Seeking Alpha

Canada regulators approve export permits for four more LNG proposals

  • Canadian federal regulators late Monday approved four new applications to export liquefied natural gas, including for proposed Pacific coast terminals backed by Exxon Mobil (XOM), BG Group (BRGYY, BRGXF) and Malaysia's Petronas.
  • The four permits issued Monday, for 25 years each, are among nearly a dozen different plans for LNG terminals in British Columbia, none of which has been built yet or even formally committed to by their corporate sponsors.
  • The largest project of the four would be XOM's plan, with its Canadian affiliate Imperial Oil (IMO), to export up to 30M metric tons/year of gas, or 4B cf/day, from a terminal to be located near the remote coastal towns of Kitimat or Prince Rupert, B.C.
Comments (17)
  • DonSimon
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    And the canada moves on while Obama fiddles!
    17 Dec 2013, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1097) | Send Message
     
    Canada has sensible leadership not like our bum in chief. It's embarrassing.
    17 Dec 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • Moshe Ben-Reuven
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Sorry to rain on your parade, amigos, this is nothing to cheer about. Canada should conserve iits NG resources for making finished synthetic products, like gasoline, for its own use and export. With a 30 MTPA Synthetic methanol to gasoline plant (Mobil's MTG) it could make 20 million Tonne/year of high octane synthetic gasoline. With a 30 MTPA LNG export terminal, Canada would look like today's Egypt in 10 years: exhausted, and impoverished.
    17 Dec 2013, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • NYCTEXASBANKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1806) | Send Message
     
    DR Moshe

     

    Do you think Canada has only 500mtpa LNG in reserves?
    18 Dec 2013, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • Moshe Ben-Reuven
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Dear NYCTexasBanker,
    Per US EIA (Dec. 2013) Canada had proven reserves of 58.2 trillion cubic feet of NG at the end of 2006, which translates to 1.35 billion Tonnes. If the only use was 30 million Tonne/annum of LNG export, this proven reserve would last 45 years. Unfortunately, estimated ultimately recoverable (EUR) reserves tend to be but a small fraction of "proven", so one suspect that 10 years of solid export would make a very serious dent in Canada's reserves.
    19 Dec 2013, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • NYCTEXASBANKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1806) | Send Message
     
    DR MOSHE
    THANKS FOR THE INFO
    19 Dec 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • wotcher
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Exporting natural gas comes with enormous social, economic and environmental costs that should be considered in the long term by investors. Fracked shale gas, and the vast infrastructure required to process it and move it to market, is already costing local communities too much in terms of its impacts. Selling this gas on the global market will increase the fuel's costs for citizens in the countries where the gas is extracted.

     

    This scenario was not part of the picture sold to landowners when they were persuaded to lease their mineral rights to gas corporations for the purpose of national energy independence. What a surprise now to learn it was all a ruse to turn profits for the oil and gas industry?

     

    http://bit.ly/1hYYM2u
    17 Dec 2013, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • geologist
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Well, if not LNG, it will be coal they ship to other countries. This is a complicated issue involving a free market system. I have been an advocate of keeping our NG here in our own country for transportation uses, but there are basic arguments to ship the LNG on the open market, and also to keep the NG here where it will be used to fuel large chemical plants that make raw products that will be shipped to other countries. Let's hear about how that works out for our country and citizens. What impacts will these large petro-chemical plants that run of NG feed stocks have on our environment?

     

    A balanced fact driven assessment is needed regarding our NG, not fear promoted one liner facts in an advertisement by one advocacy group (your link). Your link is a one sided argument to ban fracking. Most of the folks I talk to have no idea of what fracking is and 1/2 of them are against fracking yet they have no idea what fracking is, and they have been mislead about leaking methane gas, polluted ground water supplies, outright lies of drinking water polluted with NG only to find out that there was no polluted freshwater reservoirs as in PA, etc etc. We need energy in our country, and until alternative energy is cheap enough and abundant enough we should use our NG reserves, both conventional and unconventional. Regards.
    17 Dec 2013, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • DonSimon
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    Well said geologist. Funny that nuke power is one that has the energy potential in quantity required that does not gave the emissions the others create. Wind and solar power will never generate enough energy to satisfy the world's need for growing energy demand. Solar energy will never fly a commercial jet. It is my understanding that Canada has enough reserves to do both: use NG for internal as well as export.
    18 Dec 2013, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • wotcher
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Yes, my link does gather all the reasons to consider reasonable limits on fracking, because those of us who live on the surface near this new form of energy development continue to urge policy-makers at all levels to take a more reasoned—not rampant— approach. I urge you to talk to people forced to live on the front lines and explore with the uninformed how, and if, it's possible to justly manage resource colonies within the borders of our own nations, because that's what we should be comparing this to.

     

    You're right: a balanced and fact-driven assessment is needed on the use and marketing of LNG, including its long-term climate and surface impacts. This same sort of eyes-wide open assessment is needed for the life-cycle impacts of fracking, so that those who live in the way of such development can be assured that their health, livelihoods and property are not ruined by proximity to large-scale industrial processes. So far, this "game changer" has been allowed to go forward with more attention paid to potential profits than to the eventual downside impacts.
    19 Dec 2013, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • Moshe Ben-Reuven
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Aye to Wotcher. The facts as to fracking are in front of everyone willing to read. The environmental counter-fracking arguments are serious, scientifically proven, well documented, and not limited to "burning NG in the water" nonsense. There is leaching into ground water from recovered process-water lagoons, and aging cracked vertical casings, near the surface, which water is quite radioactive for the Marcellus shale, about 80-100 times the "allowed" background.
    But beyond the environmental arguments, there is a problem with well productivity, which, on average of thousands of wells, drops to about 35% of the original production rate in about 300 days. Thereafter, the exponential decay is slower, but this necessitates increasing the number of wells completed from year to year to show growth in recovery rate. In the meantime, the more NG produced, the stronger the illusion of abundant supply, which drops the $/MBtu. A Marcellus well completion is $5-$6 million. There is a limit to what a bloated share value will support in increasing exponentially the number of fresh well completions each year.

     

    And yet again, LNG export from Canada has nothing to do with shale gas. It would come from non-tight, conventional resources. Such export would be lamentable.
    19 Dec 2013, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • DonSimon
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    The EPA that is not fracking friendly has been studying negative impact for over five years to kill fracking and cannot prove it is a negative thing if done correctly. Bad operators are used to bring forward the "dangers" of fracking. Fracking is a safe thing and will get us off being dependent on countries that are unfriendly or unreliable as a source.
    20 Dec 2013, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • wotcher
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Simon, yesterday the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, hardly a radical environmental outfit, affirmed the concerns held by many reasonable people about the alleged safety of fracking. In a state at the heart of the blind rush for gas from the Marcellus shale, the Justices issued this majority opinion, when they overturned the gas industry's efforts to pre-empt local controls:

     

    "By any reasonable account, exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, on the people, their children, and future generations, and potentially on the public purse, perhaps rivaling the environmental effects of coal extraction."

     

    http://n.pr/192bGYA

     

    When you say fracking is a safe thing, please address the problems that Dr. Ben-Reuven articulates so well. The promise of energy independence from fracked shale gas is looking a little hollow with the pending approval of LNG export terminals along every coastline on the North American continent. The gas industry will claim US energy independence as their "goal" only until they get permission to market fracked shale gas to the highest bidders on the global market. Please don't assume informed people will continue to believe rhetoric about energy independence and affordable gas. We will be competing for this resource extracted from beneath our communities. (For example, Cabot's partnering agreement with Sumitomo Japan: http://bit.ly/192bHeQ)
    20 Dec 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • DonSimon
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    Have seen too many professors with statements and "proof". I take my cue from the EPA studies trying to find real smoking guns. Also supreme courts nowadays are not as neutral as they should be.
    Like I said:"for every nay sayer there are studies that say differently. Dr. Reuben is stating his opinion, I am stating mine. I. Chuckled yesterday when mr. Obama tried to take credit for the great rise of energy lol. He and his EPA are doing everything to stop progress. Are there bad actors ? Yes, but like everything they are found out and the media has a field day.
    Frankly the cleanest energy source is nuke power. They are as safe as one can be. Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen as Russia never had the safety features the west had. That Japanese accident? Who places pumps below the dike level?
    Taking care of the waste is the problem. But nuke is on its way out.
    The world needs increasing energy and they have to filled. If dr. Ben-Reuven can show me one study that conculsively shows environmental damage with fracking I want to see it. The famous one in Pennsylvania with folks getting gas out of their faucets was debunked by the EPA and other studies. The gas source was not from fracking. If one wants to see environmental damage go south of Oakland California and see the wind farm there. As far as one can see one sees those windmills. What an ugly site. Now THAT is environmental damage. Anyway, let us agree to disagree on this one.
    21 Dec 2013, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • wotcher
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    If his silence on this critical issue wasn't allowing harm to US citizens and our water supplies, I would feel sorry for President Obama. The gas industry does nothing but complain that it is "his EPA" that is working to shut down or (horrors!) regulate fracking. Yet he has turned a deaf ear to environmental concerns, who —since the EPA was asked to drop election year 2012 studies (and suits) regarding water contamination in Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania—fear he is either afraid of, beholden to or misled by gas industry proponents in his administration,

     

    It is certain that more and more contamination will surface over time, (the industry's own textbooks estimate the rates they expect casings to fail). The gas fracking industry (and its investors, and citizens who live on shale plays) will have to continue confronting that reality going forward. Yet to maintain a sufficient rate of production, the industry must continue to drill more new (and potentially failing) wells. How safe is it to invest?
    23 Dec 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Moshe Ben-Reuven
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    How great it is, to start a discussion on LNG exports from Canada and keep coming to Shale Gas in the USA. I apologize for the length of this response. To Mr. DonSimon, interesting that you mention the EPA. In the recent debate in NY state whether to allow fracking in they Marcellus plays, the EPA Comments to NYSDEC (Jan.11, 2012) was:

     

    " Page 19, NORM Concerns – The first sentence in this section states, in part, “Based upon currently available information it is anticipated that flowback water would not contain levels of naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM) of significance...” Available data of flowback water obtained by EPA Region 3 from six natural gas companies in Pennsylvania through information request letters shows elevated levels of naturally occurring radioactive materials (see http://1.usa.gov/1bZfASj). Thus the NYSDEC should consider revising this statement. "

     

    You may also want to look up the report "Radioactivity in the Marcellus Shale" by M. Resnikoff, Ph.D, Radioactive Waste Management Associates, May 19, 2010, further discussing elevated radioactive radium and uranium in fracking waste waters.

     

    There are many more reports, containing scientific data, to show fracking wastewater is very problematic environmentally. This is not a matter of "belief" or "feel as right". Simple facts, which some people would rather ignore. To these people, 100X radioactivity above background level is dismissed as nonsense, and some wind-turbine farm is considered a hazard.

     

    As to nuclear power, it is neither clean, nor waste-free. Generation of one giga-watt power (1 GW) in a typical modern nuclear plant will produce 1 Tonne of radioactive plutonium waste, which is equivalent (in its first month) to 1,000 Chernobyls. After 1 year, it will decay to "just" 160X Chernobyls. Should anyone want this in their backyard? This waste tonnage is piling up in the cooling ponds of nuclear reactors all over the US, since there is no acceptable burial place for it. Yucca Mountain? Not yet. Also, cooling water will periodically leach into rivers, groundwater, with elevated radionuclide levels. Even without a Tsunami or earthquake, nuclear power should not return to the energy equation. But natural gas should.
    22 Dec 2013, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Moshe Ben-Reuven
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    On nuclear power (above) I meant, 1 GWe generation produces 1 Tonne/year of radioactive waste--.
    24 Dec 2013, 08:37 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|