Friday, November 09, 2012
Friday, Nov. 9, 2012 A tally of uncounted ballots from the Nov. 6 General Election conducted Friday by the Clatsop County Elections Division resulted in a wider margin between the two candidates in the close race for Gearhart mayor. The new totals, following the count, are now 356 votes for Dianne Widdop and 350 for Bob Shortman. But the complete tally will not be finalized until after Nov. 16, the deadline to resolve some uncounted ballots. On Friday the elections division tallied 48 ballots that remained uncounted after Nov. 6. They included replacement ballots, provisional ballots given to voters whose registration status was unclear, ballots of Clatsop County voters that were dropped off in other counties, and ballots in which the voter signature on the ballot envelope did not match the voter’s registration card. In the case of ballots withheld due to discrepancies in signatures, state law directs county elections officials to notify those voters whose ballots have been set aside and allow them to come to the elections office to verify their ballot signatures. Those voters have 10 days, or until Nov. 16, to respond. If the Gearhart race ends in a margin of one or two votes between the candidates, an automatic hand-recount will conducted, under state election law requiring recounts for margins of less than one-fifth of 1 percent. If the margin is larger, one of the candidates could request a hand recount of ballots in the race, but would have to pay the cost of the recount. The latest ballot totals are available at www.co.clatsop.or.us. Released by: Tom Bennett Community Relations Coordinator (503) 338-3622
Wood Mackenzie: Western Canadian LNG – Corporate Positioning will Impact the Winners and LosersHOUSTON/EDINBURGH/SINGAPORE, 8th November 2012 – Huge gas resources, established and emerging, are increasingly focusing developer attention on western Canadian Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports projects according to an integrated analysis by Wood Mackenzie’s Upstream and Global Gas teams.
Wood Mackenzie notes that several LNG export projects have been proposed on the British Columbia coast, as Canada reaches for new gas markets in Asia. Primarily due to competition from US shale gas, Western Canada’s gas exports have reduced by 4 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in the last five years. This, combined with reduced gas prices, have contributed to the decline of annual gross revenue from western Canada’s gas exports by some US$26 billion, or 80 percent, since 2008. While US export growth could yet return, Asian markets offer Canadian upstream sellers a viable and attractive new monetization opportunity which has the support of provincial and federal governments in Canada.
“The proposed Canadian LNG projects could leverage off the massive gas resource that has emerged in western Canada,” explains Hugh Hopewell, Senior Upstream Research Analyst for Wood Mackenzie. “We estimate resource potential of the Montney, Horn River, and Liard Basin at 280 trillion cubic feet (tcf). The region is also home to other plays currently at earlier stages of exploration, but with huge potential. These include the liquid-rich Duvernay shale, and the remote Cordova Embayment, which could further boost Canada’s gas resource base.”
According to Wood Mackenzie Montney and Horn River plays are the most established resource plays. Of these, Montney is the most attractive resource with breakeven costs as low as US$2.40 per million British thermal units (mmbtu), assisted by its liquids-rich content. The economics of dry Horn River shale gas are further challenged by its more remote location and carbon dioxide content. As a result, Montney gas is better positioned to be monetized for exports as LNG, to the US or the domestic market.
“Recognizing the more cost competitive nature of Montney gas, companies have been positioning themselves in this low-price gas resource,” notes Hopewell. “This includes companies with legacy positions in Horn River, and those actively pursuing LNG, as seen in the proposed acquisitions of Progress by PETRONAS and Celtic Exploration by ExxonMobil. For other operators holding gas resources but with no LNG plans, there are still opportunities - larger companies could enter into Joint Ventures (JVs), while smaller companies could prove to be attractive acquisition targets.”
Meanwhile, Wood Mackenzie underscores that developing Canadian LNG requires significant infrastructure development. Asish Mohanty, Senior Gas Supply Analyst for Wood Mackenzie explains: “Not only do you need to build a liquefaction facility and port infrastructure in a remote location, but you also have to develop a multi-billion dollar pipeline up to 800km long to link these gas resources to the liquefaction plant. That makes it expensive compared to other facilities around the world. In addition, threat of delays and cost overruns are high as there could be resource constraints and cost inflation from having to compete with oil sands projects. Also, achieving environmental and local stakeholder support, including First Nations, will be key to determining whether proposed pipeline and liquefaction facilities are approved. Some projects might have two years of engineering and permitting work ahead of them and they might still not be successful.”
Despite this, aided by its close proximity to Asian markets and its low cost gas resource, Wood Mackenzie believes that a well-managed western Canadian LNG export development could achieve costs of delivery into Asian markets similar to those from major competing options in the US and East Africa – in the US$10-12/mmbtu range.
While global LNG supply competition will restrict Canadian LNG exports Wood Mackenzie notes that Canadian LNG offers some possible advantages over competing sources. These include low political risk, value chain equity investment opportunities, potential for local market sales and the potential to offer liquids rich gas using low cost local liquefied petroleum gas, something that will appeal to specific Asian buyers. It is also possible that a combination of prolonged high-cost environment in Australia, East African delays and US regulatory uncertainty could pass the impetus to Canada. However, the ability of Canadian LNG to realize its potential will, in part, be dependent upon the attitude of the Canadian federal government to international investors.
According to Mohanty, “Some projects, notably Kitimat LNG and the smaller BC LNG, have taken the lead with regulatory approvals, local stakeholder support, site development and engineering. Yet other projects such as Shell’s LNG Canada and Petronas’ proposal with Progress are perceived to be ahead on marketing. Other developers such as BG perceive securing the pipeline route as the key determinant of project success and have made that their priority. The contrasting nature of strengths and weaknesses suggests there is room for project collaboration and consolidation, but the intensity of future corporate positioning will be influenced by the outcome of ongoing regulatory corporate acquisition approvals. While efforts and decisions taken over the next two years will determine the winners and losers in Canadian LNG, the current slate of projects and promoters suggests first western Canadian LNG is unlikely before 2019.”
Access For Attribution
Thursday, November 08, 2012
I could present an essay about trade war, about history and about China. I could draw up graphs and make reasoned arguments but what I cannot answer is why I am making this effort. Why wasn't this story #1 when it happened in 94? Was that the time that the baby fell down the well or the whales got stuck in the ice ? Our fourth estate failed us and why did successive regimes ... sorry ... Administrations pursue an unwavering policy that supported the interests of China resulting in the de-industrialization of the USA and reduced us to a condition of a failed state.
Of course the important thing to notice is that overall manufacturing employment collapses as the hyper exploitation collapsed demand and the unavoidable credit bubble collapsed. Classical economics has no way out of this degeneration. As a result of globalization people are living shorter, poorer and sicker lives deprived of the benefits of increased productivity through social production. And the best part is that they are deprived of the education that might enable them to conceptualize what they are being deprived of.
Just watch this. it is short.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012 (5:00 to 8:00 p.m.)
Holiday Inn Express, Astoria, Oregon
204 West Marine Drive, Astoria, Oregon
This is an opportunity to learn about Oregon’s work to identify appropriate sites for wave energy development in the territorial sea (within three miles of the shore). Although the federal government will issue licenses to operate wave energy installations, the state has the chance to create standards for development and propose locations that have the least conflicts.
The State’s intention is to protect the ocean environment and sea life – including fish, sea birds and marine mammals. Existing uses such as commercial and recreational fishing have been mapped to help determine where wave energy might fit. Over 150 data layers with information about the territorial sea can be explored on Marine Map: http://oregon.marinemap.org/
There are numerous designs and technologies for converting the energy of ocean waves into electricity. You can learn more about the possibilities and what is happening in the industry around the world by visiting the Oregon Wave Energy Trust: http://www.oregonwave.org/
Some wave energy devises can be seen above the sea surface. Recognizing this, the State worked to identify and evaluate over 140 viewpoints along the Oregon Coast, and has created a system designed to protect coastal views.
Several sites along the Oregon Coast are now under consideration for final recommendation. Maps of these sites will be reviewed at the meeting.
This has been a long (over four years) and complicated process. But it’s still important to hear local voices. The nearshore ocean is a crowded place. Do you support responsible ocean renewable energy to reduce the use of carbon fuels? How much of Oregon’s ocean should be dedicated to wave energy? 3%? 5%? 8? Do you have personal knowledge of high value fishing grounds that need more consideration? How stringent should we make visual protection standards? Share what is important to you about the ocean and our future energy sources.
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development will conduct this workshop and receive public comments for the Territorial Sea Plan Advisory Committee (TSPAC) and the Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). Public Comments can also be submitted by one of these methods:
1) http://www.oregonocean.info (use Ocean Energy tab on main page);
2) submit to Paul Klarin, DLCD by email to firstname.lastname@example.org;
3) submit by email to TSP.Comments@state.or.us;
4) mail to Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development, 635 Capitol Street, NE, Suite 150, Salem, Oregon 97301-2540.