SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Alberta & British Columbia (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=127)
-   -   Proposed West Coast BC LNG Terminals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=201424)

Stingray2004 Sep 12, 2012 2:13 AM

Proposed West Coast BC LNG Terminals
 
Seems like alot of major energy players are looking at monetizing their enormous tight gas/shale gas reserves in the Montney, Horn River, Cordova Embayment, and Liard basins situate in NE BC.

While natural gas is roughly in the $2 MMBtu range here... in Asia it approaches $17 MMBTu. With arbitrage, the netbacks for NE BC gas producers would be considerable as long-term lng contracts in Asia are tied to the price of oil. LNG shipping time to Japan, for example, is also apparently the same transit time from the proposed coal bed methane lng terminals on Australia's east coast.

Some estimates are that the numerous BC proposed lng terminals could result in an additional roughly $600 billion in BC GDP, plus additional $billions annually into BC government coffers.

In any event, another lng proposal was announced yesterday:

1. BG Group, with it's proposed ~$24 - $32 billion lng terminal on Ridley Island in Prince Rupert, entered into an agreement with pipeline major Spectra Energy yesterday to construct a massive 48-inch pipeline from NE BC to Prince Rupert with an estimated $6 - $8 billion cost.

The BG Group is contempalting their PR facility to have lng throughput of 4.4 billion cubic feet/day, which equates to 30% of all natural gas produced in Canada in 2011. We are looking at a minimum $30 - 40 billion investment exclusive of further $billions in field development here alone.

http://www.spectraenergy.com/content...c_lng_full.jpg

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...132/story.html


2. Royal Dutch Shell/Mitsubishi/Korea Gas/Petro China are proposing a $12 billion lng terminal in Kitimat and have applied to the NEB for exporting 3.5 billion cubic feet/day, which equates to 25% of all natural gas produced in Canada in 2011. The ng will be sourced from their upstream NE BC fields.

In addition, they have entered into an agreement with TransCanada Pipelines for a new $4 billion pipeline from NE BC to Kitimat.

3. Encana/Apache/EOG Resources are proposing a $6 billion lng terminal in Kitimat with another pipeline to NE BC. They are also estimating $15 billion worth of field development over a 25 year period to source the terminal.

4. Malaysian giant Petronas purchased a $1 billion interest in a NE BC field from Progress Energy and a few months back purchased Progress Energy for $6 billion. Interestingly enough, another unnamed bidder (speculated to be Exxon, Shell, or BG) came in with a higher offer, which Petronas met.

Petronas already has a site lined up in Prince Rupert albeit they have not disclosed their plans yet.

5. News reports from the U.S. have confirmed that Exxon is looking at constructiing an lng terminal on BC's west coast as well.

Japanese Inpex and Itochu are also rumoured at constructing an lng terminal off BC's west coast.

Quote:

Doug Bloom, president of Spectra Energy’s western Canadian transmission operations, said other global energy companies are interested in B.C.’s export gas potential as well. “There are still other parties that are investigating LNG in British Columbia that have chosen to not yet make themselves public
http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz26DPfji2M

I'm sure that alot of consolidation will occur over the coming years. Make no doubt about it... if these lng plants all come to fruition the intensive capital and labour requirements will likely rival Fort Mac in AB.

Chadillaccc Sep 13, 2012 5:51 AM

Extremely impressive numbers! How exciting!!

Metro-One Sep 13, 2012 6:30 AM

Forget Alberta's crappy oil pipeline, here is some real investment for BC's economy! I really hope the full scale of this comes to fruition.

lubicon Sep 13, 2012 7:29 PM

So:

Oil pipeline = bad
Gas pipeline = good?

Metro-One Sep 13, 2012 7:51 PM

:previous:Its because nearly all of the economic benefits to be had from the oil pipeline occur in Alberta while BC takes the majority of the environmental risk. All of the processing facilities, extraction sites, etc... for these gas pipelines will be in BC (along with the tax revenue), which means major economic benefit for us along with the risk. Also, correct me if i am wrong, I believe potential natural gas leaks / spills are not as harmful as crude oil leaks.

Canadian Mind Sep 13, 2012 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 5830424)
:previous:Its because nearly all of the economic benefits to be had from the oil pipeline occur in Alberta while BC takes the majority of the environmental risk. All of the processing facilities, extraction sites, etc... for these gas pipelines will be in BC (along with the tax revenue), which means major economic benefit for us along with the risk. Also, correct me if i am wrong, I believe potential natural gas leaks / spills are not as harmful as crude oil leaks.


Natural Gas = Methane. One of these pipelines bursting would be no more harmful to the environment then every beer drinking male in this country making his personal "contribution" to the atmosphere.

Mitchapalooza Sep 13, 2012 9:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 5830396)
So:

Oil pipeline = bad
Gas pipeline = good?

Yes, precisely that.

A natural gas leak would be 100000000 times less damaging to the environment than a crude oil leak.

Stingray2004 Sep 15, 2012 6:50 AM

Aside from the 4 major contemplated lng terminals/ global energy giants described above... BC Energy Minister Rich Coleman today confirmed that 2 other majors also have serious intentions... one player is looking at Kitimat and the other is looking at Prince Rupert for their respective lng terminals.

Coleman also identified global energy giant Exxon Mobil as one of these companies.

Again, many of these players are also involved in Australia's lng terminal boom... and are both knowledgeable about prospects for offset buyer diversification/success as well as NE BC ng basin probable reserves in order to meet these lng requirements over a 20+ year time frame.

BTW, basins in Alberta will also eventually become part of the source supply inclusive of the Duvernay formation.

At the end of the day... pretty big stuff.

libtard Sep 17, 2012 10:44 PM

What makes BC think its so deserving of more energy revenues.

There are hundreds of pipelines criss crossing North America. I didn't hear Montana or Wyoming screaming about more revenues when the Keystone XL pipeline was proposed.

BC get over yourself. Let the pipeline run through the province and be thankful you're at the end so you get a terminal. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

giallo Sep 18, 2012 5:08 AM

Just because Montana and Wyoming don't complain, that means BC shouldn't as well? Tight logic.

The pipeline runs through the entire province horizontally. If they pipe ruptures, the chance that the affected area will be in BC is around 90%. Oh, and without the terminal on BC's coast, the oil wouldn't be going anywhere in Asia. BC definitely has a right to a bigger piece of the pie as it takes on most of the risk, and has the land to export abroad.

If you think that's too much to ask, try exporting it down south first, and then to Asia. I'm sure they'll give you a better distribution deal *sarcasm*.

Mitchapalooza Sep 18, 2012 5:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard (Post 5834909)
What makes BC think its so deserving of more energy revenues.

There are hundreds of pipelines criss crossing North America. I didn't hear Montana or Wyoming screaming about more revenues when the Keystone XL pipeline was proposed.

BC get over yourself. Let the pipeline run through the province and be thankful you're at the end so you get a terminal. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

LOL are you freaking kidding me with this post?

Have you ever taken a look at the topography of Wyoming/Montana VS British Columbia? BC is the most mountainous region of North America, with the most avalanches/rockslides/mudslides occurences by a WIDE margin....as a result of that topography, the province is taking on a HUGE HUGE amount of enviromental risk, one that could potentially damage OTHER BC based industries that would put THOUSANDS out of work. The fishing industry in North BC alone employs thousands of people...all who would be out of a job if there was a marine spill of crude oil.

So yes BC deserves to be compensated for that level of risk....Alberta is lucky to have oil reserves, BC is lucky to be located next to the Pacific...Alberta does not deserve to reap all the benefits while BC is left holding the f'ing bag on this one....and as long Alberta continues to think they can hold BC ransom, the longer this province and its people are going to fight this pipeline....as you can see BC has other means of revenue in natural gas, they certainly do not NEED this Alberta oil to maintain a strong economy.

At this point, Alberta NEEDS BC, not the other way around...BC is doing just fine on their own and have been for decades and has their own untapped energry resources that would employ tens of thousands of people and invest billions upon billions into the BC GDP & economy.

renthefinn Sep 19, 2012 3:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchapalooza (Post 5835857)
LOL are you freaking kidding me with this post?

Have you ever taken a look at the topography of Wyoming/Montana VS British Columbia? BC is the most mountainous region of North America, with the most avalanches/rockslides/mudslides occurences by a WIDE margin....as a result of that topography, the province is taking on a HUGE HUGE amount of enviromental risk, one that could potentially damage OTHER BC based industries that would put THOUSANDS out of work. The fishing industry in North BC alone employs thousands of people...all who would be out of a job if there was a marine spill of crude oil.

So yes BC deserves to be compensated for that level of risk....Alberta is lucky to have oil reserves, BC is lucky to be located next to the Pacific...Alberta does not deserve to reap all the benefits while BC is left holding the f'ing bag on this one....and as long Alberta continues to think they can hold BC ransom, the longer this province and its people are going to fight this pipeline....as you can see BC has other means of revenue in natural gas, they certainly do not NEED this Alberta oil to maintain a strong economy.

At this point, Alberta NEEDS BC, not the other way around...BC is doing just fine on their own and have been for decades and has their own untapped energry resources that would employ tens of thousands of people and invest billions upon billions into the BC GDP & economy.

I agree with your comments, Alberta should go get it's own ocean.... We should be charging tariffs on any oil transported through BC and using our piece of the Pacific... I'm sure some sort of middle ground could be negotiated....

Wrecker Sep 19, 2012 10:21 PM

BC is doing fine, because of how much Alberta contributes to the rest of the country (including BC) in taxes & jobs. I suppose Alberta could impose export taxes to the rest of the country...but what good does a pissing match do?

vitc Sep 19, 2012 11:35 PM

Question for the political junkies - what real impact would a NDP government have on these LNG projects? Does he have a position?

lubicon Sep 20, 2012 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vitc (Post 5837594)
Question for the political junkies - what real impact would a NDP government have on these LNG projects? Does he have a position?

I suppose it depends on whether their opposition to tankers extends to LNG ships as well. If so, then the projects are as good as dead.

casper Sep 22, 2012 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 5838414)
I suppose it depends on whether their opposition to tankers extends to LNG ships as well. If so, then the projects are as good as dead.

If you can't go West. Go East to Churchill Manitoba and export to Europe. I think the oil/gas companies want world prices and don't care who the buyer realy is.

Doug Sep 23, 2012 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 5841078)
If you can't go West. Go East to Churchill Manitoba and export to Europe. I think the oil/gas companies want world prices and don't care who the buyer realy is.

Europe is a declining market, Asia is a growing market.

There was already been an oil pipeline flowing through BC from Alberta since the 50s. It passes through Jasper National Park and crosses the Fraser River. it has never had a serious spill.

How many truck and train accidents have occurred in other provinces while hauling goods to and from BC ports?

If oil pipelines pass environmental assessment, does the Constitution even allow a government to impede inter-provincial commerce? I know in both the US and Australia state governments have zero jurisdiction over interstate trade and transportation.

casper Sep 23, 2012 4:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 5841148)
Europe is a declining market, Asia is a growing market.

There was already been an oil pipeline flowing through BC from Alberta since the 50s. It passes through Jasper National Park and crosses the Fraser River. it has never had a serious spill.

How many truck and train accidents have occurred in other provinces while hauling goods to and from BC ports?

If oil pipelines pass environmental assessment, does the Constitution even allow a government to impede inter-provincial commerce? I know in both the US and Australia state governments have zero jurisdiction over interstate trade and transportation.

Sounds like they also want to twin the pipeline from the 50s down to Vancouver. I agree the West Coast is a good option.

My point is if they can’t make this work due to environmental and public acceptance issues, then go east. Oil is a commodity, currently Europe gets most of its oil from the middle east. If they start to get their oil from Canada, then the middle east oil will likely end up in Asia.

s211 Sep 24, 2012 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 5841078)
If you can't go West. Go East to Churchill Manitoba and export to Europe. I think the oil/gas companies want world prices and don't care who the buyer realy is.

So you guys rant about access to BC ports (provincial jurisdiction BLAH BLAH BLAH) but conveniently ignore that position when goods travel the opposite direction?

Doug Sep 28, 2012 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper (Post 5841620)
Sounds like they also want to twin the pipeline from the 50s down to Vancouver. I agree the West Coast is a good option.

My point is if they can’t make this work due to environmental and public acceptance issues, then go east. Oil is a commodity, currently Europe gets most of its oil from the middle east. If they start to get their oil from Canada, then the middle east oil will likely end up in Asia.

The costs and environmental issues of shipping bitumen east would be even higher due to increased distance and the fact that east coast and especially arctic ports are often iced in.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.