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)

logan5 Nov 5, 2014 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker (Post 6795797)
Slap in the face? How about reality. If you want to be stuck with a small number of employees, having to pay relocation to recruit every single one, isolated from their professional networks, paying them more to maintain the same quality of life in Vancouver as in their existing lives then sure.

The large corporate support system is needed on the extraction side, and those jobs are already in Calgary. The pipeline office jobs are already in Calgary (and for Enbridge, Edmonton).

Having an office in Vancouver is neither here nor there. The corporate taxes will be collected in BC no matter what.

Building an active cluster that generates substantial uplift in Vancouver isn't really in the cards. For the lower mainland, this is purely a rentier venture.

So the BC government won't be expecting head offices in Vancouver?

MalcolmTucker Nov 5, 2014 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5 (Post 6795946)
So the BC government won't be expecting head offices in Vancouver?

Expecting, wanting, and being able to require is very different. Even favourable tax treatment is unenforceable, you don't need much to domicile a subsidiary company. Even in 2011, when BC accounted for 75% of Progress's production the head office was in Calgary. Look at this job listing: http://www.progressenergy.com/career...s/tax-manager/ the person responsible for planning PST and Carbon Tax planning will be in Calgary.

The cluster is just too big of a gravity well. There really isn't much advantage to the province except in a few office jobs and property tax to having the headquarters.

craneSpotter Nov 5, 2014 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker (Post 6795797)
The large corporate support system is needed on the extraction side, and those jobs are already in Calgary. The pipeline office jobs are already in Calgary (and for Enbridge, Edmonton).

Having an office in Vancouver is neither here nor there. The corporate taxes will be collected in BC no matter what.

Building an active cluster that generates substantial uplift in Vancouver isn't really in the cards. For the lower mainland, this is purely a rentier venture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker (Post 6795998)
Expecting, wanting, and being able to require is very different. Even favourable tax treatment is unenforceable, you don't need much to domicile a subsidiary company. Even in 2011, when BC accounted for 75% of Progress's production the head office was in Calgary. Look at this job listing: http://www.progressenergy.com/career...s/tax-manager/ the person responsible for planning PST and Carbon Tax planning will be in Calgary.

The cluster is just too big of a gravity well. There really isn't much advantage to the province except in a few office jobs and property tax to having the headquarters.

You are not entirely correct.

As previously mentioned - Yes, on the gas extraction/production/pipeline side the companies are already Alberta/Calgary - with most operations in the Fort St. John region - as it has been all along. But on the LNG side (new industry), the operations and administration jobs will be mostly BC/Vancouver.

Look at this job listing for a Senior Financial Analyst for Pacific Northwest LNG to be based in their Vancouver office ;)

http://pacificnorthwestlng.com/wp-co...st-Posting.pdf

Here is a BG group (UK based & partner with Spectra in another large LNG project) info sheet on their Canadian operations and contact info for their Vancouver office:

http://www.bg-group.com/229/where-we...nada/contacts/

Here is Spectra Energy (Houston based partner of BG Group for this project - http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operati...tation-System/), listing both a Vancouver and Calgary as regional offices for operations:

http://www.spectraenergy.com/Contact...ional-Offices/

Of course Chevron already has a large presence in Vancouver.

I don't think there will be a heavy corporate energy presence in Vancouver in the range of thousands and thousands like Calgary, as the subsidiaries do not require a large administrative office staff - about 130-150 as mentioned in the backgrounder for PNW. But I do understand that the CEO of Progress is relocating to Vancouver from Calgary to take over the reins at Pacific Northwest while still maintaining his role at Progress. I can see Petronas wanting to relocate their subsidiary Progress to Vancouver form Calgary eventually if the LNG plant is built, and there already is a large mining cluster there with all the geologists etc.

And yes, as you mentioned, the Lions share of gas extraction, pipeline construction/operation, LNG production & corporate activity will be in BC, so the taxes and royalties will be collected here regardless of where the HQ is, even if its mostly Texas and Asia in reality. Petronas executives from the head office are making regular trips to Vancouver and dealing directly with the BC government and regulatory agencies.

In any case, if the LNG plants are built - there will a definite impact on Vancouver on the corporate side (well over 1000 head office jobs plus spinoffs in legal and engineering, from very little LNG activity now). And Alberta will also get a boost on the gas extraction/exploration/pipeline side as it does not make sense to move (even part, other than Progress) of that cluster to Vancouver from Calgary. This could be good timing for Alberta too, with the looming slowdown in the oilsands (foreign money is drying up) and if these LNG plants get built here I'm sure we will need a few thousand workers from Alberta.

MalcolmTucker Nov 5, 2014 6:55 PM

^ That 200 employees includes the Calgary office and Fort St. John. Is there a different backgrounder you are talking about than the link?

craneSpotter Nov 5, 2014 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker (Post 6796117)
^ That 200 employees includes the Calgary office and Fort St. John. Is there a different backgrounder you are talking about than the link?

Nope. Pacific Northwest LNG does not currently have an office, nor any jobs offered in Calgary or Fort St. John - their affiliate Progress Energy does though on the gas extraction and supply side for the LNG plant - which is a separate operation. The transmission pipeline (for PNW) is to be built and operated by Transcanada, so there will be more Alberta (and BC - as TC recently expanded its Vancouver office) jobs there - again a separate operation.

Here is the link to the backgrounder. States that 130 'careers' will be offered at PNW LNGs Vancouver office, plus 330 jobs at its Prince Rupert plant/office once in production. Should the investment decision to go go forward be approved by head office in KL. Of course there will be many spin off support jobs around both locations too.

http://pacificnorthwestlng.com/wp-co...der_V.19.0.pdf

craneSpotter Nov 5, 2014 8:05 PM

Ohhh, more signs of LNG progress! And boost for BC Hydro. This is for the (significant) ancillary power supply, not for gas compression.

BC Hydro and LNG Canada sign power deal

Nov 4 - Canadian Press - Victoria, BC
http://globalnews.ca/news/1653111/bc...gn-power-deal/


Quote:

VICTORIA – The backers of a proposed liquefied natural gas export plant in Kitimat, B.C., signed a milestone agreement Tuesday to connect up to British Columbia’s power grid.

The deal between Crown-owned BC Hydro and LNG Canada, a joint venture between Shell (TSX:SHC), PetroChina, Korea Gas Corp. and Mitsubishi, comes as the Liberal government announced the power rates for LNG proponents.

The rate structure follows recent government announcements covering income tax rates and environmental emission standards for the LNG industry. There are 18 potential projects at various development stages, but none have made a final investment decision.

The government’s tax, emission and power standards are geared towards providing investor certainty as companies decided on proceeding with multibillion -dollar projects.

The agreement is the first signed with an LNG proponent.

“This is like having an anchor tenant on any power deal,” said Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman.

LNG Canada link for info on their partners/project and economic opportunities - http://lngcanada.ca/contact/

craneSpotter Nov 7, 2014 10:41 PM

LNG Canada - started environmental assessment today.

Shell says LNG project in B.C. to cost up to $40-billion when complete

Financial Post - November 7, 2014

Quote:

CALGARY – Pleased with British Columbia’s fiscal terms for the nascent liquefied natural gas industry, the LNG Canada consortium headed by Royal Dutch Shell PLC started a 180-day environmental assessment review Friday for a plant in Kitimat that could cost as much as $40-billion.

“We believe that [the fiscal terms] are a step in the right direction,” Susannah Pierce, LNG Canada’s director of external affairs, said in a conference call from Vancouver. “We are moving the project forward. But there are a number of new steps that we need to get through, including the overall cost of this facility and how that meets our expectation [before moving] to a positive final investment decision.”....

...Ms. Pierce said discussions with Ottawa on ways to reduce federal taxes and make Canadian LNG globally competitive are continuing.

“We are working in a fairly high-cost environment here in B.C. and Canada,” she said, citing lack of labour, high construction and operating costs. “We are going to need to make the economic case here in Canada, and it is challenging.”

The consortium believes the facility could cost between $25-billion and $40-billion for a four-train facility.

In its application for an environmental assessment certificate, Shell (50%), with partners PetroChina (20%), Korea Gas Corp. (15%) and Mitsubishi Corp. (15%), said it spent the past three years on environmental studies, design work and engagement with local communities and aboriginal groups.
http://business.financialpost.com/20..._lsa=20d8-fa7b

Stingray2004 Nov 8, 2014 12:34 AM

Interesting tidbit from Vaughn Palmer's column from a few days ago regarding Royal Dutch Shell's recent global investor update conference call:

Quote:

An executive of the parent Royal Dutch Shell was generally upbeat about the Kitimat project in a conference call with investors last week, saying: “If we’re not first to market, I think we’ll be one of the first to market.”
Still suspect that their FID will be sometime in 2016 though.

craneSpotter Nov 10, 2014 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6799848)
Interesting tidbit from Vaughn Palmer's column from a few days ago regarding Royal Dutch Shell's recent global investor update conference call:



Still suspect that their FID will be sometime in 2016 though.

Yeah, many executives seem positive...but 'a bird in hand is worth two in the bush' :) Fingers crossed that a few get built and the fracking isn't as bad as some say... already increased drilling activity in the NE I understand - so another good sign.

milomilo Nov 11, 2014 4:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 6802265)
Yeah, many executives seem positive...but 'a bird in hand is worth two in the bush' :) Fingers crossed that a few get built and the fracking isn't as bad as some say... already increased drilling activity in the NE I understand - so another good sign.

It isn't ;)

There are issues with it for sure, but mostly not the hysterical nonsense seen in the media. And many of the criticisms levelled at it are in fact criticisms of the entire extraction process, not the actual fracking.

It's a hell of a lot cleaner than mining, at least.

MalcolmTucker Nov 11, 2014 6:17 PM

Yeah, most of the issues in Pennsylvania were about water disposal, of which there were basically no rules due to super odd rules brought in under the republican troika in the mid 2000s. Companies were dropping off produced water full of radioactive and heavy metals at standard municipal water treatment plants that had no capacity to deal with them. In Canada, it is pretty normal to use a disposal well to get rid of particularly nasty waste from the process.

In places that aren't choke full of wells from earlier generations of gas and oil production fracking should be a bit safer. You don't have to worry about any migration except through your casing.

Stingray2004 Nov 15, 2014 8:57 AM

Still recall that Petronas was negative in terms of the BC LNG tax leading up to same. Now, it has been reported that they are satisfied with same. So be it.

Also note that Petronas, for whatever reason, still wants to go ahead with its FID next month in December. Was apprehensive of same due to the CEAA environmental certification, which may extend until next May. However, appears Petronas will receive its BC enviro certificate shortly.

And BC LNG minister Coleman met with Petronas in Kuala Lampur this past Tuesday on November 11. No word what transpired there.

Yet 3 days later, Japex, a 10% interest holder in Petronas proposed LNG facility and upstream NG assets, announced construction of its Japan Soma LNG import terminal.

Where will the LNG imports for same come from? Petronas BC LNG facility.

http://www.argusmedia.com/News/Article?id=948160

Japex would not commence construction without knowledge and confidence that FID will be issued by Petronas over here. My gut tells me that, in fact, Petronas will announce their FID next month. Stay tuned.

craneSpotter Nov 17, 2014 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6808584)
Still recall that Petronas was negative in terms of the BC LNG tax leading up to same. Now, it has been reported that they are satisfied with same. So be it.

Also note that Petronas, for whatever reason, still wants to go ahead with its FID next month in December. Was apprehensive of same due to the CEAA environmental certification, which may extend until next May. However, appears Petronas will receive its BC enviro certificate shortly.

And BC LNG minister Coleman met with Petronas in Kuala Lampur this past Tuesday on November 11. No word what transpired there.

Yet 3 days later, Japex, a 10% interest holder in Petronas proposed LNG facility and upstream NG assets, announced construction of its Japan Soma LNG import terminal.

Where will the LNG imports for same come from? Petronas BC LNG facility.

http://www.argusmedia.com/News/Article?id=948160

Japex would not commence construction without knowledge and confidence that FID will be issued by Petronas over here. My gut tells me that, in fact, Petronas will announce their FID next month. Stay tuned.

Thanks! Promising info. Import terminal to be located in Fukushima beside future 1200 MW gas generating facility.:tup:

MalcolmTucker Nov 18, 2014 8:49 PM

^ There is enough LNG on the spot market right now that it shouldn't be a problem, but long term you would want to lock in.

craneSpotter Nov 25, 2014 6:45 PM

Exxon becomes seventh member of B.C. LNG Alliance

VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail - Nov 19, 2014
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle21656784/

Quote:

Exxon Mobil Corp. has become the seventh member of the B.C. LNG Alliance, joining the trade association as it ramps up efforts to promote the province’s fledgling liquefied natural gas industry.

Irving, Tex.-based Exxon Mobil and its Canadian unit, Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., are in the early planning phase for the West Coast Canada LNG project at Tuck Inlet, located near Prince Rupert in northwestern British Columbia.

“We are committed to working with the provincial and federal governments in developing a regulatory and fiscal framework that sets the right conditions in place to establish a globally competitive and thriving LNG sector in B.C.,” alliance president David Keane said in a statement Wednesday.

There have been 18 B.C. LNG proposals announced so far, though no venture has made a final investment decision yet to forge ahead.

Exxon Mobil, through its affiliate, Exxon Mobil LNG Market Development Inc., said nurturing long-term relations will be crucial.

Stingray2004 Nov 28, 2014 1:59 PM

Quote:

Reuters

Fri Nov 28, 2014

The CEO also said Petronas' decision to invest in the Pacific Northwest LNG project in Canada is 75 percent complete, and that the company is now in the process of negotiating with bidders of related contracts.

"The numbers (value of the contracts) are still not as good as we expected but we hope to come to a conclusion within the next couple of weeks," Shamsul said.

He dismissed any impact on the investment from declining oil prices, saying economics of the project are still favourable.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/1...0T850D20141128

Stingray2004 Nov 29, 2014 12:30 AM

Well, Petronas received their BC Environmental Assessment Certificate last week for its proposed LNG facility. Concurrently, Trans Canada Pipeline received its BCEAC last week as well for its connecting NG pipeline from NE BC to the west coast.

In any event some further news today from Petronas:

Quote:

Bloomberg News

Petronas to Meet Canadian Officials to Conclude LNG Decision

By Chong Pooi Koon November 28, 2014

Petroliam Nasional Bhd., Malaysia’s state-owned energy company, said most issues hindering its Canadian liquefied natural gas project have been resolved and a final investment decision will be made by the end of next month.

Chief Executive Officer Shamsul Azhar Abbas will travel to Vancouver tomorrow to meet with British Columbia officials to work out the “loose ends,” he told reporters today in Kuala Lumpur. The project is slated to start operations in 2018.

“We are going to sit down together and discuss firmly so that clarity is given,” Shamsul said. “We have the balance of one quarter of issues at hand. We reckon we can sit down and strike a solution.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...e-lng-decision

Alpine Nov 30, 2014 1:31 AM

Some questions for those in the know:

1. Do you think BC will set up a Norway-style sovereign wealth fund, or will it give away all the money to corporations like Alberta did? The PC's have eaten through the Alberta Heritage Fund and have gone into the red six years running, while schools and hospitals are crumbling. And if you criticize this, Albertans will cry "Unconstitutional! Hands off mah oil! NEP, NEP!"

2. If the loonie and oil prices continue to fall, will this be favourable or unfavourable for LNG exploration in BC?

3. Even with the office construction boom in downtown, does Vancouver risk running out of land to house these companies? Most of the downtown peninsula is condos, and I can't see land reclamation gaining widespread support.

4. Do you think a Horgan NDP government, or a Trudeau Liberal government, would be LNG-friendly?

DizzyEdge Nov 30, 2014 3:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpine (Post 6825590)
Some questions for those in the know:

1. Do you think BC will set up a Norway-style sovereign wealth fund, or will it give away all the money to corporations like Alberta did? The PC's have eaten through the Alberta Heritage Fund and have gone into the red six years running, while schools and hospitals are crumbling. And if you criticize this, Albertans will cry "Unconstitutional! Hands off mah oil! NEP, NEP!"

2. If the loonie and oil prices continue to fall, will this be favourable or unfavourable for LNG exploration in BC?

3. Even with the office construction boom in downtown, does Vancouver risk running out of land to house these companies? Most of the downtown peninsula is condos, and I can't see land reclamation gaining widespread support.

4. Do you think a Horgan NDP government, or a Trudeau Liberal government, would be LNG-friendly?

Would say rather than giving all the money to corporations, the PCs have instead spent the money on the public, who want high services combined with low taxes = nothing put into the bank for the future.

craneSpotter Dec 1, 2014 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpine (Post 6825590)
Some questions for those in the know:

1. Do you think BC will set up a Norway-style sovereign wealth fund, or will it give away all the money to corporations like Alberta did? The PC's have eaten through the Alberta Heritage Fund and have gone into the red six years running, while schools and hospitals are crumbling. And if you criticize this, Albertans will cry "Unconstitutional! Hands off mah oil! NEP, NEP!"

2. If the loonie and oil prices continue to fall, will this be favourable or unfavourable for LNG exploration in BC?

3. Even with the office construction boom in downtown, does Vancouver risk running out of land to house these companies? Most of the downtown peninsula is condos, and I can't see land reclamation gaining widespread support.

4. Do you think a Horgan NDP government, or a Trudeau Liberal government, would be LNG-friendly?

I have been following the LNG developments fairly closely for a while now, but I am not employed by the energy industry. So my thoughts are:

1. BC should concentrate on paying off debt. The Libs have said that they intend to start a savings fund - and this is good and a small one should be started (annual deposits) subject to prevailing rates of return, but I hope reducing the debt and funding education/health is #1 priority.

2. The companies say that the plants are financially viable even if there is a further drop in oil prices (dragging down energy prices overall in Asia). As long as the NG gas is cheaper here than there. The LNG companies have room for the contract purchase prices in Asia to drop somewhat, but of course only they know exactly how much.

3. The LNG companies will have rather small offices in Vancouver (there is no ongoing exploration and likely little expansion) - they say 100-250 employees each. So, counting the spinoff jobs in engineering, financial and legal I guess I would hope there is enough demand for space to absorb what they are/will build DT over the next few years. That is if 3-4 plants go ahead.

4. Yes. The NDP have stated they are for an LNG industry, just so long as the natives and the communities affected (and all BC residents for that matter) benefit and not just the foreign companies. However, if a few plants go ahead the NDP don't have much hope of winning the next election... unless some kind of 'event' happens to disgrace the BC Libs. Plus, the agreements with producers would already be in place.

I think all Trudeau was concerned about was getting 'more' scientific evidence on fracking and its safety.. while that scares the energy crowd I think there is decent science behind it. We need energy.. and every source will have it negatives...the sources with lesser impact to the overall environment will be hard to pass up.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 PM.

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