According to the Throne Speech, we in British Columbia, are: "blessed with an abundance of natural gas, the cleanest non-renewable fuel on the planet. We have a surplus that can meet the real and pressing needs of other economies, especially those on our Pacific doorstep. In doing so, we can help protect our planet."
It goes on to say: "This can trigger a possible $1 trillion in cumulative GDP benefit to our province over the next 30 years."
So, it is not that surprising that much of the anticipated revenue going forward and the long term economic prospects for the BC Liberals' Budget and Fiscal Plan 2013/14 - 2015/16 hangs on natural gas exportation.
It is almost as if LNG has become the saving mantra of this government. LNG will save us. LNG is good. LNG will keep us. We don't need wood.
Of course, not to pour too much cold water on this parade, we are not exporting LNG yet except through conventional pipes to the United States. Nor is there capacity in the near future. Nor is LNG quite the benign substance that the government is making it out to be.
Consider that 86 per cent of the world's energy needs are met by some combination of the three principal forms of fossil fuels - oil, coal, and natural gas. Each has its own benefits. Each comes with its own problems.
For example, coal is easy to transport because it is a solid but it has a low energy-to-carbon-dioxide-emitted ratio. And the combustion of coal is linked to dirty emissions such as those seen in any picture of a major Chinese city.
Natural gas, on the other hand, has a much higher energy-to-carbon-dioxide-emitted ratio and from this point of view it might be considered "cleaner" than coal. Less natural gas is required for the same amount of work and the emissions from the stacks tend to be cleaner.
However, it is still emitting carbon dioxide when it is burnt. Saying that it is the "cleanest non-renewable fuel" is not the same thing as saying that it is a "clean fuel". Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will still increase, just not as fast.
In the short term, this might be considered a good thing but long term it still gets us to the end of the 21st century with unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Further, natural gas is a gas. That is, it is a gaseous substance. To put it in chemical terms, one mole or 16 grams of natural gas occupies about 24 litres of space at room temperature. For oil, 16 grams occupies about 20 mL of volume or 0.020 litres of space at the same temperature. For coal, it is even less.
As long as gas is being pushed along a pipe, this doesn't really matter much. The gas put in at one end pushes gas out the other.
However, if you are trying to ship natural gas overseas, then pipelines are not possible. Instead, the gas needs to be converted to liquid form - hence, Liquified Natural Gas or LNG. This means cooling the gas to -162 C.
This results in two hazards. The first is the potential of explosion. The first such occurred in 1944 at an LNG storage facility in Cleveland, Ohio, and killed 128 people while injuring many more with second degree burns. These sorts of accidents are common, such as 2003 explosion at a natural gas liquefaction plant in Algeria.
The second is a sudden gas release. The assumption is that methane being lighter than air would not present a major problem. However, cold methane will not dissipate very quickly. Rather, it will form a cold, un-breathable fog. Most LNG plants are now being built in offshore locations - on piers or at the end of causeways - to minimize the potential risks to people.
LNG may be the savior of the British Columbia economy. It may provide the trillion dollars in revenue forecast (although most industry analysts responding to the budget think that number is highly optimistic). It may even be the stop gap until truly clean energy technology surfaces.
But it will not come without short and long term costs.
However, one thing that is for certain is that natural gas will provide revenue into the British Columbia coffers and jobs for our people.
This is something that those in favour of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline don't seem to understand. The oil that will flow through the pipe is not from B.C. nor is it for consumption in B.C. It is just passing through.
We will not get any economic benefits from the oil. The money will end up in the pockets of the Alberta government. If they want to use or abuse our coast, they should have to pay for the right.
