BC NDP trying to poach North Coast LNG investment?

[quote=“hitest”]

I am not her number one fan, but, why don’t you folks ask her directly? Unless you don’t want answers. If she receives a lot of questions from her constituents she may respond.[/quote]

We shouldn’t have to seek her out and “ask her” on what is probably the largest issue facing our riding…furthermore Mr. Austin’s sentiments were spoken in the legislature with Ms. Rice in attendance…you would think that would have been an appropriate time for her to respond. The fact that she heard him say that these companies on the coast should look at the Nass Valley instead, and chose to not stand up for development in her riding is absolutely politically unforgivable. Her party leader and neighbouring MLA have made controversial statements that they fully knew would probably not sit well with people in this riding.

It is time for Ms. Rice to get ON BOARD with what is happening here and STAND UP for North Coast development. Enough is enough…we shouldn’t have to seek out our MLA personally to get her to respond to what is and has been the biggest issue facing this region for her entire career as an MLA.

[quote=“hitest”]

I am not her number one fan, but, why don’t you folks ask her directly? Unless you don’t want answers. If she receives a lot of questions from her constituents she may respond.[/quote]

My questions were asked on here for discussion purposes but I can guarantee you that she’ll be hearing from me directly. I’m not sure what her party is trying to accomplish with suggesting that Prince Ruperts LNG opportunities should be located elsewhere but I’m going to find out.

As it stands right now, it appears that the Liberal government has our backs more than our elected MLA and her party does.

hate to say this but whatever Horgan or Ms Rice thinks or wants for LNG in Prince Rupert does not matter for Petronas or BG, the reason why is that it is on Port land and the port will do what the port does and ignore those ppl against any type of development, so let them spout out their nonsense it does not change anything at all

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

I am not her number one fan, but, why don’t you folks ask her directly? Unless you don’t want answers. If she receives a lot of questions from her constituents she may respond.

My questions were asked on here for discussion purposes but I can guarantee you that she’ll be hearing from me directly. I’m not sure what her party is trying to accomplish with suggesting that Prince Ruperts LNG opportunities should be located elsewhere but I’m going to find out.

As it stands right now, it appears that the Liberal government has our backs more than our elected MLA and her party does.[/quote]

Well said “bthedog” and “Crazy Train” that’s the passion MLA Rice needs to tap into, and I heartedly agree. Apologies to “bthedog” for hogging your topic.

Sounds like a good plan to me. I’ve taken the time to speak with her once or twice and I found her to be friendly and open to discussion. I’ll be curious to hear your opinion if you do make contact with her.

I agree with your premise, but global corporations are continually monitoring the political landscape of potential enterprises. I think the life of a LNG project if I’m not mistaken is a minimal 25 years. I’m pretty sure corporations have whole departments that do scenario planning. The NDP are not known as business friendly and everytime they say anything negative about business in our case here LNG that’s taken into account. I bet that business has running odds on the possibility of a NDP government in the future. So things said now like raising the LNG tax can affect future projects.

[quote=“uartz1949”]

I agree with your premise, but global corporations are continually monitoring the political landscape of potential enterprises. I think the life of a LNG project if I’m not mistaken is a minimal 25 years. I’m pretty sure corporations have whole departments that do scenario planning. The NDP are not known as business friendly and everytime they say anything negative about business in our case here LNG that’s taken into account. I bet that business has running odds on the possibility of a NDP government in the future. So things said now like raising the LNG tax can affect future projects.[/quote]

This is VERY true.

[quote=“bthedog”]

I agree with your premise, but global corporations are continually monitoring the political landscape of potential enterprises. I think the life of a LNG project if I’m not mistaken is a minimal 25 years. I’m pretty sure corporations have whole departments that do scenario planning. The NDP are not known as business friendly and everytime they say anything negative about business in our case here LNG that’s taken into account. I bet that business has running odds on the possibility of a NDP government in the future. So things said now like raising the LNG tax can affect future projects.

This is VERY true.[/quote]

The NDP should be blamed for every single LNG project that never gets built.

^^
I’d prefer to just blame retired public school teachers.

I thought uartz and bthedog were the same person. It blew my mind this morning to see them thanking each other. They should “get to work” like Todd Hamilton.

When were we thanking each other? And who says we AREN’T the same person?

This also needs to be pointed out - you FINALLY are quoting someone accurately.

Whoa, are you the same person or not??!!!

I can’t in good cautious talk to someone who is two peeople.

I quote everyone accurately.

[quote=“TerriblePerson”]Whoa, are you the same person or not??!!!

I can’t in good cautious talk to someone who is two peeople.

I quote everyone accurately.[/quote]

I am going to let you figure this one out on your own.

Hi guys.

Word.

If we can move past the word games, the BC Liberal caucus has responded with a media release entitled “Horgan Says No to Prince Rupert”. Here is a partial quote:

"NDP leader John Horgan dropped into Prince Rupert, donned a hard hat for a photo op – and an hour after leaving town, he said the community had no future.

“John Horgan talks a good game, claiming he supports LNG and then he takes every opportunity to dismiss and disparage ‎the industry,” says Nechako Lakes MLA John Rustad, who is also the minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. “If you want to support economic growth, if you want to see more people working in the northwest, you don’t do it by rejecting the projects that are planned.

“That’s not leadership. That’s changing your tune depending where you are.”

‎Rustad was responding to comments the NDP leader made to a Terrace newspaper, belittling the two leading LNG projects for Prince Rupert.

“I think they’re done,” said Horgan of the BG Group’s project, Prince Rupert LNG, which would involve a facility capable of producing 21 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Then Horgan went on to call into question the Petronas project, also planned for Prince Rupert."

< governmentcaucus.bc.ca/blog/news … ce-rupert/ >.

Don’t let Rustad near a megaproject. You’ll be lucky to get a Subway staffed with TFWs out of the deal…

Sniff? What’s that? Smells like rotten eggs!
Hmm… natural gas smells like rotten eggs.
I guess I’ll light a match and see if it’s natural gas!

[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]Don’t let Rustad near a megaproject. You’ll be lucky to get a Subway staffed with TFWs out of the deal…

Sniff? What’s that? Smells like rotten eggs!
Hmm… natural gas smells like rotten eggs.
I guess I’ll light a match and see if it’s natural gas![/quote]

Will LNG burn?

LNG vapor, mainly methane (natural gas), burns only within the narrow
range of a 5 to 15 percent gas-to-air mixture. If the fuel concentration is
lower than 5 percent, it cannot burn because of insufficient fuel. If the fuel
concentration is higher than 15 percent, it cannot burn because there is
insufficient oxygen. For LNG to burn, it must be released, vaporize, mix with
air in the flammable ratio, and be exposed to an ignition source. From an
environmental standpoint there is very little smoke associated with an LNG
fire. LNG vapors do not catch fire as easily as those of other common fuels
such as jet fuel or propane (LPG) These fuels ignite at much lower
concentrations in air and much lower auto-ignition temperatures. In
addition, LNG vapors dissipate more easily, meaning that potential hazards
can persist longer for other fuels than for LNG.
All of these fuels, and more, are used safely every day, with very few
incidents, in a wide range of locations and settings and to improve quality of
life.

Will LNG explode?

Explosion is a hazard unlikely to occur with LNG activity. LNG in liquid form
itself will not explode within storage tanks, since it is stored approximately -
256°F (-160°C) and at atmospheric pressure. Without pressure or
confinement or heavily obstructed clouds of the vapors, there can be no
explosion. An explosion from a release of LNG vapors is possible only if all
the following conditions occur at the same time: vapors are in the
flammability range, vapors are in a confined space and a source of ignition is
present.

From University of Houston Law Center
Institute for Energy

[quote=“BTravenn”]If we can move past the word games, the BC Liberal caucus has responded with a media release entitled “Horgan Says No to Prince Rupert”. Here is a partial quote:

"NDP leader John Horgan dropped into Prince Rupert, donned a hard hat for a photo op – and an hour after leaving town, he said the community had no future.

“John Horgan talks a good game, claiming he supports LNG and then he takes every opportunity to dismiss and disparage ‎the industry,” says Nechako Lakes MLA John Rustad, who is also the minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. “If you want to support economic growth, if you want to see more people working in the northwest, you don’t do it by rejecting the projects that are planned.

“That’s not leadership. That’s changing your tune depending where you are.”

‎[/quote]

These are the quotes that the Liberals are using as evidence that Horgan is against LNG and Prince Rupert.

Well, maybe done is not the right word, but didn’t they delay making any decision until after 2016, that they had projects going on in the US.

[quote]Horgan also focussed on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, which has as its majority owner the Malaysian-stated owned Petronas company and which is slated for a location on Lelu Island within the District of Port Edward’s jurisdiction.

The location has just come under criticism from a number of aboriginal groups and some residents for potential impacts on the Skeena River’s salmon populations.

The project is under a provincial environmental review and Petronas recently received a 45-day extension of that review to conduct more work.

“The Skeena River’s got some salmon in it,” said Horgan of the importance of the river to the region.

He did note that the review will shed more light on the impacts of the planned project on the Skeena River estuary and its salmon-hosting role.

In some ways, Horgan said the prospects of LNG development in Kitimat are more favourable than around Prince Rupert.

One LNG project at Kitimat, called Kitimat LNG, has a substantial buy-in from aboriginal groups.

That includes the Haisla at Kitamaat Village on whose lands the plant will be built and from virtually all of the First Nations who have territory over which a natural gas pipeline would run to supply the facility.[/quote]

Here he seems to be comparing the feasibility of Kitimat’s projects against Prince Rupert’s. He is not saying that Rupert is a no; he is just pointing out that Rupert doesn’t have the same kind of support that Kitimat does.

[quote]LNG is all hype and no substance:
“What’s the structure to create this unlimited resource [of LNG] that you talk about? No answer… So we have lots of hype and not a lot of substance.” – John Horgan, Straight.com, June 11, 2014[/quote]

And so far, has there been more hype or substance?

[quote]Never be LNG revenues:
“There’s no evidence that that revenue will ever come on-stream. Prices in Asia are going to be coming down, because they’ve got competition now for gas. They’ve got Australia; they’ve got Qatar. They’ve now got British Columbia and the United States. So as the market starts to figure this out, the return to BC is going to get smaller and smaller — and as those margins shrink, it could get to the point where we’re giving more than we’re getting back. That’s a significant concern for me.” – John Horgan, SHAW, May 8, 2014[/quote]

Are prices going down? Will we ever see the trillions and trillions of dollars and a debt free province with a legacy fund from LNG?

[quote]Scientific review of fracking and moratorium:
“[NDP scientific review of fracking could lead to a moratorium] if the evidence shows it is harmful.” – John Horgan, Vancouver Sun, May 6, 2014[/quote]

And should we frack if the evidence says its harmful?

Regardless, it is up to the Liberals to make all of these projects happen. I am far more interested with what the Liberals have to say and do. The NDP does not have control of anything. They can spout and sputter all the want. The only way the NDP can win the next election is if the Liberals LNG plans fail miserably, and no matter what Horgan says, it won’t be his fault if they do.

[quote=“DWhite”]

These are the quotes that the Liberals are using as evidence that Horgan is against LNG and Prince Rupert.

He is not saying that Rupert is a no; he is just pointing out that Rupert … [/quote]

… is “done”, which is apparently something other than a “no”.

I really don’t know what to make of Horgan and his statements. He is not a politician that I’ve paid any attention to. I would have thought that he would be a stronger communicator. My impression is that if doesn’t improve his communication skills by next election it will be the NDP that will be “done”.