Petronas LNG Re-Design: No Dredging, Flora Bank Untouched


#1

Pacific Northwest LNG has released details of a terminal re-design to appease environmental concerns in regards to Flora Bank and Agnew Bank.

New Terminal design image —>http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/37d/report-on-business/article20974635.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/cd-petronas-final06rb1.JPG

The changes will include:
-1.6 KM, 25 metre wide suspension bridge from Lelu island, that will connect to a 1.1 KM trestle, that will allow the vessel berth area to be moved to naturally deep water of Chatham Sound, eliminating the need to dredge the sea floor near Agnew Bank. The suspension bridge, also will eliminate ALL disturbance to Flora Bank as the suspension bridge will pass over top of it completely, eliminating a need for concrete pilings in this area. The top part of the bridge will be paved for vehicle use.

-The workers camp is being moved off Lelu Island and onto private land in Port Edward, eliminating the need for utility hookups on Lelu Island.

The suspension bridge will be 11 metres high, allowing all smaller vessels to pass under it without issue.

theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e20974636/

This amendment was sent to environmental assessment groups on Monday and is the reason why PNW LNG asked for a 45 day extension.

Thoughts?


#2

With this re-design, Petronas has proven to me that they are serious in regards to this terminal. I also think that they have now gone above and beyond to appease real environmentalists whose main sticking points have been in regards to the dredging of Agnew Bank (now eliminated) and the construction of support pilings on Flora Bank for the jetty trestle (also eliminated). This re-design has no doubt increased the pricetag of their terminal, probably by a quite a bit.

Despite all the crap in the media from their CEO, if Petronas was not close/serious to saying yes to the 11 billion investment, they would not have made these changes. My confidence in this terminal moving forward just increased exponentially with this announcement. Industry supporters in Prince Rupert and environmentalists should ALL be much happier with this announcement.


#3

Agreed! They are paying attention to the issues that are important to the people. Considering their recent concerns, this still shows that they are serious about building the terminal and are willing to make adjustments to their plan. I truly hope that all of the other issues are resolved and that they announce that they will go ahead with construction. If Petronas pulls out I would lose confidence that the others would develop in the near future.


#4

Any company that spends millions on research and development ,comes out with difinative plans for a terminal based on engineering and doing it the most cost effective way to them and then can so easily change plans could just be a company that is just throwing a crock of b.s. At us , as Prince Rumour seems to be suckers for all these promises of grandeur .You got to remember these companies get huge tax write off for research and development , so it’s nothing for them to spend a few million to make great promises !!!


#5

They haven’t spent “a few million” they are nearing 9 billion already spent and invested in the entire project (source, pipeline, terminal)…they could still walk away from that, but spending 9 billion certainly shows me that they are serious and not just looking for “tax write offs”.


#6

Oh they invested 9 billion so far huh expert ? Tell me where they have invested that so far ? A gazebo in Port Ed ?


#7

[quote=“AgentSmith”]
Oh they invested 9 billion so far huh expert ? Tell me where they have invested that so far ? A gazebo in Port Ed ?[/quote]

You’ve made a total of nine posts here, and you start out by posting negative comments. Lighten up please.


#8

Yes mom


#9

Nearly 9 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Could you imagine if that money way invested in renewable energy which we could benefit from for the new 100+ years?..wow. Instead, the Prince Rupert area will be stuck with massive LNG plants which will likely be obsolete by 2050, as well as a guilty conscience knowing we provided terminals exporting a product which affected the health of those down the road where the fracking occurred. I think we should be thinking ahead, health and wealth should go hand in hand. We (the whole planet) deserve clean, renewable energy sources.


#10

If you look at his post you’ll see that he wrote “they are nearing 9 billion already spent and invested in the entire project (source, pipeline, terminal)”. Believe it or not, there is a world outside of Prince Rupert. That is where Petronas has been investing. For example, they bought Progress Energy in Alberta for $5bn last year. Why would they do that if they were not committed to building an export terminal?

You might consider reading other people’s posts fully before answering. Enjoy your gazebo.


#11

[quote=“Slopestyle”]

Nearly 9 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Could you imagine if that money way invested in renewable energy which we could benefit from for the new 100+ years?..wow. Instead, the Prince Rupert area will be stuck with massive LNG plants which will likely be obsolete by 2050, as well as a guilty conscience knowing we provided terminals exporting a product which affected the health of those down the road where the fracking occurred. I think we should be thinking ahead, health and wealth should go hand in hand. We (the whole planet) deserve clean, renewable energy sources.[/quote]

When the LNG is exported to Asia, it will likely help to reduce the reliance on coal-fired power stations. Isn’t that good for the environment?


#12

Good for the environment…nope. Better for the environment than coal would be a better choice of words? Maybe? I don’t even know…its comparable to treating heroine addiction with methadone I suppose. It would be “good” for the environment if Canada stepped up as a leader in renewable energy sources. It would be “good” for the environment if Canada didn’t provide coal and natural gas to China…a country which is trying to move away from non-renewable energy anyways…so their premier says.


#13

You’re arguing semantics. Long is better for the environment than coal moving a massive coal burning nation to something better for the environment is good for the environment. I’d argue the methadone thing but it’s a stupid argument not worth discussing and I’m done pooping now.


#14

A resource-heavy country like Canada is never going to be a leader in alternative energy. Why should it when it gets fossil fuels so cheap? Leadership will come from the net energy importers like the US, UK and China who are paying higher prices, both in monetary value and in terms of their energy security. I’ve said it before - if you want Canada to switch to alternative energy, prepare for higher taxes, broken infrastructure, more expensive healthcare, etc etc.


#15

Petronas spent 5.3 billion buying up Progress energy last year , and also they have spent about 1.5 billion buying talisman’s stake in the north montey natural gas play, plus whatever they spent in drilling for the natural gas well, that is part of the 9 billion he is talking about, then there is what they plan to build and spend which would be another 15 billion

biv.com/article/2014/4/petro … st-oil-dr/


#16

[quote=“investor”]

A resource-heavy country like Canada is never going to be a leader in alternative energy. [/quote]

Except fuel cell technology for some reason. A critical problem with alternative energy is storing it. About 22% of the world’s fuel cell facilities and 77% of the R&D is in BC. < theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr … e17683324/ >.

We are not total Luddites. We can be among the leaders in alternative energy, without doomsday scenarios.


#17

[quote=“Slopestyle”]

Nearly 9 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Could you imagine if that money way invested in renewable energy which we could benefit from for the new 100+ years?..wow. Instead, the Prince Rupert area will be stuck with massive LNG plants which will likely be obsolete by 2050, as well as a guilty conscience knowing we provided terminals exporting a product which affected the health of those down the road where the fracking occurred. I think we should be thinking ahead, health and wealth should go hand in hand. We (the whole planet) deserve clean, renewable energy sources.[/quote]

I haven’t responded to your earlier follow ups; mostly because I don’t even know who they were/are directed at. I’m feeling the need to get some clarification from you here.

While you and I appear to be completely FOR the research and development of green/renewable resources, what exactly is your ideal of a current and readily available resource that is cleaner and more available than the natural gas being extracted from the Montney plays in Northern BC and Alberta?

Also, who is being affected by fracturing in the specified region? Please omit any references to or from Gasland.

Sure, the billions of dollars invested so far by Petronas would surely aid in the development of greener energies, but it isn’t realistic to expect them to just invest it in the R&D of technologies they’re not currently going after. Or, maybe they are, and you and I don’t know it. What is realistic, is how they’re planning on exporting a product they currently have lots of, following a multi-billion dollar take-over of Progress Energy.

What would be reckless IMO would be to dump the entire project and walk away… How would that benefit anyone at all?

New technologies are constantly being developed, and they’re implemented into our infrastructures as they become affordable, dependable, viable, whatever. It doesn’t happen overnight, we don’t burn as much coal as we once did, and one day we wont burn as much natural gas as we do now. For now, names like Petronas are going to do what they can to get as much natural gas as they can, as efficiently as possible. Overtime I believe energy companies will focus their investments elsewhere as it becomes more realistic for them to do so.

Without fracturing we wouldn’t have this volume of an exportable resource, it would cost us more to purchase it, and because we ARE still fossil fuel dependent, drilling and deforestation would still happen, only on a much, much greater scale.

If you have a solution to all of this, by all means let someone know. Natural gas is a required resource for those of us living in Northern climates.


#18

I’ve never heard of “Gasland” so excuse me if some of what I am about to post involves whatever that is.

My idea or a cleaner and more readily available source? I don’t have the solution but my opinion: lets keep that natural gas for ourselves, since it is “required” for all of us living in a Northern Climate and it’s not an infinite resource, lets stop increasing exploitation for export. Save it for the Canadian’s of the future so that we have a source for years to come. After all it would “cost more for us to purchase it”…so wouldn’t we be screwing ourselves if we sold it all now?

I don’t feel as though we should be increasing exports of our natural gas to China at the expense of our environment and our health. Who is affected in the specific region?: Dawson Creek-Illegal dumping of toxic fracking chemicals into their water treatment system (recent…and apparently companies don’t have to disclose the chemicals used in extraction, potential carcinogens?..so who knows what the affects will be on those people), Peace River, Farmington B.C. 2009- hydrogen sulfide (poisonous) leaked and was failed to be detected for at least 8 hours, Ranchers in Alberta (and livestock) who don’t even drink their own well water anymore… the list goes on. Besides people being affected…flora and fauna perhaps?

We are potentially putting our water supply at risk, perhaps, however we are more dependent on natural gas than we are on water?
Scientists don’t know enough about the affects of fracking on the water supply…“the scientific community knows little about how the repeated puncturing of the middle zone might allow methane to creep to surface or into groundwater” -John Cherry, a contaminant hydrologist who recently chaired an expert federal panel on the impact of fracking in Canada. I can’t support an increase in natural gas projects without knowing the implications, and many other countries, cities, and states agree . Here’s a list of places which have banned fracking for your reading pleasure: keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/

Who would benefit from dumping the project? Well I guess we will find out who would have benefited if we continue down this road, medically perhaps? or maybe the new fire hazards of peoples homes from flammable methane creeping into their taps?

I know that we are a society dependent on fossil fuels, but with all that money being invested in oil and gas from export…geesh I’m sure that if it was invested in renewable energy we could reduce and eventually end our dependance! I’m still confident in the future, and hopeful we can turn things around. I will end my commitment to this thread with the following quote:

“History clearly shows that in countries with abundant natural resources and sparse population there is no thought of the future, and all energy is directed to the exploitation and reckless use of what nature has abundantly provided. The waste under such conditions is naturally very great and a more economic utilization does not pay. As the population increases and industry grows, the demand for raw material of all kinds increases, and there is a gradual awakening of public opinion for the need for a more careful husbanding of natural resources. Practically all nations have travelled the same road. Some reach this point sooner than others, but everyone is inevitably bound to face the same situation.” -The Forest Resources of the World. Raphael Zon , 1910


#19

[quote=“AgentSmith”]

Oh they invested 9 billion so far huh expert ? Tell me where they have invested that so far ? A gazebo in Port Ed ?[/quote]

Clearly you have a problem reading posts fully before opening your incorrect as all fuck mouth. Total project spending (source, pipeline, terminal), they have already sunk 9 billion into this:

June 2011: Spent $1.1 billion to establish strategic partnership with Progress Energy to develop vast land holdings in the Montney gas basin.
June 2012: Spent $5.5 billion to purchase all shares of Progress Energy.
Nov 2013: Spent $1.5 billion in purchase of Talisman Energy to further expand gas holdings in the Montney gas basin.
March 2014: Spends $130 million to acquire more gas holdings in the Montney gas basin.

Add that to other costs in relation LNG terminal and pipeline and Petronas has spent close to 9 billion on this project.

Oh and for the record, it was the BG Group who is proposing the Prince Rupert LNG terminal on Ridley Island that built the community gazebo in Port Ed, not Petronas.


#20

[quote=“Slopestyle”]

Nearly 9 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Could you imagine if that money way invested in renewable energy which we could benefit from for the new 100+ years?..wow. Instead, the Prince Rupert area will be stuck with massive LNG plants which will likely be obsolete by 2050, as well as a guilty conscience knowing we provided terminals exporting a product which affected the health of those down the road where the fracking occurred. I think we should be thinking ahead, health and wealth should go hand in hand. We (the whole planet) deserve clean, renewable energy sources.[/quote]

Natural Gas is a fossil fuel, but it is by far the cleanest burning fossil fuel. Not only that, but one of the main purchases of the LNG that will leave Prince Rupert is going to be China, by far the biggest polluter of all countries in the world. They burn coal to produce heat and power, coal is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel, so imagine what our world would look like if China replaced all coal power plants with natural gas…their greenhouse gas emissions would plumment. The same goes for other coal burning nations like Malaysia and India.

In addition, Japan will be a high user of LNG as well, as they move to get off their dependence of nuclear energy which I don’t feel needs an explanation after what happened during their earthquake in 2011. The world will be a safer and cleaner place after LNG. It might not be as clean as you would like it to be…but at least the world will be moving in the right direction with LNG.