The Energy Transition and technologies

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Sluggo

And Might I add a shadow 'Grass Roots' campaign with financial sources from Russia, Saudi, Qatar, and the Americans. It is quite well known that Canada is effectively 10 micro nations and you don't have to spend as much money to pit the Provinces and against each other and then you can double down and Pick away at a pipeline or export terminal by throwing money at local First Nations.

Are we trotting this line out again? Cause I remember Jason Kenney pouring almost $4M into a boondoggle of an inquiry and all they could turn up was $50M that was specifically foreign funded anti energy messages in an environment of almost $1B going to environmental charities.

And that even for that money, there was no wrongdoing, nor could they specifically attribute money to specific campaigns or cancelled projects to foreign funding.

However, “I was ultimately not able to trace with precision the quantum of foreign funding applied to anti-Alberta energy campaigns,” said Allan, adding that it’s too difficult to trace money after an organization receives it and uses it for “varied and complex” missions.

The energy industry in Alberta has been targeted by organizations that have claimed victory when projects have fallen through, but the sector has also faced “difficult economic circumstances,” he wrote.

“While anti-Alberta energy campaigns may have played a role in the cancellation of some oil and gas developments, I am not in a position to find that these campaigns alone caused project delays or cancellations,” Allan said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...nt-argues.html

So can we put this narrative that foreign governments have a secret agenda to wage campaigns to cancel Canadian energy infrastructure? Does it happen that foreign actors might fund campaigns? Sure, but it's not a nefarious coordinated campaign. And anyways, we do the exact same thing putting out our own propaganda that's pro Canadian O&G and trashing energy from everywhere else with our $30M/yr war room. Frankly nobody cares about Canada except Canada, we're too small.

[Bill Bumface]

I think the point about NIMBYism is really the root of it. It's hard, slow and expensive to get anything built now, and that extends way past pipelines.

There are some areas where the increased burden/cost has been better as a whole for society, making better cities, better environmental choices etc. But most of it is just pure NIMBYism under the guise of altruistic causes, and it's becoming a massive parasite on the economy, and leading to serious problems such as the housing crisis.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

"Nobody is talking about it" because it's a question that was answered long ago. The target is zero carbon emissions. Therefore yes we must move away from fossil fuels as quickly as we feasibly can. But it won't happen overnight. Is there room for NG use during the transition? Absolutely.

As long as your thoughtful and prepared about the consequences of that.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Azure

We all know Canada got played for a fool with KXL.

But I don't think its fair to say that First Nations are a problem we can't overcome. Aren't there examples of LNG or oil projects that have worked out with a First Nations partnership?

I think proof is still in the pudding and these are mostly projects still in the design / approval / build phase.

In Canada, these types of projects take an embarrassing length of time, so we probably won't know if these partnerships are successful for 20-30 years (not exaggerating).

But I also think that's sort of beside the point. My question is, are we saying that NO project can go ahead without a partnership with First Nations? Because I believe that's where the state of Canadian development is for major capital projects of infrastructure and oil and gas. See if you can find any major projects today that are not partnered already with FN's, and when you say Pathways, I'll reply that yes they are in fact deep in negotiations with local FN's.

There could be one or two out there, trying to think, but I just can't think of any off the top of my head right now. And, follow up, does anyone think that is a problem?

We've lost the plot on what consultation is and now it's de facto approval. Also, as others have correctly pointed out, this will also lead to not just First Nation approval, but approval from various localities and increase the powers beholden by NIMBYism, only which may be clarified in Supreme Courts over time and which will take another 20-30 years.

Like, we have a huge problem in this country to develop our resources, and when you look at comments from people like Mathgod or Street Pharm, they don't think it's an issue whatsoever for the long-term for Canada- which strikes me as an attitude that is highly disconnected from what forms the basis of our general standard of living.

[Torture]

To expand on the FN question a little, there is a relatively new concept called "shredding", which involves FN's starting new businesses, getting large federal loans for such capital projects / oil and gas investments, and then essentially not having to repay the loans over time (shredding). Loans are forgiven if not repaid and there's essentially no consequences. The result is owning an asset that various groups can then sell off for massive gains. Pretty sweet situation going on with little oversight. It's actually pretty wild, based on what I have heard.

Got any examples there or just what you've heard?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Torture

Got any examples there or just what you've heard?

nm

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think we're speaking the same language and I'm just saying if there was a big LNG windfall to capitalize on, someone would still throw some funds at it. Because of what you've mentioned and most importantly, the timeline that those economics would work in, it simply isn't a bet anyone wants to make

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.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Azure

We all know Canada got played for a fool with KXL.

But I don't think its fair to say that First Nations are a problem we can't overcome. Aren't there examples of LNG or oil projects that have worked out with a First Nations partnership?

True. The FN issue is one that is beginning to get solved. It's clear that you can longer just throw them eminent domain dollars with a new fire hall and call it a day. I think sharing in the economic development through equity ownership is a fantastic way to ensure remote FN get economic opportunities that they need and deserve.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Regorium

True. The FN issue is one that is beginning to get solved. It's clear that you can longer just throw them eminent domain dollars with a new fire hall and call it a day. I think sharing in the economic development through equity ownership is a fantastic way to ensure remote FN get economic opportunities that they need and deserve.

and again I don't even take issue with all of that- the fact that FN get access to economic opportunities and equity stakes. What I take issue with is the veiled extortion under the guise of consultation.

If FN partnerships are required for projects to go ahead, just say so. Maybe that's what is actually needed here, is a little regulatory and intellectual honesty- and who knows- maybe that is the right answer.

If everyone is okay with that, great- just make it clear. You must partner with FN's to go ahead with something.

Then get ready for the #### show that is inevitably that the various nations don't themselves get along, it'll be a mess figuring out which group has rights over which projects and this is a can of worms (my opinion) that Canadians are not going to want to open.

Another example, have a review of the agreement the Blueberry FN just signed in NEBC. Did you know, that they are making certain claims in the agreement that impact other FN groups, to the enormous piss off of such groups? Did you know, that of the 200-400 Blueberry members, most of them don't even live on the reserve but in urban centres in BC, and they held up development of the Montney in NEBC for like 3-4 years (if not longer, technically) to the (huge) impact of all industry participants up there?

[Torture]

Well, what's required is consultation.

Sure, it would be easier and simpler to say "partnerships are required", but that's kinda missing the point that you have a huge variety of different communities with different contexts and interests. There's not just one master First Nation that speaks for everyone to say "yes, we are okay with partnerships for every project"..

[Street Pharmacist]

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.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Torture

Well, what's required is consultation.

Sure, it would be easier and simpler to say "partnerships are required", but that's kinda missing the point that you have a huge variety of different communities with different contexts and interests. There's not just one master First Nation that speaks for everyone to say "yes, we are okay with partnerships for every project"..

Exactly and that's the issue with where we are going. Sounds like we are speaking the same thing here.

It's NOT consultation anymore. The regulations state that it is, but in practice it is not. That is what I'm saying.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

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.

Honestly everything I have seen you are right (on an eastern route). I don't think it's actually economic, and I have yet to see anybody argue otherwise. I think there's a case for the west route but it depends on price mainly, and long-term commitments.

The other issue is that if you look at other projects, like say, Australia LNG projects for example, have a gander at actuals vs. initial budgets which are almost always hugely overrun. So running the econs on these projects on the west route- you could be right that substantial cost overruns and delays in launch date really does challenge these projects significantly.

As well, to get these west projects rolling you need... unfortunately... pipes to get the gas from the Montney to the coast. These are happening (Coastal Gaslink) but we actually need more / larger. Lastly- there are actually not many great locations on the west coast for sites. Prince Rupert is the most obvious and they've love to get that rolling, but getting the gas across that inlet to the raw land where the site makes sense on plots C and D or whatever- -it's all hugely expensive to access those sites. The current existing pipe is an older than god, kind of crummy rotting thing that services residential customers in Prince Rupert and area. The pipe traverses some mountainous areas with shaley broken / landslidey rock and makes it incredibly challenging and expensive to build- let along the #### show that would be consultation.

So, there just aren't that many great options on the west coast anyway.

[Azure]

Is whatever that is being built in Kitimat in terms of LNG production going to be able to run at capacity?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

As long as your thoughtful and prepared about the consequences of that.

A response like this makes it clear to me that you are not aware of what warming of more than 2 degrees C would mean for humanity.

The economic consequences of doing what is necessary to prevent that level of warming will suck. But they'll pale in comparison of the consequences of blowing past that level of warming.

[8sPOT]

Can't help but feel like as a Province, and as a country we've missed the boat on some serious economic and environmental gains.

Larger O&G companies have drastically reduced capital spending, to the point where having a dedicated Projects group doesn't even make sense anymore.

No capital spending means no future growth, and that expands into renewables as well.

The last decade we could have improved our energy infrastructure, increased our market cap to some degree within the world of energy but instead we bicker and complain and protest.

Foreign companies have dumped their Canadian assets and just moved on to countries where doing business is not like pulling teeth.

The really funny thing to me is Canada produces so little emissions compared to China, India, Russia, even the US. We are but a tiny miniscule drop in the bucket when it comes to world emissions.

[Julio]

Interesting analysis that suggests that any new coal plants being built in China are uneconomical, and are being built because of an inefficient national grid (sound familiar?) and politics, rather than a good business case for them.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...es-2023-03-22/

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

A response like this makes it clear to me that you are not aware of what warming of more than 2 degrees C would mean for humanity.

The economic consequences of doing what is necessary to prevent that level of warming will suck. But they'll pale in comparison of the consequences of blowing past that level of warming.

Well, fill me in.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is whatever that is being built in Kitimat in terms of LNG production going to be able to run at capacity?

How do you mean? Are you suggesting the plant would be forced to run at something less than full capacity? Supply issues?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

How do you mean? Are you suggesting the plant would be forced to run at something less than full capacity? Supply issues?

There is talk of another export terminal north of there(indigenous owned) which I believe would tie in to Coastal Gaslink. This would indicate the pipeline has more capacity than the export terminal, and could supply 2. So the Kitimat plant would technically be running at full capacity, while not able to export all the gas the pipeline could take.

Now, lot's of "if's" in there, and I have no inside knowledge. Just what I had read somewhere recently.

I don't think gas supply would be an issue, unless new drilling is stopped. Once there is a market, it will be economical to extract and export.