[quote=“BTravenn”]I think that Horgan’s comments do matter.
LNG will require enormous investments of capital, these are complex projects that are subject to lengthy and complicated regulatory reviews. The issue for government is more about creating a business environment that will encourage investment in LNG, but nothing will go ahead unless and until developers are ready to proceed, recognizing that they are operating in competitive international markets, in terms of supply, demand and abilities of different jurisdictions to provide stable and attractive places to build very expensive plants.
I don’t recall Christy Clark promising that everything will be in place by next election or setting specific revenue targets. There are too many unknowns and many key decisions that determine scheduling, levels of investment and hence potential revenues to the Province will be made by industry, not the government. The most that can be said is that LNG would generate a lot of new economic activity and resource revenue, but how much that might be and when exactly no one knows or can know at this point.
With that in mind, the NDP seems to be developing a strange, not very credible narrative, where they say they support LNG but that support seems lukewarm at best. They also seem eager to say Clark will not be able to keep so-called ‘promises’ that the NDP itself would not make, not least of all because there are too many unknowns for anyone to make specific promises.
Having one or more operational plants will take a few years at least and, if built, will outlive several governments. Investors have to be asking themselves, who is this guy Horgan, what is he saying and what happens if he becomes premier? Will a competitive tax system put in place by Clark be repealed by her NDP successor? Some in the room, who are less conversant with parochial English or slang, might also ask for clarification as to what Horgan means when he says “done”.[/quote]
So I wasn’t so far wrong a few posts ago when I suggested that the NDP could be blamed for every LNG plant that doesn’t get built even when they are not in power, and even, at this point, with no expectation that they will win the next election.
As for recalling Christy Clark’s promises:
[quote] Premier Christy Clark on Tuesday staked her political future on her approach to liquefied natural gas, promising her government’s strategy could transform the province’s massive resource stores into a more-than-$100-billion fund, enough to erase the province’s debt by the end of the 2020s.
“This will be a transformational change for our province and we cannot afford to be short-sighted,” said Clark’s throne speech, read Tuesday by Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon.
With just 13 weeks to go before a provincial election, Clark said a liquefied natural gas industry would be running full steam in the province by about 2020, and could mean between $4.3 billion and $8.7 billion in extra government revenues each year. [/quote]
vancouversun.com/news/Christ … story.html
However,
[quote] During the election campaign in the spring of 2013, the B.C. Liberals touted a plan to retire the provincial debt with a “prosperity fund” that would begin collecting revenue from LNG by 2017. The campaign platform stated that the fund would reap as much as $100-billion over 30 years.
But the Finance Minister is now vague about whether there would be such a lucrative fund at all.[/quote]
theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e21197502/
I am not sure how many proposals are out there, but I think I read somewhere between 12-18. Nor do I know how many are viable. Maybe somebody can tell me. The hype was there during the election. Expectations are high, especially for the communities that can gain the most. All of that is obvious.
But in one year, the hype, even from the government, is diminished. So what are the reasonable expectations for the northwest. Can both Rupert and Kitimat have a terminal or two or three and who has the most to say in that decision: industry, world markets, the Liberal government, city councils, or John Horgan.
I am not defending John Horgan. Blast away. The election is only two some years away and if it helps your cause, go for it. Personally, I am not sure I understand what he hoped to gain from his comments in Terrace. Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut. However, there is nothing there that is going to cause much ripples outside Rupert.
He said that BG was “done” and I agree there are a multitude of words that he could have used instead. And my definition of “done” in this context is “ain’t gonna happen” and as far as I can tell, it probably won’t - at least in the short term. As for Petronas, all he said was that it faced some challenges that a terminal in Kitimat wasn’t facing. Again, not sure what he was hoping to gain from the remark, but is it inaccurate? Does Petronas face a more difficult challenge than Kitimat?
And more importantly how much will his remarks affect Petronas, BG, or another company and their decision to locate here? If industry wants it, if world markets demand it, if the provincial and municipal governments are in favour, Horgan’s remarks are nothing but a whistle in a wind storm.
