3. Prince Rupert LNG - Cost $ 16 billion - Royal Dutch Shell
4. WCC LNG - $ 25 billion - Exon Mobil Corp
Policies like regulatory overreach and carbon tax due to prioritizing climate action over resource development are major factors affecting investor uncertainty.
This is something I fear will be carried on by Mark Carney. He will go out of his way to promote things like electric vehicles, heat pumps, etc.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to flamesfever For This Useful Post:
Did Carney say this in french? I thought he's just shifting the carbon tax to push industries to carry the extra load and pass the costs down to consumers so they can't see it directly (nothing consumer facing). And then also tariffing consumer purchases coming into Canada that don't meet his carbon structure and prices. Which I assume like any tariff would increasing prices.
That is the plan. The consumer tax is gone soon and at some point would shift to a producer tax and an import tax similar to what exists in the EU.
3. Prince Rupert LNG - Cost $ 16 billion - Royal Dutch Shell
4. WCC LNG - $ 25 billion - Exon Mobil Corp
Policies like regulatory overreach and carbon tax due to prioritizing climate action over resource development are major factors affecting investor uncertainty.
This is something I fear will be carried on by Mark Carney. He will go out of his way to promote things like electric vehicles, heat pumps, etc.
1.
Quote:
“We are disappointed that the extremely challenging environment brought about by the prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy industry have led us to this decision,” said Anuar Taib, chairman of the Pacific NorthWest LNG board.
The company said in a statement posted on its website that the current “macro-economic environment” doesn’t support building a large LNG business as proposed at Digby Island, west of Prince Rupert, B.C.
“Our decision was market-based and driven by capital discipline,” said spokeswoman Brittney Price in an email.
Acquired as part of the Shell and BG Group combination in 2016, the project was reviewed along with other global assets prior to the decision to discontinue development. The Prince Rupert office will remain open through May to complete community engagement, Shell said.
The decision was difficult to make but "headwinds were too great" for the partnership to green light the West Coast megaproject, said Dennis Lawrence, vice-president of production for Progress, during a panel discussion at the Calgary Energy Roundtable on Wednesday.
Lawrence said delays meant the project missed its opportunity to enter the global LNG market when it had a good chance to thrive.
"We think it may be a bit of a wake-up call to us as an industry, to governments, to regulators within Canada that time is actually of utmost importance on these projects, that delays and long regulatory timelines can ultimately have an impact on whether projects go ahead or not," he said.
So no, none of these were cancelled because of the Liberal government, as you claimed. You might be able to argue some points on the last one, but because it is the notoriously cagey Exxon, and I couldn't find much for public comments, you are still taking a leap.
Not that there aren't things to learn form and improve, like the speed of approvals and the process. But a lot of that doesn't have much to do with the government of the day. I'll give you half point on that last one.
I presume you picked up these talking points form the media you consume since you don't seem to have any actual knowledge no the subject or desire to look for yourself, so I gotta ask, why do you like to be lied to? Why don't you just turn your back on deceptive media?
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I think PP had it in the bag a few months ago. However, with the state of the world - I wonder if we see a Liberal majority as I am not sure PP has the trust of the people.
If a snap election is called, does anyone know how to find a good breakdown of the policies they are proposing?
Yeah Poilievre had a massive lead until the idiot started taking donations from billionaires who make their money from privatized surgeries in the US, he's a complete snake who'll destroy healthcare instead of trying to fix it.
Want to loose an election in Canada?, threaten our universal healthcare.
In all my years I didn't think I would ever say this but I hope the Libs win.
The ads with PP glad handing convoyers are going to make it way too easy to frame PP as Maple Trump. And given how Canadians feel about Trump? Ya, not good.
So no, none of these were cancelled because of the Liberal government, as you claimed. You might be able to argue some points on the last one, but because it is the notoriously cagey Exxon, and I couldn't find much for public comments, you are still taking a leap.
Not that there aren't things to learn form and improve, like the speed of approvals and the process. But a lot of that doesn't have much to do with the government of the day. I'll give you half point on that last one.
I presume you picked up these talking points form the media you consume since you don't seem to have any actual knowledge no the subject or desire to look for yourself, so I gotta ask, why do you like to be lied to? Why don't you just turn your back on deceptive media?
Your posting of financial decisions made by the companies as the reason for cancellation is somewhat disingenuous and doesn't tell the whole story. Yes, at the end of the day the economics changed and the projects were not viable but this also because of timelines and processes involved with regards to governments and other groups. If they projects moved along quicker, they would have begun sooner and some may have even been completed.
For example, this is a bit more descriptive of what happened to Petronas:
Quote:
Yet sources close to the company, who agreed to share information on condition of anonymity due to confidentiality commitments, said the Malaysian state-owned company and its partners — Japan’s Japex, China’s Sinopec, Indian Oil Corp., and PetroleumBrunei — had been losing hope for months and were distressed about the continuing legal challenges, local opposition that would have required police protection to proceed with any work, coming policy changes and a sense that they were just not welcome.
“It’s like a no win,” said one source with direct knowledge. “Petronas would love to be a long-term player and they would love to have LNG work in Canada, but they faced headwinds, economically and regulatory, and they continue to, in a way that surprised them.”
Worries about the viability of the project escalated despite receiving a permit from federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna on Sept. 27, 2016. Natural gas prices in Asia had collapsed along with oil prices and the global business was in turmoil. Meanwhile, similar projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast were nearing completion, stealing market share from projects planned for British Columbia that were mired in delays.
The company went back to the drawing board after receiving its permit and tried to re-configure the project to avoid juvenile salmon habitat at the mouth of the Skeena River, adding further costs. It also doubled down on efforts to win aboriginal approvals, after one band rejected an offer of $1.2 billion in long term benefits.
Yet its efforts were met with continued pushback.
Protesters camped on Lelu Island, where the project was to be sited, making it difficult to do preliminary work.
A proposed pipeline to carry natural gas from the Montney gas fields to the plant was facing new regulatory hurdles after environmentalists, funded by SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, won a case before the Federal Court of Appeal July 20 that the provincially approved pipeline needed to be re-considered by the National Energy Board because it involved gas exports overseas.
In addition, the project’s federal permit was facing a judicial review after aboriginal leaders questioned whether Ottawa acted properly in approving the project.
Still more trouble loomed on the political front. Project proponents closely followed the election in B.C. of the NDP/Green coalition and were worried about hostile comments made during the election campaign by NDP leader John Horgan and his Green Party allies.
But another source familiar with LNG proponents’ thinking said the presence of a new government – and with the Green Party key to keeping them in office — “certainly didn’t help.”
A big worry was the prospect of re-locating the facility to appease environmental and aboriginal opponents, which would have involved more environmental reviews.
There were also concerns about escalating carbon prices, which further undermined the project’s economics, as prices for the commodity had collapsed and as the new government wanted the carbon tax to be applied to methane emissions from gas production.
“With the Pan-Canadian framework (which B.C. agreed to) calling for a minimum carbon price, nationally, of $50 a tonne by 2022, oil and gas producers, downstream manufacturers, and other energy-intensive industries across Canada face the prospect of steadily rising tax-inclusive fossil fuel energy costs,” the source said. “This is a big deal for LNG projects that will be fed by gas extracted from the Montney basin, and where the proposed liquefaction plants would be largely powered with on-site electricity generated using natural gas.”
Carbon prices are a concern for other B.C. LNG projects too that are restructuring to reduce costs, one executive said. The B.C. projects have to be competitive with those under construction in the U.S. Gulf, so any increase in carbon taxes need to be offset by other tax reductions, the executive said.
The continuing and escalating demands were assessed by Pacific NorthWest partners, who reviewed the situation at the highest levels of their companies and recently expressed their desire to get out, a person with direct knowledge said.
It's annoying that politicians always start acting like themselves with a DGAF attitude right before they leave, and people tend to like them a lot better. Just be like this the whole time.
But agreed, I haven't been a big fan of Trudeau overall, but when the time has come to step up and lead, he has. And it's been in pretty stark contrast to his American counterpart.
The best two weeks of your job - the first one and the last one.
The fact that he had minority governments where he had to bend to NDP requests for most of the last 6 years probably did make the past few years more idealistic and less economically robust.
But between a Trump term, the Pandemic and what's looking like a potential collapse of the 80 year old post WW2 order it's more than most of his predecessors ever had to deal with.
I was not a fan of him calling the snap election in 2021 which resulted in what was the same thing a minority government. But in hindsight, it's probably going to prove to be a pretty savvy strategy as the anti-incumbent sentiment from the Pandemic had not fully settled in, and it bought the Liberals more time in power even if it was status quo. Now that we get to observe some of the other far right shifts in other locales...Canadians get to see what it looks like in action, and a lot probably are thinking I don't want this in my country. So that extra time will likely let the Liberals with a new Leader do a lot better in this election than if they had held on in 2023. The bought enough time to wait out the crazy.
You think the NDP are to blame for the poor economic performance of Canada?
At what point do you hold the governing party accountable?
Did Carney say this in french? I thought he's just shifting the carbon tax to push industries to carry the extra load and pass the costs down to consumers so they can't see it directly (nothing consumer facing). And then also tariffing consumer purchases coming into Canada that don't meet his carbon structure and prices. Which I assume like any tariff would increasing prices.
I assume the first step is axing the consumer carbon tax and leaving the industrial emitters taxes.
How long until the first person complains about there carbon tax check disappearing?