All posts by Common Sense Canadian

NDP Op-ed: Party Committed to Review of Fracking, Tougher Regulations

Share

Read this op-ed by the BC NDP’s Energy Critic John Horgan and Environment Critic Rob Flemming, promising a tougher stance on natural gas fracking and related water issues. (Dec 13, 2012)

British Columbia needs to have a strong environmental lens guiding the development of our energy resources.  As we transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy, we must recognize the need for the responsible development of existing energy sources. 

 

While British Columbia has a well-established natural gas industry and an existing network of natural gas pipelines, we must approach further expansion with care.

New Democrats have met with First Nations, local governments, and residents throughout northeast B.C. While there are questions and concerns about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, there is also much agreement that extraction and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects can be done with greater consideration for environmental protection.

That’s why Adrian Dix and B.C.’s New Democrats have put forward a plan that we believe will ensure long-term sustainability and environmental stewardship, greater public accountability, and best practices in the industry, particularly when it comes to fracking.

The first point of our plan would be to appoint an expert panel to conduct a broad public review of fracking, including public hearings and consultations with First Nations, local communities, industry, environmental groups, and citizens. The panel will ensure British Columbians get B.C.-specific information they can trust.

Second, we would make immediate changes to protect B.C.’s water resources, including consolidating authority for water licensing within one public body; improving water mapping, monitoring and public reporting; and reviewing current water pricing practices.

Many British Columbians are raising valid questions and concerns about water use and the impacts of fracking. Our call for a review of water management stands in stark contrast to the B.C. Liberal government, which has largely failed to put the necessary protections in place.

The B.C. Liberal government has dragged its feet on introducing the Water Sustainability Act which promised to “respond to current and future pressures on water, and position B.C. as a leader in water stewardship.” While draft legislation was promised years ago, it likely won’t see the light of day before the end of the Liberals’ term in office.

A number of B.C. First Nations are in favour of supporting LNG development under the right circumstances. For example, while the Fort Nelson First Nation has criticized the Liberal government for “irresponsible, unsustainable water use” in the shale gas industry, they acknowledge the economic benefits of the natural gas industry and believe “that shale gas development can occur without full-scale damage to our rivers, lakes, and streams”.

Our plan would also include extending funding for the Farmers’ Advocate office to ensure landowners in the natural gas fields have the credible, independent support they need to deal with the gas industry.

And finally, we must find ways to align expansion in gas development and greenhouse gas emissions with the targets set out in the province’s Climate Action Plan. The Liberals have largely failed to take responsibility on this front, opting instead to change the definition of what constitutes “clean” energy rather than tackle the tough issues.

New Democrats can support LNG exports while opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline because LNG is a much safer alternative to oil. While any incident would be a major concern, the safety record of gas pipelines, LNG terminals, and LNG tankers shows there have been very few leaks. And unlike raw bitumen, which would cause a devastating environmental catastrophe in the case of a major spill off B.C.’s north coast, liquefied natural gas would evaporate and dissipate.

A New Democrat government would approach the development of safer, cleaner energy sources in an environmentally-responsible way. By subjecting each project to a rigorous environmental assessment and having the proper protections in place, we would make certain the best interests of our province are represented. This will enhance our economic development and indigenous peoples’ self-determination, and create a sustainable environment for the future.

Read original post: http://www.straight.com/news/rob-fleming-and-john-horgan-fracking

Share

Mike Smyth: Kinder Morgan Facing Increasingly Uphill Battle

Share

Read this column from the Province’s Mike Smyth on the increasingly rocky ride Kinder Morgan is facing with its proposed mega-expansion to the Trans Mountain Pipeline and oil tanker traffic through Vancouver. (Dec. 9, 2012)

There was a time when pipeline projects were so common and boring they wouldn’t need a public-relations campaign or saturation advertising to sell them.

But that was before climate change, the Alberta oilsands, the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the pipeline rupture that made a mess of the Kalamazoo River. It was before heightened public concern over oil tankers off the B.C. coast, and long before a ­company called Enbridge proposed the Northern Gateway pipeline, and unleashed B.C.’s biggest environmental battle in a generation.

The Enbridge project has become a political flashpoint in the province, with the NDP’s ­Adrian Dix firmly opposed to it, and Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals laying down strict conditions for supporting it. But while the politicians and pundits duke it out over Enbridge — and the company soaks the airwaves with pro-pipeline ads — another company called Kinder Morgan is quietly going about its business. It’s B.C.’s ­“other pipeline”: the $4-billion proposal to twin the existing TransMountain connection from Alberta to Burnaby.

Like Enbridge, the company wants to pump heavy diluted bitumen from the oilsands to the B.C. coast, where it would be loaded onto tankers for shipment to Asia. Oil-tanker traffic would swell from the current five to 25 ships per month. But unlike Enbridge, there’s been no massive ad campaign, though one might come later. For now, Kinder Morgan has opted for a series of lower-profile town hall meetings along the pipeline route.

“We’ve taken a very local approach,” says Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan ­Canada. “The team working on the project is based in Vancouver, and the people meeting one-to-one in the communities are British Columbians.”

The town hall events feature fresh-faced young people staffing the information displays. A couple of friendly and casually dressed company officials — Michael Davies and Greg Toth — lead the sessions.

Not a Calgary power suit in sight.

The low-key approach seems to be working for the company, which has taken much less flak than Enbridge in the province’s pipeline wars.

But that could change. Protesters have appeared at most of Kinder Morgan’s events — “we know them by name now,” Davies jokes — though the biggest excitement before last week was a streaker flashing by in Nanaimo.

Then the tour hit Victoria, and a busload of protesters drove up and swarmed the meeting. (Yes, that would be a bus powered by ­fossil fuel.) The protesters took down the company’s information displays and sat on them, preventing the public from seeing them. A few of the company’s placards were torn and vandalized with markers…

…While Adrian Dix has soundly condemned the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the NDP leader has remained officially neutral on Kinder Morgan, saying the company has not officially applied for a pipeline permit yet. It’s a technical loophole Dix has seized to avoid taking a position on an increasingly controversial issue that could end up dividing his own party.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Kinder+Morgan+pipeline+project+increasingly+rocky+ride/7669460/story.html#axzz2EfizxsUt

Share

Cracks in Scientific Study Downplaying Risks of Fracking – Lead Scientist on Board of Energy Company

Share

Read this story from Mark Hume in the Globe and Mail on the scandal that is rocking the natural gas fracking industry. A Texas-based scientist who published a report downplaying the risks of fracking has been discovered to be on the board of an energy company – a conflict he chose not to disclose to journalists at a conference in Vancouver where he unveiled his findings. (Dec. 9, 2012)

When the research team from the University of Texas at Austin took the stage at the Vancouver Convention Centre early this year, they knew they had a big audience.

Journalists from around the world were attending the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting and many of them had come to the press conference, where a new study on the environmental impacts of fracking was to be released.

Across North America, including in British Columbia where gas exploration is booming, the industry has been under intense scrutiny. One concern is that groundwater is contaminated when a chemical-laced slurry is injected deep underground, to release gas by fracturing rock formations.

Charles Groat, of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, promised big news on that front. And he didn’t disappoint, delivering a definitive statement that the widely held environmental concerns about fracking were simply unfounded.

“The bottom line [is that] we found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself – the practice of fracturing the rocks – had contaminated shale groundwater or was causing concerns,” said Dr. Groat at the February event.

That was then. Now a review panel appointed by the University of Texas has taken a hard look at Dr. Groat’s report, and has concluded his study “fell short of contemporary standards for scientific work.”

Not only was the work suspect, reported the panel, but Dr. Groat himself was in a troubling conflict of interest.

“In studies of controversial topics, such as the impact on public health and the environment potentially stemming from shale-gas hydraulic fracturing, credibility hinges upon full disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest by all participants and upon rigorous, independent reviews of findings. This study failed in both regards,” stated the panel, which released its findings Friday.

“Dr. Groat, failed to disclose his material financial relationship as a member of the board of directors of Plains Exploration and Production, a gas exploration and development company,” stated the panel, which was appointed to investigate after a non-profit group, the Public Accountability Initiative, raised questions about the independence of the research.

“When asked at the [Vancouver] press conference … about the independence of the work … [Dr. Groat] replied, ‘This study was funded entirely by University of Texas funds,’ not taking the opportunity to comment on his own financial interests,” stated the review panel.

The Globe and Mail and other major media covering that press conference reported that the University of Texas had found there was no evidence to support concerns that fracking damages groundwater.

“You were misled,” said Kevin Connor, director of the Public Accountability Initiative, who raised questions on Dr. Groat’s conflict. “The science isn’t there.”

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/fissures-appear-in-scientists-assurances-about-safety-of-fracking/article6142857/

Share

Cargo Vessel Crashes Through Deltaport Coal Terminal

Share

Check out this story from the Sightline Institute’s blog, on a cargo vessel that smashed through the coal terminal at Deltaport recently. (December 7, 2012)

That’s a photo taken this morning of British Columbia’s Westshore Coal Terminal. A cargo vessel smashed through the center of the loading trestle—thus the big gap in the middle—putting it out of commission and dumping coal directly into the Strait of Georgia. The coal contamination is clearly visible as the dark streaks in the water.

CKNW News has the story. Here’s video footage of the scene.

It’s hardly encouraging that Port Metro Vancouver, the same agency that operates this facility, is trying to build new coal shipping capacity on the Fraser River.

Today was a rough day for coal shipments in the Northwest. Also this morning, a coal train broke down on the tracks in the middle of Mount Vernon shutting down local streets for nearly an hour.

See original post: http://daily.sightline.org/2012/12/07/nothing-can-go-wrong-at-coal-terminals/

Share

Not Much of a Generational Gap on Energy and Environment, Studies Show

Share

Check out this story from Metro on different generational attitudes toward energy and environmental issues – the subject of an intergenerational dialogue in Vancouver Tuesday night. (Dec. 8, 2012)

Stereotypes and many a bitter blogger suggest Baby Boomers are to blame, or thank, for supporting the rapid expansion of Canada’s oil and gas sector.

But polls suggest Boomers’ views are surprisingly close to those of their Generation Y offspring — and the vast majority of Canadians want to see a transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy.

Marc Lee, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, is speaking about the issue Tuesday in Vancouver at Bring Your Boomers, a series designed to foster intergenerational dialogue. The theme of the panel discussion is power and energy.

“The overarching problem is that no generation is really having influence on the political system relative to the concern that exists,” Lee said in a phone interview Friday.

“Every generation wants action on these issues, but we have a breakdown in our political system because our politicians are not acting on those concerns.”

A Harris/Decima poll commissioned by Tides Canada this summer found there was almost no difference between the generations in their sense of urgency about exporting more of Canada’s oil and natural gas.

Asked to rate it as a top, high, medium, low or non-priority, 33 per cent of people across the country rated it as high or top priority. Responses hardly varied among age groups, however seniors’ support was slightly higher at 39 per cent.

The biggest differences were revealed when pollsters asked how much of a priority should be placed on reducing carbon pollution and our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal.

On the question of reducing carbon pollution, the percentage of Generation Y respondents that answered high or top-priority was 74 per cent, Generation X averaged 61 per cent and Boomers 65 per cent. However, given the sample size of 1005 respondents, the variations lie within the margin or error and could be statistically insignificant.

When asked to rate the importance of reducing Canada’s reliance on fossil fuels, 75 per cent of Generation Y respondents aged 18 to 34 called it a high or top priority, compared to 65 per cent of Boomers ages 45 and up, and 61 per cent of Generation X, ages 35 to 44.

Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada at Tides Canada, said support was uniform across age demographics and consistently higher than two-thirds for using a portion of the country’s oil wealth to invest in and create more jobs in renewable energy, as well as improving energy efficiency.

“The gap’s not that big,” she said. “You could definitely say all generations are widely in support of transitioning our economy…. But younger generations are definitely more concerned about carbon pollution and Canada taking a role to reduce our carbon footprint.”

Read more: http://metronews.ca/news/canada/469985/boomers-vs-generation-y-is-there-a-rift-on-energy-views/

Share

NDP, Civil Groups Slam Harper Government’s Approval of CNOOC Nexen Buyout

Share

Read this story from Rabble.ca on the Harper Government’s announcement this past Friday that it is approving Chinese state-owned CNOOC’s proposed $15 Billion buyout of Canadian energy company Nexen and the criticism it has drawn from the Opposition and various civil groups. (Dec. 7, 2012)

At a press conference held late Friday afternoon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that his government had approved the $15 billion takeover of Nexen by the Chinese Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC).

Reaction to Friday’s announcement was swift.

NDP Energy and Natural Resources critic Peter Julian, who recently held a social media Town Hall on the subject, call the decision “irresponsible” and “a farce.”

Two of the civil society organizations that have led a high profile campaign against the Nexen takeover, and against the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA), issued this statement.

SumOfUs.org and Leadnow.ca Slam Prime Minister Harper’s Approval Of CNOOC-Nexen Takeover 

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the approval of the controversial takeover of Nexen by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company. Harper called the Nexen decision and the prospect of further takeovers of oil sands firms “not the beginning of a trend, but rather the end of a trend.” 

This government’s decision to announce the takeover at 5pm on a Friday, and to say that they will limit future takeovers in our resource sector, shows that this government is feeling intense pressure from Canadians across the political spectrum to ensure Canadian control of our resources. However, the in-limbo FIPA deal raises serious questions about Harper’s statement, as it is designed to encourage China’s companies to invest in the Canadian resource sector.

“This decision makes the prospect of the Canada-China FIPA even more troubling,” said Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, executive director of SumOfUs.org. “Now that CNOOC will have control of a major Canadian fossil fuel giant, Canada can’t risk signing a treaty with China that will give CNOOC vast powers to stop Canadian government regulation.”

Read more: http://rabble.ca/news/2012/12/opposition-parties-civil-society-groups-condemn-government-approval-cnooc-nexen-takeove

Share

Russia Completes First Delivery of LNG to Japan by Arctic Tanker Route

Share

Check out this story from RT on Russia’s successful delivery of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to Japan by way of arctic shipping route. With the world’s leading gas producer now able to reach Asian markets, BC’s plans to do the same look increasingly unlikely. (Dec. 5, 2012)

The tanker Ob River carrying natural gas has successfully completed a trip through the Arctic Ocean from Norway to Japan, becoming the first ship to try a safer trade route for gas supplies than the more risky routes in the Southern seas.

­The ship departed November 7 from the Hammerfest Snohvit LNG facility headed for the Japanese utility Kyushu Electric Power Co. Before that the tanker completed a test trip on the Arctic sea route empty. The journey took 20 days, three weeks less than the usual route though the Mediterranean Sea, the Suez Canal and around Asia.

“The trip was completed accident free and in accord with the timetable,” Russian gas major Gazprom said in a statement. The company said it has been preparing for the trip for over a year.

Gazprom Marketing and Trading Ltd., a unit of Gazprom chartered the ship with an international crew of 40 from the Greek Dynagas company. The Ob River can carry up to 150,000 cubic meters of gas which is chilled under pressure to turn it into a liquid. The ship has been accompanied by Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers “50 years of Victory”, “Rossya” and “Voigach” during the trip in the Arctic waters.

“Two trips of the Ob River have fully proved the technical and economic viability of the Arctic route for international LNG supplies,” Gazprom said.

With high-quality icebreaker protection, shorter delivery times, increased volumes of supply and no risks of military conflicts and pirate assaults it could be attractive and a safer solution for international trade”.

Chartering an LNG tanker can cost as much as $150,000 per day, companies that want to send gas from the North Sea to North Asia could save up to $3 million using the Arctic passage instead of Suez. The cost for hiring icebreakers is an added extra. The Arctic route is suitable for navigation only few months a year, casting a shadow on the profitability of the project.

But scientists say with climate change and a decreasing Arctic ice level it is likely the length of the sailing season could be extended and sea traffic across the Arctic sea route would grow rapidly. In September, scientists announced Arctic sea ice dropped to 3.4m square kilometres – 50% lower than the 1979-2000 average.

Read original story: http://rt.com/business/news/tanker-arctic-sea-route-complete-337/

Share
Sustainable Transportation Experts Call New Port Mann Bridge Antiquated Thinking

Sustainable transportation experts call new port mann bridge antiquated thinking

Share

Sustainable Transportation Experts Call New Port Mann Bridge Antiquated Thinking

Read this story from Metro News on the opening of the new Port Mann Bridge, which is drawing criticism from a leading sustainable transportation experts for driving climate change-causing car-based transportation instead of more sustainable, modern alternatives. (Nov. 30, 2012)

Its historical significance and sheer wow factor is unquestioned.

But everything else about the new Port Mann Bridge is fair game for sustainable transportation advocates.

Gordon Price – Simon Fraser University director of the City Program and board member of the International Centre for Sustainable Cities – says the government missed a golden opportunity to promote smart regional growth when the 10-lane, $3.3-billion megabridge between Coquitlam and Surrey officially opens Saturday.

Instead the project promotes urban sprawl, car use and champions outdated, 20th century “motordome” thinking, flying in the face of emerging trends indicating decreased car use and more demand for public transportation.

“The most frustrating thing is that [the Port Mann] doesn’t do what they said it was going to do: reduce congestion,” said Price. “The claim is disingenuous when you pass on the opportunity to include rapid transit within the budget. When that happens, expanding the capacity for cars [without an alternative] increases the demand. If people can travel farther in the same amount of time from cheaper land, they will.”

The original Port Mann, which cost $25 million in 1964, opened the region up to expansion south of the Fraser River.

That growth strained the road network, creating a situation today where the old five-lane Port Mann Bridge is congested in both directions 13 hours of the day.

Price doesn’t dispute that a replacement was required and doesn’t doubt commuters will give the bridge plenty of use despite its tolls.

But he calls the final design overkill and unnecessary.

“Why do we need the world’s widest bridge when all the planners said eight lanes would do?” he said. “I doubt you’ll ever need all 10 lanes. It’s today’s Granville Street Bridge, which never reached its designed capacity and never will.”

Robin Lindsey, a transportation expert at the University of British Columbia Sauder School of Business, believes the effectiveness of the Port Mann won’t be known until 2014.

“People need time to adjust and experiment with their routes and decide for themselves about tolls,” he said. “I think it will cope fairly well. Best-case scenario, the peak times drop by as much as an hour and the effect of high capacity works. What happens in 50 years, I haven’t the foggiest idea.”

Forecasting done last year by Steer Davies Gleave, for Port Mann operator Transportation Investment Corporation, showed that traffic volumes on the existing Port Man have steadily decreased from 2005 to 2010, by approximately 8,000 vehicles in that period.

A Frontier Group report on driving behaviour in the U.S. shows the average annual number of vehicle-miles travelled by people between the ages of 16 and 34 have dropped 23 per cent from 2001 and 2009.

While the recession is a factor in both cases, the Frontier Group states high gas prices, licensing laws, improved alternative transportation (public transportation, primarily) and changing attitudes about driving and the environment represent the start of a generational shift.

Meanwhile, increasingly aggressive urban planning on a municipal level emphasizing livable communities, public transit and non-vehicle infrastructure is dramatically changing driving behaviour.

The City of Vancouver, for example, has reduced traffic volumes in the downtown core to 1960s levels.

Price feels governments have been slow to react because leaders grew up in driving cultures and new statistics showing a shift away from that mentality are so dramatic “it’s easy to be skeptical”.

Read more: http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/459706/new-port-mann-a-link-to-the-past/

Share

National Geographic: BC’s Great Bear Rainforest One of World’s Top Destinations

Share

Read this story from the Canadian Press on National Geographic’s  inclusion of BC’s Great Bear Rainforest in its recent list of the world’s top places to see. (Dec. 5, 2012)

NEW YORK, N.Y. – National Geographic Traveler magazine has named British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest and Nova Scotia’s Cape Breton Island as being among the world’s “must-see places” of 2013.

The rainforest is “an untamed strip of land” stretching 400 kilometres along the B.C. coast, but its tranquillity has “recently been rocked” by the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project to send oilsands crude from Alberta to a terminal at Kitimat, the magazine says.

An environmental review panel examining the controversial plan will release its report by the end of 2013.

On Canada’s East Coast, Cape Breton lures visitors with its “abundant wildlife, natural beauty and assembly of French, Micmac and Celtic cultures.”

The island’s 300-kilometre Cabot Trail is often ranked among the world’s most spectacular drives.

National Geographic’s list includes four U.S. destinations: Hudson Valley, N.Y.; Missouri River Breaks, Mont.; Memphis, Tenn.; and St. Augustine, Fla.

International locales include Thessaloniki, Greece; Bodo, Norway; Marseille, France; Ravenna, Italy; Jarash, Jordan; Crimea, Ukraine; Malawai; Uganda; Bagan, Myanmar; Raja Ampat, Indonesia; Kyoto, Japan; Valparaiso, Chile; Quito, Ecuador; Grenada.

Read more: http://www.globaltvbc.com/bcs+great+bear+rainforest+among+worlds+must-see+places+of+2013+according+to+national+geographic/6442766657/story.html

 

Share
Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas' $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan

Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas’ $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan

Share
Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas' $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan
artist’s rendering

Read this story from Larry Pynn in the Vancouver Sun on the latest in a steady stream of new proposals for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) plants on BC’s coast, designed to take gas from northeast BC to new markets in Asia. This time, it’s Malaysian giant Petronas in partnership with the Canadian firm it has been trying to purchase, Progress Energy, with plans for a $9 Billion facility in Prince Rupert. (Dec. 5, 2012)

VANCOUVER — Malaysian Energy giant Petronas and Canadian natural gas company Progress Energy say they are going ahead with plans to develop a $9-billion-plus liquefied natural gas plant at Prince Rupert despite a decision by Ottawa to reject the Malaysian company’s $5.9 billion bid to buy Progress.

The two companies have agreed to proceed with the LNG plant independently of the takeover bid, Progress president Michael Culbert said Tuesday. But the joint venture partners also offered a tempting carrot if Ottawa reconsiders its decision to block the takeover bid: a much larger investment in B.C.’s northeastern gas fields and in its proposed LNG plant.

If Ottawa ultimately approves the takeover, the partners would have sufficient natural gas reserves to expand the size of their LNG plant, to be located on Lelu Island within the port of Prince Rupert, Culbert said.

If the acquisition is approved, “on the LNG side itself it is projected to be about a 60-per-cent increase in capacity,” he said. “That moves the total natural gas supply from 1.2 billion cubic feet per day to 2 billion cubic feet per day.”

He said British Columbia would benefit through the development of a new industry capable of creating investment, jobs and tax revenues.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman welcomed the announcement.

“This could be another positive step forward in the development of B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry — we are well on our way to having Canada’s first designated export terminal for natural gas,” Coleman said in an email to The Sun. “If this project is approved, it could create up to 3,500 construction jobs and 300 long-term operational positions.”

The joint-venture partners have named the company that is to develop the LNG plant Pacific Northwest LNG. Culbert said the new company is to open an office in Vancouver early in 2013, around the same time it submits its plans to Canadian regulators. Pacific Northwest LNG’s target start-up date is 2018.

“There’s a window and an opportunity for Canada to be a participant, and Progress and Petronas are moving ahead on our joint-venture arrangement . . . . If we can enhance the project economics by increasing the size of it, it just makes that project, and Canada, more competitive,” Culbert said.

The joint-venture partners have completed a feasibility study and are now ready to begin the next phase, referred to as the pre-front-end engineering design phase. The investment is estimated at between $9 billion and $11 billion to build two liquefaction plants, referred to as trains, capable of producing 3.8 million tonnes per train of LNG a year. Pacific Northwest LNG is in discussion with pipeline builders to decide the best option for getting the gas to Prince Rupert.

Industry Minister Christian Paradis blocked the Progress takeover Oct. 19 saying there was no net benefit to Canada in the deal. Petronas is a state-owned energy company but it is also an ideal investor partner for Progress, as it is heavily invested in LNG, operates one of the largest LNG tanker fleets in the world, and has an existing customer chain.

“What we see, starting at the upstream end, whether it be the joint-venture or the expanded case, we are going to have material development of Progress’s lands up along the Alaska Highway of British Columbia. With that, this natural gas development and resource development will then be the feedstock to our LNG project,” Culbert said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2035/Petronas+Progress+announce+ahead+billion+plant+Prince/7649961/story.html

 

Share