Friday, September 21, 2012


The role of liquefied Natural Gas has been the focus of discussion in the debate over alternative energy sources for the island of Newfoundland and Labrador. A number of proponents of a natural gas solution have argued that Natural gas can piped to the island  at a significantly lower cost than a power line from Labrador

There is not shortage of supply. The three producing fields are re-injecting or burning off natural gas that could be used to drive turbines to generate electricity in this province. 5.34 Trillion Cubic feet of recoverable Natural Gas has been identified.

According to Memorial Engineering professor Dr. Stephen Bruneau , the CCG equivalent in excess of 2600MW of power is produced in associated natural gas at  the existing offshore production facilities- that he is says is greater than the entire capacity of island generation, greater than the prospective capacity of the lower Churchill. Here is a link to Dr. Bruneau's latest data on producing electricity from natural gas for the island of Newfoundland which he presented in March 2012.

While we debate the cost and technology, Conservative NaturalResources Minister Joe Oliver is trumpeting Canada’s liquefied natural gas industry.

Oliver told the Liquefied Natural Gas Producer-Consumer Conference in Tokyo that there are plans to add five new LNG plants on B.C.'s north coast. There are tremendous opportunities for LNG in Asia where the product has ten times the value as it does in North America.

Newfoundland and Labrador also has the potential for natural gas development in the future. Why are we not leading the LNG race, instead of risking being bypassed? The government and industry has studied the technical and economic aspects of developing a pipeline or LNG industry.

As indicated by the demand in Asia, a lot has changed in ten years.

The potential investment represents billions of dollars in industrial development and insular supply of energy.

Obviously there are sufficient supplies of natural gas to meet the  long-term energy demands on the Island? If BC & Alberta see the opportunities, why can't we?  Is the big barrier that Muskrat has become an industry on to itself?

Makes one wonder if we are putting all our eggs in one basket based on on old ideas.


Greg Locke said...

Because it is NOT renewable and would cost as much as Muskrat Falls to build the infrastructure to bring it onshore.

Anonymous said...

At this time the gas located offshore is stranded. The cost to get the gas from the existing fields to onshore is an order of magnitude more expensive than muskrat falls. Labrador has much more gas which again is not economical viable using present technology.

I firmly believe that these resources, like the oil a generation ago, will be successful developed. Unfortunately it will take more time before proven technology is available for our harsh environment. These technologies are coming, Google floating LNG as an example of technology that might employed off our shores in the not too distant future.

Anonymous said...

we kept getting spoon feed this crap about the technology not being there! The demand is there, the science is there. All that is missing is the leadership to end the high grading of the crude.

Anonymous said...

Fact is that if there was a profit to be made from gas using existing technology at today's prices then it would be happening. Profit is not a dirty is what drives the free economy and why we choose to go to work!

Show me the numbers and the facts that back your assertion that bringing gas onshore is economical feasable in today's market conditions.

Just saying..

Anonymous said...

Why do we think that the owners & operators of these fields (that need the gas injection to keep the money making oil flowing) would invest in the infrastructure and sell us the product at a price that makes it "cheap"???

Peter L. Whittle said...


read my post again. I ask questions and never once stated that I believe it is economically feasible at this point. It would have to be feasible.

My point is that we have have the resource, that the oil companies are by the accord to invest in R&D and natural gas will pay at some point.

Lets not forget the millions/ billions that the government of canada and NL spent in PIP grants ans other incentives to get the offshore oil industry going in the first place!

Let us not forget that we have allowed the companies to overproduce from original estimates..drawing down the non-renewable resource much quicker, reducing the long term economic impact.

I am just asking questions and than presenting some of the answers in the form of reports commissioned by the industry.

It is not an either or with me. The technology has improved, perhaps we should be looking at an updated review to the 2002 reporr.

Just saying...

Anonymous said...

Why do we need gas OR Muskrat in the first place?