Assessing the Economic Viability of an LNG Terminal in Newfoundland: With Export to European Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I analyze the economic viability of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Newfoundland, with export to European markets. Natural gas is extracted offshore Newfoundland & Labrador and transported via pipeline to shore. The natural gas liquids (NGLs) and impurities are then separated from the pure methane. The NGLs are processed at an NGL processing plant and sold on their respective markets. The impurities are discarded and the natural gas is then liquefied and loaded onto double hulled tankers, which will transport the LNG to European markets. Capital and operating expenditures are calculated, with a 20 year production profile. Royalties are analyzed and compared using the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland royalty systems. Provincial and Federal corporate income taxes are also included in the analysis. The pipeline and LNG transport will be contracted out to outside parties. The producer will operate the production facility, as well as the LNG and NGL stations. Three reserve scenarios are analyzed (4-6 trillion cubic feet) and an internal rate of return (IRR) on the project is determined for the producer until different price scenarios, which range from $6 CDN/MMBtu to $16 CDN/MMBtu. The project is considered to be economically viable if the IRR is at least 15%, according to industry standards set by Husky Energy, operating from St. John’s, Newfoundland. Given that the price of natural gas in Europe is expected to increase to nearly $14 CDN/MMBtu in 2016, the project is deemed to be economically viable under all reserve scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".