September 28, 2016

Trudeau Liberals approve Petronas LNG project but here’s why BC may have missed the boat

Christopher WilsonRebel Commentator
 

Late yesterday, the federal government approved an $11.6B LNG export terminal in Prince Rupert, BC as part of the Petronas led Pacific Northwest LNG project - the largest capital investment project in BC history – that could provide up to $36B in capital investments.

The Trudeau government is caught between squaring their commitments to building the middle class with their promise of reducing greenhouse gasses as per the Paris agreement.

Critics immediately pointed out that the project, once operational, will be the largest GHG emitter in Canada. But what many opposed to this project forget is that by shipping ethical Canadian LNG to Asia, we’re helping those countries reduce their reliance on coal, which doesn’t burn as clean as natural gas.

Approval comes three and a half years after Pacific Northwest LNG first submitted it’s project description to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the $11.6B terminal that will ship 19 million tonnes of LNG to Asia each year is part of a larger $36B investment by Petronas to also construct a pipeline and extraction network in the province.

It also comes as the Trudeau Liberals back away from their election campaign promise of aggressive GHG reduction targets, instead opting to embrace Stephen Harper’s previous targets.

It seems Trudeau and the Liberals are willing to risk some of their 15 BC seats over energy projects if it helps stimulate needed economic growth. But the project is far from a guarantee even after over three years of review and government approval.

In August, Petronas indicated they would be reviewing all aspects of the project even if they get approval.

Have we missed the boat in BC by dragging our feet over the approval?

It’s estimated the project will create 4,500 construction jobs and 630 full time jobs operating the facility.

This could be the single largest investment in Canadian history if Petronas decides to proceed. Lets just hope that BC hasn’t missed the LNG boat.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-09-29 02:54:22 -0400
Jim Schulz – Obviously you have never been to the Peace River country on both sides of the British Columbia/Alberta border, as I have several times… Stand on the outskirts of Ft. St. John for instance, and there are capped gas wells stretching out to the distant horizon and as far as the eye can see… Enough gas for everybody for HUNDREDS of years, or at least until we develop those Star Trek “dilithium crystal generators”… Relax… Western Canada can feed the world with natural gas, prosper, and even accommodate the Boy Blunder’s dimple bum “natural gas” problems…
commented 2016-09-28 22:01:13 -0400
CAGW is Junk Science! “Below is a compilation of 50 temperature graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers. Some graphs indicate that (a) post-1940s temperatures actually declined in many regions of the world rather than rose rapidly — the opposite of what climate models had predicted. All the graphs show that (b) modern (post-1940s) temperatures aren’t any warmer than the decades and centuries and millennia prior to the steep increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and in some locations even the Little Ice Age temperatures (1400s to 1800s AD) were warmer than modern. Finally, these 50 graphs clearly show that © the conceptualization of global-scale warming, or a globally synchronous rise in temperatures for the vast majority of the Earth’s land and oceanic locations in modern times . . . is not scientifically supportable.” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/27/hide-the-decline-unveiled-50-non-hockey-stick-graphs-quash-modern-global-warming-claims/#sthash.ZoZjJfPi.rtnLRLHE.dpuf
commented 2016-09-28 21:51:53 -0400
Who cares about Co2? The Man Made Global Warming hypothesis has been completely invalidated by observations. Not one of the IPCC’s Models can skillfully predict recent or any climate. Of all of the thousands of Peer Reviewed Papers, only 0.3% suggest Man is the cause of “Global Warming” and not one of those, which are based upon the failed models is credible. The scientific method states that when your hypothesis is tested, IE your “Prediction” is compared to experiment, if it fails, it’s wrong! Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ALL IPCC Models have all failed this simple test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU Alarmist have yet to produce a single Peer Reviewed Paper that refutes Natural Variability, which is the Null Hypothesis. The reason the models are failures is quite simple, Alarmists have yet to quantify known climate forcing’s. You can’t model what you cannot measure. Just ask any alarmist to list all climate forcing’s in order from most to least effective an then quantify them. Not one can.
commented 2016-09-28 20:56:24 -0400
Canadian Mongrel—Maybe as you say Jim Schulz does not understand a resource economy with respect to Natural Gas; but you do not seem to understand the law of Supply & Demand. The more gas we export, the more demand; therefore higher prices for Canadians. This higher price may turn Canadians back to the clean coal that you mentioned.
commented 2016-09-28 20:09:10 -0400
If Asia is in need of Natural Gas, why don’t we just send them Trudeau, he is full of it, what with all the rich food he eats at taxpayers expense.
commented 2016-09-28 20:03:56 -0400
Jim Schulz,

Sorry your comment reminds me of someone repeating an ideologue instructor. It shows no concept of understanding a resource economy with respect to Natural Gas. It also shows ignorance about coal generators and how clean they are (sorry, were) in Ontario and Alberta. Maybe have courage to challenge your instructor, and if he or she are like the instructors of my day (except they were teachers and professors then), you will get a good mark.
commented 2016-09-28 19:22:38 -0400
What do majority of Canadians heat their homes with? What do we use to heat our homes after we have shipped all our natural Gas over seas or used it to make electricity? Coal? Just asking.
commented 2016-09-28 19:16:53 -0400
Oops…forgot my usual dig. Blue collar skilled workers that went to B/C following the invisible energy minister’s advice. I know I am very happy for my son. Thanks for the great advice Marg! Mind you, I still would think it better to have the jobs in Alberta rather than exporting hard to replace blue collars…but that is just me I guess.
commented 2016-09-28 19:15:18 -0400
The real news here is if they approved (finally!) the petro port at Rupert and its feeder pipeline, which is shared with the petro port of Kitimat, approval of the pipeline to Kitimat is sure to follow.

The infuriating thing about it is the Liberals KNOW, they can’t strangle the petro industry because with their big spending ways they depend on the petro dollar to pay for their fun – the delays and political/environmental harrumphing was ALL SHOW – for their furry friends in the green movements – they never intended shutting these projects down, just putting up pretense that they were against them with the delays – then they go to their green voters and say “sorry, but the big mean oil giants beat us this time – but we’ll get them next election – vote for us again” – what bullshitters these Liberal assclowns are.

The dangerous part of this partisan game of environmental charades is that this time they delayed so long we lost long term supply contracts in Asia – we will sell our oil and gas on new contracts eventually, but this means western economic recovery will be delayed as well – all for Librano theatrics.

Now I know why the LPC disgusts me.
commented 2016-09-28 19:11:39 -0400
Good for B/C. I think Clarke only had to promise to consider increasing her Carbon tax. Alberta is going to get hammered with a Carbon Tax that is the worse for tax payers for any province…for what? Maybe Clarke will be kind enough to let Alberta use the pipeline for its LNG. That would be nice of her and a great repayment for all the skilled blue collars we gave B/C for no charge.
commented 2016-09-28 19:06:58 -0400
Yep the assholes in Ottawa are in a panic.

After letting the freak Notley run hog wild over Alberta to destroy the oil industry in a down market, Ottawa’s tax revenue fell hard.

Shitbag Trudeau can’t afford to steal and pay his friends off if this is the case.

Fire up that natgas plant – too bad it’s a few years out – just in time for an election to get rid of this quebec dialect piece of shit.
commented 2016-09-28 18:47:03 -0400
When all these lefty governments finally realize that they will have to let industry go forward, it will be fun to watch how they handle the greentards that they have been enabling all these years.
commented 2016-09-28 18:33:07 -0400
Trudeau can make an easy rationalization: exporting natural gas reduces the carbon footprint of foreign countries because it is less carbon-intensive than the energy products it replaces. This is the major reason that the USA has reduced its carbon footprint in recent years: by replacing coal with natural gas.
commented 2016-09-28 18:33:06 -0400
Trudeau can make an easy rationalization: exporting natural gas reduces the carbon footprint of foreign countries because it is less carbon-intensive than the energy products it replaces. This is the major reason that the USA has reduced its carbon footprint in recent years: by replacing coal with natural gas.
commented 2016-09-28 18:29:38 -0400
Could it be that they approved it knowing Petronas might back out?