Petronas announce $9-billion LNG plant at Prince Rupert

GMAB! The city is looking after the interests of people on Graham Avenue with their criticism of the Container Termainal and Pinnacle Pellet Terminal…their concerns CERTAINLY do not represent the general view of Prince Rupert citizens who fully support the PRPA and the use of the Westview Terminal for economic activity and the expansion of the Container Terminal to the West.

The people of Graham/Beach/Water all chose to locate next to industrial land and should NOT be holding this city and the rest of us hostage because they chose to bank on no further economic activity in the industrialized zones near their properties.

Furthermore, the mayor should be totally ashamed of his very public shaming of the PRPA, especially after all they have done to keep this city from becoming BC’s next ghost town.

Those that don’t like the increased activity in industrial zoned lands near their properties, need to STFU or move…the rest of us have had quite enough of the bitching.[/quote]

"First, they came for the socialists and I did not speak out . . . "

Keep kissing the ring, my friends. You probably still have your Dan Veniez buttons.

Looks like the federal government has approved the Petronas takeover of Progressive, so the LNG plant will be even larger?

Mig that is great news!

Was the 200-300 jobs based on the smaller or larger project?
Now that Harper is now closing the door on any more large Chinese takeover of Canadian companies, I wonder if maybe now they will even up their plans because this may be the last hoorah for mega investment in energy in Canada.

Well, it’s closing the door on foreign government takeovers, and will still consider them in specific circumstances.

CNOOC is owned by the Chinese government, and Petronas by the Malaysian government. … s-energy-1

Must be something in the water… at first everyone was like “NO THIS ISN’T GOOD FOR ANYONE, WE MUST UNITE AND FIGHT IT”

Now everyone’s like “Sweet, this means more money for us.”

How in the hell has there been such a radical change in such short time?

[quote=“AndrewMorgan444”]Must be something in the water… at first everyone was like “NO THIS ISN’T GOOD FOR ANYONE, WE MUST UNITE AND FIGHT IT”

Now everyone’s like “Sweet, this means more money for us.”

How in the hell has there been such a radical change in such short time?[/quote]

It’s the Enbridge Pipeline with Tankers people are most upset about. LNG while there are concerns never seemed to have too much opposition.

[quote=“AndrewMorgan444”]Must be something in the water… at first everyone was like “NO THIS ISN’T GOOD FOR ANYONE, WE MUST UNITE AND FIGHT IT”

Now everyone’s like “Sweet, this means more money for us.”

How in the hell has there been such a radical change in such short time?[/quote]

That’s what I was thinking too.

I take flak because I say using statistics as opposed to fear in support of shipping oil, tells me it is relatively safe. People are obviously using that same logic in this, after all the worst case scenario with an LNG terminal is WAY worse than any oil spill.

Or perhaps you’re one of the least informed.

Possible. Fill me in.

I think this is good news, a large project that further boosts the profile of a shipping hub, and the spin off it should bring.

But we are already at page three on this thread and I can’t help but notice the lack of posts from the anti-pipeline / carbon / fracking / Harper / foreign ownership / Big oil / waterfront wrecking crowd.

Once again it should be pointed out that those opposed to Enbridge are not necessarily opposed to a pipeline. They are opposed to piping the highly toxic bitumen oil. Natural gas does not pose the same problems.

Well, I hope you don’t mean me. I started this thread.

But if you think that all those “crowds” are the same, then that’s a reflection of your way of thinking, not of reality.

For example, one may be in favour of a pipeline and opposed to a foreign government owning Canadian resources.

I am firmly opposed to Enbridge, and 100% in favour of the LNG terminal.
While there is risk in everything we do, some risks can involve thousands of people who do not wish to take such risk.
While an explosion could happen at a LNG plant every employee who goes to work there is aware of that risk, if I choose not to take that risk that is my decision.
If Enbridge comes in and has an accident much of the food that goes onto the table to feed my family goes at risk, and that is not a risk I can support.


Well, I hope you don’t mean me. I started this thread.

But if you think that all those “crowds” are the same, then that’s a reflection of your way of thinking, not of reality.

For example, one may be in favour of a pipeline and opposed to a foreign government owning Canadian resources.[/quote]

No, I wasn’t referring to you in particular. But I often read posts on this site that are similar in stance to those on other sites and newspaper comments when it comes to oil and gas and pipelines and fracking and all that stuff. Now that this project has been announced, those same comments are being said elsewhere, but it is noticeably quiet here.

Lumping them all into one crowd might be a little much, but more often than not people are either for or opposed to all of those things I listed.

But I am curious, if someone is strongly opposed to foreign ownership of Canadian resources, yet in favour of this project, which way do you lean?
Which is more important to you?

To answer that for myself, because I am somewhat uneasy with foreign ownership if it involves a state owned company, I am satisfied with Harpers answer to future bids (and I am not a Harper fan).


'Canada’s natural gas industry could be worth $1 trillion

Canada’s natural gas industry will rival the oilsands and generate more than a quarter of a million jobs a year for the next two decades, says one of Canada’s most influential business think-tanks.

The Conference Board of Canada published an analysis Monday that expects Canada’s natural gas industry to add more than $1 trillion to Canada’s economy over the next 24 years and support an average of 260,000 jobs a year over that time frame.

The ambitious projection factors in all the direct investment, but also ancillary spinoffs down the supply chain and figures all regions of the country stand to benefit, even those provinces without any large natural gas holdings.

The industry already produces $24.5 billion a year and employs 130,000 people. That’s already good enough to make up 42 per cent of the country’s energy exports, but demand is expected to double between now and 2035.

The board estimates the industry is going to invest $386 billion to keep up with demand over that time frame. If that projection holds true, that’s more than the $364 billion worth of investment that the board says the oilsands are going to attract over the same period.

“In all, Canada’s natural gas industry is expected to add a cumulative $940 billion to Canada’s economy over the next 24 years, and generate roughly 6.2 million person-years of employment.,” the board said in its report. “In other words, the industry is expected to support employment of nearly 260,000 jobs per year over the 24-year forecast horizon.”

Much of that is likely to come from the two provinces with extensive gas holdings — B.C. and Alberta, the report says. But there will be spinoff benefits across the country, and governments at all levels will reap tax revenues on top of the GDP bump.

After undergoing a boom earlier this decade, natural gas prices have been flatlining for several years after new technologies have made vast shale gas holdings suddenly economical. That’s created a supply glut that’s holding down prices.

Natural gas was going for $3.36 per million British thermal units in New York on Monday, well off the highs of around $12 seen before the recession of 2008.

Although only seven per cent of the direct investments will occur in Ontario, the province is forecast to receive 18 per cent of the resulting employment and 16 per cent of the wage increases.

“The entire country benefits, even though the benefits are focused the most where natural gas is produced,” the report reads.

Over the 24-year horizon, natural gas investments will help generate 560,000 person-years of employment in Ontario, and 199,000 person-years of employment in Quebec. Saskatchewan is expected to support 92,400 person-years of employment and Manitoba 39,200 person-years. The smallest employment effects are forecast for Atlantic Canada’

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan Petroleum Exploration (Japex) <1662.T> is taking a 10 percent stake in an integrated shale gas development and liquefied natural gas (LNG) project being planned by Malaysia’s Petronas in Canada’s British Colombia province.

Japex said on Monday it is considering marketing its LNG offtake from the 12 million metric tons per year (mtpy) Pacific Northwest LNG project, worth 1.2 mtpy, in Japan, the world’s largest importer of LNG, which has been increasingly reliant on LNG since the Fukushima disaster in 2011 knocked out much of its nuclear power capacity.

Japanese firms have been investing in shale gas projects in North America to export cheaper LNG to Asia. Asian LNG long-term prices are typically oil-linked, making them pricier than LNG from the United States, where the country’s shale gas boom has helped lower natural gas prices.

Japex declined to comment on the value of the deal, which involves a 10 percent stake in a shale gas block in North Montney region, which is currently selling gas in Canada, and a stake in a liquefaction plant in Lelu Island near the Port of Prince Rupert on the country’s Pacific coast.

From the Vancouver Sun today,

"Global energy corporations are “dead serious” about investing in British Columbia’s potential as a world supplier of liquefied natural gas, said provincial Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman after a $16 billion announcement on Tuesday.

Malaysian national oil company Petronas said the investment would go towards a natural pipeline, LNG plants and an export terminal near Prince Rupert, on B.C.'s northern coast.

“Petronas has been very interested in LNG for B.C. for some time,” said Coleman, who was just appointed B.C.'s minister responsible for natural gas in Premier Christy Clark’s new cabinet last week. “What they’ve said is $11 billion for the plants, $5 billion for the pipeline. Basically, it’s an announcement that says we’re closer and moving along faster than you might have thought we were.”

Arif Mahmood, Petronas’ vice-president of corporate planning, said between $9 billion and $11 billion will be spent to construct two LNG plants.

A 750 kilometre-long pipeline, to be built by TransCanada Corp., would supply gas to the plants, he said Tuesday in an email to The Associated Press.

The Pacific Northwest LNG project would liquefy and export natural gas produced in northeastern B.C. by Progress Energy Canada.

LNG is produced when the gas is super-cooled to produce a liquid, making it easier to export to overseas customers.

Petronas bought Calgary-based Progress last year in a $6-billion friendly deal. The two companies had been previously working together on the same projects.

In January, Calgary-based TransCanada said it would design, build, own and operate the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project for Progress Energy.

Coleman said the proposed Petronas project will undergo a provincial environmental assessment process that will take at least a year to complete.

He said it appears the Petronas project will be powered by natural gas, permitted under B.C.'s Clean Energy Act.

Environmental organizations say using natural gas to power LNG plants increases harmful greenhouse gas emissions and virtually ensures B.C. will not meet its legislated target of cutting GHG emissions by one-third by 2020.

Coleman said the Petronas project is one of four major LNG proposals worth billions that are under consideration in northwest B.C.

“The four are at different stages, but some of them are at significant decision points over the next few months,” said Coleman.

Shell and Chevron are seriously considering LNG facilities for Kitimat, while British Gas and Petronas are looking at the Prince Rupert area.

“Shell’s been here for a while, so has Chevron with Apache and so has British Gas,” Coleman said. “I don’t think it’s a pipe dream. I actually believe this is very real. My conversations with the companies, both in The Hague with Shell, British Gas in England, and these other groups, their senior people, they’re dead serious about B.C. natural gas.”

Clark’s jobs plan has forecast one pipeline and LNG terminal in operation by 2015 and three others up and running by 2020.

The provincial government says LNG represents a potential trillion-dollar economic opportunity that could create thousands of jobs and result in revenue that could eliminate the provincial debt within 15 years.

B.C.'s debt is currently at more than $62 billion and forecast to increase

Read more: … z2VxR58cu5"


Jennifer Rice would be a disastrous representative for the BC NDP in this region…she is against LNG development in Prince Rupert, even though her own party supports it…this is NOT the backwards thinking leadership we need to see representing our region through such an important time.

We need to be throwing down the welcome mat, with wide open arms to these company’s that are looking to invest BILLIONS in our city!

We do not need someone constantly and consistently working against energy projects trying to return prosperity to Prince Rupert and the North Coast.

I sincerely hope someone with such lopsided views, is not allowed to represent us here.[/quote]

Strangely, this is exactly what I was thinking when I heard the announcement. Once the voters learn that the NDP is no longer a pro-union party but an pure green one they will may finally vote in a representative that will help the area.

However, it is great news for the town. Yahooo!