The Vancouver Business Thread

[jollyburger]

Shopify is laying off 1000 people

https://globalnews.ca/news/9015970/shopify-layoffs-july-2022-pandemic/

[jollyburger]

Metro Vancouver defers vote on expanding LNG production Tilbury

https://www.nsnews.com/highlights/metro-vancouver-defers-vote-to-oppose-lng-plant-expansion-5640848

Don't they need to expand LNG to save the world from Putin?

[Migrant_Coconut]

AFAIK natural gas is intended to be a transitional fuel, one that's much cleaner than other fossil fuels. So hydro's bad, nuclear's bad, and we shouldn't sell LNG... I guess we're supposed to instantly replace all of the third world's coal with good vibes?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AFAIK natural gas is intended to be a transitional fuel, one that's much cleaner than other fossil fuels. So hydro's bad, nuclear's bad, and we shouldn't sell LNG... I guess we're supposed to instantly replace all of the third world's coal with good vibes?

It's a bit debatable whether natural gas is "much" cleaner than other fossil fuels. Per unit of energy from combustion, you're looking at around a 50% reduction over coal and a 25% reduction over fuel oil, but this is ignoring the concerns around safe storage and transportation. There's really no such thing as spilling coal, it mostly just lays there (maybe you have some coal dust losses, but that's not really an environmental issue). You can see the piles of it at Neptune Terminals on the North Shore. If you spill oil (assuming it's not an ocean spill), it generally stays fairly localized and can be cleaned up. If you spill natural gas, you're invisibly releasing a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere that's 25x more potent than CO2 (though it does gradually break down).

With proper rules in regulations in Canada, this is probably largely not an issue, but can we say the same thing about the countries receiving LNG? Should we trust natural gas distributors in Vietnam or Trinidad or India to not have non-trivial atmospheric losses?

The EPA thought losses in Texas were about 0.2%, but when they actually measured it they were emitting 4% of all produced natural gas directly into the atmosphere. Who knows how much loss there is during storage and transit.

It's entirely possible from a global emissions standpoint coal might be better. You can read this paper on the analysis. Ultimately I'm usually pro-nuclear and pro-hydro, but it doesn't always make sense, especially not in the local political climate.

As for the "defense against Russia" argument, those terminals would need to be on the East Coast, not out here 10 million miles from Europe.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

As for the "defense against Russia" argument, those terminals would need to be on the East Coast, not out here 10 million miles from Europe.

But there's a limited supply of LNG (tankers as well) so everything being redirected from one destination to another has a knock on affect. Long term LNG contracts tied to Asia would have to be replaced if they wanted to redirect those shipments to Europe.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But there's a limited supply of LNG (tankers as well) so everything being redirected from one destination to another has a knock on affect. Long term LNG contracts tied to Asia would have to be replaced if they wanted to redirect those shipments to Europe.

Global markets are intermingled, but when infrastructure is limited and international supply deals come in it might not be as intermingled as you think. Basically all of Algeria's natural gas goes to Europe, basically all of Azerbaijan's natural gas goes to Europe. Most of Qatar's natural gas is committed to supply deals. A direct supply from Canada would probably be of a lot of a value. I'm not sure if we supply China, Malaysia will start dumping natural gas into Europe.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AFAIK natural gas is intended to be a transitional fuel, one that's much cleaner than other fossil fuels. So hydro's bad, nuclear's bad, and we shouldn't sell LNG... I guess we're supposed to instantly replace all of the third world's coal with good vibes?

Well, the entire green transition strategy relies on group hugs and warm and fuzzy words instead of reality. Russia's oil and LNG is going to get used, just in Asia instead of Europe. This would be an excellent time for Canada to benefit from being an energy exporter to reduce the 1 trillion dollar national debt but no.

I would be investigating heavily in candle and firewood industries in Europe ahead of this winter.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Well, the entire green transition strategy relies on group hugs and warm and fuzzy words instead of reality. Russia's oil and LNG is going to get used, just in Asia instead of Europe. This would be an excellent time for Canada to benefit from being an energy exporter to reduce the 1 trillion dollar national debt but no.

I would be investigating heavily in candle and firewood industries in Europe ahead of this winter.

I'm working with a company doing just that. The entire project will export liquified natural gas from northern BC to East Asia.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Well, the entire green transition strategy relies on group hugs and warm and fuzzy words instead of reality.

Also requires billions, if not trillions, of taxpayer dollars dumped into it as well....

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Well, the entire green transition strategy relies on group hugs and warm and fuzzy words instead of reality. Russia's oil and LNG is going to get used, just in Asia instead of Europe. This would be an excellent time for Canada to benefit from being an energy exporter to reduce the 1 trillion dollar national debt but no.

I would be investigating heavily in candle and firewood industries in Europe ahead of this winter.

AFAIK Lithuania's doing pretty well, and France has its reactors... as for the rest, one'd think the Energiewende was a warning, not a freaking instruction manual.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AFAIK Lithuania's doing pretty well, and France has its reactors... as for the rest, one'd think the Energiewende was a warning, not a freaking instruction manual.

The Greenpeace anti-nuclear energy movement has probably done the most damage to the climate, human rights, and geopolitical stability than any other in recent history.

Now I don't condone all of France's actions against Greenpeace, but at least in typical French fashion they didn't cave to pressure and did things their own way. Hopefully the rest of Europe follows suit.

On another note, remember that switching to a heat pump isn't just fighting climate change, it's also fighting the Russians! (Sounds like Cold War propaganda but it's true!)

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by giallo

I'm working with a company doing just that. The entire project will export liquified natural gas from northern BC to East Asia.

Thank you for helping our economy prosper. At the same time our local decision makers are trying to hurt Canada's prosperity as much as they can, as seen in cases Trans-Mountain Pipeline and Tilbury LNG Terminal. Fortunately the pipeline is soon to be completed.

https://biv.com/article/2022/07/metro-vancouver-defers-vote-oppose-lng-plant-expansion

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Thank you for helping our economy prosper. At the same time our local decision makers are trying to hurt Canada's prosperity as much as they can, as seen in cases Trans-Mountain Pipeline and Tilbury LNG Terminal. Fortunately the pipeline is soon to be completed.

https://biv.com/article/2022/07/metro-vancouver-defers-vote-oppose-lng-plant-expansion

So you link to an article that explains at length all the potential and actual environmental problems with the Tilbury LNG Terminal, and the only take-away you understood was that local decision makers are trying to hurt Canada's prosperity? Intentionally? Why would rational, responsible people do that?

The opposition to the Trans-Mountain pipeline was, and is, based on exactly the same concerns. It will have leaks, the risk of a major tanker incident in BC waters will be much greater, and the huge investment in extracting fossil fuels would be better spent on non-polluting investments in greater electrical production and storage, and local energy efficiency improvements.

Climate change is real, and is already costing society huge amounts as a result of the damage we're already experiencing, (with far worse consequences in the near future) even if gas and oil businesses would like you to think it's nothing to worry about.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Ideology aside, BC's only getting fifty permanent jobs from TMX. 2/3rds of the risk and almost none of the profit sounds like a very bad deal for us.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ideology aside, BC's only getting fifty permanent jobs from TMX. 2/3rds of the risk and almost none of the profit sounds like a very bad deal for us.

Isn't BC basically getting all of the risk? A spill in any of our waterways would be terrible.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Thank you for helping our economy prosper. At the same time our local decision makers are trying to hurt Canada's prosperity as much as they can, as seen in cases Trans-Mountain Pipeline and Tilbury LNG Terminal. Fortunately the pipeline is soon to be completed.

https://biv.com/article/2022/07/metro-vancouver-defers-vote-oppose-lng-plant-expansion

To add to the LNG company I'm currently working with, I was in Kitimat yesterday, and the LNG terminal under construction on their inlet is massive. Believe me, there's a ton of LNG development in northern BC right now - whether that's seen as a good thing or a bad thing is another matter. The entire area from Prince Rupert to Kitimat to Terrace is buzzing. Add the Nass Valley stuff in the *ahem* pipeline, and there are large scale developments happening everywhere around here.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ideology aside, BC's only getting fifty permanent jobs from TMX. 2/3rds of the risk and almost none of the profit sounds like a very bad deal for us.

Be that as it may, I think the "it's a bad deal for us" talking point is a bit narrowminded in the same way Albertans opposing the NEP or carbon taxes or equalization is narrowminded. We're one country, Canada. We depend on one another through ups and downs. "Only fifty jobs in BC" also comes with probably hundreds if not thousands of jobs and economic growth in Alberta which absolutely equates to Canadian economic growth and federal tax revenue. It's not us versus them, we're all in this together. Quebec takes all the risk and little benefit from ship traffic out of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Newfoundland and Labrador assumes all the risk of Churchill Falls with little benefit. The "have" provinces have negative benefits due to equalization payments. All of these provide for a stronger Canada, it's not a zero-sum game.

Now, climate concerns from continued fossil fuel development and expansion is a whole other beast and that's a much more valid reason to be opposed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Isn't BC basically getting all of the risk? A spill in any of our waterways would be terrible.

Part of the pipeline goes through Alberta, so I'm figuring 1/3rd AB, 1/3rd BC, 1/3rd BC coast.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Be that as it may, I think the "it's a bad deal for us" talking point is a bit narrowminded in the same way Albertans opposing the NEP or carbon taxes or equalization is narrowminded. We're one country, Canada. We depend on one another through ups and downs. "Only fifty jobs in BC" also comes with probably hundreds if not thousands of jobs and economic growth in Alberta which absolutely equates to Canadian economic growth and federal tax revenue. It's not us versus them, we're all in this together. Quebec takes all the risk and little benefit from ship traffic out of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Newfoundland and Labrador assumes all the risk of Churchill Falls with little benefit. The "have" provinces have negative benefits due to equalization payments. All of these provide for a stronger Canada, it's not a zero-sum game.

Now, climate concerns from continued fossil fuel development and expansion is a whole other beast and that's a much more valid reason to be opposed.

Well, if we're gonna talk about One United Canada (TM), then the rest of the country gets to stage an intervention for our buddy Alberta's crippling addiction to one single, steadily declining economic sector as a way of making money. Oil, coal, they're a net deficit these days; AB's gotta diversify (which AFAIK they were trying to do until the NEP came along and killed that right out of the gate).

But we're less united than one'd think - Eastern Canada subconsciously figures the country ends at Thunder Bay, BC subconsciously figures it ends at the Rockies, and Quebec - and some parts of the Prairies - consciously figure they're their own country. It's a miracle we and the States have held an entire continent together for so long.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, if we're gonna talk about One United Canada (TM), then the rest of the country gets to stage an intervention for our buddy Alberta's crippling addiction to one single, steadily declining economic sector as a way of making money. Oil, coal, they're a net deficit these days; AB's gotta diversify (which AFAIK they were trying to do until the NEP came along and killed that right out of the gate).

But we're less united than one'd think - Eastern Canada subconsciously figures the country ends at Thunder Bay, BC subconsciously figures it ends at the Rockies, and Quebec - and some parts of the Prairies - consciously figure they're their own country. It's a miracle we and the States have held an entire continent together for so long.

My friend in Calgary (who lived here for a number of years) thinks it's crazy how AB is still smitten with the oil industry - but try saying that to a conservative gov (which AB usually has)...

Yeah Canada has distinct geographical 'nations'. At the most basic level there's BC, then the prairie provinces, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the north. I'm sure there's sub-areas within that too.

[whatnext]

More tech layoffs:

Hootsuite laying off hundreds of workers in latest blow to B.C. tech sector
Expert says more job cuts coming to B.C. tech sector through to end of the year
By Tyler Orton | August 9, 2022, 10:01am

Hootsuite Inc. is cutting 30 per cent of its global workforce amid a global slowdown in the sector affecting giants and startups.

The Vancouver-based social media management company revealed the news to its employees Tuesday.

“Today is a hard day for Hootsuite,” CEO Tom Keiser said in a statement to BIV.

“These people are our colleagues and our friends. They are some of the best in their fields and we will do whatever we can to help them land well elsewhere. We want to be very clear this decision is not a reflection on them or their work. It is indicative of a change to our business that realigns our strategies with the positions we need to be successful.”

Hootsuite declined an interview request from BIV and said it would not be providing any further statements at this time.

The company employs about 500 workers in B.C. and more than 1,200 across the globe, meaning more than 350 workers will be out of work. It’s not clear how many workers in Vancouver are directly affected by the layoffs...

https://biv.com/article/2022/08/hootsuite-laying-hundreds-workers-latest-blow-bc-tech-sector