Move Petronas to Ridley and save the day


#1

Look at this photo of Ridley.
There is more than enough land inside the Rail Road Utility Corridor for Petronas.
It would avoid Flora Bank altogether.
The land has already gone through all the assessments for being used for industrial.
The berth site has already been assessed for potash loading.
Canpotex was going to choose Rupert or south of the border and they chose south of the border.
There is enough room even without Canpotex. For some reason the port allocated Canpotex a small piece of land right in the middle of the spot making it awkward but not impossible to put LNG in around it. RTI is holding the spot to the northwest, which they say in their last annual report is not necessary for their coal expansion plans. RTI is owned by us. The other side of Canpotex has not been allocated to anyone that I am aware.


#2

Here is an image from Northcoast review showing the Canpotex site in white outline and the proposed Canpotex berth off Coast Island.
Inside the red line of the RRUC are three parcels:
The bottom one is free as far as I know. It is above BGs parcel, which is outside of the red marked Rail Road Utility Corridor RRUC.
The middle one is Canpotex marked in white.
The top one is the one RTI has taken an option on. I think it is the whole area between Canpotex and the coal terminal.
Just RTIs option is big enough for Petronas by the looks of it, it even goes a bit around the small Canpotex parcel- and RTI doesn’t need it.
Here is a quote from RTIs last annual report.
“Of notable importance, RTI exercised its right to an adjacent 102 acre property in 2013, which will further support long term growth requirements beyond our current targets…The current target of 25 million tonnes”-2013 RTI annual report


#3

bigger version:


#4

From October 2014:

“Canpotex will make a final investment decision to proceed based on a variety of commercial factors, including construction costs and offshore potash market projections. No date has been set for making this decision.”

canpotex.com/news/2014/10/16 … ce-rupert/

From April 2015:

“If BG’s Ridley Island site is divested, the Pacific NorthWest LNG joint venture near Prince Rupert will stand to benefit.”

theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e23853965/

That’s a big if considering the recent full page ad taken out by BG group. See page 3

issuu.com/blackpress/docs/i20150430172313404?

It would seem to me that there is currently no available land at Ridley island, nexen has a claim on digby, imperial/Exxon at lot 444. PNW LNG’s options may be Lelu, grassy point cancel outright or to move out of the community all together. I have a hunch that something will be worked out at Lelu even if the have to extend the bridge out farther to further reduce impact of Flora bank.


#5

“It would seem to me that there is currently no available land at Ridley island,”-Crazy Train
But what about all that land in the RRUC?
You note that the BG land might not be available and the Canpotex land might not be available but what about the two big parcel’s around the Canpotex rectangle? RTI has dibs on part of it and has stated it is not needed for its coal expansion plans and the other parcel between Canpotex and BG is free as far as I know.
We own RTI so if we need the land for Petronas they should turn it over.


#6

first off in another topic i wrote move the dock on lelu island to the south of the island, or extend the planned dock further out thus avoiding flora banks, second Petronas will not look for another site for one main reason they want to be up and running by 2020, any other site they would have to due another public environmental study which would take at least 2 years, one year for public input and another year for CEA to review and approve, on Ridley Island BG still has the lease on it so nothing can be done there, maybe and it is a big maybe they can hook lelu island and ridley island with a smaller bridge and move the dock to Ridley where no enviromental study is required but keep processing on lelu island


#7

[quote=“atsea”]“It would seem to me that there is currently no available land at Ridley island,”-Crazy Train
But what about all that land in the RRUC?
You note that the BG land might not be available and the Canpotex land might not be available but what about the two big parcel’s around the Canpotex rectangle? RTI has dibs on part of it and has stated it is not needed for its coal expansion plans and the other parcel between Canpotex and BG is free as far as I know.
We own RTI so if we need the land for Petronas they should turn it over.[/quote]

I’m not sure that the land you speak of is enough for the pnw LNG project. I may be wrong but I thought that most of that space was to be taken up by rti and Canpotex. The ports land use 2020 plan doesn’t really specify although it shows some land earmarked for dredging material at the back of the property somewhere between where bg and Canpotex are supposed to go.

I wouldn’t support uprooting one industry for the other. Rti isn’t dead.


#8

I agree crazy train we don’t want to displace RTI however…
This is from RTI’s annual report from last fall: “Of notable importance, RTI exercised its right to an adjacent 102 acre property in 2013, which will further support long term growth requirements beyond our current targets…The current target of 25 million tonnes”-2013 RTI annual report.
So we don’t need to trade one industry for another. RTI’s auditor is saying they have 105 acres BEYOND what they need for current expansion. I think the space they are talking about is the one between RTI and the small Canpotex rectangle in the diagram above. Add that to the space on the other side of Canpotex and there is room. And why are we allowing Canpotex to hang on to a piece of property they aren’t going to use; they invested in Portland announced it in October.
As for the CEA time lag. The industrial land inside the RRUC is already approved for industrial so I doubt it will need a long CEA.


#9

[quote=“atsea”]I agree crazy train we don’t want to displace RTI however…
This is from RTI’s annual report from last fall: “Of notable importance, RTI exercised its right to an adjacent 102 acre property in 2013, which will further support long term growth requirements beyond our current targets…The current target of 25 million tonnes”-2013 RTI annual report.
So we don’t need to trade one industry for another. RTI’s auditor is saying they have 105 acres BEYOND what they need for current expansion. I think the space they are talking about is the one between RTI and the small Canpotex rectangle in the diagram above. Add that to the space on the other side of Canpotex and there is room. And why are we allowing Canpotex to hang on to a piece of property they aren’t going to use; they invested in Portland announced it in October.
As for the CEA time lag. The industrial land inside the RRUC is already approved for industrial so I doubt it will need a long CEA.[/quote]

If the LNG facility will fit, rti renounces their right to the property, the environmental assessment is fast tracked, and Petronas is willing, then why not. Sounds good if it’s that easy.

I’m not sure what Canpotex has planned for Portland but they announced a lease agreement with the port authority for that parcel of land in October.
canpotex.com/news/2014/10/16 … ce-rupert/


#10

It would be that easy if RTI, PRPA CN and Canpotex weren’t colluding to use that space for a massive oil-by-rail terminal.

canpotex.com/news/2014/10/08 … -terminal/
“Canpotex, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Portland Bulk Terminals, L.L.C. (PBT), is investing up to $140 million in new equipment and infrastructure to improve the efficiency of its shiploading operations and the management of Canpotex’s specialty white potash products.”

As to the $15 million payment by Canpotex in October just a week after they made it clear they had decided on port investment south of the border,… both the port and they made it clear the $15 million was linked to getting the CEA permit. I read somewhere that CN was partnering with Canpotex so my guess is CN was the source of that $15 million to pay the port for getting the CEA through for their oil-by-rail project. The CEA in question is a joint one with the oil-by-rail infrastructure (RRUC) cleverly hidden as a joint part of Canpotex.
Why are the feds,the prov, CN and the PRPA spending a hundred million dollars on an RRUC which dwarfs what is needed for potash loading and hoarding land in the middle of it?


#11

so fLora bank is important what about an oil pipeline spill? thenorthernview.com/news/304001521.html

LOL I guess money is more important when you own the company that might pollute


#12

[quote=“atsea”]It would be that easy if RTI, PRPA CN and Canpotex weren’t colluding to use that space for a massive oil-by-rail terminal.

canpotex.com/news/2014/10/08 … -terminal/
“Canpotex, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Portland Bulk Terminals, L.L.C. (PBT), is investing up to $140 million in new equipment and infrastructure to improve the efficiency of its shiploading operations and the management of Canpotex’s specialty white potash products.”

As to the $15 million payment by Canpotex in October just a week after they made it clear they had decided on port investment south of the border,… both the port and they made it clear the $15 million was linked to getting the CEA permit. I read somewhere that CN was partnering with Canpotex so my guess is CN was the source of that $15 million to pay the port for getting the CEA through for their oil-by-rail project. The CEA in question is a joint one with the oil-by-rail infrastructure (RRUC) cleverly hidden as a joint part of Canpotex.
Why are the feds,the prov, CN and the PRPA spending a hundred million dollars on an RRUC which dwarfs what is needed for potash loading and hoarding land in the middle of it?[/quote]

I see what you did there.

Are we discussing LNG or oil by rail? There has been talk of oil by rail but I have yet to see any confirmation that it’s actually happening. It’s the most likely scenario for getting oil to the coast though I’m sure as they have not been able to secure permissions required for the pipeline.

Back to LNG, if there’s room and nothing planned for Ridley, great. If not, I’m sure that something could be engineered to protect Flora bank even further than the steps they’ve taken. We’ll see how it plays out.


#13

To Crazy Train
I am trying to make it clear that PRPA and its cohorts are willing to sacrifice Petronas PNW for oil-by-rail, and I think you just got it.


#14

[quote=“atsea”]To Crazy Train
I am trying to make it clear that PRPA and its cohorts are willing to sacrifice Petronas PNW for oil-by-rail, and I think you just got it.[/quote]

Unless you have information that the rest of us don’t, it’s all speculation. If you’re right, I don’t know if I would agree that one thing would be sacrificed over the other. There may be contracts, requirements such as space etc, land use agreements, details that we’re not privy to at this time. Companies like PNW LNG have spent millions to get to where they are, they’re heavily invested and there could be binding agreements in place, for them and other potential developers in the area. It’s not that easy to just do a 180 and say that they’re going to set up shop down the road. So to say that anything is being sacrificed for the other doesn’t make sense to me at this time.


#15

“Sources say Pacific NorthWest LNG’s detailed engineering work has yet to be done, so there is still time to scrutinize plans and make improvements. There is some leeway to tweak the suspension bridge’s design and relocate the trestle by altering the angle so that the marine terminal for LNG tankers is situated slightly farther away from Flora Bank.”

theglobeandmail.com//report- … k=sf_globe


#16