About Me-email is... grant.go@aol.com

My photo
garden bay, west coast, Canada
persistent digging,never say never

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Justin Trudeau's Christmas Gift to Canadians, Lumps of Coal and Diluted Bitumen




 Chasing distant billboards and dumbing down the electorate....

Sandy Garossino recently wrote an op-ed piece for the National Observer...and I must say, what a load of gibberish it was..

Sandy opined that ....The Kinder Morgan pipeline battle is not "the hill to die on" and that environmentalists should be happy to surrender..

Her reasons were, to say the least, not thought out, at all.....in fact Garossino said in her article that Justin Trudeau had appeased environmentalists by bringing forth a national carbon strategy and a 100 megaton cap on tar sands emissions....

Sandy espoused even more reasons to surrender the Kinder Morgan battle...she claimed that right now it is "hell in Alberta" and we should take one for the team to save Alberta...

Where to even begin....If Alberta is doomed without Kinder Morgan then doomed they be, a couple of thousand temporary pipeline jobs and maybe another 500 tar-sand workers(maybe)..

So, according to Sandy Garossino Alberta is hell...Well Sandy...So is Canada's east coast, so is Canada's north, so is the debt issues of both Quebec and Ontario and British Columbia...

Alberta could end its budgetary woes by simply bringing in a provincial sales tax..

Let me first say this....Sandy Garossino's last article wasn't about logic, or facts, or anything, Sandy Garrosino's last article was about political patronage, patronage to Justin Trudeau....if Stephen Harper had approved Kinder Morgan Sandy Garossino would be against it...and that my friends is the reason her article stunk, that and zero content, devoid of anything tangible, and as a lawyer, Sandy Garrosino knows full well what it means to have substance, knows better than to write empty rhetoric..

Garossino failed to mention(on purpose) that there is no proven method to clean up diluted bitumen spilled in water.....my condolences for the latest dead Orca whale, struck dead, killed by an impact with a large vessel....Bitumen can't be cleaned up...

Garossino also erred in not mentioning that Alberta will not receive a higher dollar for their bitumen at tidewater, in fact Alberta will receive less....Sandy Garossino knows that, she avoided that, deliberately left that fact out..


 If one reads this article....

http://in.reuters.com/article/canada-ports-crude-repeat-analysis-pix-g-idINL1N1DL0GW

Alberta will have to take an even bigger discount on their oil at tidewater, and the fact that Vancouver won't allow the biggest oil transport ships(Harbour needs dredging and a second narrows bridge replacement to allow supermax ships) the price Alberta receives for diluted bitumen lowers even more...in fact oil shipped out of Vancouver will most likely go to California, that's right, the same country Alberta is selling oil to now ..

Even more disturbing than Garossino bending for her party affiliation is....

Garrosino dives the deepest depths of derangement....her reasoning is so bad, ...so bad in fact that Linda Steele on CKNW promoted Garossino's article as something so special, so great an article all must read...Linda Steele(an Alberta based celeb) let Sandy ramble on unchallenged, in fact Linda Steele even lied on air, by saying that according to recent polls 75% of Canadians are in favour of Kinder Morgan expansion.....that was a lie by Linda Steele....it was an Ipsos Canada poll...sponsored by CAPP....it was a push poll...The number was 37% agree, not 75%....plus, these push-polls, when they ask you do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree strongly, disagree agree somewhat or neutral...

Here is the Straight Goods on that poll's findings......



  • Four in ten (39%) Canadians ‘agree’ (20% strongly/19% somewhat) with the decision to approve the Enbridge Line 3 project from Alberta to Wisconsin, compared to two in ten (18%) who ‘disagree’ (9% strongly/9% somewhat), and 43% who are neutral. In Alberta, two in three (66%) agree with the decision.
  • Nearly four in ten (37%) Canadians ‘agree’ (19% strongly/17% somewhat) with the decision to approve Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion in British Columbia, while two in ten (20%) ‘disagree’ (10% strongly/11% somewhat) and 43% are neutral. In both Alberta (61%) and British Columbia (54%), a majority agrees with the government’s decision.
  • On the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s north coast, fully one half (50%) of Canadians are neutral on the decision, while 34% agree with the decision (18% strongly/16% somewhat), and 16% disagree with it (8% strongly/8% somewhat). In British Columbia itself, significantly more agree (43%) than disagree (19%) with the moratorium.  
  • Regarding the rejection of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project in British Columbia, the margin of those who approve of the decision (33% -- 17% strongly/16% somewhat) narrows over those who disapprove (21% -- 11% strongly/10% somewhat), while nearly half (45%) neither agree nor disagree with the decision. However, in both British Columbia (38% agree vs. 37% disagree) and Alberta (29% agree vs. 28% disagree), residents are even split.
Do you see that.....The disapproval numbers...


on Enbridge line 3 decision..

(18%) who ‘disagree’ (9% strongly/9% somewhat)

on Kinder Morgan expansion...

(20%) ‘disagree’ (10% strongly/11% somewhat) and 43% 

On the Tanker moratorium

(16% disagree with it (8% strongly/8% somewhat

On the rejection of Northern Gateway

those who disapprove 21% -- 11% strongly/10% somewhat

notice how the disapprove numbers are almost identical?(20% in all categories) shouldn't the Enbridge northern gateway rejection numbers reversed?...yes they should, except the way they asked for the answer....excuse me, if a person somewhat agrees..??? what does that mean?..nothing, it was a push-poll.

http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7507

if one looks behind the scenes, behind the polls....one will see how they arrived where they did...

They always asked for the answer in the same order..

http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16229

here it is

Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree or disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the Trudeau Government's decision for each of the projects?-Approving Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia

Do you see what they did...they put against/anti answers at the back end of each question every time----That's why the rejection of Enbridge northern gateway numbers are virtually identical to the other questions....The poll was also Canada wide...out of 1000 polled, a mere 124 were in BC...

Back to Justin Trudeau groupie Sandy Garossino......Her screed was so bad...Sandy also stated that we must support Rachel Notley because the next premier(in 2 years, next Alberta election) in Alberta could be worse...My goodness, short term thinking, help the politically doomed Rachel Notley because the next Alberta premier is gonna be a conservative...and push for pipelines? oh really Sandy, is that lawyer logic or spin?

Garossino also stated that...  Justin Trudeau ratified Canada's Paris climate commitments because he brought in a carbon tax "framework" and a 100 megaton emissions cap for the tarsands..

Here are the low-lights of Garrosino's article..

____________

The Trudeau government ratified last year’s Paris Agreement, and committed $2.65 billion to helping developing countries fight global climate change.
Justin Trudeau hosted a first ministers meeting devoted to the climate (his predecessor had held none on any subject in the previous 6 years), and announced a pan-Canadian framework agreement on climate change. On Tuesday, he joined with Barack Obama in announcing a freeze on off-shore Arctic drilling.
Alberta premier Rachel Notley will impose a carbon tax and hard cap on emissions from the tar sands, and almost all other provinces are on board.
The two hold-out provinces, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have a combined population smaller than that of Metro Vancouver.
While many remain disappointed by the fine print and our ability to meet targets, 2016 has been a spectacular year for Canadian environmentalists. Two years ago, few would have predicted any of it.
Is it really so unreasonable for this community, having enjoyed such remarkable success, to give some ground on Kinder Morgan’s twinning of an existing pipeline?
It’s the right thing to do, and it’s the smart thing to do.......
Right now Alberta is in hell. Oil's price collapse has thrown countless Albertans out of work, with no end in sight. Last summer thousands had to literally drive little kids through blazing fire, an act of unfathomable collective courage.
Here are some plain truths. Rachel Notley staked her political future on a serious carbon tax and hard cap on tar sands emissions. After she sacrificed political capital to support the environment, do B.C. environmentalists have her back?
Nope.
And if Notley isn’t re-elected, who’ll replace her? Someone a helluva lot worse for the environment, and an avowed foe of Trudeau, that’s who. And they’ll have money, loads of it, behind them......

We’re entering a two or three-decade period of transition away from fossil fuels. That's not going to happen overnight, because we don’t yet have the mass-scale renewable energy that is going to get us out of this mess.
In the interim we need pipelines and oil shipping.
Know what else we need? Activists and politicians who can see the big picture enough to know a good deal when they see one. This is a good deal.
If there’s political pressure to exert here in B.C., it’s on Christy Clark to live up to the provincial commitments we’ve made. And on Justin Trudeau to deliver.
Progress doesn’t move in just one direction, the way time does. Look at the shambles of America today.

That whole article was gibberish....Trudeau has done nothing for the environment...Rachel Notley has done nothing for the environment either..nor have the BC Liberals or Christy Clark...

Here are a few commenters below Garossino's article..

______________

So much wrong with this article, not sure even where to start.


"Alberta premier Rachel Notley will impose a carbon tax and hard cap on emissions from the tar sands, and almost all other provinces are on board."
Bill 20 is a fuel tax. Fuel is being taxed, not carbon. The Act is full of exemptions for the oil and gas industry. Have you read Bill 20 Ms. Garrosino? Or Bill 25: The Oilsands Emissions Limit Act? Because if you did, you could not possibly publish the wording "hard cap." Bill 25 includes exemptions and allowances for upgrading, co-generation, primary production, synthetic crude and experimental schemes, along with the ability of the LG in Council to change, perform, direct, define or otherwise alter the act, at any given time, for any purpose. Hardly a hard cap, soft, fuzzy ear muffs at best.
"Here are some plain truths. Rachel Notley staked her political future on a serious carbon tax and hard cap on tar sands emissions. After she sacrificed political capital to support the environment..."
Here are the real plain truths. Rachel Notley's campaign and subsequent governance has been full of shit. She lied over and over again about her environmental commitments. The Climate Leadership Plan is a fraud. She did not campaign on a carbon levy.
The NDP promised fair share of royalties. They actually lowered royalty rates and implemented billions in incentives for unconventional resource extraction.
The NDP committed to increased environmental monitoring. All increased environmental monitoring was deferred in Budget 2016. AMERA was gutted, CEMA disbanded. So far, Alberta's environmental monitoring is dead in the water. Like ducks in a tailings pond.
The NDP promised a review of the AER mandate. Instead, they quietly endorsed the AER, which operates with no public interest or public health mandate and is not beholden to the Public Service Act, despite being a government corporation.
The NDP promised a review of hydraulic fracturing and urban drilling. Instead at the recent AGM, NDP back benchers ensured the rural caucus motion on fracking was pushed off the agenda and no further words have been spoken on urban drilling. In fact, in the CLP, the NDP refer to fracced gas as "clean" with "limited adverse impacts."
Notley has been a spectacular industrial colluder. Environment be damned. Ethics too.
Maybe when your home is ground zero for the disrespect and fouling of the industry, you can say you've taken one for the team. Until then, at least try to be factual.
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions." Leonardo da Vinci


thank you for writing what you wrote...
Garrosino's article is pure Clintonian-Democratic-Liberal opinion and devoid of any critical analysis.


Mr. Neilson, you are welcome.
I find this particularly concerning since Mike de Souza mentioned to me on the phone, that Garrosino's articles were generally the most popular on the site, based on the real time monitoring that nearly every media outlet employs. Why was the most favoured writer here, tasked with a pro-pipeline opinion piece, that was absent of relevant and accurate information?
This is indignity to journalism and public interest.


I never would have thought I'd see the National Observer stumping for pipelines and tar sands expansion.
Yes Northern Gateway is dead, for various reasons, primary among them being the failure to consult adequately with First Nations. That the former government failed in that duty is not an environmental win, though that it mattered is a welcome win for justice in Canada.
Yes the Trudeau government ratified the Paris Agreement. Canada ratified Kyoto too. How'd that go for us?
Yes they committed $2.65 billion to helping developing countries fight global climate change. That is a bit of a win for justice too since we bear greater responsibility than many developing countries for the emissions that will hurt them more than they're going to hurt us. But there's a cruel irony in giving them money now to combat our emissions that continue to rise.
Yes Justin Trudeau hosted a first ministers meeting devoted to the climate. Politicians talk. They're good at that.
Yes they announced a pan-Canadian framework agreement on climate change. In it is a chart showing our 2030 emissions about 200 Megatonnes above our 2030 target, and this plan to fail has as a large component carbon tax, a tool that has a track record of not being effective for emissions reduction.
Yes they announced a freeze in the Arctic. Nice to have something still freeze up there. But it is actually a freeze on new offshore leases and with review every five years. Exploration takes time and as the ice melts work in the Arctic will grow more attractive. This is no impediment to Arctic oil exploitation.
Yes Alberta premier Rachel Notley imposed a carbon tax and hard cap on emissions from the tar sands. A cap that means other sectors, other provinces would need to cut emissions disproportionately if we did actually intend to achieve national targets. Not a problem since as a nation we have no such intent.
Yes Albertans are out of work. A shame the corporations and the former government didn't plan for a rainy day. A shame too that they had big fires. Just how are big fires a reason to make climate change worse?
And then the almost obligatory tar sands apologist's line "not going to happen overnight". You're right. The UNFCCC was drafted a generation ago. That we're not going to do anything over night is abundantly clear. But we need action not talk on climate and that is not what we're getting. In fact quite the opposite.
We are getting action at the highest levels to increase tar sands production and fossil fuel consumption, with all the toxicity and harm that entails. Meanwhile we get talk on climate. Talk not so different from what we've heard for a generation.
It's time to call bull shit on all this talk. It's time for action. Preferably by government, but failing that, by the people.


You're awesome, Star!


Unfortunately, we no longer have "two to three decades" to move away from fossil fuels if we have a faint hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change. Had the Liberal governments of the 1990's begun the process, we'd be right where we need to be. But they didn't, because the Liberals have always been and still are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. U.N. Climate change scientists have said we have until 2020 to drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That's 3 years. That's science. In the current battle of politics vs physics, guess who will win 100% of the time?
Yes, we need to care about Albertans and their jobs and not throw them under the bus as we move as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels. Why aren't the federal and provincial governments funding massive renewable energy infrastructure projects in that province and retraining the tar sands workers to do those jobs? Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the infrastructure investment bank as a way to inject economic growth. This would be the perfect project for it. Much as I distrust P3's (private public partnerships) this is a good use for private capital--it can move from the tar sands to solar and wind and geothermal and not be embroiled in what needs to remain public in this country: all social services and transit.
________________
Where were we....You see folks...What exactly has Justin Trudeau done, or not done..
  • Trudeau approved a not needed Site C dam...He ignored all First Nation protests, even though he campaigned on a new relationship.
  • Trudeau approved Woodfibre LNG
  • Trudeau approved Petronas...A carbon bomb, a project that would increase BC's emissions by 20% alone, a project situated on top of the Skeena River estuary, the worst possible location..
  • Trudeau approved Enbridge line 3
  • Trudeau approved Kinder Morgan Trans mountain pipeline tripling

Now Sandy Garossino.....just exactly what did Trudeau give environmentalists? Petronas?..a carbon bomb GHG emitter on the Skeena River Estuary...thousands of miles of coastline available and Trudeau permits a foreign state-owned multi-national energy company to potentially destroy Canada's most productive wild salmon river ..

Trudeau could have said YES to LNG project but NO for location...There are many available locations mere kilometers away from Lelu Island....Trudeau rammed it down our throat without a moment's hesitation.

At present, the Alberta Tar Sands emit 63 megatons of emissions...they can rise to 100 megatons or..or until with a stroke of a pen someone decides that Alberta is still hell and emissions must increase...

Tar Sand emissions can near double from where they are now(63 megatons) to 100 megatons in the future...Trudeau gave the tar-sand resource extractors 15 years of time to beat down that target....my, what a hardship that... and not to mention that small cap extractors have mile-wide exemptions where reporting isn't required at all....industry can cheat the number up as simply as a political pay for play donation..

The old carbon tax framework....Well, B.C. has a carbon tax and emissions haven't gone down because of it, the only GHG reductions have come from all the shuttered saw mills and mines

BC Liberals brought in a carbon tax in 2009...BC Liberals brought in a law....a legislated GHG emissions reduction law...

That law stated, and I quote..

British Columbia by 2020 must reduce emissions by 33% over 2007 levels.

And in the summer of 2016..during a short one week summer legislative/legislature opening the BC Liberals ripped up that law....

New targets were presented...BC Liberals are now talking about a 2050 TARGET...a target that is already in serious doubt, decades away..

__________________



British Columbia’s carbon tax, for example, is pretty well useless at reducing actual emissions. Concocted comparisons to what the province might be spewing out in the absence of a carbon tax do not constitute proof. The only substantial reduction in emissions to show up under the carbon tax probably had more to do with the Great Recession than with provincial government policy.
Economic data do seem to show that B.C.’s revenue-neutral carbon tax did not affect economic growth. Still, Premier Christy Clark recently refused to raise the tax. That’s how committed she is to climate change action — she won’t even raise an ineffective tax that has no negative economic impact, despite the public’s perception that it’s a good thing.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax can only substantially reduce emissions if the alternatives to fossil fuels become economic due to that tax. And that would require a huge tax increase; the International Energy Agency suggests $130/tonne to drive that kind of change. B.C.’s tax is set at $30/tonne.
And because B.C.’s tax is revenue-neutral, it doesn’t generate a dime for levelling the playing field between low-carbon electric and gasoline vehicles. It provides no funding to subsidize homeowners in switching from natural gas to electric heat pumps. The money goes to income tax cuts — two-thirds to corporations. It’s really more of an income redistribution plan than a climate change action program.
Ontario is using the revenue from carbon pricing to make the alternatives to fossil fuels more economic. That’s the approach the laws of economics say will work.
And Premier Clark’s grandiose plans for liquid natural gas would have inflated B.C.’s emissions by up to 60 per cent — though the market appears to have taken care of that little problem for us. In the latest iteration of Premier Clark’s climate strategy, we don’t see a reduction target until 2050. The intermediate ones have all disappeared — which can only mean bad news.
And then there’s Alberta. Almost 40 per cent of this country’s emissions comes from that province. The Alberta government’s plan to fight climate change would see it stop the emissions level from growing — to hold at almost 60 per cent above the Kyoto benchmark. Which is … something better than nothing, I suppose, but hardly in the spirit of Paris.
Do the math. Western Canada collectively represents 60 per cent our emissions; if we’re lucky, they’re going to hold at the 2005 level. That means that the rest of the country will have to reduce emissions by 75 per cent to hit the 30 per cent national reduction target by 2030.

________________

Need more on this GHG reduction target bullshit...The only ones getting played here is joe-public, yea Sandy...let us applaud a carbon tax ghost..

_________





Province to miss 2050 targets on emissions by 400 per cent, forecaster says


VANCOUVER — British Columbia is on track to miss targets set for greenhouse-gas emissions in its Climate Leadership Plan by more than four times by 2050, according to a new analysis, due to a projected doubling of emissions from the province’s natural gas sector and development of a liquefied-natural-gas export industry.
The estimate, released on Monday by the Vancouver forecasting firm Navius Research, projects B.C.’s greenhouse-gas emissions will hit 66 megatonnes by 2050, which is eight megatonnes higher than 2016 emissions and soars above the province’s stated goal of reducing emissions to just 12.6 megatonnes — 80 per cent below 2007 emissions — by 2050.
That is largely the result of increased emissions from an LNG industry expected to produce 48-million-tonnes of the fuel for export by 2030 onward, on the assumption that all three of the Petronas-led Pacific NorthWest LNG, Shell-Canada-Led LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG projects proceed to the full capacity of their proposals.
- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/province-to-miss-2050-targets-on-emissions-by-400-per-cent-forecaster-says-1.3832523#sthash.CL0gJaVp.dpuf

________________

Frameworks....distant targets...commitments...moving goalposts..

Despite what Sandy Garossino blathered, ...Justin Trudeau has done nothing for the environment, Rachel Notley has done nothing for the environment...Distant targets that won't be met because there is no political will...

First Nations are still getting the stick, the Trudeau Shaft up their ass to be more precise..

We don't make decisions as a province to keep a neighboring premier employed, in power. ..@Sandy...asserting that type of logic into your article proves but one thing, your argument is weak, you are literally saying to me, saying to BCers is....

You better make sure Rachel Notley stays in power in Alberta because a Conservative government elected will surely push for more pipelines and succeed in doing so..

Is that what you meant Garossino? a soft blackmail?...bend over and take one for the team cuz the next prime minister or premier won't use lube?

Alberta is hell...because they are reliant on one industry, ..and Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion will mean nothing to Alberta's economy...bring in a sales tax, stabilize your budget and diversify, not double down on a dirty oil export..

Alberta is hell...hmm..and when Saskatchewan turns hell? pipelines?...Should Quebec sell asbestos? more cigarettes...how about buggywhips?

@garossino      You know as well as I do..capitalism,...corporations must grow every year, when they stop growing their value declines, it's the nature of our economic system...energy people are already claiming a 2020 oil moving gridlock despite the two heavy oil pipeline approvals..it won't stop with big oil until we stop it...and right after the 2019 federal election 4 more pipelines get approved?

What does Alberta say to BC after a catastrophic tanker spill in the Salish Sea, or Vancouver Harbour,? oops, ....we'll try not to do that again...Orca are over-rated....seabirds are a plenty.

@garossino ...Since you are so learned, could you provide your readers information on cleaning up diluted bitumen, anything? 

Justin Trudeau only delivered presents to the oil n gas industry....Trudeau gave environmentalists nothing but vague frameworks and distant targets...

Here is a newsflash....Rachel Notley will be gone from power in 2 years, replaced by the Alberta Conservate party..the push for pipelines will continue, the well-being of Alberta excuse will be thrown in our faces again and again..

Is Kinder Morgan's Trans Moutain pipeline expansion the hill to die..

You bet it is..

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing...or to be more precise..

Beware of Justin Trudeau supporter and super-fan Sandy Garossino choosing political friendship and partisan spin over substance and facts..

Justin Trudeau .....my gift to you is a Christmas Special.....

Fractured Country - An Unconventional Invasion




 _____________________________

Merry Christmas everyone

The Straight Goods

Cheers Eyes Wide Open 





LNG...Kinder Morgan....Site C Dam....Political Corruption


Thursday, December 8, 2016

Christy Clark's Taxpayer Funded LNG Advertising Blitz, Fictional Ads Versus Economic Truths





By Grant G

What i'm about to tell you is nothing new(for regular readers)...

This post is another slight against our domestic British Columbia media...

The Vancouver Sun....they reported nothing..

The Province.............they reported nothing..

Global BC................they reported nothing...

CTV.........................they reported nothing..

CKNW.....................they reported nothing..


LNG Canada.....It was reported a few days that LNG Canada(Shell) cancelled all bids, service proposals, procurement contracts..all cancelled.

In other words...Shell Canada has officially scrubbed their  $40 billion dollar LNG terminal proposal..

To be clear....Shell(LNG Canada) had an environmental certificate, their project site wasn't at issue like Petronas' ridiculous proposal to build on Lelu Island and the Skeena River estuary..

Shell Canada had a 25 year export license, then the BC Government gifted them not just a 25 year export license but a 40 year export license...

Shell had every permit required, they had a pipeline deal secured....LNG Canada had First Nation benefit agreements signed....

Shell had everything but will...will they build...Shell had no longterm buyers of the gas in a glutted market and had no shareholder support to proceed with a pricey B.C. greenfield project...

Shell Canada is officially out......

______________


Lead contractor CFSW LNG Constructors has, in a surprise move, cancelled the bidding process covering fabrication of production modules for the liquefied natural gas project, operated by a Shell-led consortium, reported Upstream, the industry’s global news publication.
Sources involved in the tender exercise told Upstream they were only recently informed by CFSW of the cancellation, having submitted bids back in March 2016 and having held numerous clarification meetings over the past six months.
Low commodity prices have been causing cash flow problems for oil and gas companies, which is understood to have spurred the decision by project partners to shelve the contracts for engineering, procurement and construction of modules for the two-train LNG plant, Upstream reported.
“The bids for module fabrication have now been cancelled with no award to be made,” a source from one of the contenders told Upstream.



TROUBLING TIMES FOR BC’S LNG DREAMS


http://www.asianpacificpost.com/article/7797-troubling-times-bc%E2%80%99s-lng-dreams.html


________________


Breaking....There is more LNG news rearing its ugly head..

Kitimat LNG has revealed to Kitimat City council that the project is being deferred, the company is saying ...if they build they won't have a shovel in the ground before 2021...a 2025/26 start-up time..

In other words.....This project proposal(Kitimat LNG), like Shell Canada, like Petronas  ...There is no economic reason to justify the expenditure...There is no urgent need in the world for LNG supply...

The project is being effectively cancelled because of poor economics..

___________________


Kitimat LNG say they could be almost a decade away from production



http://www.cftktv.com/News/story.aspx?ID=2201850


 A final investment decision for Kitimat LNG won't be coming anytime soon
Kitimat council heard from the company at Monday's meeting who say they still need to meet their five condititons before n FID date is announced.
Commercial Manager Fred Eastwood says they aren't going anywhere and feel Kitimat is still the right place to be.
"When the market does recover, the current supply overhang is basically eaten into." says Eastwood.
"We believe BC LNG has an opportunity to fufill that demand gap. The mid 2020's is the time frame we are looking at."
____________

A funny thing happened with our British Columbia mainstream media.....They, at present have their coffers and Christmas stocking stuffed full with B.C. taxpayer paid for $$$$$$$ ...The BC Liberal Government is puking out dollars with feel-good-partisan ads that are essentially bold-faced lies...LIES

At the same time our airwaves, TV channels are being polluted with BC Lberal LNG ads...talking about jobs, about $20 billion dollars spent already on LNG...and on how BC LNG will clean the air in China...

Oh please...where are the truth police....The BC Liberals are the biggest producers of FAKE NEWS there is..

Our domestic media while taking gobs of taxpayer money, at the behest of the BC Liberal Government refuse to report any news on LNG..especially all this news on an industry dead and buried for at least a decade.....

BC is not creating LNG jobs....BC has not seen $20 billion in LNG investment..

BC is not cleaning China's air with LNG, nor will they..

______________________





China Nov coal imports hit highest in 18 mths

BEIJING, Dec 8 China, the world's largest coal buyer, imported its largest volume of the commodity in 18 months in November, customs data showed on Thursday, with utilities replenishing stocks to cope with higher winter demand.

November imports of 26.97 million tonnes were up a quarter from October and more than double the 12.45 million tonnes imported in the same month last year, according to figures from the General Administration of Customs of China.


___________
We here at the Straight Goods...we know about China and coal..we know how China will use their redundant NEW COAL-FIRED Power plants to dictate the world LNG market..
China is building hundreds of new coal-burning power plants..cleaner than LNG burning power plants..Cleaner Coal...And leverage..

China's Insurance Policy Against High-Priced LNG, COAL= Death of British Columbia's LNG Super-Power Fantasy!





There is no honesty left ....When the Vancouver Sun...Global BC...CTV..CBC take all that advertising money yet refuse to report even a blurb about Christy Clark's whopper endless 2013 LNG riches fantasy falling apart, splitting at the seams..delayed by a decade, cancelled, postponed..no money, no nothing..

_______________

B.C. government doubles advertising budget on eve of election

Not a shovel in the ground and now promised future shovels are gone too..

Yet the LNG Taxpayer ads blaze on while our domestic mainstream media is swimming in a taxpayer-cash-filled river named...... Denial..

2 hours of robust talk on LNG---Site C--Kinder Morgan--BC's Lame Media--and some political insight..

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/9/639/show_9639419_2016_12_01_05_05_05.mp3
 The Straight Goods
Cheers Eyes Wide Open



Sunday, December 4, 2016

Papua New Guinea--Exxon--LNG--Corruption=The People Get Screwed

Landowners hold newspaper showing finance offer withdrawn
Landowners at Papua New Guinea's biggest resources project are threatening to create "chaos" if the PNG Government does not honour a deal to give them equity.
PNG Government-owned company Kumul Petroleum Holdings has withdrawn an offer to finance landowners' purchase of 4.27 per cent of the PNG LNG project, after some complained it was unfair.
The Government now says landowners need to find more than a billion US dollars to buy the equity before their option expires at the end of 2016.
PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill said the state was offering a discounted price because the landowners were not able to raise the money.
"We are trying to help," he said.
"If they don't want our help we are quite happy to walk away, simple as that."
Mr O'Neill said the negotiations were becoming frustrating.
"I'm getting fed up talking about the same issue over and over again," he said.
"I think Papua New Guinea has got a lot more challenges, other issues that I can spend my time on."

Deal accused of being stacked against landowners

Landowners have been questioning the deal, saying it looked like the Government was trying to make them pay for a controversial loan it took to buy shares in Oil Search, one of the project partners.
Arthur Somare is the former State Enterprise Minister who helped negotiate the initial agreement with the landowners.
"Quite frankly the proposal in my view is just preposterous," he said.
"It is stacked up the wrong way against landowners, they were asked to take on a huge debt, a debt burden that currently sits with a state company."
Villagers from the highlands and the gulf regions of PNG are entitled to the opportunity to purchase equity in the PNG LNG project, as part of their original "umbrella benefits sharing agreement" to host it on their land.
Mr Somare — now a consultant for the provincial Governments and landowners — said the equity option was meant to be offered on what is called "benefit sharing terms", meaning the price and arrangements would be negotiated in a way that recognises landowners' rights to get a return from the project.

'Tremendous resentment and frustration'

Landowners are particularly worried about the Government's approach.
The chairman of one of the landowner groups, Stanley Hogga Piawi, said people will react badly if they do not get their share of the project.
"Governments can come and go, but the agreement must be maintained," he said.
"[The Government should] honour the previous government's agreement.
"My people must get the maximum benefit that has been sealed and signed.
"If you cannot honour that then I'm sorry, it's going to be chaos."
The landowners are already frustrated because the PNG Government has not yet paid their royalties and development grants.
In August some landowners blocked roads to the project's conditioning plant at Hides in protest at the lack of payments.
The Government has previously said the money has been held up by court proceedings and delays in landowner identification.
Australian National University PhD candidate Michael Main — who has just spent seven months in the project area studying the impacts of development — said people are getting sick of waiting for them.
"There's tremendous resentment and frustration directed almost exclusively towards politicians," he said

Mr Main said cash was not landowners' major concern — people wanted to know why the project has not brought much-needed services.
"Really what people were talking about was 'well, hang on, where's our first class hospital, where are our big high schools, where are our roads'?" he said.
"It's the tangible evidence on the ground of the development that's expected from the LNG project.
"That's going to be the defining issue, I think."
The operator of the PNG LNG project, ExxonMobil PNG, declined to comment.

________________

There is no end to this, ...Big Energy..Exxon..Chevron...Petronas...Time and time again big energy makes promises to landowners and stakeholders and people in lands where they wish to extract fuel..

Third world countries remain third world countries, even countries like Australia, a modern first world country realizes LNG promises of riches are worth nothing.....At the end of this article is a surprise...What is the surprise....I caught the BC Liberals again giving away what's left of the farm to LNG companies....

Rich Coleman had Bill Bennett's statements about giving steep discounts for Site C Dam Power to the northern frackers edited out of the original article.....Find out why(below)

_____________

Western Australia calls for 'more scrutiny' on where LNG wealth is going


The Liberal government of Western Australia has questioned whether the nascent boom in liquefied natural gas is delivering "sufficient return" to the public.
As pressure builds at federal level for a parliamentary inquiry into the tax contribution of the multi-billion-dollar gas projects operating in Commonwealth waters, WA has added to growing concern over where the gas wealth being produced ends up.





WA Treasurer Mike Nahan is annoyed that billions of dollars spent by his state on infrastructure supporting LNG projects will not flow back to the state through the federally-imposed petroleum resource rent tax.
"WA would support further scrutiny into whether taxpayers are receiving a sufficient return on government support for offshore LNG projects," said Mr Nahan, who also holds the energy portfolio in the Barnett Government.
Fairfax Media revealed this week that by 2021, when Australia will eclipse Qatar as the world's biggest LNG exporter, less than $1 billion in PRRT revenue will flow into federal coffers.
Qatar, which imposes a flat royalty or takes a financial stake in its LNG projects, will receive $26.6 billion for the same volume of gas.
Just five per cent of oil and gas projects operating in Australia, paid any PRRT in 2014-15, according to the most up-to-date Australian Tax Office figures.
The 30 year-old North West Shelf venture operated by Woodside is the only LNG project that pays PRRT while Chevron's giant Gorgon plant and others are not expected to pay anything for "decades", according to some experts.
Treasurer Scott Morrison said he is taking advice on what he called a "sensitive tax matter" and Labor is currently discussing whether to put its weight behind a parliamentary inquiry already backed by the Greens.
A coalition of organisations, including the ACTU and Greenpeace, is calling for the inquiry to explore whether the PRRT needs to be tightened to ensure Australia reaps the benefits of the boom.
Concern is acute in LNG states like WA, which cannot levy a separate royalty on offshore gas.
The $3 billion WA expects to receive in iron ore royalties this year is twice the total the Commonwealth will take in PRRT from oil and gas projects nationwide.
"The state government incurs a wide range of costs as a result of these projects relating to town site development, schools, hospitals, community facilities and roads that are either directly associated with the project or arise from the economic and population growth accompanying the project but does not receive any PRRT revenue when they are in Commonwealth waters," he said.
WA estimates it spent $8 billion in infrastructure associated with the North West Shelf and receives an annual grant equivalent to two-thirds of the PRRT paid by the project, which is then reduced further by the GST distribution system.
The state expects a $482 million grant associated with the North West Shelf in 2016-17 but Mr Nahan said it would be more than wiped out by a $1.2 billion "grant loss" from GST.


_____________________

This readers is what big LNG is all about....Deliberate plant build cost blowout...Writing off over-inflated build costs, deducting every expense possible, ....Sucker governments spend $billions building infrastructure at the behest of energy giants, ...write bad economic agreements filled with monetary loopholes....

That is what we will have with Petronas....

BC Liberals are offering up Site C dam power to Petronas at a rate so low BC Hydro will never see a return..

BC Taxpayers/BC Hydro ratepayers are going on the hook for probably $15 billion dollars ....Why?

The BC Liberals are giving away absolutely everything including the finances of BC Hydro to Petronas... Why...

Because Petronas has the BC Liberals right where they want them, begging for an FID before election 2017....Christy Clark promised BC voters that LNG would bring 100,000 jobs...$100 billion dollar prosperity fund....eliminate BC's sales tax...pay for new schools and hospitals..

Now the BC Liberals are giving away another $15 billion dollar freebie to please Petronas...

The Vancouver Sun isn't talking about...Global TV isn't reporting it...silence from CTV..CBC..CKNW..

The BC Liberals are preparing to make BC Hydro build a $15 billion dollar Site C dam boondoggle for the expressed use of providing free electricity to Petronas..

The below article....Was published on December 1/2016.....in the original article...Bill Bennett said this, and I quote..

"BC Hydro will offer steep discounts for electricity to gas drillers"

However, after I reported on the Site C Dam power giveaway to gas drillers, ..after I reported what was being planned at BC Hydro ratepayers expense....All of a sudden the damning information was edited out, at the request of Rich Coleman...

now the article says this...at the very end..

"CORRECTION: A previous version of this article stated the government was considering reduced BC Hydro rates for natural gas producers. This is not the case. In fact, they are considering incentives for producers to get onto the electricity grid. Those producers would continue to pay the same Hydro rate. We regret the error." - 

See more at: http://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/regional-news/lng/province-unveils-aggressive-plan-to-electrify-b-c-natural-gas-fields-1.3493881#sthash.q2halFuV.dpuf

http://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/regional-news/lng/province-unveils-aggressive-plan-to-electrify-b-c-natural-gas-fields-1.3493881

You see folks....Whenever I catch the BC Liberals plotting and planning to giveaway more of your tax dollars they try and hide from the facts, in this case denying the electricity giveaway...Bill Bennett was quoted in the original article as saying...

"Site C Electric Power, BC Hydro will offer steep discounts to northern gas drillers" 

need more proof...Here it is

Look at this....Look at this Tweet from Jonny Wakefield..


So this is a fairly big deal, if you pay attention to Canadian energy policy.


____________________

Rich Coleman, After getting caught, after calling the editor to have Bill Bennett's own words omitted from the article....It doesn't matter folks, we know what dirty crony capitalist tricks the BC Liberals are pulling....

The article now says that gas drillers will pay the same industrial rates as mines and receive(unspecified incentives)......

Well folks...I have it on good authority that the incentives being offered is cash back...that's right, not credits...CASH....80% of the charged rate returned as cash...

By the way.....I reported Bill Bennett making the statements about steep discounts BC Hydro was offering the gas drillers on my last podcast...

Like I said.....Government, politicians, energy experts, industry and BC Poli watchers and spooks are all reading The Straight Goods....and now it's apparent the BC Liberals are listening to my podcasts too...Anywho, BC won't be selling LNG to Japan...Japan is now a LNG seller, not buyer..

http://www.gulf-times.com/story/523650/Qatar-seeks-new-LNG-demand-amid-global-supply-glut

And this...I discussed at length with Canadian Glen about the myth that LNG is clean..it isn't, this article confirms that LNG is a damn dirty fuel..

http://vancouversun.com/business/energy/b-c-to-fall-short-of-2050-greenhouse-gas-targets-by-wide-margin

After you read that Vancouver Sun article you will know why the BC Liberals are running another taxpayer funded ad campaign bragging about planting trees....The old carbon trading/credits by planting trees scam resurfaces...

Hope you enjot the podcast

2 hours of everything LNG..Here's the link..

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/9/639/show_9639419_2016_
12_01_05_05_05.mp3


The Straight Goods

Cheers Eyes Wide Open