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)

craneSpotter Sep 5, 2014 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes (Post 6714793)
I would most certainly assume that the carbon tax operates like the sales tax and not the income tax. It is most certainly based on the location of emission, not where the mind and management is located. Phew! Those four tax courses were fun.

True. Pretty much all the proposals have the LNG companies set up with HQ's in Vancouver (or BC) - for example Pacific Northwest LNG. The LNG projects are partnerships made up of of several global energy firms, so they are independently incorporated entities. I have a neighbour in Victoria that is a Vice-President at one such LNG company, with the HQ in Vancouver.

They do, however, generally have legal counsel in Calgary for the application process due to the location of the National Energy board office. Plus the Calgary based pipeline and gas companies will get a boost from any LNG plants built in BC. I understand that most of the fabrication of plant parts (pipes/vessels etc) will come from overseas or North Vancouver.

craneSpotter Sep 5, 2014 5:49 PM

Yet another proposal --

Texas-based company seeks B.C. LNG export licence

BRENT JANG,
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail - Thursday, Sep. 04 2014

Quote:

A Texas-based company is the latest entrant to seek a 25-year licence to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from British Columbia.

Orca LNG Ltd., the Canadian affiliate of an energy firm based in Cypress, Tex., wants to build an LNG export terminal near Prince Rupert in northwestern British Columbia....


...Orca filed its application Thursday to the National Energy Board, requesting permission to export up to 24 million tonnes a year of LNG – capacity that would rank it among the largest players in the B.C. LNG race....


...Last week, a Haisla-owned project called Cedar LNG Export Development Inc. filed three applications for LNG export licences.

With the emergence of Cedar LNG and Orca LNG, there are now 17 B.C. LNG projects proposed so far, though industry experts say only four at most will come to fruition. Two LNG export terminals are also envisaged for Oregon.

craneSpotter Sep 5, 2014 5:53 PM

Interesting.

Hawaiian deal shows possibilities for Canadian LNG as crunch time nears

Financial Post - Sep 4, 2014

Quote:

Canadian liquefied natural gas may soon be lighting up Hawaii, if plans to ship the super-chilled gas to the Pacific island state come to fruition...

As 16 LNG consortiums consider investments on the West Coast, Vancouver, B.C. based FortisBC Energy Inc. is expected to beat the traffic and start supplying LNG to Hawaiian Electric Co. under a 15-year agreement starting mid-2017, subject to regulatory approvals..

While small, the Hawaii deal underscores the breadth of possibilities and untapped markets for Canadian natural gas....

Hawaiian Electric has agreed to purchase about 800,000 tonnes per year for the first five years, 700,000 tonnes for the next five years and 600,000 tonnes per year for the last five years, at a price of $12-$13 per million British thermal units.

Stingray2004 Sep 6, 2014 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 6676349)
Apache Corp., under investor pressure, exiting Kitimat LNG project

Remember that originally Kitimat LNG comprised Encana, EOG Resources, and Apache as sole proponents. They are all natural gas producers in NA yet the LNG industry basically comprises the global energy giants. A different ballgame. With Chevron previously purchasing the interests of Encana/EOG, not too surprised that Apache is now bowing out.

Interesting that major LNG producer, Australia's Woodside Petroleum, was mentioned as a possible purchaser of Apache's interest in the Sydney Morning Herald a few weeks ago.

Kinda makes sense since Kitimat LNG has upstream resources in NE BC's Liard Basin, has ALL regulatory approvals in place (NEB export permit, Environmental Assessment Certificate, pipeline approval, etc. etc.) Basically a ready to go project subject to completion of long-term sales agreements.

Australia's Woodside Petroleum already has an option to purchase site on Grassy Point north of Prince Rupert for an LNG facility and already has held a public open house on their conceptual LNG plans. Problem is that all regulatory approvals can take a few years, they have no upstream NG assets to source from, and they are basically starting from scratch.

Ergo, Apache's interest in Kitimat LNG makes a much better fit for them. Wouldn't be surprised to see them purchase that stake as an alternative.

As an aside, interesting to note (reported this week) that Fortis BC has just signed a long-term, 15-year, LNG supply agreement with Hawaiian Electric Co. - likely to be sourced from their Delta LNG facility currently undergoing major expansion.

Stingray2004 Sep 6, 2014 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 6677742)
BC missed the window on LNG. Australia is already exporting and has many more projects in various stages of development.

Not correct contextually. Australia has proven to be the highest cost LNG producer in the world. Major cost blowouts from Gorgon LNG to Wheatstone LNG, etc. etc. Capital costs per installed million ton LNG capacity are 2 - 3 times what are projected along northwest BC's coast.

Any additional brownfield projects (adding additional capacity or liquefaction trains) to existing Aussie LNG facilities are basically dead. To wit, Australia's Woodside Petroleum, a major Aussie LNG producer, is now looking at NE BC's coast for their next generation of LNG production. Woodside's proposed Browse LNG in Australia has become just too expensive and not economically viable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug (Post 6677750)
Next to no resource development will occur until the land claims stalemate resolves itself.

Well, almost all FNs in northern BC have equity interests in proposed NG pipelines from NE BC to the coast as well as the LNG terminals on the west coast themselves. Ergo, they have already "bought-in" and consented to same.

Completely different story regarding the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to transport bitumen from AB to the NE BC coast. This greenfield project has spooked most FNs (emotionally) about potential bitumen spills along salmon-bearing rivers and the coast.

In that vein, interesting to see a spokesperson for Kinder Morgan's proposed twinning of their Trans-Mountain pipeline to the SW coast on the local 6 pm news last night. According to her, all BC FNs along the route, except one, has already signed on as equity participants. Perhaps that is due to the fact that the Trans-Mountain pipeline already exists along the corridor.

libtard Sep 7, 2014 1:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6719767)
Not correct contextually. Australia has proven to be the highest cost LNG producer in the world. Major cost blowouts from Gorgon LNG to Wheatstone LNG, etc. etc. Capital costs per installed million ton LNG capacity are 2 - 3 times what are projected along northwest BC's coast.

Any additional brownfield projects (adding additional capacity or liquefaction trains) to existing Aussie LNG facilities are basically dead. To wit, Australia's Woodside Petroleum, a major Aussie LNG producer, is now looking at NE BC's coast for their next generation of LNG production. Woodside's proposed Browse LNG in Australia has become just too expensive and not economically viable.



Well, almost all FNs in northern BC have equity interests in proposed NG pipelines from NE BC to the coast as well as the LNG terminals on the west coast themselves. Ergo, they have already "bought-in" and consented to same.

Completely different story regarding the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to transport bitumen from AB to the NE BC coast. This greenfield project has spooked most FNs (emotionally) about potential bitumen spills along salmon-bearing rivers and the coast.

In that vein, interesting to see a spokesperson for Kinder Morgan's proposed twinning of their Trans-Mountain pipeline to the SW coast on the local 6 pm news last night. According to her, all BC FNs along the route, except one, has already signed on as equity participants. Perhaps that is due to the fact that the Trans-Mountain pipeline already exists along the corridor.

Apparently Kind Morgan's twinned pipeline would have a capacity of 890,000 barrels of oil per day, almost tripling production. I am much more in favor of this project than the Northern Gateway. Would all that increase in capacity be shipped by boat? Or would refineries in Burnaby and WA state see more product. And would lower prices on gas in the northwest be a side effect?

Stingray2004 Sep 7, 2014 9:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard (Post 6719930)
Apparently Kind Morgan's twinned pipeline would have a capacity of 890,000 barrels of oil per day, almost tripling production. I am much more in favor of this project than the Northern Gateway. Would all that increase in capacity be shipped by boat? Or would refineries in Burnaby and WA state see more product. And would lower prices on gas in the northwest be a side effect?

First thing to note is that the Trans-Mountain pipeline is already over-subscribed every month by 60% - 70% over the past few years. IOW, too many sellers/buyers and not enough capacity.

The Trans-Mountain pipeline also has a branch pipeline extending south from Sumas, BC across the US border into WA State and the Cherry Point refinery. BTW, Cherry Point refinery sends jet fuel, etc. back across the border to YVR, etc. As an aside, I can see the Cherry Point refinery, at a very far distance, from my backyard.

Cherry Point refinery has been supplied by Alaskan crude super tankers for 37 years since 1977. Same crude oil tankers that ply the waters past the west coast of Van Isle, right past Victoria, thru the Juan de Fuca Strait, and past the Gulf Islands. No murmur whatsoever.

US subscription of the Trans-Mountain pipeline has also increased as a result of dwindling supply/reserves from Valdez, Alaska.

So much so that the Chevron refinery in Burnaby recently issued a complaint to the NEB vis-a-vis their long-term sourcing rights to no avail. The Chevron refinery now sources a good chunk of its crude via CN/CP rail tanker trains along the Fraser Canyon/Fraser River from AB as well as the Bakken Basin in North Dakota.

In fact, this past Thursday morning, at 11 am, I was having breakfast at an outdoor bistro along White Rock beach. A 110-unit tanker car train passed during the interim - obviously an oil train from the Bakken in North Dakota likely headed to Chevron's Burnaby refinery (which has previously been conformed by a Burlington Northern/Santa Fe spokesperson. That refinery is not equipped to refine heavy oil/bitumen BTW.

Remember that the Trans-Mountain pipeline is a unique "batched" pipeline permitting refined products right up to bitumen (yes even bitumen) passing through today.

OTOH, the WA State Cherry Point refinery is able to refine heavy oil/bitumen as well as the California coast refineries - currently dependent on Alaskan crude.

Ergo, most of the expanded capacity of the Trans-Mountain pipeline will make its way across the border into WA State as well shipped to the Cali refineries. Of course, another chunk of bitumen will also be shipped to Asia - China in particular.

Even with all of the local/US/offshore oil/bitumen demand, dunno if Kinder Morgan's increased capacity will impact prices here. Would hope so, of course.

craneSpotter Sep 10, 2014 6:46 PM

Looks like Petronas is trying to push ahead faster.

Progress Energy says it’s disappointed with pace of LNG regulatory process

Financial Post, Sep 9, 2014 - http://business.financialpost.com/20..._lsa=4a14-468b

Quote:

Pacific North West, a unit of Petronas and its partners created to develop the LNG project on Lelu island, B.C. is also entangled in federal and provincial environmental assessment. The regulatory process is “moving along, although we are little disappointed with the pace of the regulatory process on that front as well,” Mr. Culbert said.

Petronas and other proponents looking to build LNG have been pushing the B.C. government to improve its fiscal regime as they come close to deciding on their projects. The Malaysian company also signed a letter with the B.C. government this year seeking “certainty” on costs.

Stingray2004 Sep 11, 2014 6:57 AM

Key tidbit coming from that article:

Quote:

The company spent $2.4-billion last year, and is investing another $2.8-billion to prove up its natural gas reserves in British Columbia as it prepares to take a decision on the project.
That's $5.2 billion just to prove up reserves. Not exactly pocket change. ;)

MalcolmTucker Sep 11, 2014 3:14 PM

Yeah, it is important. But it is also important to be able to push stranded assets over the side in the event they pull out. Win - win for them.

craneSpotter Sep 19, 2014 8:52 PM

Looks like they need the Feds and BC to step up prior to FID. Well Harper?

What ramifications could there be (thinking within the Canadian oil industry) to have LNG plants recognized federally as manufacturing plants - for the associated tax breaks?

Petronas still eyeing year end for Canada LNG investment decision

The Star - September 19, 2014

Quote:

VANCOUVER: Pacific NorthWest LNG, a unit of Malaysia's Petronas, still plans to make a final decision on the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in northwest British Columbia by year end, the unit's president said on Thursday...

...British Columbia's ruling Liberals have promised to release the details of its LNG-taxation scheme by November.

"We do feel there's a commitment to get this done to allow us to hit our final investment decision, but it cannot be an open-ended risk," said Kist. "We will not FID without that being nailed down."

He added that other outstanding fiscal issues, including a push by a consortium of B.C. LNG developers to be recognised federally as manufacturing operations to gain tax breaks, will also play into the company's final decision.

Pacific NorthWest will also need to have provincial and federal environmental approvals in hand before the FID can be made, Kist said, though he declined to comment on a "Plan B" if regulatory approval has not been granted by year end.

lubicon Sep 19, 2014 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craneSpotter (Post 6736651)
Looks like they need the Feds and BC to step up prior to FID. Well Harper?

What ramifications could there be (thinking within the Canadian oil industry) to have LNG plants recognized federally as manufacturing plants - for the associated tax breaks?

Petronas still eyeing year end for Canada LNG investment decision

The Star - September 19, 2014

I would think that other refineries, upgraders, and similar processing plants would be expected to be treated in the same fashion. Maybe they are now - I honestly don't know.

Stingray2004 Sep 20, 2014 1:14 AM

Natural gas processing plants, situate in the natural gas basins to remove impurities, already have the capital cost allowance classification that the nascent LNG industry is seeking.

craneSpotter Sep 20, 2014 9:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6736961)
Natural gas processing plants, situate in the natural gas basins to remove impurities, already have the capital cost allowance classification that the nascent LNG industry is seeking.

Ok, thanks!

MalcolmTucker Sep 21, 2014 2:48 AM

The big problem is this goes against the G8 pledge to eliminate oil and gas subsidies, though if you expect the businesses to last 30 years, you are just delaying your revenue, not eliminating it (though future money is worth less than current money). If this is put in place, the oil sands companies could sue and may rightly win the return of accelerated capital cost allowances (put in place under the Liberals in 1997, eliminated under Harper).

craneSpotter Sep 25, 2014 4:41 PM

oh, playing hardball now. Gimmie Gimmie or else.

Petronas threatens to ‘call off’ $10-billion B.C. LNG project: report

Globe and Mail - Sep 25, 2014

Quote:

Malaysia’s state-owned oil-and-gas giant Petronas is threatening to cancel a $10-billion (U.S.) liquefied natural gas project in British Columbia, according to a news report.

Petronas chief executive officer Shamsul Abbas told the Financial Times in an interview that he is “ready to call off” the Pacific NorthWest LNG project amid a delayed regulatory approval process, plans by the B.C. government to impose an LNG tax and a “lack of appropriate incentives.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle20783049/

MalcolmTucker Sep 25, 2014 4:50 PM

Well it makes sense.

They can produce in BC, ship to the states, and ship out via an LNG plant with massive local incentives and no extra taxes.

Why would they pay an extra tax in BC?

craneSpotter Sep 25, 2014 9:00 PM

and right on the heels.... both sides using the media to help negotiate. I'm guessing Petronas and BC are close to a deal now, and suspect Petronas will know exactly what tax (and breaks/incentives/subsidies, whatever you like t call them) will be in place for the LNG industry here before the government announcement in October - they will set the bar.

I have heard from insiders (pretty good source) that one of the 'medium' sized plants now has financing in place and will get the green light by Jan 2015. The only problem may be if there is a continued downward spiral in oil prices, which could result in pressure to lower Asian gas prices. But oil is not expected to go much below $90 (WTI). Also, Asian demand for gas is expected to continue to increase as forecast over the next 20-30 years, so the energy is needed one way or another. As long as BC gets gas royalties at least, all is pretty good :)

B.C. downplays reports Petronas may ‘call off’ gas project

Globe and Mail, Sep 25, 2014

Quote:

“I know what’s going on at the table and I know there’s good progress,” Mr. Coleman said at the annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, in Whistler, B.C. He was taking a break from of the business of the UBCM to deal with the fallout from the report.

Mr. Coleman said the Financial Times report prompted him to call Petronas today, and when he did he was told, “Our negotiations are going fine.” He declined to say, exactly, to whom he spoke, citing the need to maintain the confidentiality of talks.

Asked if the comments could be a negotiating tactic, Mr. Coleman replied, “It could be. That could be fine. We’re all big boys at the negotiating table.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle20783049/

craneSpotter Sep 25, 2014 9:43 PM

and even more, from our Premier no less:

B.C. premier not concerned about Petronas threat to pull out of $10-billion LNG project

Quote:

...Clark said she's confident Petronas won't pull out, and that the company was simply bargaining in public.

"We're negotiating and this is part of negotiations," Clark said at a meeting with Chinese delegates from Guangdong province in Vancouver on Thursday. "What Petronas is doing is standing up and trying to get the absolute best deal they can get for their shareholders . . . and we're trying to get the best deal for British Columbians. That's the process."

Abbas is expected to visit Canada later this week...
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/pre...#ixzz3EMlAA0Vl

Stingray2004 Sep 26, 2014 2:22 AM

A bit of insight here.

Petronas has been quite aggressive with its proposed west coast LNG terminal.

So far:

1. $6 billion purchase of Progress Energy (NE BC Montney basin);

2. Later $1.4 billion purchase from Talisman of additional Montney basin lands;

3. ~$4 billion spent over past 2 years drilling/proving up reserves;

4. ~$500 million for engineering/legal etc. inclusive of 3 separate engineering proposals for LNG terminal;

Total invested to date: ~$12 billion.

And, more importantly, the equity/off-take agreements:

1. Japex - 10% (inclusive of LNG off-take);

2. PetroleumBRUNEI - 3%;

3. Indian Oil - 10%;

4. Sinopec - 15% (plus additional 3 MTPA off-take on top of 15%)

If Petronas had their environmental assessment certificate issued yesterday, they would have already made their FID. And therein lies the problem. The BC EAO will complete its review by October 19, 2014. And then a few weeks for the BC minister to review and sign-off thereafter.

Also of importance is the EAO assessment of the connecting $5 billion NG pipeline by TransCanada Pipeline. Their environment certificate might not be issued until the end of the year.

The BC legislature also commences sitting on October 6, 2014 in order to pass legislation for the proposed LNG tax regime. Petronas has been aware, for a considerable period of time, the proposed taxation regime.

Petronas has also been working feverishly, behind the scenes, on all of these matters in order to have all their ducks in a row for the anticipated December, 2014 FID. Problem is that regulatory delays might mean the FID will be in January/February 2015 and Petronas' head office is frustrated. That's it in a
nutshell.

Metro-One Sep 26, 2014 2:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker (Post 6743138)
Well it makes sense.

They can produce in BC, ship to the states, and ship out via an LNG plant with massive local incentives and no extra taxes.

Why would they pay an extra tax in BC?

It sounds almost as if you want BC to fail...

MalcolmTucker Sep 26, 2014 3:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 6744077)
It sounds almost as if you want BC to fail...

No, but to achieve success BC has to have a competitive cost structure. If BC strangles the golden goose to try to get a bigger egg there may be no egg at all.

Denscity Sep 26, 2014 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One (Post 6744077)
It sounds almost as if you want BC to fail...

That's what I was going to say as well. Alberta doesn't want BC to succeed with LNG it seems. That's why I posted that I was starting to see negative comments coming from Alberta. Its not like its at the expense of Alberta that BC succeeds.

logan5 Sep 26, 2014 10:16 PM

These threats by Petronas indicate to me that they want to set up in BC.

Metro-One Sep 26, 2014 11:28 PM

Exactly! They are just trying to squeeze out a few extra nickels before they close the deal.

Speaking publicly about such deals is a good sign, it is when you hear nothing for months on end that you start to get worried.

craneSpotter Sep 27, 2014 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 6745344)
That's what I was going to say as well. Alberta doesn't want BC to succeed with LNG it seems. That's why I posted that I was starting to see negative comments coming from Alberta. Its not like its at the expense of Alberta that BC succeeds.

Just sour grapes over pipelines...but LNG will benefit Alberta too. You should read their newspapers! LOL

craneSpotter Sep 27, 2014 12:37 AM

and here we go, tag round two, this time from partner Sinopec...'we need to use foreign workers!"...hmmm well at least for the positions the locals can't fill.

I guess they don't like the inflated labour rates the oil sands has established (partly why Statoil postponed construction of their large oil sands plant in Alberta for three years yesterday).

The ball is being put just as much in the feds court as BC's.

Labour shortage imperils LNG projects, Chinese partner warns
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle20815508/

Quote:

Canada needs to open its oil and gas industry to skilled workers from China and elsewhere to address a labour crunch, says the Chinese partner of the Petronas-led consortium planning a liquefied natural gas export project in British Columbia.

Without policy concessions from the Canadian government, “many projects will drop,” said Feng Zhiqiang, executive vice-president of Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Co., a subsidiary of the Chinese oil and gas giant...

...The B.C. Ministry of Natural Gas Development said Friday that its top priority is to ensure British Columbians are first in line for LNG jobs. “Some jobs will not be filled by British Columbians, either because they require highly specialized experience in the LNG industry or because we do not have enough workers in the province to meet the level of demand,” the ministry said. “Our priority in filling those jobs includes making sure British Columbians are first in line for job opportunities, then Canadian workers, followed by U.S. and international workers.”

Jason Kenney, the federal Minister of Employment and Social Development, has said Ottawa expects LNG developers to use Canadian labour, resorting to temporary foreign workers only rarely to meet specific needs.
I support the use of foreign workers, there is no way BC and Canada can supply all of them.

jawagord Sep 27, 2014 2:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 6745344)
That's what I was going to say as well. Alberta doesn't want BC to succeed with LNG it seems. That's why I posted that I was starting to see negative comments coming from Alberta. Its not like its at the expense of Alberta that BC succeeds.

Alberta wants BC to put policies in place that support the oil and gas industry but BC opposes oil pipelines and can't get it's shit together on gas. Christie Clark has done an Ed Stelmach, she's campaigned on huge NGL gas tax but won't be able to deliver it, as none of the companies will build a plant and pay extra LNG taxes and carbon taxes on top of business tax and gas royalties. It's frustrating that the future of Canada's oil and gas industry is being hamstrung by BC's greed and hubris.

Stingray2004 Sep 27, 2014 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawagord (Post 6745590)
Alberta wants BC to put policies in place that support the oil and gas industry but BC opposes oil pipelines and can't get it's shit together on gas. Christie Clark has done an Ed Stelmach, she's campaigned on huge NGL gas tax but won't be able to deliver it, as none of the companies will build a plant and pay extra LNG taxes and carbon taxes on top of business tax and gas royalties. It's frustrating that the future of Canada's oil and gas industry is being hamstrung by BC's greed and hubris.

Gotta disagree. And here's why...

Petronas LNG Upstream, for example:

1. Substantial holdings in NE BC Montney Basin;

2. Montney Basin is "Liquids Rich". IOW, propane, butane, naptha, etc. flow from the same natural gas wells, which are basically sold at a price of barrel of oil;

3. The "liquids" basically pay for the cost of well drilling, etc. and the dry gas (input for LNG) is essentially free; No other global LNG operator has that cost advantage AFAIK;

4. Per well drilling costs in the Montney basin are the lowest in North America based upon some studies that I have seen;

5. Flow rates per well are also close to the highest in NA;

6. Depletion rates per well are also some of the best in NA;

7. NG royalty rates/tax credits in BC are just as competitive as AB;

Petronas LNG Mid-stream/Down-stream:

1. Trans-Canada Pipelines' $5 billion NG pipeline from NE BC Montney Basin to the coast will require Petronas to pay tolling charges to transmit the NG to the coast. However, as the head of global BG Group's LNG unit has previously stated, the cool annual ambient temperature on BC's NW coast basically "pays" for those tolling/transmission costs.

IOW, the cool ambient temperature on NW BC's coast requires only ~30% of the energy to liquefy the NG to LNG compared to the "tropical" climes of Australia and the U.S. Gulf coast; (Think of a refrigerator running 24/7 outside in hot temps.)

Australia's capex per million ton capacity of installed LNG is basically 2 - 3 times that projected for BC's nascent LNG industry. Massive cost-blow-outs as well. Plus militant unions to boot. Also curious to note that Australia LNG major Woodside Petroleum already has a site selected on BC's NW coast as a result.

Remember that shipping costs are also a major component of landed LNG. And shipping time from NW BC to Tokyo Harbour is the same as from eastern Australia.

And then we look at the proposed BC taxation regime/fiscal framework for proposed LNG. Basically same royalty regime as AB. In any event, chartered accounting firm Ernst & Young released a report earlier this year looking at aggregate taxes and royalties over a 20-year period comparing several jurisdictions. Inclusive of BC's proposed "LNG tax", BC still competitively out-performs Australia, and the U.S. states of Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon, and Texas.

And finally, basically all of BC's FN's have "bought" into these LNG facilities and have equity interests. From the Haisla FN in Kitimat, to the Tsimshian FN in Prince Rupert to FN's eastward.

Again, Petronas' proposed LNG facility is still a 99% go from what I am hearing on the ground. In fact, the same Petronas CEO Shamsul Abbas will be meeting with BC's ministers in BC next week. Relationships established have been very professional and quite cordial. Have never seen the BC gov't as pro-active, behind the scenes, on the LNG file over the past 2 years compared to any other file.

The key regarding LNG facilities moving forward are long-term contracts at a price beneficial to both counter parties. And that they have.

Stingray2004 Sep 27, 2014 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawagord (Post 6745590)
Alberta wants BC to put policies in place that support the oil and gas industry but BC opposes oil pipelines and can't get it's shit together on gas. Christie Clark has done an Ed Stelmach, she's campaigned on huge NGL gas tax but won't be able to deliver it, as none of the companies will build a plant and pay extra LNG taxes and carbon taxes on top of business tax and gas royalties. It's frustrating that the future of Canada's oil and gas industry is being hamstrung by BC's greed and hubris.

Now changing subject. I fully support AB having access for its oil to tidewater port on Canada's west coast to access markets other than the U.S. Period.

As for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, the big problem is FN's. Remember that NE BC (where the natural gas basins are situate) is covered by Treaty 8 from 1899, the same Treaty 8 that covers the northern half of AB inclusive of the oil sands in Fort Mac. Only the southern part of Vancouver Island is also covered by the Douglas Treaties from the same era along with some recent smaller BC treaties.

That complicates things esp. on a project such as the "greenfield" Northern Gateway Pipeline through northern BC. Enbridge fricked up that file from the get go, quite frankly. With not establishing proper FN relationships/trust from the beginning, FNs along the route became vehemently opposed to same. The same Haisla FNs et al that support LNG.

FNs up there are concerned about potential leaks along the thousands of river crossings of salmon-bearing streams. And potential oil tanker spills along the coast damaging fishing/tourism, etc. They view same as taking all the risk with not material benefit.

And scenes of Enbridge's Kalamazoo calamity along with Exxon Valdez don't help any. Remember that we are talking bitumen here (which apparently sinks and is very difficult to clean up) compared to synthetic crude. Emotion and fear then sets in.

While the NEB gave Northern Gateway approval subject to 209 conditions, many of those conditions require FN consent. And I don't see that happening now. Even Jim Prentice met with FNs along the NGP route within the past year to converse and assess their concerns.

BTW, just last week Premier Jim Prentice had several interviews with the media about Northern Gateway. And when Prentice basically stated that the NGP terminus at Kitimat (with the Douglas Channel) was the wrong locale due to tremendous FN opposition, Prentice basically threw the entire project under the proverbial bus.

Based upon numerous opinion polls over the past few years, BC is basically split down the middle on Northern Gateway. And some opposed are only "moderately" opposed. Roughly 28% of BCers have always been "strongly' opposed to NGP. Again, it's the northern BC FNs that are consequential.

As for the other proposal by Kinder Morgan, on it's twinning of the existing Trans-Mountain pipeline to the SW coast, that is a "brownfield" project and has seen considerably less opposition. The pipeline has already been previously twinned through sensitive Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park on the BC side along with some twinning north of Kamloops.

Sure some opposition also exists from the hardcore enviro crowd on the SW BC coast but that is a moot point. A spokesperson for Kinder Morgan's proposed twinning was on the local 6 pm news a few weeks ago. According to her, all BC FNs along the route, except one, has already signed on as equity participants. Again, FNs are key to oil/bitumen new pipelines to the west coast.

And I suspect, at the end of the day, Kinder Morgan's twinning will not only be green-lighted but will also proceed to construction phase.

jawagord Sep 28, 2014 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6746038)
Now changing subject. I fully support AB having access for its oil to tidewater port on Canada's west coast to access markets other than the U.S. Period.

As for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, the big problem is FN's. Remember that NE BC (where the natural gas basins are situate) is covered by Treaty 8 from 1899, the same Treaty 8 that covers the northern half of AB inclusive of the oil sands in Fort Mac. Only the southern part of Vancouver Island is also covered by the Douglas Treaties from the same era along with some recent smaller BC treaties.

That complicates things esp. on a project such as the "greenfield" Northern Gateway Pipeline through northern BC. Enbridge fricked up that file from the get go, quite frankly. With not establishing proper FN relationships/trust from the beginning, FNs along the route became vehemently opposed to same. The same Haisla FNs et al that support LNG.

FNs up there are concerned about potential leaks along the thousands of river crossings of salmon-bearing streams. And potential oil tanker spills along the coast damaging fishing/tourism, etc. They view same as taking all the risk with not material benefit.

And scenes of Enbridge's Kalamazoo calamity along with Exxon Valdez don't help any. Remember that we are talking bitumen here (which apparently sinks and is very difficult to clean up) compared to synthetic crude. Emotion and fear then sets in.

While the NEB gave Northern Gateway approval subject to 209 conditions, many of those conditions require FN consent. And I don't see that happening now. Even Jim Prentice met with FNs along the NGP route within the past year to converse and assess their concerns.

BTW, just last week Premier Jim Prentice had several interviews with the media about Northern Gateway. And when Prentice basically stated that the NGP terminus at Kitimat (with the Douglas Channel) was the wrong locale due to tremendous FN opposition, Prentice basically threw the entire project under the proverbial bus.

Based upon numerous opinion polls over the past few years, BC is basically split down the middle on Northern Gateway. And some opposed are only "moderately" opposed. Roughly 28% of BCers have always been "strongly' opposed to NGP. Again, it's the northern BC FNs that are consequential.

As for the other proposal by Kinder Morgan, on it's twinning of the existing Trans-Mountain pipeline to the SW coast, that is a "brownfield" project and has seen considerably less opposition. The pipeline has already been previously twinned through sensitive Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park on the BC side along with some twinning north of Kamloops.

Sure some opposition also exists from the hardcore enviro crowd on the SW BC coast but that is a moot point. A spokesperson for Kinder Morgan's proposed twinning was on the local 6 pm news a few weeks ago. According to her, all BC FNs along the route, except one, has already signed on as equity participants. Again, FNs are key to oil/bitumen new pipelines to the west coast.

And I suspect, at the end of the day, Kinder Morgan's twinning will not only be green-lighted but will also proceed to construction phase.

There are something like 45 FN groups along the NG route and to expect all of them to agree to the pipeline is unrealistic when many are using their opposition to the pipeline as a tool to leverage the Federal and BC governments on land claims. Enbridge claims they have equity agreements with more than 60% of the groups. This is business as usual, at the end of the day (after next years elections) the Federal government will need to decide if they are going to intervene to get the line built as some FN groups will never agree. On the other hand The BC governments (provincial and local) went from being early supporters (city of kitimat lobbied for the NG pipeline) to interveners opposed to the pipeline due in large part To Christie Clarkes 5 conditions election scheme. Since then BC government lawyers have opposed the NG pipeline at NEB hearings and have elevated the fear-mongering to unprecedented levels that has created a poisoned environment for all oil pipelines. Now we have the city of Burnaby filing court injunctions to stop KM survey crews. The idiot mayor of Vancouver publicly opposes KM expansion, the town of Kitimat has voted against NG, job well done BC. Now the province is screwing up the LNG side with tax demands and changing environmental rules - the window to get these big projects built is starting to close and BC's advantages won't matter if the LNG market is locked up by other countries. http://www.globallnginfo.com/world%2...0terminals.pdf

Stingray2004 Sep 29, 2014 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawagord (Post 6746747)
There are something like 45 FN groups along the NG route and to expect all of them to agree to the pipeline is unrealistic when many are using their opposition to the pipeline as a tool to leverage the Federal and BC governments on land claims. Enbridge claims they have equity agreements with more than 60% of the groups. This is business as usual, at the end of the day (after next years elections) the Federal government will need to decide if they are going to intervene to get the line built as some FN groups will never agree.

On the other hand The BC governments (provincial and local) went from being early supporters (city of kitimat lobbied for the NG pipeline) to interveners opposed to the pipeline due in large part To Christie Clarkes 5 conditions election scheme. Since then BC government lawyers have opposed the NG pipeline at NEB hearings and have elevated the fear-mongering to unprecedented levels that has created a poisoned environment for all oil pipelines.

Now we have the city of Burnaby filing court injunctions to stop KM survey crews. The idiot mayor of Vancouver publicly opposes KM expansion, the town of Kitimat has voted against NG, job well done BC. Now the province is screwing up the LNG side with tax demands and changing environmental rules - the window to get these big projects built is starting to close and BC's advantages won't matter if the LNG market is locked up by other countries. http://www.globallnginfo.com/world%2...0terminals.pdf

Again. Gotta disagree. And in that vein, AB politics (both FN and otherwise) is different from BC. And again, both AB and BC have different sub-regional political groupings in that regard.

Firstly, to re-iterate, NGP in AB passes through Treaty 8 lands dating back to circa 1899. Apparently, most, if not all, FNs in AB have signed agreements with Enbridge. Treaty 8 also extends into NE BC covering all over BC`s Peace River country where BC`s natural gas basins are situate.

West of there in BC, none of the FNs are covered by treaty. Furthermore, NOT ONE FN has signed onto NGP - unlike AB FNs from Bruderheim westward.

And those FNs are not attempting to leverage land claims as you suggest. In that vein, most (if not all) BC FNs along the same route are on board for the numerous NG pipelines to the west coast along with the westcoast LNG terminals. Ergo, your hypothesis fails there.

Again, FNs have an emotional fear of a bitumen spill along the numerous thousands of NGP river crossings with the potential for bitumen spills along same with salmon habitat. And more importantly, west coast FN fisheries and tourism may potentially be impacted by an Exxon Valdez-type disaster. That`s not my opinion. That`s their viewpoint.

Enbridge, when they commenced their process, viewed BC as akin to AB politically and that was an improper approach dealing with these FN and BC political sensitivities.

Jim Prentice himself said the same to the media this past week. He fully understands the FN problems with NGP moving forward. And I will also suggest that he will be a great preem for AB having that analytical knowledge - unlike his predecessors.

Remember, it was the same Jim Prentice, as federal environment minister, that rejected the large proposed Prosperity Mine west of Williams Lake (in BC`s Chilcotin region) to the consternation of local authorities, local Con MPs, residents and the BC government. In fact, BC had already provided the environmental assessment certificate for the proposed Prosperity Mine. That matter, today, is subject to a Judicial Review.

And the feds will not step in on behalf of Enbridge at the end of the day either. Forget about it. Too much political heat for them.

BTW, I personally support the NGP. As for BC`s `5 conditions`, I support them as well. In fact, when one reviews same individually, not that much to ask for considering the inherent risk - both risk-wise and political. And they can be easily satisfied. It`s the FN condition that needs to be met. And Enbridge screwed up same royally at the get-go, based upon previous interviews with former Enbridge employees in the media.

Even AB preem Jim Prentice `get`s that`. In fact, wouldn`t put too much weight on the BC gov`t acting as an intervenor in the NGP hearings either. Trends toward the political angle and the `5 conditions` more than anything else.

Also remember that BC has the lowest personal and corp. tax regime in the country aside from AB. And it also has the most pro-economic and resource development gov`t in the country along-side both AB and SK.

As for Kinder Morgan`s proposed tunnel under Burnaby Mountain, the NEB has given them approval for surveying same. They are legally entitled to that.

Problem was that they cut down some old-growth trees while undertaking same. And that was in contravention of the City of Burnaby`s by-laws. More importantly, the mature trees were within the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. KM should have been more sensitive to same. But they are still green-lighted to be `less intrusive` in surveying same.

As for Kitimat and its non-binding plebiscite, doesn`t mean much. Kitimat is currently undergoing a boom with the $3 billion+ Alcan aluminum smelter expansion, Chevron LNG work camp, Shell LNG, etc. Housing prices rising through the roof, zero vacancy, etc. probably caused some to vote no as too much development already on their plate.

Again, AB Premier Jim Prentice last week told the media that, based upon his FN discussions, Kitimat was the wrong locale for the NGP terminus. It is what it is.

As for Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan, he is a hard-core NDP-type and so is his 8-member NDP slate of BCA councillors who all oppose the KM twinning to boot. Don`t fret over them. They are inconsequential. They still, however, will be re-elected this November due to the low-20% municipal turnout in Burnaby muni elections.

Frankly, don`t concern yourself with the Van City mayor Gregor Robertson publicly opposing the KM expansion either. The pipeline does not run through Van City. Even the the KM terminus is not extant at Van City`s border. Gregor, who is basically a green liberal, has been mocked in the media about discussing that matter and other matters outta his jurisdiction. KM, at Burrard Inlet, is within the jurisdiction of the federal Port of Vancouver. Different entity completely.

And frankly, based upon a myriad of other reasons, it appears that Gregor will be ousted in this November`s muni election to the centre-right`s NPA mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe.

Bottom line - NGP is likely dead in its present configuration BUT KM is likely a go at the end of the day.

Now back to LNG. BC has roughly 18 LNG proposals on the books. Many of those are from promoters with no LNG expertise, no deep financial pockets, etc. and they are dead from the get-go.

However, most other BC LNG proposals have global LNG majors as proponents with their expertise, buyer contacts, and deep pockets.

Also remember that roughly 150 million tons per annum of un-contracted LNG demand in Asia exists by 2025. And LNG purchasers are also risk averse. To wit:

1. Qatar is the world`s current largest LNG producer (and will not expand capacity), very reliable, yet most of its LNG product traverses the narrow Strait of Hormuz neighbouring Iran. Geo-political risk is in the background thereto esp. when one considers that Japan, for example, only has 2 - 3 days of LNG on hand at any given time;

2. Australia will now surpass Qatar as the world`s largest LNG producer yet its capex cost per million tons per annum of installed LNG capacity has skyrocketed beyond current economic viability. Is it any wonder why major Australian LNG producer Woodside Petroleum seems to have abandoned Australia for future greenfield LNG such as their proposed Aussie Browse LNG? And now has selected a NW BC site for an LNG terminal?

Or why future `brownfield` LNG in Australia - that is, addition of liquefaction trains to existing Aussie LNG terminals - has also been abandoned by all other LNG global players in Australia?

3. Africa is an LNG producer yet much of Africa does not have any infrastructure, regulatory and legal framework (Tanzania and Mozambique), unskilled workforce, and is quite corrupt frankly. $Billions must be spent within unstable African regimes. Would you?

BG Group now does not have the NG feed-stock for its Egyptian LNG terminal. They are losing their shirts on that project.

Other global LNG giants in Africa continuously declare force majeure due to pipeline bombings, etc. Another witnessed an embargo of LNG tankers due to basically blackmail, for a week, for roughly $1 billion by a Nigerian Port Authority even when the national gov`t oil company was part of the LNG consortium and that payment was not required.

Another recently opened LNG terminal in Africa now needs to be shut-down for one year due to shoddy workmanship through-out its entire system.

And that leaves us with the U.S Gulf Coast. Over one year ago, the head of Petronas told the Globe and Mail newspaper that LNG sourced from BC would be much cheaper. Seems he was right. Many Asian LNG purchasers, inclusive of the Japanese, of U.S Gulf coast LNG supplies seem to have now come to the same conclusion as Petronas. They are now backing off and attempting to sub-contract thier long-term LNG supplies to third parties.

Why? Well they also initially thought that U.S. Gulf Coast LNG supplies were the cheapest in the world and would be the proverbial `Cat`s Meow`. Not so now. Unlike the BC and Australian integrated LNG model with global LNG giants, U.S. Gulf Coast LNG terminals are not operated by global LNG giants, have expensive hedge fund financing, and utilize the `tolling` LNG model.

The tolling LNG model, from an LNG purchaser`s veiwpoint, can be quite risky. Why? Because they are tied to the Henry Hub NG price and Henry Hub spiked last winter to roughly $6+ MMBTu. Much more above that and U.S. Gulf Coast begins to become cost uncompetitive v BC. BTW, Henry Hub spiked to $13 MMBtu during Hurricane Katrina.

Add on to that, LNG purchaser`s requirement to charter LNG tankers to pick-up same from the U.S. Gulf Coast, a large Panama Canal fee, new Panama Canal unable to handle larger Q-Flex and Q-Max LNG tankers, 10 days+ additional sailing time and cost to Asia compared to BC, 5% LNG burn-off during said transit... and you get the picture.

Also remember that LNG purchasers prefer the most stable and risk-free LNG seller at the end of the day. They also want diversity of supply to further reduce risk. So, jawagord, based upon the foregoing, as a potential risk-averse Asian LNG purchaser, would you purchase from Qatar? Australia? Africa? U.S Gulf Coast? or BC? (Might as well forget about Russia for a whole host of other reasons altogether)

PS. By the looks of it, the global LNG majors seem to have placed their bets on BC.

MalcolmTucker Sep 29, 2014 2:53 PM

Quote:

based upon the foregoing, as a potential risk-averse Asian LNG purchaser, would you purchase from Qatar? Australia? Africa? U.S Gulf Coast? or BC?
If BC charges royalties at the AECO price, and no extra special tax, probably BC (though there is still problems with pipelines that will need to be litigated), but if BC charges royalties/extra taxes to reflect a Henry Hub or base Brent prices, then sorry.

240glt Sep 29, 2014 4:54 PM

Quote:

Again. Gotta disagree. And in that vein, AB politics (both FN and otherwise) is different from BC. And again, both AB and BC have different sub-regional political groupings in that regard.
I think a lot of folks in Alberta do not realize this.

You look at the media in BC compared to Alberta, and it's quite clear that we're not gettting the full story here. There's a lot of misinformation and a general lack of comprehension regarding the issues and challenges in BC. Those issues don't come to light here.. our media does not seem to be driven to report that

craneSpotter Sep 29, 2014 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6747362)
Again. Gotta disagree. And in that vein, AB politics (both FN and otherwise) is different from BC. And again, both AB and BC have different sub-regional political groupings in that regard.

Firstly, to re-iterate, NGP in AB passes through Treaty 8 lands dating back to circa 1899. Apparently, most, if not all, FNs in AB have signed agreements with Enbridge. Treaty 8 also extends into NE BC covering all over BC`s Peace River country where BC`s natural gas basins are situate.

West of there in BC, none of the FNs are covered by treaty. Furthermore, NOT ONE FN has signed onto NGP - unlike AB FNs from Bruderheim westward.

And those FNs are not attempting to leverage land claims as you suggest. In that vein, most (if not all) BC FNs along the same route are on board for the numerous NG pipelines to the west coast along with the westcoast LNG terminals. Ergo, your hypothesis fails there.

Again, FNs have an emotional fear of a bitumen spill along the numerous thousands of NGP river crossings with the potential for bitumen spills along same with salmon habitat. And more importantly, west coast FN fisheries and tourism may potentially be impacted by an Exxon Valdez-type disaster. That`s not my opinion. That`s their viewpoint.

Enbridge, when they commenced their process, viewed BC as akin to AB politically and that was an improper approach dealing with these FN and BC political sensitivities.

Jim Prentice himself said the same to the media this past week. He fully understands the FN problems with NGP moving forward. And I will also suggest that he will be a great preem for AB having that analytical knowledge - unlike his predecessors.

Remember, it was the same Jim Prentice, as federal environment minister, that rejected the large proposed Prosperity Mine west of Williams Lake (in BC`s Chilcotin region) to the consternation of local authorities, local Con MPs, residents and the BC government. In fact, BC had already provided the environmental assessment certificate for the proposed Prosperity Mine. That matter, today, is subject to a Judicial Review.

And the feds will not step in on behalf of Enbridge at the end of the day either. Forget about it. Too much political heat for them.

BTW, I personally support the NGP. As for BC`s `5 conditions`, I support them as well. In fact, when one reviews same individually, not that much to ask for considering the inherent risk - both risk-wise and political. And they can be easily satisfied. It`s the FN condition that needs to be met. And Enbridge screwed up same royally at the get-go, based upon previous interviews with former Enbridge employees in the media.

Even AB preem Jim Prentice `get`s that`. In fact, wouldn`t put too much weight on the BC gov`t acting as an intervenor in the NGP hearings either. Trends toward the political angle and the `5 conditions` more than anything else.

Also remember that BC has the lowest personal and corp. tax regime in the country aside from AB. And it also has the most pro-economic and resource development gov`t in the country along-side both AB and SK.

As for Kinder Morgan`s proposed tunnel under Burnaby Mountain, the NEB has given them approval for surveying same. They are legally entitled to that.

Problem was that they cut down some old-growth trees while undertaking same. And that was in contravention of the City of Burnaby`s by-laws. More importantly, the mature trees were within the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. KM should have been more sensitive to same. But they are still green-lighted to be `less intrusive` in surveying same.

As for Kitimat and its non-binding plebiscite, doesn`t mean much. Kitimat is currently undergoing a boom with the $3 billion+ Alcan aluminum smelter expansion, Chevron LNG work camp, Shell LNG, etc. Housing prices rising through the roof, zero vacancy, etc. probably caused some to vote no as too much development already on their plate.

Again, AB Premier Jim Prentice last week told the media that, based upon his FN discussions, Kitimat was the wrong locale for the NGP terminus. It is what it is.

As for Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan, he is a hard-core NDP-type and so is his 8-member NDP slate of BCA councillors who all oppose the KM twinning to boot. Don`t fret over them. They are inconsequential. They still, however, will be re-elected this November due to the low-20% municipal turnout in Burnaby muni elections.

Frankly, don`t concern yourself with the Van City mayor Gregor Robertson publicly opposing the KM expansion either. The pipeline does not run through Van City. Even the the KM terminus is not extant at Van City`s border. Gregor, who is basically a green liberal, has been mocked in the media about discussing that matter and other matters outta his jurisdiction. KM, at Burrard Inlet, is within the jurisdiction of the federal Port of Vancouver. Different entity completely.

And frankly, based upon a myriad of other reasons, it appears that Gregor will be ousted in this November`s muni election to the centre-right`s NPA mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe.

Bottom line - NGP is likely dead in its present configuration BUT KM is likely a go at the end of the day.

Now back to LNG. BC has roughly 18 LNG proposals on the books. Many of those are from promoters with no LNG expertise, no deep financial pockets, etc. and they are dead from the get-go.

However, most other BC LNG proposals have global LNG majors as proponents with their expertise, buyer contacts, and deep pockets.

Also remember that roughly 150 million tons per annum of un-contracted LNG demand in Asia exists by 2025. And LNG purchasers are also risk averse. To wit:

1. Qatar is the world`s current largest LNG producer (and will not expand capacity), very reliable, yet most of its LNG product traverses the narrow Strait of Hormuz neighbouring Iran. Geo-political risk is in the background thereto esp. when one considers that Japan, for example, only has 2 - 3 days of LNG on hand at any given time;

2. Australia will now surpass Qatar as the world`s largest LNG producer yet its capex cost per million tons per annum of installed LNG capacity has skyrocketed beyond current economic viability. Is it any wonder why major Australian LNG producer Woodside Petroleum seems to have abandoned Australia for future greenfield LNG such as their proposed Aussie Browse LNG? And now has selected a NW BC site for an LNG terminal?

Or why future `brownfield` LNG in Australia - that is, addition of liquefaction trains to existing Aussie LNG terminals - has also been abandoned by all other LNG global players in Australia?

3. Africa is an LNG producer yet much of Africa does not have any infrastructure, regulatory and legal framework (Tanzania and Mozambique), unskilled workforce, and is quite corrupt frankly. $Billions must be spent within unstable African regimes. Would you?

BG Group now does not have the NG feed-stock for its Egyptian LNG terminal. They are losing their shirts on that project.

Other global LNG giants in Africa continuously declare force majeure due to pipeline bombings, etc. Another witnessed an embargo of LNG tankers due to basically blackmail, for a week, for roughly $1 billion by a Nigerian Port Authority even when the national gov`t oil company was part of the LNG consortium and that payment was not required.

Another recently opened LNG terminal in Africa now needs to be shut-down for one year due to shoddy workmanship through-out its entire system.

And that leaves us with the U.S Gulf Coast. Over one year ago, the head of Petronas told the Globe and Mail newspaper that LNG sourced from BC would be much cheaper. Seems he was right. Many Asian LNG purchasers, inclusive of the Japanese, of U.S Gulf coast LNG supplies seem to have now come to the same conclusion as Petronas. They are now backing off and attempting to sub-contract thier long-term LNG supplies to third parties.

Why? Well they also initially thought that U.S. Gulf Coast LNG supplies were the cheapest in the world and would be the proverbial `Cat`s Meow`. Not so now. Unlike the BC and Australian integrated LNG model with global LNG giants, U.S. Gulf Coast LNG terminals are not operated by global LNG giants, have expensive hedge fund financing, and utilize the `tolling` LNG model.

The tolling LNG model, from an LNG purchaser`s veiwpoint, can be quite risky. Why? Because they are tied to the Henry Hub NG price and Henry Hub spiked last winter to roughly $6+ MMBTu. Much more above that and U.S. Gulf Coast begins to become cost uncompetitive v BC. BTW, Henry Hub spiked to $13 MMBtu during Hurricane Katrina.

Add on to that, LNG purchaser`s requirement to charter LNG tankers to pick-up same from the U.S. Gulf Coast, a large Panama Canal fee, new Panama Canal unable to handle larger Q-Flex and Q-Max LNG tankers, 10 days+ additional sailing time and cost to Asia compared to BC, 5% LNG burn-off during said transit... and you get the picture.

Also remember that LNG purchasers prefer the most stable and risk-free LNG seller at the end of the day. They also want diversity of supply to further reduce risk. So, jawagord, based upon the foregoing, as a potential risk-averse Asian LNG purchaser, would you purchase from Qatar? Australia? Africa? U.S Gulf Coast? or BC? (Might as well forget about Russia for a whole host of other reasons altogether)

PS. By the looks of it, the global LNG majors seem to have placed their bets on BC.

Excellent information & analysis!

Not to mention that while Japan is the largest LNG buyer in the world right now (35% of global production), China is set to triple it's LNG imports by 2020. Also, after 2020 Japan will need to decide whether to import significantly more LNG or build new nuclear reactors as many of their nuclear plants start to approach end of life. The Japanese are betting, right now, that the NG pipeline deal and pricing between Russia and China will help put downward pressure on current Asian LNG prices to the tune of $1-2 MMbtu (China/Russia future deals will set regional base price), which would still leave the proposed BC LNG operations looking good. Also, most Asian buyers are looking to diversify their LNG supply, and Canada is seen as an extremely safe, stable bet.

Of course, I expect BC & Canada to unveil a globally competitive incentive/tax package for the industry this October. This is new ground for us, so we need to seek many answers form outside as there is little, to no expertise in Canada with regard to LNG production and it's market.

jawagord Sep 30, 2014 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004 (Post 6747362)
Again. Gotta disagree. And in that vein, AB politics (both FN and otherwise) is different from BC. And again, both AB and BC have different sub-regional political groupings in that regard.

Firstly, to re-iterate, NGP in AB passes through Treaty 8 lands dating back to circa 1899. Apparently, most, if not all, FNs in AB have signed agreements with Enbridge. Treaty 8 also extends into NE BC covering all over BC`s Peace River country where BC`s natural gas basins are situate.

West of there in BC, none of the FNs are covered by treaty. Furthermore, NOT ONE FN has signed onto NGP - unlike AB FNs from Bruderheim westward.

And those FNs are not attempting to leverage land claims as you suggest. In that vein, most (if not all) BC FNs along the same route are on board for the numerous NG pipelines to the west coast along with the westcoast LNG terminals. Ergo, your hypothesis fails there.

Again, FNs have an emotional fear of a bitumen spill along the numerous thousands of NGP river crossings with the potential for bitumen spills along same with salmon habitat. And more importantly, west coast FN fisheries and tourism may potentially be impacted by an Exxon Valdez-type disaster. That`s not my opinion. That`s their viewpoint.

Enbridge, when they commenced their process, viewed BC as akin to AB politically and that was an improper approach dealing with these FN and BC political sensitivities.

Jim Prentice himself said the same to the media this past week. He fully understands the FN problems with NGP moving forward. And I will also suggest that he will be a great preem for AB having that analytical knowledge - unlike his predecessors.

Remember, it was the same Jim Prentice, as federal environment minister, that rejected the large proposed Prosperity Mine west of Williams Lake (in BC`s Chilcotin region) to the consternation of local authorities, local Con MPs, residents and the BC government. In fact, BC had already provided the environmental assessment certificate for the proposed Prosperity Mine. That matter, today, is subject to a Judicial Review.

And the feds will not step in on behalf of Enbridge at the end of the day either. Forget about it. Too much political heat for them.

BTW, I personally support the NGP. As for BC`s `5 conditions`, I support them as well. In fact, when one reviews same individually, not that much to ask for considering the inherent risk - both risk-wise and political. And they can be easily satisfied. It`s the FN condition that needs to be met. And Enbridge screwed up same royally at the get-go, based upon previous interviews with former Enbridge employees in the media.

Even AB preem Jim Prentice `get`s that`. In fact, wouldn`t put too much weight on the BC gov`t acting as an intervenor in the NGP hearings either. Trends toward the political angle and the `5 conditions` more than anything else.

Also remember that BC has the lowest personal and corp. tax regime in the country aside from AB. And it also has the most pro-economic and resource development gov`t in the country along-side both AB and SK.

As for Kinder Morgan`s proposed tunnel under Burnaby Mountain, the NEB has given them approval for surveying same. They are legally entitled to that.

Problem was that they cut down some old-growth trees while undertaking same. And that was in contravention of the City of Burnaby`s by-laws. More importantly, the mature trees were within the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. KM should have been more sensitive to same. But they are still green-lighted to be `less intrusive` in surveying same.

As for Kitimat and its non-binding plebiscite, doesn`t mean much. Kitimat is currently undergoing a boom with the $3 billion+ Alcan aluminum smelter expansion, Chevron LNG work camp, Shell LNG, etc. Housing prices rising through the roof, zero vacancy, etc. probably caused some to vote no as too much development already on their plate.

Again, AB Premier Jim Prentice last week told the media that, based upon his FN discussions, Kitimat was the wrong locale for the NGP terminus. It is what it is.

As for Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan, he is a hard-core NDP-type and so is his 8-member NDP slate of BCA councillors who all oppose the KM twinning to boot. Don`t fret over them. They are inconsequential. They still, however, will be re-elected this November due to the low-20% municipal turnout in Burnaby muni elections.

Frankly, don`t concern yourself with the Van City mayor Gregor Robertson publicly opposing the KM expansion either. The pipeline does not run through Van City. Even the the KM terminus is not extant at Van City`s border. Gregor, who is basically a green liberal, has been mocked in the media about discussing that matter and other matters outta his jurisdiction. KM, at Burrard Inlet, is within the jurisdiction of the federal Port of Vancouver. Different entity completely.

And frankly, based upon a myriad of other reasons, it appears that Gregor will be ousted in this November`s muni election to the centre-right`s NPA mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe.

Bottom line - NGP is likely dead in its present configuration BUT KM is likely a go at the end of the day.

Now back to LNG. BC has roughly 18 LNG proposals on the books. Many of those are from promoters with no LNG expertise, no deep financial pockets, etc. and they are dead from the get-go.

However, most other BC LNG proposals have global LNG majors as proponents with their expertise, buyer contacts, and deep pockets.

Also remember that roughly 150 million tons per annum of un-contracted LNG demand in Asia exists by 2025. And LNG purchasers are also risk averse. To wit:

1. Qatar is the world`s current largest LNG producer (and will not expand capacity), very reliable, yet most of its LNG product traverses the narrow Strait of Hormuz neighbouring Iran. Geo-political risk is in the background thereto esp. when one considers that Japan, for example, only has 2 - 3 days of LNG on hand at any given time;

2. Australia will now surpass Qatar as the world`s largest LNG producer yet its capex cost per million tons per annum of installed LNG capacity has skyrocketed beyond current economic viability. Is it any wonder why major Australian LNG producer Woodside Petroleum seems to have abandoned Australia for future greenfield LNG such as their proposed Aussie Browse LNG? And now has selected a NW BC site for an LNG terminal?

Or why future `brownfield` LNG in Australia - that is, addition of liquefaction trains to existing Aussie LNG terminals - has also been abandoned by all other LNG global players in Australia?

3. Africa is an LNG producer yet much of Africa does not have any infrastructure, regulatory and legal framework (Tanzania and Mozambique), unskilled workforce, and is quite corrupt frankly. $Billions must be spent within unstable African regimes. Would you?

BG Group now does not have the NG feed-stock for its Egyptian LNG terminal. They are losing their shirts on that project.

Other global LNG giants in Africa continuously declare force majeure due to pipeline bombings, etc. Another witnessed an embargo of LNG tankers due to basically blackmail, for a week, for roughly $1 billion by a Nigerian Port Authority even when the national gov`t oil company was part of the LNG consortium and that payment was not required.

Another recently opened LNG terminal in Africa now needs to be shut-down for one year due to shoddy workmanship through-out its entire system.

And that leaves us with the U.S Gulf Coast. Over one year ago, the head of Petronas told the Globe and Mail newspaper that LNG sourced from BC would be much cheaper. Seems he was right. Many Asian LNG purchasers, inclusive of the Japanese, of U.S Gulf coast LNG supplies seem to have now come to the same conclusion as Petronas. They are now backing off and attempting to sub-contract thier long-term LNG supplies to third parties.

Why? Well they also initially thought that U.S. Gulf Coast LNG supplies were the cheapest in the world and would be the proverbial `Cat`s Meow`. Not so now. Unlike the BC and Australian integrated LNG model with global LNG giants, U.S. Gulf Coast LNG terminals are not operated by global LNG giants, have expensive hedge fund financing, and utilize the `tolling` LNG model.

The tolling LNG model, from an LNG purchaser`s veiwpoint, can be quite risky. Why? Because they are tied to the Henry Hub NG price and Henry Hub spiked last winter to roughly $6+ MMBTu. Much more above that and U.S. Gulf Coast begins to become cost uncompetitive v BC. BTW, Henry Hub spiked to $13 MMBtu during Hurricane Katrina.

Add on to that, LNG purchaser`s requirement to charter LNG tankers to pick-up same from the U.S. Gulf Coast, a large Panama Canal fee, new Panama Canal unable to handle larger Q-Flex and Q-Max LNG tankers, 10 days+ additional sailing time and cost to Asia compared to BC, 5% LNG burn-off during said transit... and you get the picture.

Also remember that LNG purchasers prefer the most stable and risk-free LNG seller at the end of the day. They also want diversity of supply to further reduce risk. So, jawagord, based upon the foregoing, as a potential risk-averse Asian LNG purchaser, would you purchase from Qatar? Australia? Africa? U.S Gulf Coast? or BC? (Might as well forget about Russia for a whole host of other reasons altogether)

PS. By the looks of it, the global LNG majors seem to have placed their bets on BC.

So what you have said is those FN that have land treaties in place have all signed on to NG pipeline and all those FN without treaties have not signed on And it's not about land??? Sorry not buying the bitumen spill argument. We'll see over the next couple of years how it all plays out.

Regarding the LNG question, if I was buying for the next 5 years I would be forced to buy from an existing producer or from one of the under construction plants. What I know is once the over budget "Aussies" plants go into operation the sunk capital costs won't matter much, it will be about operating costs, and they will be low cost operators, close to the market. When Japan restarts their nuclear reactors What happens to the LNG market? As a consumer company I would want to know which one or two BC projects will get built, when will they get built, what price would I be paying, can anyone answer? Your Asian customers want the lowest price linked to NA gas prices, BC wants to sell LNG at prices linked to world oil/diesel prices. Hard to make a deal when the government hasn't set the tax rate, hard to cost your plant and pipeline when the environmental regs are not settled.

craneSpotter Sep 30, 2014 6:42 PM

Hmmm, interesting info.

Petronas cites environmental concerns on Prince Rupert LNG project

VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail - Sep 29, 2014 (link)

Quote:

While Mr. Shamsul complained to the Financial Times that Canada’s efforts to attract LNG investment are plagued by “uncertainty, delay and short vision,” B.C. government officials confirm it was the LNG company that requested a time extension of the environmental review process that will determine whether the project can proceed.

Pacific NorthWest LNG asked for more time to work out modifications in the jetty and terminal design at Lelu Island to include “substantial” mitigation measures to avoid and reduce potential adverse effects to the marine habitat, a B.C. Environment Ministry official said...

...The federal assessment is being conducted jointly with the B.C. Environmental Assessment Agency.

The project cannot move forward unless both levels of government each grant an environmental certificate. The company asked for an additional 45 days to respond to the concerns raised by the federal agency, which means the final decision may not be reached until Dec. 20.


craneSpotter Oct 6, 2014 4:33 PM

Petronas says 'consensus' on B.C. LNG terms in next few weeks is 'critical'

Vancouver Sun - Oct 6, 2014

Quote:

Petronas says its multibillion-dollar investment in B.C. liquefied natural gas could be delayed by at least a decade unless it can "secure consensus" with its government counterparts by the end of October...

...He says his company was "encouraged" by discussions it had last week with Premier Christy Clark and Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman.

He also says Petronas will continue to work with Ottawa and federal agencies on ways to advance the regulatory process and clarify the fiscal framework.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz3FNpPlkr1


craneSpotter Oct 6, 2014 7:44 PM

Certainly related to LNG, as well as gas liquids.

Construction underway on massive 2,500-person work camp in Peace Region

Alaska Highway News - Oct 6, 2014

http://www.timescolonist.com/busines...gion-1.1415625

Quote:

Encana recently started work on the Sunset Prairie Lodge, a camp roughly 55 kilometres from Dawson Creek that could eventually host up to 2,500 people working on the company’s Montney shale natural gas projects....Encana expects to invest $1 billion in its Montney holdings in the next year.
...

craneSpotter Oct 8, 2014 6:06 AM

LOL...the Petronas saga continues...

Petronas designs bridge to bypass habitats

G&M - Vancouver - October 7, 2014

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle20974636/

Quote:

While Petronas threatens to walk away from its B.C. liquefied natural gas venture if it doesn’t get its way, the Malaysian energy giant is taking extraordinary steps to dig in for the long term by designing a 1.6-kilometre long suspension bridge to minimize the project’s environmental impact.

Kuala Lumpur-based Petronas is hoping that the engineering feat will help save its $11-billion liquefied natural gas project, which is facing crunch time during an environmental review [CEAA is lead regulator]. The state-owned company is devising plans to build a suspension bridge to ensure its LNG operations near Prince Rupert in northwestern British Columbia won’t interfere with habitat for fish and marine mammals.

The suspension bridge design is the major change contained in a new 64-page engineering report aimed at persuading environmental regulators to approve the Petronas-led Pacific NorthWest LNG joint venture. Pacific NorthWest LNG sent the report to regulators late Monday, just hours after Petronas chief executive officer Shamsul Azhar Abbas warned that the B.C. project is in danger of being shelved for up to 15 years unless tax and regulatory issues are resolved by Oct. 31.

The $11-billion allotted for the export terminal on Lelu Island is part of a $36-billion budget that includes a B.C. pipeline and drilling in the province’s northeast....

...By contrast, designs for BG Group PLC’s rival Prince Rupert LNG project won’t need any suspension bridge to be built from Ridley Island, meaning BG Group would have a much shorter distance from its LNG storage facilities to the berths for Asia-bound tankers.

Denscity Oct 21, 2014 5:39 PM

This issue has been in the news both yesterday and today. Some info coming shortly regarding BC's tax structure??

craneSpotter Oct 22, 2014 12:05 AM

^ yes the announcement was made today in Victoria.

Chevron to Petronas Canada LNG Proposals Get B.C. Tax Cut

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...-s-lowest.html

Quote:

British Columbia is slashing by half a proposed levy on multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas projects from Chevron Corp. (CVX) to Malaysia’s Petroliam Nasional Bhd. amid an energy price rout.

Canada’s westernmost province will charge a tax rate starting at 1.5 percent of profits and rising to 3.5 percent after developers recover the cost of building the terminals, Michael de Jong, the provincial finance minister, said today in Victoria. That compares with 1.5 percent and 7 percent proposed in draft legislation in February. In 2037, the top rate rises to 5 percent.

“The market is not as lucrative as it once was,” de Jong told reporters before addressing legislators in the provincial capital. “Demand in places like China and Japan is changing, evolving.”

Developers led by Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), BG Group Plc (BG/) and Petronas, as the Malaysian state-owned crude producer is known, have pushed for better terms to invest in Canada’s Pacific Coast as they compete with other Asia-focused LNG projects in the U.S., Mozambique and Australia. None of the proponents of 18 LNG shipping terminals in British Columbia has decided to start construction.

The tax framework “provides balance and consideration of the challenges faced by an LNG sector in B.C.,” LNG Canada, a project led by Shell, said in a statement. “We are pleased to have certainty on a final B.C. LNG tax framework.”

Pacific NorthWest LNG, the C$10 billion ($8.9 billion) terminal proposal led by Petronas, is reserving comment on the tax until it has time to review it, Spencer Sproule, a spokesman for the project, said in an e-mail.

craneSpotter Oct 22, 2014 12:56 AM

This is promising ...

B.C.'s new LNG tax regime pleases one company, offers certainty to industry

By ROB SHAW and GORDON HOEKSTRA, Vancouver Sun October 21, 2014

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...805/story.html

Quote:

VICTORIA - At least one company behind a proposed liquefied natural gas project in B.C. says it's generally pleased with the government's new LNG tax regime.

LNG Canada, which is a Kitimat-based LNG project led by Shell, issued a statement that appeared supportive of the government tax structure unveiled Tuesday.

"We are of the view that the BC LNG tax framework announced by the government provides balance and consideration of the challenges faced by an LNG sector in B.C.,” the company said in a statement.

"We are pleased to have certainty on a final BC LNG tax framework and consider it an important input to our decision making process."

The company said it is satisfied the B.C. government recognizes the global challenges facing the LNG marketplace.

"There is much more work to do prior to a final investment decision for LNG Canada and we will continue working with First Nations and local communities, as well as municipal, provincial and federal governments," said the company.

"In particular, we look forward to continue to work with B.C. around areas of focus such as skills training and labour availability, protecting the environment, community needs and overall fiscal competitiveness and certainty," the company said.

Stingray2004 Oct 22, 2014 1:44 AM

Some Tweets from Keith Baldrey (Global BC) and Sean Leslie (CKNW):

Quote:

Keith Baldrey @keithbaldrey · 4 hours ago

Govt. documents suggest a mid-size LNG facility could generate $800 m. a yr in taxes/royalties. Based on current prices. #bcpoli
---------------------------------------------------

Sean Leslie @seanleslie980 · 5 hours ago

So if 5 #LNG plants go ahead, could=$40b in all-in revenues to BC over 10 yrs. Big if, though. #bcpoli
---------------------------------------------------

Keith Baldrey @keithbaldrey · 5 hours ago

New corporate tax credit could see some Alberta energy companies move HQs to BC. #bcpoli
Interesting stuff.

Denscity Oct 22, 2014 5:22 AM

Ya corporate tax rate lower than Alberta's to lure headquarters to BC. Here's hoping for a few new office towers (including Petronas) for Downtown Vancouver!!

lubicon Oct 22, 2014 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denscity (Post 6777971)
Ya corporate tax rate lower than Alberta's to lure headquarters to BC. Here's hoping for a few new office towers (including Petronas) for Downtown Vancouver!!

I doubt that will happen. Their defacto HQ is in Calgary now and I don't see that changing.

Denscity Oct 22, 2014 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon (Post 6778556)
I doubt that will happen. Their defacto HQ is in Calgary now and I don't see that changing.

Ya it was half serious/half wish. But with a 3% lower corporate tax rate you never know.

MalcolmTucker Oct 22, 2014 8:51 PM

Yeah, there are big economies of having everything in the same place. Even with entirely new (to Alberta) companies that have tried to set up in Edmonton at first they end up moving to Calgary. Not being able to easily have engineering, constructors, customer, environmental planners, etc makes things harder.

Making an entirely new cluster is hard. Most of these companies, unless they are headquartered in a tax jurisdiction with lower taxes than Canada, Canadian taxes are incidental. They write off 100% of Canadian tax on their USA/France/whereever taxes.

craneSpotter Oct 28, 2014 6:39 PM

TransCanada’s $4b pipeline gets B.C. environmental assessment certificate

BIV October 27, 2014 - http://www.biv.com/article/2014/10/t...ronmental-ass/

Quote:

TransCanada Corporation says that the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office has issued an environmental assessment certificate for the $4-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline project....

...The proposed project involves the construction and operation of an approximately 670-kilometre, 48-inch diameter natural gas pipeline from the Groundbirch area near Dawson Creek, B.C., to the proposed LNG Canada liquefied natural gas export facility near Kitimat, B.C....

...The next steps for the proposed project include detailed engineering and construction planning, as well as ongoing consultation with Aboriginal groups and the public. Pending the receipt of all required regulatory approvals and a positive final investment decision from LNG Canada, the start of pipeline construction is anticipated in 2016, with an in-service date by the end of the decade.

craneSpotter Oct 28, 2014 6:41 PM

$400 million plant expansion could shift B.C.’s domestic LNG transportation market into high gear

BIV October 28, 2014 - http://www.biv.com/article/2014/10/4...ft-bcs-domest/

Quote:

Among the concerns being raised over new provincial regulations for liquefied natural gas development is that other sectors in B.C. might have to shoulder more of the burden for reducing greenhouse gases so the province can have an LNG industry and still meet its GHG reduction targets.

Perhaps ironically, a growing domestic LNG market might help achieve some of those reductions, as remote communities and the trucking and shipping industries make the switch from diesel to cheaper, cleaner-burning natural gas.

FortisBC and AltaGas Ltd. (TSX:ALA) are planning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investments in LNG plants over the next couple of years to serve a growing domestic market for LNG.

Last week, FortisBC turned sod on a $400 million expansion of its existing LNG plant on Tilbury Island in Delta. The expansion – slated for completion in late 2016 – is being driven by a growing domestic demand for LNG by the trucking and marine industries.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 PM.

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