Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Gas players gear up for B.C. rush

DAVID EBNER

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:09 PM EST 04/03/08

Huge discoveries in northeast ignite 'massive land grab' for drilling rights ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. The Bubble from Canada writes: Charge them throught the nose.
  2. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Good for B.C., keep Western Canada Green, $$$$$$
  3. Free Spirit from Canada writes: Natural gas = carbon. Windfall (carbon) taxes for the BC govern-mint.
  4. Tony Mareschealle from mississauga, Canada writes: Another good reason to reopen NAFTA and remove Gas from the preferential deal the US currently has.
  5. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: "... the B.C. government last year adopted an oil sands-like royalty framework for shale gas and other complicated plays. Once a project is approved, the royalty is a nominal 2 per cent of gross revenues until capital costs are recovered. It then rises in stages to a maximum of 5 per cent of gross revenues or 35 per cent of net profits, whichever is greater.

    If only Stelmach could have got Ab. Royalties to work like this...
  6. CatMan Due from Canada writes: Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: "... the B.C. government last year adopted an oil sands-like royalty framework for shale gas and other complicated plays. Once a project is approved, the royalty is a nominal 2 per cent of gross revenues until capital costs are recovered. It then rises in stages to a maximum of 5 per cent of gross revenues or 35 per cent of net profits, whichever is greater.

    If only Stelmach could have got Ab. Royalties to work like this... .........I think Stelmach should have left gas alone, but do not fool yourself about BC. This Province has had many NDP governments, likes public insurance and does not go down as a right of center population. I would not bet on low royalties on gas in BC for very long.
  7. jimmy dunnit from Canada writes: now, ya see whatshappenin'? if the b.c. economy takes off like a rocket it's becuz of the gummint in power. liberals. the liberals made b.c. rich. so b.c. will have liberal gummints forever.
    same thing in russia. putin will be in power forever cuz he makin' russia rich.
    this logic ALWAYS works in alberta.

    sad.
  8. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: How can I make money off of this discovery?
  9. Eddie 'mush' Montanaro from yellowknife, Canada writes: Saying there is 6 tcf in the shale is one thing. Getting it out of the ground is another. This rock has no permeability whatsoever and getting gas to flow takes many wells, high gas prices, technical innovation regarding fracing and completion methods and lots of patience and luck. There are kerogen rich shale deposits all over the basin but very few if any commercial projects underway in Canada. The barnett shale is a hot prospect in Texas but the same methods may not work in Canada's complex geology.
  10. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Sure it is so much better to enjoy unemployment, pot smoking BC ferries employees, union protected mafias and taxing the rare private companies left to do business in BC. No doubt that's a receipe for success... as long as the government gives you two candles, one for light the other for fun, that should keep the envy-ronazis happy.
  11. No Left or Right Just Neutral from Canada writes: Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: How can I make money off of this discovery?

    you got couple of billion dollars lying around? :)
  12. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: We have to quit burning stuff to create energy. Even the most selfish generation in history is starting to wonder what will become of the grandchildren if we keep burning stuff.
  13. david jones from ComoxBC, writes: When will North Americans get it! Most cars in NA should be run by natural gas since the cars are safe, very fuel efficient, & not dependent on foreign oil. In the U.S., I believe Honda has a NG version of the civic which blows away the prius for fuel economy. The Japanese fuel there natural gas cars from their homes.
  14. Sarah Jordaan from Canada writes: In response to David Jones:
    Natural gas is less carbon intensive, but despite these new discoveries it is probably unwise to lock into another transportation technology. Especially when conventional reserves are becoming exhausted and there is increasing demand for natural gas in oil sands development. I think we would have to go to imported LNG or unconventional in a relatively short time frame, the former being dependent on foreign imports, the latter having more severe environmental consequences.
  15. Bob Fedderly from Fort St JOhn, Canada writes: Hopefully the government here will start listening to resident workers and business owners and raise royalties to recognize the fact that most work is done by visitors who already have a shortage of workers in their home jurisdiction. Leave us do our work at home and we promise not to interfere with your oilsands work. We can't have competititve royalties unless we recieve some spin offs as well, which we are willing to work for. The producers are accepting windfall subsidies amounting to about $500 MIllion in the last couple of years from the BC taxpayer, so they should be willing to put a few residents to work, and let us pay a little income tax. Read PST Bulletin 55 to find out how little sales tax the producers pay!!!!!!
  16. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: My poor Vickky do not come even close to your grand children! Do not exhal in their presence because you are harming them with 15,000ppm of CO2! And stop believing your generation is the "most" of anything, except perhaps gullable.
  17. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: We have to quit burning stuff to create energy. Even the most selfish generation in history is starting to wonder what will become of the grandchildren if we keep burning stuff.

    Nice post Viccky, BTW do you know how much energy it takes to run a 750 horse power water pump, which you'd find about 20-30 or so in most hospitals? How does the water reach your domicile - horse and buggy? Your simple ways don't equate with reality, dream on though - solar cells might get you there in 200 years or so, so your Granchildren won't be there anyway (burn a candle to read while you're at it)...
  18. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: Building an Ark: Surely we are more creative and positive than you would have us believe? You are clinging to an old-fashioned cluster of negative beliefs and limitations -- the same cluster of beliefs that says you cannot make profits and take care of society and children at the same time; the same cluster that says we have to pollute in order to create energy.

    Fortunately there are many of us who are creative enough and entrepreneurial enough to ignore your negative limitations. We have lots of alternative ways to create energy without burning stuff or polluting the air -- what we don't have is a lot of brave politicians who are willing to support real change.
  19. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: Building an Ark: Surely we are more creative and positive than you would have us believe?

    Hey Vickky, please do not mistake intentions for physics 101. You may wish for utopian burn-nothing dream, it's not available - not in yours and my lifetime. This past summer I visited an old friend in Idaho - thanks to the Army Corps of Eng's - it is a Hydro-rich state. This buddy has built himself an off-grid, in the hills, wonderfull house with: solar power for lights, ground source heat, earth roof for R-value. Propane to run stove/fridge and instant demand hot water. After all those efforts he confided that in the middle of winter - he burns his wood to keep some heat, and runs his desel generator because there isn't enough sun-light and heat. So Vicks how are you changing your house, and have you got any-where close to not burning anything for your power? Again how does the water reach your house? Living on your own little brook???
  20. jimmy dunnit from Canada writes: oh, yes vicki angstrom, you can't use any energy except what is available now. there is no other way. those who think otherwise are silly and doomed. the roman empire, with several cities of almost a million or more inhabitants, and a population estimated at 40 -50 million subsisted on dirt.
    they didn't have oil. they used this strange apparatus situated between their ears. we call it a brain.
    there are many ways of doing what we are doing now that aren't nearly as wasteful as common technologies currently used.
    that is because we have an abundance of oil. think of all the different things we do with this black sludge that is pumped out of the ground.
    the greatest machine ever for all that diversity of uses and industries?
    the human brain. some just use it to tell you what a ignorant little girl you are. don't waste your time with these simpletons.
  21. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: jimmy dunnit from Canada writes: oh, yes vicki angstrom, you can't use any energy except what is available now.

    There you have it Jim, the real agenda is send us back to oil lamps and pestulance, that might atone for our energy sins. So i'll ask you sir what have you done to your house/ City to make some gains? Hello still reading with bulbs perhaps - wait until you are in need of medical care and they bring in the leeches for your troubles...
  22. jimmy dunnit from Canada writes: i rarely bother to respond but you have the most incredible arrogance.
    "oh look liveticus, that little lump thinks he can defeat us with those tubes on wheels. faw, what a fool."

    you embody hubris! that incredible attitude: "i know everything and i know everything that is going to happen."

    i moved out of the city years ago. i do know i use about a fourth of what you use in energy.
  23. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Jean Malise and Building an Arc:
    Why is that you must take Ms. Angstrom's argument to the extreme? Ms. Angstrom says we should quit using fossil fuels, and you both automatically jump to the conclusion that she is implying that society should stop burning all fuels tomorrow! She didn't say that and I don't believe she meant it.
    Should I assume that since you support the development of new energy fields you waste our current supplies? I bet you would call this statement ridiculous wouldn't you.

    ...The person who fails to even recognize the argument has already lost it...
  24. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Jean Malise and Building an Arc:
    Why is that you must take Ms. Angstrom's argument to the extreme?

    Thanks fot the perspective Ross - visited an island home on Georgian Bay this summer - what a magical part of Canada. This did start however with "We have to quit burning stuff to create energy". It makes me wonder how must pundits realize how services are delivered in our modern life. (and) To you Mr. Dunnit, i'm thinking you are a hipocrite! Still driving I suppose, still burning wood? - and love your laurphing out load reference to the Romans - reminds me of Monty Python - "What did the Romans ever give to us?...the aquaduct!" Perhaps all those Civil Eng's in BC should get to building one aquaduct for the lower mainland, might keep them busy for a couple of generations. Then you can lift the bucket of water over your head for your shower, as you can't raise water 35 stories in a hospital without energy - what a patsy...
  25. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: jimmy dunnit from Canada writes: i rarely bother to respond but you have the most incredible arrogance.you embody hubris! that incredible attitude: "i know everything and i know everything that is going to happen."

    Jim you rarlely bother to respond because no-one taught you manners, or debating skills. "i know everything et al ad nausium" speaks to your words - not mine - although I do suppose it shows your capacity at this level of discussion. In this regard, and on that note I'm quite happy you've moved back into the woods. Hope you don't need society for a long time...
  26. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: Eastern Slopes,

    EVERYBODY realizes that we are currently reliant on fossil fuels. No one is claiming that we aren't. However, to look at this reliance and then say that things must never change is a very dangerous belief. We can GRADUALLY quit burning things for energy. Yes there are physical limits (it takes 1 joule of energy to lift 1 litre of water 1 metre, always will). Fortunately (or unfortunately...) our present social system has plenty of room to adapt.

    For example, why do Canadians use airplanes to travel/mail things across the country when train can do it much more efficiently? The answer to that one my friend is TIME. And as Einstein once famously pointed out, time is relative! Not absolute, not a physical constraint.

    (I thought I could use this one to move beyond your physics 101 textbook, and Mr. Dunnit's Monty Python.)
  27. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes:"...Yes there are physical limits (it takes 1 joule of energy to lift 1 litre of water 1 metre, always will). Fortunately (or unfortunately...) our present social system has plenty of room to adapt."

    Muskuka Ross, you continue to impress, there are physical constraints yes. People also need to adapt - yes! Would Canadians prefer a smaller footprint lifestyle - absolutely. Will it come this year and without costs - no SirYee. That and the migration to cities here (and Worldwide for that matter) is the crucible, on how to change without dimming the lights.
  28. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: Building an Ark: Yes change is terrifying -- and that is as big an obstacle as ignorance about such systems as geothermal heating.

    Resistance to change will slow us down in our quest to quit burning things. But that doesn't mean that it is difficult to find other energy sources that are clean. It simply means that it is difficult to find people with courage and imagination.
  29. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Well hopefully, B.C. runs this better than they did the Ladyfern discovery. If you water out a field, your royalties take a kicking! Anyway, good for them and the company's that made the discovery.
  30. Loris Perez from Hong Kong writes: There are approx. 18,000 Toyota production taxi cabs in Hong Kong, each fitted to run LNG. They are the most noticable but not the only fleet of vehicles running LNG here. The Government currently incents conversion for commercial light trucks and buses as well. A US gallon of gasoline in HK will cost you around $6.00. Given BC's input costs into such a natural gas development as the Northeast, very likely the highest subarctic in North America, perhaps the BC government could waive any royalty in return for an equity stake in the play. It could be a carbon winner if a subsidiary offshoot of the stake was a liquification plant supplying replacement fuel to even a small percentage of the auto and truck fleet. Knowing full well otherwise that once the gas is out of the ground it's headed downline to commercial energy and home heating in the south.
  31. Bob Fedderly from Fort St JOhn, Canada writes: Maybe one day we can spend a little on conversion/transition technology, like CNG/LNG/propane injection into diesel trucks which would help to use up a surplus of propane in the west and help wiith particulate/ghg emissions while we try to find the magic bullet for diesels. New diesels although producing less emissions are about 20% harder on fuel than the last generation of engines. It makes more sense to burn NG in our vehicles than use it to convert sand into oil into diesel to then burn in a vehicle. It might also reduce demand on refined products and who knows maybe the price goes down.
    Meantime people who live in BC are looking forward to working on these encouraging finds and would like to see a system that links tenures or royalties to employment, like some other jurisdictions are doing. Especially in light of the large subsidis going out.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top