Transcanada kills lng to westcoast

[maryjane48]

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/06/17/how-de ... l-gas-boom



as the story says there is a silver lining but clarks lng shipping jobs is dead .

[Smurf]

I would say if that is going to happen we better get site C going as quickly as possible as it is will be needed sooner than later. All pluses for BC.

[fluffy]

Oil & gas is going to flow no matter how much resistance the usual suspects mount, there's simply no stopping it in the near future and I'd measure that in decades. That being said I think it would be better for us if we could develop markets outside the US, and the best way to do that would be to get our product to Canadian tidewater. Realistically our focus at this point should be on how to do that safely and in a manner that benefits our economy and not just big oil's.

[maryjane48]

Oil & gas is going to flow no matter how much resistance the usual suspects mount, there's simply no stopping it in the near future and I'd measure that in decades. That being said I think it would be better for us if we could develop markets outside the US, and the best way to do that would be to get our product to Canadian tidewater. Realistically our focus at this point should be on how to do that safely and in a manner that benefits our economy and not just big oil's.

your the only canadian with that view.


explain why you feel you have the right to risk canadas enviroment for profit to a company that does not care about canada ?

[fluffy]

your the only canadian with that view.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

explain why you feel you have the right to risk canadas enviroment for profit to a company that does not care about canada ?

Note I said "safely". You talk like some sort of disaster is a forgone conclusion and that sort of sensationalist guilt tripping just doesn't hold water. I have also said in the past that our only path away from fossil fuels is through the research and development that will make alternative energy sources a viable reality, and that the money to accomplish that can only come from a healthy and robust economy. Our best bet for that economy is through the continued exploitation of our oil & gas reserves in a manner that benefits Canada and Canadians.

Now, why don't you you explain why you feel you have the right to hobble our national economy because of some imagined possibility of environmental disaster?

There is risk in just about everything we do, we have to weigh risk against benefit. I think you can figure out where I stand on oil & gas.

[maryjane48]

it is a matter of when , not if. bc is better off producing weed oil for sale .

[mikest2]

it is a matter of when , not if. bc is better off producing weed oil for sale .

Well, that does explain a lot.

[LTD]

Oil & gas is going to flow no matter how much resistance the usual suspects mount, there's simply no stopping it in the near future and I'd measure that in decades. That being said I think it would be better for us if we could develop markets outside the US, and the best way to do that would be to get our product to Canadian tidewater. Realistically our focus at this point should be on how to do that safely and in a manner that benefits our economy and not just big oil's.

your the only canadian with that view.


explain why you feel you have the right to risk canadas enviroment for profit to a company that does not care about canada ?

certainly not the only Canadian with that view those whos heads aren't in a cloud of smoke feel the same way

[fluffy]

Let's talk "real world" for a minute. We are a capitalist society, and government especially knows that a strong private sector is essential to the continued health of the economy. Sure, there are social programs like healthcare and education that are a measure of a society's progressiveness and we're holding our own in that department, but there's plenty of room for improvement and at the end of the day someone still has to pay so that stream of tax revenue is absolutely necessary. At this point in time alternative energy sources have not reached a level where they are a viable replacement for fossil fuels so from both an economic and environmental standpoint we're stuck with fossil fuels for sometime to come. The right or wrong of that is beside the point, we're just not ready to cap the wells. It will have to be done somewhere down the line, and the sooner the better in my opinion, but we're not ready yet, but in the here and now we just can't live without oil &I gas or the revenue stream it provides. Putting the kibosh on projects like Site C and the Kinder Morgan expansion is at best shortsighted.

[LordEd]

Well, that does explain a lot.

It's a common explanation.

Legalize and monetize it. Fully supply these people. That will keep them out of the way

[fluffy]

Legalize and monetize it. Fully supply these people. That will keep them out of the way

Maybe I should move some of my RRSP into Doritos stock?

[hobbyguy]

MJ - interesting that you would quote that article when it contains a statement that is antithetical to your general ideological position on energy:

"The concept that we’re going to heat our homes and run everything with windmills and solar, it would be great if it could be done, but I’m skeptical we can scale it up that much"

So does that mean you now support site C? You can't have it all ways to Sunday against everything. There you have DeSmog mouthing some truth.

The other thing that is circular logic in the LNG context is that the additional gas flowing south (instead of through BC) will in fact go for export, some of it (probably most) through the new American LNG facilities. So BC gas gets exported as LNG and the Americans get to control the price, take the jobs, and keep the profits. How the heck is that a good thing?

The obstructionism by the BC "protest everything" crowd and BC NDP party on LNG thus have the end result of BC not generating the jobs and revenues we should get out of our resource, and the Americans get those profits, revenues, and jobs - a classic example of BC NDP circular logic. Maneuver the situation so that BC gets diddly doo out of the potential and the Americans get all the benefits, and all for some perverse perceived political advantage.

It is just nuts that NDP/Green supporters are cheering the export of good jobs/revenues from BC to the Americans.

[hobbyguy]

Not completely on target to this post, but relevant is that IF China's prototype Gen III/IV nuclear pod for coal fired power plants is successful, we could easily see a massive decline in the future prospects for LNG. A safe nuclear "pod" that replaces the heat source in existing coal fired plants would dim the LNG considerably, as much of the future of LNG is staked on natural gas power plants replacing coal. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/239588-starting-2018-china-will-begin-turning-coal-plants-nuclear-reactors

I wouldn't bet against China doing that. It is part of their 5 year plan to rapidly expand nuclear. It also makes perfect sense if they can pull it off. Synchronous power, half of what is needed is existing plant infrastructure, no new land required (and using already polluted sites) and no new transmission lines etc.(expensive) are needed.

I am actually cheering for China to be successful in this venture. It would do more for the planet than just about everything else I see being worked on. China could literally "crash" their pollution output in a matter of a decade IF the technology is successful.