There are many subjects that I could talk about this week.
The tragic loss of life in the nation's capital immediately comes to mind, but what can I say? We are all saddened by the loss. I just don't understand how people can get to the point in their lives where they think shooting someone will solve their problems.
Another subject could be the freighter Simushir, which was adrift off the Pacific coast. It came close to running aground on Haidi Gwaii. The rescue illustrated the tenacity and skill of our coast guard along with the crew of the Barbara Foss. Disaster was averted, which gives us hope.
At the same time, it is fairly evident that disaster was in the making. Similar close calls will likely be common if the pipelines are put into play - particularly those for shipping natural gas.
The acronym LNG stands for liquefied natural gas. The liquefaction requires the natural gas to be cooled to -162 C, which is very cold - even by Prince George standards. The gas is then loaded into refrigerated tanks on ships bound for Asia markets. The potential for disaster is much higher than with bitumen but not as devastating as the natural gas will evaporate over time whereas the bitumen will sink.
Needless to say, the prospect of any ship running aground off the coast is a major reason to not develop tanker traffic but the fact that a ship in distress was rescued suggests tanker traffic might safely ply the waters. Maritime safety is shades of gray - not black and white. I guess it all depends on your view of the risk-to-benefit ratio.
A third and related subject that we could discuss is the enabling legislation for LNG in B.C., except it is a complicated bill. It would appear that we will come out ahead over the course of time. But it would also appear that it might cost us in the short run.
Or maybe not.
In any case, the government appears to have blinked when it came face to face with Petronas. The tabled legislation will "strike the right balance between a competitive and economic environment and a fair return to British Columbians," declared Finance Minster Mike de Jong.
But to achieve that balance, the government had to back away from its seven per cent proposal. The new Liquefied Natural Income Tax Act will see a rate of 1.5 per cent when production begins but rising to 3.5 per cent after capital costs have been recovered. A final increase to five per cent will occur after January 1, 2037.
The net result is a decrease in the projected revenue from LNG depending on what gets built, when, and by whom. The province's revenue will also depends on price, supply, and competitors. In the end, we might see only a few billion in revenue.
It is estimated that one mid-size LNG plant could contribute $900 million to the provincial coffers each year. That is a lot of money, but it has left many British Columbians wondering if the government should have held out for more. Particularly given the promises made by Christy Clark and the Liberals during the last election that LNG wealth would eliminate the provincial debt.
Minister de Jong is now telling us that it could take "an extra 10 to 15 years" to achieve the debt elimination goal although at the rate our provincial debt is climbing, even that would seem to be a lofty target. I wonder what would happen if I told the credit card company that I will pay my balance off but it will take "an extra 10 to 15 years."
In any case, the government has built its tax regime in writing. It will now be a case of seeing if the companies will come.
Of course, in putting the new LNG tax regime in place, we also have the government including incentives so that we can have the greenest LNG industry on the planet. Carbon tax credits and the like sound good but in the end, methane still leads to carbon dioxide.
All of these are serious subjects and I could write about them but in sitting down to write this week's column, I thought I would try to write something with a little more cheek.
Site C has passed both provincial and federal environmental assessment. It would appear that it is well on its way although we have been told by the B.C. Liberals it is not yet a "done deal." Site C is supposed to provide electrical power for more than 450,000 homes.
But where are those homes going to be? In the north? No. They are going to be in Vancouver.
So rather than building Site C, why not build a nuclear power station on Burrard Inlet? That would make a lot more sense than flooding the Peace.
