Category Archives: LNG

BC LNG: Boon or Boondoggle?LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is one of biggest energy stories to hit Western Canada. It is promoted as a clean bridge fuel that will create thousands of jobs and turn British Columbia into a trillion-dollar global energy leader. The idea is to cool natural gas into liquid, so it can be shipped to higher-price markets in Asia. But is it really all it’s cracked up to be? And what are the trade-offs and impacts associated with LNG and the fracked gas that would feed it?

The Common Sense Canadian is your go-to source for in-depth analysis of the potential benefits and risks of this “game-changing” industry.

Rafe-Is 'lying' too strong a word for Clark Libs' LNG fibs

Rafe: Is ‘lying’ too strong a word for Clark Libs’ LNG fibs?

Share
Rafe-Clark's LNG fibs piling up
BC Premier Christy Clark addresses a conference on LNG (Damien Gillis)

I really need your help.

What the devil does one call premier Christy Clark, considering that she seems utterly incapable of telling the truth? Hers is an interesting case because her gross economy with the truth seems designed to get her away from whatever her current difficulty is, onto something different. Whether this amounts to “lying” in the accepted sense of that term, I don’t know.

“Disassembling”? “Fibbing”?

[quote]I would love to see prosperity come to my province…Unfortunately, it is just a dream.[/quote]

All BC’s eggs in LNG basket

Never mind the fact that she has no policy whatsoever with respect to pipelines and tankers – simply lofty sounding words with no meaning whatsoever. Let’s leave that aside for today and move onto something more critical, I think, because she has staked so much of her political life on it. Indeed, she has staked the wellbeing of our province on it.

I refer for you to page B7 of the Vancouver Sun for July 23 and an op-ed by Mark Jaccard, an acknowledged energy expert and Nobel laureate.

When Dr. Jaccard told his guests at an energy conference, during the 2013 provincial election, about the promises premier Clark was making with respect to LNG development in British Columbia, they broke into laughter.

God knows I am no expert on these matters but you will recall that I was laughing at her too.

It turns out that Dr. Jaccard’s audience and I were laughing at the same thing and it had nothing to do with energy science.

BC LNG business case bankrupt

My research was very simple. I read trade journals and as much editorial comment as I could find on the Internet. One thing became very clear and it did not take a brain surgeon to understand it.

For a company to invest billions of dollars In LNG plants, pipelines and tankers, a couple of basic things had to be in place.

First of all, there had to be a supply of product – that one wasn’t a problem, there was an over supply.

Secondly, there had to be the certainty of a market. That there were lots of potential “markets” around was true – the real question was whether or not these markets needed BC, considering their other alternatives. In short, there had to be firm contracts in place from which the markets could not escape. We are no closer to that today than we were during the election.

[signoff3]

The third and critical point was the price to be paid for the product. No entrepreneur is going to sink a lot of money into a project unless he knows that he is going to make a profit. That is the nature of capitalism. What seems clear to me – and also true to Dr. Jaccard’s audience – is that there is no potential market BC could depend upon at any price, let alone a certain price.

In determining future BC prosperity from natural gas, one was flying in the dark. I won’t go into the details but please read the article and you’ll see how complicated it is to predict the price of natural gas under the best of circumstances, which these are not.

The China Syndrome

One of the obvious customers for BC is China. I recall saying then that China had a great many options, not the least of which was the largest supply of gas in the world in Russia, along with a huge supply of shale gas within China itself.

One could go on analyzing markets and that’s not my bailiwick – suffice it to say that the questions raised at that time by Dr. Jaccard, his audience and by me, are no closer to being answered now that they were then.

Clark government in denial

None of this has daunted the Clark government in the slightest. They carry on as if LNG plants are going to spring up all over British Columbia and we will be awash in profits.

At this point, one might usefully go back to the election itself. Such was the enthusiasm for Ms. Clark to get elected one might say her statements about LNG were somewhat extravagant. You may recall that at the very beginning, we were told that BC, by 2017, would have all its debts paid and $100 billion in a Prosperity Fund!

Somewhere along the way, after the election was safely behind her, someone must have whispered into Premier Clark’s ear just how much money $100 billion was. It also became evident to the premier that 2017 was rather an optimistic date and that since she didn’t have to worry about an election for another four years, perhaps that might be scaled and the whole question of provincial debt best mumbled away and forgotten.

The point of this exercise is that either British Columbia is going to have a substantial LNG industry or it is not.

The next question of course is that if we are, then when?

The honest approach to this question would be, we simply do not know. A premier and a government being square with the voters would simply say that. They would point out that since “fracking” became all the rage, all bets are off as to the supply of natural gas and, indeed, oil in the world. All assumptions and estimates are now highly questionable.

The changing global energy landscape

There seems to be no question that there is a need for this new supply – but just who needs what and from whom is a huge question, which is nowhere near being settled. Old trading patterns are changing and none of the old truths can any longer be relied upon.

Moreover, there are serious political problems which will enter into the picture. For example, what does the change in world petroleum supply mean to the Middle East and the political relationships of countries with that region? Now that the United States is approaching self-sufficiency, what impact will that have in the geopolitical sense? One might think that this is irrelevant to the other questions I have raised, but not so. The natural rules of the marketplace are always trumped by considerations of world politics.

These are the facts that the public of British Columbia ought to know and understand; these are the facts that responsible, honest political leaders bring to the attention of voters.

To have taken the very best possibilities arising out of this new petroleum situation in the world and paint them as if the inevitable answer was fabulous prosperity for BC is as irresponsible a piece of political chicanery as I, in a long life, have ever seen. Moreover, the child-like deception continues, day after day.

Like every other British Columbian, I would love to see prosperity come to my province. To be able to all live better and to have our social ills dealt with in a more thorough and humane manner is a lovely dream to have. Unfortunately, it is just a dream.

Where does NDP opposition stand?

As of this writing, the NDP leader, John Horgan, has re-shuffled his shadow cabinet with energy split amongst several critics. Since the last election, the NDP have been a great disappointment in their effort to be the loyal opposition. They have not held the government’s feet to the fire – rather, they have been busy infighting and sorting out their internal disorder. Let’s hope that this has now changed.

It is by no means too late. I don’t give a damn whether or not the NDP is socialist or what it might be in its official political philosophy. Those sorts of terms are long out of date and useful only as political rhetoric during an election. Most political parties now are in the center of the road and appealing to people in all walks of life. I do not fear that the NDP would suddenly be nationalizing our businesses or bringing in secret police to enforce their version of humane practices.

What the NDP must present to the people of British Columbia is an honest appraisal of what the issues are and where we stand.

The current Christy Clark government is incapable of telling the truth, if to do so would in any way impair their popularity. One does not expect them to be paragons of political integrity – God knows they’re a long way from that. But on such an important matter as our natural gas industry, the truth is essential if the public is to understand our fiscal future.

The Christy Clark government’s position on LNG is, as Dr. Jaccard and his audience indicated, funny as hell.

Unfortunately, it is also tragic.

Share
Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word

Rafe: With fracking, tankers “world-class safety” is a weasel word

Share
Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word
BC Premier Christy Clark touts “world-class” safety for fossil fuel projects (Canadian Press)

Many times I have referred to Premier Clark’s demand that Enbridge and others have “world-class” cleanup processes in place. To repeat myself, these are “weasel words” and mean absolutely nothing. “World-class” firefighting procedures doesn’t mean the building didn’t burn down.

I was delighted to read Stephen Hume’s column in the Vancouver Sun of July 17, where he talks about “weasel words”, especially the term “world-class”, and other matters. This particular article is about fracking and in his surgical way, Hume carves up the government for it’s utter lack of process and covering each and every one of their tracks by use of the words “world class”.

Government naively accepts industry’s word on safety

We have seen a similar absence  of investigation by the Clark government into the risks of LNG, be it in pipelines, plants, or tankers. This government is now known for two things: an utter lack of preparation and lying through their teeth.

British Columbia under Christy Clark is brought to the position where we are to have pipelines and oil tankers; LNG  plants, pipelines, and tankers; and fracking for natural gas, without any idea as to the safety of these projects. Premier Clark and her cabinet lickspittles simply take the company’s word that what they plan is environmentally benign.

Companies lie by their very nature. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on public relations every year. One only has to look at the ads from Enbridge over the last year or so to see the kind of money they spend and the sort of message that they put out.

Many British Columbians accept the need for oil pipelines, LNG, and fracking and the tanker traffic associated with them and I must ask my fellow citizens upon what do you base your support? Do you have some information about the safety of these projects that we don’t? If so, would you be so kind as to vouchsafe  it to the rest of us so that we can, perhaps, change our minds?

British Columbians face onslaught of projects

A couple of years ago, in a speech,  I observed that the attacks on the environment of British Columbia were so many, so varied, and so widespread that it would be difficult for us to deal with them just because of their sheer volume. Unfortunately this has manifestly been proved true.

[signoff3]

Citizens of a democracy, faced with this sort of an onslaught, have a right to expect that their government will stand at the gate and not let anybody by who is going to do harm. We are entitled to believe that our government will investigate each and every potential environmental assault and advise us of what dangers we face.

We expect governments to give a full accounting on the danger of oil spills from pipelines and tanker accidents; we expect a full investigation by the government of safety factors as well as the environmental concerns around LNG plants, pipelines and tankers; we expect our government to make a thorough investigation of fracking before the first undertaking starts. On that latter point, fracking is going ahead full blast and the government hasn’t lifted a finger to deal with its safety or environmental concerns – like massive climate impacts and water contamination, as recent, reputable studies reveal.

Public can’t rely on government

We, who pride ourselves on being environmentalists, must do extensive investigations on our own to learn the facts. There is absolutely no point in going to government departments to find out what they know because they know nothing. It is idle to go to the companies involved because they are incapable of telling the truth.

This is the extent of democracy under the Christy Clark government.

NDP ‘opposition’ not much better

One would like to think that the NDP, her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, would be different.

Unfortunately, the leader of the NDP seems to favour LNG. He is thinking about fracking. He is also, apparently, confused about the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and on this critical issue, the Party Policy falls all over its own feet.

British Columbians left on their own

It is the totality of tanker traffic carrying diluted bitumen (dilbit) and LNG which has not been assessed by the government and doesn’t seem to be bothering the opposition – yet this is a massive issue.

We are left in British Columbia on our own. Those people to whom we pay a great deal of money to manage our affairs are in thrall to big industry, which finances the Liberal Party and supports it politically. It, like the government, is hugely economical with the truth. We citizens must then inform ourselves.

As I see it, we have only one political option. I am, God knows, no socialist. I ran against the NDP twice and beat them twice. I stood against them in the legislature. My last two votes in provincial elections have been for the Greens.

Having said that, the Greens are not going to win the next election and the NDP do have a chance.

What the NDP must do to regain public’s support

If the NDP are to win they have to increase their support substantially.

If the NDP do increase their support by candidly, fully and fairly looking at environmental matters and reporting to us faithfully as to their findings and encourage the fullest debates, I not only think they have a chance to win, but would be an acceptable government to have.

One thing that I must say in conclusion – I cannot believe that my fellow citizens would be insane enough to support Christy Clark and her bunch once again.

If that happens, we deserve what we get, even though our kids sure as hell don’t.

Share
Kispiox Valley citizens band together against LNG pipelines

Kispiox Valley citizens band together against LNG pipelines

Share
Kispiox Valley citizens band together against LNG pipelines
Some of the Kispiox Valley citizens opposed to LNG (Photo: NoMorePipelines.ca)

A group of citizens from the Kispiox Valley – northwest of Smithers, BC – has signed a declaration “against the LNG projects proposed to pass through their community.”

The approximately 160 signatures from local landowners and residents represents a significant proportion of the valley’s population. Located along two pipeline routes designed to carry shale gas from northeast BC to proposed liquefied natural gas terminals in Prince Rupert, the residents are strategically positioned to cause problems for the province’s LNG vision.

New map shows multiple proposed oil, gas pipelines for BC
The yellow and pink lines above depict the proposed pipelines to supply BG Group and Petronas’ Prince Rupert LNG plants, respectively. The two lines converge in the Kispiox Valley, north of Hazelton.

The declaration cites impacts to “northern rivers, salmon, air and water quality” as key issues for the community. Citizens of the region have expressed concerns about early work by Spectra Energy and TransCanada Pipelines – the former slated to build a line servicing BG Group’s proposed terminal north of Prince Rupert; the latter hired to construct the proposed Petronas/Progress pipeline to the same coastal region.

Initial work surrounding these projects has already sparked concerns from bear biologists about impacts on grizzly bears in the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy – widely thought to have driven the gutting of the BC Parks Act through Bill 4, which opened protected areas up to pipeline construction.

First Nations and local environmental groups have also pointed to the potential impacts on wild Skeena River salmon from Petronas’ proposed plant on Lelu Island, amid prime eelgrass habitat for out-migrating smolts.

The full declaration reads:

Be it known that we, the undersigned community of the Kispiox Valley, British Columbia, believe that the well-being of ourselves and our neighbours, our livelihoods and economy, and our lands and waters are paramount. We highly value intact ecosystems that sustain and support a vibrant and diverse watershed.

This includes thriving populations of wild Pacific salmon and steelhead, healthy forests with abundant wildlife, and clean air. These lands and waters are woven into the fabric of our lives, and are deemed as vital and necessary elements that support our economy, our community, and our way of life. We recognize and honour the Gitxsan, and hold in high regard their culture and traditional methods of responsible stewardship.

Our rural community is a proven model of economic and social resiliency, comprised of diversely skilled professionals, trades people, farmers, forest and resource workers, guides/outfitters, and creative and versatile entrepreneurs. We support common sense practices of conservative resource management, renewable energy production and use, agriculture as the basis of a strong local food system, and the long-standing wild salmon economy of our region.

The Skeena, as one of the last great salmon rivers of the world, connects our livelihoods to our communities, and our communities to each other. What occurs upstream or downstream affects us all. In recognition of this, we accept a shared regional and global responsibility to protect our water and air.

Therefore, we cannot stand by and allow any industrial presence, including oil and gas development, that would threaten or harm our values and responsibilities as outlined in this declaration.

[signoff3]

 

Share
Woodfibre LNG - Public comment period begins for Squamish project

Woodfibre LNG: Public comment period begins for Squamish project

Share
Woodfibre LNG - Public comment period begins for Squamish project
Citizens recently lined the highway outside Squamish to oppose Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)

The BC Environmental Assessment Office is now open for public comment on the proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, BC. The comment period, which includes an open house session in Squamish on June 18, will run for 30 days (more info here).

The project, designed to cool and export gas from BC to Asian markets where prices are currently higher, would be built on the 212-acre site of an old pulp mill at the head of Howe Sound. It is part of conglomerate of companies under the Pacific Oil & Gas Ltd. banner, controlled by Indonesian magnate Sukanto Tonato.

BC LNG’s ‘Trojan Horse’?

With a 25-year licence to export 280 million cubic feet of gas per day, which the proponent received last December, Woodfibre is on the smaller end of proposed LNG projects in BC. Because of its size and a decision to power the plant with hydroelectricity instead of burning some of its own gas, the project is being held up as a positive example of the proposed industry for BC.

But the BC Tapwater Alliance’s Will Koop sounds a cautionary note:

[quote]Woodfibre is the Trojan Horse of BC LNG – the project Premier Clark is using to open the door to a much larger industry in the province.[/quote]

No small footprint

Its environmental impacts would also be significant – from local marine pollution to noise and light pollution for residents, not to mention the impacts of increased fracking in northeast BC to provide the feedstock for the plant.

And despite the effort to minimize carbon emissions from the plant, the considerable energy requirements for cooling gas into liquid will add pressure to develop several local private river diversion projects, which have been shown to cause significant damage to fish populations.

Howe Sound faces industrial onslaught

Moreover, the proposed LNG plant and hydro projects are just two among a wide range of industrial projects that threaten the ecology, tourism, and recreational values of Howe Sound – including a proposed gravel mine at nearby McNab Creek, a waste incinerator at Port Mellon, a 4,000 home development at Brittania Beach, and Fortsis BC’s $350 million Eagle Mountain gas pipeline expansion to supply the Woodfibre plant.

As The Common Sense Canadian’s Rafe Mair, a resident of Howe Sound’s Lions Bay, recently remarked:

[quote]A revitalization program – partly official, mostly just people taking care – has brought Howe Sound back, not quite to where it was when I was a boy, but considerably back to where it  should be. Herring came back, salmon increased, Orcas abound and humpback whales have appeared for the first time in years. The fishing industry has restarted. This, unfortunately, was not to last. Industry has reappeared, big-time.[/quote]

Howe-Sound-industrialization-map
Map of Howe Sound with proposed industrial projects (with help of Future of Howe Sound Society)

Woodfibre threatens sustainable economic alternatives

All this proposed industrial development – and specifically the $1.7 Billion Woodfibre LNG project – raises concerns amongst local residents like Tracey Saxby that the region’s sustainable tourism and other modern industries will be pushed out, just as they’re gaining real momentum.

[signoff3]

Representing local citizen group My Sea to Sky at a recent summit on LNG at SFU’s Habour Centre campus, Saxby told the crowd of 250, “Squamish is such a special place and this is such an exciting time to be there. It’s a community in transition from the old way – the extraction and resource-based industries – to a new economy that has a broader economic base and more diverse and resilient economic base,” Saxby explained, noting the various new industries being developed in the community – from academia to the emerging recreation technology sector, to enticing entrepreneurs with the region’s spectacular wilderness.

[quote]These things make sense. LNG does not.

[/quote]

Proponent promises 100 jobs

For its part, the proponent is promising 600 jobs during the construction phase and 100 long-term jobs operating the plant, which it is aiming to have up and running by 2017, assuming it secures its environmental permits.

At a recent conference on LNG which her government hosted, Premier Clark and other government spokespeople hinted that Woodfibre is expected to be the first LNG project completed in the province.

Submitting feedback

Comments can be submitted by online form, by mail, or by fax – see details here. The open house takes place on June 18 from 5-8 pm at the Executive Suites Hotel (40900 Tantalus Road, Squamish, BC).

I will also be speaking on the project and LNG development in general alongside the Wilderness Committee’s Eoin Madden at an event hosted by My Sea to Sky on Sunday, June 27 (details here).

Share
Haida stand with Fort Nelson First Nation on LNG, fracking concerns

Haida stand with Fort Nelson First Nation on LNG, fracking concerns

Share

Haida stand with Fort Nelson First Nation on LNG, fracking concerns

The Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) is vowing to support The Fort Nelson First Nation’s tough stand on proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) development and the 600% increase in controversial shale gas fracking it would represent for their northeast BC territory.

According to The Northern View, a recent visit to Haida Gwaii by FNFN Chief Sharleen Gale was met with sympathy from the Haida audience. Gale was there to bring to light the upstream implications if CHN were to support the province’s vision for LNG development, which would also mean significant tanker traffic through Haida waters.

The chief shook up the LNG debate several months ago when she put the BC Liberal government on notice that no development would proceed without proper consultation with her community (see video below).

Haida concerned about upstream impacts of LNG

CHN has been mulling its official position on LNG over the past year. The elected government of the Haisla Nation – across Hecate Strait from Haida Gwaii – has bought into the industry, forging partnerships for LNG terminals in Kitimat. The Haisla quit the Coastal First Nations alliance in 2012 over internal disagreement around LNG development.

Meanwhile, other First Nations along the proposed pipeline routes are opposing this development – many of them citing growing concerns about the upstream implications of these decisions, as support for LNG would mean vastly increased fracking in northeast BC to supply the feedstock.

CHN and other Coastal First Nations members have also been examining the potential impacts of the LNG industry on the coast – everything from air quality and climate issues to the impacts of tanker traffic and dumping bilge water in the marine environment.

Province’s ‘less-than honourable dealings’

According to The Northern View, CHN President Peter Lantin and Vice-president Trevor Russ have twice ventured to northeast BC to learn about the impacts of LNG development on Treaty 8 and Fort Nelson First Nation territories. 

“It would be irresponsible for us to take a position without understanding the effects on the people most affected,” said Lantin following Chief Gale’s speeches to CHN and public gatherings in Massett and Skidegate.

Added Russ:

[quote]Their story is of a people and landscape being overrun by natural gas exploration and extraction and less-than honourable dealings from the provincial government.[/quote]

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, went one step further at a recent town hall meeting on LNG at SFU’s downtown Vancouver campus. “The economy of this province is being built on the destruction of the Northeast,” said Phillip. “The pipelines that are being contemplated by LNG will further destroy the North.”

No support for LNG until First Nations’ concerns addressed

Following these Haida Gwaii meetings with Chief Gale, the Haida Nation decided not to take an official position supporting or opposing LNG “without ensuring that the interests of the people at the source of the LNG are taken care of,” says The View.

Share
Russia-China gas deal: The elephant in the room at LNG conference

Russia-China gas deal: The elephant in the room at BC LNG conference

Share
Russia-China gas deal: The elephant in the room at LNG conference
BC Minister of Natural Gas Rich Coleman opens his government’s LNG conference (BC govt flickr photo)

Last week, the BC Government held its second annual LNG In BC Conference, with over 1,400 delegates representing some of the world’s top players in the natural gas industry. The province’s Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman noted that this year’s conference saw an increase of almost 1,000 delegates.

Most panels centred on the potential opportunity for a BC LNG industry, but the elephant in the room at the Vancouver Convention Centre was a natural gas pipeline deal signed between Russia and China on the eve of the conference. Though barely addressed from the stage, it provided a powerful reminder to delegates of the competitive international market the province will have to navigate to make its LNG vision a reality.

Bad timing for BC LNG players

Russia’s completion of a $400-billion deal to satisfy approximately one third of China’s gas needs is bad timing for BC LNG, as companies such as Chevron and Petronas look towards final investment decisions over the next year.

Natural gas will be supplied to China for the low cost of $10-$11 a unit, providing China a bargaining advantage to reduce energy prices from other potential trading partners in North America. Canadian exporters has their hopes set on $16/unit, based on the higher prices Japan is paying following the Fukushima-driven shutdown of its nuclear sector.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin said that this is the biggest contract in the history of the country’s gas sector, a reality which was absent from virtually all conversation on the global natural gas market discussed at the conference.

Clark downplays contract’s significance

BC Premier Christy Clark and Shell Oil Company CEO Marvin Odum discuss LNG (BC govt flickr photo)
Premier Clark and Shell Oil Company CEO Marvin Odum (BC govt flickr)

Premier Clark brushed off questions as to whether this agreement would have a negative impact on BC’s race to export LNG, saying that her government had anticipated the deal. Much of this hinges on whether the province can secure final investment decisions and nail down competitive tax rates quickly enough to be a credible player in the LNG market. Given that many of these details are far from being confirmed, questions arise as to whether LNG is  the ‘generational opportunity’ it is being presented as for BC.

With 14 LNG projects proposed alongside intense global competition, Premier Clark acknowledged that so far, only two of these projects are nearing final investment before the next election. The smaller Woodfibre LNG near Squamish looks like the best bet for the first project, but it is meeting with growing opposition from local groups.

Pressure to speed up BC LNG

These delays don’t bode well for BC, a fact which Andy Calitz, CEO of the Shell-led partnership LNG Canada, responded to by saying, “That is why we need to move quickly.”

For her part, Premier Clark suggested Canada is potentially a more reliable supplier than politically volatile Russia:

[quote]I don’t think there is a country in the world that today wants to depend on Russia as their sole supplier of natural gas.[/quote]

Whether BC can be a reliable supplier, however, depends on whether these LNG projects actually come to fruition. Clark is depending on LNG to fulfil the election promise of a ‘debt free BC’, a multi-billion dollar prosperity fund, jobs and economic development. The fact that news of this Russia-China deal dropped right before the conference with minimal discussion of its effect on BC LNG may be symptomatic of the government’s desire to sell LNG instead of fostering a frank conversation about its opportunities and challenges.

Honest discussion in short supply

China has long been considered an important market for BC, and the impact of billions of tonnes of natural gas that will flow from Russia to China must be analyzed. One of the only comments made by Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman on the deal came at the end of the conference:

[quote]We beat the Russians at hockey and we’ll beat them at liquefied natural gas.[/quote]

Determining the potential for a BC LNG industry requires frank discussion and tough questions, not more hot air about this cold gas.

Share
Rafe Mair: Howe Sound under siege

Rafe Mair: Howe Sound under siege

Share
Rafe Mair: Howe Sound under siege
Boaters raise the alarm over plans to re-industrialize Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)

Howe Sound is Canada’s southernmost fjord. It is a natural beauty which should be declared a world-class heritage site.

I grew up as a child on Howe Sound and well remember the men with the herring rakes, raking out the herring for salmon bait. Speaking of the salmon, if you went fishing and didn’t catch one, you must’ve forgotten to put a spoon on your line.

Over the years, Howe Sound went downhill. Industry polluted and people became careless about the environment. The fish disappeared; the whales disappeared; the Orcas disappeared; the herring and salmon seriously diminished.

Howe Sound on rebound…

A revitalization program – partly official, mostly just people taking care – has brought Howe Sound back, not quite to where it was when I was a boy, but considerably back to where it  should be. Herring came back, salmon increased, Orcas abound and humpback whales have appeared for the first time in years. The fishing industry has restarted.

…But not for long

This, unfortunately, was not to last. Industry has reappeared, big-time.

Just let me give you an example of what we now see on the horizon for Howe Sound:

1.     $60 million proposed McNab Greek creek gravel mine

2.     $1.7  billion Woodfibre liquefied natural gas (LNG) project

3.     $350 million Eagle Mountain Woodfibre gas pipeline expansion project

4.     $500 million Metro Vancouver waste incineration facility at Port Mellon

5.     We already have three private, ‘run-of-river’ projects, one approved and two in the process of approval – under the radar somehow.

6.     A multimillion dollar real estate development at Brittania Beach involving 4000 homes. God knows how many cars and of course all of the impact such large, new community will bring.

There are a number of citizen groups opposed to this development, both in Squamish and other parts of the Sea to Sky Highway and Howe Sound communities.

Howe-Sound-industrialization-map
Map of Howe Sound with proposed industrial projects (with help of Future of Howe Sound Society)

Gravel pit threatens salmon, recreation

McNab Creek gravel pit is the center of attention. A gravel pit, for God’s sake! McNab Creek, apart from the Squamish River, is the only salmon-bearing river in Howe Sound. The gravel pit will, of course, have all of the usual effects on salmon rivers that gravel pits do. Erosion, siltation, and habitat loss will threaten multiple species of spawning wild salmon.

McNabb Creek-gravel pit location
McNab Creek – location of proposed gravel mine

The company, Burnco, out of Calgary, wishes to use McNab Creek because it is closer to its customers and cheaper to deliver gravel by boat. This will be a catastrophe and it’s safe to say that the people of the Howe Sound area are almost entirely opposed to it.

This massive assault cannot be under played. We will have lost a world class beauty spot. I haven’t even mentioned the impact of tankers out of Vancouver.

The difficulty comes in the opposition. People are law-and-order by nature and tradition. They don’t like to offend the law but obey it. John Weston, a conservative MP for the area, is fond of talking about how there is “process” in place.

Environmental review process deeply flawed

Well, folks, this “process” is about as fair as the Soviet show trials were in the 1930s. The fix is in. The process doesn’t involve the people expressing their opinion as to whether not they want the project – all they can do is offer suggestions as to how the environmental process might proceed.

The meetings are stacked – the proceedings biased and there’s always somebody from the company on the stage to “explain things”.

Companies are ordered to perform routine processes such as have public houses and opportunities where they try to explain themselves to the public. The difficulty here is the companies are not noted for telling the truth anymore than governments are. There’s no frank discussion of the downside of the project – simply a propaganda exercise complete with pretty pictures and models showing what a marvellous thing this is going to be for the people. In the case of Burnco, they fail to mention that it will entail just 16 low paid jobs.

Time for civil disobedience

There is nothing harmless about a gravel pit on a fish bearing river indeed on any river.

Unfortunately the answer to the question – if indeed there is an answer – involves civil disobedience.

One is always reluctant to suggest this for fear of being seen as promoting violence, which I’m not. I am not fomenting revolution; I am simply saying that unless the citizens of the Howe Sound area – indeed all of British Columbia – stand up to the government and refuse to accept these projects, they will go ahead.

Refusal to accept means, frankly, getting in the way of the production. Lying down in front of bulldozers and that sort of thing.

The pattern that follows is all-too familiar. The company takes the civil law and turns it into criminal law by getting  injunctions against a few of the people who protest – and when those people refuse to obey the injunctions, they are sent to jail for contempt of court and that takes the steam out of the movement.

It’s that latter phrase we must watch – taking the steam out of the movement. We must have enough people prepared to go to jail that it is the government and companies who tire of the exercise, not the public.

This takes organization and it takes people willing to make sacrifices. This means that more and more people go to jail so that the authorities tire and, in fact, perhaps even run out of jail space.

Democracy in name only

In a democracy these are strange words. The problem is is we should know we live in a democracy in name only. The public does not get the right to decide what’s going to happen to them – that’s  decided by line corporations with their handmaidens in government.

Am I being too hard on governments and corporations?

I don’t think so – all you have to do is look at the amount of money spent by the public relations people in industry has been almost duplicated by governments using public funds – so a docile public  hasn’t got a chance.

When you add to that a media that is beholden to government and industry, the public has almost no chance of being informed, except by volunteer efforts without the backup of expert opinion.

It is gone on long enough.

Time to get together

Pipelines will abound in British Columbia to make money for somebody else and destroy our heritage. We, the people, are offered nothing else but go through the process and then sit back and take it.

Surely that’s not good enough.

Surely we must finally get together and fight back.

We have valuable allies in first Nations. Unfortunately they have the right to think that they’re standing alone on this fight and everybody else is waiting for them to win it. This is simply not fair nor is a practical. We have to get behind that leadership and support it every way we can, personally and monetarily.

If we do not rise up as one and fight back against the power of hugely-funded industry and client governments, we will lose our province.

The solution is strong medicine. It will be difficult to organize. But we’ve got to do it.

********

P.S. Rafe’s back

I have been away – I hope you noticed. It started in the middle of December when I took a bad fall and went to hospital this was aggravated by another fall after I got home in January. To make a long story short, I spent 4 ½ months in the hospital and nearly bought it three times. Presently I am home and still quite weak. It will take some time for me to get better, I am told.

In the meantime I hope to get back to doing more writing. This is my first story for The Common Sense Canadian in nearly 6 months. I hope to vastly improve upon that record.

In the meantime I thank you very much for your patience and I am delighted to see that my friend and colleague Damien Gillis has kept things running and the magazine has grown and prospered.

Sincerely,

Rafe Mair

Share
BC-gas-regulator-ignoring-public's-LNG-concerns

BC gas regulator ignoring public’s LNG concerns

Share
BC-gas-regulator-ignoring-public's-LNG-concerns
BC Oil and Gas Commission Chief Operating Officer Ken Paulson (Damien Gillis)

The BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) is not obligated to address stakeholder concerns with LNG facilities, despite its responsibility to oversee oil and gas operations in the province.

According to its 2014 Service Plan, the OGC is only committed to addressing 75 percent of stakeholder concerns regarding proposed LNG operations. The complaints and questions it does field are only dealt with superficially, before the commission redirects citizens and groups to the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).

“Since LNG development is in its early stages and the commission hasn’t started permitting projects yet, the OGC does not deal directly with public concerns,” says Hardy Friedrich, BC Oil and Gas Commission communications manager in Fort St. John.

According to Friedrich, the OGC refers concerns to the EAO to address, although the commission considers this to be a performance measure in its annual service plan.

OGC-LNG graphic

Regulator hands off LNG questions to EAO

The BC Environmental Assessment Office was created from the Environmental Assessment Act and is responsible for assessing the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of oil and gas projects in BC.

The office offers the public opportunities to engage with proposed LNG projects through tools like submitting comments during public comment periods for specific applications, or attending public meetings, open houses and other public forums arranged by the office.

“The first public comment period is held during the pre-application phase,” says David Karn, Ministry of Environment communications officer.  “The first public comment period ensures that relevant public concerns are identified early, so that they may be considered in the environmental assessment process.”

Conservation groups help public through confusing process

However, organizations like SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, Douglas Channel Watch and the Northwest Fish and Wildlife Association recognize the public needs a hand navigating a sometimes complicated process. They help gather and formally submit public comments to the EAO on behalf of concerned residents with LNG development in their areas.

The Northwest Fish and Wildlife Association participated in the public comment process of the proposed Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, BC, representing its membership’s concerns.

In its submission, the group called for the “creation of a Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Legary Fund.”

“Too often we see companies come into communities, extract resources and shut down when the resource is depleted or economic conditions are not favorable,” it noted. “In its place, left behind are the negative implications to fish, wildlife, and the land and water with no compensation or funding to correct the damage done.”

Karn says the EAO will take any information submitted during a public comment period, including submissions from concerned organizations and project proponents, as it begins to evaluate additional historic or baseline information and studies before a project is able to receive its environmental assessment certificate.

EAO unsuited to address public’s LNG concerns

In order for stakeholder concerns to get passed along the environmental assessment chain of command, individuals must feel empowered to voice their opinions and know where they can be heard, say local environmental groups.

“People have good reason to be concerned and speak out, and I think government has an obligation both to listen to people’s concerns and deal with them – and [the OGC] is essentially deferring all of that to the environmental assessment process, but I don’t think that’s efficient,” says Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.

[quote]It’s so complicated and the timelines are so short, that I don’t think the environmental assessment processes can properly take in people’s concerns and deal with them. A lot of people don’t even know how to participate in those processes in a meaningful way.[/quote]

Public fears salmon impacts from Lelu Island plant

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust is entering the environmental assessment process over the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project on Lelu Island, at the port of Prince Rupert, because of the volume of calls they have received over the last few months from concerned residents who don’t know where to take their worries about the environmental and health implications of this LNG project. Knox dovetails fears about future LNG issues with pre-existing concerns about other heavy industrial operations in the Skeena Estuary – critical habitat for Canada’s second biggest wild salmon run.

Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas' $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan
Petronas’ proposed Prince Rupert LNG plant on Lelu Island

“I had a fellow from Prince Rupert call and ask me if I was aware that a coal facility there was dumping some coal into the ocean right at the facility. I said that I wasn’t aware and that we would need information and proof of that – and that was just his most recent concern,” says Knox.

“He was also stressed about the dredging from the LNG facilities because not only would they be impacting salmon habitat, but they would be dredging up dioxins, purines and toxins from the old pulp mill site which release toxins into the estuary and it’s sitting in the sediments, so all those toxins would now likely be released from the dredging activity into the environment again.”

Environmental leaders like Knox say the BC government has an obligation to deal with stakeholder concerns, and stakeholders should have every opportunity to share their issues with government.

Closing the door on public participation

By the BC Oil and Gas Commission deferring these concerns to the EAO, many worry the regulator is closing its doors to residents having a voice in the province’s LNG development.

Only answering 75% of stakeholder concerns seems like a low target when the province is striving to create a dialogue between industry operators, residents and First Nations.  If the OGC was committed to addressing 100% of concerns, while also working alongside the EAO in a meaningful way, it would likely instill a higher degree of public confidence in the government’s LNG process.

Share
BC LNG economics don't add up-New report

BC LNG economics don’t add up: New report

Share
BC LNG economics don't add up-New report
Christy Clark announces agreement to build an LNG facility at Grassy Point ( BC govt photo)

The Clark government’s rosy projections of a $100 Billion “Prosperity Fund” from its proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry will never materialize, says a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The big idea is to export BC’s natural gas to new markets in Asia, taking advantage of the much higher price they’re currently paying for the resource. But that’s easier said than done, as the process of cooling and liquefying gas – in order to load it on tankers – is enormously expensive. Moreover, that higher price, a historical anomaly, is predicated on a number of factors that will likely change by the time exporters invest the tens of billions of dollars in capital and years of construction time into the pipelines and terminals required to make it all happen.

Asian LNG price not a sure bet

The CCPA report takes a closer look at a number of key factors and market indicators in order to paint a more accurate picture of the touted benefits and real financial risks to the nascent industry – everything from the future Asian price for LNG, to infrastructure costs, to the government’s tax and revenue structure, outlined in the 2014 Budget.

Key findings include:

[quote]

  • Asian demand for LNG will be undercut as Japan and Korea reopen nuclear facilities, while China has many domestic and international options for new energy supplies in addition to BC-based LNG. And five countries that account for 70% of LNG imports (India, Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan) are forming a common front on price through a “buyer’s club”, making it far less likely that they’ll continue to pay top-dollar for imported LNG.
  • The start-up costs for BC’s LNG industry are massive, greatly eating into the gap between Asian and North American gas prices. Meanwhile, many competitors are simply adding capacity to existing facilities, increasing supply and driving prices down.

[/quote]

Falling prices, shrinking revenues

Last year, one of the world’s leading business publications, Bloomberg, predicted a 60% drop in the Asian LNG price by 2020, the first year BC exporters could realistically begin shipping their product. Because LNG is currently 2 and a half times more expensive to produce than typical gas, that figure would fall below the break-even point, adding up to a 6 million dollar loss per tanker. These sort of cold, hard realities have been sorely absent from the BC Liberal government’s rhetoric on LNG, the CCPA report argues.

Meanwhile, the long-awaited export tax regime at the root of projected BC LNG revenues, announced in last month’s Budget, doesn’t suggest the windfall profits the government has been promising. The CCPA report predicts just $0.2 to $0.6 billion per year for a fully mature industry, far short of the $5 Billion a year that would be required to achieve a $100 Billion “Prosperity Fund” by 2040.

As Kevin Logan has detailed in The Common Sense Canadian,  the BC LNG tax structure enables companies to deduct their enormous capital costs from their 7% export tax payments (phase 2 rate, which only kicks in 3-5 years after the paltry 1.5% in phase 1). With an industry notorious for huge cost-overruns – like Chevron’s staggering $54 Billion Gorgon plant in Australia, still unfinished – taxpayers could be waiting a long time to see a single penny out of the industry.

All the risk, very little reward

To the CCPA’s chief economist Marc Lee, BC is taking enormous environmental and economic risks with very little promise of reward. “The danger is that BC ramps up production at a large cost—including costs of regulatory oversight, infrastructure, and additional public services, for example, as well as environmental costs—but doesn’t receive much benefit in terms of revenue,” says Lee.

[quote]Rather than rely on fantasy projections of LNG investment, BC should go back to the drawing board to develop a regime for LNG development that ensures public benefits.[/quote]

As the CCPA report underscores, it’s high time the Liberal government’s rhetoric be held up to proper scrutiny. And the potential environmental, health, and socio-economic impacts of the industry demand more sober reflection before racing headlong into what could very well become a major boondoggle.

“BC has been rushing to get resources out of the ground regardless of the returns. Without a well thought out plan, the proposed LNG industry is likely to do more of the same,” it notes.

[quote]With market prices expected to drop and a poorly thought-out plan for public benefits, it’s time for the government to take a step back and ask themselves if we can do better.[/quote]

Share
Mayor attacks Fort Nelson First Nation over LNG summit expulsion

Mayor attacks Fort Nelson First Nation over LNG summit expulsion

Share
Mayor attacks Fort Nelson First Nation over LNG summit expulsion
Mayor Bill Streeper (image: Youtube)

Northern Rockies Regional Municipality Mayor Bill Streeper has publicly called out the local Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN) over its repudiation of government officials at a summit on liquefied natural gas (LNG) it held last week.

After learning of the surprise elimination of environmental assessments for most natural gas plants in BC – without aboriginal consultation – FNFN Chief Sharleen Gale expelled government officials from the LNG conference. Before asking industry representatives to follow suit, Gale took a few moments to deliver a strong message that in order for BC’s LNG vision to work, First Nations must be consulted and respected.

[quote]No shale gas development will proceed in FNFN territory until our Nation and our Treaty are respected and our concerns about our land and our waters are addressed.[/quote]

The chief’s decisive actions made headlines across the country, generated a wave of accolades in these pages and other social media, and yielded an uncharacteristically speedy and deferential response from government. Within hours, Environment Minister Mary Polak issued a mea culpa, recanting the proposed regulatory changes. “Our government apologizes for failing to discuss the amendment with First Nations prior to its approval,” stated Polak.

“That is why we will rescind the amendment…until we have undertaken discussions with First Nations.”

Yet Mayor Streeper, who has long ties to the shale gas industry, doesn’t share the government’s contrition and agreement with FNFN’s position. In an open letter castigating his aboriginal neighbours in Fort Nelson, Streeper called the expulsion a “knee-jerk” reaction that constituted “discriminatory exploitation”.

“We’re a one-industry town,” noted Streeper, who apologized to the provincial government on behalf of his community. Underscoring his perceived urgency of developing the industry at all costs, the exasperated mayor stated:

[quote]If LNG fails, this town will fail.

[/quote]

Yet, at no point did Chief Gale reject the industry outright; rather she highlighted her community’s concern with the government’s secretive legislative changes and emphasized that in order for the industry to proceed, it must address a number of key environmental concerns:

[quote]The FNFN is not against development but these projects must be consistent with our values and have respect for the land…First Nation people are the governments of their territories and will make decisions going forward on these projects.[/quote]

As we have noted in these pages before, FNFN is far from the only aboriginal community expressing concern with the streamlined manner in which the industry is being pushed forward.

Recent changes to the Parks Act in order to facilitate pipeline construction have also provoked widespread public outrage, with well over 100,000 citizens signing a petition against the legislation.

Meanwhile, even the Clark government’s own environment ministry staff are cautioning that the LNG industry would have serious climate implications.

To Streeper, though, there is no room for sober thought, dialogue or delay, imploring in his letter, “Let’s get it done.”

Share