- Status
tincan
Well-Known Member
I guess I'd fall into your categorization of 'against almost everything when it comes to job creation' as I feel BC has been ripped off for far too long when it comes to our resource development (gas, logs, fish, mining, etc). For a province as rich as ours in these resources we (all of BC) should be in great shape with regard to education, health and basic services. The fact is we BCer's do not see the benefits of these multi-billion dollar projects in anywhere close to the proportion of where we should. Take a look at who owns the resource companies and who actually gets rich on these deals... it ain't your average BC voter that is for sure. I'm not saying there is no financial benefit to these large scale projects. However, the benefits are tiny compared to where they have been in past decades and they are increasingly going to a handful of BCer's and a handful of foreign owners of our resources. On the resource front I am 'pro' sustainable development of just about any of the industries you mention provided the economics make sense to BCer's... and yes I am in finance and do work with these industries and see just how short-changed we are getting. BC needs to take more control of our resources and commit to value-added here in BC which will actually create decent long-term jobs and not just temp construction jobs for each mega-project.
I also do not discount job creation in other industries such as tourism, tech, film, manufacturing, etc .... many of which have thrived as a result of BC's brand of 'clean and green'. It should also be pretty clear that most of our biggest assets (real estate) would take a big hit if we decided to let resource companies have a free for all. For all of the talk of resource development I think it's important to note that it is just a fraction of BC's total job market and GDP as sometimes people seem to think it dominates our entire provincial economy.
I also do not discount job creation in other industries such as tourism, tech, film, manufacturing, etc .... many of which have thrived as a result of BC's brand of 'clean and green'. It should also be pretty clear that most of our biggest assets (real estate) would take a big hit if we decided to let resource companies have a free for all. For all of the talk of resource development I think it's important to note that it is just a fraction of BC's total job market and GDP as sometimes people seem to think it dominates our entire provincial economy.
GLG
Well-Known Member
More than a few nails in the coffin for BC LNG have been pounded over the last few years. The most recent one is Qatar who is ramping up for a price war with everyone else that either produces LNG or is thinking of getting in on the market like us. Their advantage is a vast supply of dirt cheap gas, built infrastructure and cheap limitless labour. There is no way that BC can compete without massive subsidies to this industry.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-qatar-lng-idUSKBN19Q0YX
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Qatar's plan to boost liquefied natural gas (LNG) output by 30 percent is the opening shot in a price war for customers in Asia pitting the Gulf state against competitors from the United States, Russia and Australia.
Qatar, facing regional isolation in a diplomatic dispute with its Gulf neighbors, took energy markets by surprise on Tuesday when it said it would raise its LNG production to 100 million tonnes per year - equivalent to a third of current global supplies - within the next five to seven years.
It suggests the wealthy kingdom is preparing for a lengthy battle with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, who were due to meet on Wednesday to decide whether to continue sanctions they imposed on Qatar over accusations it was aiding terrorism and courting regional rival Iran.
Qatar's move will add gas to an already oversupplied market in a thinly disguised challenge to other exporters who are also raising their output.
With low production costs and infrastructure already in place, Qatar is well placed to come out on top, analysts say. Flooding the market with more LNG will help defend its place as the world's top exporter, a position challenged by Australia.
"Qatar is losing market share, so it could be about becoming number one again in LNG," said Neil Beveridge, senior oil and gas analyst at research and brokerage firm Sanford C. Bernstein.
That's a 30% increase to the world supply...... Remember what happened when the world oil supply increased in 2014? If anything the big loser will be Australia who has bet large on expensive LNG.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-qatar-lng-idUSKBN19Q0YX
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Qatar's plan to boost liquefied natural gas (LNG) output by 30 percent is the opening shot in a price war for customers in Asia pitting the Gulf state against competitors from the United States, Russia and Australia.
Qatar, facing regional isolation in a diplomatic dispute with its Gulf neighbors, took energy markets by surprise on Tuesday when it said it would raise its LNG production to 100 million tonnes per year - equivalent to a third of current global supplies - within the next five to seven years.
It suggests the wealthy kingdom is preparing for a lengthy battle with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, who were due to meet on Wednesday to decide whether to continue sanctions they imposed on Qatar over accusations it was aiding terrorism and courting regional rival Iran.
Qatar's move will add gas to an already oversupplied market in a thinly disguised challenge to other exporters who are also raising their output.
With low production costs and infrastructure already in place, Qatar is well placed to come out on top, analysts say. Flooding the market with more LNG will help defend its place as the world's top exporter, a position challenged by Australia.
"Qatar is losing market share, so it could be about becoming number one again in LNG," said Neil Beveridge, senior oil and gas analyst at research and brokerage firm Sanford C. Bernstein.
That's a 30% increase to the world supply...... Remember what happened when the world oil supply increased in 2014? If anything the big loser will be Australia who has bet large on expensive LNG.
Alex_c
Well-Known Member
I really wish the average person wouldn't simplify it down to a matter of "jobs or no jobs". What kind of jobs, for whom, and for what length of time? Does creating these jobs have a net economic benfit, or will externalities paid for by the taxpayer eat away at any positive revenue collected by the gov't as a result? Investment should always be a long game, not a get rich quick scheme that serves few and affects many.
Mt. Polley is a great example of kid glove treatment in the face of one of the worst mining disasters in BC history. No charges laid and a limp dick investigation really sends a message to those who have a loose interpretation of environmental regulations. All so we don't "undermine public confidence" in the BC mining industry. I guess 6 figure donations to the administration responsible for the investigation doesn't hurt either.
There's some real wilful ignorance for a lot of people who can't see beyond their paycheque. Often times growth requires a period of discomfort, as not taking the easy road is harder than doing the same old thing. It's time we as a Province demand more from ourselves and do something difficult, with great long term benefits instead of staying our course while more innovative economies leave us in their dust.
All that being said, I fully support resource extraction, since if you can't grow it, you have to mine it. I need gas for my boat and I need to heat my house. But why spend millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get into a market you'll never compete in? Disruptions of established industries happen all the time, and we should at least insulate ourselves to the reality that global demand of oil and gas may be finite. We don't want to end up like the buggy whip makers, big box retailers, photographic film manufacturers, video rental stores and the major record labels etc.
Mt. Polley is a great example of kid glove treatment in the face of one of the worst mining disasters in BC history. No charges laid and a limp dick investigation really sends a message to those who have a loose interpretation of environmental regulations. All so we don't "undermine public confidence" in the BC mining industry. I guess 6 figure donations to the administration responsible for the investigation doesn't hurt either.
There's some real wilful ignorance for a lot of people who can't see beyond their paycheque. Often times growth requires a period of discomfort, as not taking the easy road is harder than doing the same old thing. It's time we as a Province demand more from ourselves and do something difficult, with great long term benefits instead of staying our course while more innovative economies leave us in their dust.
All that being said, I fully support resource extraction, since if you can't grow it, you have to mine it. I need gas for my boat and I need to heat my house. But why spend millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get into a market you'll never compete in? Disruptions of established industries happen all the time, and we should at least insulate ourselves to the reality that global demand of oil and gas may be finite. We don't want to end up like the buggy whip makers, big box retailers, photographic film manufacturers, video rental stores and the major record labels etc.
nicnat
Well-Known Member
the main beneficiaries to this decision are the yanks, now both our oil and gas industry have no other real choice other than to sell to the yanks at a big discount so they can sell our oil and gas at world prices. hopefully trans mountain expansion continues to go thru, it sure as hell beats transporting the oil to the coast by rail along the thompson and fraser rivers.
With all due respect, I think the prople of BC are the main beneficiaries of this cancellation. It'll be a longggggg way until global demand for fossil fuels disappears and there's a possibilty that we can sell the resource at a higher price in the long term. Right now, the benefits don't justufy the cost. Let's just leave it at that.
Coukd you clarify who'd potentially buy our oil and gas from the americans and why?
Last edited:
nicnat
Well-Known Member
americans are already selling lng and are in the process of expanding offshore sales, they have been selling to mexico for a long time and presently buy our nat gas for 2.50 and sell their nat gas to mexico at 3.50
they will be selling to India http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...fshore-jv-with-india/articleshow/58957922.cms
they will be selling to china http://www.worldoil.com/news/2017/5/22/chinas-love-for-us-gas-begins-as-trump-rolls-out-red-carpet
cheniere has already shipped lng to 11 different countries, including countries in the middle east europe southamerica and asia.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...s-liquefied-natural-gas-exports/#1f37f63ab6e2
if jordan cove gets approved in oregon bc natgas would be some of the product shipped worldwide (mostly asia) out of there.
mostly the americans will buy and use our nat gas at a discount (which they are doing along with oil) and export theirs which is produced closer to their lng export facilities.
they will be selling to India http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...fshore-jv-with-india/articleshow/58957922.cms
they will be selling to china http://www.worldoil.com/news/2017/5/22/chinas-love-for-us-gas-begins-as-trump-rolls-out-red-carpet
cheniere has already shipped lng to 11 different countries, including countries in the middle east europe southamerica and asia.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...s-liquefied-natural-gas-exports/#1f37f63ab6e2
if jordan cove gets approved in oregon bc natgas would be some of the product shipped worldwide (mostly asia) out of there.
mostly the americans will buy and use our nat gas at a discount (which they are doing along with oil) and export theirs which is produced closer to their lng export facilities.
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Copied from castanets news service:
The Canadian Press - Jul 26 2:21 pm
Experts say dreams of a booming liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia appear to be evaporating, at least for the foreseeable future, after Petronas and its partners scrapped a $36-billion megaproject in the province.
The proponents of two other major projects say they are proceeding toward final investment decisions, although Chevron says it has reduced capital spending for its proposed facility in Kitimat in response to market conditions.
A consortium led by Malaysia's state-owned Petronas announced yesterday it would not proceed with the Pacific NorthWest LNG project near Port Edward due to a downturn in market conditions.
GMP FirstEnergy analyst Martin King says the outlook for LNG on Canada's West Coast has been negative for years and he says the likelihood is low that other large, expensive projects will proceed.
University of British Columbia business Prof. James Tansey says he doesn't think the Petronas decision is a death knell for the industry but it's unlikely any major facilities will be built in the next three to five years.
The National Energy Board released a report last week that warned Canada was a late entrant to the global LNG market and the next seven years will be critical to the development of the industry.
The Canadian Press - Jul 26 2:21 pm
Experts say dreams of a booming liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia appear to be evaporating, at least for the foreseeable future, after Petronas and its partners scrapped a $36-billion megaproject in the province.
The proponents of two other major projects say they are proceeding toward final investment decisions, although Chevron says it has reduced capital spending for its proposed facility in Kitimat in response to market conditions.
A consortium led by Malaysia's state-owned Petronas announced yesterday it would not proceed with the Pacific NorthWest LNG project near Port Edward due to a downturn in market conditions.
GMP FirstEnergy analyst Martin King says the outlook for LNG on Canada's West Coast has been negative for years and he says the likelihood is low that other large, expensive projects will proceed.
University of British Columbia business Prof. James Tansey says he doesn't think the Petronas decision is a death knell for the industry but it's unlikely any major facilities will be built in the next three to five years.
The National Energy Board released a report last week that warned Canada was a late entrant to the global LNG market and the next seven years will be critical to the development of the industry.
It's all about confidence. Plain and simple. Why invest in a region that sticks you with nothing but over the top regulations and offers not much hope of that changing anytime soon? I see the states starting to become more and more pro business, so the flip side is we can scream all we want about BC residents not seeing benefits of these business' (which they do) but investment capital always looks for the path of least resistance.
Scare away money and the growth stops.
Scare away money and the growth stops.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Interesting read....
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/ntrlgs/rprt/2017lngmrkt/index-eng.html
https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/ntrlgs/rprt/2017lngmrkt/index-eng.html
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Wow I had no idea that the entire population of BC relied on the oil and gas industry. This has been a great read. All of BC need to see the light that the oil and gas industry pays all the revenues. We really need to get on board with big companies that want to build big facilities when there isn't a demand for them. 
I really don't believe this old, tired PR speaking note, Towney. If there are resources - that will interest someone. How that resource is extracted and transported will have numerous options - some of which don't make sense. That's the supposed job of an environmental assessment - is to weed those options out.
That's ok. You don't have to believe anything, it's just how our global economy works, we are competing directly for investment capital. Anyway it was just my 2c, have a nice day.
Are we really??? Doesn't look like it....
spring fever
Well-Known Member
Wasn't going to chime in But-I realise that market conditions drove this decision but in some ways this is not a good thing. Every time a special interest group be it FN, PETA, save the mushrooms
Stop Hunting, Stop Fishing to Save Orca's--you get it--the groups none of us join-win a decision or drive a company away by their protests or litigation-the ordinary working person in B.C. loses.
They are incredibly vocal, camera grabbing, tear jerking---who are these people?? Most of them don't look like they could hold a job or are so comfortable in their little cocoons they don't really care whether the economy is great or not. I am as ecologically sensitive as the next guy--in fact I could be more so because my working life is over---sure I want to fish til I can no longer stand---but you cannot have special interest groups dictating what happens in the economy or pretty soon you have nobody wanting to bring jobs here at all. I'm sorry but BC cannot survive on eco-tourism and being "Green" You can applaud these special interest groups if it coincides with your beliefs but wait til they turn their attention to something you hold dear such as salmon fishing, hunting, boating or eating a steak then you will want the rule of Law to decide-not this less than 1% mob of sometimes paid lobbyists'! We have elections, courts, laws but suddenly if you are a protester against something; just protest and get media attention so that it hangs up due process-puts it into a review-drag it on for years and it will go away! Jobs will stop coming and maybe even leave---time to have a hard look at who really benefits from a protest and maybe it's just a ploy for a payout! As for LNG-well- good or bad it's gone-and B.C. has demonstrated that while we say we are "Open for Business "-are we really--you have to get by the 1% of special interest groups that actually call the shots in this province!! My 2 cents!
Stop Hunting, Stop Fishing to Save Orca's--you get it--the groups none of us join-win a decision or drive a company away by their protests or litigation-the ordinary working person in B.C. loses.
They are incredibly vocal, camera grabbing, tear jerking---who are these people?? Most of them don't look like they could hold a job or are so comfortable in their little cocoons they don't really care whether the economy is great or not. I am as ecologically sensitive as the next guy--in fact I could be more so because my working life is over---sure I want to fish til I can no longer stand---but you cannot have special interest groups dictating what happens in the economy or pretty soon you have nobody wanting to bring jobs here at all. I'm sorry but BC cannot survive on eco-tourism and being "Green" You can applaud these special interest groups if it coincides with your beliefs but wait til they turn their attention to something you hold dear such as salmon fishing, hunting, boating or eating a steak then you will want the rule of Law to decide-not this less than 1% mob of sometimes paid lobbyists'! We have elections, courts, laws but suddenly if you are a protester against something; just protest and get media attention so that it hangs up due process-puts it into a review-drag it on for years and it will go away! Jobs will stop coming and maybe even leave---time to have a hard look at who really benefits from a protest and maybe it's just a ploy for a payout! As for LNG-well- good or bad it's gone-and B.C. has demonstrated that while we say we are "Open for Business "-are we really--you have to get by the 1% of special interest groups that actually call the shots in this province!! My 2 cents!
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
I've seen the same people applauding this outcome complain about raw resources leaving the country in this very forum. We just lost a value add opportunity, gas is still being drilled for in this province, it's going to go to the US for the extra processing as a raw resource. It's not going to stop coming out of the ground. Market conditions changed in the better part of the decade it took our elected leaders to arrive at the approval decision due to the incredible power of the special interest groups we've empowered. We drug out feet, now someone else gets to add the value.
GLG
Well-Known Member
So you fellas were willing to trade away the Skeena Salmon for this project? For what .... shareholder value to Malaysia. We need to look at everyone of these projects to see what benefits they bring against what the costs there is. If we don't we are selling out to our future generations.
I find it unfortunate that some people are stuck in their inaccurate perceptions - rather than being able to comprehend things like governance. First Nations are not a "special interest group" - instead they are holders of Rights and Titles - like any government or land owner. If someone developed a dumb idea to "make money" for themselves by dismantling your house or property or sh*tting in your garden - you'd have something to say about that - maybe even arrest them. Same thing for First Nations and their territories. People have the right to govern themselves and develop governance protocols and perform due diligence. People also have the right to develop an opinion based on misleading and inaccurate info - but luckily ignorance can be cured by spending time in developing an understanding of what governance actually is.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Official policy on BC's potential LNG industry.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/go...inet-mlas/minister-letter/mungall-mandate.pdf
Ensure British Columbians benefit from liquefied natural gas projects by requiring proposals to meet the following four conditions:
(1) Proposals must include express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians;
(2) Proposals must provide a fair return for our resource;
(3) Proposals must respect and make partners of First Nations; and
(4) Proposals must protect our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments.
I'll wait and see how this affects future projects because the last government seemed to be interested in a race to the bottom and damn future generations.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/go...inet-mlas/minister-letter/mungall-mandate.pdf
Ensure British Columbians benefit from liquefied natural gas projects by requiring proposals to meet the following four conditions:
(1) Proposals must include express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians;
(2) Proposals must provide a fair return for our resource;
(3) Proposals must respect and make partners of First Nations; and
(4) Proposals must protect our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments.
I'll wait and see how this affects future projects because the last government seemed to be interested in a race to the bottom and damn future generations.
- Status
Similar threads
