babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
A wonderful society this brave new BC. We pay for what we need to care for each other with CARBON SALES, booze and gambling. A great vision for the 21st century and our future prosperity.
Thank you for your kind words. They are rare here.
Yeah, you hit the bullseye. When Kitimat LNG first aired their proposal to build a compression plant for export, KOGAS and a Spanish gasco each committed for a third of capacity but The owners of Kitimat LNG were small-fry and couldn't gain traction or financing. At that time, BC shale gas was still in the exploration stage and reserves (and especially depletion rates) were sketchy.
This is where Ken's doubts fit in. It was all pretty iffy. Apache Canada is an Encana partner in Horn River and EOG resources has its own operations there. Apache was confident enough in its reserves that it acquired 51% of Kitimat LNG and soon after, EOG joined in at 49%.
Since then, the Haisla nation of Kitimat has sold their share of KLNG for $50 million cash and PNG has sold their interest in the Pacific Trails Pipeline for $50 mil also.
This gets very interesting because the Koreans and Spaniards among other shippers had planned to ship their share of partnership gas via KitimatLNG but Apache and EOG now plan to reserve the entire pipeline capacity for their own gas. Encana, Shell and Talisman are also large, very large players. Any one of them alone could easily lift another stand-alone export project but I think they will more likely entertain a proposal from one of the big pipelines or build their own consortium.
To get NEB approval, they likely will have to provide capacity for other shippers. KLNG has just applied for the very first LNG export permit from the NEB and they also will likely be required to provide capacity for the little guys.
You forgot BC's largest economic engine - grow-ops and the export of electric lettuce.
Feel free to start a center of excellence and innovation. PhDs don't work for free though, not like babblers. You might need some gas money - shale gas that is.
I would prefer that you burnt off your sour gas through your rectum instead of your keyboard. Who needs ducks and other living things when we have MONEY. I guess I am one weird duck who doesn't share your obsession with money especially dirty oil money that will destroy habitat when extracted and add to global warming when burnt.
Uh, dude, no oil involved here -dirty or otherwise. Its rather difficult to not burn something in Canada in winter,no?
Most people are obsessed with money -especially people who don't have much of it. Good paying jobs can ease that obsession thingy. How do you stretch the desire for economic growth into an obsession with money?
I agree. You are one weird duck.
Why not burn wood in Canada in winter? Pine for instance. Because when summer comes round, you still need to be able to drink the water.
It's dirty all right and so are your tricks with semantics. Spread your
bullshitpropaganda elsewhere.more 'dirty oil' news that has nothing to do with oil:
Encana Corporation (TSX, NYSE: ECA) has agreed to acquire a 30 percent interest in the planned Kitimat liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, located on the west coast of central British Columbia, and the associated natural gas pipeline. This proposed Kitimat LNG export development is intended to open tremendous new market opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region for abundant supplies of Canadian natural gas.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Encana+acquire+percent+interest+proposed+Kitimat+liquefied+natural/4463303/story.html#ixzz1GxGQ8Dzb
[double post]
With Encana now jumping on board EOG and Apache's proposed lng plant, one can see that momentum is further shifting into high gear. And here are two further interesting tidbits from the Vancouver Sun story:
Roscoe this oil/gas rush is a lemming herd heading for the cliffs. Seems all you can say is Burn Baby Burn. Basing this province's future on oil and gas production is a very destructive and short sighted policy that will leave no commonwealth left after the money is extracted and shipped to hedge funds. In 30 to 40 years the business community will still be screaming poverty and demanding low low taxes and we will have no natural wealth left only polluted lakes and ground water. But some people and their families will become even more filthy rich. What a Brave New World.
The economics of the $3.5 billion lng plant also some into play. Currently, natural gas prices in the NA market languish around $4 per mmBTU. On top of that, the NE BC producers also have to discount their price by ~$1 per mmBTU as the natural gas is so distant from eastern Canadian and U.S. markets.
OTOH, natural gas demand as well as the price of ng is tied to oil prices in the Asian market. The price of ng in the Asian market currently stands at $12 per mmBTU, three times the NA price, which is phenomenal.
The last time that the price of natural gas was in that price range in NA was during the price spike in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina hitting the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans. BTW, the northwest BC coast ports of Kitimat/Prince Rupert are the closest in NA to the Asian market.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Encana+stake+Kitimat+export+termin...
So Centrist you think we should promote a carbon based economy? Seems to me the price is only right because the oil companies will not be required to carry full insurance to cover all potential cleanup of inevitable spills. Like the nuclear industry they can't afford to be insured against the inherent risks so they get thrown onto the public plate while the corporations leave with the cash.
The quoted spot price is only for non-contract and non-hedged dry gas or, sale gas. BC raw gas is very rich in gas liquids which can command a considerable premium. Gas liquids products are used for plastics, fertiliser, explosives and many other everyday products.
The extra value of BC gas, and the argument that this or these LNG plants in particular are real, is part of a secondary argument.
I started at as a response to Centrist making the questionable argument that this is all too valuable to seriously think of trying to stop. I made a point that is secondary, albeit important, that this is a tactic the industry always uses- rolling out the juiced dollar figures. They sell each other on this stuff. and of course some or a lot of it is real. We can chase each other around about how real the claims are in BC, regardless of the tack record of grossly inflated claims elsewhere. Its a mugs game looked at from either direction.
And nobody is actually arguing per se that the practice of shale gas must be stopped. But it is a position that has to be accepted in principle as a possibility.
If you are sincere about environmental inquiry, then the outcome is contingent. It is not known that this is safe as you think it is. You have a right to press your case, but your credibility is suspect when you simple dismiss claims of high likeliness of harm.
Telling people that there is just too much money in this is not exactly the best way to make the qualitative and substantive case. Unless of course, you really dont give a fuck.
If the price for gas is really low right now, and getting lower, why are they so frantic to get more out of the ground so quick?
From a markets point of view, isn't it better to collectively go slower, (price goes up) and bring it up as needed? Thats safer all round because if there are groundwater disasters, they will not suddenly arise everywhere. We now can see what an earthquake can do. But what happens when a layer of the earth is turned to mush prior to an eartquake happening? I mean the fracked rock. Will the rocks slide easier on that broken wet crud and create a fault straight up to the surface?
Hydraulic action is pretty amazing.
Are the frackers creating hydraulic "lenses" that will bounce shock waves in different ways and maybe even focus them?
Any geo physicists on the board?
The biggest problem I can see is that none of the billions of dollars will wind up in the pockets of the average person in BC. Sure there will be a few jobs but the corporations will move their 'head offices' to the Caymans or Barbados in order to avoid and dodge as much tax as possible.
These natural resources belong equally to every citizen of BC and we should all get a share of the profits from them directly in our wallets. They should have to pay a percentage to each individual who lives here.
What part of the following quote from Post #3 in this thread do you not understand, Ken? If you spend more time on comprehension and less time on crafting obtuse secondary arguments to replace primary arguments that you created to counter any positive aspect to the realities of shale gas extraction, it may help you in a determination of Nova Scotia's shale gas future. I can cite many instances of proactive water use and reuse by producers here but it will just be another waste of my time because the closed-minded uninformed zealots of babble refuse to accept any challenge to their preconceptions.
I have some faith that you are not one of the ideological robots here but you keep painting yourself into that corner and then jumping over the paint in your next post. I'm not arguing with you, just presenting the information at hand.
Long long time ago Roscoe I acknoweldged that the opening post was misleading.
You did not initiate the "this is too much money to mess with" narrative. Centrist did. But you approvingly contributed. And I went after it. Maybe it would have been better if I just said that its not an answer to qualitative and substantive questions of the practice. But on top of that, the massive economic potential held out is always part of the industry pitch. And the economics is always predicted on 'there are no problems' and/or they will be resolved.
Good for people engaging in better practices on water use. But it isnt an answer to the issues being raised.
Here would be the responsible stewardship approach, and it has been touched on here already by one of the people you probably count among the 'ideological robots'.
You and others understandably are confident that you can extract the gas without harming water and air quality unduly. It doesnt inspire confidence when you frequently say there is nothing new here and absolutely dismiss critics of the industry. But we're talking best practice of finding the right way to do things, so that will be water under the bridge.
The prudent stewardship approach is to demonstrate this can be done right before proceeding on the scale this has been done in BC, let alone Wyoming to Pennsylvania.
You show us how its done. Environmentalists may want a standard approaching perfection, but there is no way we will be allowed that. If nothing else, the industry is not going to be held to higher standards than are the norm.
So there will be some debate about what is 'good enough' for containing environmental effects, but eventually a standard is agreed on. And by your confidence that the industry can do this right, once you have demonstrated that, away you go with development.
This will necessarily stall development while you are proving your case. But the resource is just getting more valuable- and we the people, the real owners, will get a better price. That is the Norway approach rather than the Alberta approach [ditto for BC and SK].
The biggest problem with revenue is a political issue,not an industry one. Check out BC's royalty and drill rights structure to realise that " the billions of dollars" are and have been accruing to government for years. Check out the BC budget tabled for the past years to find out how many billions BC has gained.
Also, do some due diligence on empolyment projections rather than dismissing the issue as "a few jobs".
"They" do "pay a percentage to each individual who lives here". You can ask for your share at the ballot box. Gordon Campbell spent yours on the Olympics and a 50% raise for himself while refusing to raise the minimum wage for 10 years. Maybe Christy Clark will do better - she has already undone Scrooge's minimum wage parsimony.
Anyone interested in a discussion of BC's gas royalty structure?
We are showing you how its done. Try learning from the process rather than inventing excuses to dismiss the effort. With respect, Ken, condescending lectures about the environment from uninformed individuals do nothing to resolve the many unknowns about shale gas while
The only method to develop the policies and procedures that regulate an activity is empirical evidence of results. Quebec has realised this and is taking benefit of BC's experiences to develop their own strategy.
To understand the issue, one has to take into consideration the environmental practices already in place to manage both planned remediation and one-off incidents. Environmental regulation in BC is stringent with all activities conducted under the physical presence and appoval of duly qualified independent professionals.
All contaminated solids and liquids are hauled (sometimes hundreds of kilometers) to designated disposal facilities. The solids, comprised of contaminated soils to reclamation facilities that have different processes depending on the composition of the contaminant and the liquids to deep disposal wells that are located in a suitable geophysical structure to prevent contamination of groundwater. This process is a huge generator of jobs and revenue.
Forty odd years of experience with the effects of drilling lends a certain confidence to the populace that those who have no experience mistake for 'boosterism'. BC does a fairly good job of regulation but the issue is not the professionalism of the regulators rather it is the avarice of the political class who live far from the activities and are only concerned with the revenues.
I am not naive. I understand that the money collected was misused and misspent by the government. When you look at our neighbors from Alberta and their lack of PST and one of the lowest provincial income tax rates in Canada it is pretty obvious our leaders have dropped the ball.
As for job creation, I have to wonder if their will really be more than a couple of hundred permanent positions created and I am pretty sure that at the middle management level and above a lot of people will be imported instead of hired and trained out of the unemployed here in BC.
oops hit the wrong button - looking for info on job creation
Jean Charest thanks you for your understanding. Québec's grudging partial halt to fracking (except for "scientific" purposes!) was a desperate manoeuvre to salvage something in the face of a broad mass movement demanding a total moratorium on shale gas extraction - and an equally desperate reaction to the BAPE report, which the government itself commissioned, which rejected the government's initial "full steam ahead" approach while stopping short of calling for a complete halt.
The partial victory over Charest - and over industry spokesperson Lucien Bouchard (remember him?) - was welcome, but the movement for a complete moratorium continues. Your statement that "Quebec has realised this" demonstrates either utter ignorance of the situation here, or some kind of self-serving attempt to dragoon Charest's defeat and use it in your apologia.
People actually interested in knowing what's going on in Québec might want to have a look at Québec solidaire's response to the BAPE report:
BAPE Report: Rejection of government's approach and victory for citizens
I confess to utter ignorance to whatever you are on about. I don't pay much attention to Quebec. Whether or not the province proceeds with shale gas extraction is their concern, not mine but thank you for the update.
Ah, I see, so when I read this upthread:
... that was someone who had stolen your identity? Or you're just an arrogant bullshitter? See, I am allowing for an innocent explanation here.
If you genuinely know nothing about Québec, shutting up about it is a viable option.
Unionist I am sure roscoe has some progressive views just not any on oil or gas or invading nations with oil or gas. He is clearly a big oil booster on these subjects. Tell me Roscoe in which threads do you discuss issues from a progressive perspective?
If anyone knows of a single jurisdiction in North America that has had a complete public inquiry into shale gas fracking, I would like to know about it. I'm serious, thats nota rhetorical point. There probably has not been one anywhere, but I'm not assuming that. And I would like to see such an animal if it exists.
What I know of the BAPE report, its a good preliminary. But not a formal public enquiry.
The state and provincial regulatory agencies have just 'looked into it'. It remains to be seen whether the quebec government will have an honest inquiry, or just intends to wait the 3 years so the industry with point man Bouchard can do a better job of selling itself to the people of Quebec. Fortunately its not just up to the government of Quebec.
But the moratorium will end after the election, and I hope people don't pin their hopes on the PQ with this. Because Quebec is no better than the ROC: no political party is to be trusted when it comes to regulation of the resource industries. We have to work with them, but putting any faith in them is foolish.
I've got no time for people calling for displays of progressive credentials. And in my opinion, while you can get away with it here, it violates the spirit of Babble policy.
Stick to the merits of what people say in the discussion at hand.
Then send a Pm to a moderator and stop playing daddy. I have no time for the promotion of the ecological destruction of my province for a few decades of money pouring through Howe street coffers and into off shore accounts. Roscoe in the threads I have posted in is an "in your face" apologist for a corporatist imperialist agenda. So speak to the issues and leave your mini lectures for your children or someone else.