How will Interlake's LNG plans be affected?

[Richard Jenkins]

Somebody wrote, "since when did this board become the place to talk politics?" on this post and I have to say I don't think there is a better place.

Actually what I said was "Since when did it become ok to post political rants on here?", big difference. Certainly there are policy decisions that have a direct impact on our beloved Great Lakes shipping industry, whether it's funding for dredging projects and the new Poe-sized lock at the Soo, or new ballast water regulations, marine emission standards, foreign steel subsidies, or some corrupt politician with a personal vendetta against some historic ship or another, these are all perfectly valid politics-related topics that have a direct impact on Great Lakes shipping. The original post, I believe, falls squarely into this category.

Vague references to the Constitution, and the current (or past) administration's apparent lack of respect for it, on the other hand, would fall into the category of a political rant, and we all know how quickly discussions that lead down this road can turn ugly. There are people of ALL different political persuasions (and several different nationalities) who all come here to share our common interest in Great Lakes shipping. There are plenty of other places on the internet for Conservative/Liberal/Libertarian/Green/Monster-Raving-Loony-Party/whatever chest-thumping. Want to get into a discussion on the Constitution? Fine, as long as it's USS Constitution.

[Guest]

It's clear that Ontario is leading the way to cleaner energy. They are starting to use wind power to generate a large part of their power needs. The shipment of coal to Ontario is down almost 50 %. The Badger started their season 2 weeks early to transport wind mill blades and towers to U.S.A. installations. Global warming because of green house gasses generated by coal is a proven fact. Some folks are slow learners and don't have a plan for our future. I'd prefer to take care of our space and leave a cleaner place for future folks.

[boatbuddy]

Canada is a federal system just like the USA. The government of Canada is not involved in switching coal fired electrical plants to natural gas. That is the doing of the current government of the province of Ontario. Carrying various cargoes on the lakes between Canada and the US or other countries overseas is under federal regulation and the Ontario government has no say in it.

[Randy S]

The time for pointing our fingers at all the other guys and, what the other guys are doing or not doing, has got to stop. Global warming is here and caused by burning coal. It's time we took care of where we live and stop using cheap coal to generate more green house gasses. Let's lead by example.

But its ok for the US to export a viable source of energy to other countries? Then some of those same countries use the coal produce products that are exported to North America to compete with "home-made" products. This is OK with you? Just asking

[Denny]

What I don't get is this, the Canadian government people want to have the coal fired plants to switch over to a better source of fuel and not be so dependent on coal power. Okay I got that one but, it don't make any sense when you consider the EPA is not doing anything so far and yet about the U.S. coal fired power plants and ships carrying coal as well. One other thing that don't make sense is the Canadian government talks about the coal fired plants yet, you have ships from CSL hauling coal to Quebec and sometimes Nova Scotia and New Brunswick along with Pet Coke and yet I don't hear anything being said on that issue or any rumblings. Just my two cents on this subject.

[poncho1]

Politics aside, coal is being replaced by natural gas by simple economic forces. The EPA was already on companies that generate power to get away from coal, A lot of coal fired plants are due for update or replacement and along comes an abundant supply of cheap natural gas. I am sure that the environmental movement will declare victory in coals demise when it may have gone away on it's own....

[Andrew]

Really all the allegations made for the so called global warming by our pollution is really false. I read that natural sources such as hot springs, volcanoes, and other thermal features release about 360 trillion tons of CFCs to our 360,000 tons. The earth goes into slight climate changes and has over it's 4.6 billion years. About 800 years ago in the middle ages earth entered into a mini ice age that killed crops that were being raised in Italy and other parts of Europe. This caused the Europeans to have to buy grain from China, which, when shipped, brought with it the Bubonic Plague. So slight temperature variations aren't that uncommon- we are in a slightly warmer period now but sooner or later it will cool down. I don't care what Al Gore tells me- he should come up here to the midwest and experience our cold winters. Then I'd like to see him think our temps are spiking up really fast. Somebody wrote, "since when did this board become the place to talk politics?" on this post and I have to say I don't think there is a better place. Shipping is directly related to the way our politicians run our country. And the way our politicians are governing these days we won't have the right to openly state our opinion anymore in a few years.

[Guest]

The time for pointing our fingers at all the other guys and, what the other guys are doing or not doing, has got to stop. Global warming is here and caused by burning coal. It's time we took care of where we live and stop using cheap coal to generate more green house gasses. Let's lead by example.

[Patrick]

What I don't understand is why our government leaders and activist groups don't target the real polluters. Those being our own federal government and developing nations. I see plenty of pictures from Beijing of people having to wear breathing masks try and protect themselves from the heavy heavy air pollution there. It seems to me improvements there and in other developing industrial nations would have a much larger impact and be more cost effective then anything we could do here.

[Guest]

I was listening to North Country Public Radio, a National Public Radio affiliate. They had a long episode that I presume was nationally syndicated with several individuals that were referred to as experts invited to the program. I was in the car and the oldies station wasn't playing anything good, so I listened out of boredom despite being a conservative and often being annoyed by their liberal slants since occasionally I do catch something interesting on there.

My impression is that those on both sides of the fence, the detractors and the supporters, agreed that this will cause large increases in energy prices particularly for natural gas as large coal burning facilities are shut down and the cheapest alternative is chosen which naturally will result in large increases in demand natural gas and drive prices up.

The difference seemed to be disagreement on the outcomes if we don't implement Obama's plans and if we can afford inaction. The debate wasn't on energy prices since there seemed to be a consensus on the impact this initiative will have there. The debate was if these added burdens really were cheap and a bargain in comparison to the possible results which include the worst case projections over the next century of inaction that project things such as a 6' rise in ocean levels.

Like I said in my first post, I'm no expert here with this field. But I do have experience with mechanical engineering and I have my MBA and experience in areas like economics. And I see no way that this environmental initiative won't significantly increase fuel prices and thus the cost of doing business.

So I think the effect on energy prices is a very valid conclusion although to just what degree I don't know. Hence my question here asking people to speculate and make a guess on how this will affect Interlake's LNG ambitions since this is quite possibly a wrinkle that they didn't expect a few months ago when they gave it the green light.

[Guest]

The things I've read from energy experts about Obama's executive order a day or two ago regarding his new environmental initiative points towards large increases in natural gas prices due to the war on coal just being ratcheted up several notches.

Do you have a non-partisan source of this information? When searching, the only criticism I can find on the EO is from a highly partisan website. Who are the ‘energy experts’ you refer to?

[Richard Jenkins]

Wow, since when did it become ok to post political rants on here? Considering that when the Constitution was written, the Industrial Revolution in this country consisted of a handful water-powered textile mills, I highly doubt things like greenhouse gases, global warming, and green energy ever crossed the Founding Fathers' minds.

[Denny]

Well, our roads are another problem as it seems here in Michigan they are taking them away from us as well. I don't think there is a road in Michigan right now that they are not working on and I just wish they would not work on every road at the same time. If the darn government would just stop giving out the money and also the stimulus money to fix the roads maybe we can all drive on them without any construction chaos. Just my two cents on this.

[Andrew]

Amen, Ohio Bob. Where are our rights the founding fathers worked for? They are being taken away one by one.

[Ohio Bob]

Executive Orders. Carbon Tax?

Sigh...

Does anyone remember the Constitution of the United States of America.

Sadly no.

[Guest]

I would think that those states that rely on coal-fired power plants for the majority of their energy needs will fight this in court. So President Obama may sign an executive order in regards to coal-fired power plants, that doesn't mean that the results he wants will come overnight. It will be a long drawn out battle with some states.

[Guest]

The things I've read from energy experts about Obama's executive order a day or two ago regarding his new environmental initiative points towards large increases in natural gas prices due to the war on coal just being ratcheted up several notches.

As this turns more of our energy consumption to natural gas, raises fuel prices, and raises the cost of doing business in general, this surely will be a factor in several large scale studies of natural gas like BNSF Railway's and of course Interlake's announced intentions. Not only does it affect what Interlake projects to be paying for LNG but it presumably will have significant impacts on the very industries they're making this investment in order to serve.

Anyone care to speculate? Presumably energy prices on more traditional fuels like diesel will also be rising as a result. Will the savings still likely be enough to justify this investment or will this quite possibly close the gap enough over the long term where the rate of return no longer justifies the investment?

I'm no expert, but I can't help but think our national priorities would be best directed towards advancements in coal burning technology that mitigate much of the harm.