There are now up to 8 or ten LNG plants proposed for northern BC which include Apache, Shell, Petronis, Chevron, BG Group.

How many do you think will actually be built and in what order?

I have heard conflicting reports, but some of these proposed projects are being managed by serious people with serious money.

LNG on BC’s Coast

http://dogwoodinitiative.org/publications/reports/lngpresentation

I have heard there are some issues concerning this "Tides Canada" organization.

B.C.'s LNG plants won't be cleanest: report

Proposed LNG plants could emit up three times more carbon dioxide than comparable foreign facilities

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-s-lng-plants-won-t-be...

Firstly, final investment decision (FIDs) are the dates when we will know if/when they will proceed. And due to fact that current projects are in environmental assessment phase (along with pipelines), the first FID won't arrive until fall, 2014 and then thereafter.

These are the major LNG projects in BC and I have posted a star based upon likelihood of an FID based upon info to date:

1. Petronas/Japex *

2. Shell/Mitsubishi/Korea Gas/Petro China * 

3. Chevron/Apache *

Later FID dates:

4. BG Group/?

5. ExxonMobil/?

6. CNOOC (Nexen)/Inpex

7. Sinopec

Note that along with the Japanese (Mitsubishi, Japex, Inpex), the Chinese are becoming heavily involved (Petro China, CNOOC, and Sinopec). Sinopec is very recent and has only made Bloomberg News - 2 days ago:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-22/british-columbia-nears-land-deal-for-sinopec-lng-export-project.html

all of these projects  depend on developers getting premium gas prices in Asian markets.

It may already be too late for that.

I guess the people in Kitimat are willing to take the risk that one of these LNG ships does not explode in their harbour. 

all of these projects  depend on developers getting premium gas prices in Asian markets.

It may already be too late for that.

I guess the people in Kitimat are willing to take the risk that one of these LNG ships does not explode in their harbour. 

In British Columbia, Mulling the Role of Natural Gas in a Sustainable Energy Future

Douglas Channel, an inlet near the northern village of Kitimat, is one of the areas on the British Columbia coast being eyed for construction of huge export terminals for liquefied natural gas (LNG.) Photograph by Pensondesignergems/Flickr, Creative Commons license.

British Columbia finds itself at the forefront of the global debate on natural gas, and its role in the future of energy.

http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/31/in-british-columbia-...

I am reminded how offensive and presumptuous your thread title is.

B.C. First Nations eyeing LNG cash windfall Environmental concerns must be addressed before they will give access to land, official says

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/energy/First+Nations+eyeing+cash+wi...

it may be offensive but it's not presumptuous. it's the reality on the ground here in northern BC. fortunes are being spent to insure it. and they've collapsed the economy enough here so anything is a go.

It is presumptuous in a radical forum, where a good many of residents know that at least one of them is almost certain to happen, no matter what... but understandably find it offensive to have to face the glib cheerleading here.

There is a huge difference between keeping yourself informed of the facts on the ground- and I pay close attention to LNG from industry and government proponents POV, and the various financial factors.

The glib cheerleading adds what to realistic appraisal?

"radical forum"?

?

was i supposed to use a more 'correct' term like progressive forum ?

uh no....i just didn't know this was a "radical" forum or even a "progressive" one, i just thought it was a forum with people who cared about whatever their social or political cause was.

The cheerleading ultimately is misguided. The 'fortunes' being spent are not coming from the companies. They are coming from us. Not just through taxes and future rate hikes, but through current rate hikes. Who did you really think was going to be paying for all this? The ongoing exploration costs and expensive, long-term advertising? Not the companies. They pass it along to the consumer. Enbridge has already done this in Ontario. BC Hydro has started here. And they need continuing high prices not only to fund the development but to justify their investment. Those prices will not be going back down.

It's really very sad that people don't understand the true economic dynamics of these projects. They have nothing to do with benefiting British Columbians. Absolutely zero. That has never been the intent.

The reason many of these, perhaps unfriendly to the environment projects go ahead is that the folks that oppose them don't come up with realistic job alternatives.

I remember hearing about a ski hill operator wanting to cut down trees to expand their ski operation, and the environmnetalists were opposed ,so they cut a deal, They cut down the trees to expand the ski resort, and in return planted trees elsewhere to compensate for the loss of trees on their ski hill.

Mayor attacks Fort Nelson First Nation over LNG summit expulsion

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/fort-nelson-mayor-attacks-first-nation-lng...

So we have a deal !

The EXACT parallel to what you suggested:

Build us a new planet so we dont have to pay attention to all the GHG emissions from fracing and turning the gas into LNG.

There is no DIRECT alternative for getting those [hugely fluffed up] job numbers in some other way.

But it is more than just 'possible'.

The catch is that it takes political and social will that does not exist now.

So it is not easy.

But last I checked, killing future generations because we put off making choices to cut GHG emissions, that will not be easy either.

The difference is, that comes later.

This is so illogical it's hard to find the one kernel to address. Here's the main one: oil & gas projects go through because oil & gas companies want them to go through and because government decision-makers are in their back pocket. Furthemore, they want them to go through not so that they can provide jobs to unemployed, boom-and-bust resource industry serfs, but because they will make obscene profits from them.

Does that help?

Actually it will be too easy for us (depending on how long we live), not so easy on future generations. And the worst consequences of the GHGs that have already been emitted will be occuring within the lifetime of many on this forum.

..during the indignado occupations a couple years back there was an incredible release of creative ideas on transformation from all over europe. that is how do we get from a top down capitalistic society to a participatory democracy. a popular idea was that we would not be able to prevent the global economic collapse. it was far to advanced and out of control. it was like a humongous machine tended by humans. but what we could do was ease the decline somewhat. this was described much as a plane landing. planes don't just fall out of the sky. we would build democratic and earth friendly structures (for lack of a better word) today. that could be used for when we were landing. ie where will our food come from. and in place so that we could hit the ground running. and that we understood not start the same shit all over again.

..i tend to agree that the economy will collapse before the environment does. that's when humans will stop poisoning the earth at it's present rate. and that should be the space we need to implement the new world that we have been working to build. and today we can see more and more people coming together in new ways.

From another thread:

I'm not saying that this means there are no risks to the BC NDP taking a more critical approach to fracking and LNG. But it does show that it is not the simplistic dynamic of 

[allegedly] "opposing jobs" = marginalization for the NDP

... let alone pretending the dynamic is the same in NB and NS, or Ontario for that matter,  as it is in BC.

The BC NDP are now irrelevant in BC politics - you might want to talk with Weaver though.

My money's on the one connected with Malaysia to go first!

What do others think?

I think which one gets built first is just about as irrelevant as it gets.

Care to make the case why it matters?

I think the tide is turning on fossil fuel and infrastructure will be the first to suffer.  That is why Harper and everyone is in such a rush.  Any oil they don't sell in the next 20 years is probably going to stay in the ground.  So they want to make sure Canadian pirates get the money instead of Venezualan pirates (or anyone else for that matter).

The longer that people can put off the decision to build the less that will be built.  Already future markets for oil are factoring in costs that they anticipate will come from environmental tariffs on their products.

I think the tide is turning on fossil fuel and infrastructure will be the first to suffer.  That is why Harper and everyone is in such a rush.  Any oil they don't sell in the next 20 years is probably going to stay in the ground.  So they want to make sure Canadian pirates get the money instead of Venezualan pirates (or anyone else for that matter).

The longer that people can put off the decision to build the less that will be built.  Already future markets for oil are factoring in costs that they anticipate will come from environmental tariffs on their products.

You could also explain why if the BCNDP is irrelevant, that you care whether positions are taken that you think will lose vote share and/or seats in the Leg.

There is lots of the stuff on the net to familiarize yourself with BC politics.

Actually Pogo might have a point. but as appealing at it may sound to a few, your approach Ken doesn't cut it.

You are not being creative enough to stop these LNGs for someone who professes concern about the environment.

You are a lot more difficult to understand than BC politics NR.

Making pronouncements you cant be bothered explaining, doesnt help.

Its not BC politics I need explained, it is your reasoning.