So which LNG plants will be going ahead and in what order in BC?

NorthReport wrote:

There are now up to 8 or ten LNG plants proposed for northern BC which include Apache, Shell, Petronis, Chevron, BG Group.

How many do you think will actually be built and in what order?

Firstly, final investment decision (FIDs) are the dates when we will know if/when they will proceed. And due to fact that current projects are in environmental assessment phase (along with pipelines), the first FID won't arrive until fall, 2014 and then thereafter.

These are the major LNG projects in BC and I have posted a star based upon likelihood of an FID based upon info to date:

1. Petronas/Japex *

2. Shell/Mitsubishi/Korea Gas/Petro China * 

3. Chevron/Apache *

Later FID dates:

4. BG Group/?

5. ExxonMobil/?

6. CNOOC (Nexen)/Inpex

7. Sinopec

Note that along with the Japanese (Mitsubishi, Japex, Inpex), the Chinese are becoming heavily involved (Petro China, CNOOC, and Sinopec). Sinopec is very recent and has only made Bloomberg News - 2 days ago:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-22/british-columbia-nears-land-deal-for-sinopec-lng-export-project.html

all of these projects  depend on developers getting premium gas prices in Asian markets.

It may already be too late for that.

I guess the people in Kitimat are willing to take the risk that one of these LNG ships does not explode in their harbour. 

I am reminded how offensive and presumptuous your thread title is.

it may be offensive but it's not presumptuous. it's the reality on the ground here in northern BC. fortunes are being spent to insure it. and they've collapsed the economy enough here so anything is a go.

"radical forum"?

uh no....i just didn't know this was a "radical" forum or even a "progressive" one, i just thought it was a forum with people who cared about whatever their social or political cause was.

There is no DIRECT alternative for getting those [hugely fluffed up] job numbers in some other way.

But it is more than just 'possible'.

The catch is that it takes political and social will that does not exist now.

So it is not easy.

But last I checked, killing future generations because we put off making choices to cut GHG emissions, that will not be easy either.

The difference is, that comes later.

KenS wrote:

There is no DIRECT alternative for getting those [hugely fluffed up] job numbers in some other way.

But it is more than just 'possible'.

The catch is that it takes political and social will that does not exist now.

So it is not easy.

But last I checked, killing future generations because we put off making choices to cut GHG emissions, that will not be easy either.

The difference is, that comes later.

Actually it will be too easy for us (depending on how long we live), not so easy on future generations. And the worst consequences of the GHGs that have already been emitted will be occuring within the lifetime of many on this forum.

From another thread:

epaulo13 wrote:

Poll: British Columbians ready to shift away from fossil fuels

New polling research reveals that British Columbians want the province to produce, use and export fewer fossil fuels and embrace cleaner sources of energy instead.

The poll found more than three quarters of British Columbians (78%) agree that B.C. should transition away from using fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy to prevent climate change from getting worse. More than two thirds (67%) agree the province should decrease its reliance on fossil fuel exports to avoid future boom and bust economic cycles.

Another three quarters (74%) agree that the province has a good opportunity to create jobs and grow the economy by developing the solutions needed to transition away from fossil fuels.

“As climate science continues to demonstrate, climate change could have devastating impacts on both the environment and the economy,” said Kevin Sauve, spokesperson for the Pembina Institute in B.C. “It’s encouraging to see that British Columbians are on the same page. Not only do they understand the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but see economic benefits in developing cleaner sources of energy as well.”....

http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2540    

I'm not saying that this means there are no risks to the BC NDP taking a more critical approach to fracking and LNG. But it does show that it is not the simplistic dynamic of 

[allegedly] "opposing jobs" = marginalization for the NDP

... let alone pretending the dynamic is the same in NB and NS, or Ontario for that matter,  as it is in BC.

I think the tide is turning on fossil fuel and infrastructure will be the first to suffer.  That is why Harper and everyone is in such a rush.  Any oil they don't sell in the next 20 years is probably going to stay in the ground.  So they want to make sure Canadian pirates get the money instead of Venezualan pirates (or anyone else for that matter).

The longer that people can put off the decision to build the less that will be built.  Already future markets for oil are factoring in costs that they anticipate will come from environmental tariffs on their products.

You could also explain why if the BCNDP is irrelevant, that you care whether positions are taken that you think will lose vote share and/or seats in the Leg.

You are a lot more difficult to understand than BC politics NR.

Making pronouncements you cant be bothered explaining, doesnt help.

Its not BC politics I need explained, it is your reasoning.

Whatever he said, it was a while ago.

The Petronas led bid has the leg up to be first, pretty much since they got in the game.

Oh boy.

What else is new? 

Moral of the story: even without the chickenshit BCNDP, Christy Clark is poised to be left high and dry- and it could easily all unwind in 2 years or less.

LNG is a very fragile house of cards.

But then, chickenshit strategy says that even if this happens that little is built, you dont want to be the one tagged with the blame for that.

So, please, no one talk about the Emporer's Clothes.

Hi NR. And Hi again Ken. Always enjoy the topic even that ya both come from a different perspective.

In any event, NR... never believe what a politician says or what a government says. It's all hype and political PR or BS. Toss that info into the wastebasket ASAP.

That said, alot of actual/potential LNG employment numbers can be derived directly from LNG proponents themselves in their extensive filings at the BC Environment Assessment office as well as at the CEAA.

Off the top of my head, potential employment figures for just one major LNG facility:

1. LNG facility (construction - 3,000 - 5,000 (at peak) for a ~4-year period;

2. Natural gas pipeline from NE BC to coast - ~3,000 for a ~3 - 4-year period;

3. Annual NG drilling program in NE BC for the duration of the life of the LNG facility - (undetermined)

4. During construction - service industries will benefit - eg. Britco Structures in Fraser Valley constructing higher-end modular work camps for housing northern workers;

5. Upon completion (after ~4 years of construction), a typical LNG facility will employ roughly 300 - 400 workers directly plus indirect contracted/servicing employment;

And yep. Now have a 99% confidence level that Petronas will be first out of the starting gate by year-end 2014. Still in environment assessment phase and EAC expected in late fall, which is required for final sanctioning or final investment decision.

Why Petronas? Several reasons:

1. Did their homework and bought an excellent asset in Progress Energy;

2. Progress Energy's major acreage in the North Montney Basin in NE BC is "liquids rich". IOW, the wells all flow with proprane, butane, naptha, etc. which is priced near a barrel of oil. Very profitable right there and pays for drilling. Natural gas is just a "free" by-product in that context;

3. Progress embarked last year on major drilling program in NE BC and has roughly doubled proven/probable NG reserves;

4. Unlike the energy majors requiring certain LNG pricing in the Pacific Rim, that pricing is "academic" to Petronas (their own words) as Petronas is not only an end LNG user but also an LNG supplier to others contractually from their own dwindling reserves;

5. As of yesterday, Petronas has sold down their interest (LNG facility, upstream BC assets, etc.) to 62% from 100% just a year ago to other LNG purchasers with long-term off-take LNG agreements:

a. Japan's Japex - 10%

b. PetroleumBRUNEI - 3%

c. Indian Oil - 10%

d. Chinese Sinopec - 15% (plus an additional 3 million tonnes/annum in LNG output);

Petronas has been very aggressive in its proposed Prince Rupert LNG facility and 99% likelihood will give final sanction by December, 2014. $35 billion development in total. Basically a done deal.

Remember the other competitive advantages of proposed NE BC LNG over rivals in Australia and the U.S. For example:

1. 10 days shorter shipping time to Tokyo harbour over proposed U.S. Gulf Coast LNG facilities (only 1 approved by FERC BTW);

2. Lower NW BC ambient temperature (compared to tropical Australia and U.S. Gulf Coast) permitting 25%+ more throughput in LNG facilities (basically pays for pipeline tolling charges to west coast);

3. New Panama Canal will not permit Q-Flex LNG carriers passage due to width. Q-Flex LNG carriers have a 38% greater capacity than a slightly smaller LNG carrier. Certainly the Q-Max won't fit through the new Panama Canal either. As a matter of fact, Japan has protested to Panama the foregoing as the smaller LNG carriers will dramatically increase shipping costs (economies of scale and 10 days longer than NW BC).

4. Australia's LNG cost blow-outs have even spooked Australia's largest current LNG producer, Woodside Petroleum, enough to enter into an arrangement with the BC gov't at Grassy Point, north of Prince Rupert, for a potential LNG facility. Those crazy Australian cost-blow-outs include cooks earning $350,000/annum and laundry hands earnign $325,000/year. Bizarre.

The next 2 proposed LNG projects lined up in BC, for final sanctioning, are Shell/PetroChina/Mitsubishi/Korea Gas in Kitimat. Big photo-op today with BC's preem about that project. Shell has actually purchased another 5% from both Mitsubishi and Kogas to increase its interest to 50%. The other is Chevron/Apache. While 50% of the Shell LNG proposal is by end LNG users, Shell and Chevron will need to sell it's LNG on long-term contracts, oil -indexed, in the nighbourhood of $14 - 15 MMBtu. Won't see final decisions their until late 2015 at the earliest.

Both Shell and Chevron are in waiting mode to let the Asian market settle down on pricing as the Asians prefer some hub-indexed pricing. The Asian market thought that it could purchase cheap Henry-Hub (U.S. Gulf Coast) indexed natural gas, which was selling for as little as $2.50 MMBtu a couple of years ago. And those are "tolling agreements" also require several additional dollars for liquefaction and other costs prior to the more expensive shipping. But the Asian market has also been spooked by the spike in Hen ry-Hub in January to roughly $8 MMBtu, which makes their LNG purchases more expensive than from proposed Canadian facilities - shipping costs included.

So we have about 15 proposals for west coast LNG. Likely 3 - 5 of the large ones will be built. The last one to be built (if sanctioned) would be the ExxonMobil/Imperial Oil proposal. ExxonMobil is very long-term operator and if they decide to go ahead it won't be until 2019 - another 5 years from now  - even though they recently received their NEB export license.

That's my spiel. Now back to regularly scheduled LNG political programming. ;) 

On CBC's The Current, there was a discussion of the UN's 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. One of the guests, Tzeporah Berman - a longtime environmentalist, noted that for the first time in history more money was spent on renewable energy than on fossil fuels and nuclear energy globally in the last couple of years due to a 700% increase in renewable energy since 2004 with many technological improvements occurring in the last few years, which means many countries and governments are starting to respond to this crisis. 

However, the BC government continues down a long-term heads you lose, tails you lose path. Either the fossil fuel industries and their government supporters lose because we have the global warming catastrophe or they lose because, if the world somehow avoids the worst aspects of global warming because it shifts quickly enough to alternative energy forms, we end up be the modern buggywhip industry left behind in the industrial goo of a fossil fuel-oil rig rust belt.

You can listen to The Current show on this issue at

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/03/31/ipcc-climate-change-repo...

Click on Listen and you will get the audio report in two parts: (1) IPCC Climate Change Report: Official Report of Doom?

(2) It's the end of the world as the we know it ... What now?

Berman's comments start at around 4:25 of Part 2. 

During and after the election Christy Clark promised an economic bonanza from LNG for BC. "Clark's Liberals say LNG development in northern B.C. could translate into a trillion-dollar economic opportunity that generates 100,000 jobs" (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/20/christy-clark-lng-ubcm_n_3959628...), thereby generating "$4.3 billion and $8.7 billion in extra government revenues each year" (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Christy+Clark+projects+billion+windfall...}.

However, reality is starting to dawn for this fantasy on two fronts - the environmental and the economic. On the economic front: 

Quote:

No one following the media coverage prior to the last provincial election could have overlooked the speculative nature of B.C. Liberal promises on liquefied natural gas. ...

“Fantasy gas fund built on shifting sands: putting faith in LNG is like counting your chickens before they hatch — or banking on a future that may never arrive,” read another. ...

Even as the Liberals touted the LNG windfall, their own budget documents acknowledged the iffy nature of the enterprise. From Potential LNG Revenue to the B.C. government, a report prepared by Grant Thornton LLP and tabled with the budget on Feb. 19, 2013:

“The financial estimates contained in this report are intended to measure the potential impact created under a given set of assumptions for a particular sector. ... A number of factors could cause actual events or results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking estimates. The estimates are not forecasts and this report is not intended to attribute any probability that those impacts will occur or not occur in future ... Our analyses are based upon information provided by and/or on behalf of the province. We assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information provided by and/or on behalf of the province. “

Not exactly take-it-to-the bank.

A year later, there are still no final investment decisions for the construction of even one LNG terminal and not a penny of revenue is projected to arrive in the provincial treasury between now and the next election.

Still, the Liberals have put out another report to backstop their claim that their proposed LNG tax regime would be 1) competitive with rival jurisdictions and 2) nonetheless capable of delivering the billions necessary to generate the prosperity fund.

The report, this time from Ernst Young, also comes with ample caveats:

“The projections in this report are not estimates of revenues to be collected, and are merely to facilitate a comparative analysis of the fiscal frameworks. The cost and operating inputs into the analysis have been provided by the ministry (of natural gas development) on the basis of a set of hypothetical data ... in reality, proponents will have other activities that are likely to reduce their tax payable.

“Projections can and will change based on global and local influences including commodity prices and economic factors and as the global market for LNG continues to develop. The inherent uncertainty and variability in the assumptions may result in the province receiving significantly different revenue from the LNG projects than estimated.”

As loopholes go, some of those would appear to leave enough manoeuvring room for an LNG tanker. ...

Chevron and other companies aren’t going to walk away from a good deal for their shareholders. But they’ve staked a lot less in terms of corporate credibility than the Liberals, with their grandiose promises of a trillion dollars worth of economic activity and a $100-billion prosperity fund.

When it comes to driving a hard bargain, it strikes me that it is the Liberals who can’t afford to walk away from the table on LNG, not the multinational oil and gas companies.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Vaughn+Palmer+disclaimers...

On the environmental front:

In the third report on climate change released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on April 13th (the previous two were released in September 2013 and on March 31st, 2014 and titled "Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change"}, concludes that worldwide emissions of cabon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have reached unprecedented levels with emissions growing more quicklyin the first decade of the 21st century than in any of the three previous decades.

Quote:

There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.”

Scenarios show that to have a likely chance of limiting the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius, means lowering global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century. Ambitious mitigation may even require removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientific literature confirms that even less ambitious temperature goals would still require similar emissions reductions.

For the report, about 1200 scenarios from scientific literature have been analyzed. These scenarios were generated by 31 modelling teams around the world to explore the economic, technological and institutional prerequisites and implications of mitigation pathways with different degrees of ambition. ...

Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere requires emissions reductions from energy production and use, transport, buildings, industry, land use, and human settlements. Mitigation efforts in one sector determine the needs in others.

Cutting emissions from electricity production to near zero is a common feature of ambitious mitigation scenarios. But using energy efficiently is also important. ...

The core task of climate change mitigation is decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from the growth of economies and population.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg3/20140413_pr_pc_wg3_en.pdf

Quote:

 

While the B.C. Liberals continue to finalize the details of their proposed tax on the liquefied natural gas industry, Finance Minister Mike de Jong has hinted that they are preparing to scale down the controversial levy.

The tax, centrepiece of a prosperity fund that is supposed to underwrite retirement of the provincial debt, was sketched out in the Feb. 18 provincial budget as “a two-tier income tax with a tier one rate of 1.5 per cent and a tier 2 rate of up to seven per cent.”

Three months later, it turns out that those two little words “up to” were a critical component in the government conception of the tax. ...

Another aspect of the tax that has yet to be defined publicly is precisely how it will be calculated.

The budget documents said the 1.5 per cent first tier tax will be levied on net proceeds, defined as revenue less operating expenses, once a given LNG terminal goes into commercial production. The operator will also be allowed to accumulate amounts paid under the first tax for deduction against the second.

Other deductions will include “all costs associated with constructing an LNG facility,” including the systems for purifying and liquefying the gas, storage tanks, and the marine loading system. Also, possibly, supporting infrastructure like control rooms, maintenance shops, warehouses; interest charges during the course of construction, and other matters yet to be determined.

All of those amounts will accumulate in a capital investment account. The budget documents again: “Net income for the purposes of the Tier 2 tax will be net proceeds less up to 100 per cent of the capital investment account. As such, the Tier 2 tax rate is not effective until the capital investment account is depleted.” 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vaughn+Palmer+details+much+downward+pre...

Prediction [not rocket science]:

[1] Petronas is deeply commited to this, for much broader and longer term reasons than the other consortia, and can probably keep partners on board. BCs bargaining positioning had been gradually slipping anyway; the additional erosion from the Russia-China deal means Petronas can consolidate ratcheting down what BC gets in royalties and environmental standards.

[2] The increased competion undermines the pricing assumptions for all the consortia. Added to that: once new infrastructure from Russia is in play, there is more gas where that is coming from. Where does the addition of further competitive pressure end? No matter what pricing concessions BC is willing to throw in, it is not sufficient, and all the other consortia besides Petronas at least look at walking away.

Christy Clark confronted by Aboriginal leaders torn over LNG plans

It was an uncomfortable moment. 

Treaty 8 Chiefs travelled to the Premier’s LNG summit in Vancouver this past week hoping to present Clark with a scathing letter that describes the mere "token consultation" the province has had with them over LNG.  

The Cree-Dene leaders are both afraid and interested in B.C.'s multi-billion-dollar gas plans for their remote northeast territory.  So they sought to invite the Premier to their homeland for a June 21st event celebrating the 100th anniversary of their treaty with the Crown, as an opportunity to re-open the dialogue.

But the attempt didn't go down that well.

For the previous hour, Christy Clark was on stage with the President of Shell Oil boasting to some 1,500 delegates about the unprecedented opportunities for natural gas development in B.C.  But with the chiefs in the front row listening, she scarcely mentioned the Treaty 8 lands so critical to her LNG dreams.

“If you live on top of a sea of energy, for heaven’s sake, you should benefit from when that energy is extracted from your land,” Clark told the marquee industry crowd....

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/christy-clark-confronted-aborigina...

Below is an open letter from Dr. G. Elijah Dann on why BC needs to avoid implementing her LNG plan. 

Quote:

Dear Premier Clark,

I thought I should write this letter to you for a few reasons. It's largely because you don't want to sit down and talk too much about some of the problems with your aspirations forliquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in B.C.

On those few occasions you have, reporters never ask you the questions that many of us out in the community want answered. (The fact that our news sources and journalists have largely failed our democratic demand for political scrutiny, we'll leave for another chat.)

For now, I want to ask you the question that fills the news these days: "What do you think about the growing reports of climate change around the world?"

Huge ice sheets in the arctic falling into the ocean. Rising sea levels. Floods, juiced-up hurricanes and tornadoes wiping out people's lives, their properties and their communities.

Just one of many examples was a few days ago in Bosnia: more than a million people affected by the worst floods to hit in living memory, compared to "the 'terrifying' destruction to that of the country's 1992-95 war."

And of course the latest report from a United Nations panel about the reality of climate change, and how it's reaching the point of no return, with the worst yet to come.

With 97 per cent of climate scientists saying it's true, I think most people in B.C. hope you agree.

If you think this challenge is real, you should then understand the opposition British Columbians (and indeed citizens across the over-heating globe) have to LNG facilities.

We believe that turning to natural gas is nothing short of a denial of the climatic upheaval we see everywhere, and a doubling-down on the very thing (fuelling catastrophic climate change) that has brought us this current mess.

Let's start with fracking.

I know you've been off to China and other countries to sell them on the LNG projects, even saying "we are good at fracking," but have you been up north to trace how the natural gas is gained, and to see the fracking process itself?

This four minute video offers a vivid example. It isn't pretty, is it? Scientists are warning us to further study the link between fracking and the poisoning of our water, and also the link between fracking and earthquakes. ...

How do we move away from those energies sources that have caused climate change -- oil/gas/coal -- and transition to sustainable, renewable energy sources? ...

Take a look at the Princeton researchers who identified 15 basic technologies that could be used. If at least half were chosen, we'd be able to control the world's carbon emissions for at least the next 50 years.

Solar panels, for instance, have undergone radical technological refinement in the past ten years. Try watching the presentation at Berkeley, "How to Bring Solar Energy to Seven Billion People." The use of wind turbines. The use of water turbines. And of course the mere requirement for greater energy efficiency would go a long way too.

You can still go on road trips. But instead of visiting China, why not visit those countries that are heavily investing in sustainable, renewable resources?

You wouldn't have to go far. Just a quick trip to California. With "the world's eighth-largest economy in 2013," accepting that climate change is a reality -- it is quickly moving away from its dependency on fossil fuel. Certainly B.C. could follow suit.

In B.C., we haven't, as of yet, faced the brunt of climate change like California and other communities around the world. But with raging fires, droughts and those earthquakes so close to us, we now see the overwhelming necessity for change.

This was recently affirmed by the World Bank. Its vice-president, Rachel Kyte, said in a press briefing: "Climate change is one of the greatest threats to economic growth, not to mentions lives."

Lastly, I want to add that one of the most troubling parts of this debate over LNG is the strife brought to B.C. communities fighting about these projects. On the forefront is the grief and turmoil thrust upon First Nations. ...

Premier Clark, we look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/03/stephen-harper-on-barack-obamas-...

ETA: An additional complication in BC has occurred with Premier Clark's ex-husband, Mark Marissen, taking a job as a senior executive with one of the refinery projects.  While Clark has recused herself from any decision by the Liberal government on this issue, it will raise questions about potential favourtism in the approval of refinery proposals. 

Mark Marissen is "a senior strategist for the Liberal Party of Canada" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Marissen) who was Paul Martin's and Stephane Dion's campaign chair for the Liberal Party leadership and co-chaired his 2004, 2006 and 2008 federal election campaigns. 

Quote:

Premier Christy Clark is recusing herself from all government decisions on oil refineries after her ex-husband was hired as a senior executive at one of the proposed projects.

Clark said she will not participate in cabinet discussions or decisions involving potential oil refineries because her former partner, Mark Marissen, has been named executive vicepresident of communications and research at Pacific Future Energy Corporation.

Pacific Future Energy announced Tuesday a $10-billion proposal to build "the world's greenest refinery" on B.C.'s north coast, near Prince Rupert, which would refine raw bitumen into gasoline, diesel and kerosene, in partnership with First Nations communities. ...

The premier said she sought guidance from B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser last week after hearing about her ex-husband's involvement.

Clark and Marissen separated around 2009, and later divorced, but retain joint custody of their son Hamish. Ethics expert Eike-Henner Kluge said Clark made the right decision.

"I don't know who gave her advice, but it's very good," said Kluge, a professor at the University of Victoria. He said the couple's son is a "hub of a possible conflict of interest" because his financial well-being through his father's side will depend on the success of the project and could lead to the perception of influencing the premier's decisions. ...

Ex-spouses of MLAs are not specifically covered under B.C.'s Conflict of Interest Act.

The act requires MLAs to proactively disclose their financial holdings, as well as those of their current spouse. According to the law, a conflict exists when any duty of public office leads to "the opportunity to further his or her private interest." However, the act also describes an "apparent conflict of interest" in which a "reasonably well informed person" would conclude an MLA's official duties led to personal benefit. Previous rulings by conflict commissioners have also advised MLAs to recuse themselves "out of an abundance of caution" to avoid potential criticism. ...

Newspaper businessman David Black has also proposed a $16-billion oil refinery in Kitimat, which would process crude oil for shipment overseas.

Neither Black's proposal, nor Pacific Future Energy's proposal, is guaranteed to proceed to construction.

Pacific Future Energy said it is working on a "pre-feasibility study" of its plan over the next nine to 12 months.

Both projects would eventually require some pipeline, rail or other method to transfer bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to B.C.'s coast. ...

 

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=4171513e-f1a9-46a0-b317-845f1db4e628