<Smart Metering and Smarter MeteringThe Oil Drum: CanadaThe Round-Up: June 29th 2007>

20 comments on The Round-Up: June 27th 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

porsena on June 28, 2007 - 12:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Quebec approves Gros Cacouna LNG terminal

The Quebec government has given the green light to a bid by Petro-Canada and TransCanada Corp. to build the province's first liquefied natural gas terminal on the south shore of the Saint Lawrence River in Gros-Cacouna, about 250 kilometres east of Quebec City....

Pretrocan has been involved in talks with Russia's OAO Gazprom's Baltic liquefied natural gas plant. "This is a very big element to that," Mr. Pelletier said. "It sends a much clearer signal to potential long-term suppliers. Potential suppliers want to know that you'll be there. And this is another very positive indication that we will be there."....

In the meantime, another LNG terminal known as the Rabaska project in Lévis, across the Saint Lawrence River from Quebec City, is awaiting approval by a joint federal-provincial environmental panel later next month....

In New Brunswick, Irving Oil Ltd. has announced an LNG plant will be built as part of its energy complex in Saint John.

In Maine, the developer of a $500-million (U.S.) LNG project on Passamaquoddy Bay has filed for U.S. regulatory approval, but faces staunch opposition from Canada, through whose waters tankers would pass.

And in Nova Scotia, Keltic Petrochemicals Inc. of Halifax received environmental approval from the provincial government in March to build a petrochemical complex, complete with a liquefied natural gas receiving terminal in Goldboro, N.S.

The federal government has a marine protected area under development to protect marine mammals around Gros Cacouna, so the regulatory approvals process might be complicated.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HeIsSoFly on June 28, 2007 - 2:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yeah, that's an ugly story. As the NDP warned last July, if these LNG plants start running for export to the US, and Russia closes the tap, the NAFTA stipulations still hold, and Canada has to make up for the difference

Selling Canada by the cubic foot

"The NDP denounced the deal, saying "the amount of natural gas Canada must provide to the U.S. would increase if we imported gas from Russia, however, if Russia cut back on the amount it was supplying, the American quota would stay the same, forcing Canadians to give up supplies we might need for ourselves."

NAFTA remains a poorly understood contract. It is laden with well-hidden booby traps, and no, Canda cannot get out of the deal. There is a paragraph that says it can do so with 6 months notice, but that's just there to hide reality. The Canadian government, if it would want to abrogate, would instantly face multi-trillion dollar lawsuits by American corporations and governments. And these would be held in US courts.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stoneleigh on June 28, 2007 - 4:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This really is an important point, and it appears likely that natural gas could be the first test of NAFTA versus Canadian sovereignty under conditions of insufficient supply.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ours solaire on June 28, 2007 - 10:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The funny thing about this story is that there is a second prospective terminal near Lévis (Rabaska, south shore Québec city)so we may end up with not one, but TWO terminals importing gas from Russia...is there a driver on this train???

PS. many thanks Stoneleigh, for your efforts, much appreciated!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HeIsSoFly on June 29, 2007 - 1:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Polar Bear, do read the article I quoted before, would you?:

Selling Canada by the cubic foot

Rabaska is but the second part, and it's located way closer to population centers than any US project ever COULD be. One mile max from downtown Quebec City. Google 'Jaques Levasseur' for details.

But there is a third one, on the Saguenay river: Grande-Anse.

That makes three LNG terminals in a province that needs no LNG at all. But Quebec is bankrupt, and it's all signed and sealed anyway.

Strange, though, isn't it? All these things are decided, and no-one knows they are. Ours Polaire seems to be informed, mentions Rabaska, but doesn't even know that Grande Anse exists.

By the by: For anyone reading the TOD Canada Round-Ups: DO leave your comments, let Stoneleigh know what you think of what you read, whether it be appreciation or utter disgust, but speak out!!!!!!!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ours solaire on July 1, 2007 - 12:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Guilty as charged!! I did not read your linked article. Must admit to being overwhelmed by the quantity of information available on this site sometimes...

As for Grande-Anse, first I hear about it indeed... will have to check it out, thanks for the tip!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Adam W on June 29, 2007 - 9:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's really remarkable that the NAFTA treaty seems to have an implicit assumption that supplies of materials face no limits whatsoever. Economic treaty indeed. But I'm not clear on how far the requirements go for maintaining export levels...if Canada runs out of something, are we supposed to buy it somewhere else and ship it to the US?

As a Canadian, I will note that the Americans have had no trouble ignoring NAFTA or asking for a re-write when it didn't suit their needs. Many lawsuits against the US were won (decisions promptly ignored by the US governments/industries who had lost, of course) despite being held in courts/tribunals stacked with US judges. It is possible to get a fair trial and legal ruling in US courts; what has been impossible is getting those involved to acknowledge the rulings when they lose.

But if NG supplies become tight and Canada stops exporting so much, and the US sues, the advantage there is it will take many years to go through the cases, appeals, rulings, etc. And with each passing year, with declining resources available, it would become more apparent that the conditions of the treaty are impossible. I'm no legal expert, but I do know that it's difficult to legally enforce something that is impossible.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.