Deer Group -$30Billion LNG Plant Agreement

Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by mick_allen, Jul 9, 2014.

  1. mick_allen

    mick_allen Paddler & Moderator

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,996
    A $30 Billion LNG plant agreement has been signed to develop a port at Sarita Bay at the North end of the Deer Group. Tankers would then use the full length of that inner passage (Trevor Channel) to arrive at the plant.

    http://www.avtimes.net/news/local/30-billion-lng-plant-in-the-works-1.1198832
    http://globalnews.ca/news/1438552/v...ons-band-sign-agreement-to-develop-lng-plant/
    From the developer:
    http://www.steelheadlng.com/steelhe...-huu-ay-aht-first-nations-land-at-sarita-bay/

    For orientation:
     

    Attached Files:

  2. eriktheviking

    eriktheviking Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Prince George, BC
    I don't get the logic here. Where does the natural gas come from? I don't know of any substantial sources on the Island. How do pipelines from the northeast get to the central west coast of the Island? Also to liquefy requires a lot of power- no infrastructure here for this. Is this another plant that will burn 1/3 of the gas to power generators to liquefy the rest? How does this location make any sense?
     
  3. Outsider

    Outsider Paddler

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Vancouver, B.C.
    I'm OK with this.

    What's the problem?

    You want all your stuff but you don't want to give anything for it?
     
  4. mick_allen

    mick_allen Paddler & Moderator

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,996
    From the developer's website:
     
  5. Outsider

    Outsider Paddler

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Vancouver, B.C.
    I still don't see what the problem is.

    BC is a resource oriented economy. Who doesn't get this?

    It's so NIMBY to discuss developments in such a selfish manner.

    We need to use our resources to sustain our standard of living.

    If you don't get this you should move somewhere else where the government magically pays for everything without the consumers having to pay anything.
    Is this the math you learned in school?

    There is, and has never been, a problem with developing what we have to offer the country.

    There are a lot of silly people who think that everything should be free. These are Canadians.

    Move forward to help us to pay for all the stuff that we demand of our governments or else stop asking for more and better.

    Developing the coast is not a threat, it's an opportunity. It will not harm a hand full of us who want to see the natural world. It's there for us no matter a pipeline or a ship.

    Seriously
     
  6. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    LNG cargoes, whether imported or exported, entail enormous potential risks at transfer and during conversion to/from gas. The only good news I can see in that site selection is that if it goes up, not many folks around to suffer.

    That one sounds like an export facility, likely intended for Asia, which has a shortage of decent hydrocarbon sources, with buyers ready to pay a premium for natural gas. Here, a much touted import facility, to bring natural gas down from the North Slope, magically became an export facility when economics shifted. It would duct gas from the Rockies to the coast, intended for Asia. As a longtime organic chemist, I would strongly prefer natural gas be used as a feedstock for higher value materials, within the US. I expect many Canadians might feel the same way about their good natural gas.

    We have all seen those prime logs leave our ports, unaltered by mills, and unconverted into value added products like furniture, plywood, stick lumber, etc., instead used to make goods in other countries. Strictly in economic terms, when petroleum is heading for ever growing shortages, makes little sense to ship it away for use as a fuel.

    Added in edit: Outsiders comments suggest Canadians are best served by sending their raw materials to other countries for conversion to value added products. Canadians get to decide these matters for themselves. There is growing concern down here about that approach to allocation of ever scarcer natural resources. Making value added products from natural gas translates into decent jobs for wherever that occurs. Makes sense, economic sense, to do it where your kids, aunts, uncles, etc., can benefit.
     
  7. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,498
    Location:
    Campbell River
  8. mick_allen

    mick_allen Paddler & Moderator

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,996
    It so annoys me that we ship away our raw materials to be value added elsewhere - and then the byproducts or their results shipped back.
    Enridge is especially annoying as there is an extra pipeline and petroleum import system for dilutants for our raw bitumen that then gets refined elsewhere.
     
  9. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Seriously, no NYBYism here, just time to look at ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, F**K Fracking! (the main source of this gas) and all that goes with it! If we spent 10% of what we spend on all of this on developing Alternative Energy resources, we would not need this so called economy, which only fuels itself, NOT the average citizen. It is time to look a bit more ahead than just our yearly paycheques, before we have nothing left but hot gas. IMHO, when we say think GREEN, it does not mean MONEY! It is way more than just being selfish about our natural environs, it is all about a sustainable future.
     
  10. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    China is one of the worst polluters on the planet, lets make THEM go Greener!! A bit of pain now, will pay great dividends later....
     
  11. Outsider

    Outsider Paddler

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Vancouver, B.C.
    I thought that we were talking about an invasive pipeline in the Deer Group.

    How did this become about the economy, China, the 'greens' and other fruits and veggies?

    I just want to paddle in the relatively unspoiled wilderness that we have in abundance.

    I don't feel threatened by some gas.

    Though I tend to burp a lot :)
     
  12. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    Sometimes conversations evolve -- this is one of those times.

    I'm wondering where you came up with fruits and veggies since no one else mentions it.

    Abundance? In the grand scale of things unspoiled wilderness is not that abundant and certainly not so if we don't protect what we have.
     
  13. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Outsider, read your own post..."BC is a resource based economy"....If you want "unspoiled", then you best stand up against big gas and oil companies before it is too late...
    Although, and I quote, you seem "OK with it", does not jive with "unspoiled wilderness"...so which is it?
     
  14. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    Me, too! Sometimes a variant, however.

    Actually, I favor exploiting natural gas resources, as the cleanest form of petroleum products known. But, the proposal to export natural gas out of Canada to other nations is counter to wise management and use of a vanishing, scarce resource. Almost all of that exported gas will simply be burnt for fuel. As a longtime organic chemist, I would like to see natural gas husbanded and preserved for generating useful, high value materials. Keeping it within Canada or selling it to another nation with that policy seems wise to me. Squandering it and quickly depleting the resource seems folly to me. I guess this is economics of a sort, as more jobs and personal income are generated by converting gas to useful materials than achieved by simply burning it. Isn't that a desirable goal?

    So, whether the facility is sited near the Deer Group or elsewhere is not so important to me. It's where the gas goes and what it is used for. Fifty years from now, I bet civilized nations will be astounded at the stupidity of simply burning natural gas for heating. Sure, it will be an eyesore for folks hoping to enjoy a wilderness experience in the Deers. But, the Deers are not wilderness. Those days are long gone.
     
  15. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,498
    Location:
    Campbell River
  16. Yaketyak

    Yaketyak Paddler

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    Comox
  17. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
  18. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    I suppose, regardless of exports, fracking and other issues, the BGI is a park, and I am not sure we need giant LNG tankers plying those waters. Even without spills or even collisions etc.. what is all that traffic doing to wildlife? If we need to do this, it seems an odd place for this terminal...
     
  19. Chris_Hvid

    Chris_Hvid Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Victoria, British Columbia since 1955
    [ad hominem removed - ed.]

    Hey Outsider...you should take a few science courses before expounding on the wonders of carbon...Being a kayaker I thought maybe you might actually care about your "back yard". Don't you love that phrase "render uninhabitable"...as the ph slowly rises and the frog boils...
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    Rodnak,

    The BGI are across Barkley Sound from the proposed site, which is on First Nations lands, hence presumably free of some of the usual scrutiny before construction. An isolated site, with few humans near in case it blows up, a very short run from open waters, yet relatively protected, make this a good choice, IF exporting natural gas is a wise move. Hit those links Nootka put up, especially the last four, to understand some of the politics and economics of exporting LNG. Some very good minds have mulled this issue.

    Won't be in place soon, anyway. Major pipeline has to reach VI from the mainland as part of the deal.

    For comparison:

    Where I live, mouth of the Columbia River, a prime artery for shipping to Portland Oregon, we had three separate sites on the table, with two now dead in the water, one because it would have required destroying some prime salmon smolt habitat. The remaining one standing would be sited adjacent to the shipping channel and half a mile or so from downtown Warrenton OR, with the evacuation zone stretching out to encompass about 10,000 Oregonians if a fire occurred. (Note: the uproar which greeted the original proposals eventually resulted in the recall of three of the five County Commissioners who embraced them.)

    Further, during the half a day or so while an LNG tanker is docked, the shipping channel would be shut down, hamstringing shipping and other commercial marine traffic, as well as all recreational boating on that part of the Columbia. Irrespective of whether exporting natural gas is a wise notion or not, locating a terminal in or near a major shipping channel or an area of large numbers of homes is brain dead stupid. Yet, we are 6 or 7 years out now from the onset of these proposals and the process of deciding whether or not ours is a good spot for a terminal is flawed, flawed, flawed.

    Coos Bay down the OR coast, a good seaport, has a site farther along, despite its exposure to the tsunami we know will sweep that low lying area when a subduction zone M9 quake occurs. You can't make up stuff like this. I hope folks in BC are smarter than we are down here.