LNG Project to Move Forward
Prince George, B.C.- There have been a number of proposed LNG projects in B.C. and today comes word of one that will come to fruition.
Woodfibre LNG project has made its final financial investment decision and will go ahead with its $1.6 billion dollar project to be located on the former Woodfibre pulpmill site about 7 kms southwest of Squamish.
The project is expected to create 650 construction jobs and 100 operational jobs when complete.
The facility is expected to export 2.1 million tonnes of LNG each year for 25 years. That means there will be one LNG carrier ship moving through that shipping lane on the southwest coast three to four times a month.
The final investment decision came in the wake of the Province announcing a new eDrive electricity rate for LNG proponents so they get a break on the electricity they use in order to liquefy the natural gas. Using electricity instead of natural gas to liquefy the product reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
The natural gas will be transported to the Woodfibre site via a 47 kilometre extension of Fortis gas lines.
Comments
So why as a ratepayer to BC Hydro do we have to subsidize these LNG projects ? The green house gas emissions is a smoke screen as the actual plant itself produces huge amounts and the government has not required the the cleanest technology to be used.
Corporate well fare has to stop ! Once Site C is built and that debt comes online, are you and I going to get a special reduced rate, not at all !
That’s the failure of ALL our current political parties coming into plain view. WE always pay through the nose to try to sell a BC resource to foreigners at a price that’s cheaper than they can get it for anywhere else.
The article does not say anything about how much the subsidy is in relation to the expected income to the government from the new business through various taxes such as employment taxes from the salaries of the workers as well as increased taxes from businesses which service the new plant, etc.
There is no business and no government in the world that can expect something for nothing. If one wants to generate a new enterprise one must invest in that enterprise. What part of that do people not understand? Canfor is subsidized to clean up its emissions, because the US paper companies were doing that. BC subsidizes the LNG projects because Australia and other countries do that.
It is quite simple to understand.
All we need to know, however, should be is the measure of that subsidy in relation to the expected resulting income to the government.
Does anyone here know that, or is everyone just mouthing off as usual without any information?
Nobody really knows what you’re asking in your last two sentences, gopg2015, and it may even be something that would be exceedingly hard to measure. Trying to do it just using dollars wouldn’t quite cut it, because it’s the ‘purchasing power’ of EACH dollar that would really have to be taken into account. And that purchasing power is going to be likely to fall as these kinds of projects are carried out.
Really, why should it be necessary for us to subsidise producers selling into export markets anyways? Why not instead subsidise consumers in our own market with cheaper prices for our own products? It’s really not a bit different than importing some other country’s money that can never be used to purchase ITS goods and services in exchange for ours, but rather must be used to overcome a systemic deficiency of purchasing power in our own economy. That could easily be corrected in a way that would give us those shorter work days and work weeks without any loss in purchasing power of our incomes
Seems like lots and lots of high paying jobs have been created partially through subsidies!
Bullmoose and Quintette used to ship coal out of Tumbler Ridge by way of an electric rail line! Some people that I know have suggested that this was required due to the long tunnels through the Rockies, but other people have stated that the rail line was electric because the mines and the line benefitted from low hydro rates.
Many people in PG enjoy high wages at our pulp mills and sawmills. How much in the way of subsidies, in any way shape or form have been afforded to these companies?
Some on this site promote both solar and wind power, but it seems that neither of these is profitable without subsidies!
Where would TESLA be without subsidies?
Corporate welfare has probably helped provide jobs for many of those on this site that are protesting Site C!
650 jobs during construction and thereafter 100 jobs. Not many jobs when you consider that we are subsidizing the electricity, and probably giving them a deal on royalties.
We need some clarification as to just how much these plants are costing us, and whether or not they are in fact a good deal for the Province, and employment, or just a good deal for the LNG companies. My guess is that its the latter.
If the Petronas plant in Pt Edward goes forward it will be a huge polluter, in fact it might be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in North America if not the world.
So we are getting little money for royalties, subsidizing some plants with cheap electricity, creating greenhouse gases on a huge scale and getting very few long term jobs out of the process.
Hmmmmmm.
“If the Petronas plant in Pt Edward goes forward it will be a huge polluter, in fact it might be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in North America if not the world.”
Look to Alberta to find one of the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas in the world. Of course, at the moment the oilfields are not producing as much as they used to.
Remember when they were considering building a nuclear plant or two to provide the energy? Perhaps they will be back up to production by the time site C is in operation.
I was really excited with LNG after the last election and now getting excited again. Must be another election coming again. Get ready for the next job fair.
Show me the paper that says so called green house gases are a problem? You after 40 years of research, hundreds of billions spent there must be an actual paper of proop somewhere?
Google the Paris Conference on Climate Control and avail yourself of the scientific information which prompted 195 countries to sign on to the agreement, including China and the USA, the two worst polluters on the globe! I expect you to say that they all have been duped.
Simple question, show the paper. C02 is not pollution, life would basically end without it.
PG I did google and here is what I found
ht tp://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/getting-rid-of-the-hot-air/17344
“As political scientist Bjorn Lomborg points out, the big-picture numbers make no sense, either. If every nation somehow meets the targets associated with the newly-agreed Paris document, he says, only one percent of the emissions cuts we’ve been told must occur by the year 2030 will actually take place. The maths, says Lomborg, “is simple: in an implausibly optimistic best-case scenario, Paris leaves 99% of the problem in place. It’s like going on a diet to slim down, but declaring victory after the first salad.”
(The agreement says nations will aspire to more ambitious targets as time goes by. But that’s like a dieter promising to lose 10 pounds during the first month, and 15 during the second. Good intentions are one thing, follow-through is another.)
Nations which attempt, in good faith, to live up to their Paris commitments will spend enormous amounts of money replacing cheap, higher-emissions energy sources with expensive, lower-emissions sources. Money to fund this transition will have to come from somewhere, which means billions will be siphoned away from health care, education, counter-terrorism, and refugee assistance – all to meet a target that represents the tiniest fraction of an alleged global solution.”
Nobody expects 100% agreement from everyone ! With enough cherry picking it is easy to find contrary options in the overwhelmingly convincing evidence of mankind’s contribution to the increasing global climate change due to the GHG effect. You are sidestepping the question which is: How, according to your arguments, did 195 countries get duped into making sufficient efforts to avert a global catastrophe?
Who cares. The world produces more and more junk toys for people to replace the ones that are 5 years old, 3 years old, one year old, just because they can’t figure out how else to give people money except though creating more jobs.
Gone are the days of 4 day work weeks and 3 day work weeks with accompanying leisure time with money spent on recreational pursuits as was predicted some 40 years ago.
We have to remember, we need jobs, jobs, jobs to spread the wealth around, or so the wealthy tell us since they really do not want to share.
I thought I was going to agree with you for once, gopg2015, til you wrote “…or so the wealthy tell us since they really do not want to share.”
They probably ‘don’t want to share’, but regardless of whether they do or don’t, what would they be ‘sharing’?
Certainly not ‘money’, because most of those considered wealthy don’t really have much of their wealth in ‘money’. They hold it in assets ‘valued’ in money. BIG difference.
The same kind of difference that there’d be between a long time home-owner in Vancouver who now has a home that’s ‘valued’ at over a million dollars, and someone else who actually ‘has’ that million, in cash or his bank account.
The latter can ‘share’ his million in a multitude of ways. But the former, how many ways can he ‘share’ his home in comparison?
The REAL problem ISN’T that “the poor are poor because the rich are rich”. They’re ‘poor’ because there is a discrepancy between all those things that are ‘valued’ in money and the amount of money itself in existence in the hands of the public.
Long term , trying to ‘re-distribute’ an insufficiency will never a sufficiency make.
eDrive rate
ht tps://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016PREM0133-002280
“The Government of British Columbia and BC Hydro have announced a new eDrive electricity rate, which will be provided to LNG proponents that connect to the BC Hydro integrated grid and use clean, renewable electricity for the liquefaction process (using compressors to chill and liquefy natural gas) at their facilities.
…LNG proponents who use grid power for liquefaction will also receive the new eDrive rate, which is the same rate as the standard industrial electricity rate, for their ancillary power needs…
LNG customers also will be required to contribute the full cost of connecting to the BC Hydro system and transmission upgrades required to serve their facilities, as set out in electricity supply and load interconnection agreements with BC Hydro.”
Why do people comment without doing the research to back up their rants? You do know what “assume” means?
“Why do people comment without doing the research to back up their rants? You do know what “assume” means?”
For the same reason people support an individual like Trump because he is telling them what they want to hear, not how to solve the problem other than just “Trust me, it will be the best”
What is that reason? Many. Laziness, inability to understand what they read, including the inability to even understand what is missing in the reports that reporters write or suspect the bias there might be in there and the lack of curiosity to check it for themselves.
I am sure I missed some reasons. Others can fill those in.
As I have written several times, the world is getting too complicated and we are informed too much by multiple sources far exceeding those we used to get half a century ago.
Many people were just happy the war was over (insert your favourite war here) and the immediate world surrounding them was back to “normal”.
The Governments draft environmental report released in February estimated that the LNG facility (Petronas in Pt Edward) would result in the equivalent of 5.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being released a year. That would add 8.5% to BC’s total emissions. Upstream emissions, including the gathering of natural gas and transportation are estimated to add the equivalent of 6.5 million to 8.7 million more tonnes of CO2.
Any reductions in emissions on overseas markets depends where the gas is sold to, and if in fact those Countries actually close down coal plants. There is no guarantee that this will happen.
So you can rest assured that these LNG plants that produce their own electricity by burning natural gas are huge polluters.
Is Australia worried about it? Or any other LNG production facility in the world?
Why are you worried about c02? If worried about c02 what is the ratio between natural and anthropogenic c02? Did you know there has been no statistically significant global temperature rise for the last twenty years. Now about warming, what has caused the warming since the little ice age?
Hands up for those wanting a return of a glacial event? How did the earth enter a glacial even then temporarily exit?
How come no paper can be produced proving manns evil c02 connection?
I am not worried about CO2. I am worried about the lies we get from the Provincial Government in regards to pollution, and costs for this project, and for the worlds biggest Government failure, BC Hydro.
All we get from Government to-day is photo-ops, and spin.
There is no need for Site C, and there is no need to be selling out our natural gas resources to foreign interests.
What we need is for some forward thinking Canadian or BC business’s to get some projects going and create some jobs.
Canadian business is an oxymoron. What we have is a bunch of timid investors, sitting on billions of dollars, who are afraid to take any chances, and as a result sit back and let foreign companies gobble up the resources.
That is the reason they introduced the eDrive electrical rate, so the energy consumed to liquefy natural gas does not come from burning natural gas on site. Thus BC LNG will be the cleanest LNG on the market, not lies but truth. You do know that with the closing of Burrard Thermal BC will be mostly hydroelectric generation?
Your idea is to burn gas here to create power rather than use the god given renewable resource of water? Do you know Burrard Thermal alone – our natural gas power plant – contributes 8 percent of all BCs greenhouse gas emissions? Could be higher but you can look it up if you want to argue the point.
Canadian businesses are sitting on those billions of dollars because it’s not clear to them where they could be invested at a profit. Businesses that actually produce the majority of products we need to consume are not reporting larger profits relative to the levels of increase in their sales. In general, taken as a percentage of their sales their profits are actually falling. And have been for quite a number of years, only this is becoming increasingly more apparent as time goes on.
The simple reason for this phenomenon is that past investments have displaced labor as businesses sought to lower their costs. But the costs they were lowering were the incomes of those whose consumption of their products is necessary for them to profit. And technology, outsourcing, etc. don’t completely eliminate these costs. They just change them from ones that come through into prices as distributed incomes to ones that are instead ‘allocated’ without distributing anything to anyone at all in the way of incomes.
Doesnt LNG come from fracking? Seems odd so many people are against fracking but in support of LNG.
Some, not all
I would not get to excited on what Christy has announced. I think Palopu pretty well summed it up in the last comment. The only concern that Christy has right now is to stay elected. My thoughts are that there is most likely no guaranteed funds available to even go ahead with this project. I would not trust anything that this government has to say.
Now hydro has some warts but as for the worlds greatest government failure say what? You into the hops? How about comparing your costs with the rest of the world even with the high cost of inefficient wind and very high contract costs forced onto hydro by the lieberals.
About the most dependable supply of power anywhere in the world with our abundant hydro electric. every other hydro electric supply was also called not needed. You like gas, but gas is a wildcard over the long term. Hydro once built is extremely reliable and dirt cheap to maintain compared to any other generation source.
BC hydro has always been treated as a piggy bank by governments, but overcomes this to give us about the worlds cheapest power though Christy and the fiberals are not helping it by any-means.
Everything will be fine until the rivers run dry and the ground water is undrinkable.
Why will the rivers run dry and groundwater become undrinkable. You have to quit watching the pretty talking heads on ctv and GLOBAL. They are only script readers.
edrive electrical rates can work for a small plant such as the Woodfibre Plant in Squamish, however the Petronas plant at Pt Edward will not be using BC Hydro electricity, they will produce their own electricity and only use Hydro for auxiliary use, which is nothing more than a PR fiasco.
Site C will not be paid for until 2094 and will cost BC Taxpayers a fortune. It is nothing more than an ill conceived plan, by a less than stellar political party to get re elected. It has nothing to do with fact, and everything to do with fantasy.
So you agree eDrive will work, must have been hard.
Doesn’t matter when Site C will be paid for as it has a lifespan into 2150 or so. You can’t wait until you absolutely need the power, takes 10 years to be fully operational.
BC Taxpayers will not pay a dime, but rate payers will finance the dam – as they have every other dam or power plant ever built.
BC Hydro for all intents and purposes is bankrupt. Not only financially but also when it comes to top management. This problem is further exacerbated by the constant meddling in Hydro affairs by the BC Government.
BC Hydro has a debt obligation in excess of $76 Billion and is unable to pay its dividend payments to the Provincial Government without borrowing .
The BC Government and Hydro did an end run around the BCUC to avoid close scrutiny of Site C, however there are now some revelations coming out from the BCUC on BC Hydro’s rate design application.
In any event the 70-year paydown period is just one of the ways the Government has tried to make Site C look more economically viable than it is.
As I said **hocus pocus tiddly ocus** is the battle cry of the Liberal party. **Now you see it, now you don’t** is their mantra for dealing with tax dollars.
53 billion in future purchase commitments for power is not “debt”
It is akin to saying your future grocery shopping trip is “debt” so you owe $200 x 52 weeks x 40 years or $416,000. Or your future “purchase commitment” for power is $200 x 12 months x the rest of your life x inflation, does that mean you are bankrupt?
Your whole argument is based on future needs for power. You have no data to back up your argument. The BCUC turned down Site C previously because they could not make a case for the need for this power. The Government avoided the BCUC on this application, because they were afraid they would get the same ruling.
So forecasting the cost of power into the future based on information that at best would be obtained from a crystal ball in some tent, in a midway, is not good science.
Its within the realm of possibility that we will be using less power in the future rather than more.
Comments for this article are closed.