PNW Decision a ‘Tough Blow’ for Construction Industry – ICBA
Prince George, B.C. – “Deeply disappointed.”
The reaction this week from the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association in response to Petronas’ decision to scrap its plan to build the $11-billion Pacific Northwest LNG terminal on B.C.’s north coast. 
“We are deeply disappointed that PNW will not go forward, as it means thousands of construction jobs will not materialize,” says ICBA president Chris Gardner.
The ICBA says the project would have created 4,500 construction jobs, 330 long-term operations positions, and up to $1.3 billion per year in government revenue.
“No jurisdiction does energy extraction in a better, cleaner, more socially responsible way than Canada,” adds Gardner. “This is a significant lost opportunity that would have brought many benefits. Canada has to act faster to seize the opportunities that our responsible resource development industries can deliver.”
In a statement Tuesday, Petronas said the decision was brought on by “the prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy industry.”
So, if the economic climate isn’t good enough for Petronas, what makes Gardner think other LNG projects will get the nod?
“Well, that’s a concern,” says Gardner, who notes there’s approximately 20 LNG projects that have been proposed in B.C. – all at varying stages in seeking their environmental and regulatory approvals.
“It’s a challenging environment and it could very difficult to get one of the major LNG projects across the line. The next biggest one that’s been approved by all levels of government is LNG Canada led by Shell but that’s been delayed and hopefully that moves forward but the same fate could bestow that project as well.”
Comments
All the broken promises from Clark.. and she put all our eggs in the LNG basket and it blew up.. now all the money she wasted getting ready to have all this LNG cash is gone… and so we are deeper in debt …thanks liberals.
Nope, the real reason is, no business has confidence in Horgan. They are not going to invest in a province with a political party that is against development.
That is the Truth!
That is BS.. The market has gone in the dumper for LNG. So give your head a shake and look at the real reason as quoted in the article.
Cheers
That is pure bullshit and you know it.
No, it was on the news this morning, the reasoning is part economics but mostly due to the NDP’s attitude.
Economists and the business leaders appear to understand this.
The company made a business decision in view of NG unforeseen low prices and changing markets. Since the project was first announced NG prices have dropped by about one half. The company spent piles of money on this to get this far. The premier was firmly convinced that the project would go ahead. She did not break her promise, it is the company that backed out. Your criticism is mostly undeserved.
Rip. Don’t bother putting icing on a moldy cake. There may have been some unforeseen low prices but the question is, when were they seen.?? The decision to scrap this project was announced yesterday, but when was it actually made. Was the announcement held up until after the election. Who knows.
The Liberal Government has to take the responsibility for travelling down the LNG road. This was a terrible decision, much like the building of Site C.
We need more information on how the Liberal Government dealt with these various LNG companies with a view to determine if they were looking after our interests, or primarily concerned with politics.
My personal opinion is we do not have credible people in Government to deal with foreign Governments and business’s and we end up getting taken to the cleaners.
You have to get up early in the morning to get the better of the Americans, or other foreign Countries, and I suspect that Clark, DeJong, Coleman, and other top officials of Government and Government entities, have a tendency to sleep in and take it easy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on things to come.
Pal:”My personal opinion is we do not have credible people in Government to deal with foreign Governments and business’s and we end up getting taken to the cleaners.”
That is something I can agree with! We have had this problem for a very long time. The recent election will not change a thing as far as credibility and competence are concerned. There should be standard templates of ALL the requirements that must be met so that a potential developer knows ALL the hurdles BEFORE even deciding anything and before making any announcements. Once potential investors know that it may take many years to overcome all the obstacles they may refrain from embarking on a costly and often frustrating journey. A standard clearly laid out template should also contain a clause that latecomers can not upset the apple cart and potentially sink something that is already in the final stages. That would speed up things tremendously.
Site C is another issue altogether. If we want to become the laughing stock of the world and end up on T&E’s Abandoned Mega Projects, we can cancel it and live with the consequences. Foolish political (ignoring science and common sense) decisions can be observed on a daily basis. RIP.
I don’t know why the ICBA would be so concerned. This project was to be built by the Building Trades unions, and none of the ICBA members are unionized.
how about getting into the 21st century. ICBA, has a lot of non unionized companies, however, The ICBA is not that narrow minded. They support development, because it is good for the province as a whole.
Unions are like a dinosaurs.
Building trades unions are anyways at the least…
No these big projects only go to union outfits, because at the end of the day a union can ensure a workforce that meets the demands of supplying enough qualified workers. A union company can quickly ramp up the work force drawing on provincial call up lists, and then national call up lists and even international if need be.
A non-union company can call up some relatives, maybe a hire a few locals, but when you need 500 electricians or pipe fitters on site in short notice they just can’t be relied on with a multi billion dollar project.
Look at the recent Rio Tinto project in Kitimat… all done by unionized companies for that very reason alone.
You mean there would be out of province workers on site? That is a no no is it not? Site C received the criticism that not every single person working on site had a BC license plate
Union call up lists give priority to locals first. If a non union worker wants the work they just have to register with the union if they are qualified to get called up by the union contractors. If they are not qualified then that is the only impediment to a local not getting hired prior to the union going outside the local local to the next level either provincial or federal.
Site C is a government run project and the government announced it would allow non union contractors, thus no guarantee for local hires. Most multinationals don’t take the risk of labor shortages associated with non union contractors in large mega projects, it’s just the cost of doing business.
So you are saying there would be more out of province workers on site
Shut down the gas lines, close site C. Then Christy calls for another election!!! Oh the gas lines and site C got going again because of all the hard work tweetle dee and dumb did.
you must be one of those government workers that gets paid for doing nothing.
This was an interesting read this morning. I especially took note of these two paragraphs:
“Both the province and the Malaysian company that proposed it blamed poor global LNG market conditions. The truth is that what should have been a magnificent new Canadian industry, building middle-class jobs from exporting Western Canada’s world-class Montney shale gas to reduce carbon pollution in Asia, has unraveled due in large part to government mishandling — plus fears it would have only accelerated under the new, anti-development provincial government.
The proof is that the LNG export industry is thriving in the United States under the same global market conditions, while B.C. has yet to see the construction of a single project out of 20 or so proposed since 2011.”
Here on the “left-coast”, we analyze, plan, evaluate, re-analyze, consult, re-plan, re-consult, re- plan, re-evaluate and then we analyze, plan and consult some more!
I suspect that world prices have had an effect on Petronas’ decision, but considering that the U.S.A. and Australia are having success with their LNG exports in spite of the current market pricing, there has to be more to their decision than meets the eye!
Perhaps Horgans ongoing condemnation during the election campaign has a teeny-tiny bit to do with this decision? Or not!
“With energy prices collapsing globally, and the business in B.C. having a tough time remaining viable, Pacific NorthWest LNG needed less, not more government costs and regulations to stay in the game.
Instead, the new provincial government jacked up its demands, including higher carbon taxes, a “fair” return for resources (read a bigger provincial take), partnerships with First Nations (read fatter benefits agreements), protection for “our air, land and water including living up to our climate change commitments,” as outlined in Premier John Horgan’s mandate letter to the new energy minister, Michelle Mungall.
To make matters worse, Horgan repeatedly singled out Pacific NorthWest LNG during his election campaign as one that was “poorly sited” and that he would relocate (read another environmental assessment and, of course, more costs).”
ht tp://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/a-tragedy-for-canada-petronas-cancels-36b-lng-project-as-b-c-jacks-up-demands/wcm/de2567c8-499d-489f-9dec-3826a01c932c
Christy and her cronies became a cancer for the province…pipe dreams…prosperity…valhalla…blah…blah…blah. Good ridance dont let the door hit you in the fat … on the way out
ice agree. If BS was brass Christy and her cronies would have a complete band.
Well PETRONAS most likely decided to not throw more money after bad where our neighbor to the south being much easier to deal with. Also what declining demand?
“The global natural gas market is undergoing a major transformation driven by new supplies coming from the United States to meet growing demand in developing economies and industry surpasses the power sector as the largest source of gas demand growth, according to the IEA’s latest market analysis and five-year forecast on natural gas.
h ttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/25/u-s-becomes-global-fossil-energy-giant-feeding-hungry-world-energy-markets/
The decisions was made on March 8th.
In January the Trudeau governments announced they wanted a piece of the pie. A spokesmen for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency announced they would be looking into the “direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions of the project”… even though it had already had its environmental approval from both the BC and Federal government. The Trudeau idea was to create a new carbon tax for LNG to stem ‘climate change’.
Petronas responded immediately and on March 8th gave an ultimatum to the Trudeau government to clarify what they were meaning by March 31st or the project would be canceled. Trudeau called their bluff and never responded.
The Patronas partners do not operate by market forces, so the storyline of market conditions is kind of like an inside joke for the masses to consume.
The Patronas partners are all state owned enterprises seeking to supply their domestic markets. China Sinopec, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co, India Oil Corp, and Petroleum Brunei are essentially the long arm of their respective governments. None of them buy into the idea that their domestic productivity should be taxed by Canada through a carbon tax to save the planet from climate change. The idea is unheard of in those countries, so why would they allow Canada to impose this kind of policy on them that is open ended and diminishes the multiplier effect of energy value.
Then add in the ndp/green coalition coming to power and their view that the federal liberals aren’t going far enough on the carbon tax front and it was lights out on this project. Likely they will get the Canadian gas anyways through American LNG terminals and the Americans under Trump will ensure there is no carbon tax on the exports, while the Americans get all the jobs and investment making America great again….
Don’t always agree with you Eagleone, but in this case I believe you hit the nail on the head.
Lets see this climate change bs, carbon tax, before imposing should there not be some proven reason to impose it. Well that is difficult as there is no empirical reproducible science showing that mans 3% contribution to life giving C02 has any effect. Canada’s contribution to this paltry 3% is only 1.5%. 1.5% of nothing.
Our energy costs are going up, industry with the jobs are moving to places like China, India for the cheaper energy.
With 1600 coal fired power plants planned and being built around the world people like Trudeau will get a pat on the back from other mega maniacs for doing the right thing while places like China are laughing all the way to the bank.
Trump being a numbers man sees right through the BS.
In the mean time I will fire up my truck, hook up the trailer and head out on a road trip.
Just a small assembly of facts and why burning coal is not without consequences.
As the rest of the Earth’s crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination.
While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released….it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. ….coal ash produced by coal-fired power plants dumped at sites across 21 U.S. states has contaminated ground water with toxic elements. The contaminants include the poisons arsenic and lead.
Arsenic has been shown to cause skin cancer, bladder cancer and lung cancer, and lead damages the nervous system. Coal ash contaminants are also linked to respiratory diseases and other health and developmental problems
The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions.
You just made the case for the Central Interior wood pellet industry, and not many would argue those points.
Consider also that natural gas through fraking has also been shown to release heavy metals that were previously locked up in the crust and gives it a fluid path to the surface through our use of the end product… which contaminates our airshed with heavy metals that can pass the brain blood barrier and cause all sorts of diseases involving brain damage and immune system disruptions.
These things are provable and actionable in their own right… but changing climate through taxation is just economic suicide and lacks any imperial evidence to support the drastic policies politicians like Trudeau and his Soviet EU partners push.
My point was chasing C02 is a financial disaster not mentioning the environmental and social costs.
Build nuclear power plants then.
I agree chasing CO2 is a financial disaster. Building with nuclear is an even worse disaster that threatens life on planet earth… the only planet in the universe that sustains life.
Eagle why do you say nuclear is a disaster?
“… the only planet in the universe that sustains life.”
So from the seat of a chip truck you can see to the far reaches of the universe and it’s billions upon billions of stars and determine that none of the planets revolving around many of those stars are capable of supporting life.
or
Did you read it on some crackpot website
or
Are you one of those that believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together on this planet a few thousand years ago just because that is what a crackpot book says despite all the proof to the contrary.
Actually I kind of like the idea of humans and dinosaurs roaming the earth together… how in the world did they know about the stegosaurus (my favourite dino since it killed the T-Rex in stop motion art back in the 70s) in Angkor or the brontosaur by natives in Utah?
Nuclear is a *better* choice than coal or NG, but only once all hydropower potential has been utilized, since it is the very cleanest and reliable source. Fracking is the disaster that Eagleone pointed out with valid arguments! Nothing is more precious than water, above and below the surface!
1 out of every 2 Canadians can now expect to have to deal with some form of cancer during hers/his lifetime! Air, water and soil are already heavily polluted! The last thing we need is to pass up on clean renewable energy when there is plenty of clean energy available – with no carbon tax attached! Solar, wind, wave and tidal are just some examples and they can feed the grid simultaneously, together with hydro!
So you are saying there is no environmental concerns with so called clean energy? so called renewable only make up about 2% of world energy and that is only the nameplate rating. Give a thought of the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, erection and eventual disposal of all that material. Have you given any thought to the tens of thousands of square miles that would have to be covered by green energy just to get some useful power.
If Germany is such a great example of green energy how come they are building coal plants? How come is their costs of energy so high industry is leaving?
Pg the only renewable that makes sense is hydro electric power.
I have almost 40 years of generation experience from marine to stationary. I speak from practical experience there is no renewable that makes sense outside of hydro for grid sized generation.
July 12, 2017
Wind and Solar Energy Are Dead Ends
By Spencer P. Morrison
Renewable energy is the way of the future, we are told. It is inevitable. Some renewable energy advocates boldly claim that the world could be powered by renewable energy as early as 2030 – with enough government subsidies, that is. And of course, the mainstream media play their part, hyping up the virtues of solar and wind energy as the solution to climate change.
In one regard, they are quite right: in terms of generational capacity, wind and solar have grown by leaps and bounds in the last three decades (wind by 24.3% per year since 1990, solar by 46.2% per year since 1990). However, there are two questions worth asking: (i) are renewable energies making a difference, and (ii) are they sustainable?
To answer the first question: No, wind and solar energy have not made a dent in global energy consumption, despite their rapid growth. In fact, after thirty years of beefy government subsidies, wind power still meets just 0.46% of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The data include not only electrical energy, but also energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc. Solar generates even less energy. Even combined, the figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together contribute less than 1% of Earth’s energy output.
Bottom line: Renewables are not making a difference. It would be far more cost-effective and reasonable to simply invest in more energy-efficient technology. But of course, doing so would not line the pockets of billionaires like Elon Musk.
To answer the second question: Is renewable energy sustainable? Is the future wind- and solar-powered?
No.
Looking first at wind energy: Between 2013 and 2014, again using IEA data, global energy demand grew by 2,000 terawatt-hours. In order to meet this demand, we would need to build 350,000 new 2-megawatt wind turbines – enough to entirely blanket the British Isles. For context, that is 50% more turbines than have been built globally since the year 2000. Wind power is not the future; there is simply not enough extraditable energy. Unfortunately, better technology cannot overcome this problem: turbines can become only so efficient due to the Betz limit, which specifies how much energy can be extracted from a moving fluid. Wind turbines are very close to that physical limit.
The state of solar energy is only slightly more promising. Recent findings suggest that humanity would need to cover an equatorial region the size of Spain with solar panels in order to generate enough electricity to meet global demand by 2030. Not only is this an enormous amount of land that could otherwise be used for agriculture, or left pristine, but it also underestimates the size of the ecological footprint, since only 20% of mankind’s energy consumption takes the form of electricity. Were we to switch to electric vehicles, the area needed would be five times as large.
Even if the world agreed to take this project on, it would not be possible due to resource limitations. For example, each 1.8-square meter solar panel requires 20 grams of silver to build. Since there are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer, 11.1 tons of silver is needed per square kilometer of solar panels. Spain is 506,000 square kilometers. Covering this much space with solar panels would require 5,616,600 tons of silver. As it turns out, that is 7.2 times as much silver as is estimated to exist in Earth’s crust. Granted, new technology could mitigate the need for silver, but this same logic applies to dozens of other minerals present in solar panels. They are simply not feasible on a large scale because they are resource-hungry.
One must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of the same minerals as do solar panels. Increased competition for a finite supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as the price of electricity. Of course, this analysis wholly ignores the many other problems with solar and wind energy, such as the problem of intermittency and the hidden systemic risks it entails.
This is not to say wind and solar energy have no uses. In some cases, they may be preferable to other types of energy. For example, in remote locations townships and homesteads can benefit greatly from local electricity production, especially since renewable energy does not require fuel. However, wind and solar energy are unlikely to underpin the global energy supply, so long as more cost-effective and efficient options remain on the table.
Renewable energy is the way of the future, we are told. It is inevitable. Some renewable energy advocates boldly claim that the world could be powered by renewable energy as early as 2030 – with enough government subsidies, that is. And of course, the mainstream media play their part, hyping up the virtues of solar and wind energy as the solution to climate change.
In one regard, they are quite right: in terms of generational capacity, wind and solar have grown by leaps and bounds in the last three decades (wind by 24.3% per year since 1990, solar by 46.2% per year since 1990). However, there are two questions worth asking: (i) are renewable energies making a difference, and (ii) are they sustainable?
To answer the first question: No, wind and solar energy have not made a dent in global energy consumption, despite their rapid growth. In fact, after thirty years of beefy government subsidies, wind power still meets just 0.46% of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The data include not only electrical energy, but also energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc. Solar generates even less energy. Even combined, the figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together contribute less than 1% of Earth’s energy output.
Bottom line: Renewables are not making a difference. It would be far more cost-effective and reasonable to simply invest in more energy-efficient technology. But of course, doing so would not line the pockets of billionaires like Elon Musk.
To answer the second question: Is renewable energy sustainable? Is the future wind- and solar-powered?
No.
Looking first at wind energy: Between 2013 and 2014, again using IEA data, global energy demand grew by 2,000 terawatt-hours. In order to meet this demand, we would need to build 350,000 new 2-megawatt wind turbines – enough to entirely blanket the British Isles. For context, that is 50% more turbines than have been built globally since the year 2000. Wind power is not the future; there is simply not enough extraditable energy. Unfortunately, better technology cannot overcome this problem: turbines can become only so efficient due to the Betz limit, which specifies how much energy can be extracted from a moving fluid. Wind turbines are very close to that physical limit.
The state of solar energy is only slightly more promising. Recent findings suggest that humanity would need to cover an equatorial region the size of Spain with solar panels in order to generate enough electricity to meet global demand by 2030. Not only is this an enormous amount of land that could otherwise be used for agriculture, or left pristine, but it also underestimates the size of the ecological footprint, since only 20% of mankind’s energy consumption takes the form of electricity. Were we to switch to electric vehicles, the area needed would be five times as large.
Even if the world agreed to take this project on, it would not be possible due to resource limitations. For example, each 1.8-square meter solar panel requires 20 grams of silver to build. Since there are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer, 11.1 tons of silver is needed per square kilometer of solar panels. Spain is 506,000 square kilometers. Covering this much space with solar panels would require 5,616,600 tons of silver. As it turns out, that is 7.2 times as much silver as is estimated to exist in Earth’s crust. Granted, new technology could mitigate the need for silver, but this same logic applies to dozens of other minerals present in solar panels. They are simply not feasible on a large scale because they are resource-hungry.
One must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of the same minerals as do solar panels. Increased competition for a finite supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as the price of electricity. Of course, this analysis wholly ignores the many other problems with solar and wind energy, such as the problem of intermittency and the hidden systemic risks it entails.
This is not to say wind and solar energy have no uses. In some cases, they may be preferable to other types of energy. For example, in remote locations townships and homesteads can benefit greatly from local electricity production, especially since renewable energy does not require fuel. However, wind and solar energy are unlikely to underpin the global energy supply, so long as more cost-effective and efficient options remain on the table.
Read more: ht tp://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/wind_and_solar_energy_are_dead_ends.html#ixzz4mdILvcJy
You left out tidal, wave and geothermal power. One does not need photo-voltaic solar panels to harvest solar energy! There is a solar energy plant in operation that has an array of solar reflectors which follow the sun as the earth turns. The reflected sun rays are concentrated on a heat-exchanger which is filled with molten salt. The heat is transferred to a steam plant which produces electricity via steam turbines. Photo voltaic solar panels are one method, mirrors is another one.
The calculations for Spain and area coverage are not realistic. Nobody would cover farmland with solar panels when there are large desert-like
areas which are totally unsuitable for any kind of farming.
Leave it up to the scientists and engineers to use the proper technology and invent new methods. Investing in cheaper Made in China solar panels potentially has longevity and quality consequences.
Wave and tidal power do not depend on wind or the sun. The ocean can be a source of 24/7/365 power. Prototypes have been developed. They are working but at present can not yet compete cost wise with the fossil fuels.
LNG prices are the lowest they have been since 2004.. no matter who is the premier of BC they have nothing to do with the price of LNG.. the company can use any excuse it wants… bottom line is..it’s not worth investing in at this time..
Price is rising.
BS , it’s been in a trading trough for months . At 2.92 today even though it’s the aircoditioning season .
The current price is meaningless as the plant will not be up and running for a number of years. When making an investment of this magnitude companies look well into the future to see if it is viable.
I think it is not by accident that the decision whether or not to proceed came after the election. Horgan wrote to Ottawa when in opposition trying to erect roadblock to the project and Petronas might have said they will not green light the project based on pricing when the change of party in power actually had a bearing on final decision. They would never mention the change of government as they might have to deal with the ndp the future and would not want to burn bridges.
If this cancellation was Horgan’s fault, I wonder who was to blame for the other half dozen or so LNG plants who cancelled over the past couple of years, citing the same reasons.
Comments for this article are closed.