auto58194@hushmail.com wrote

Sorry, such is the nature of free (and shared) markets. If anything you should thank California; if they had been building more power plants, they'd be buying more natural gas and driving up your prices even more.

Actually if California had been building power plants in recent years we would not have this short term price issue. If they had built a power plant they would have committed to a supplier of natural gas who would have arranged a supply (drill wells) and arranged delivery (build pipeline capacity). The problem now is no one in California made commitments so the market did not build supply and delivery capacity. California consumers are now forced to purchase their requirements in a commodity market causing the current distortions.

Besides, have your prices gone up beyond your acceptable level because of California, because of cold weather, because your neighbour replaced his oil burner with a gas furnace, or because Williams Company has been spending its money laying fiber optics instead of more gas pipelines?

The consumer price for natural gas here is based on the delivery price at Sumas Washington which is a pipeline crossing into the USA and a major supply point to California. The cost to heat my home will have more than doubled by January 1st. The price I must pay is heavily influenced by demand in California. It is always cold here and the furnace is even used in the summer. There are more people in California than in all of Canada and most Canadians live on the other side of the continent. This market is much too small to influence the price of natural gas. In the past natural gas prices were determined by the price of oil. When oil prices were low exploration companies had less capital available for exploration. In general exploration companies only search for natural gas when they have delivery contracts. Collection systems, pipelines, are only built when there is a market for the natural gas. If natural gas power plants were built in California the gas would be available. If oil prices had been higher in recent years exploration companies would have probably have attempted to build reserves of natural gas but chances are the delivery system would not be in place so there would still be a shortage.

Natural gas is a great fuel source. You, lots of Californians, and I made a good choice in deciding to use it. Perhaps we need to reevaluate our decisions given the current situation, but blaming others for making the same decision we did doesn't make much sense.

Natural gas is a good choice but maybe not the best. While natural gas is considered clean burning the emissions for even a smaller plant is measured in the thousands of tonnes per year. There is some risk involved with pipelines, if they break there is always a fire if not an explosion. There will now be significant political pressure to bring Alaskan natural gas to the California market, lots of issues here to keep the liberal tree huggers busy for years. There are only two ways to get it to the market, pipeline or liquidify it and use a tanker. I believe I would rather have nuclear power plant in my neighbourhood than a liquidified natural gas facility.

Sure it can, you can just take yourself out of California's market. Buy yourself a wood stove and petition your government to build/encourage more nuclear power plants. (Hey, the bottom's fallen out of the nuclear fuel rod market and I doubt California's going to be responsible for price increases in that market any time soon.)

It would be nice if you could wave a magic wand and separate markets, but that cure would be probably worse than the disease. The current pricing issue is a short term one. A few years of higher prices and the market will response with more supply and delivery capacity. I have done the wood stove thing and it is a bunch of work plus it is very hard on air quality. Coal fired furnaces are less work but very hard on air quality. It would be nice if Californians took responsibility for their lifestyle, built the power plants in California and dealt with environmental issues themselves. You have a choice, if you don't want power plants, don't use power. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "Need Someone To Tell You What To Do?" FBN - The Consultants http://www.fbn.bc.ca/consultg.html

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May"

Perhaps you can lobby your politicians to allow nuclear power plants to be built in [British Columbia], then.

The politicians are the only electricity producers in British Columbia.

Tim May wrote

Size of a market is a shifting concept. British Columbia and Vancouver are certainly large markets.

Compared to California markets this is a small market. Two million folks in the metro area and 3 million total in the province (state).

If there were a nuclear power plant in western Canada, much of its output would likely go to Vancouver. Guess what? No nuke plants in western Canada.

The size of the market makes nuclear power impractical. BC is a net exporter of energy. Lots of electricity, some oil and some natural gas. They have dammed a bunch of waterways.

...

tanker. I believe I would rather have nuclear power plant in my neighbourhood than a liquidified natural gas facility.

Perhaps you can lobby your politicians to allow nuclear power plants to be built in your region, then.

Everyone gets excited about the dangers of nuclear power plants. In areas where sour natural gas is produced there is a lot of environmental damage. The original reason for settling Canada was to trap animals, skin them and sell the furs to Europe. Fur trappers didn't care if you dammed the rivers and poisoned the air and ground with hydrogen sulphate. If you work around sour gas you are advised that if your co-worker suddenly collapses you don't attempt to help him as he is probably already dead. You are advised to run upwind as fast as possible. They find cattle raised near sour gas wells and production facilities suffer from a significant increase in birth defects and still borns. There is some evidence appearing that man suffers the same problems as the animals.

...

tanker. I believe I would rather have nuclear power plant in my neighbourhood than a liquidified natural gas facility.

Perhaps you can lobby your politicians to allow nuclear power plants to be built in your region, then.

I have lived and worked around gas plants and sour gas production facilities. I have done my hazardous duty. Again, until you witness the environmental damage associated with the energy business you have no idea...

This whole post shows a shaky understanding of economics. You are bitching and moaning that someone else's bids on power exceed what you would like to pay.

This is my second go around on the energy boom cycle. The only reason you are paying more is because of bad planning or producers not being allowed to build capacity when they wanted. There is no shortage, just some distribution problems.

"I would like to have a Ferrari Testarossa, but there are so many people around the world willing to pay such outrageous prices that the prices have simply gotten out of control. If Californian would take responsibility for their outrageous lifestyles, there would not be so many Californians buying Ferraris and we people in British Columbia would have a chance to afford them."

Being that BC and Alberta are big energy exporters there are lots of folks, and organizations, making big money on the current problems. I don't believe "around the world" is factual. There is lots of natural gas in the distribution system which is not connected to California.

As for your own energy needs, install propane. This is what I have. And fill the tank well in advance of when spot market fluctuations drive the price up.

Problem with propane is that it stinks so bad and it puts out a lot of moisture when burnt. Propane is a commodity and it has seen some wild fluctuation in recent years.

Or move to a warmer clime. Living in the far north _does_ carry a price.

I lived in the tropics for 8 years. I prefer the temperate rain forest where I currently reside. I like cool and rainy. One of my complaints about Vancouver is that it doesn't rain enough, too many nice sunny days. The problem with hot places is you can only take off so much clothing and you will still be hot. In cold climates you can put on more clothes and eat red meat to keep warm.

Also, bear in mind that a lot of off-peak power is shipped into Canada from the Bonneville Power Administration. It seems we Yanks had the foresight to dam the Columbia River back in the 1930s. It's a reason the Hanford Nuclear Reservation was located in the Tri-Cities area--cheap and plentiful power--and it's a reason several aluminum smelters, including a Canadian one, located there.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) paid for a series of dams whose main purpose was to hold water for their power generation system. This series of dams were completed in the late 60s and they paid a set fee for the first 30 years of water rights or downstream benefits. After 30 years the downstream benefits were to be returned to BC or BPA had the option to purchase those benefits. The downstream benefits were to be returned to BC as power. Initially BPA promised $250 million for some set term and BC agreed to take the money. At the last minute BPA decided the benefits were not worth the offered price and advised BC to accept less or take the power. BC took the power. BPA made this decision when it appeared electricity was a commodity with an ever decreasing price. Good management team, I bet they got a bonus for this deal. On a more serious note these dams have created significant environmental impact. They turned hundreds of miles of river into lakes part of the year and made a big mess. No one is complaining now that we receive the full whack of downstream benefits. Actually there was not many complaints in 30 years.

And a bunch of chip companies.

Administration, I wouldn't be surprised at all if more net power doesn't flow across _into_ B.C. than out of it.

There are no chip companies manufacturing here. They have design centers in Vancouver as there are enough skilled workers to make the effort worth the expense. Your hunch was wrong, BC and Alberta are big energy exporters even though Alberta is experiencing some shortfall in electrical generating capacity. Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "The Ultimate Enterprise Security Experts" http://www.fbn.bc.ca/sysecurt.html