B.C. gets a north coast export project — with pipeline


B00Mer
+1
#1
B.C. gets a north coast export project — with pipeline



The Trans Mountain Pipeline is stalled indefinitely. But a petroleum export project of monumental importance to B.C. is moving along just fine, thank you.

This week, it was reported that the $40 billion LNG terminal planned for Kitimat will get federal relief from tariffs on steel modules.

This would save LNG Canada, a consortium led by Shell, about $1 billion.

There will be a new pipeline (one of those!) to supply the terminal with natural gas from Alberta and Northeastern B.C.

TransCanada is ready to spend $4.8 billion on the Coastal Gaslink line as soon as investment in the terminal is approved.

That could happen next week, according to the Financial Post’s Geoffrey Morgan.

All the approvals are granted. The shovels are ready. Every First Nation along the route is happy.

Imagine that upbeat scene with any oil pipeline from Alberta. Impossible.

The LNG project itself will eventually be a real benefit to gas producers – and economies – of both provinces.

That’s good, in itself. The industry, eager for any good news, is cheering. That’s understandable after all the disappointments and delays.

But the decisions that led to this LNG project have done enormous damage to Alberta’s economy and the oilsands.

First, Ottawa killed the Northern Gateway pipeline in 2016, after the Federal Court found its approval lacking.

The terminus for Northern Gateway was to be Kitimat — the same port now cleared for the LNG project.

In 2016, Natural Resources Canada said officially: “The Government has determined that (Northern Gateway) is not in the public interest because it would result in crude oil tankers transiting through the sensitive ecosystem of the Douglas Channel, which is part of the Great Bear Rainforest.”

Even as that was written, there were plans for huge LNG tankers to pass through the same waters.

Liquid natural gas may be more benign than diluted bitumen if there’s a rupture or collision, but such accidents are extremely rare.

The real danger these days is bitumen riding the rails in B.C. because there’s no room in pipelines.

Also, anyone glancing at a map will realize that Kitimat is a long way from the northern tip of Vancouver Island.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decreed a tanker ban in those latitudes, up to Alaska.

But Bill C-48, now before the Senate, doesn’t apply to ships carrying LNG.

Monster ships are therefore allowed to dock in Kitimat, load up LNG, and sail off to Asia.

It’s blatant hypocrisy for the federal Liberals to call their bill a tanker moratorium.

As I’ve pointed out before, it doesn’t even prohibit tankers. It only bans export of products listed in the bill — Alberta exports, as it happens.

Tankers are not allowed to load those products, so there’s no point for them to show up.

The Alberta government says the ban will kill billions of dollars in plans for exporting refined products.

The list includes oils which Ottawa deems “persistent” — fuel oil, marine diesel, synthetic crude, lubricating oil, partially ungraded bitumen (dilbit), condensates, and more.

In other words, all crude oil and bitumen, as well as almost everything derived from them.

But no problem for LNG.

Alberta Senator Doug Black, who is leading resistance to this bill, defies the government to show evidence of a similar ban anywhere in the world.

“I don’t believe there is one,” he says. “There certainly isn’t anything like it anywhere in Canada.”

Black adds that Canada is blessed with huge stretches of unspoiled coastline, west, east and north, all of it ecologically important and beloved by local residents.

What makes that one patch of northern B.C. coast so special?

He supplies his own answer — “Bill C-48 is an attack on the oilsands. It could not be more obvious.”

The Liberals will counter that they’ve spent $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline project specifically aimed at exporting bitumen from the Lower Mainland.

And how’s that going?



source: https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...-with-pipeline
 
Ocean Breeze
#2
LNG Canada says construction on $40B megaproject starting immediately

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/lng-canada-pro...ders-1.4117841
 
taxslave
+2
#3
Missing is the huge amount of money BC taxpayers are loosing to make this deal fly. Not sure what the dippers expect to get in return but they are forgiving PST on imported materials and selling electricity at about half of production cost.
 
Hoid
#4
Nothing worse than loosing money.
 
taxslave
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Nothing worse than loosing money.

That's a fact. I figure the dipper plan to make it up on what they steal from our paycheques from building the plant and pipeline.
 
Hoid
#6
I figure the $23 billion share for BC is pretty tight.
 
bill barilko
+1
#7
I thought the Chinese were no longer buying like it was 1999- something about big contracts with Russia
 
pgs
+2
#8
The green weaver. Is not impressed.
 
petros
+3
#9  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

B.C. gets a north coast export project — with pipeline

The Trans Mountain Pipeline is stalled indefinitely. But a petroleum export project of monumental importance to B.C. is moving along just fine, thank you.
This week, it was reported that the $40 billion LNG terminal planned for Kitimat will get federal relief from tariffs on steel modules.
This would save LNG Canada, a consortium led by Shell, about $1 billion.
There will be a new pipeline (one of those!) to supply the terminal with natural gas from Alberta and Northeastern B.C.
TransCanada is ready to spend $4.8 billion on the Coastal Gaslink line as soon as investment in the terminal is approved.
That could happen next week, according to the Financial Post’s Geoffrey Morgan.
All the approvals are granted. The shovels are ready. Every First Nation along the route is happy.
Imagine that upbeat scene with any oil pipeline from Alberta. Impossible.
The LNG project itself will eventually be a real benefit to gas producers – and economies – of both provinces.
That’s good, in itself. The industry, eager for any good news, is cheering. That’s understandable after all the disappointments and delays.
But the decisions that led to this LNG project have done enormous damage to Alberta’s economy and the oilsands.
First, Ottawa killed the Northern Gateway pipeline in 2016, after the Federal Court found its approval lacking.
The terminus for Northern Gateway was to be Kitimat — the same port now cleared for the LNG project.
In 2016, Natural Resources Canada said officially: “The Government has determined that (Northern Gateway) is not in the public interest because it would result in crude oil tankers transiting through the sensitive ecosystem of the Douglas Channel, which is part of the Great Bear Rainforest.”
Even as that was written, there were plans for huge LNG tankers to pass through the same waters.
Liquid natural gas may be more benign than diluted bitumen if there’s a rupture or collision, but such accidents are extremely rare.
The real danger these days is bitumen riding the rails in B.C. because there’s no room in pipelines.
Also, anyone glancing at a map will realize that Kitimat is a long way from the northern tip of Vancouver Island.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decreed a tanker ban in those latitudes, up to Alaska.
But Bill C-48, now before the Senate, doesn’t apply to ships carrying LNG.
Monster ships are therefore allowed to dock in Kitimat, load up LNG, and sail off to Asia.
It’s blatant hypocrisy for the federal Liberals to call their bill a tanker moratorium.
As I’ve pointed out before, it doesn’t even prohibit tankers. It only bans export of products listed in the bill — Alberta exports, as it happens.
Tankers are not allowed to load those products, so there’s no point for them to show up.
The Alberta government says the ban will kill billions of dollars in plans for exporting refined products.
The list includes oils which Ottawa deems “persistent” — fuel oil, marine diesel, synthetic crude, lubricating oil, partially ungraded bitumen (dilbit), condensates, and more.
In other words, all crude oil and bitumen, as well as almost everything derived from them.
But no problem for LNG.
Alberta Senator Doug Black, who is leading resistance to this bill, defies the government to show evidence of a similar ban anywhere in the world.
“I don’t believe there is one,” he says. “There certainly isn’t anything like it anywhere in Canada.”
Black adds that Canada is blessed with huge stretches of unspoiled coastline, west, east and north, all of it ecologically important and beloved by local residents.
What makes that one patch of northern B.C. coast so special?
He supplies his own answer — “Bill C-48 is an attack on the oilsands. It could not be more obvious.”
The Liberals will counter that they’ve spent $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline project specifically aimed at exporting bitumen from the Lower Mainland.
And how’s that going?
source: https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...-with-pipeline

Where do these screwballs get the idea the only oil Canada produces is from the oil sands?

BTW it's bitupeople. Bitumen goes against Trudeau's gender policies.
 
petros
+2
#10
BC had better ensure the NG collection lines are up to snuff. After BC lost US and eastern Canadian markets when the TransCanada NG line built in 1982 was converted to Keystone, TransAlta cut corners on inspection and maintenance. Everything is in rough shape.
 
MHz
#11
Why not straighten out the river at the same time?


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ter-nafta-deal
With a major announcement by oil giant Shell on Tuesday, Canada has set itself up to become the U.S.'s biggest energy rival in supplying liquefied natural gas to Asia.
Shell officials said LNG Canada, a massive multibillion dollar LNG export project in British Columbia, will compete directly with U.S. LNG terminals on the Gulf Coast by being able to beat U.S. companies on the price of shipping the fuel to customers in China, Japan, Malaysia, and South Korea.
The announcement came less than 36 hours after the Trump administration announced it had reached a deal with Canada on NAFTA.

"When compared against a typical greenfield development on the Gulf Coast, we expect LNG Canada to benefit, on average, from lower shipping costs of some $1 [per unit of natural gas]," said Jessica Uhl, Shell's chief financial officer, on a Tuesday call will investors. "In combination, we see a $1.5 [per unit of natural gas] advantage that adds to the competitiveness of this project."
Shell will control a 40 percent stake in the project. Its partners, including Malaysia's Petronas, Chinese government-run PetroChina, Japanese conglomerate Mitsubishi, and South Korea's KOGAS, will be major buyers of the LNG. The companies joined Shell in making the announcement on Tuesday to build the export facility in Kitimat, British Columbia.



https://sputniknews.com/business/201...-us-sanctions/
The CEO of Shell, one of the companies participating in the joint Nord Stream 2 project, has announced that if the US introduces sanctions against the project, the company would have to consider leaving it.
Reacting to this move, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that Moscow "would implement the project on its own."
On September 18, US President Trump had ruled out sanctions against companies taking part in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. However, while addressing the UN General Assembly, he slammed Germany over its gas imports from Russia. The US president said that Germany would "become totally dependent on Russian energy" if the country didn't change its course.
Last edited by MHz; Oct 3rd, 2018 at 10:50 AM..
 
Twin_Moose
#12
Carr betting on LNG to unlock China trade

Quote:

OTTAWA - Jim Carr's view of enhancing Canadian trade in Asia — and its biggest prize, China — is rosier these days because he's seeing the possibilities through a new lens: LNG Canada's new $40-billion liquefied natural gas project in northern B.C.
"The most interesting development in Canada's relationship with China happened (Tuesday)," the new minister of international trade diversification said in an interview one day after the historic announcement to build the long-awaited LNG plant in Kitimat, B.C.
"What we'll be able to say to our potential customers is that this now is real and there will be timetables."
Carr is so buoyant about the door-opening possibilities of shipping cleaner energy across the Pacific that he categorically discounts the effect of another surprise on the trade file this past week.
He sees no obstacle in the controversial clause in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that allows any of the countries to withdraw from the deal on six-month's notice if one of the partners enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market economy — China, again.
"There's nothing in the trade agreement with Mexico and the United States that stops Canada from that. The deal has no impact on Canadian sovereignty or the capacity of the Canadian government to do business around the world," Carr said.
Carr's job is to find new trading markets for Canada beyond its largest trading partner, the United States. The word "diversification" was conspicuously added to his job title during a July cabinet shuffle and the minister is clearly thrilled with what he sees as the LNG arrow in his quiver.
Given the rocky, insult-laden, 14-month road to a new North American trade deal, the need to fulfil the promise of diversification has never been greater for Canada. Carr is also eyeing India, South America, and other Asian countries, as well as pushing for the speedy ratification of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.
He is hoping to travel to China next month, though he stops short of calling for all-out free trade with the country that is the subject of so much Trump administration ire.
"I would say there are lots of possibilities for sectoral trade. We know the LNG possibility is real. We know that the Chinese Canadian community is very interested in deepening ties."
The distinction Carr makes is significant. An attempt to launch formal free trade talks last winter stalled because Chinese leaders flatly rejected the Trudeau government's progressive trade agenda that would have included labour, gender and Indigenous rights.
And then there's that surprise clause in the new USMCA. It requires a member country to provide notice and information to the other two partners if it plans free trade talks with a "non-market" economy. It gives the other partners a say in the text of such a deal.
The Chinese embassy in Ottawa blasted the inclusion of the new clause because it unfairly targets China's potential trading partners, and unfairly brands it as a "non market" economy.
Trade experts and analysts support the careful approach that Carr advocates because it gives Canada room to talk to China without overtly angering the United States.
"The Americans may still take notice but there's nothing to stop Canada from continuing to have productive conversations with the Chinese in areas that we have common interests," said Meredith Lilly, a trade expert at Carleton University.
Lilly said the non-market economy clause is unusual and represents a new way for the Trump administration to force its allies to "pick sides" in its ongoing trade dispute with China that has seen billions of dollars of tariffs imposed on Chinese goods, and retaliation by Beijing.
"You can view those as targeted at China, and the U.S. creating a template for future trade agreements with other countries beyond Mexico and Canada," said Lilly.
Derek Burney, who was a key player in the Brian Mulroney government that negotiated the original Canada-U.S. free trade deal, said he's not convinced the clause has any teeth to prevent Canada from moving forward economically with China, which he urged the government to do "as assertively" as possible.
"We have misfired in our approaches to China thus far. We have to redouble those efforts and get more serious, and not just with China, but with India as well," he said.
"China's going to be the No. 1 economy in a number of years, not decades. We've got to take it more seriously."
Advertisement

Burney said business needs to do more to find opportunities to capitalize on the major trade deals that Canada has already completed with the European Union and South Korea, among others, as well as the new TPP that the Trudeau government hopes to ratify this fall.
"I don't see as much evidence yet of our companies taking advantage of the openings that those agreements are giving us," said Burney. "The biggest handicap in Canada is complacency. We've become comfortable in the cocoon of dealing with the Americans for 75 per cent of our trade."
Carr is anything but complacent.
A full legislative effort is being made to ensure the rebooted TPP will be ratified this fall, giving Canada so-called first-mover advantage by being among the first six counties in the 11-country Pacific Rim pact to benefit. Meanwhile, Canada's battalion of 1,000 trade commissioners and a newly created Invest in Canada agency are pushing hard on all fronts, said Carr.
"All of it plays to the heart of our strategic investment, which is to safeguard the most important trading relationship for Canada, which we have done, while expanding possibilities, which we are doing."

 
Hoid
#13
I thought that Kinder Morgan had to go through to prove canada was open for business etc etc.

Apparently that was just one more falsehood.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#14
Why do you think that? China wants their oil as well, there is no trade deal yet is there
 
petros
+2
#15
Funny how years ago US Big NG announced a plant the same week as Kitimat but the US facility has been running and exporting for over a year.
 
MHz
#16
Russia has enough NG to feed the EU, China and most of India. That still leaves room for NG from the Mid-east that doesn't go to Africa. South America is the only customer left and we are too busy laying a siege on them in support of the IMF so when that ends South America will not be letting North America bid on any contracts let along long term one that involve big bucks. History show lack of commitment after the money changes hands and sanctions undo all the work that does . If this a 'reap what you sow world' we are in for some lean times as far as having any international friends.
 
Twin_Moose
#17
And yet the demand for NA's NGL is still high, go figure
 
MHz
#18
Where do we ship NG it to at this very moment.

North America would need to run a pipe to China to supply the NG they could use. The Bering Straight would be the route taken and there are no suggestions on the table that promote that. China and other parts of the world have cheaper and more reliable sources of the same products Canada can export. If Saudi has turned the taps down for it's exports of NG that shows there is already a glut and since big oil is one company the only thing going on is they are trying to keep all facilities running at 60% rather than closing some and running a few at 90% which is what they were designed to do.

Does Canada import natural gas?
Canadian natural gas supply currently exceeds domestic consumption. Canada's natural gas markets are heavily integrated with those of the United States and Canada exports its surplus natural gas to the U.S. while importing smaller amounts from the U.S. into Central Canada in return.Jul 25, 2018

NEB - Natural Gas

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc...index-eng.html

It looks like we have 1 customer and they have contracts in place that allows them to turn off taps that serve Canadians if they declare an emergency that says they need NG. That is about as far over the barrel as you can be put IMO.

You need a new customer in order to justify a port. If building a line is just to build a line it should be from AB to NB and ship it to the UK as they are the most hated nation in the EU.
 
Hoid
#19
but no international company is going to want to invest in BC or even in Canada until the Kinder Moron goes through and everyone see's Canada can get it done.

This deal is worth way more jobs and money to BC,
 
MHz
#20
Perhaps the news was to give hope to the ones disappointed by the cancellation of the other project. It came the same day Shell was ousted from being a partner in the line bringing NG from Russia to the EU.
Say you build a (big) line capable of a lot of exports to somewhere, who builds and maintains the fleet of super ships needed to move it to 'China'.



BC should build 'it' so she can supply NG to herself as well as the many people that will become new residents over time. That would mean the whole Gulf of Alaska would be able to be served. As the coastline gets settled it can be developed and use methods that should have been done when Calif was first settled.
 
MHz
#21
Maybe this will help NB decide if they need some pipes from AB
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/b...nergy-company/
 
bill barilko
#22
So as often happens not everyone in the neighbourhood agrees and the price is going to go up
 
pgs
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilko View Post

So as often happens not everyone in the neighbourhood agrees and the price is going to go up

Nothing a few dollars in the right pockets won’t solve .
 
Twin_Moose
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Where do we ship NG it to at this very moment.
North America would need to run a pipe to China to supply the NG they could use. The Bering Straight would be the route taken and there are no suggestions on the table that promote that. China and other parts of the world have cheaper and more reliable sources of the same products Canada can export. If Saudi has turned the taps down for it's exports of NG that shows there is already a glut and since big oil is one company the only thing going on is they are trying to keep all facilities running at 60% rather than closing some and running a few at 90% which is what they were designed to do.
Does Canada import natural gas?
Canadian natural gas supply currently exceeds domestic consumption. Canada's natural gas markets are heavily integrated with those of the United States and Canada exports its surplus natural gas to the U.S. while importing smaller amounts from the U.S. into Central Canada in return.Jul 25, 2018
NEB - Natural Gas
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc...index-eng.html
It looks like we have 1 customer and they have contracts in place that allows them to turn off taps that serve Canadians if they declare an emergency that says they need NG. That is about as far over the barrel as you can be put IMO.
You need a new customer in order to justify a port. If building a line is just to build a line it should be from AB to NB and ship it to the UK as they are the most hated nation in the EU.

Do you have a problem with the LNG plants they are setting up on the East Coast, and the pipelines are in place from West to East and South to North

6 East Coast Export Terminals
Goldboro LNG
(Nova Scotia)
20 Years
10 Mtpa – 1.4 Bcf/d
$8.3
Bear Head LNG
(Nova Scotia)
25 Years
12 Mtpa – 1.6 Bcf/d
$2-$8
A C LNG
(Nova Scotia)
25 Years
15 Mtpa – 2.1 Bcf/d
$3
Energie Saguenay (Quebec)
25 Years
11 Mtpa – 1.6 Bcf/d
$7
Stolt LNGaz (Quebec)
25 Years
0.5 Mtpa – 0.7 Bcf/d
$0.6
TUGLIQ Gaz Naturel Quubec Inc. (Quebec)
Applying
0.8 Mtpa – 0.1 Bcf/d
 
MHz
#25
Not at all, my posts were about importing oil from other nations to support their bottom line at the expense of Canadians that don't live in the east. The price Canadians get for oil is already below 'the norm' so I see no reason that trend will change when NG is the commodity.

Same as the US importing coal from other countries, it helps their bottom line and keeps some towns operation like a good company town does. The amount it makes for the owners is whatever the employees spend a month to live. On a month to month survival rate much to the glee of the elites that are also capitalists. You know the one where the 'owners' get everything and the employees are given the worst conditions possible.

Your link didn't specify who the customers were, the link I found said the US was our only customer, which seems a bit odd.

Something like this old story.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rticle7563307/


If we ship NG to the US and the US exports NG how is it the US is not selling the gas we send them. Like Quebec buys poser from NFLD and jacks the rate before they sell it to the US. You know, one of the many 'money for nothing' things that is a mainstay of a capitalist society.

http://www.lngexports.com/#/?section=why-export-lng
The United States is now the leading natural gas producer in the world. We have an abundant supply of this clean, affordable and reliable resource that will let us power our nation for generations to come. Just a few years ago the U.S. was expected to be a major importer of natural gas. The shale revolution has virtually eliminated our need for gas imports, and we have begun to export some of our gas. The first shipment of U.S. LNG from the lower 48 states left in February 2016 and since then the U.S. has shipped LNG to Europe, Asia and South America. Our abundant supply means that the U.S. does not have to import significant amounts of LNG for domestic use, creating greater certainty of supply and putting downward pressure on prices around the world.
(in part)
The chart below sees CND exports being about the same any increase if by US efforts. If the shale flops the black-line would be the US line and the increase would come from Canadian NG that is simply marketed as a US product







The profits saved would go to 'big gas'.


Last edited by MHz; Oct 9th, 2018 at 01:45 PM..
 
taxslave
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilko View Post

So as often happens not everyone in the neighbourhood agrees and the price is going to go up

Hereditary chiefs have no power and are just looking for new pickups and snowmobiles for this winter.
 
MHz
#27
Whiteman's greed would top that by 10/1 at least. How many 'too good to be true' plans are 'too good to be true'? We get headlines, Russia is building things at a record pace. This the 'circle the wagons' time cause the buffalo herd ran off over the horizon.
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201...n-dark-secret/
In fact, Kudlow's plan has two serious flaws. Despite US pressure on the European Union, Nord Stream 2 is being successfully built and, according to Gazprom, the capital investments required for the gas pipeline project have already been almost 70 percent financed. It will be extremely difficult to stop Nord Stream 2 at this stage, because if necessary, the Russian side could complete it at its own expense.