250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 7:30 pm

AltaGas To Build Propane Export Terminal

Wednesday, January 4, 2017 @ 8:49 AM

Prince George, B.C.- AltaGas has made the  final  decision to  move forward with the construction of a propane gas export terminal  on Ridley Island, off Prince Rupert.

The Ridley Export Terminal is expected to be the first propane export facility on the west  coast.

The Ridley Export Terminal will be designed to ship 1.2 million tonnes of propane per year and is estimated to cost approximately $450 – $500 million.

“Propane exports off of Canada’s west coast pulls together our vision of offering Canadian producers a complete energy value chain,” said David Harris, President and CEO of AltaGas. “Together with our northeast B.C. infrastructure, once the Ridley Export Terminal is built and operating, we will give producers new access to premium Asian markets for their propane.”

Construction is expected to begin in early 2017 and be completed by the first quarter of 2019.

It is estimated that 200 to 250 construction workers will be hired during the construction phase and 40 to 50 permanent jobs created once the facility is operational.



They shouldnt be celebrating yet. Greenpeace or Stand or Citizens Against Virtually Everything havent had their names in the news for 3 or 4 days so I expect a press release stating that they are taking this to court

Well .. it’s kinda LNG … it’s a gas

    Well , it’s kinda , like mostly methane . Eight to three .

    Actually propane is a liquid as long as it is remains under pressure.

Excellent news.

1.2 Million Tonnes annually would be approx. 50 to 60 railcars per day to unload at Ridley Island.

Port of Prince Rupert is diversifying because of the drop in coal exports and the pending drop in container shipments(depending on the impact of the Panama Canal expansion which completed last year)

AltaGas has a similar operation which has been operating in Washington state for the past 40 years.

There is a huge glut of propane gas in North America, so the export market is where the action is.

Good short term jobs and some long term jobs, which bodes well for Prince Rupert

First it’s pipelines being approved, now a propane export facility, looks like the fossil fuel industry is alive and well and creating employment!

    Shhh, don’t tell the Trudeau haters. 2 pipeline approvals, an LNG approval, and now this. More than the previous party did during their tenure? Cue the Haters.

So roughly 28 tankers per year, Rupert is closer to China so the preferred port

Surprised noone has freaked out yet about 18,500 rail cars of propane a year traveling through the city.

Seems the majority of this propane will go to Japan, they have some 24 million people who cook and heat with propane.

I have not been able to find this year’s (2016) contributions Alta Gas Ltd has made to the BC Liberal Party, what I have been able to find is their contributions from 2009 to 2015, it’s an impressive list. They started off slow making only 2 or 3 contributions per year to the BC Liberals, but started getting serious in 2013.

ht tp://tinyurl.com/hlol7cy

    What is your point BH? I know the left typically do not like the big evil corporations but Kudos to AltaGas for deciding to build this terminal, a decision that will provide 200 to 250 construction jobs then 40 to 50 full time positions which is good for the area. This is nothing but a good news story. I have yet to hear about a solar panel or windmill company creating any new jobs anywhere. Score another one for the “Fossils”!

      I would think 40 to 50 full-time jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to 70,000 solar industry jobs.

      Google “solar industry says 70,000 jobs knocking on Alberta’s door” the National Observer news site has a good article on this. I would encourage you to read it Peter, it is our collective future.

      Well, a lot of people have jobs to design and fabricate wind driven power generators (they are not windmills) and solar panels! There are many working in transporting and installing them. If those jobs are mostly not Canada, whose fault is that?

      So BH tell us your expertise on solar.

      “Why is this newsworthy?  Energy production is not a jobs program. The fact it takes more people to provide for 1% of our energy consumption than it takes to provide for 52% (67% if imported oil is included) is not a positive aspect of solar power.”

      Oh those solar jobs pay much less than oil and gas.

      ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/26/clean-energy-jobs-surpass-oil-drilling-for-first-time-in-u-s-so-what/


      Investment in wind, solar, biomass power and waste-to-energy projects will decline by 95% between 2017 and 2020, it added.

      ht tps://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/wife-family-solar-farm-to-support-please-give-generously/

    Are you implying that is a bad thing? If a lets say a windfarm owner makes a contribution, that is a good thing?

      You must be torn by this news since you are an avid pro oil and gas guy and an avid anti run of the river hydro guy and altagas does both in BC. They own a run of the river hydro plant on the Iskut river in north east BC.

      ht tp://www.terracestandard.com/news/285638241.html

      Bent no I just try to correct some of the miss information. You try living without oil and gas. Run of the river plants have expensive contracts contributing to our rate increase. Site c has to be built for energy security backing up run of the river and wind.

This is a good news story for BC exports. However we should be concerned about this much rail traffic through downtown PG. I still remember the rail car explosion a few years ago on the BCR line across from Fort George Park. If that had happened along the CN line through town it would have been a disaster for the city.

I really think the region needs better policy on hazardous rail cars though PG. I think a new rail line should be required to connect the BCR line in Bear Lake – Mackenzie through to the Fraser Lake area. Less than a hundred kilometres of new rail line would eliminate all oil and gas cars from going through downtown PG and up the Nechako where we get our drinking water from. We all know the crude tankers will be going by rail as well, so the priscident will be set once again with this project.

We should have a provincial policy to protect the Fraser basin with all new refining capacity in BC done above Bear Lake where the water flows to the Mackenzie Basin, then all product shipped by rail to the coast should be refined product to protect the environment in case of a spill. This fits with the crude tanker ban on the North Coast and allows for greater exports of Canadian energy products. The benefits to PG would be enormous with big developments north of the city between Mackenzie and PG.

Time Will Tell.

Don’t get to excited just yet. The woodfibre LNG announcement in Squamish is already falling apart and besides we have an election on the way.

The original announcement about this project was made in January 2016. It has taken a year for them to make the final decision,so I think in this case we gave a **GO**.

Do we just want to reroute the railway around Prince George, or do we want to reroute it around Hinton, Mcbride, Burns Lake, Smithers, Houston, Terrace, etc;
or is it **ok** for these towns to take the risk. What makes PG so special, while other towns are ignored.??

    We live here….that’s probably what makes PG special?? It is an idea that should be given some thought.

      People also live in other towns all across Canada where ever the railways run.

      Highly unlikely that we are going to reroute two national railways around all the towns in Canada that railways run through.

      Trains through major terminals are restricted to 10 miles per hour within
      yard limits, plus there are other safety features in effect.

      Where are you going to reroute these cars when they arrive in Prince Rupert, and are being unloaded.???

    I for one am not comfortable with the main line through PG transporting increasing loads of volatile products like propane. Its a disaster that can happen.

    Having a dedicated and approved redundancy for energy related rail traffic benefits everyone involved.

    We could ensure the exposure of the Nechako and Fraser rivers is limited to .01% of what it is today for less than $50 million. This would have benefits all down river including the water aquifer for Prince George.

    McBride and Hinton should not be allowed to see volatile dangerous goods rail traffic as well. All this traffic should enter BC via the Peace and go no further south than Bear Lake. Why risk more areas than needs to be for it to reach tide waters for export? If one can make a do around for places like Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers, or Terrace then that should be looked at as well… the last thing we want is another Lac Magantic.

    The idea of railroads running next to rivers and through the heart of communities needs to be relooked at in light of the new dangers of oil and gas by rail; which is the greatest growth area for railroads in the near term horizon.

    I would go a step further though and try and reach a grand bargain with Putin and Trump on an intercontinental railway via the Dease Lake extension from Mackenzie to the Yukon and Alaska with a Bearings Straight bridge that would eliminate the ocean pollution of shipping and strengthen the security and risk mitigation of container trade between Asia and North America. With this kind of effort any redundancies like the Fort-StJames and Bear Lake alternate route becomes part of a redundancy for a larger network that includes container traffic from the coast, intercontinental traffic from Alaska and Russia, as well as providing the safety of an approved route for dangerous goods.

    Time Will Tell

    PS Part of this idea is to ‘encourage’ the energy sector to refine any crude in the Bear Lake – Mackenzie area where we have a huge electrical surplus and the existing sub stations to handle large scale industrial growth. To refine products close to a large city (PG), and in an area where the air pollution will have minimal effects on populations, where water contamination is limited to an already compromised watershed that flows through the oil sands area anyways, and where existing rail infrastructure could easily be modified to handle large scale increases in traffic.

Comments for this article are closed.