Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
But there is - Cedar LNG just got approved, and Ksi Lisims LNG just applied to the BC Environmental Assessment Office for their project that is supposed to export for 40 years.
Based on what you've wrote, my interpretation is that you're saying the timeline issues are that LNG will be phased out by renewables prior to their break-even date, making the projects uneconomic. However, there are examples of investment in LNG to show that this is not the case.
The actual timeline issues which make investors and companies pause are that proposed in-service dates could move between 3+ years based on the whims of our regulatory environment. You can only survive for so long without any income, and not having the date where you know you can expect some revenue is a huge risk. The economics of the actual facility don't matter if you can't survive until it gets done.
|
This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping for when I made this thread. I get a lot of info from a certain slant and I'm sure those in the industry have other info I'm not seeing.
Having said that, I was more talking about an eastern route, though I suppose it was a bit of a blanket statement. The route west would be much cheaper and the payback would be much quicker.