HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2012, 2:13 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Proposed West Coast BC LNG Terminals

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

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

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

In any event, another lng proposal was announced yesterday:

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure that alot of consolidation will occur over the coming years. Make no doubt about it... if these lng plants all come to fruition the intensive capital and labour requirements will likely rival Fort Mac in AB.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 5:51 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 20,435
Extremely impressive numbers! How exciting!!
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 6:30 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,662
Forget Alberta's crappy oil pipeline, here is some real investment for BC's economy! I really hope the full scale of this comes to fruition.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 7:29 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 4,821
So:

Oil pipeline = bad
Gas pipeline = good?
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 7:51 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,662
Its because nearly all of the economic benefits to be had from the oil pipeline occur in Alberta while BC takes the majority of the environmental risk. All of the processing facilities, extraction sites, etc... for these gas pipelines will be in BC (along with the tax revenue), which means major economic benefit for us along with the risk. Also, correct me if i am wrong, I believe potential natural gas leaks / spills are not as harmful as crude oil leaks.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 8:56 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
Its because nearly all of the economic benefits to be had from the oil pipeline occur in Alberta while BC takes the majority of the environmental risk. All of the processing facilities, extraction sites, etc... for these gas pipelines will be in BC (along with the tax revenue), which means major economic benefit for us along with the risk. Also, correct me if i am wrong, I believe potential natural gas leaks / spills are not as harmful as crude oil leaks.

Natural Gas = Methane. One of these pipelines bursting would be no more harmful to the environment then every beer drinking male in this country making his personal "contribution" to the atmosphere.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 9:16 PM
Mitchapalooza Mitchapalooza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
So:

Oil pipeline = bad
Gas pipeline = good?
Yes, precisely that.

A natural gas leak would be 100000000 times less damaging to the environment than a crude oil leak.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2012, 6:50 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Aside from the 4 major contemplated lng terminals/ global energy giants described above... BC Energy Minister Rich Coleman today confirmed that 2 other majors also have serious intentions... one player is looking at Kitimat and the other is looking at Prince Rupert for their respective lng terminals.

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

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

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

At the end of the day... pretty big stuff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2012, 10:44 PM
libtard's Avatar
libtard libtard is offline
Dahvie Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,018
What makes BC think its so deserving of more energy revenues.

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

BC get over yourself. Let the pipeline run through the province and be thankful you're at the end so you get a terminal. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2012, 1:21 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
5. News reports from the U.S. have confirmed that Exxon is looking at constructiing an lng terminal on BC's west coast as well.

---------------------

BC Energy Minister Rich Coleman also identified global energy giant Exxon Mobil as one of these companies.
Further confirmation that ExxonMobil is now in on the westcoast lng game with its $3.1 billion friendly takeover offer of natural gas junior Celtic Exploration today with upstream assets in BC's Montney and Alberta's Duvernay basins that would bolster ExxonMobil's plan for an lng terminal:

Quote:
Exxon bids $3.1-billion to buy Canada’s Celtic Exploration

CALGARY — The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, Oct. 17 2012, 7:58 AM EDT

Celtic Exploration Ltd. has received a friendly takeover offer valued at $3.1-billion from Canadian affiliates of U.S. energy giant ExxonMobil Corp., which will expand its natural gas holdings in western Canada through the deal.

The Calgary-based company is mainly focused the Montney and Duvernay gas plays.

Celtic’s shareholders are being offered $24.50 per share and a half-share of a new company, code-named Spinco – well above recent market prices.

Celtic’s stock closed Tuesday at $18.12 on the Toronto Stock Exchange before the announcement.

The offer, excluding the value of Spinco shares, is 25 per cent over the Oct. 16 closing price and 34 per cent over a 30-day volume-weighted average price of $18.28 per Celtic share.

The new company will have about 49,000 acres of undeveloped lands and produce the equivalent of about 3,300 barrels per day, about 90 per cent in the form of gas.

The board of Celtic unanimously supports the proposal and has agreed not to seek a better offer but is entitled to consider rival offers brought to it. ExxonMobil Canada will have a right to match any superior proposal.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle4617626/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2012, 5:08 AM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Shanghai/Seoul/Vancouver
Posts: 8,978
Just because Montana and Wyoming don't complain, that means BC shouldn't as well? Tight logic.

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

If you think that's too much to ask, try exporting it down south first, and then to Asia. I'm sure they'll give you a better distribution deal *sarcasm*.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2012, 11:35 PM
vitc's Avatar
vitc vitc is offline
mAd cRaZy CoDeR
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 356
Question for the political junkies - what real impact would a NDP government have on these LNG projects? Does he have a position?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2012, 4:56 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 4,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitc View Post
Question for the political junkies - what real impact would a NDP government have on these LNG projects? Does he have a position?
I suppose it depends on whether their opposition to tankers extends to LNG ships as well. If so, then the projects are as good as dead.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2012, 10:46 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
I suppose it depends on whether their opposition to tankers extends to LNG ships as well. If so, then the projects are as good as dead.
If you can't go West. Go East to Churchill Manitoba and export to Europe. I think the oil/gas companies want world prices and don't care who the buyer realy is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2012, 12:09 AM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
If you can't go West. Go East to Churchill Manitoba and export to Europe. I think the oil/gas companies want world prices and don't care who the buyer realy is.
Europe is a declining market, Asia is a growing market.

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

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

If oil pipelines pass environmental assessment, does the Constitution even allow a government to impede inter-provincial commerce? I know in both the US and Australia state governments have zero jurisdiction over interstate trade and transportation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2012, 4:51 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Europe is a declining market, Asia is a growing market.

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

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

If oil pipelines pass environmental assessment, does the Constitution even allow a government to impede inter-provincial commerce? I know in both the US and Australia state governments have zero jurisdiction over interstate trade and transportation.
Sounds like they also want to twin the pipeline from the 50s down to Vancouver. I agree the West Coast is a good option.

My point is if they can’t make this work due to environmental and public acceptance issues, then go east. Oil is a commodity, currently Europe gets most of its oil from the middle east. If they start to get their oil from Canada, then the middle east oil will likely end up in Asia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2012, 3:54 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
If you can't go West. Go East to Churchill Manitoba and export to Europe. I think the oil/gas companies want world prices and don't care who the buyer realy is.
So you guys rant about access to BC ports (provincial jurisdiction BLAH BLAH BLAH) but conveniently ignore that position when goods travel the opposite direction?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 2:08 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
So you guys rant about access to BC ports (provincial jurisdiction BLAH BLAH BLAH) but conveniently ignore that position when goods travel the opposite direction?
It's note quite a rant. If the communities along the route out west do not want the pipeline, then try something else.

There was recent article a few days ago on how the NDP is supporting increasing the volume of oil heating to Ontario/Quebec....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4574676/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 4:32 AM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 3,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitc View Post
Question for the political junkies - what real impact would a NDP government have on these LNG projects? Does he have a position?
Firstly, the only file that I recall the 1990's NDP administration doing anything right on was the then encouragement in expansion of the conventional natural gas sector in NE BC in terms of tax credits and royalty structure. I will give them credit there at least.

As for the current lng terminals, lng supertankers, natural gas-fired generation plants to power these lng terminals (massive amounts of electricity required), and the utilization of fraccing to bring these unconventional tight gas/shale gas desposits to fruition as the feedstock for the lng terminals, the current NDP position is:

Quote:
B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix reassured top Canadian energy officials this week his party wants a smooth transition to power and doesn’t want his planned tax hikes to surprise them if his party wins the next election.

Those in attendance were also pleasantly reassured to hear that Dix fully supports the Liberal government’s plans to expand the LNG industry for export, and would not call for a moratorium on fracking. He also understands the need to use natural gas to generate electricity.
http://www.allpolitics.ca/index.php?...y=NDP&refno=84
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2012, 3:35 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 23,466
I wonder what spinoff there will be for Alberta based companies in all of this...
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.