Spey Pages banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

· Banned
1,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Gas and Oil Shill Clark wants wants to spend 7 billion of tax payer money to build C Dam for gas industry in NE of BC, pollute NE BC, has recently signed the deal with China to bring 100,000 cheap Chinese workers to expend LNG industry if needed ( so much of for BC jobs) and dredge estuary of majors BC Rivers to build the terminals, what will collapse salmon population. Considering that cost of 7 LNG plants in Australia ( all under construction) is 40-50% higher then originally proposed, BC will never see 7% tax, which should be applied after capitol investment is recovered. Initial tax will be 1.5%, the lowest in the World. Proposed tax is much lower then for Oil Sands in Alberta

She needs to be stopped before BC is sold to Asia !!!!!!


Lee calculated LNG tax incomes for a range of different scenarios, even if everything went perfectly according to the government’s plan – maximum LNG output sold for top dollar and taxed at seven per cent – it would only amount to $1.7-billion annually.

Recalculate the equation using more realistic output figures and Lee says it drops to $0.2-0.6 billion a year.

A $6-18 billion prosperity fund accumulated over 30 years is a far cry from the $100-billion the government has promised.

Malaysian state-owned energy company want the same kind of agreement that Harper gave to China in FIPA. They want no restrictions on any environmental damage they will do and they want the right to sue any level of government behind closed doors in a secret foreign court if any restrictions are put on their ability to make profits.

Petronas cites environmental concerns on Prince Rupert LNG project

VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Sep. 29 2014, 9:43 PM EDT

The Malaysian state-owned energy company that last week threatened to cancel a $36-billion liquefied natural gas project in B.C. because of red tape and taxation is facing environmental hurdles related to the site for its export terminal near Prince Rupert.

Shamsul Azhar Abbas, the chief executive officer of Petronas, warned last week he will scrap the energy project called Pacific NorthWest LNG unless the B.C. government unveils competitive tax and regulatory rules in October.

When it comes to LNG, B.C. can’t do it alone – it needs Ottawa
As Petronas gets cold feet, a policy expert gives her opinion
Labour shortage imperils LNG projects, Chinese partner warns
Malaysian energy giant Petronas is threatening to walk away from a $10 billion liquefied natural gas plant in B.C. as it steps up its campaign for tax incentives, according to a report. Andrew Bell has more,
Video: Petronas threatens to pull B.C. LNG project
While Mr. Shamsul complained to the Financial Times that Canada’s efforts to attract LNG investment are plagued by “uncertainty, delay and short vision,” B.C. government officials confirm it was the LNG company that requested a time extension of the environmental review process that will determine whether the project can proceed.

Pacific NorthWest LNG asked for more time to work out modifications in the jetty and terminal design at Lelu Island to include “substantial” mitigation measures to avoid and reduce potential adverse effects to the marine habitat, a B.C. Environment Ministry official said.

Last May, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency identified “key information gaps” regarding the company’s plans to develop an industrial site on an uninhabited island and dredge more than seven million cubic metres of sediment in an area that environmentalists describe as critical habitat for the region’s salmon and steelhead trout.

The agency also flagged concerns about species-at-risk, air pollution, inadequate First Nations consultation and potential human health risks including possible contamination of marine foods. Although the proposed site is within the Prince Rupert Port Authority lands, local First Nations will likely have considerable influence on the development if the project interferes with their asserted aboriginal rights.

The federal assessment is being conducted jointly with the B.C. Environmental Assessment Agency.

The project cannot move forward unless both levels of government each grant an environmental certificate. The company asked for an additional 45 days to respond to the concerns raised by the federal agency, which means the final decision may not be reached until Dec. 20.

Shannon McPhail, executive director of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, said no amount of engineering changes will make the massive project suitable for Lelu Island.

“You could not choose a worse location when it comes to wild salmon and steelhead,” Ms. McPhail said in an interview. The island is located in an estuary where eelgrass beds provide shelter for juvenile fish. “They hatch in the tributaries of all these iconic, world-famous river systems in the Skeena watershed and 90 per cent of them go around Lelu Island … This would be a tipping point for the salmon in the estuary. You cannot put a terminal here.”

The B.C. Liberal government has tied its fortunes to establishing what it believes will be a new trillion-dollar LNG industry, pledging in the 2013 provincial election to pay off government debt through a new Prosperity Fund. Until last week, the Petronas project was considered one of the most advanced of 17 proposals for LNG plants in B.C.

Company officials could not be reached for comment on Monday, but Mr. Shamsul is expected to meet with B.C. Premier Christy Clark this week to discuss the state of his project. Petronas has insisted that the province bring in its new LNG tax by November so that the company can reach a final investment decision.

LNG proponents are also waiting to see how the province handles its environmental regulations regarding carbon emissions. Most LNG facilities around the world use natural gas-fired turbines to generate the power to produce LNG, and a study by Tides Canada suggests that even a small number of gas-fired LNG facilities could create a carbon footprint nearly double that of the entire Alberta oil sands in 2010.

Follow Justine Hunter on Twitter: @justine_hunter

· Registered
363 Posts
I live in BC and suggest that we all say good-bye to the bugger. Hope he gets a good kick in the ass from the door that hits him when he leaves. This "deal" is the ultimate in stupidity. (I have other language I use privately.)

· Banned
1,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Why Petronas is out of step with Premier Clark's LNG dream
In the almost three years since Premier Clark declared B.C.’s LNG industry “the opportunity of a lifetime” - not a single LNG project has reached the “Final Investment Decision”


The Asian spot market price has plummeted from the dizzy heights of $18.50 per million British Thermal Units (mmBtu) in 2012 to its current level below $11/mmBtu - a level which, if sustained, would yield very slim pickings indeed for these companies, that have far richer veins of opportunity to tap with their scarce capital.

No $100 Billion heritage fund. This bonanza was to be derived from the LNG Income tax – a skinny 7% on the profits of the five (or so) large LNG plants expected to export roughly 82 million tonnes of LNG annually for the next 25 years. The tax on profits was to commence after the five projects had written off their huge capital costs – estimated by BC at an optimistic $1,200 per tonne of LNG capacity (a total capital investment of about $100 billion or roughly $1/ mmBtu produced). Doing the math on the BC budget numbers of a predicted annual $240 million tax haul on the profits of a notional 12 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) plant, that haul implied a profit margin of around $6/ mmBtu. That number seems wholly unattainable in the current virtually-breakeven Asian market. The tax-haul number was in any case very optimistic, as these companies typically use transfer pricing to offshore tax-havens to minimize local taxes

No 100,000 jobs in the “generational opportunity” LNG industry. That number, concocted in the heat of the 2013 provincial election campaign, was always suspect, as it somehow contrived to convert 2,400 direct LNG jobs in the five (or so) LNG plants into 100,000 direct, indirect and “induced” jobs for British Columbians. Respectable economists would blush at such multipliers. Even 2,400 direct jobs is 36% higher than Australia’s actual employment experience in that country’s LNG plants;

As soon as Victoria finally gets the message, it does seem that BC will just have to park its LNG pipe-dream for now, leave the gas in the ground, abandon boom and bust and frame a 21st-century industrial vision.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.