Enbridge Pipeline - Page 20 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #286 of (permalink) Old 10-15-2012, 12:44 AM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Canoeing, Hiking, Fishing and Bear kissing.
Posts: 4,501
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB

I do reluctantly support development of our natural gas resources, and the building of LNG plants to transport that gas, only because it has the potential to dramatically reduce our world-wide production of greenhouse gases, and has far less likelihood of causing an environmental catastrophe.
So we are back to the environmental argument in favour of a gas pipeline to Kitimat?

Given the sheer volume of N/A shale gas discoveries do you think it makes good environmental sense to find the most pristine expanse of untouched wilderness we have left and carve an energy corridor through the middle of it so we can export to gas to China?

Is there a better option you might consider if the environment is honestly your primary motivation?
Quote:
quote:
For example, I am not aware of a single LNG tanker accident that had any significant impact on the environment (for that matter, I'm not aware there has ever been any accident!).
There are plenty of big ship Accidents along N/As Pacific coast. Perhaps the reason you don't know of one involving an LNG tanker has to do with the fact that they dont currently operate on the 4th most dangerous coast line in the world?

Quote:
quote:I say "reluctantly" because I would like to see far more development of renewal energy sources (hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and tidal) first, and only use natural gas to the extent that we have to.
I appreciate this sentiment.
Quote:
quote: But let's face it, for Canada, any development of our natural gas resources would bring huge economic benefits- and I think, given the political system that we have, that we would then be in a good position to use that wealth to make the entire world a better place to live.
Yes, back to the real motivation. One would think that if LNG export is profitable enough to sacrifice our coastline for that maybe the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be a huge success by now. Why not start there first before ripping up our North Coast?
Monster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #287 of (permalink) Old 10-15-2012, 08:23 AM
HT
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 100 Mile House, BC, Canada.
Posts: 283
Default

Just my opinion, but I think the whole LNG idea for BC is a bust. LNG plants need a huge amount of subsidized cheap power from BC Hydro. BC Hydro would then need to build the ridiculous $8 billion boondoggle, Site C. Or go ahead with ruin-of-river travesties like Bute Inlet or Kliniklini.

Or the LNG plants would use subsidized give-away natural gas for the energy source. Either way it's not economical for BC as a whole.
HT is offline  
post #288 of (permalink) Old 10-15-2012, 09:46 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Rome Italy
Interest: Climbing
Posts: 1,219
Default

I think some of the new wind farms coming on line are lined up to supply all their power to LNG mines
J Mace is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #289 of (permalink) Old 10-15-2012, 10:00 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by HT

Just my opinion, but I think the whole LNG idea for BC is a bust. LNG plants need a huge amount of subsidized cheap power from BC Hydro. BC Hydro would then need to build the ridiculous $8 billion boondoggle, Site C. Or go ahead with ruin-of-river travesties like Bute Inlet or Kliniklini.

Or the LNG plants would use subsidized give-away natural gas for the energy source. Either way it's not economical for BC as a whole.
Any gas proposal could generate its own power using a CCGT plant; they don't have to rely on power from B.C. Hydro. A CCGT plant would produce some greenhouse gases, but far less than a coal fired plant. Provision of electric power from a CCGT plant then becomes part of the cost of doing business for a company proposing to build a LNG plant. I don't like the fact that B.C. Hydro agreed to provide hydroelectric power to Encana's Kitimat LNG at their industrial rate- but I don't know all the factors that went into that decision. I do trust that the B.C. Hydro board would have thoroughly considered all options before agreeing to provide that power.

One major thing missing from this debate is the fact that we must think globally when it comes to energy supply, and not locally. If we in B.C. have the capability to generate clean energy, but aren't willing to share any of that resource with the rest of North America, we force the Americans to generate more power using coal or, hopefully in the future, natural gas.

Again, I use Sumas 2 as an example (see my earlier post on this above). British Columbians howled with indignation when a U.S. company proposed to build a CCGT plant in Sumas, Washington, just across the border from Abbotsford, B.C.- claiming that the greenhouse gases from the plant would drift north into Canada. But by not building this plant, the U.S. was forced to find another source for the power- and in those days, that probably meant building another coal-fired plant.

Another good example was the Skagit River controversy in the 1970's. Seattle City Light proposed to increase the height of the Ross Dam in order to generate more hydroelectric power- something that they were entitled to do under the original treaties that had been signed with B.C. But this would have increased the size of Ross Lake and flooded a portion of the Skagit River valley in B.C.- something that was again greeted with howls of protest, even though the extra reservoir area involved had little recreational or other values. So instead, we were forced into providing Seattle City Light with some of the power from our own hydroelectric generating plants at a fixed rate, below the current market value of that power; you can read more about it on page 83 of B.C. Hydro 2012 Annual Report: http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/...ual-Report.pdf

Energy supply and greenhouse gases are world-wide problems, and so we have to have a more universal approach to these problem; we can't have blinders on our eyes and only consider the B.C. situation.
FrankB is offline  
post #290 of (permalink) Old 10-15-2012, 11:51 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by J Mace

I think some of the new wind farms coming on line are lined up to supply all their power to LNG mines
LNG plants, which liquify natural gas so that it can be transported in either trucks or tankers, need very reliable, base load (available all the time) energy. Wind farms have less than a 30% efficiency factor, so wouldn't be reliable enough.
FrankB is offline  
post #291 of (permalink) Old 10-18-2012, 11:29 AM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Salmon Arm, BC, Canada.
Posts: 971
Default

LNG will hardly be the "$1 Trillion boom" for BC as recent politically-motivated TV ads are trumpeting. Christy's "three--count them--three" LNG plants reminds me of another premier named Clark trumpeting his "three--count them--three" aluminum smelters in the 90s. Never happened!

LNG is a very short-time boom due to simple supply and demand. And since Asian demand is currently high and the price over there looks great right now (especially compared with North America's sub-$3 price because of our supply glut), everybody else is looking at cashing in on the boom, too, and are building LNG plants and pipelines to supply them. Australia alone has $70 billion of LNG plants already under construction with another $60B+ planned. That totally dwarfs BC's plans. And we haven't started building anything yet.

Prices are already coming down...a company building a plant on the Gulf coast recently negotiated $8-something with China. By the time any of BC's projects get built (or even before), the price will have tumbled. And if they drop to say $5 instead of $11-12, some of the planned projects are no longer economically viable. So...they won't get built.

Boom and bust is what it is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of LNG as a half-way solution to replace dirty coal for power plants on our way to renewable energy. Or to partially replace dirty oil. But the predictions that LNG will somehow be our economic saviour, that's wildly optimistic.

P.S. NOrthern gateWAY
pmjwright is offline  
post #292 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 04:02 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

There is some uncertainty and volatility in natural gas pricing, but it is important to focus on the big picture items:

1. the world needs energy, and the economic and social well being of a country is directly tied to the amount and price of its overall energy supply.

2. democracies that are economically well-off because they have abundant energy supplies at affordable prices are more likely to also have good environmental standards; however, this depends on what measure you use- if production of greenhouse gases is the criteria, the U.S., a bastion of democracy, fails miserably.

3. according to recent (2007; see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environme..._emissions.htm ) figures from the United Nations, the following 10 countries produce the most greenhouse gases (move around the pie bar clockwise).



Notice that China is #1, the U.S.A. #2, India is #3, etc. Canada is 7th.

4. natural gas is a non-renewable resource, but has half the carbon emissions compared to coal. So if China, the U.S.A, and India could be persuaded to switch to natural gas, there would be a dramatic decrease in the production of greenhouse gases.

5. Canada has vast supplies of natural gas and it is private companies that are willing to take the investment risk to develop those resources and sell them on the world market. In this regard, there is no risk to taxpayers.

6. The benefit to Canada of resource development is a vast number of construction jobs are created while the projects are being built, and the country keeps getting continuing tax and royalty revenue into the future. This is no different than any non-renewable resource development, like the tar sands or a mine: Canadian workers get jobs, and the money they make then goes into other enterprises and expenditures; that money isn't lost, as some people seem to think.
FrankB is offline  
post #293 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 04:42 PM
tu
High on the Mountain Top
 
tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB
Notice that China is #1, the U.S.A. #2, India is #3, etc. Canada is 7th.
Per capita Canada beats them all.
tu is offline  
post #294 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 05:44 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by tu

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB
Notice that China is #1, the U.S.A. #2, India is #3, etc. Canada is 7th.
Per capita Canada beats them all.
True- although I think total production of greenhouse gases is most important.

But for Canadians to change their standing as the worst per capita producers of greenhouse gases in the world, we need to be willing to make some changes- and that's where the problem lies. We blame "them", "the government", "the Conservatives", "the NDP", "Christy Clark", "the socialist hordes", "big business", etc. but don't realize that it is up to "me" to make the changes. "I" have to be willing to give up something that adds to the problem, and not use the excuse that "I'm" not going to do anything until "they" do so first!

So what are you willing to give up:

1. the convenient, but unnecessary, drive to the super market, recreational activity, etc.?

2. the old beater car you have that gets about 12 miles to the gallon?

3. buying a new car based on status or horsepower, instead of fuel economy?

4. your power boat or snowmobile?

5. your insistence for fresh fruits and vegetables brought by planes from halfway around the world?

6. your foreign vacation?

7. your single person vehicle trip to work, rather than in a carpool, on a bike, or using public transit?

FrankB is offline  
post #295 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 06:56 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by tu

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB
Notice that China is #1, the U.S.A. #2, India is #3, etc. Canada is 7th.
Per capita Canada beats them all.
True- although I think total production of greenhouse gases is most important.

But for Canadians to change their standing as the worst per capita producers of greenhouse gases in the world, we need to be willing to make some changes- and that's where the problem lies. We blame "them", "the government", "the Conservatives", "the NDP", "Christy Clark", "the socialist hordes", "big business", etc. but don't realize that it is up to "me" to make the changes. "I" have to be willing to give up something that adds to the problem, and not use the excuse that "I'm" not going to do anything until "they" do so first!

So what are you willing to give up:

1. the convenient, but unnecessary, drive to the super market, recreational activity, etc.?

2. the old beater car you have that gets about 12 miles to the gallon?

3. buying a new car based on status or horsepower, instead of fuel economy?

4. your power boat or snowmobile?

5. your insistence for fresh fruits and vegetables brought by planes from halfway around the world?

6. your foreign vacation?

7. your single person vehicle trip to work, rather than in a carpool, on a bike, or using public transit?

Except for items 2 and 4 (don't have them) - NO to all points.
EugeneK is offline  
post #296 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 10:00 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: , , .
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
quote:But for Canadians to change their standing as the worst per capita producers of greenhouse gases in the world, we need to be willing to make some changes- and that's where the problem lies. We blame "them", "the government", "the Conservatives", "the NDP", "Christy Clark", "the socialist hordes", "big business", etc. but don't realize that it is up to "me" to make the changes. "I" have to be willing to give up something that adds to the problem, and not use the excuse that "I'm" not going to do anything until "they" do so first!
Canada's per capita standing being the worst with regard to greenhouse gas production is largely due to the vast scale of industrial resource harvesting that goes on here. Other factors are the size of the country, with a relatively small population and a very cold climate in winter.

I'm not making excuses for our record of green house gas production, and we certainly could be doing a whole lot more on an individual basis to reduce that level, but the circumstances of this nation put us at a disadvantage when comparing to most other countries on a per capita basis.
path finder is offline  
post #297 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 10:57 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vancovuer, BC, Canada.
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by FrankB
1. the convenient, but unnecessary, drive to the super market, recreational activity, etc.?

2. the old beater car you have that gets about 12 miles to the gallon?

3. buying a new car based on status or horsepower, instead of fuel economy?

4. your power boat or snowmobile?

5. your insistence for fresh fruits and vegetables brought by planes from halfway around the world?

6. your foreign vacation?

7. your single person vehicle trip to work, rather than in a carpool, on a bike, or using public transit?
1. 90% of my trips are done without driving.
2. Gave up my beater 20 years ago.
3. Don't own a car.
4. Don't own any fossil fuel powered recreational vehicles
5. Significant portion of vegetables I eat are grown on urban Vancouver farms. Significant portion of fruit is from either BC or Washington (I always check the source of produce I buy).
6. My last foreign vacation used one gallon of fossil fuels (that was for the stove I took on the bike I rode to Mexico).

And I know many people that are doing all these same things (well maybe not cycling to Mexico).

But there some people that can't. It is difficult to make these choices when the government is subsidizing more road construction, pipelines and fossil fuel extraction instead of sustainable transporation and renewable energy. Which is why we need to make both personal changes and demand systemic changes as well.
b5baxter is offline  
post #298 of (permalink) Old 10-20-2012, 11:04 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vancovuer, BC, Canada.
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by path finder
Canada's per capita standing being the worst with regard to greenhouse gas production is largely due to the vast scale of industrial resource harvesting that goes on here. Other factors are the size of the country, with a relatively small population and a very cold climate in winter.
We can't really use the cold winter argument - Sweden and Norway do way better than us.

Our resource extraction economy is an issue. Which is why need to winding down the tar sands and that makes any new pipelines redundant.

b5baxter is offline  
post #299 of (permalink) Old 10-21-2012, 12:31 AM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: , , .
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by b5baxter

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by path finder
Canada's per capita standing being the worst with regard to greenhouse gas production is largely due to the vast scale of industrial resource harvesting that goes on here. Other factors are the size of the country, with a relatively small population and a very cold climate in winter.
We can't really use the cold winter argument - Sweden and Norway do way better than us.

Our resource extraction economy is an issue. Which is why need to winding down the tar sands and that makes any new pipelines redundant.

Right, but they are factors that don't put us on a level playing field with other countries. If you are comparing with other countries, these should be factored in.

Resource extraction goes far beyond just the oil sands. The oil sand mining is just a small part of what Canada extracts from resources.
path finder is offline  
post #300 of (permalink) Old 10-21-2012, 02:04 AM
tu
High on the Mountain Top
 
tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,753
Default

China has 20% of the world population.

US produces 20% of the World GDP.

India suffers from 20% youth illiteracy rate. They're still that poor.

Let's talk about some mythical level playing field.

Much of the discussion in Canada concerning GHG is entirely self-serving. We do love to point fingers.

tu is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1