Liquified Natural Gas | Northwest Coast Energy News

CNOOC-Nexen deal makes “absolutely no sense” Cullen says, fears Beijing will dictate Canadian resource policy

Skeena Bulkley Valley MP and NDP House leader says the Harper government’s approval of the takeover by CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation of the Alberta-based energy company, Nexen Inc. makes “absolutely no sense.” Cullen also told northwest reporters in an end-of-year news conference that if the Conservatives continue their present policies, “Beijing will be directing Canadian energy policy and what we do with natural resources.”

Cullen said the approval of the CNOOC Nexen deal was a major development: “The other big news was the reluctant, but enthusiastic approval of the CNOOC Nexen deal; this is the purchase of by the Chinese state-owned company CNOOC. Nexen [is] the 12th largest group in the oil sands, which is also meant to be the source for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

“Stop if anyone thinks this is a coordinated conspiracy to turn the oil sands into an entirely Chinese government owned project.

“[It is] very, very unpopular in Canada, very unpopular in Alberta and the government did this very strange thing where they approved the deal and then said never again because the net benefit test is not being met and that it’s bad for Canada but this deal can go ahead.

“It makes absolutey no sense whatsoever. This combined with the agreement with China, the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement, it now allows the Chinese government to buy up as many oil sands leases as they want. This will very much put a chill on any government in Canada, provincial or federal from introducing laws that hurt Chinese interests because we are now open to lawsuits.”

Cullen was also asked about the PetroChina’s purchase of a stake in the Browse LNG project in Australia. (Cullen’s news conference took place before the announcement that PetroChina had bought into an Encana project as well) and the prospect for LNG projects at Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

“I don’t think the market has the capacity for all of these projects to go ahead and that’s coming from people who know a lot more about LNG shipping than I do.

“I don’t think we have the carrying capacity in the northwest for all of them to go ahead. It will be the first two or three through the gate that will be successful and I think there’s some concern from folks when they look at the whole sweep of projects being proposed what the total shipping traffic would be and what the impact would be just in general. I can see people’s hesitation.

“We’ve been trying to work with those companies so they are out and meeting with the communities. Like any industry there are some companies that are quite open and good at consulting and actually accommodating peoples’ concerns. There are others are not so good. So we’ve been trying to encourage everyone to get to the gold standard and know that they need a social licence to operate in the northwest and if they don’t ahve it, it’s very difficult for the project to get off the ground.

Wild, wild west

“When we don’t have good laws in Canada talking about saying what foreign state control over our natural resources can and can’t be, it’s the wild, wild west. So as this thing goes along, the concerns will become more and more clear that the interests being served will not be Canadian.

“To give the Chinese credit, they’re absolutely up front and explicit about this. To the Conservative government’s complete shame, they don’t seem to care. Beijing will be directing Canadian energy policy and what we do with natural resources.

“All of this to win the government a little bit of favour with the Chinese is just maddening to me.

“Again I recall the old line the Conservatives used to use in elections ‘we’re going to stand up for Canada.’ Wow, did that ever turnout to be an outright lie.

So it’s frustrating and its very worrisome. This isn’t a right-left thing, I’m hearing from a lot of conservative commentators and folks back in the northwest who are very strong supporters of Conservative politics that this not their kind of conservative government, they don’t even recognize it any more.

“This happens to prime ministers from time to time. They get sucked in to the lobbyists and the global circuit and really start to lose touch with what Canadian values are. I think, unfortunately that’s what happened to our prime minister.

Related Links

Nexen news release

Norton Rose law firm guidelines for State Owned Enterprises in Canada

PetroChina in multi-billion dollar LNG buying spree in Canada and Australia

PetroChina went on a multi-billion dollar natural gas buying spree Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012, picking up shares in operations in both Canada and Australia.

In Canada, Encana, one of the partners in the Kitimat LNG project, signed a joint venture arrangement with Phoenix Duvernay Gas, a wholly owned subsidiary of PetroChina, to explore and develop Encana’s extensive undeveloped Duvernay naturgal gas holdings in west-central Alberta. According to an Encana news release, Phoenix will gain a non-controlling 49.9 per cent interest in Encana’s approximately 445,000 acres in the Duvernay play for total consideration of C$2.18 billion.

Hours earlier, PetroChina agreed to pay $1.63 billion for BHP Billiton’s 10 per cent share for an Australian LNG development, known as Browse, that like the KM LNG project in Kitimat had been delayed by the uncertainty in the LNG market. The other partners in the Browse are Woodside Petroleum, Chevron Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

Encana says the PetroChina/Phoenix investment is significant for the Duvernay, which Encana describes as a “liquids rich play” with potential for natural gas, butane and oi development.

THE Encana release quotes Randy Eresman, Encana President & CEO. “A transaction of this magnitude keeps us on track to create a more diversified commodity portfolio and maintain our balance sheet strength. It is a strong endorsement of Encana’s position as a reliable long term partner.”

The release also quotes Zhiming Li, Phoenix’s President & Chief Executive Officer, as saying The Duvernay project will combine Phoenix’s integrated upstream and downstream capabilities and financial resources with Encana’s proven resource play hub expertise. This joint venture will build a foundation for the successful development of the Duvernay play and help to diversify our business portfolio. Encana is our ideal long term partner for the development of our future natural gas business.”

The company goes on to say:

Having entered into several joint venture transactions in 2012, these types of arrangements have become an important part of Encana’s business model. Joint ventures help the Company to achieve a highly efficient deployment of capital throughout its vast exploration and development asset base as Encana transitions to a more diversified portfolio of commodities.

Significantly, the Encana release, while talking about LNG development and export, it makes no mention of the Kitimat KM LNG project, instead looking south to Louisiana.

These relationships have the potential to increase natural gas demand as a number of Encana’s partners are actively exploring opportunities to export liquefied natural gas (LNG), while some are industrial consumers looking to transition to natural gas as fuel for their operations. An example is a recent agreement with Nucor Energy Holdings (Nucor) which is designed to support Nucor’s increased use of natural gas for its facilities, such as its direct reduced iron facility currently under construction in Convent, Louisiana.

Reports say PetroChina paid a premium price for the Australian Browse natural gas project, anticipating that if it comes on stream, as planned in 2018, the current glut in the natural gas market will have eased and once again LNG will be a seller’s market.

The Browse project at James Price Point on the north-western coast of Australia is facing similar opposition to projects in British Columbia, including some of the site’s aboriginal landowners and from some environmental groups.

The opposition to the Australian Browse project, according to reports, reflects a split in the local aboriginal community. While Wikipedia says that 60 per cent of the local aboriginal people voted in favour of the project, there is also fierce opposition, according to the Australian Mining Journal, which reported in 2009:

[A] number of Traditional Owners, as part of the Save The Kimberley organisation, issued a statement which said there is not unanimous support for this site.

In a signed declaration, Traditional Owners have affirmed that they do not support the imposition of an industrial site on their country and will legally challenge the authenticity of any agreements entered into by the Kimberley Land Council supporting the proposal.

The statement said that “…many local Indigenous people are disgusted by the apparent abandonment of the established process put in place by the previous State government. Concerns include the threats made earlier in the year by the Premier regarding compulsory acquisition of land and the pre-empting of the Joint State and Commonwealth environmental and cultural assessment process via announcements by Woodside and the Premier.”

A company called Woodside Petroleum, which leads the LNG venture wants to build the “greenfield” onshore terminal but is facing competition from Shell’s proposed offshore floating LNG “given the land access challenges and soaring development costs in Australia,” even though Shell also has a stake in the Browse project.

The Encana PetroChina deal comes a week after the Conservative government approved the takeover of Nexen by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and the take over by the Malaysian state oil company Petronas of Progress Energy. Petronas and Progress Energy have announced plans for an LNG export facilty at Lelu Island, opposite Port Edward, near Prince
Encana spokesman Jay Averill told the Globe and Mail the Duvernay deal will not need approval from Investment Canada because PetroChina will only gain a 49.9-per-cent, non-controlling share of the specific Encana assets.

In Australia, in October, CNOOC bought a stake in Queensland Curtis LNG from British energy company BG. BG, in partnership with Spectra Energy has also announced plans for an LNG facility at Prince Rupert

Related links

Petroleum Economist
PetroChina pays premium for Browse stake

Calgary Herald

PetroChina inks $2.18B deal with Encana Joint venture to invest $4 billion to develop Alberta Duvernay

Ellis Ross denies reports Haisla are softening position on Enbridge Northern Gateway

Ellis Ross, Chief Counsellor of the Haisla Nation tonight denied reports published in the Globe and Mail that the Haisla are softening their stand against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Ross told Northwest Coast Energy News that the Haisla stand by their filings with the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel that the First Nation is opposed to the project that would build a pipeline to Kitimat to carry bitumen from Alberta and then ship to Asia by tanker.

Ross confirmed that the Haisla have withdrawn from its membership in Coastal First Nations, largely due to disagreements on liquified natural gas projects. The Haisla are a partner in the BC LNG project and have an agreement supporting the KM LNG project at Bish Cove which is in Haisla traditional territory.

In the Globe and Mail story Haisla First Nation withdraws from anti-Northern Gateway group, reporter Nathan Vanderklippe wrote:

The Haisla First Nation, an aboriginal group situated at the terminus on the B.C. coast of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, has pulled out of an organization that has stridently opposed the controversial project, and called for greener practices in the export of natural gas.
The Haisla said they have withdrawn from Coastal First Nations, effective immediately, amid a first nations debate about the environmental impact of West Coast industrial development that has now blown out into the open. The move also comes amid a softening Haisla stance toward oil exports from their traditional territory, which some see as evidence that the tide is turning on opposition to Gateway.

Ross strenuously denied that there has been any change in the Haisla opposition to the Northern Gateway project as the Globe and Mail is reporting. He says the disagreements with Coastal First Nations comes from the fact that the LNG project terminals are in Haisla traditional territory.

Another member of the Coastal First Nations, the Gitga’at First Nation at Hartley Bay told the Vancouver Sun it was worried about “huge volumes of pollutants could be pumped into the air associated with the development of a liquefied natural gas industry at Kitimat, affecting the health of the aboriginal community.” Gitga’at councillor Marven Robinson told the Sun that the First Nation is not opposed to LNG, but is questioning the risks and is seeking more information.

Ross said the Haisla Nation Council will likely issue a statement in the coming hours.

(more to come)

Douglas Channel Energy signs preliminary deal for two LNG tankers

LNG Partners LLC, of Houston, one of the backers of Douglas Channel Energy, the BC LNG Douglas Channel Project, a partnership between LNG firms and the Haisla Nation, has signed a preliminary deal with Golar LNG for two tankers.

Golar LNG, which describes itself on its website as “one of the world’s largest independent owners and operators of LNG carriers” said in its interim results report to shareholders on November 28:

On October 10, Golar entered into a 90 day Vessel Charter Option Agreement with LNG Partners LLC (Houston, TX) for the provision of two newbuild LNG carriers under long term contract to deliver LNG production from the Douglas Channel LNG Project in British Columbia (BC), Canada.
The Douglas Channel Project, in which LNG Partners is an equity owner, is a proposed liquefaction facility on the west bank of the Douglas Channel, within the district of Kitimat, BC. In addition to prospectively providing two vessels, the agreement confers certain preferential rights for Golar to participate in the project with LNG Partners LLC by way of infrastructure investment or LNG offtake.

In the same report, Golar LNG reported operating income of $70.2 million for the third quarter of 2012, an increase of 21 per cent from the second quarter.

Golar, which has its headquarters in Hamilton, Bermuda, says that since 2001, it has grown from a fleet of six LNG Carriers focused on LNG transportation, to a fleet of 13 vessels (with 13 newbuilds due from quarter three 2013), dedicated to both LNG transportation and midstream floating solutions.

The latter means that Golar is working on what the industry calls Floating Storage & Regasification Units (FSRU). LNG is transferred to the FSRU either for storage or where the low-temperature liquified natural gas is heated back to a gaseous state.

The FSRU storage tanks are generally made from aluminium.

Golar is also moving into Liquified Natural Gas production vessels, that is floating ships that produce the LNG than taking it from a shore-based plant.

Golar’s report also reflects the weakness in the LNG markets, a factor that is slowing development of the Kitimat LNG projects.

Golar says “a bearish cargo market [for shipping] prevailed in the third quarter with falling prices and weak demand in the Far East. Chartering activity remained thin and lacked direction and consequently, short-term charter rates experienced a correction from rates seen earlier in the year.”

It goes on to say:

Looking to the fourth quarter, weak Far East demand may result in additional vessels being released into the market, however, with limited available modern undedicated vessels a resumption in interest from buyers could very easily pull rates upward again.
As for the world LNG market, Golar says “downward pressure on pricing was experienced primarily due to high inventory levels that persisted East of Suez.”

It also says that more LNG projects are coming onstream which could provide potential competition for Kitimat:
New LNG supply will soon be coming to the market with the commissioning of Angola LNG in the Atlantic Basin. Despite delays at the West African project during the third quarter, exports are expected to start early in the New Year. This represents a set-back of about ten months from the original target date for the country’s first LNG project.
In the Far East, ConocoPhillips and Origin Energy announced the sanctioning of a second train at its Australia Pacific LNG project. The project is planning to bring the first train on late in 2015 with the second train following in 2016. Both trains will be sized at 4.5 million tonnes. Additionally, during the quarter Chevron made positive statements about proceeding with a fourth train at its Gorgon LNG project in Barrow Island, Western Australia. There are currently three trains at Gorgon under construction totalling 15.6 million tonnes.
In addition to Angola, given imminent start-up of the project, supply projects under construction in both the Atlantic and Pacific Basin have reached close to 100 million tonnes, with construction officially beginning at Cheniere’s Sabine Pass LNG export facility.

It was the decision by Cheniere to sell LNG to the Far East markets based on North American prices rather than the higher Japanese price that led to a further delay by Apache earlier this year to give the final go-ahead for the Kitimat LNG project.

Apache considering North American pricing for Kitimat LNG executives tell Miami conference

Apache is considering selling liquified natural gas shipped to Asia from Kitimat at North American prices, a industry-watching news site reports from an energy conference in Miami.

Argus Media says that Apache and its partners in KM LNG, EOG and Encana are still finding little interest in the original idea of selling the LNG at the Asian base price, called Japan Cleared Customs price, which is a percentage of the price of oil. The idea at that time was that profit would come from the difference between North American market price and the higher Asian price.

That was undercut when another group, Cheniere Energy, decided to sell natural gas to Asia from its Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana based on the “Henry Hub” North American market price for natural gas, plus a 15 per cent surcharge and a reservation fee.

Argus says Encana’s president for US operations Jeff Wojahn told investors at a Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Energy Conference in Miami that the Kitimat developers are now considering “options typical for the Gulf coast export projects.”

Argus also quotes Apache manager of investor relations Castlen Kennedy as saying: ““Kitimat is progressing and we will announce a final investment decision (FID) soon. The local government is very supportive of us.”

Argus quotes Encana’s Wojahn as saying the FIB will come in the first quarter of 2013, using their own natural gas supplies. “All three of the partners have assets in the Horn River so it’s a natural area of development for the play. And the Horn River basin is a world-class shale gas basin, it’s waiting for an LNG pump, so it’s really positioned well.”

New Joint Review Panel possible for Coastal GasLink pipeline project to Kitimat

The federal Environment Assessment Agency is asking northwestern British Columbia to comment on whether or not a federal assessment is needed for the TransCanada Coastal GasLink pipeline project that would feed natural gas to the proposed Shell facility in Kitimat.

In a news release from Ottawa, the CEAA said:

As part of the strengthened and modernized Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) put in place to support the government’s responsible resource development initiative, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency must determine whether a federal environmental assessment is required pursuant to the CEAA 2012 for the proposed Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project in British Columbia (B.C.). To assist it in making its decision, the Agency is seeking comments from the public on the project and its potential effects on the environment.

Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. is proposing the construction and operation of an approximately 650-km pipeline to deliver natural gas from the area near the community of Groundbirch, B.C. (40 km west of Dawson Creek) to a proposed liquefied natural gas facility near Kitimat, B.C. The project will initially have the capacity to flow approximately 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day and could deliver up to approximately 5.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas after further expansion.

Written comments must be submitted by December 3, 2012.

Like the current Enbridge Northern Gateway project Joint Review Panel and the National Energy Board hearings in June 2011 on the Kitimat LNG project all comments received will be considered public.

The CEAA says after it has received the comments whether or not there should be an assessmet, it will post a decision on its website stating whether a federal environmental assessment is required.

The CEAA goes on to say:

If it is determined that a federal environmental assessment is required, the public will have three more opportunities to comment on this project, consistent with the transparency and public engagement elements of CEAA 2012.

Projects subject to CEAA 2012 are assessed using a science-based approach. If the project is permitted to proceed to the next phase, it will continue to be subject to Canada’s strong environmental laws, rigorous enforcement and follow-up, and increased fines.

If there is a federal assessment, the most likely course would be to create a new Joint Review Panel. However, this will not be a JRP with the National Energy Board, because the Coastal GasLink project does not cross a provincial boundary, thus it would not make it subject to scrutiny by the NEB.

Instead, if current practice is followed (and that is uncertain given the evolving role of the Harper government in environmental decisions) the new JRP would be in partnership with the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, which has jurisdiction over energy projects that are entirely within the province of BC.

However. Shell will have to apply to the NEB for an export licence for the natural gas as both the KM LNG and BC LNG projects did last year. That could result in parallel hearings, one for the export licence, and a second on the environmental issues, which, of course, is the direct opposite of what the Harper government intended when it said it would speed up the reviews with its “one project, one review” policy.

Confusion at Alberta Jackpine JRP

At present, there is a CAEE-Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board Joint Review Process underway in northern Alberta for the controversial Shell Canada Jackpine project. Shell has proposed expanding the Jackpine Mine about 70 kilometres north of Fort McMurray on the east side of the Athabasca River. The expansion project would increase bitumen production by 100,000 barrels per day, bringing production at the mine to 300,000 barrels per day.

The Jackpine Joint Review Panel is the first to held under the new rules from Bill C-38 that limit environmental assessment.

The lead up to the Alberta Jackpine Joint Review Panel hearings was mired in confusion, partly because of the restrictions imposed by the Harper government in Bill C-38 which limited the scope of environmental assessments.

The local Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation is opposed to the project and, in October, argued that it should be allowed to issue a legal challenge against Shell’s proposed expansion of the Jackpine project.

According to initial media reports in The Financial Post, the Joint Review Panel excluded First Nations further downstream from the Jackpine project ruling and individual members of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation that they were not “interested parties.” The Post cited rules on who can participate were tightened up when the Harper government changed the criterion for environmental assessment under Bill C-38. The Financial Post reported a French-owned oil company was permitted to participate.

On October 26, the Jackpine JRP ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to consider questions of constitutional law, but told the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Alberta Metis that it would “consider the evidence and argument relating to the potential effects of the project brought forward by Aboriginal groups and individuals during the course of the hearing.”

A few days after the Financial Post report, Gary Perkins, counsel for the Jackpine Joint Review Panel released a letter to participants including Bill Erasmus, Dene National chief and Assembly of First Nations regional chief, who said he was denied standing. There appears to have been confusion over how people could register as intervenors for the Jackpine hearings, since according to the Perkins letter they apparently did so on a company website that no relation to the Jackpine JRP. Perkins also attempted to clarify its constitutional role with First Nations, saying it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether or not the Crown was consulting properly. (PDF copy below)

The Perkins letter also said that the Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McMurray First Nation #468, the Athabasca Cree First Nation, Fort McKay Metis Community Association and the Metis Association of Alberta Region 1 plus some individual members of First Nations are allowed to participate in the hearings.

Controversy continued as the hearings opened, as reported in Fort McMurray Today, that there was poor consultation between Shell and the local First Nations and Metis communities.

On November 8, ACFN spokesperson Eriel Deranger and Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam said the project was a threat to the traditional life of Alberta First Nations: “Our land … have shrunk and continue to shrink because of the development,” Adam told the newspaper.

Hot potato for the District of Kitimat

The arcane rules of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel has caused months of confusion and frustration for many of those who participated, whether they from the BC provincial Department of Justice or other government participants, intervenors or those making ten minute comments.

Although most people in northwestern British Columbia support the liquified natural gas projects, the prospect of a new Joint Review Panel could likely quickly become controversial in this region. A Coastal GasLink JRP will be the first real test of the restrictions on environmental review imposed on Canada by the Harper government. Environmental groups, especially the few groups that oppose any pipeline projects, will be wary of precedents and likely to test the limits from Bill C-38. Both environmental groups and First Nations will be on alert for any limitations on who can participate in a review. First Nations, even if they support the LNG projects, as most do, will be wary of any attempt by the federal government to limit consultation, rights and title.

A Coastal Gaslink JRP will be a big hot potato for District of Kitimat Council, which has taken a controversial strictly neutral position on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project until after that Joint Review Panel reports sometime in 2014. Can the District Council now take a positive position on a natural gas pipeline, which from all appearances council supports, long before a Coastal GasLink JRP report (if there is a panel) without facing charges of hypocrisy?

The northwest is in for interesting times.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Page for Coastal GasLink Project

CEAA Coastal GasLink project description (pdf)

Letter about participation in the Jackpine JRP

Apache delays Kitimat decision again, Wall Street Journal reports

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) is reporting that Apache has once again delayed its decision whether or not to go ahead with the Kitimat LNG project.

So far there is no news release on the Apache site and no other media has matched the Wall Street Journal story.

Analysts are blaming the decision on the recent move by some players in the energy industry to sell natural gas to Asia at low North American prices, rather than the world price, which is determined as a percentage of the price of oil. A move by Asian countries to buy LNG at the lower North American market price would undercut the profitability of any LNG export project through Kitimat.

TransCanada plans rugged over-mountain route for gas pipeline to Kitimat

Coastal GasLink map — A map from TransCanada’s Coastal GasLink showing the conceptual route of the proposed natural gas pipeline from the shale gas fields in northeastern BC through the mountains to Kitimat and the proposed Shell LNG facility. (TransCanada)

TransCanada plans a rugged over-mountain route for its proposed Coastal Gaslink pipeline to the Shell Canada liquified natural gas project in Kitimat, BC, company officials said Monday, Oct. 15, 2012, in two presentations, one to District of Kitimat Council and a second at a community town hall briefing.

The pipeline would initially carry 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Montney Formation region of northeastern British Columbia along a 48 inch (1.2 metre) diameter pipe over 700 kilometres from Groundbirch, near Dawson Creek, to Kitimat, site of the proposed Shell Canada LNG Canada project.

Rick Gateman, President of Coastal GasLink Project, a wholly owned TransCanada subsidiary told council that the project is now at a “conceptual route” stage because TransCanada can’t proceed to actual planning until it has done more detailed survey work and community consultations.

At the same council meeting, documents from Shell Canada notified the District that it has formally applied to the National Energy Board for an export licence for the natural gas.

Gateman told council that since the pipeline itself will be completely within the province of British Columbia, it comes under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment process and the BC Oil and Gas Commission and that the NEB will not be involved in approving the pipeline itself.

At first, the Coastal Gas Link pipeline would be connected to the existing Nova Gas Transmission system now used (and being expanded) in northeastern British Columbia.

From Vanderhoof, BC to west of Burns Lake, the Coastal GasLink pipeline would be somewhat adjacent to existing pipelines and the route of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline and the proposed Pacific Trails natural gas pipeline.

Somewhat south of Houston, however, the pipeline takes a different route from the either the Northern Gateway or Pacific Trails Pipeline, going southwest, avoiding the controversial Mount Nimbus route.

Howard Backus, an engineering manager with TransCanada told council that the route changes so that Coastal GasLink can avoid “congestion” in the rugged mountain region.

Backus said that the Pacific Trails Pipeline for Apache and its partners in the Kitimat LNG project “is skirting” Nimbus while Enbridge plans to tunnel through the mountain. That tunnel is one of the most controversial aspects to the Northern Gateway project. The local environmental group Douglas Channel Watch has repeatedly warned of the dangers of avalanche and geological instability in the area where the Northern Gateway pipeline emerges from the tunnel. Enbridge has challenged Douglas Channel Watch’s conclusions in papers filed with the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel.

Under TransCanada’s conceptual route, the pipeline heads southwest and then climbs into the mountains, crossing what Backus calls “a saddle” (not a pass) near the headwaters of the Kitimat River. The pipeline then comes down paralleling Hircsh Creek, emerging close to town, crossing the Kitimat River and terminating at the old Methanex plant where Shell plans its liquified natural gas plant. (That means that if the conceptual plans go ahead, the TransCanada pipeline would climb into the mountains, while Pacific Trails finds a way around and Enbridge tunnels).

Backus told council that going north “created more issues,” but did not elaborate.

Backus assured people at the town hall that energy companies have a lot of experience in building pipelines in mountainous areas, including the Andes in South America.

Asked by a local businessman at the town hall if it was possible to build a road along the route of the pipeline, Backus said the mountain areas would be too steep. Any pipeline maintenance would have to be done by tracked vehicle, he said.

Gateman told council that the pipeline would be buried along its entire route. If Shell increases the capacity of its LNG facility in Kitimat, the Coastal Gaslink pipeline could increase to 3.4 billion cubic feet a day or perhaps even more. For the initial capacity, the company will have one compressor station at the eastern end of the line. If capacity increases or if the route requires it, there could be as many as five additional compressor stations. (TransCanada’s long term planning is based on the idea that Shell will soon be adding natural gas from the rich Horn River Formation also in northeastern BC to the Kitimat export terminal.)

TransCanada will begin its field work, including route and environmental planning and “community engagement” in 2013 and file for regulatory approval in 2014. Once the project is approved, construction would begin in 2015.

Gateman said that TransCanada is consulting landowners along the proposed right of way and “on a wide area on either side.” The company also is consulting 30 First Nations along the proposed route. Gateman told council, “We probably have the most experience of any number of companies in working directly with and engaging directly with First Nations because of our pipelines across Canada.”

(Despite Gateman’s statement, the TransCanada maps showed that the Coastal Gaslink Pipeline would cross Wet’suwet’en traditional territory and officials seemed to be unaware of the ongoing problems between Apache and the Pacific Trails Pipeline and some Wet’suwet’en Houses who oppose that pipeline).

Gateman told council that the pipeline would be designed to last at least 60 years. He said that in the final test stages, the pipeline would be pressured “beyond capacity” using water rather than natural gas to try and find if any leaks developed during construction.

He said that the company would restore land disrupted by the construction of the pipeline, but noted that it would only restore “low-level vegetation.” Trees are not permitted too close to the pipeline for safety reasons.

TransCanada made the usual promises the region has heard from other companies of jobs, opportunities for local business and wide consultations. (TransCanada may have learned lessons from the botched public relations by the Enbridge Northern Gateway. A number of Kitimat residents have told Northwest Coast Energy News that TransCanada was polling in the region in mid-summer, with callers asking many specific questions about environment and the spinoffs for communities).

Councillor Phil Germuth questioned Gateman about the differences between a natural gas pipeline and a petroleum pipeline. Gateman replied that the pipelines are pretty much the same with the exception that a natural gas pipeline uses compressor stations while a petroleum pipeline uses pumping stations. Gateman did note that the original part of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would carry bitumen through Alberta and US mountain states to Texas was a natural gas pipeline converted to carry the heavier hydrocarbons.

Although the natural gas projects have, so far, enjoyed wide support in northwestern British Columbia, environmental groups and First Nations have raised fears that sometime in the future, especially if there is overcapacity in natural gas lines, that some may converted to bitumen, whether or not Northern Gateway is approved and actually goes ahead.

Shell application to NEB

In a fax to District of Kitimat council, Shell Canada Senior Regulatory Specialist Scot MacKillop said that the Shell had applied to the National Energy Board on September 25, 2012 for a licence to export LNG via Kitimat for the next 25 years.

The Shell proposal, like the previous Kitimat LNG and BC LNG proposals, are export applications, unlike the Enbridge Northern Gateway which is a “facility application.”
In its letter to Shell’s lawyers, the NEB took pains to head off any objections to the project on environmental or other grounds by saying:

the Board will assess whether the LNG proposed to exported does not exceed the surplus reaming after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada. The Board cannot consider comments that are unrelated…such as those relating to potential environmental effects of the proposed exportation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects.

Four energy giants update multi-billion dollar Alaska LNG development plans

An alliance of four energy companies has updated plans for a multi-billion dollar, ten-year liquefied natural gas megaproject that would take gas from Alaska’s North Slope for shipment to Asia through the oil port at Valdez.

Three of the companies, Exxon Mobile, ConocoPhillips and BP already have operations on the North Slope. TransCanada,which is already planning to build a gas pipeline for the Kitimat Shell project, would be the fourth partner and also work on the pipeline.

The four companies filed a letter on October 1 with Alaska Governor Sean Parnell outlining the plans, The governor’s office released the letter today.

The companies told Gov. Parnell that their efforts would result in “a megaproject of unprecedented scale and challenge; up to 1.7 million tons of steel, a peak construction workforce of up to 15,000, a permanent workforce of over 1,000 in Alaska, and an estimated total cost in today’s dollars of $45 to $65+ billion.”

The letter goes on to say that TransCanada’s recently completed non-binding solicitation of
interest in the project and that company “has publicly reported interest from potential shippers and major players from a broad range of industry sectors and geographic locations.” (An expression of interest, of course, doesn’t mean that buyers will actually sign contracts, as the Kitimat LNG partners are finding out)

It appears from the letter that the North Slope producers are, in the long term, worried about diminishing oil reserves and are now, like energy companies around the world, looking at cashing in on the natural gas boom.

This opportunity is challenged by its cost, scale, long project lead times, and reliance upon interdependent oil and gas operations with declining production. The facilities currently used for producing oil need to be available over the long-term for producing the associated gas for an LNG project. For these reasons, a healthy, long-term oil business, underpinned by a competitive fiscal framework and LNG project fiscal terms that also address AGIA issues [an Alaska state agency], is required to monetize North Slope natural gas resources. The producers look forward to working with the State to secure fiscal terms necessary to support the unprecedented commitments required for a project of this scope and magnitude and bring the benefits of North Slope gas development to Alaska.

Over the past few months, the partners have, according to the letter:

•Developing a design basis for the pipeline, including areas of continuous and discontinuous permafrost
•Investigating multiple ways to remove and dispose of CO2 and other contaminants
•Assessing use of existing and addition of new Prudhoe Bay field facilities
•Mapping multiple pipeline routing variations
•Assessing multiple pipeline sizes
•Providing for at least five in-state gas off-take points
•Completing preliminary geohazard and marine analysis of 22 LNG site locations
•Developing a design basis for the required LNG tanker fleet
•Evaluating multiple LNG process design alternatives
•Confirming a range of gas blends from the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson fields can generate a marketable LNG product

The letter concludes:

Our next steps are to complete the concept selection phase and work with the State to make meaningful progress on the items detailed above. This work is critical as we consider decisions to progress the next phases of an LNG development project.

Alaska’s North Slope natural gas resources must compete in the global energy markets in order to deliver state revenues, in-state energy supplies, new job opportunities and other economic benefits to Alaskans. While North Slope gas commercialization is challenging, working together, we can maintain the momentum toward our shared vision for Alaska. We will continue to keep you advised of our progress and stand committed to work with the State to responsibly develop its considerable resources.

Alaska LNG fact sheet — A fact sheet on the Alaska LNG project sent to the state governor by the project partners.

LNG partners letter to Alaska governor (PDF)

TransCanada to hold community briefing in Kitimat October 15

TransCanada will hold a community briefing in Kitimat on October 15, 2012, at Riverlodge to inform residents of its plans for its subsidiary Coastal GasLink Pipeline, which would carry natural gas for the Royal Dutch Shell LNG project.

In a letter to District of Kitimat Council, TransCanada said it the Kitimat would be one of several sessions across northern British Columbia.

The public information session will include maps “showing our conceptual route as well as information on community benefits, environmental management and other aspects of our project. Coastal Gaslink project representatives will be available to answer questions and share information.”

The session will be a the Riverlodge Rescreation Centre from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. On October 15.