Deer Group -$30Billion LNG Plant Agreement

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

  1. JohnAbercrombie

    JohnAbercrombie Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,766
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    I remember when population control a.k.a. family planning was considered important - I was a CUSO volunteer in the late 60s and many of my co-volunteers were working in family planning projects.
    I despair for the fate of future humans on our planet, and shudder when I hear talk of the population 'plateau-ing' at 10-12-15? billion people, all trying to live at a NorthAmerican/European standard of consumption. When I was in high school, the world population was 3 billion, now it's 7 billion. In those days (early 60s) Canada's was 18 million; now it's 35 million and increasing quickly. How severe would our environmental problems be in a world of 3 billion?

    Nobody talks about or addresses population growth, except the Chinese, who get no credit for facing the problem directly.
    It's 'nicer' to live in a future fantasy world powered by windmills and imaginary battery technology, than to confront our drive to reproduce (evolved over 3 billion years) and take action.
     
  2. drahcir

    drahcir Paddler

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    474
    Location:
    North Idaho (Sandpoint)
    I've been similarly baffled. In a rough first approximation, the ills of the planet are proportional to the number of people living on the planet. The "Sacred Balance" promulgated by David Suzuki cannot be achieved under such population pressure.

    One explanatory theory is that human intelligence is proving to be a fatal mutation i.e. our intelligence will lead ultimately lead to our extinction. Note that intelligence is quite distinct from wisdom. For example, intelligence is a tool that can be harnessed for greed or altruism.
     
  3. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    +1 On contributions from StrangeMagic, drahcir, and JohnAbercrombie on the need for population control. :big_thumb

    The Chinese chose very regressive, perhaps brutal, means of reducing their populafion growth rate. Famine and disease, war and pestilence might seem worse in retrospect. Wait, aren't those the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? Maybe we do need a huge LNG facility on each street corner to ramp the population down a bit. :wink: :wink:
     
  4. AM

    AM Paddler

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    729
    Location:
    Vancouver
    And population control follows from a developed middle class. And a developed middle class follows from economic growth. And economic growth follows from manufacturing, which requires, energy, which we happen to sell...

    Oops, gentlemen, I think we have a conundrum! Too much for this limited brain to parse, so I'm going paddling!
     
  5. JohnAbercrombie

    JohnAbercrombie Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,766
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    And how is that model working out for you humans?

    Any 'continuous growth' model is seriously loony...but never mind, my pension fund is doing OK.
     
  6. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    Check out and anonymously reply to the poll I posted in general discussions
     
  7. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    For the record, I haven't seen this corrected. All news reports I've seen have stated this, with the quote from a Globe and Mail article: "New pipelines would need to be built for transporting natural gas across the Georgia Strait to Vancouver Island." We're talking 24 million+ tonnes a year, so obviously this is a different kettle of LNG fish from the existing pipeline.

    It hasn't been mentioned yet that I saw in this thread, so here goes: By my calculation this is Maa-nulth Treaty land being considered, and so was public/Crown land until recently. I've always viewed the treaty as a massive privatization of the coast in much the same way the E&N land grant converted much of Vancouver Island to private land back in the 1800s, which is why the middle of southern Vancouver Island is virtually inaccessible today. Essentially this massive LNG development skips a major hurdle of having to beg permission to use public land (a sure-fire hurdle) and by involving First Nations skips another: First Nations buy-in. So I ask out loud, is this the legacy of our First Nations people, to provide a gateway for industrial development of our coast to fuel Asian countries? I can't help but think they're being used once again, but this time in a different way, with an economic carrot by multinational industrialists instead of a British colony governor...

    I hear Outsider, yup, jobs and money. It's all good. But. My personal childhood hell was growing up in Ontario between the Hamilton steel mills and the Clarkson oil refinery. The only fish I ever saw in the lake were floating upside down. I took it for granted that water was polluted and you couldn't swim in it. My entire childhood I lived next to a river and near a lake and never swam in either. How amazing to come to BC and be able to drink from creeks!

    You don't know what you've got till its gone. Wave goodbye to the Barkley Sound you know and love. Between the proposed deep sea port at the former campground site for the mining project and this LNG development, remember this is only the first couple of years after the Maa-nulth Treaty has been ratified. The Nuu-chah-nulth Treaty, which will involve a significantly larger portion of public land being converted, has yet to make significant headway. Figure ten times the volume of land.

    And just to remind every this is no criticism of the treaty process, which is the First Nations' due and their right. No question. I am simply commenting on the long-term ramifications of converting so much public/Crown land to fee-simple private property. Of course I was only envisioning housing developments, not industrialization. How naive I was!
     
  8. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    You are banging my drum, John. It boggles how this deal went down. You would think industrial developments would have to go through a reasonable permitting process, with EIS, etc., required, irrespective of the lands they are on. Is that naive?
     
  9. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Dave, there will no doubt be a process to go through, moreso with regard to the pipeline. I just have no faith there is anything but political will in favour of development in both BC and Canada politically. You can have all the public hearings you want, but if the political will is pro-industry there's no stopping it. (The cynic in me is saying that, but look at Enbridge).

    Now I think on it, I have to think how industrialists must be licking their chops at the prospect of the land claims. Figure access to huge tracts of waterfront land with deep-sea port capability, all private property, all undeveloped and no concrete plans for their use. No wonder someone is sniffing around Barkley Sound now. I wonder how many others have lined up? Wherever a project couldn't get cheap, reliable access to water, they must be looking at treaty lands.

    This LNG plant is not going to be a one-off. I think it will be very hard politically for even a determined government to oppose putting in a project that a First Nation is proposing. How could you give them land then tell them they can't use it for what they want? Also, I can't see a company investing billions without having an ironclad agreement so the band can't say later take your stinky plant and go. Which goes back to my point about privatization of the coast: this may have some First Nation advantages but it will be a private industrial operation on private land privately controlled.

    And here's the cynic in me again: If the LNG plant construction turns up some bones. I wonder, will it halt the project? Hmmm...
     
  10. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    There is a quid pro quo aspect to these projects. They need the pipeline or the LNG plant is unneeded. They need the plant to justify the added pipeline. So, there are two things in the wind.

    Locally, right now the fight is over the pipeline, not the plant. I gather the pipeline is the cheaper fight.

    Second point: when the two other LNG proposals here were floated, there was no apparent shortage of venture capital to work with. Why? Because those putting in the bucks just wanted a piece of the right to build the plant. None of them were energy companies. What does that say about the viability of the plant if suppliers of natural gas do not feel the investment is worth it? I think it is a very long ways from an opening salvo announcement and actual construction, let alone use of an LNG facility, either export or import. Down here, anyway.
     
  11. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    For the record, I haven't seen this corrected. All news reports I've seen have stated this, with the quote from a Globe and Mail article: "New pipelines would need to be built for transporting natural gas across the Georgia Strait to Vancouver Island." We're talking 24 million+ tonnes a year, so obviously this is a different kettle of LNG fish from the existing pipeline.


    The media has reported that new pipelines to Vancouver island need to be built. Does anyone know this for sure.
    There is existing surplus, the loss of industrial users and the Hayes storage facility. Perhaps the Sarita facility will operate at reduced capacity for a few years and the existing infrastructure will support that. It may well be easier to get pipeline approval down the road and big industry may be betting on that. I believe we all need to be skeptical, cynical as well as open minded with regard to media reports. The big industry public relations people carefully design their public disclosure most of the time.
    It doesn't really matter at the end of the day if they need a pipeline or not. But i think i made my point.
     
  12. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81


    It hasn't been mentioned yet that I saw in this thread, so here goes: By my calculation this is Maa-nulth Treaty land being considered, and so was public/Crown land until recently. I've always viewed the treaty as a massive privatization of the coast in much the same way the E&N land grant converted much of Vancouver Island to private land back in the 1800s, which is why the middle of southern Vancouver Island is virtually inaccessible today. Essentially this massive LNG development skips a major hurdle of having to beg permission to use public land (a sure-fire hurdle) and by involving First Nations skips another: First Nations buy-in. So I ask out loud, is this the legacy of our First Nations people, to provide a gateway for industrial development of our coast to fuel Asian countries? I can't help but think they're being used once again, but this time in a different way, with an economic carrot by multinational industrialists instead of a British colony governor...

    Excellent description.
     
  13. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
    For the record, I haven't seen this corrected. All news reports I've seen have stated this, with the quote from a Globe and Mail article: "New pipelines would need to be built for transporting natural gas across the Georgia Strait to Vancouver Island." We're talking 24 million+ tonnes a year, so obviously this is a different kettle of LNG fish from the existing pipeline.


    I hear Outsider, yup, jobs and money. It's all good. But. My personal childhood hell was growing up in Ontario between the Hamilton steel mills and the Clarkson oil refinery. The only fish I ever saw in the lake were floating upside down. I took it for granted that water was polluted and you couldn't swim in it. My entire childhood I lived next to a river and near a lake and never swam in either. How amazing to come to BC and be able to drink from creeks!

    You don't know what you've got till its gone. Wave goodbye to the Barkley Sound you know and love. Between the proposed deep sea port at the former campground site for the mining project and this LNG development, remember this is only the first couple of years after the Maa-nulth Treaty has been ratified. The Nuu-chah-nulth Treaty, which will involve a significantly larger portion of public land being converted, has yet to make significant headway. Figure ten times the volume of land.



    Back to my original point : At present we can not stop world economies advancing-growing over the long term.
    I believe we will be further ahead if this is accepted. Move ahead with development and stop pretending we can make a difference. In the big scheme, nothing will change until everyone accepts this.
    And further: Why are more people not replying to the poll about the Sarita lng?
     
  14. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
     
  15. seadevilsadvocate

    seadevilsadvocate Paddler

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    81
     
  16. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Seriously? Well, there's a world I don't want to be a part of. Of course, there's an irony in posting on a discussion forum to tell people they can't make a difference...
     
  17. Outsider

    Outsider Paddler

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Hey Dan, John and all you other guys, I am happy to have advanced this discussion with my controversial remarks and my pointed opinions.

    This topic has been a big one and I have really enjoyed it.

    I am happy to see that everyone came on board and expressed their points of view.

    Most excellent discussion my friends.

    Outsider
     
  18. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    Sheesh! The yolk's on me! All throughout this discussion I thought the Sarita project would likely be the major exit point for Canadian natural gas to Asian markets. Well, no. Both of the LNG export facilities still in the game in Oregon (none in WA are proposed, AFAIK) would export ... wait for it ... Canadian natural gas! How about that?

    So I guess policy here seems to be to conserve US natural gas, at least any sourced in the west, and ship off the Canadian stuff en masse.

    The project at the mouth of the Columbia seems on its last breath, but the one 200 miles south in Coos Bay is alive and kicking, with the knowledgeable money betting it will go through.

    Now, how would that settle for everyone ... no distasteful Sarita project to sully Barkley Sound, yet the Canadian gas is siphoned away to foreign markets, mostly to be burned up anyhow?

    This would seem to me to be very parallel to cutting Canadian clear, tight grained old growth, debarking the logs, trucking them to US ports, and sending the raw logs to Japan, where workers would make plywood, stick lumber for houses, and maybe even cabinetry, outhouses, Shinto palaces, you name it. Well, I guess old growth is a renewable resource, on a 300 year time scale anyway. Natural gas? Time scale is millions of years. And it will largely be just burned in Asia? Anything wrong with this picture?
     
  19. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Dave, I would like to nominate you as a honourary Canadian, complete with the 'u' in 'honourary' because to be truly Canadian is to embrace extra letters in your verbiage. And litres and kilometres, but that will come in time.

    You get it more than Canadians do. I remember back in the 1970s Pierre Elliott Trudeau, our much-maligned prime minister, created a national energy policy generally decried as communist. If my teenage memories of the critics is correct. I think our energy policy is now capitalistic anarchy designed to benefit foreign powers to liquidate our energy assets as quickly as possible so we'll be the first to run out while others stockpile. If I was a Chinese capitalist that's what I'd do. And no doubt they're doing it. They've been doing that in Japan for decades -- taking Canadian old-growth lumber and sinking it, because they know it's a finite supply and the value will grow exponentially. We don't get it because we have a lot. For now.

    Where do I sign up for the revolution? And Dan, is there paperwork on this site somewhere to nominate an honourary Canadian? There must be but I can't find it...
     
  20. Rodnak Kayak

    Rodnak Kayak Paddler

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    John,
    You got my vote for Dave as Honourary Canadian! :clap:
    BTW, well said about PET's energy policy! :big_thumb