but replacing coal fired plants with natural gas plants reduces carbon emissions about %50 so LNG is better for the enviroment then coal fired plants
[quote=“Juijitsubrainiac”]The educate yourself on gas benefits people are usually the same people telling you to not trust “educated scientists” on the threat of green house gas emissions even though Canada is regarded as a rogue petrol state internationally now with zero plan to address climate change and the ONLY country in the world to bow out of Kyoto. Change has to start somewhere. There are plenty of new technologies, huge advances in Solar, clean nuclear salt reactors that cannot melt down and run on waste from previous reactors, etc, etc. I notice no one is mentioning how much emissions each plant will produce. Government muzzeled that one, but hey good ol google found us a link. theglobeandmail.com/news/bri … e15374968/
Its a 1 to 1 ratio. Every tonne of LNG produced creates 1 tonne of carbon emissions.[/quote]
I think everyone is aware that there will be some pollution from these plants…will it really be worse than when the old pulp mill was running and everyone was FINE for 40 years with that chugging out pollution. Even if it is, it is likely to truly have a drastic impact on our way of life on the North Coast…we will survive…we will all be fine…the world will not end.
Some environmental sacrifice is needed for economic gain…the benefits FAR outweigh the risk.
Now if all 7 or 8 LNG terminals come to fruition, then yes I would agree…the pollution would be an nightmare, but lets get real…we are talking 1 MAYBE 2 at the absolute most and maybe even none to be honest.
They are in an industrial area away from the city…they will have as minimal an impact on Prince Rupert.
Time for environmentalists to STOP railroading economic activity…that is all you people do is railroad fucking everything and use scare tactics and end of world scenarios to push your agendas…you cannot and never have been pleased by ANY industrial activity… you go from protest to protest with your wooden sandwich boards and Tim Horton coffee cups, then jump in your gas powered cars/trucks and go home and fire up the natural gas fueled furnace before you go to bed. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Carbon issues aside, from my understanding LNG plants are not closed systems. Liquefaction to purify the gas results in emissions that can include H2S and small amounts of ethane, butane and mercury etc. The City council seems to think that having a plant on Lot 444, up wind from residential areas, is okay. Is it? I don’t know. Do you? It’s probably best to wait until the environmental reviews before drawing any firm conclusions, pro or con.
[quote=“bthedog”]
Time for environmentalists to STOP railroading economic activity…that is all you people do is railroad fucking everything and use scare tactics and end of world scenarios to push your agendas…you cannot and never have been pleased by ANY industrial activity… you go from protest to protest with your wooden sandwich boards and Tim Horton coffee cups, then jump in your gas powered cars/trucks and go home and fire up the natural gas fueled furnace before you go to bed. Wash, rinse, repeat.[/quote]
Can you name a proposed development in the Northwest that the environmentalists actually stopped? I can’t think of any. Port developments have all proceeded; no problems there. The City council’s boycott of the EA for the Pinnacle pellet facility did not achieve anything, other than perhaps lower monitoring standards. Enbridge was approved, subject to numerous conditions from an independent panel. Was there something wrong or objectionable with the board hearing various arguments and submissions?
[quote=“bthedog”]
[quote=“Juijitsubrainiac”]The educate yourself on gas benefits people are usually the same people telling you to not trust “educated scientists” on the threat of green house gas emissions even though Canada is regarded as a rogue petrol state internationally now with zero plan to address climate change and the ONLY country in the world to bow out of Kyoto. Change has to start somewhere. There are plenty of new technologies, huge advances in Solar, clean nuclear salt reactors that cannot melt down and run on waste from previous reactors, etc, etc. I notice no one is mentioning how much emissions each plant will produce. Government muzzeled that one, but hey good ol google found us a link. theglobeandmail.com/news/bri … e15374968/
Its a 1 to 1 ratio. Every tonne of LNG produced creates 1 tonne of carbon emissions.[/quote]
I think everyone is aware that there will be some pollution from these plants…will it really be worse than when the old pulp mill was running and everyone was FINE for 40 years with that chugging out pollution. Even if it is, it is likely to truly have a drastic impact on our way of life on the North Coast…we will survive…we will all be fine…the world will not end.
Some environmental sacrifice is needed for economic gain…the benefits FAR outweigh the risk.
Now if all 7 or 8 LNG terminals come to fruition, then yes I would agree…the pollution would be an nightmare, but lets get real…we are talking 1 MAYBE 2 at the absolute most and maybe even none to be honest.
They are in an industrial area away from the city…they will have as minimal an impact on Prince Rupert.
Time for environmentalists to STOP railroading economic activity…that is all you people do is railroad fucking everything and use scare tactics and end of world scenarios to push your agendas…you cannot and never have been pleased by ANY industrial activity… you go from protest to protest with your wooden sandwich boards and Tim Horton coffee cups, then jump in your gas powered cars/trucks and go home and fire up the natural gas fueled furnace before you go to bed. Wash, rinse, repeat.[/quote]
Your semantics aside, there is a fundamental question about where one of these projects ought to be built. BG group, from what I understand, got first crack at Ridley Island, and the Port wanted to keep doing business. So they offered up Lelu, which based on information collected in the 1970s, is a pretty terrible place to industrialize.
Keep in mind, there will be 2 billion more people on this planet in 50 years. Coupled with that fact: salmon stocks are dwindling on the Skeena as is; as they are worldwide. And now people want to put an industrial plant on Lelu, in one of the most sensitive areas of the coast – that is crucial for salmon that transform from river species to ocean creatures – the fish we love to hunt and eat. You do the math: it makes no sense to put our food source at risk. That ought to come first. And it’s likley why a Malaysian energy giant with little to no long term interest in Canada is all messed up about our “red-tape” (despite that fact that our environmental regulations have been irrepably damaged by a Conservative government hell bent on serving our natural resources to the lowest bidder). They don’t care what we do. They are in it for themselves. And as such, so should we be.
bthdedog, I ask you this: why aren’t SCIENTISTS belly-aching about Grassy Point or the BG project? It’s location. Not some airy-fairy hug a tree crap.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Carbon issues aside, from my understanding LNG plants are not closed systems. Liquefaction to purify the gas results in emissions that can include H2S and small amounts of ethane, butane and mercury etc. The City council seems to think that having a plant on Lot 444, up wind from residential areas, is okay. Is it? I don’t know. Do you? It’s probably best to wait until the environmental reviews before drawing any firm conclusions, pro or con.
[quote=“bthedog”]
Time for environmentalists to STOP railroading economic activity…that is all you people do is railroad fucking everything and use scare tactics and end of world scenarios to push your agendas…you cannot and never have been pleased by ANY industrial activity… you go from protest to protest with your wooden sandwich boards and Tim Horton coffee cups, then jump in your gas powered cars/trucks and go home and fire up the natural gas fueled furnace before you go to bed. Wash, rinse, repeat.[/quote]
Can you name a proposed development in the Northwest that the environmentalists actually stopped? I can’t think of any. Port developments have all proceeded; no problems there. The City council’s boycott of the EA for the Pinnacle pellet facility did not achieve anything, other than perhaps lower monitoring standards. Enbridge was approved, subject to numerous conditions from an independent panel. Was there something wrong or objectionable with the board hearing various arguments and submissions?[/quote]
I don’t necessarily fully support the LNG terminals that are planned for the harbour…these terminals would have a more direct impact (pollution wise) on the city of Prince Rupert (especially the one proposed on Lot 444) and our watershed. In my post I said the Petronas LNG terminal is in an industrial zoned area, away from the City of Prince Rupert, just like how the Pulp Mill was located away from town…you only have to visit Prince George to know how drastically bad your air becomes with a pulp mill or other industry, located in the middle of your city.
As far as environmentalists railroading things, I meant in regards to project timelines…they protest before even hearing the information. They live in a world based on “what ifs” and disaster scenarios. Things like LNG terminals are literally a time sensitive thing at the moment, the last thing these projects need is more red tape and interruptions from First Nations masking their money demands with the environmental stewardship facade or environmentalists who wouldn’t miss an industry protest even to save their own lives…its the hipster thing to do at the moment.
I am happy that things get pushed through…like the pellet terminal. I am glad that went through and is up and running. I hope the LNG terminals for Lelu and Ridley also get pushed through…this city and this province need this investment.
There a lot of people on the city’s west side who aren’t happy the pellet terminal went through. But yeah, the city dropped the ball by deciding to sit out that game.
And Petronas’ project is in a terrible location. Any scientist with basic knowledge of salmon habitat will tell you that. Ask yourself why no one is complaining about the BG proposal?
No one is complaining about BG because petronas is the first one that is going to announce their decision to build or not, so all the environmentalists are going to attack them first
^Exactly…Petronas is considered to be the most likely LNG terminal out of all 15+ proposals in BC to be the most legitimate shot at actually happening.
They are also one of the only projects that has many built in connections in Asian gas markets/customers and gas reserves in the Peace region.
I am sure if it was reversed and BG was way closer to a financial decision, the result would be the same.
I am aware of the sensitivity surrounding the flora bank…but I thought Petronas has NO plan to dredge in that area…in fact did they not extend their tressle over 2 KM’s to completely avoid the Flora bank? Vessels will be loading further out into the outer harbour…over 2 KM out from Lelu island…the trestle is only crossing LESS THAN 1% of Flora Bank…little to no dredging is even needed in Flora Bank whatsoever, since no LNG vessel will even come close to it. The actual berth for the terminal will be closer to Ridley Island really then Lelu when all is said and done.
Environmentalists are tying the entire Petronas LNG terminal to the Flora Bank issue, when the facility is only going to disturb less than 1% of it. Yes they will be dredging further out into the harbour…the same type of dredging that was done to build the container terminal and the berthing docks for both Prince Rupert Grain and Ridley Terminals.
The Flora Bank excuse is just not cutting it…not when the environmental assessment indicates this area is not going to be disturbed…and you will never convince me that using less than 1% is going to destroy the fish habitat of Flora Bank. Vessels pass the Flora Bank on a DAILY basis without issue and have been for over 50 years.
Its fear mongering and distortion of facts.
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]There a lot of people on the city’s west side who aren’t happy the pellet terminal went through. But yeah, the city dropped the ball by deciding to sit out that game.
[/quote]
There are a lot of people upset on Graham & Atlin Avenue (but they chose to locate next to an industrial site)…and there are many who don’t even care and they even live nearby.
And yes the city did drop the ball by not participating in the EA…that is perhaps one of the dumbest moves our council has ever made…and I hope they are taken to task by the pissed off residents…but at the end of the day…the pellet terminal is not a nuisance for over 90% of the city…and its economic impact and taxes it now pays to the city far outweigh the residents who lost their view IMO.
Yeah yeah jobs jobs promises promises.
That’s what they told us about Mt. Milligan. Tonight I go to pickup dinner at 7:30 and there’s ONE person in the restaurant. Last Friday we went out for dinner and were the only TWO people in that one.
Went to do a service job in my old building and the hairdresser’s gone. Go upstairs and Adult Ed is gone. The employment center’s cut staff… only two motels and there’s 0 cars at one and all the lights are out - even in the manager’s quarters.
fucking shithole. Only thing going on is remodelling an old quonset and calling that the long promised ‘rec center’.
I am just wondering where all of this is heading.
This thread started with an article about Petronas threatening to pull out because
And now we have our Premier criticizing the federal government for proposed changes to the temporary foreign workers program because we are going to need lots of temporary foreign workers to fill the jobs that are supposedly coming our way.
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2786289
During the election there was talk of trillions of dollars. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Debt free BC. Legacy funds to pay for pretty much everything.
Now we have our fingers crossed that maybe we will get one (not 6, 10, or 12 terminals) and only if the government speeds up the regulatory process and subsidizes the projects through favourable taxes and incentives. On top of that the jobs will be filled by temporary residents who will be sending much of their earnings back home.
Forget the environmental impact. Let’s assume that everything is just fine there. And forget that we are talking about Prince Rupert as we all want our home to do well. But at the risk of being accused of an anti-business stance, I still have to ask.
Is this what we want? Foreign corporations making the profits? Other countries using our resources cheaply? Non-Canadians taking up most of the construction jobs?
I just hope this doesn’t become some sell-out just so the Liberals can look like they are keeping a (more and more diminishing) election promise.
[quote=“bthedog”]
Time for environmentalists to STOP railroading economic activity…that is all you people do is railroad fucking everything and use scare tactics and end of world scenarios to push your agendas…you cannot and never have been pleased by ANY industrial activity… you go from protest to protest with your wooden sandwich boards and Tim Horton coffee cups, then jump in your gas powered cars/trucks and go home and fire up the natural gas fueled furnace before you go to bed. Wash, rinse, repeat.[/quote]
You don’t have to be an environmentalist to care about where you live, or to listen to science. This tired argument you are using is like the crack dealer saying, “Hey, if people didn’t buy crack, there wouldn’t be a market!” Who cares if there is a market if the product destroys hope for future generations. Are you saying that NASA, the UN, 90% of all the worlds scientists, suddenly got together in a big lefty conspiracy to oust big oil, instead of reap billions of dollars? I could just as easily surmise your position as "Make the money now, and leave a shittier world to the kids! We’ll be dead and won’t have to deal with it by the time it happens!
[quote=“Juijitsubrainiac”]
[quote=“bthedog”]
Time for environmentalists to STOP railroading economic activity…that is all you people do is railroad fucking everything and use scare tactics and end of world scenarios to push your agendas…you cannot and never have been pleased by ANY industrial activity… you go from protest to protest with your wooden sandwich boards and Tim Horton coffee cups, then jump in your gas powered cars/trucks and go home and fire up the natural gas fueled furnace before you go to bed. Wash, rinse, repeat.[/quote]
You don’t have to be an environmentalist to care about where you live, or to listen to science. This tired argument you are using is like the crack dealer saying, “Hey, if people didn’t buy crack, there wouldn’t be a market!” Who cares if there is a market if the product destroys hope for future generations. Are you saying that NASA, the UN, 90% of all the worlds scientists, suddenly got together in a big lefty conspiracy to oust big oil, instead of reap billions of dollars? I could just as easily surmise your position as "Make the money now, and leave a shittier world to the kids! We’ll be dead and won’t have to deal with it by the time it happens![/quote]
I’m confused. What are “NASA, the UN, 90% of all the worlds scientists” saying about LNG in Prince Rupert?
I’m also not really clear on what you’re trying to say with your analogy. Is it referring to the energy industry as a whole? Are you asking us to believe that energy consumption is entirely supply-driven, and foisted upon us by evil rentiers? Would we all be living a happy, idyllic life in the fields if it weren’t for those evil capitalists? I’m sorry but I like my car, my hot shower, my lighting, my hospitals etc. Find me a way to power these things that isn’t prohibitively expensive, and maybe I’ll come spend a week in your cave with you. I’m not going to share my Kindle though.
Investor:
I’m also not really clear on what you’re trying to say with your analogy. Is it referring to the energy industry as a whole? Are you asking us to believe that energy consumption is entirely supply-driven, and foisted upon us by evil rentiers? Would we all be living a happy, idyllic life in the fields if it weren’t for those evil capitalists? I’m sorry but I like my car, my hot shower, my lighting, my hospitals etc. Find me a way to power these things that isn’t prohibitively expensive, and maybe I’ll come spend a week in your cave with you. I’m not going to share my Kindle though.
A a very good post and you are someone who believes in the future here and potential. I find myself grateful to investors in some aspects as it has given people that wanted out of town good prices for what many of them were life time investments. The sad part for me is there has been no city planning or none to my knowledge on social issues such as how these new property values affect rents for those that life on low incomes many of who are disabled or are not able to work in trades that are paying well at this time of “boom”
There is an argument that the more industry we have the more taxes will be paid into our system to cover social programs but I don’t trust the liberals to use a dime of whatever gains come from this thing for that purpose. No property owner is under any obligation to provide low cost space for people to live in but our government should have some plan for the change that has occurred. When I read things such as the article that states that foreign workers are needed to run and build such projects it gets me even more upset. Just where and what are the gains other than current (past property owners) getting good prices for there property and leaving. Population increase here is a joke I know more that have left than are coming in.
I frankly am sick of the speculation and talk and many of the people living on lower incomes paid a lot into those former property owners pockets prior to selling. Oh I know many will say move if you cant afford to be here or the system doesn’t owe anyone a place to live but there has to be a more human way of doing it rather than letting the poor live in places like Raffles among other places and no plan in place to ever improve things .
[quote=“investor”]
[quote=“Juijitsubrainiac”]
You don’t have to be an environmentalist to care about where you live, or to listen to science. This tired argument you are using is like the crack dealer saying, “Hey, if people didn’t buy crack, there wouldn’t be a market!” Who cares if there is a market if the product destroys hope for future generations. Are you saying that NASA, the UN, 90% of all the worlds scientists, suddenly got together in a big lefty conspiracy to oust big oil, instead of reap billions of dollars? I could just as easily surmise your position as "Make the money now, and leave a shittier world to the kids! We’ll be dead and won’t have to deal with it by the time it happens!
I’m confused. What are “NASA, the UN, 90% of all the worlds scientists” saying about LNG in Prince Rupert?
I’m also not really clear on what you’re trying to say with your analogy. Is it referring to the energy industry as a whole? Are you asking us to believe that energy consumption is entirely supply-driven, and foisted upon us by evil rentiers? Would we all be living a happy, idyllic life in the fields if it weren’t for those evil capitalists? I’m sorry but I like my car, my hot shower, my lighting, my hospitals etc. Find me a way to power these things that isn’t prohibitively expensive, and maybe I’ll come spend a week in your cave with you. I’m not going to share my Kindle though.[/quote]
I don’t know about the reference to NASA, but I took the comment to be referring to the UN Climate Conference last month and what was said there, which in summary was that global warming is happening, it is very costly and economically disruptive, and further investments in energy conservation and alternative energy should be encouraged.
Living in what is increasingly a petro-state, we tend to lag behind in those discussions:
theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e20714118/
Other G7 countries have made transitions from being leading manufacturers to economies based more on financial and other services. What’s our game plan for when the fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources that support our complacency become depleted or uncompetitive?
Technologies are changing and alternatives to fossil fuels are not necessarily prohibitively expensive.
Not many years ago wood pellets were mostly promoted as a rural heating source for use in log houses and vacation cabins by lakes and so on. Today pellets are a major export commodity that is strategically important, even critical, for a our forest industry and its’ mostly unionized workforce, while contributing to a shift away from coal fired electrical generation in Europe to greater reliance on renewable energy. Canada is the second largest supplier in that sector (after Germany), most of that comes from BC, and some of that product is being exported through Prince Rupert and contributing to the tax base, to the chagrin of our pro-environmental, pro-labour City council apparently.
All too often discussions in this country about energy are reduced down to stark, rather absurd alternatives: we are either uncritically supportive of tar sands development and fossil fuels exports or we are hypocrites if we drive a car or live in a house. Natural gas is environmentally preferable to coal (as was pointed out earlier) and other energy sources are better yet and are becoming economically viable, as the pellet example illustrates.
We need to be open to those opportunities. That’s my take on the reference to the UN conference and scientists.
I wouldn’t have a problem sharing my kindle, by the way. I quite often use a solar charger if there isn’t a plug nearby and sometimes even if there is.
You’re absolutely right in most of what you say, particularly with regards to the polarization of views. However I have to disagree with what you’re saying in this paragraph. Countries like the UK made the transition from manufacturing to services not because they wanted to, but because their manufacturing sector was fundamentally uncompetitive. Countries like Germany maintain a strong manufacturing sector that is the envy of the UK, France etc. A good manufacturing base tends to mean a larger middle class, a broader tax base, and a better way of life. Moving towards a service-based economy is not a desirable thing.
[quote=“investor”]
You’re absolutely right in most of what you say, particularly with regards to the polarization of views. However I have to disagree with what you’re saying in this paragraph. Countries like the UK made the transition from manufacturing to services not because they wanted to, but because their manufacturing sector was fundamentally uncompetitive. Countries like Germany maintain a strong manufacturing sector that is the envy of the UK, France etc. A good manufacturing base tends to mean a larger middle class, a broader tax base, and a better way of life. Moving towards a service-based economy is not a desirable thing.[/quote]
We’re probably not talking about the same thing. I’m referring to City of London financial services (banking, insurance, consulting), not jobs selling coffee and bagels, which is not a foundation for a strong economy.
The ‘City’ has always been big, and it’s only the tip of the economic iceberg over there, but the Brits really seem to have built on their strengths. I’ve been there several times over the years and whatever the quarter to quarter ups and downs it certainly is more affluent than it was during the era when manufacturing was in decline, when it was the ‘sick man of Europe’ (even manufacturing is showing signs of revival).
My point is that they have made a transition, but where are we going? We need to be more open to opportunities; we’re in danger of falling behind the curve on productivity and innovation.
There are a lot of people upset on Graham & Atlin Avenue (but they chose to locate next to an industrial site)…and there are many who don’t even care and they even live nearby.
And yes the city did drop the ball by not participating in the EA…that is perhaps one of the dumbest moves our council has ever made…and I hope they are taken to task by the pissed off residents…but at the end of the day…the pellet terminal is not a nuisance for over 90% of the city…and its economic impact and taxes it now pays to the city far outweigh the residents who lost their view IMO.[/quote]
Well, maybe the Port – who by the way as far as I am concerned was in a major conflict of interest by being both a). the landlord and b). the environmental assesor (how in the heck does that happen???)-- didn’t think about the bad will it would cause amongst the public. A lot of people won’t treat the port with same glowing heart it used to recieve.
That said, Petronas is picking a terrible place for a terminal. Science backs that up. The potential harm to the eelgrass bed, and thus key salmon transitional grounds, is asinine.
There are a lot of people upset on Graham & Atlin Avenue (but they chose to locate next to an industrial site)…and there are many who don’t even care and they even live nearby.
And yes the city did drop the ball by not participating in the EA…that is perhaps one of the dumbest moves our council has ever made…and I hope they are taken to task by the pissed off residents…but at the end of the day…the pellet terminal is not a nuisance for over 90% of the city…and its economic impact and taxes it now pays to the city far outweigh the residents who lost their view IMO.
Well, maybe the Port – who by the way as far as I am concerned was in a major conflict of interest by being both a). the landlord and b). the environmental assesor (how in the heck does that happen???)-- didn’t think about the bad will it would cause amongst the public. A lot of people won’t treat the port with same glowing heart it used to recieve.
That said, Petronas is picking a terrible place for a terminal. Science backs that up. The potential harm to the eelgrass bed, and thus key salmon transitional grounds, is asinine.[/quote]
It is not a terrible place for the terminal and the eelgrass for the most part will remain untouched. The LNG terminal is putting in a testle that is 2.4km in length, which means loading will occur 2.4 km offshore, well past the Flora Bank. There will be less than 1% use of the Flora Bank for this terminal and nearly zero dredging will occur in this area.
Again, this fear mongering needs to stop.
Today is a key day for this area…the BC Legislature will resume today at 12PM and this is to likely be the 1st day that major talks in regards to LNG taxation and what the Liberals have come up with for their LNG tax plan.
Should be an interesting week in BC politics and Rupert eyes should be very much focused on it as it will greatly impact this area, whether your are for or against this regions LNG plans.