After catching up on todays LNG pressers during lunch, I’m left shaking my head once again at how things are spun as only politicians can spin them. I only have a bit of time, so I’ll get right to it.
- Once again, BC politicians, along with Trudeau, appealed to public common sense claiming a global obligation, that this LNG addresses:
” Trudeau said providing Asia with natural gas will help many countries kick their coal habit, and shows Canada’s commitment to combatting the problem of climate change by driving down emissions world wide.
“Climate change knows no borders, and as we reduce and replace coal plants around the world, LNG, done properly, done responsibly, here in British Columbia and across western Canada, that’s good news for all of us,” he said.
“These are the kind of steps we need to take to demonstrate that we are thoughtful about where the world is going and that we are doing it responsibly. And that Canada is a part of it.”
Even worse, BC politicians not limited to the BC Liberals this time, repeated this, all the while knowing that BC exports a substantial amount of American thermal coal to Asia… every single day…!
So let me see if I have this right….
BC has a global & moral obligation to export LNG, to reduce emissions from coal plants in China and other parts of Asia…( thermal coal is bad)…but it’s ok for BC to keep exporting massive trainloads of US thermal coal to Asia so they can burn it for power and heat, which is what LNG is supposed to be saving them from in the first place?
( Can you ask your MLA’s how this works exactly? Is there an offset program for this or something??)
Trudeau: ” We must help the world get off thermal coal.”
Me: ” Then maybe we should stop exporting it!”
If BC is still continuing a growth in thermal coal exports to Asia when this lng is up and running, what will they claim then?
Gee, I had this exact problem with Gordon Wilson once…..
According to this article, thermal coal exports generate $100 million annually, employ 100 people and generate $12 million in taxes annually for Westshore Terminals alone ( I don’t have time to dig the figures for Ridley), so until the feds ban dirty thermal US coal exports to Asia, shipped out of BC ports, quit pretending LNG is making BC the good guy globally. IT’S NOT. This is about jobs, and about getting something done Clark could not, but rest assured the only reason it got done at all was because of the massive subsidies given by both governments.
The NDP claim they will be able to meet climate targets, but I have to wonder about the numbers now…since we are now apparently considering the reduction in emissions LNG might one day bring overseas…. can we please include the increase in emissions we are currently contributing as a province and country, from those dirty US thermal coal exports out of BC terminals?? ( just asking for a friend)
Do we have an obligation on global emissions? Yes. But politicians don’t get to put on a concerned look on TV pretending we are saving the world with LNG, all while hoping you don’t know, or don’t find out about how much thermal coal we export that is being burned overseas as we speak.
But hey, we all get something too. We will all get to pay higher BC Hydro bills to cover the escalating cost of Site C, which – if it doesn’t fall in upon itself first – will supply the Kitimat facility with Super Amazing BC electricity at a rate that is less than half of what residential customers pay right now… I can’t help but wonder how many residents will switch back to gas as a cheaper alternative to pricey electric heat in winters?
” BC Hydro industrial rate ($54/ megawatt-hour) for grid electricity service to LNG facilities. (This rate is half the current $110/ MWh residential rate, well below BC Hydro’s $120/ MWh marginal cost of new electricity from Site C and below its breakeven average rate of around $90/ MWh. Giving power away for half-price will make residential customers foot the bill via future BC Hydro rate increases – lest BC Hydro slide further into debt “ ~ https://richardhughes.ca/john-horgans-6-billion-lng-giveaway-to-shell/
15 thoughts on “Things we are not supposed to speak of when it comes to the new LNG deal in BC…”
I dont think it takes Rocket Science to understand why political parties all over the world are being tossed out on their asses.
The voters are fed up with the endless , self serving bullshit shovelled out by every political party in power.
Conservative, Liberal, NDP ….it doesnt matter.
They owe their allegiance to their election fund lobbyists . Be it big business or Unions…..someone wants profits or jobs.
I guess it will take a few decades of summers choked with smoke and mudslides and tornados and “once in a thousand year” hurricanes.to finally wake these idiots up.
Or we just keep tossing them out election after election.
We keep sueing them in the Courts.
Over and over and over.
Forcing Lobbyists to waste billions year in and year out.
Minority govts seem to be all the rage with voters world wide these days.
Lets reduce the Trudeau Liberals to emasculated minority status and see what that gets us.
That is part of the problem, we exchange the federal Liberals for a party which panders to racists, anti abortionists, etc. Do look at Scheer’s side kick. He used to work with The Rebel and Ezra Levant. Not a pretty picture. Scheer seems to be going steady with Dougie Ford these days. Lovely picture of dougie and Faith Goldy, Not a pleasant sight or thought. Just have a look at what dougie ford is doing in Ontario. Want that else where. So reducing Trudeau’s numbers isn’t going to help. I’d suggest we find more independent people to run for office or “help” some of our elected officials “grow a back bone”.
An LNG plant can be powered by electricity from BC Hydro.
That doesn’t make the LNG plant ‘clean’.
It means that the natural gas that would have been used to power the LNG plant can then be exported as LNG. And burned elsewhere.
I wonder…..this is from years ago when Enbridge was still a thing. Was this a consideration in the location? https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/robin-rowland/tsunami-hazard-fault-line-kitimat-douglas-channel_b_1894385.html
Speaking of “Things we are not supposed to speak of…” did you mention SPIN? Subtle lies to distract attention and avoid unsightly facts contradicting the saintliness of party solidarity?
I’ve been curious about how the NDP’s best buddies at The Tyee would defend the indefensible LNG catastrophe, announced recently with such gloating and pride..
LNG. An objective fiasco vilified then promoted by the Tyee’s favourite party! What could the Tyee writers say? For several days I visited their site and looked for three Letters – “LNG”.
Nope! Still not a word! That LNG announcement? It never happened.
For Tyee legislative bureau chief, Andrew MacLeod, what is BC’s most important story? A Titanic north-island struggle to control Nanaimo City Hall. (Nanaimo, Population 90,500 (2016)
Pity Nanaimo. A political war zone during an heroic political dogfight over that gigantic off-mainland metropolis. Such tumult alone merits top of the page.
Lower down, Mr MacLeod quotes his amigo, Adrian Dix. A minister who is dead certain his government must and can wrestle Poverty (adult and juvenile) to the ground. Not now. Not soon. But in only a few more years, or maybe decades.
In any event his ministry and his colleagues intend to hit Poverty so hard that it is his firm expectation that poverty must submit to drop by at least a few percentage points. At some distant point.
“Moving beyond Left & Right”? I have. BC is overdue.
Political distinctions, party loyalties? They are a problem for non-combatants outside the political circus where party opinion manipulators indulge in a zero-sum contest to determine who controls the Public Purse.
Are there any non-partisans left who remain confident that NDP promises will ever be delivered? Why ask? Where is public money being directed! To which issues?
Despite huge subsidies and tax giveaways to the Oil and Gas industry, for LNG, and to unions and construction companies for Site C (all of it draining government revenue permanently) everything right and proper (that can be afforded) will be done.
Says who? Mr MacLeod continues…
“Fighting poverty and reducing inequality is central to the British Columbia government’s approach to health, Health Minister Adrian Dix told an international meeting Thursday.”
“What this government has done, in our first budget when we came into office in May and September, is a series of actions that were all about health care, but nothing about the Ministry of Health at all,” Dix said.
“The government created a new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions headed by Judy Darcy, he said. “We invested not in the general health-care system, but $300 million to address a crisis in our society, which is an opioid crisis which killed last year 1,500 people in B.C.”
“The main focus of what we did was to address issues of inequality, issues that we call the social determinants of health,” he said, noting that his ministry already receives nearly half of the government’s spending on programs.”
This makes sense? The NDP did NOT invest in “the general health care system.”?
The most vital provincial sector, one already starved of revenue and too enfeebled to trust, has again been ignored by maintaining that a perpetual financial vacuum improves health care delivery? How does that work?
SPIN… Partisan journalism.
Left or Right. A parade of improbable fantasies, cherry-picked what-if speculations, and ridiculously irrational, predictably false: Propaganda.
it is too late to deal with the opiod crisis. That ought to have been done by the previous B.C. Lieberal government. The cost to house and treat addicts is more than the tax payers of this province are willing to spend. And yes Nanaimo is a good story. We are the province in a small space. We have the highest rate of drug deaths per capita in the province, so yes, that is part of why there is such a fight over the control of city hall. No one would establish a safe injections site, so one City councillor took it upon himself, one Christmas to set one up at city hall. that got some action. Since then things have improved, but there are those who don’t like that and they want to change city hall. As to dysfunction, we have it in spades.
Had the previous government done something about the opiod crisis back in the day, we might be in a better place now. If you look at a map of the country, the further east you go, the lower the death rate.
We have homelessness and its a lot. why? Well because this town is currently booming and people can’t afford the places they once lived in and the previous government didn’t do much of anything beyond having Coleman sell off some of the housing. We can’t house the homeless. They live in camps and that upsets the neighbours. the provincial government wanted to put housing in place, and the city with drew the offer of land because the neighbours didn’t want it. You find a problem, we have it and that is why Nanaimo is such a big deal politically.
Now back to your comment regarding the Tyee and forgive me my rant. Yes, its ignoring stores it would have printed had the current government been B.C. .Lieberal, just as the Sun and Province always printed or failed to print, about the B.C. Lieberals. It is what real life is about. Do not have un natural expectations of the Tyee. You certainly didn’t have them of the Sun or Province. Don’t hold the Tyee to a higher standard than the Sun or Province. Some people seem to think the “good guys” are really the “good guys”. they’re just the guys you agree with.
BC Liberals or BCNDP. The cut outs seem to be the same. From the same cloth. They just spin and service themselves in their different ways. But, i think going by the past BC Lib government, no ones going to beat them at their dirty game. I could very well be wrong though. It’s early in the game yet for the NDP. Give them 16 years or much less. Then, it’s here we go again.
Wait till the fracking starts for this monster and the aqaufers, people, wildlife and ecology and geology are affected. I know jobs, economy are an essential, but some things come at great sacrifice. The politicians always spin big on the actual jobs, spin offs, revenues and carbon reduction and environmental goodies, and just how wonderful, community minded and morally straight some of those big investors are. Everything is always portrayed as beautiful, but in fact, it’s Shake with the Devil. What’s new. Nothing. Some of those big worldly corporations don’t exactly have the record of angels of good community spirit in the world. No where near it.
My how the politicians are so morally bankrupt when they have the nerve as usual to spin off rotten into good as if we’re dense. It’s almost instinctual with them.
I don’t know why we are not going all in for, other practically carbonless energy either. I suppose that’s pretty sadly obvious, but that’s another story. And now we know for sure as many have suspected, the factors for carrying on with Site C. The horror.
kennylad writes, “The politicians always spin big on the actual jobs, spin offs, revenues and carbon reduction and environmental goodies, and just how wonderful, community minded and morally straight some of those big investors are.”
Concerning a mega company-inspired LNG consortium (Australian-public-subsidized) there’s this item from The Guardian…
“The project, owned by an Exxon-led joint venture, was strongly backed by the Australian government through the largest loan ever provided by the nation’s export credit agency.”
“The $500m loan from Australia’s Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Efic) was made with two chief aims: to help Australian exporters win contracts in the project’s construction phase; and to potentially add “considerably to PNG’s economic growth”.”
“But the Jubilee report found that while the project had been a “remarkable technical success”, with export gains exceeding expectations, the promised economic windfall has failed to materialise for PNG people.”
“The report author, Paul Flanagan, a former senior Australian treasury official, found that overall, the PNG economy had grown by 10% – far less than the near-doubling of GDP predicted in Exxon-commissioned modelling produced in 2008 by the strategy consultants, Acil Tasman (now Acil Allen).”
“That same modelling, which has been removed from the ExxonMobil website, predicted the project would help drive significant growth in other areas of the economy, but the reality has been quite different. The report found:
– instead of household income increasing by a predicted 85%, it fell by 6%.
– instead of employment increasing by 42%, it fell by 27%
– instead of government expenditure to support education, health, law and order, and infrastructure increasing by an estimated 85%, it fell by 32%
– instead of imports increasing by a predicted 58%, they fell 73%
““On every other measure of economic welfare (household incomes, employment, government expenditure, imports and every non-resource sector of the economy), the PNG economy currently would have been better off without the PNG LNG project, often drastically so,” wrote Flanagan.”
But relax folks. That could never happen here. Right? And so what if New Guinea is a major LNG player far ahead of BC?
The numbers prove that BC is huge and much more important to the world economy..
New Guinea population: 11.31 million (2014)
New Guinea GDP: $16.93 (USD Billion)
BC population: 4.841 million (2017)
BC GDP as of 2016: 263,706 million
See? No problem!
Kinda like just how this dam is such a good safe idea too….lol
Thankyou E.Random. Much appreciated.
Seems to be that John Horgan grabbed the Site C torch as it fell from Christy Clark’s hand. It all makes sense, now that the we have the completed picture. The so called studies and BCUC Process for a decision was all smoke and mirrors. Johnny H never ever planned on stopping the project because it was all about special interests and supply to his LNG plan. Different location, same plan as his predecessor. The dam was never about future electrification for general use. We have enough and the amount of money saved would have been much,much greater if it had been stopped. That could have gone into so much for other non destructive completely green technology and put to use in so many other places.
Looks like the studies were all waste and deception while the plan was already set in stone. And wow, now look at the back rubbing and boot kissing between the BCNDP and BC Liberals. It is nice when parties work together on certain issues, but this. Yuuuck. It’s disgusting. As the stomach turns.
Now we can grimace and cringe and get angry at John Horgan and his people exchanging back rubs and with the BC Liberals. Giving congrats to Rich Coleman. Christy getting all cheery and congratulating Horgan and so on. Uggh. Yuck. It’s not just because of LNG. Of course that would be for Site C going through also. My stomach turns as i print this. I think need a gravol and a shower.
Site C Theology…
Odd, no? The Prime Mover that makes Site C a dire necessity keeps being replaced…
First, based on Hydro-Lib gospel there was huge Pent-Up Demand. An anxious public was re-populating so quickly that unless Site C was built quickly BC would suffer brown-outs, frozen bathroom fixtures, houseplants contracting pneumonia, grandma moving to far warmer Alaska, or a conscience-free Wild West era would erupt with customer-plundering like the worst Enron days.
But then curious people researched Hydro data and certain items appeared to contradict the official story. Courtesy Norman Farrell.
1/ Hydro already had too much power. Far too much to imply any looming crisis.
2/ But contractual obligations did require Hydro to purchase power from Independent Producers, regardless of whether the power was actually needed. Achtung! Buy more!.
3/ This meant that water levels behind Hydro dams had to be lowered to help justify power purchases that could have been generated by Hydro at 1/3 the price purchased from IPPs.
4/ IPPs were paid about 3 times the normal cost to Hydro.
“B.C. Hydro spent $17.5 million to not buy power”
“It cost B.C. Hydro $17.5 million last year to ask eight Independent Power Producers of biomass energy to turn off production because their power was not needed.”
“During estimate debates this week, Bill Bennett, the minister of energy and mines, said it would have cost B.C. Hydro about $26 million to buy the unneeded power from the biomass projects, meaning, he claimed, ratepayers realized savings of about $8.6 million.”
“Hydro critic Adrian Dix, however, framed the accounting differently, suggesting during the estimates debates that Hydro actually paid millions in contract penalties to the IPPs, which are all connected to pulp mills, to not produce electricity at a time when overall rates are going up.”
“They talk about offsetting savings and so on, but what this shows is these are incredibly lucrative contracts and that Hydro has mismanaged the system,” Dix said in a follow-up interview.
“B.C. Hydro is paying $17.5 million not to take power.”
“Bennett stressed during the estimate debates that the amount paid to the IPPs do not represent penalties. He said these specific IPP contracts allow Hydro to “essentially turn down” electricity during times of low demand, such as the spring, when it can also be purchased more cheaply from other sources.”
Time then for a different crisis argument? Poor bewildered Hydro was left with no alternative but to spend billions more to generate power for the near-exclusive benefit of companies fracking for LNG. To satisfy said frackers power would be made available at 1/3 the price to domestic consumers.
What a deal! (For frackers, that is).
Does B.C. need Site C to power massive LNG project?
‘We can deliver the power required with or without Site C,’ BC Hydro says of LNG Canada
“The province refutes any connection between the hydroelectric dam and LNG Canada, and yet, Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver argues approval of the massive liquefied natural gas plant means B.C. taxpayers will be “taking on the enormous public debt required to build Site C.”
“Some have even suggested the NDP government was laying the groundwork for LNG Canada when it approved the $10.7-billion Site C dam late last year. That includes prominent environmentalist David Suzuki.”
“One of the things that is really weird is, why did this government … which opposed the development of the dam at Site C, approve Site C?” Suzuki asked on CBC’s The Early Edition. “Now it becomes very clear: because they’re going to develop LNG, which is a very energy demanding thing.”
“Province denies connection”
“It’s a charge the B.C. government firmly denies. In an email, an energy ministry spokesperson said the approval of Site C had nothing to do with LNG — it was about protecting taxpayers from the $4-billion cost of cancelling the dam.”
“In fact, BC Hydro spokesperson Mora Scott wrote in an email, “LNG Canada’s power needs can be met with existing electricity generation. We can deliver the power required with or without Site C.”
“Even if Site C construction is delayed or cancelled by the courts in response to legal challenges, that won’t affect LNG Canada, according to the province.”
Golly! What’s a mega corporation to say to defend its somewhat schizophrenic record?
“There are about 1,300 homeowners in B.C. with rooftop solar systems, and when they produce surplus power, they can sell it to BC Hydro.”
“BC Hydro is amending the net metering program to discourage homeowners from over-building. In some cases, some homeowners have been generating 40% to 50% more power than they need.”
“We were getting installations that were massively over-sized for their load, and selling this big quantity of power to us,” O’Riley said. “And that was never the idea of the program.”
“Going forward, BC Hydro plans to place limits on how much power a homeowner can sell to BC Hydro.”
“BC Hydro has been criticized for building Site C when the demand for power has been generally flat. But O’Riley said the dam isn’t being built for today’s generation, but the next.”
“We’re not building Site C for today,” he said. “We have an energy surplus for the short term. We’re not even building it for 2024. We’re building it for the next 100 years.”
How bout them apples?
First item, those Off-grid types, cost-shirkers seeking control over their own energy lives, must be punished, sorry, discouraged, from generating more power than they need. Should Hydro have any say in what people choose for themselves? And why is switching to Off Grid technology worse for Hydro than Hydro purchases from IPPs at highly inflated rates?
Mea Culpa 1. There was never an energy shortfall. There is and continues to be an energy surplus.
Mea Culpa 2. The 2024 date is an illusion. LNG has nothing to do with the Real Reason Site C is necessary. [Real Reason (TM) is subject ot revision without notice]
Mea Culpa 3. For the next 100 years the entire global energy business will fossilize and not change by so much as a whisker..
Doubt it? If Hydro says so it must be true, at least until the next version of Energy Truth (TM) paraphrases the Nixon Administration’s use of, “That statement is no longer operative.”.
Therefore let us relax and rest assured: for an entire century not one form of green renewable energy – or all of them combined – will ever become more convenient, reliable, or price competitive than Hydro power or LNG. Not anywhere on earth.
See? How could anyone decent not trust Hydro or government spokestypes when they tell us stuff that later proves wrong?
Besides. Given the people in charge what could possibly go wrong?
For further insight…
I’ve been absent from this site for a long time. I thought it had gone dormant — but I see you’re back at it, Laila. Good!
You mused: “I can’t help but wonder how many residents will switch back to gas as a cheaper alternative to pricey electric heat in winters?”
That’s me. We had a heat pump installed with our new furnace, about 10 years ago, to get A/C in the summer and heat in the winter. “You put in $1.00 of electricity and get back $2.00 in the equivalent cost of gas heat,” was the advice from the salesman at the time.
Things have changed. With 2-step pricing (and covering the cost of IPP power), electricity has close to doubled, while the cost of gas has dipped. I’m so glad I didn’t fall for “locking in my gas price,” as was the rage about 5 years ago.
Now the furnace salesman, who bought the same system I have, is advising against heat pumps. If you have one, he recommends still enjoying the A/C part — but says the heat pump should be turned off for the winter, if you also have natural gas heat.
I’ll be testing his assertion, taking readings from my lovely Smart meter, with a day of heat pump at a fixed temperature, then a day of no heat pump at the same temp. Hopefully, I’ll have two similar days of weather.
Comments are closed.