Mr. Tom Fletcher (Shuswap Market News) and Mr. Greg Kyllo both trumpet the Nirvana that they claim is the future for B.C. LNG.
While I am not against the effective development of B.C. resources, I do challenge their overblown rhetoric.
While the Chinese economy now tanks and will have dramatic and long-term impacts on Australia, New Zealand and Canada, I would be more cautious with any claims for B.C. LNG. It is possible that world demand for LNG from B.C. might vapourize.
We need to be realistic that the energy intensive LNG process, added to the intensive fracking of natural gas will require huge amounts of energy from Public (BC Hydro) utilities to feed the LNG projects throughout their useful life; then what costs will be borne by B.C. citizens in the long term?
These costs, as learned over many years by Alberta, take the form of extended depreciation periods, lower resource taxes, delayed revenue until proponents have paid off their investment ($36 billion), massive amounts of manufacturing and modularization offshore (cheaper labour Mr. Fletcher), huge B.C. infrastructure costs to service the projects, major revenue streams going permanently to foreign governments and corporations rather than to B.C. coffers, and the list goes on.
Several sources claim there will be dramatic impact upon salmon and other species.
What you propose is a guaranteed return on investment for foreign investors, low resource tax and huge infrastructure costs, before B.C. citizens see any, if at all, benefits. Does that make sense?
Imagine what B.C. could achieve if we spent a small fraction of these never-to-be-recovered allowances to foreign shareholders and corporations instead on B.C. health care, education, made-in-B.C. energy initiatives? I know this idea does not have the pizazz that both these gentlemen look for.
So Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Kyllo, please provide a more balanced and responsible approach that the citizens of B.C. deserve.
Frank O’Donnell
Salmon Arm