Topic
How to minimize climate harm from British Columbia's liquefied natural gas aspirations.
Artist's rendition of proposed LNG plant in Kitimat, B.C. Source: Apache Canada.
How hugely would LNG exports spike emissions impact? Infographic tells the stunning story.
Turning natural gas into liquid sucks electricity. Ratepayers, guard your wallets.
The carbon tax applies to almost all fossil fuel combustion in B.C. and will presumably apply to LNG development in the same way.
However, the tax gives a free pass to emissions from non-combustion sources such as when carbon dioxide is stripped from raw natural gas and vented to the atmosphere.
If the province closed this loophole, the carbon tax would apply to upwards of 87 per cent of the emissions from extracting and processing natural gas -- up from the current 63 per cent.
The greenhouse gas pollution produced by the wells, pipelines, processing plants and liquefaction facilities needed to fulfil British Columbia's liquefied natural gas (LNG) aspirations will make it impossible for the province to meet its climate change commitments. Yet, the province says it still intends to "maintain leadership on climate change and clean energy."
Having trouble squaring that circle? You wouldn't be alone.
Climate leadership means meeting commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That will be a problem if the province goes ahead with LNG; even in a best-case scenario, the targets will become unachievable.
Climate leadership also means contributing to global solutions. The LNG plans fall short here too because it feeds a natural gas-hungry world that will likely be 3.5 degrees warmer by century's end. Natural gas might be cleaner than coal (a popular refrain of LNG proponents), but burning it still moves the planet closer to dangerous and irreversible climate change, that is, until there are much stronger climate policies around the world.
In an ideal world, B.C.'s political leaders would decide that exporting LNG is not in the province or planet's interests. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world and, as is so often the case with climate change, we try to make the best of a bad situation. There are ways to minimize the impacts from LNG development but, for that to happen, the current conversation about "climate leadership" needs a serious reality check.
1. Limit the emissions in BC as much as possible
How many plants actually get built is anybody's guess. Let's assume the province exports about half the LNG it hopes to -- a volume of LNG (20 million tonnes) that is equivalent to the initial phases of the Petronas (8 million tonnes) and Shell (12 million tonnes) proposals. Based on current policies in B.C., the emissions from extracting, processing, transporting and liquefying the gas would produce 17 million tonnes of emissions per year -- enough to consume 44 per cent of the province's total targeted emissions for 2020.
None of those emissions numbers are set in stone; decisions about the number and size of LNG plants, and the amount of renewable energy used will influence the final numbers. We have one shot to minimize those emissions, because once the infrastructure is up and running, the resulting emissions and other impacts are locked in.
One option that has seen some public discussion is using renewable energy to power the liquefaction plants. First Nation communities have been debating this issue, while Minister Coleman recently said it would be up to the proponents to decide -- which would very likely lead to a heavy reliance on gas.
Of course the LNG plants are just one source, with the emissions from pipelines, processing plants and wells accounting for five times more pollution. There are options here too. Renewable energy could be used instead of natural gas in some instances, methane leaks from wells and pipelines could be reduced, and the greenhouse gasses vented from large processing plants could be captured.
If we did all of this, the increase in emissions in B.C. would still make the province's climate targets unachievable, but the jump in emissions would be cut nearly in half.
2. Invest the value of the carbon in climate solutions
B.C.'s carbon tax has an important double purpose in this debate: it provides companies with the incentive to invest in improvements like renewable energy, and it generates revenue that could be invested in climate solutions.
For argument sake, let's say proponents were put on notice that the carbon tax will increase to $70 per tonne by 2020 and that it will apply to all of the emissions from the LNG plants, pipelines, processing plants and wells that can be accurately measured (see sidebar). This is easily plausible by the end of the decade. For example, Norway's carbon tax will be $71 per tonne for offshore oil and gas producers in 2013 and Australia's carbon tax already applies a similar level of coverage.
Under this scenario, annual carbon tax revenue from the LNG development would be between $608 million and $1.1 billion depending on how much was done to limit emissions increases. Added up over 20 years of operation, that's between $3.3 and $9.7 billion more than if the carbon tax stays at the status quo $30 per tonne -- a hefty chunk of change that could be invested in climate solutions.
Revenue from a $70 per tonne carbon tax would be between $608 million and $1.1 billion depending on how much was done to limit emissions increases (based on 20 million tonnes of LNG per year).
Put in the context of the overall economics of LNG, a stronger carbon tax is unlikely to break the bank for proponents. Even at $70 per tonne applied to all measureable emissions in B.C., the overall costs to produce LNG would only increase by $0.23, to $0.68 per gigajoule. If adding a few percent to the cost of B.C. LNG exports (natural gas is currently selling for close to $15 per gigajoule in Asia) makes these projects infeasible, then the business case is already so rickety that we shouldn't be taking the risk.
3. Take responsibility for exported emissions
The astute critic will rightly point out that burning the gas in Asia accounts for most of the emissions. While those emissions are more or less fixed based on the amount of gas burned, the consequences will be influenced by climate policy. With strong climate policy, some natural gas can legitimately claim to be part of a climate-friendly energy mix. Without strong climate policy, natural gas simply moves the planet closer to dangerous and irreversible climate change.
While B.C. can't dictate climate policy in other jurisdictions, the province could nudge things in the right direction. One option would be to charge the carbon tax on exported emissions and invest that revenue in global climate change solutions. With a $70 per tonne carbon tax on exports, the province would raise about $3.5 billion per year.
At $3.36 per gigajoule, this would be a significant jump in the cost of natural gas -- about a fifth of the price in Asia. Recognizing that the price of B.C. LNG likely could not increase by 20 per cent and still be competitive, the province could work with other LNG exporters to adopt similar approaches. Alternatively, the province could transfer tax revenue to the jurisdiction buying LNG to help them invest in climate change solutions.
Is the bar still too low?
Limiting the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing the value from the remaining emissions, and taking responsibility for the exported emissions would lessen the climate blow of B.C.'s LNG aspirations. While each may seem like a tall order, it is important to remember that combined they may still fall far short of what is needed to help prevent dangerous climate change.
Ultimately, a willingness to miss climate change targets in order to expand fossil fuel exports is a recipe for disaster.
The analysis cited in this op-ed is available here. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Read more: Energy, Environment,
39
Login or register to post comments
EcoCollectivist
21 weeks ago
Take Away Profit Motive
The problem with the private carbon based industries is profit. We must make this profit away. Socialize all carbon industry. Sell in world market at market rates and filter all returns back into carbon neutrality and working towards a global carbon industry which is decentralized and owned by the communities in which they function. In this case the BC community. Take away profit motive for fossil fules!
rantnic
21 weeks ago
@EcoCollectivist
What in the hell are you? A "pinko Commie" anyone so anti capitalist must be anti American and thus anti democratic. When you say that "We must Take this profit away" you are attacking the very core of what makes America and thus Canada great.
Is not socialism a Communist idea? Did socialism not work exceptionally well for Russia? Lets preserve our Capitalist tyranny, to hell with global warming,carbon taxes only raise the base on which profits are made so lets increase them and most of all lets preserve the American way.
Hugh
21 weeks ago
We need to factor in the cost
We need to factor in the cost of flood protection in low-lying areas, since LNG could result in greenhouse warming and rising sea levels.
Also, the cost to publicly-owned BC Hydro to purchase additional, expensive run-of-river IPP power, and likely building Site C.
Basically, we are damming up BC creeks and flooding agricultural land to provide power for LNG export. Private IPPs would profit, while BC Hydro is stuck with the $52 billion cost of IPP power, and the $8 billion cost of Site C.
Cool Hand
21 weeks ago
BC LNG
Minor quibble. The initial phase of Petronas' facility is 12 million tons/annum. And based upon what we've seen in Australia and elsewhere, additional liquefaction trains are brought on-stream within a few years thereafter.
So based upon the table above, we have:
1. Shell - 24 million tons/annum
2. Apache/Encana - 10 million tons/annum
3. Petronas - 18 million tons/annum
4. BG Group - 18 million tons/annum
Which total 70 million tons/annum. Exxonmobil/Imperial Oil is apparently also moving forward with a 24 million ton/year facility in the 2020 - 2025 time frame. The $2.6 billion acquisition of Celtic Exploration is also part of that lng scenario.
Now we are up to 94 million tons/annum. To put things into perspective, the world's largest lng exporter, Qatar, produces 77 million tons/year.
And we also now have Chevron scouting for sites for a potential lng BC west coast facility, among others.
Based upon Shell's filings with the NEB, each of their 6 million liquefaction trains will require 300 MW of electricity for a total of 1,200 MW of electicity.
Extrapolating from that figure and with 94 million ton/year of potential production, 4,700 MW of electricity will be required to run these facilities at full build-out. BC Hydro's proposed Site C dam will only have 1,100 MW of capacity.
IOW, the electricity requirements for westcoast lng will be in excess of 4 Site C dams. And most of this electrical generation will likely be on-site in terms of natural gas generating facilities as this generation is most cost-effective. And that's where GHG emissions come in.
Renewable energy is much more expensive and is also intermittent. At the end of the day, it's all about trade-offs.
As an aside, the Conference Board of Canada has just come out with an lng report:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/resources/poised+global+prominence+exporter/7708910/story.html#ixzz2FKeIaF6v
NickS
21 weeks ago
Landmark climate change report leaked online
The fifth assessment report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is not due to be published in full until September 2013, was uploaded onto a website called Stop Green Suicide on Thursday and has since been mirrored elsewhere on the internet.
The IPCC, which confirmed the draft is genuine, said in a statement: "The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review. We will continue not to comment on the contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress."
A little-known US-based climate sceptic called Alec Rawls, who had been accepted by the IPCC to be one of the report's 800 expert reviewers, admitted to leaking the document. In a statement posted online, he sought to justify the leak: "The addition of one single sentence [discussing the influence of cosmic rays on the earth's climate] demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole."
Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind's emissions – as "game-changing".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online
Hugh
21 weeks ago
But do you don't actually
But do you don't actually believe the Conference Board of Canada?
Also, if natural gas is to be used to power LNG, why was BC Hydro discouraged from using Burrard Thermal, due to concerns about CO2 emissions?
What, we now need to have Burrard Thermal running full out for LNG? Craziness!
Talon
21 weeks ago
Take away the profit motive.
Yes, there is nothing like a whole bunch of greed to get people willing to do almost anything if it will give them a help up the wealth ladder. America is in a state of serious decline and hopefully our prime mistake will not follow the Americans down that dark hole of misery.
With American capitalism one gets a few winners and significantly more losers.
I envision a social democracy in which the profit motive is eliminated. How many factories do we need making BLING? I agree with the comments put forth by EcoCollectivist and find that rantnic and his ilk, although wading in their favourite shite cannot smell it. Let us not Americanize Canada. A better model is Sweden.
gadrogeek
21 weeks ago
Read the article that NickS refers to.
In the article, from the Guardian, there is a very telling admission.
"Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said that sceptics' reading of the draft was incorrect: "Alex Rawls' interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects. IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities."
It is simply ludicrous to suggest that the Sun, and any activity associated with it, is a "cause" of global warming. That is just as off target as the suggestion that volcanic emissions from the bottom of the ocean are a "cause".
And another problem with the LNG proposals is the loss of important boreal forest as the forests are removed (a wide swath for hundreds of kilometres) and the loss of critical habitat for the ungulates (e.g. moose and caribou).
And what about OUR water?
Greg Shea (Lake Cowichan)
Citizens_view
21 weeks ago
naive nonsolutions
Matt seems to realize that Canada needs to reduce GHG emissions, but then he falls face first into the sand box of reasonable solutions, you know, the ones that the existing corporate govt and industry winks at. You know there are no solutions proposed when you see retreat, business as usual statements like "as much as possible", or lets all hold hands with the market, they'll lead us out of hell.
If you really want to see traditional retreat thinking, see his destructive tired old idea, if you pollute more you have to pay us poor taxpayers more. That'll certainly start emission decline!! Fact is, its tough being tough on the bad guys, and Pembina doesn't have the backbone to do it.
Cool Hand
21 weeks ago
Hugh
Firstly, Burrard Thermal is an "antique" natural gas generating facility that dates from the late '50's/early 60's in terms of GHG emissions, scrubbing technology, etc.
And Burrard Thermal is only utilized during winter months during peak demand, which does not impact the Metro Vancouver airshed nearly as much compared to summer utilization and air inversions. You know. Summer haze?
That's why the proposed Sumas 2 generating plant was scuttled just across the border from Abbotsford due to strong opposition amidst concerns of air pollutants drifting into the Fraser Valley.
And that's why BC Hydro's proposed Duke Point natural gas generating facility near Nanaimo was scuttled due to concerns of air pollutants drifting over into the Metro Vancouver airshed.
Huh? BC Hydro's Burrard Thermal facility in Metro Vancouver has absolutely nothing to do with proposed northcoast lng plants.
Each of the lng proponents will likely build their own on-site natural gas generating facilities (using the same lng feed-stock) for their own use. Don't see much BC Hydro involvement with providing electrical generation to these proposed lng facilities.
And that's what some northcoast First Nations are now complaining about - not the lng facilities per se, but the pollutants resulting from on-site natural gas electrical generating facilities. The same argument down here about Metro Vancouver's airshed. When surrounded by mountains, the pollutants take a longer time to disperse.
wiley
21 weeks ago
as Weaver says elsewhere on Tyee:
"We have what I would argue is a completely misplaced, ill-posed, and a poorly thought-out economic trajectory for the province put forward by both the Liberals and the NDP, and that is a reliance on royalties coming from natural gas through enhanced fracking in northeastern B.C. We just have to look at the collapse of the natural gas market and the royalties accordingly to see why we're in the budgetary crisis we're in now.
"It's because everybody in the world discovered fracking, and as a consequence there's a natural gas glut in the market because prices are dropping.... You do not want to fund social programs on unsustainable economies, which are exclusively through royalties on a product that's crashing."
Hugh
21 weeks ago
Cool Hand,
You say that BC Hydro won't be supplying power for LNG. Ok, but my understanding is that BC Hydro will be supplying a lot of power.
It seems hypocritical to prohibit BC Hydro from using Burrard Thermal due to CO2 emissions, while allowing natural gas to be burned to supply LNG plants.
If BC Hydro power is directed to LNG plants, wouldn't that mean increased reliance on Burrard Thermal?
pmagn@yahoo.com
21 weeks ago
3 must haves if we develop Carbon based Natural Gas...
1. Disruptive Climate Change
2. Flooding Sea Level Rise
3. Blistering Ocean Acidification
pmagn@yahoo.com
21 weeks ago
Its time to move away from
Its time to move away from all Carbon based energy for profit.
We should only be developing and using carbon based energy for essential use and in developing rapidly non-carbon based energy solutions.
It really is time for gov to take this seriously and its time for the energy industry to be nationalized as if there is no profit in it then there is no market.
metacomet
21 weeks ago
Christy's "Hurry! Buy now
Christy's "Hurry! Buy now before it's too late!" boosterism makes plain enough BC Liberals' transparent disingenuousness. The breathing hole is freezing over and the nearest leads getting impossibly distant. With this kind of desperation on display, glad people are starting to wake up to the final, pull-out-all-the-stops attempt to win one more illegitimate mandate: online voting. While such a move from a party so thoroughly disgraced and distrusted as the BC Liberals would doubtlessly foment a huge uproar, Christy aims to win at all costs; she doesn't have much to lose at this point.
Hopefully, people in the know have already prepared an application for injunction should the BC Liberals try to pull a last, desperate fast one.
Christy can talk all she wants about liquified pie in the sky; she and her corrupt government will be gone in five and a half months. Not that the NDP is against LNG development per se: the government-in-waiting prefers instead to develop natural gas in a responsible, cogent and fair way. So it's not an either-or issue, it's a responsible-desperately irresponsible issue. BC Liberals obviously have not earned our trust on many issues, this one included.
The Haisla interest is more about asserting their territorial claim than it is about expecting an LNG terminal to pop up in their territory anytime soon.
Neo-right governments are looking panicky; they are experiencing too many technical difficulties to make good on their promises to Big Oil and pipeline/tanker middlemen. They will lose BC in May, Canada in 2015. That's why they're all in a hurry, you know, before it's too late.
cyberclark
21 weeks ago
Ship gas; a non renewable resource now? Why?
5 years ago natural gas was selling for 15 dollars a GJ. Today it is selling for $3 for the same commodity volume.
The only way a scheme like this can make money at this time is for the Taxpayer to pay for it!
Granted there is enough BS coming out of the BC Liberals gas may well be renewable.
ModestyBlaise
21 weeks ago
No Thank You.
"The report says the industry will make investments of $386-billion between 2012 and 2035, generating 131,460 jobs and $364-billion in gross domestic product.
The main beneficiaries of that spending will be B.C. and Alberta, the Conference Board says."
We'd rather take some stress-leave and go camping.
Stonebreaker
21 weeks ago
Increasing carbon extraction is immoral...
The IEA admits that most of the known carbon reserves MUST stay in the ground to prevent a global "catastrophe" of climate chaos.
It is immoral to EXPAND carbon extraction. Period.
Both BC Liberals and NDP are pushing for more carbon extraction in BC. Game over kids.
Feverish
21 weeks ago
The picture i$ worth a thou$and $ad word$
Artist's rendition of proposed LNG plant in Kitimat, B.C. Source: Apache Canada.
Only in Canada you say? Pity.
Frank
21 weeks ago
Bullsh*t
So according to the Conference Board, Canada will get to import 131,000 more workers from China because they have the "special qualifications" Canadians lack. Just like Denny's requires foreign workers because Canadians can't serve coffee for some reason.
BC's environemnt will be torn asunder and the treasury will receive at most a few pennies in royalties from a resource that should belong to all BCers, not just the 1%.
Meanwhile our resources will be shipped out of the country to benefit a competitor and much to the chagrin of future generations who, surprise surprise, just might need energy too.
Is there anything in this future for average Canadians? Or is no jobs, no resources and a wrecked environment supposed to make us happy?
Bob Watts
21 weeks ago
Question?
When gas is sold for $1.00 how many pennies does BC get?
ModestyBlaise
21 weeks ago
not just the 1%.
Dix is quick to point out that the New Democrats are not against sustainable economic development.
" The importance of sustainable economic development International trade and responsible resource extraction are essential to B.C. and Canada’s economy.
International trade creates good-paying jobs and vital communities. To this end, we are committed to building on our tradition of further developing trade relations with China and other Asia Pacific markets to build a strong B.C. economy.
Further, we have been clear about our support for the Kitimat liquefied natural gas project "
Northwest Coast Energy News.
Might have to vote GREEN.
mission impossible
21 weeks ago
LNG pipedream
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/resources/poised+global+prominence+exporter/7708910/story.html
Scott Simpson failed badly in this article, he is merely repeating the echo chamber of the corporation..
If you read that fluff piece you will understand the con game..
I`m paraphrasing here..
LNG production will be flat until 2019, LNG prices will be very low for at least a decade.
LNG in 2025 will be a big money maker!!!
You see the spin, there won`t be even 1 LNG plant jobs for years, royalties will remain ultra low for a decade,...But, trust the BC Government and the spinners because there`s gold in dem there gas holes.
It`s propaganda, a vague pipedream of enormous wealth, we just have to wait until 2030 to see any money.
Scott Simpson should hang up his media accreditation card with that lame article.
China has the largest domestic supply of natural gas in the world.
Australia has already spent $80 billion developing LNG plants..Qatar is way ahead of Australia with LNG export, Russia is building new LNG pipelines to run directly to China.
The price is low and will stay low..
And...
mission impossible
21 weeks ago
Chenire
"The other big development is the boom in shale gas production in North America, which has sparked a flurry of LNG export projects in both the US and Canada. One of the most advanced, spearheaded by Houston-based Cheniere Energy, is located at the Sabine Pass terminal on the Gulf Coast, originally designed to import LNG, not export it.
Cheniere’s contracts are remarkable in that the gas they are selling is linked to Henry Hub, the main US benchmark for natural gas, in contrast to Asian contracts which are indexed to the – much higher priced – Japanese crude cocktail. As a result, Japanese buyers have poured into the US seeking similarly priced cargoes of LNG."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/426b35f0-f8b9-11e1-8d92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FMTdvAJU
Ever hear about the company called Cheniere, they signed long term LNG contracts with Japan, prices tied to the Henry hub price, now all of Asia is waiting for similar priced deals, WHY, because there`s a glut of LNG.
___
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/16/bc-lng-liquefied-natural-gas_n_1774332.html
Everyone chasing China, China which has the largest natural gas deposits in the world..
Chinese tigers playing with Canadian sheep.
China, once all these plants are up and running, an over-supply, they merely look at their domestic supply and the price will crash..
Do you really think countries won`t outbid each other? You think some exporters will sell nothing, think they will sit and demand top-dollar?
Scott Ximpson`s article was the echo chamber.
Apache and others can`t get any long term LNG buying contracts, no contracts no plant.
Silly Canadian sheep.
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2012/02/chinese-tigers-playing-with-canadian.html
mission impossible
21 weeks ago
One last thing on LNG
If LNG export does become fruitful, which I highly doubt.
It won`t be happening under a BC Liberal Government, Christy Clark is done, done and duninagain..
Latest poll on Premiers from Angus Reid..Yikes
___________
Best Approval Ratings: Wall (SK) 67%, Redford (AB) 47%, Selinger (MB) 46%, Marois (QU) 41%
Worst Approval Ratings: Alward (NB) 35%, Dexter (NS) 31%, Clark (BC) 31%, McGuinty (ON) 23%
And Canada`s HIGHEST rated OPPOSITION leader is...Drum roll please..
Adrian Dix.
British Columbia: New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Adrian Dix
53% approval rating..
Hmmm, Christy Clark dead last in Canada, you can`t count McGuinty, he`s resigned.
No Christmas cheer for Christy (Rita Johnstone) Clark!
http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012.12.17_Premiers_CAN.pdf
Cheers
mission impossible
21 weeks ago
Canada?..Really, think again, and who is China`s neighbor? RUSSI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves
mission impossible
21 weeks ago
Adios corruption party, Hello Adrian Dix
Time for renewal in British Columbia, time to throw the bums out, enjoy the Christmas story below.
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2012/12/dying-days-of-corrupt-governmenthow-are.html
aDriftwood
21 weeks ago
First
just like to say that thetyee doesn't just cut me off dead in the water like so may alternative sites do when I champion the rights of actual voters to have the actual right to vote on issues instead of the imagined right to vote on 'representative' democracy.
Second, the net is a far cry away from what it used to be when one could voice an opinion without fear that it would be curtailed at the same time it was saved for the benefit of private interests. Too bad, so sad, you no longer have the right to a free opinion on the net.
I remember when you could go on practically any site and voice your opinions. Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end...
aDriftwood
21 weeks ago
Of course the tyee
does relegate me to the back burner by taking all my comments off the preferred list and relegating them to 'all' instead of 'best'. Well, news for you, tyee, the best comments are often found on your list of unpreferred comments. We in BC know that we live in a colloquial backwater as far as the net is concerned, just like dissenters to the status quo have known from day one that their opinions will seldom be published.
pwlg
21 weeks ago
I doubt all of the proposed
I doubt all of the proposed LNG plants will be built given the number of LNG plants being proposed and under construction around the world at present.
Where is the market for all this proposed capacity?
Will more LNG plants and terminals drive the price of natural gas even lower than the current prices which are the same as in 1976? If this becomes the case how financially feasible are all these proposals?
If natural gas was being used to replace coal fired powered units then there would be a significant decrease in global emissions. But as of yet, I haven't read any information claiming coal fired power plants closing or converting to natural gas.
Having a provincial strategy to reduce emissions is problematic when globally there is no consensus to do so. There must be a global commitment to reduce/eliminate emissions to have any local strategy making any difference as the atmosphere we rely on does not respect political boundaries.
rantnic
21 weeks ago
A BILLION DOLLARS?
The wonderful GDP that economists base their figures on may add billions to what they call the economy but it will not put a loaf of bread on the table of a single child in poverty in this province.
That is the political and real truth to the selling of our resources to foreign companies.
All hail the GDP!
pwlg
21 weeks ago
Cool Hand
The Conference Board of Canada's report mentioned by Cool Hand, "The Role of Natural Gas in Powering Canada’s Economy" was funded by the Canadian Natural Gas Initiative which is an initiative by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
Highly questionable is the labour forecast of more than 130,000 per year!
The problem with this report and others is they are mainly created to sell rather than assess. It is the typical garbage in, garbage out impact study which falsely overestimates the benefits and underestimates the costs.
Economics professor, Philip Porter, puts it best, "Impact analysis adds and multiplies, but never subtracts and divides."
If one believes the Conference Board's report then BC should anticipate an increase in construction materials and labour for all other sectors of the economy. This has not been calculated in their report. Like Porter says "never subtracts and divides".
Before we piddle ourselves in glee over the Conference Board's report we should heed information from sources like BP who states that there are 17 countries which have more natural gas than Canada with lower production and labour costs. China itself has proven gas reserves estimated to be 1300 trillion cubic feet where Canada's proven reserves are only 62 trillion cubic feet! Canada is on the downward slope with its conventional gas reserves (drying up) whereas shale gas (fracking) reserves will make up most of the proven reserves.
The Conference Board loses its credibility when it turns into a paid cheerleader for the oil and gas industry.
metacomet
21 weeks ago
ModestyBlaise
Voting Green because the NDP are not expressly against LNG export is either foolish because it could inadvertently result in a neo-right government antithetical to the Greens' ostensible environmentalism, or devious because it could intentionally split the anti-neo-right vote.
Get a grip. If you are against corrupt capitalist cronyism at environmental expense, vote NDP.
pwlg
21 weeks ago
China
If China proposes to close their coal fired power plants and replace them with natural gas wouldn't there be a significant decrease in overall emissions?
According to the US EPA, "natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant."
As well, the mercury associated with coal would not be released into the atmosphere.
frank2
21 weeks ago
Metacomet writes: "the
Metacomet writes: "the government-in-waiting prefers instead to develop natural gas in a responsible, cogent and fair way."
As is clear from the article, there is NO way we can develop this resource which is responsible (to ourselves, our children, and the rest of the world), Cogent (what does that mean in this context?) and fair way (just what is fair about advancing climate change, and spending our proceeds on public goods for which we should be taking ourselves more.
Sorry. Some circles cannot be squared. I only hope that if the NDP are elected that they exhibit some backbone, and take steps to ensure realization of the current (inadequate) GHG emission targets. I am not holding my breath, though.
Thankfully, I'm 75, and wont be around to see the worst of this story unfold...too bad about the grand kids, though.
North of Hope
21 weeks ago
BC NDP environmental vision
If you want to see the BC NDP environmental vision go to this site
http://www.buildingsustainablebc.ca/
wiley
21 weeks ago
Matt Horne and readers should also read this
http://thecanadian.org/item/1855-the-fracking-mess-ray-grigg
Dave50
21 weeks ago
natural forgeign gas credits
Ironic in that the province is broke, and still issuing massive royalty credits to liberal supporting non resident gas producers. Maybe if they had all the revenue from natural gas instead of giving it away they could assist with some other programs. Maybe ensuring that the most income tax revenue is generated by natural gas service jobs, rather than evaporating into china and the USA would also help on the revenue side.Maybe not giving a way dividend paying assets like BC Rail would help with the revenue side and we would be 1.6 billion in debt and rising.The BC liberal will be using using the Temporary Foreign Worker program to to by-pass Canadian workers and substitute with cheap foreign labor if they get re elected.After so many years of selling off BC to foreign powers and filling BC with foreign workers (legit and illegal) there will be a payback for the LIBERALS.The corporate CEO must be rubbing there hand in pure glee knowing they can now use the liberal supported and endorsed foreign worker program.Notice how premier christy Campbell Clark has been very quiet and not said one single word about this new labor scam to by pass BC workers.the fact that the actual land,mineral ,gas and oil rights , logging rights are being sold to Chinese company's. They can do whatever they want and hire whoever they want. I guarantee you they are not in business to benefit BC residents Canada is up for sale to whoever wants it.Clark sure has been quiet on this one.Her plan is to bluff her way through every problem with platitudes and the big grin! That's what has worked for her all her life and if the people of B.C. let her get away with it, she'll keep using it. I love how Christy just refuses to address issues brought up - she simply ignores them. The Bc liberals arrogance is still evident on their major policies and priorities.I would be worried the BC liberals might try more often to use the "Temporary Foreign Worker program" to to by-pass Canadian workers and BC taxpayers and substitute with cheap foreign labor All they have to do is say the employees require "specialized knowledge".I hope the unions refuse to touch the scab coal ,oil and gas.
Dave50
21 weeks ago
May 2013 ,good bye liberals and chrusty clark
The BC Liberals selling our future to foreigners.All part of Crusty Clark;s Job Action Plan, except it is creating jobs in Asia not BC!The companies make the money, China gets the jobs. It's win-win for the trading partners, and lose-lose for out of work British Colombians .British Columbia is being exploited not only by all the Asian countries that import our gas ,Oil and raw logs.That's the kind of management we have been getting since Gordo was elected and continued by opportunist Clark. No fear that they will be standing in bread lines or eating at soup kitchens. All they can think of is how much they are able to stuff into their own pockets and the pockets of their rich friends. premier Clark simply hasn't shown the kind of leadership we need . big corporate money has corrupted the incompetent BC liberal politicians.people without principals are poor politicians.Clark has a long record of taking take credit for things she had nothing to do with.premier Clark is just so transparent and phony and seems to think she can just "charm "his way out her flip-flopping...but it ain't working.election.How many times can premier Clark say the word "may" without losing all credibility? .No wonder Clark has gone AWOL again this week and avoided a legislative session to debate the temporary foreign worker taken BC worker jobs which she at one time stated BC jobs was so urgent and important.Corporate Lobbying is a perfect example of the power of the almighty dollar shows how much it can influence and how much it can corrupt the BC liberals.The current BC Liberals want to secure private sector employment before they all get tossed out next year and will have to compete with all their fellow politic rats.This is the reason the BC liberals will not call a election until the very last minute so the taxpayer can throw the Liberal out of office.Premier Christy Clark leaked B.C. Rail information to a lobbyist acting for one of the bidders.The B.C. Liberal government's order to destroy the premier's and his cabinet's e-mails appears to violate the liberal government’s own policies.! I hope Clark is charged with fraud in the BC rail sale fraud scandal.