Trudeau government at pains to explain Pacific Northwest LNG

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-pacific-northwest-1.3781396

"Today, the federal government approved the Pacific Northwest LNG project," Environment Minister Catherine McKenna reported. She was flanked by Jim Carr, minister of natural resources and Dominic LeBlanc, minister of fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard,

It is, McKenna said, an investment worth $11 billion. But she was at pains to justify it.

Such are the forces that Trudeau's government has promised to somehow reconcile.

It has come time for the government to step into the gap between its image as a caring and pro-environmental party, and its responsibility to build and sustain the economy. How will this go for the federal Liberals ?

I'm creating this thread so that this announcement doesn't drift other threads.

[poochy]

This is a byproduct of claiming to be all things to all people.

Of course they will tell you that they can be, but if you review the policy decisions of the last year, and see how frequently they copy the last, evil government's policies, you quickly see how not only untrue that is, but how they never really meant to try.

Considering there are some 190 conditions placed upon the construction of this project and the company interested isn't fully committed to it there is good chance it will never happen anyway, and this pipeline was the easy one.

[cybercoma]

atoldaso

[eyeball]

...but if you review the policy decisions of the last year, and see how frequently they copy the last, evil government's policies, you quickly see how not only untrue that is, but how they never really meant to try.

When you see how frequently Liberals govern like Conservatives once elected you really have to wonder why right-wingers hate them so much. You guys would probably curl up into the foetal position and die if a real lefty ever made it to power.

[Smallc]

atoldaso

But he's anti pipeline

[BC_chick]

How do you figure?

[overthere]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-pacific-northwest-1.3781396

It has come time for the government to step into the gap between its image as a caring and pro-environmental party, and its responsibility to build and sustain the economy. How will this go for the federal Liberals ?

I'm creating this thread so that this announcement doesn't drift other threads.

I think it will go quite well for the Liberals overall.

Why?

Because it is unlikely that the project will get built. There have been enough delays that the investors have moved on to other sources and other projects in other countries.

It is perfect for Trudeau. he can now pretend that he did everything he could, but outside forces worked against him.

Now everybody will be mildly pissed off. If he had advocated for this project or any energy project, he would have had many people very angry. If he had denied the project outright, he would have had many people very angry. By approving a project this late, one that is unlikely to be built, he can walk that political tightrope indefinitely. Of course, that means a hard hit to a reeling economy, but as we know that is not any kind of priority.

In related news, the USA continues to eat our collective lunch in the energy export business. The first US LNG shipments from Louisiana to Europe will dock in the UK today. We are such complete suckers and fools.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/first-u-s-shale-gas-arrives-in-u-k-as-ethane-shipment-lands

[eyeball]

In related news, the USA continues to eat our collective lunch in the energy export business. The first US LNG shipments from Louisiana to Europe will dock in the UK today. We are such complete suckers and fools.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/first-u-s-shale-gas-arrives-in-u-k-as-ethane-shipment-lands

From your article...

Ethane from the U.S., “has the potential to build on the jobs already saved at Grangemouth and could turn the site into a manufacturing hub for Scotland,”

So much for the potential for a manufacturing hub for the US. The world's always eaten North America's lunch when it comes to resources.

Suckers and fools? No shortage of them anywhere you go.

[Smallc]

How do you figure?

Sarcasm

[BC_chick]

It is perfect for Trudeau. he can now pretend that he did everything he could, but outside forces worked against him.

Or.. it'll have the exact opposite effect.

If it gets built, he basically proved himself a complete liar with everything he said and did in France about climate change and reducing greenhouse gases.

If it doesn't get built, the fact that ok'd it will tarnish him in the eyes of those who bought the whole "Canada's back" BS.

[poochy]

Or.. it'll have the exact opposite effect.

If it gets built, he basically proved himself a complete liar with everything he said and did in France about climate change and reducing greenhouse gases.

If it doesn't get built, the fact that ok'd it will tarnish him in the eyes of those who bought the whole "Canada's back" BS.

Standing for everything and nothing, it's what they do.

[msj]

I think most people understand that we have to balance the economy with the environment and we have little choice but to ensure First Nations are properly consulted whether we like that or not.

I also think many Canadians believe, or will come around eventually to, something like this (from better to worse):

Renewable > Hydro > Natural Gas > Nuclear > Oil > Coal > Corn.

Maybe coal and corn could be swapped. I'm not sure which is worse.

So, lets get on with putting a cost on carbon that favours that stream of renewables/hydro economically and all will be better in the world - some day. Maybe.

Fossil fuels are going to be with us for at least the next several decades so lets work towards there demise over time.

[Argus]

So, lets get on with putting a cost on carbon that favours that stream of renewables/hydro economically and all will be better in the world - some day. Maybe.

Why? It's not going to make a single bit of difference to the environment or global temperatures.

[BC_chick]

I think most people understand that we have to balance the economy with the environment [...]

Well that's not an issue that sprung out of nowhere. It's what Trudeau knew very well when he went to Paris and made the commitments that he made.

Yet there is no way BC will be able to meet its GHG reductions with LNG, and it puts Canada's overall commitments in jeopardy as well. Why all the empty showmanship? Why not just be candid about it if the targets are over ambitious?

Say what you want about Harper at least what you saw is what you got.

Edited September 29, 2016 by BC_chick

[Smallc]

That's not really fair. Harper was a proponent of Northern Gateway - that's gone now. It's likely that Energy East is also a no go. Transmountain is probably a yes. You can't say no to economic development all of the time. The problem last time - you can't say yes all the time, either.

[Derek 2.0]

I think it will go quite well for the Liberals overall.

Not in British Columbia........the Trudeau Liberals (and Clark) are being pilloried in BC, not only over this, but Site C and the Woodfibre LNG plant near Whistler/Squamish......

Because it is unlikely that the project will get built.

In today's market, no it won't get built, but then market needs aren't static........I'd be far more worried over the propensity for corruption between Petronas and the Malaysian government and the BC/Federal Liberals....

Does Najib Razak have pictures of Trudeau with a hooker or something.........

[msj]

What smallc said.

[Derek 2.0]

Or.. it'll have the exact opposite effect.

If it gets built, he basically proved himself a complete liar with everything he said and did in France about climate change and reducing greenhouse gases.

If it doesn't get built, the fact that ok'd it will tarnish him in the eyes of those who bought the whole "Canada's back" BS.

Exactly.......it almost as if the Liberals weren't paying attention.......The Harper Conservatives lost support in BC over their approach to energy development.........The Liberal's lied and misrepresented their position and followed the Tories position anyways..........and they expected better results?

----------

Provincially, the word on the street is this and Kinder Morgan are/will be payback to Clark for some unbeknownst back room deal with the Federal Liberals..........her support, after the election, of Trudeau's "price on carbon" and cuts to Provincial Health transfers perhaps.....

[msj]

Guys, guys as long as the NGP is dead I'm fine with this.

Once again: renewables > hydro > natural gas > nuclear > oil > coal > corn.

I doubt very much this will be as big of an issue unless you only listen to the environmental loons or the right wingers who can't stand the thought of the Liberals getting something done on their watch.

[Derek 2.0]

Yet there is no way BC will be able to meet its GHG reductions with LNG, and it puts Canada's overall commitments in jeopardy as well. Why all the empty showmanship? Why not just be candid about it if the targets are over ambitious?

If built, this massive LNG plant will be the largest carbon emitter in Canada......surpassing the oil sands upgrader in Mordor........Trudeau's doing the whole climate change thing backwards...

Edited September 29, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[msj]

----------

Provincially, the word on the street is this and Kinder Morgan are/will be payback to Clark for some unbeknownst back room deal with the Federal Liberals..........her support, after the election, of Trudeau's "price on carbon" and cuts to Provincial Health transfers perhaps.....

You mean politicians make deals to get things done?

How novel.

Edited September 29, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

Once again: renewables > hydro > natural gas > nuclear > oil > coal > corn---->-----> Syncrude oil sands----->----> Pacific LNG

Fixed that for you..........

[msj]

I think people are not seeing the bigger picture here.

We are moving to a world where hydro/nuclear/NG will provide the base load capacity.

Renewables such as solar, which in UAE is produced at an unsubsidized price of 2.4 cents per kWh, for example, will provide lots of capacity during daylight (at least for the sunny parts of the world).

Wind for the intermittent capacity.

Technology to tie it all together.

Taxes on oil and coal to provide the economic incentive, or disincentive, to force the switch.

That's the plan, it benefits BC to some degree, so good on them for getting it done.

Edited September 29, 2016 by msj

[Derek 2.0]

I think people are not seeing the bigger picture here.

The bigger picture:

[msj]

Nope, bigger than that: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

Edited September 29, 2016 by msj