federal deficit through significant contributions of federal, provincial, municipal governments via taxes and royalties related to LNG; and, last, to help stimulate the economy and put Canadians back to work in rural communities, such as my own and the ones in northeastern British Columbia, with the approval of B.C. LNG projects.”

While there have been numerous LNG  projects proposed for B.C.,  not one has  come to fruition, largely because the commodity price  has  plunged.

Zimmer   said  he hopes the petition will  encourage a positive  decision by the Federal Government “I trust that this timely petition will positively influence the Prime Minister and his Cabinet with their upcoming decision on Pacific NorthWest LNG, as we know Minister McKenna received the CEAA report last week.”



Hey Bob, what are you expecting from the Government of Canada? They are not responsible for the world-wide glut of LNG on the market, and thus the near historic low LNG prices.

These LNG projects you speak of require major international oil & gas corporations invest BILLIONS of dollars to complete them. How many of these major corporations are willing to “risk” that much money in a commodity whose price has hit rock bottom!

Get with the program Bob!

    He expects them to approve the Pacific Northwest LNG liquification and pipeline project on Lelu Island, pretty simple, I am surprised you are confused. You know with Justin Trudeau’s Paris treaty and all there is some doubt that he will allow Canada to add the co2 to its emissions.

    Get with the program JDolt. The global demand for LNG, for both heating fuel and petrochemical purposes, will be established by worldwide economic trends for the next 50 to 100 years. A pricing anomaly in 2016 says nothing about what global demand in 2030. Do the math – the population of the planet is steadily increasing. More importantly, the sub-population of people in emerging economies is growing at a much faster rate. I know it’s hard for you McDolty but you have to think big.

      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you VOR!

      The oversupply / glut of LNG on the market was created by a new fangled method of natural gas extraction called FRACKING.

      Last I checked, fracking is going to be around for a good long while, and so will the oversupply of natural gas, as a result of this new method of extraction.

      VOR, you seem to be good at hurling insults, and not much else, now run along until you can find your next Neanderthal opportunity to posture in ape-like fashion for everyone’s amusement.

      Gotta agree with VOR.

      Fracking isn’t all that new. The practice has been in use since the 60’s.

    Hey Dolty McAirhead. Who would you think has a better grasp of the technical issues related to global energy demand and supply? A Neanderthal with two engineering degrees (with honours) and 30 years’ experience in industry, or a retired, uninspiring grade school teacher fully programmed with tiresome NDP socialist chestnuts and a big chip on his or her shoulder. Yeah, I know you’d go with the washed up teacher but a lot of people might think the Neanderthal knows what he or she is talking about.

      30 years experience in the industry, hmmm… I guess standing in the unemployment line is making you grumpy. Maybe do some research, you just might learn something!


      It’s 1936 and the City of Vancouver is meeting with the designers of the new Lions Gate Bridge. The chief engineering consultant says ‘with respect Mayor, we think you should have this bridge designed to accommodate 4 full lanes of traffic, 2 in each direction, and vehicles far heavier than just 20 tons, the current deign standard’. ‘Hogwash says the Mayor. Are you stupid, or in cahoots with big business or our provincial government? Two lanes is plenty to carry the 300 vehicles a day that we expect to be using the bridge. Now get back to the design table and prepare the documents necessary for this $5 million mega project’.
      As he’s walking out of the boardroom the chief engineer turns to his assistant and whispers ‘Mayor JGalt is a complete idiot – he can’t imagine anything more than 3 years in front of his nose’.

      Oh I see the future VOR, and there is NOT a combustible engine in it. Strange how you act like to old horse and buggy owner or manufacturer, looking at a Model T driving by and denying it will ever be as popular as the good old horse and buggy.

      Times they are a changing, and fossil fuels will get left behind, it has to happen because with them, we literally “have no future”!

      jgalt, you and reality just don’t mix. Washed up teacher….good one VOR.

Check with Christy and company to find out the royalty and write off rates for LNG.

Wow, 1900 signatures out of 20,000 in Ft. St. John and he’s off to Ottawa to talk about a dead issue for BC? Way to go Bob, that’s looking out for us.

    Dead issue? Getting people working in his riding is a bad thing?

Dead issue is correct, LNG is dead, and it is not coming back! If Bob, was not in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry he would be pushing for jobs in the alternative energy market, that is where real job growth is happening world wide.


    Dead issue because we have no way to sell product. Companies are no longer investing in new wellsites because they have to sell there product for cents on the dollar because only one company runs a small pipeline to export the gas. And there are other products that come with lng such as natural gas condensate wich is used for other oil and gas applications and is worth a lot of money.

    Again, pure idiocy. What do you think is the feedstock for all the plastics, composites, tubing, heat exchanger fluids, etc. required by the ‘alternative energy’ sector? Oh yeah, it’s natural gas, not unicorn farts like you and the loopy left seem to think.

I’m pretty sure he was powered by natural gas when he rose. The Greenhouse effect must be especially bad in the HoC.

    THAT was a good one. Thanks for the laugh.

Fine work bob…name in media..

Everyone wants business to invest in Canada..but at what price? And can we honestly afford the cost?

The city of Vancouver is dumping NG. Does the rest of the world know something they don’t?

    The only reason they dumping NG is to play the so called green game by using swamp gas from garbage.

      Swamp gas , NG , and methane are the same thing except NG is fossil methane . If Victoria BC were to capture all their effluent that they now dump into the ocean , they could power half the city and make a small fortune in biochar . But it’s cheaper for christy et al to poop directly into the ocean , up front that is . Glad we’re not down wind .

      Methane is all from organics not just limited to natural gas. There are only microbial methane produced from decomposition of organics in shallow depths including in bedrock and glacials as well as landfills and animals and thermogenic methane which is derived from deep underground where organic material is transformed by heat and pressure sometimes referred to as “fossil methane” because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel extraction.

      Microbial methane is more harmful to the environment as it is 99% methane and usually remains unburnt and stays as CH4, methane (CH4) that is burnt produces CO2 and H2O

      CH4 is a more “harmful” greenhouse gas than CO2 and H2O

      H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas we have on earth in the form of clouds

LNG is not dead. If any of the projects are going to be a go it will be LNG Canada in Kitimat. With the price of gas being so low right now they could create power from gas and sell it to Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto would in turn sell the power from Kemano back to the grid for profit. Then when LNG prices go up Shell is ready to ship on demand.

    BC’s clean air legislation will not allow any new gas generation. There is plentry of interest from private power producers to generate using gas. So we can wastes massive amounts of power to compress it and sell it to other countries, who will in turn burn it. Natural Gas is a low energy density fuel, best utilized close to the source.

      No actually it is a high density source especially compared to inefficient and equally environmentally unfriendly wind and solar.

      Then I guess all the LNG projects are out the door. One of the most appealing things for LNG is the fact that they create all their own power to liquify. I have some digging to do. Thanks:)

      Fossil methane is extreme energy . Extreme Energy produced by extreme methods is coming to an end . The sun shines every day . You can set your clock to see it rise and fall . Banks can plan solar power projects for twenty five years in advance . Prices can be set for decades in advance . This can not be said of any fossil project . Think Natgas prices are going to rise ? Why would they ? What’s going to make them rise ?

      Seamutt, perhaps you should do a quick check on energy densities of fuels, befor proclaiming “No”?

    Why sell the power to Rio, sell directly to hydro? Rio can generate their power much cheaper than buying gas generated so why buy gas. Now Hydro being controlled by the government of the day is forced to buy power from IPP’s for much more than their own cost. So Rio has no need to buy the power and Hydro may be forced to thus contributing to our rate increase as is already happening with existing IPP’s.

      Gas is traded at $3 (roughly) per MMBtu (1,000,000 btu). To create the same with power is eight times the cost. Rio Tinto could buy power created by gas and pay for it with a fraction of the money that they would be making off of selling the power to the grid

      Next to free aluminum.

      Plus. Shell gets to build their plant and be first in line when prices do go up, and places like KitimatLNG (chevron) still have to build a plant to ship.

      You do realize Rio generates their own power with hydro electricity why would they want to buy more expensive gas generation?

No to fracking. It is not worth the loss of clean water. Sooner than later it will contaminate all of the precious liquid of life

    Actually watering golf courses and lawns uses much more water than fracturing.

      The danger with fracking has much to do with how wells are drilled. They often have to punch through the water table in order to get down to the NG or oil. The chemicals they use when fracking can contaminate the water table through holes in the well casing. The water table can also be contaminated by the very product they are drilling for if the well casing leaks after the well goes into production.

      Once the water table is contaminated it can take a very long time to return to normal….Likely decades….if ever.

      Some facts on fracturing. Fracturing is also used with geo thermal.

      “Isn’t the composition of fracturing fluids a secret?

      No, it’s not. As mentioned, greater than 99 percent of the fluid is composed of water and sand, and the small fraction of what remains includes many common industrial and even household materials that millions of American consumers use every day. By both weight and volume, the most prominent of these materials is a substance known as “guar.” Sounds scary, right? It’s actually an emulsifying agent more typically found in ice cream. In fact, the ice cream industry hasn’t been too pleased with us recently, since, thanks to shale, we’ve been using a good bit of the stuff as of late (though the guar bean growers don’t seem to mind).

      The truth is, there isn’t a single “hazardous” additive used in the fracturing process that’s hidden from public view. On the federal level, operators are bound by requirements of the Community Right-to-Know Act (passed in 1986), which mandate that detailed product information sheets be drawn up, updated, and made immediately available to first-response and emergency personnel in case of an accident on-site. More recently, an effort led by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) culminated in the creation of FracFocus.org. A searchable, nationwide database with specific well-by-well information on the additives used in the fracturing process. States themselves have also upped the ante, with no fewer than a dozen updating their regulations over the past 12 months to promote additional disclosure.

      So what’s with all the controversy over “trade secrets”? In rare cases, a company may ask that a certain “constituent” contained within a larger “additive” set be protected, though even then under law that information must be released to response and medical personnel in case of an emergency. Even without an emergency, companies still disclose the general name of the constituent in question, its common industrial uses, and even the volumes at which it is being deployed. Indeed, the vast majority of these are considered “non-hazardous” by EPA – quite the contrast from what you’ve read in the papers”.

He should take his fight for the rights of big oil to the United Nations and get them to rescind the ban on flame throwers for military and posiblby civilian use for crowd control . Think of the press he would get . Think of the jobs ! It’s not that big a step from his AR15 push . Both are perfect for mass destruction of human life .

    The AR15 is just one rifle of many that the RCMP have banned because it “looks mean”. The 223 caliber isn’t all that intimidating when you put it up against big bore hunting calibers. While it could certainly be used to and has been used to kill people it doesn’t make sense to me having unelected officials dictating to the general public what guns we can and cannot use.

    The RCMP need more oversight anyway. It makes sense to me to create a Ministry with an elected MP at the head of it.

    The AR-15 is only resricted because it is patterned after the M-16. Any rifle patterned after the M-16 is restricted by the RCMP guidelines, has nothing to do with whether it is an army rifle or a civilian rifle. The sks is only a army rifle, they are used rifles from Russia that once were used by the military, civilian versions of the AR-15s were never used by the military.

    The civilian version of the AR-15 does not have selective fire so it cannot do burst or automatic which is illegal in Canada anyway and is NOT why the rifle is restricted, nor does its restriction have anything to do with the clip or firing capacity or rate of fire. It is restricted because the original AR-15 was patterned after the M-16 – there are way more “scary” guns you can buy than the AR-15 that are not restricted

    Educate yourself

Here is an interesting article from the Guardian, a Carbon Tracker report reveals keeping to the 2 degrees Celsius emissions targets would render obsolete more than $280bn worth of global liquefied natural gas projects… I believe BC’s LNG pipe dream would be among those stranded assets.

Man, this kind of news must “burn” some of the pro-fossils on here, however we have no choice, to save our planet we must move away from fossil fuels, end of story!


But oh, that’s right, what does a government “think tank” have to offer compared to an overly qualified VOR?

    Why are you so worried about saving the planet. The planet has been through much worse than what ever man is capable of doing to it.

    Ever hear of the Holocene maximum, 2c warmer than now, somehow life survived. The last interglacial 5c warmer than now, life including polar bears somehow survived.

    The 2c is just a temperature pulled out of the air, no basis anywhere for it. Surface temperatures have increased .7c since the LIA and we are better off for it. Warmer is better than cooler, thus the huge migration to Florida every winter.

World generation sources, great site. Solar combined with tide, 1%,,wind 3%, coal 39% and growing!

ht tp://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-by-Energy-Source#tspQvChart

Here is some interesting information about wind energy. This is in Ontario but can be applied elsewhere. Money money money.

ht tp://www.windontario.ca/

Some facts on air pollution and how it applies to coal generation
ht tps://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQuestions_Health_Coal_Wildfires_Jan2015.pdf

From ecoworld.com

“…the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

Clearly there is enough solar energy available to fulfill all the human race’s energy requirements now, and for all practical purposes, forever.

The key is developing technologies that efficiently convert solar power into usable energy in a cost-effective manner.”

In my opinion an all out scientific approach (like the one to put man on the moon) is needed to develop the technology to harvest and store sufficient energy from the sun to meet mankind’s requirements.

Fossil fuels are non-renewable and finite. The sun’s energy is reliable and according to scientists accessible for another 2 or 3 billion years!

    You are confusing total energy with energy per square foot. The factor in latitude, clouds, night tome, system losses, dirty panels energy density becomes a big factor.

    Few hundred years left of fossil fuels don’t forget methane hydrates.

    The only viable replacement as a source of electrical energy from fossil is nuclear.

    Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with over 60 reactors under construction in 15 countries.
    •Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia.
    •Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
    •Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly.

    Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 385 GWe. In 2014 these provided 2411 billion kWh, over 11% of the world’s electricity.

    Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea, UAE and Russia.

      The number per square foot is assumed to be 100 watts. The total is calculated to be 20,000 times present energy requirements (their numbers, not mine, so I am not really confused). When the factors that you mention are inserted into the equation – surely there must be more than enough left over from the 20,000 times assumption to satisfy the global needs hundreds of times over.

      BTW, why has Canada not built any new nuclear plants in many decades? How many years or even decades would it take to overcome all the objections that would inevitably delay the actual completion from conception of one nuclear plant in Canada?

In my opinion an all out scientific approach (like the one to put man on the moon) is needed to develop the technology to harvest and store sufficient energy from the sun to meet mankind’s requirements.
NOT SO ! The tech is here and getting more efficient with every day . Solar world wide is growing exponentially. It’s already broken the 2.42 cent per kWh . That’s a third cheaper than the cost of delivery and a quarter of what we pay not including taxes .

    You misunderstand what you read, it is not “produced” or “manufactured” for 2.42 cents a kWh but “sold” for 2.42 cents a kWh and sometimes even free. Large plants are attractive to break into the market with because of the long term sales contracts, like betting on the stock market you build something with the hopes that prices will rise and you will start to make money down the road long term. You may take losses for the first term of the contract but after that…? It is about having the infrastructure already in place once prices do rise and not having to wait out the 3-5 years to build it once prices are up and losing the window of opportunity.

No slinky . Your the one with a reading problem . This months lowest contracted prices for delivery were 2.91 and 2.42 cents per kWh of solar . This is the lowest price for energy from any source from anywhere . It’s a huge signal that only the dimmest of bulbs cannot see . Or in terms you may understand ” it’s a big deal ” .

    Careful slinky Ataloss does not like being proven wrong, I have the evidence to prove. Notice his only rebuttal is an ad hominem attach.

    Ataloss what’s the worlds share of solar generation compared to other sources?

      Which sources of energy are the ones growing exponentially? It ain’t the fossils .

      What a whiner . No wonder your a trumpette/harperette .

    Yes, price for delivery to the utility – some was delivered at Zero dollars or free – in Chile because there was no demand for the power and spot price was nothing. That does not mean it cost Zero to “produce”, nor is it 2.42 to “produce”.

    Say the site cost you 1 billion dollars for a plant and you produce 350 mWh or 350,000 kWh a day (short and dirty conversion) it will take you 2,857 days to sell it at a buck and break even. To sell it at 2.42 cents it will take 41 times that or 118,058 days or 323 years assuming no interest.

    You see they are speculating that the price will go up before the plant is dead. They hope to build 5 gigawatts capacity for 13.6 billion or 2.72 billion per gigawatt or roughly 952 million per 350 megawatt plant. You can do the math to find out the price needed to break even in its 50 year lifespan

    Oh, and they haven’t “delivered” anything yet, the site still has to be built if the bid is accepted

Denialists amuse me, the oil and gas industry definitely has it’s paid shills on this site, and we know who they are, yup and smoking cigarettes does NOT cause lung cancer.

The signs of the fossil fuel industry’s decline and death are everywhere these days.


    Yes it’s the height of hipocracy . They whine about the carbon tax while taking money for denial from the profits of big fossil . Good on them . It’s the only way they can get some of their money back sycophantly . The best slaves are the ones that don’t know they are enslaved . Read Ezra levant at Wikipedia to see how it’s done . There is a fortune to be made as a denier . Just not for any of the useful idiots . They only get kickbacks for joining . Wiki is your friend .

    Yes, the big insurance companies are paying out claims hands over fists, due to all the weather anomalies like the June 19, 2013, Alberta, Canada, flood where heavy rainfall triggered catastrophic flooding described by the provincial government as the worst in Alberta’s history. Total damage estimates exceeded C$5 billion and in terms of insurable damages, is the costliest disaster in Canadian history at $1.7 billion.

    Then there was the Fort Mac fire with all those houses going up in smoke, and just as science predicted, these weather anomalies will only get worse and more extreme. No wonder the big insurance companies want governments to stop bankrolling the fossil fuel industry!

Comments for this article are closed.