Deer Group -$30Billion LNG Plant Agreement

Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by mick_allen, Jul 9, 2014.

  1. AM

    AM Paddler

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    729
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Dang it, Dave, I love your posts. I wish I had a science teacher like you way back in high school. Organic chem nearly killed me, and it certainly killed my passion for the sciences, which is a real shame.

    Cheers,
    Andrew
     
  2. nootka

    nootka Paddler

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,498
    Location:
    Campbell River
    organic chem in high school is just the merest hint of the real thing ;-)
     
  3. Outsider

    Outsider Paddler

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Hey Chris,

    The Deer Group is not my backyard and I don't need any 'science courses' to be relevant or smart. I also don't need to be put down as if someone who took a science course has greater credentials than me or anyone else.

    This is a kayaking website I thought.

    I was reminded earlier that the owners of this site get to decide what's talked about.

    However, the sign says 'West Coast Paddler'.

    I didn't know that we were supposed to be discussing 'carbon' or 'science'.

    How about we talk about paddling again.
     
  4. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Outsider, no insult intended, and not trying to gang up on you, but darn, you did "Poke the Bear" so to speak, and the thread is about the LNG plant in paddling territory, and it does involve all the other topics that you brought up... re-read your own posts, and maybe just take your lumps, and there are no "Owners" of this site that I am aware of, Moderators, yes...and they may guide the discussions, but not choose them! You might just be discovering that many "like minded paddlers" indeed have problems with LNG and tankers and fracking, even though, and I quote you, "I'm OK with this", in your first post on this thread...
     
  5. Dan_Millsip

    Dan_Millsip Paddler & Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,305
    Location:
    Beautiful BC
    Outsider, as has been mentioned to you previously, discussions are not linear and sometimes encompass information relevant to the topic even though it may not appear directly or indirectly related at the outset.

    Sometimes science, economics, and butterflies are intrinsically relevant to kayaking and paddling -- if you don't get that most things in life are connected with some manner of relevancy then feel free to disregard or not participate in those discussions rather than take them off topic with your complaints about how this site is managed.

    If you want to discuss the policies of this site, you can also feel free to start a topic to discuss that specifically -- although in the grand scheme of things that topic wouldn't 'really' be relevant to paddling either but what the heck, we can discuss it anyway.
     
  6. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    I must stand corrected, there are indeed owners of this site, and I apologize to Dan and company if I thought otherwise, it is just they never seem to act as any type of "Overlords", leaving most topics run their course, unless there are insults thrown and so forth.
     
  7. drahcir

    drahcir Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    North Idaho (Sandpoint)
    My 5 cents (inflation)

    I am sympathetic with Outsider. I try to avoid commenting on politically flavored topics on this web site (I am way far left, unlike Outsider) because such topics create firestorms which sidetrack and undermine the value of this site. There are other venues for that. But I am torn, I really like to receive a 'heads up' on the profit driven decisions (see, there I go) that adversely affect the paddling environment we all appreciate.
     
  8. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    Don't be sympathetic to Outsider. It's been pointed out that he "poked the bear" :)). If you make flippant comments like Outsider did on this site, you deserve to be lashed. Not for his views, but for his lack of sensitivity to the topic and also for lack of information that might support his views. This site is occupied by plenty of "green" types, some who happen to have a lot of insight and you need to post accordingly.
     
  9. Yaketyak

    Yaketyak Paddler

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    Comox
    So sit down shut up and have our opinion?
     
  10. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    1. Canada has been looking at alternatives to fossil fuels for decades
    2.How do you know fracking is so terrible( please don't tell me it was that propaganda video of people lighting the gas that came out of their kitchen tap)
     
  11. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    China is almost certainly the worst polluter on the planet. (or soon will be). They have also invested heavily in "green" technology( the cynic in me says it is because there is money to be made or to curry favour in political circles)). They also have no interest in reducing their use of fossil fuel. The most accepted reason i see and a reasonable one is because developed countries advanced their economies with fossil fuel and so they will too.
     
  12. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    OK, we have been looking at alternatives, "looking" ain't fixed nuthin', and we have been looking for decades!
    From the science I have read, and there seems to be lots of "propaganda", fracking seems somewhat better than tar sands, but is not that great, it pumps a huge amount of chemicals into the ground, uses tons of fresh water, to do it, and when not done right shoots flammable gas out of your water tap, in 20 words or less. The point is, it is a fossil fuel, and it may just be time to not send our resources or our encouragement to polluters like China. It's not Tar Sands or LNG, or whatever, it is the principle of relying on it much more than we need to...when do we start the change? This is only IMHO...and I personally would give up a few economic extras, so the planet, including the plants and animals in the ocean, that I like to paddle in, can become better. I also believe, that the "Oil and Gas" guys, will be left in the dust, once alternatives take hold. I believe there is lots of money to be made, just not as fast as tomorrow, that could help our economy, but maybe not the greed of the "Oil and Gas" guys. I see it as greed versus foresight. Maybe it is naive, but that is how I see it. No flip comments, just what I believe.
     
  13. Yaketyak

    Yaketyak Paddler

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    Comox
    There have been many alternative energy proposals over the years. They get down played, bought out or the inventor "disappears" the "people" in control of oil and gas will not be left in the dust because they will be in control of the next technology. Demonstrations, protests and discussions about it will solve nothing if the public doesn't wake up and focus on taking out those in control. Two other more influential examples are the banks and the drug companies. Are they the same people? I think they are. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
     
  14. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    BINGO!
     
  15. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    I have found this site to be excellent for voicing an opinion. Few people lash out without some reasonable evidence to support their opinion. Its also a good place to voice an opinion on environmental issues since that is an important topic for most members.

    Although the big picture issue is huge and complex, the Sarita lng should proceed as soon as an environmental assessment allows.If there is a business that thinks it is worthwhile and the gov. can collect a fair amount of tax we should support it. There will probably be only a few dozen km of pipeline required and the proponent company has the first nations onside which is critical to move forward on these sorts of projects in Canada.(there are most likely more suitable sites, but without First Nations land and approval)

    A look at a marine chart makes it seem likely that most people who visit the park will likely never see a tanker during their visit or maybe only once. Keeping tankers a maximum distance from the park would help. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the Deer Group. As outsider pointed out, there are indeed plenty of wild areas left and they will be there for decades at least.

    I believe the world is going to use fossil fuel reserves until they are close to exhausted or until something else comes up and is better. And if that is wind and solar it won't be until we have used up the fossil. So , if we accept that, then we can move projects forward to the countries benefit while still doing what we can with alternatives.

    With regard to co2 emmisions: We are just going to have to live with them and stop thinking we can make a huge difference. We will adapt as the years pass(it will make us stronger and more prosperous). Sure, the pundits have shown us that an apocalypse is on the horizon, and they may be right. They are more likely wrong and we don't have a choice anyway.

    As Nootka pointed out, Norway seems like a good model for energy development.-maybe our gov. should look into it in case it makes sense for our country. On the other hand, giant private multinational industries with huge infrastructure and capital investment have closed the doors in BC due to international economics(pulp and paper)

    As someone (sorry can't remember) pointed out maybe we should save the fuel for later because it will be more valuable. It most certainly will be. But if we weaken our own economy in the process then another country might decide to take it from us.

    in closing i will say that it annoys me when people have a strong opinion based on emotion. Like most people, learning more about something you are passionate about is good. -for me that would be paddling and the environment
     
  16. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,605
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    seadevilsadvocate:

    I feel the esthetic concern about having an LNG facility near the Deer Group pales when compared to other strictly pragmatic ones.

    Two issues:

    1. How do you get just a few kms of pipeline needed? There is currently no pipeline to Vancouver Island. That pipeline will need to go under Georgia Strait, most likely. Getting that accomplished will require approvals over a broad spectrum of agencies and landowners by the time it gets to Sarita.

    2. You have ignored a critical issue: in an age of looming shortages of decent hydrocarbon sources, best used for products with a permanent use, or materials such as polyester fleece which can be recast in other polyester materials, what sense is there in exporting this valuable commodity to other parts of the world? Does it not make more economic sense to retain natural gas for Canadian use so that the extended economic benefits of employment to produce those materials and products stays in Canada? Exporting natural gas amounts to exporting jobs elsewhere. Is that a sane policy? Certainly there are companies willing to make money exporting natural gas. Does that make it the right thing to do?
     
  17. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    Hi Dave,

    1. There is a large natural gas line to Vancouver island. Completed in the early 1990s t runs from Courtenay to Victoria, with spur lines to Campbell River, port Alberni, Crofton and maybe others. In addition there is a massive storage facility southwest of Nanaimo that is greatly underutilized or not utilized at all. It was to be used to ensure a steady supply of gas for an electricity generator near Nanaimo. Public outcry stopped the project.(or maybe it was economic conditions?) it seems certain that the Sarita facility would use the Port Alberni spur alone or more likely the Mt. Hayes storage facility.

    2. There may be a looming shortage of natural gas but not anytime soon. Probably not for at least 100 years or so.
    We could try to keep the reserve for Canadian use but i don't think that will work for all sorts of reasons. It would be great to keep thousands of jobs in BC or Canada but how do we do it? We can't even keep many lumber manufacturing jobs here even though we have immense forests. There is no way to produce value added items9at this time) cheaper than other countries who buy our logs can. We could raise the price on logs, but, they will just buy them elsewhere.
     
  18. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,605
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    I stand corrected on the existence of a pipeline. Does it have the capacity to service an LNG facility? If not, a second pipeline will be needed across Georgia Strait.

    On the other issue, of turning the feedstock from natural gas sources into value added materials and products: that is a matter of developing the technology to do so and constructing the facilities in which to do it. Better to subsidize and encourage that than to watch those precious hydrocarbons waltz across the ocean to competitors in Asia. This dance is one going on down here also.

    I agree the recent history of shipping logs overseas in lieu of dimensioned lumber or products made from those logs speaks poorly of our (both the US and Canada) flexibility to modernize mills to fit changing markets. Yet, down the road from me is a busy mill doing exactly that, made possible by a significant investment to refit and modernize it. That mill has to fight an exporter of raw stock who slides debarked logs onto ships a mile from me ... in this case run by a corporation with 100% Asian ownership. Laws here prevent exporting logs from public lands. Without those logs, that mill would be shut down. To become a VERY busy mill, it needs some of the logs sourced from private lands now transiting the Columbia River Bar. There should be similar laws regulating export of other critically useful natural resources, e.g., natural gas. To make an industry grow which will use those natural resources, we need to protect their use of native natural resources. If we don't, we will become paper shufflers and hedge funders, to monitor the movements of capital in other markets.

    Without decent jobs and an income to match, how will we afford sea kayaks, have the bucks to take the ferry to the Central Coast, and acquire other accouterments needed for an active outdoors lifestyle? Economics does drive our recreation options. Anybody who owns two Mercedes vehicles ought to understand that.
     
  19. drahcir

    drahcir Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    North Idaho (Sandpoint)
    The Norway model must be in place before siting decisions are made. It would be hard (perhaps not impossible) to emulate Norway at this juncture. The political will is not there to confront Big Oil in this fashion. What is so attractive about Norway's approach? It is financially attractive - not sure how environmantal concerns are handled. See
    http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/07/25/Norway-Oil-Wealth/
     
  20. Strange Magic

    Strange Magic Paddler

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    New Jersey
    This discussion has provided a glimpse into the far larger concerns of anthropogenic global warming and, beyond that, of the continuing growth of world population. For context, the issues raised, first, by Thomas Malthus on population growth, and later by Garrett Hardin on what he called The Tragedy of the Commons, should be required reading for anyone who seeks to be fully informed on where humankind is headed. The Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons, is a good beginning, but Hardin's own seminal work is essential: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/ ... ommons.pdf. Who here also remembers Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, 1968? Human population growth remains the million-pound gorilla in the room when it comes to any sort of environmental or social pathology, yet, to my complete bafflement, it is never discussed anymore, let alone even referenced, in popular media discussions of negative global trends. But it may be that some problems have no solutions (none that will actually be adopted), hence Hardin's borrowed definition of tragedy: the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.