Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
NEWS RELEASE · 24th July 2012
Ministry of Energy and Mines

Minister of Energy and Mines Rich Coleman announced today that British Columbia's Clean Energy Act has been updated to enable the use of natural gas to power liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. Effective immediately, LNG export facilities, and the electricity generation used to power them, are excluded from the Clean Energy Act's 93 per cent clean and renewable energy requirement.

Premier Christy Clark announced government's intention to clarify its clean energy policy to include natural gas last month during a meeting with the Business Council of British Columbia.

This change will ensure the LNG industry can access a reliable, timely and cost-competitive mix of gas-fired and renewable power generation to meet its large electrical demand. The 93 per cent clean energy target will continue to apply to non-LNG load and will ensure the majority of B.C.'s power requirements will be met with renewable resources.

The Province will have world-class air emissions standards for gas-fired power generation to support LNG plants. This will apply to both high-efficiency combined cycle gas generation and simple single cycle peaker plants, where they may be required, by developing policy to guide both BC Hydro procurement and environmental reviews. All infrastructure built will be subject to B.C.'s environmental assessment process.

As part of the BC Jobs Plan, British Columbia has a goal of three LNG facilities in operation by 2020. The construction of three large LNG and connecting pipelines could result in up to 1,400 ongoing jobs and $600 billion in gross domestic product over a 30-year time frame.

To learn more about British Columbia's natural gas sector, including full details about government's LNG goals, visit:

Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
Kitimat Apache LNG site being prepared on the north side of Douglas Channel west of Kitimat
Ain't gonna happen....
Comment by Apocalypse Now on 26th July 2012
We here in the Northwest are fighting tooth and nail,to stop enbridge because a potential oil spill will ruin our way of life. We are hypocrites.... we are willing to sacrifice 3 watersheds which will be destroyed by the fracking of shale gas . Why do we think our environment is more important than those of the north east who get there water from wells that will be completely undrinkable, and also the Skeena will be affected as well as the Bulkley and Nechako. There have been protests up there longer than we have been protesting Enbridge.
Comment by AScott on 26th July 2012
Alex and Merv for the info.

I was not aware (until you posted that link merv) that Southeast Alaska had so much available hydro, wind and tidal power... and so few people and demand there to use the potential.

So... if Southeast Alaskas power connects to the northwest transmission line, then it would benefit
both regions by using renewable and basically non-polluting power for resource production. ?

I assumed that since the law was changed in our area to enable the use of natural gas to power liquefied natural gas plants that obviously the law changers had kitimat lng in mind and its useage was pretty much a done deal.

Partnering up with Southeast Alaskas actually clean energy sounds like a much wiser move to me than burning tonnes of natural gas in such a small valley.

More information and detailed studies
Comment by Merv Ritchie on 26th July 2012
Just Google, "Alaska Canada Energy Coalition" Or copy this link

There you will discover the details of the plans to produce 3 times as much power as Site C will ever produce.

A coalition of governments working together in the best interests of the people, rather than governments acting as corporate representatives for different transnational corporations, would produce for better and more reasonable alternatives.
at ascott
Comment by alexander pietralla on 26th July 2012
no nothing is decided, but I believe now is a good time to start gathering the infos and facts. Any burning of carbon is coming with emissions, your furnace at home, your car etc. - the question right now should be how do we do it most intelligently and with the latest and most modern technology available, and what would be an alternative and I do not mean to do nothing and stop all economic development. Using billions on tax payers money to build a dam in the northeast to power the northwest, when we could get a better ROI from using gas to generate the needed power so far makes more sense to me. Even Mervs idea to interconnect with Alaska makes a lot more sense to me. I would like to see studies and facts to drive the discussion further.

Ed Note: Just Google, "Alaska Canada Energy Coalition" Or copy this link
I've read:
Comment by AScott on 25th July 2012

"Ground-level ozone (commonly called smog) has also been linked to a range of respiratory illnesses. More recently, ground-level ozone has been linked to the development of childhood asthma, the "most common chronic disease" among children.

Possibly more troubling are the emissions of fine particulates from gas-fired power plants. Though particulate emissions are about ten per cent of those produced by coal power, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 77 per cent of particulates from natural gas plants are dangerously small. These fine particulates have the greatest impact on human health because they by-pass our bodies' natural respiratory filters and end up deep in the lungs. In fact, many studies have found no safe limit for exposure to these substances."

That doesn't sound very great for the health of the living... especially the young and old.

What kind of natural gas burning process do the people involved want to use? Are they proposing cogeneration?

"By capturing the excess heat, CHP (combined heat and power) uses heat that would be wasted in a conventional power plant, potentially reaching an efficiency of up to 80%,[8] for the best conventional plants. This means that less fuel needs to be consumed to produce the same amount of useful energy."

Would that type of process be any safer for our kids? Is this natural gas burning way a done deal for the production of LNG?

If It's OK For B.C........
Comment by CW on 24th July 2012
Maybe Washington State can revisit the natural gas
powered electrical plant at Sumas proposal now that
the BC Govt says it's OK.
Not likely for domestic power development
Comment by Merv Ritchie on 24th July 2012
This law was developed and designed strictly to allow for these Natural gas Plants to produce the high volume of electricity the require to compress the natural gas into Liquified natural Gas (LNG) to export on VLCC sized tankers. They will need to be located directly on a harbour (deep water port). It is very unlikely they will connect to the BC hydro grid at all.

Your comment on the air quality is a good one. In Vancouver this is not acceptable and this law, as we understand it, does not apply to the lower mainland. Polluting the air in the north is not considered dirty rather this new legislation reveals the manner in which governments change laws, environmental and otherwise, to meet the needs of industry and economic drivers.

Not saying it is good or bad, just a fact of the game.

See the previous article - 'BC Hydro and government Not Being Honest About Site C' - for details.

Note and video attached of the RDKS meeting with BC Hydro where the BC Hydro reps suggest they will build power lines for the LNG plants. Watch Kitimat Councillor Phil Germuth pour cold water on their mis-information.

Deception is just a fact of life when dealing with big industry and the governments they run.
thinking ahead...
Comment by balthazar on 24th July 2012
I am not an expert and all I write here is therefore based on common sense or my naive way of looking at things - you choose...
Gas will come here via pipelines. LNG Terminals need lots of Power - BC does not have this Power. BC plans to build SITE C to increase Power capacity and then transport it over 700 km via a new transmission line - Cost for taxpayer high.
LNG terminals proposed in Kitimat and Prince Rupert , if all generate their own power, emissions into air shed, especially in a small valley might become an issue. Terrace needs industrial infrastructure and has available land at the airport, sits right at the crossroads of the pipeline highway and under the transmission line - Cost for taxpayer low(er) by a lot...
Is this a viable option or will we fall into dogmatic corners of opinion when we follow this idea of proposing a gas generated Power Plant at the Airport Lands and start putting some facts and figures together ? Right now this looks like a very sensible thing to do...