I find myself spending more time than I would like on Resource Works, the invention of The BC Business Council, that blindly supports approval of Woodfibre LNG in Squamish.

To follow on last week’s column, where we learned that Resource Works’ website contained the names of two “partners” which stoutly deny they’d ever been such.

Well, I have another for you, this week.

BCIT’s name used without knowledge

I was alarmed to read that the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) was also listed as a partner. What, I asked myself, was this much-admired academic institution doing in the middle of this dispute in our communities?

Well, it turned out to be a hell of a good question because they advised me that they were not a partner, never have been, and had demanded that this entry be eradicated. I note that this has since happened and that their president, Kathy Kinloch, is no longer on RW’s Board of Directors (though, as of this writing, she is still listed as such on RW’s website).

I wondered, with more of these revelations to come, what RW would do now?

Well, get this for shysterism non pareil!

In the past week they have changed “Partners” to “Partners & Sponsorships”, noting, “We’re proud to work with a diverse range of partners, and to help sponsor exciting initiatives”. Now, anyone RW declares that they support is automatically thrown in this new category and there is no way anyone reading the “About” section of their website can tell which is which – the obvious hope being that the company is taken to be a partner!

All RW need do if it wants to have a big name appear to support them is write a letter to said group telling them how much RW supports whatever it is they do!

My God, the BC Business Council, former attorneys-general Bud Smith and Geoff Plant and ex-Premier Dan Miller (each advisors or board members) have stooped to this sleazy slight-of-hand!

Come on Mr. Stewart Muir (Executive Director), I  know that the complete truth is a difficult concept for a newspaperman, especially an editor, but give it a try and split that list in two so that the public can tell who is a partner and who is not. It will only hurt for a little bit!

A dishonest broker

My involvement with Resource Works started a couple of months ago when I read their Mission Statement. I could not believe that educated, rational, and honourable members of the business and a labour union communities could write tripe like this:    

[quote]Resource Works is a non-profit society, open to participation by all British Columbians, to help bring fact-based information to the public discourse about the natural resource sector and its role in BC’s future.

We bring people together for a respectful, fact-based dialogue on responsible resource development in British Columbia.[/quote]

Noble sentiments if they were remotely true. In fact, RW, far from being some sort of honest broker, by any objective standard, uncritically supports Woodfibre LNG.

This is a free country, of course, and while I profoundly disagree with their position, I accept their right to present it – as long as it’s done honestly and candidly, words with which RW seems to have a great deal of difficulty.

First of all, in their presentation A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition, a booklet of 58 pages, they uncritically present the case for Woodfibre LNG using the company’s own propaganda as fact! Don’t take my word for it – read it for yourself.

RW’s discussion of “fracking” is confined to two short  paragraphs and doesn’t deal with any of the many concerns scientists have raised whatsoever.

Faked interview takes the cake

Then we get into the faked interview with acknowledged LNG tanker safety expert Dr. Michael Hightower, making out that Dr. Hightower supported tanker traffic in Howe Sound whereas he’d never addressed Howe Sound. Moreover, the measurements he and Sandia Laboratories recommended made it clear that Howe Sound is utterly unsuitable for tanker traffic. (Alongside you’ll see these measurements, which are the law in the United States, applied to a chart of Howe Sound – giving you the true picture.)

Let’s move to the legal case brought by the Wilderness  Committee and The Sierra Club against Encana as described by RW in this document thusly:                    

“When a ruling came down in late 2014 it showed that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed.

“In an overwhelming endorsement of current practices in water protection, justice Fitzpatrick concluded that when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape with a ‘justifiable transparent and intelligible framework for the regulation of short term water use.'”

When I, a lawyer by trade, read this, I was suspicious. I couldn’t believe that Madam Justice Fitzpatrick would offer this effusive praise so I obtained a copy of the judgment, which you can easily do, and found that the judge not only said nothing of the sort but made it plain that she was only deciding whether or not section 8 of the Water Act was constitutional.

58 pages of barnyard droppings by an organization professing to be even-handed!

Woodfibre’s shady owner

As you may have noticed, in all the thousands of words published by RW, there’s not been one peep about the ownership of Woodfibre LNG. Wouldn’t you have expected voluminous praise of his acumen, experience, honourable reputation and, of course, commitment to the environment?

Little wonder this has not been forthcoming!

The owner, Sukanto Tanoto, is a crook* who has been found guilty of substantial tax evasion, paid over $200 million fine and is well-known around the world as having destroyed tropical jungles and having no regard for environmental concerns if there’s a buck to be made. I recommend you do some research on him.

The company itself is loaded with former Enron employees and its structure is such that it would be duck soup for a first-year law student to siphon off all taxes and royalties and send them off to Singapore where there’s no tax on LNG. I don’t say that will happen, just that it would be easy to do and Tanoto has done it before.

The obvious question: Why has Resource Works never addressed the question of the ownership of Woodfibre LNG? Do they endorse the sort of behaviour its owner has displayed? Are they not concerned that this company has never built an LNG plant before? Before advising the public that we should support this outfit, has RW done any “due diligence” whatsoever? If so, tell us about it.

Unanswered questions

In fact, one of the biggest unanswered questions by Resource Works and Premier Clark is why on earth would they invite lawbreakers into our communities when we have enough of our own?

A second major question is why Resource Works has never dealt with the issue of the width of Howe Sound, other than by childish misrepresentations?

The mantra of RW and executives of Woodfibre LNG is that LNG tanker traffic has a 50 year safety record, therefore we have nothing to worry about.

This is the sort of delicious half-truth that somehow numbs the mind when it should inspire skepticism. The fact is that this LNG Tanker record is for the high seas and not narrow passages like Howe Sound or the Fraser River!

In fact, narrow passages have inspired a good deal of  study.

Hazard zone

Let’s return to Dr. Hightower and the internationally respected Sandia Laboratories, which have set the standards that are law in the United States. Bear in mind that the US is a capitalistic society that doesn’t much like restrictive rules and regulations.

Sandia National Laboratories defines for the US Department of Energy three Hazard Zones (also called “Zones of Concern”) surrounding LNG carriers. The largest Zone is 2.2 miles/3,500 meters around the vessel, indicating that LNG ports and tankers must be located at least that distance from civilians. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapor hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.

When Dr. Eoin Finn superimposed the measurements on a chart, it was clear that most of Howe Sound is within the Hazard Zone and above is a copy of that chart.

In short, by internationally accepted standards, there’s no way any LNG tankers would be permitted to proceed from Squamish to the ocean.

The question then becomes, why are Resource Works and their client Woodfibre LNG unwilling to address this question?

The only assumption a reasonable person can come to is  because they can’t.

A question of credibility

My final question concerns credibility.

Why does Resource Works not tell the truth? Why do they consistently play word games? Why do they use little tricks as when suddenly caught out, changing “Partners” to the trick phrase “We are proud to work with a diverse range of partners and to help sponsor exciting initiatives” which, apart from all else, doesn’t distinguish between the two, so that the reader has no way of knowing which category the company falls into?

Why did they fake a TV interview and distort evidence?

Why did they take a judge’s remarks out of context? Why do they avoid discussion of fracking? Why do they not deal with the Eoin Finn chart which clearly shows that LNG tankers in Howe Sound are, from a safety point of view, completely out of the question?

Why don’t they talk about ownership and, indeed, management shortcomings? And the fact that Woodfibre LNG have never built an LNG plant before?

In sum, if they truly want, as they so piously state, to help bring fact-based information to the public discourse about the natural resource sector…why do they so carefully avoid dealing with any of the serious questions?

A fair conclusion is that they avoid these questions because the answers would destroy their ambition to visit an LNG plant on Howe Sound, which, in any civilized a jurisdiction, would be a park.                                                                   

*Merriam Webster: a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices

Desperate people do desperate things.

Today I want to talk about Resource Works, the shills for Woodfibre LNG, proposed for Squamish at the head of Howe Sound – BC’s beautiful and southernmost fjord.

I’m part of a large group opposed to this plant. Let me, however, make this abundantly clear: Our opposition, contrary to what you may read and hear in the media, has nothing to do with NIMBYism. Our concern is LNG tanker traffic which, if allowed in Howe Sound, would be in direct contravention of minimum exclusion zone requirements and other safety operating criteria as generally recognized worldwide and by the law in the United States.

Pushing the limit

These danger zones have been superimposed on the chart of Howe Sound to the right (click on the chart to see in greater detail).

You can see from this chart why residents are extremely upset and why every municipal council in West Vancouver, Sea-To-Sky, Squamish and the Sunshine Coast have passed resolutions against the development of Woodfibre LNG.

Credibility deficit

Resource Works presents itself as independent and only desirous of establishing a fair dialogue. This rubbish demonstrates their credibility deficit which will become clear.

For, if you read their Mission Statement, you’ll see a petition next to it under the title “BC NEEDS LNG”, asking you to sign. There is no need to elaborate – this outfit has made no secret of the fact that it supports the WLNG plant fully and opposes our group.

On that last point, they allege that our organization of homeowners and residents, which raises its meagre funds through fundraisers in local community halls, is well-funded while they, in fact, have the entire business community the British Columbia behind them. We’re not complaining – those odds are perfect as far as we are concerned.

Making it up as they go

To the meat of the matter – Resource Works lies, cheats and dissembles without batting an eyelash. I don’t accuse any particular person, however obviously somebody in Resource Works is making these things up and doing these unethical and, indeed, unlawful things. My case…so far.

A few weeks ago, in an article here unchallenged by Resource Works, I demonstrated that they had faked a TV interview with an American expert on tanker traffic, Dr. Michael Hightower of Sandia Laboritories in New Mexico, and had him saying precisely the opposite of what he had in fact concluded. At least Resource Works were embarrassed enough to quickly withdraw that from their propaganda when they were caught out but the fact remains that this was done and proved to be done – something you wouldn’t think even stocks and bonds salesmen would do.

At the same time, in a report found on their website, Resource Works quoted a judge as extolling the virtues of BC laws relative to Natural Gas, whereas Justice Fitzpatrick had said nothing of the sort and had gone out of her way to say that she was not commenting upon this matter. A glance at the judgment, which is easily available, will demonstrate that.

Forging ahead

Now we have a new wrinkle and let me tell you how I discovered it.

Quite by accident, I went to their list of Partners on Resource Works’ website and saw that the Jack Webster Foundation was listed as one.

I could not believe my eyes! I have a strong relationship with that foundation, having received their highest honour, the Bruce Hutchison Lifetime Achievement Award. Moreover, Jack Webster arranged for me to go into radio in the first place back in 1980 and was my mentor. There is no way on God’s earth that Jack would have taken sides in a dispute like this, let alone on the side of big industry, against the “little people” he always went to bat for.

I immediately wrote to the Foundation expressing my dismay that it would get in the midst of a controversy in our community, only to find out by return mail that they knew nothing about it!

Resource Works, without any discussion, much less permission from the Webster Foundation, included them as a partner and forged* their logo on top of the statement!

The Webster Foundation, which prides itself on independence and support of journalism without political or other affiliation, was horrified at what had happened and demanded that their name be removed forthwith.

I then wrote three or four other Partners and within the hour got a reply from the head of the nationally well-known Macdonald-Laurier Institute, stating bluntly that they had never heard of their being a Partner of Resource Works! This was news, and not welcome news to them! Moreover, they avoid controversies of this sort like the plague.

Apparently, one of their experts had given Resource Works some paid advice somewhere along the line from which Resource Works concluded that made Macdonald-Laurier a Partner! Again they forged* the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s logo on their Mission Statement. (I’m waiting for three other replies, two of them very small outfits but one of the BC Institute of Technology and I would be surprised indeed if the same results were not forthcoming.)

I have to wonder if the former Attorney General Bud Smith knows anything about this? What about former AG Geoff Plant? How about former Premier Dan Miller? What about the BC Business Council and their well known President and CEO, Greg D’Avignon? They’re helping finance this bunch – does Mr D’Avignon know about these shenanigans?

What about premier Christy Clark who has, or at least at the time of its inception, had close personal relations with the management of Resource Works?

Our group fully expects that WLNG will make its case as strongly as possible and we understand the right of Resource Works to support them with all of the resources at their command.

What we don’t expect is that we will have to face constant falsehoods, dissembling, and, indeed, chicanery in building a list of partners.

How can we trust them?

Surely what this does is call into question their entire campaign! For, if Resource Works can’t be honest in their basic presentation of themselves and of what they are doing, how can we trust a word they ever say?

The truth is not in them. Resource Works real partner, Woodfibre LNG’s president, Anthony Gelotti, has had an op-ed published in the Province (another Resource Works “partner”!) alleging that tanker traffic is safe as proved by records going back many years.

This is the sort of distortion we have come to expect. In fact it is the constant mantra of Byng Giraud, WLNG Vice-President. The statistics they use relate to tanker traffic on the high seas, not in harbours, fjords and rivers! One only has to read GCaptain each day to see how many large tankers, including LNG tankers, are colliding, running aground, and hitting things in waters similar to the Fraser River and Howe Sound almost on a daily basis. The Bosphorus, not unlike Howe Sound, is a particular problem.

While we’re concerned that the tanker traffic be safe everywhere, our principal concern is with Howe Sound, the Fraser River and with many others including Vancouver Harbour, the Salish Sea, the Straits of Juan De Fuca and the BC coast in general. Statistically, there must be accidents – we don’t want them to happen in these waters, bringing inevitable tragedies.

*The Criminal Code of Canada defines Forgery as:

(2) Making a false document includes

(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;

(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; or

(c) making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.

Republished with permission from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Policy Note.

By Marc Lee

Last week, the BC government released the text of its Project Development Agreement with Pacific Northwest LNG (led by Malaysian state enterprise, Petronas), considered the front-runner in getting BC an LNG export industry. The agreement goes to the BC legislature this week in order to convince Petronas to make a “final investment decision.” There are still other barriers to this project going forward, due to First Nations rights and the province’s environmental assessment process. The project hit a major snag when the Lax Kw’alaams first nation balked at Petronas’ proposed site for its LNG terminal. Also, the Gitga’at first nation has just launched a legal challenge for not being consulted in the development process.

Where’s the money for BC?

As far as the Project Development Agreement goes, much of the concern raised has been that the BC government is locking in the tax and regulatory regime for 25 years into the future. Changes made by subsequent governments – to the LNG tax, a special tax credit on corporate income tax, the BC carbon tax, and anything else that would affect project costs – would essentially have to pay compensation to Petronas. It is understandable why Petronas would seek such provisions, as this is a low-margin industry, and without them the company could not justify laying down tens of billions of dollars in capital investment.

However, what’s most disturbing is that this is a massive privatization of a public resource, for which the people of BC will get very little in return. Let’s look at the numbers:

Phase one of the project would produce 12 million tonnes of LNG per year for export, with a second phase that could raise that to 18 million tonnes. The actual amount of gas extracted, however, would be about 25% higher because of the huge amount of gas that would be used to extract, process, transport and liquefy the gas into exportable product.

For BC, there are two potential sources of gains: the revenues to the provincial government; and gains in employment.

Public revenues for BC depend on what price Petronas is able to get for LNG in Asia, but prices for LNG have crashed along with oil prices. It costs about $10 per mcf (thousand cubic feet) to land LNG in Asia due to the high costs of liquefaction and shipping, whereas current prices in Japan, Korea and China  are much lower ($7.45 to $7.85). So any company exporting BC LNG in the current market would be losing lots of money.

Petronas can benefit despite low prices

In spite of these horrible economics, it is possible that Petronas can justify paying a premium in order to secure supply over multiple decades, or its hope is that LNG prices will rise back to earlier highs. The initial hype for LNG was based on prices around $16, which seems completely unrealistic, especially given slowing demand for LNG worldwide, combined with lots of new (mostly Australian) LNG coming into the market.

So let’s assume landed price of $12, or about $2/mcf in profit, and 12 million tonnes (=576,000 mcf) of LNG exported per year. Based on that, over the 25 years of the agreement, the landed value of that LNG would be about $173 billion, and Petronas’ profit would be almost $29 billion.

Loopholes, slashed rates mean few export taxes for BC

BC lowered its corporate income tax rate for LNG to 8% so this would represent about $1.8 billion in corporate income tax over the 25 years. That said, this revenue may not be new money – the industry and government are now arguing that LNG exports are necessary to displace lost sales to the US.

BC also introduced a 3.5% LNG income tax, but allows companies to fully deduct capital costs before paying the full tax, a process that would take 8-10 years. This notably puts taxpayers on the hook for reduced revenues should there be cost over-runs (and this is an industry known for its cost over-runs). Over 25 years, BC would collect $600 to 700 million in LNG income tax assuming no cost over-runs.

Royalties are the other key revenue source. It is important to remember that royalties are not a tax, but the public’s share of the revenues for the exploitation of a public resource. In recent years, BC has been charging low royalties to keep production high, largely due to credits to companies for fracking operations. Those low royalties have averaged 7% per year, and assuming that rate over 25 years, this would amount to about $4 billion in royalties. A new royalty agreement with the proponents suggests these could be much lower, although it is hard to say how much.

Adding these together, BC would get about $6.5 billion in additional revenues over 25 years, or just over $200 million per year. Compare that to a provincial budget of $46 billion per year, and total provincial debt of $43 billion. There are also costs to the public sector associated with infrastructure, services and so forth, so we should really be looking at net revenues.

Revenues would go up if Petronas builds phase two, and its export capacity increases to 18 million tonnes per year. And prices in Asia could venture higher, thereby increasing corporate profits and BC’s share. On the other hand, I do not account for “transfer pricing,” whereby companies shift costs in order to minimize their global taxes payable.

Jobs in the hundreds not thousands

What about jobs? The Petronas environmental assessment application estimates a peak of 3,500 temporary jobs during the 3-year construction phase of the project. After that, only 200 to 300 permanent jobs. There would likely be some additional employment upstream due to increased fracking as well, but in total the job creation is very small given the size of the venture. And that’s assuming all of these full time jobs hire people who would otherwise be unemployed; if they just shift from another part of the economy the benefits are much less. In comparison, BC has 2.4 million employed people.

For all of the hype about LNG creating jobs and eliminating our provincial debt, these real-world numbers are underwhelming to say the least. Having campaigned on that hype in the provincial election two years ago, it appears our provincial government is willing to accept a bad deal over no deal.

By Graeme Pole

Thoreau said, among other things, “…beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.” Aboard the BC Ferry Northern Adventure, departing Prince Rupert and bound for Haida Gwaii, I trained my camera on the southern tip of Digby Island, recording images through a liquid sky. Three months earlier, while our family had picked a route through hemlock, cedar, and beach logs on that island, we had encountered a team of “archaeologists,” meticulously scribbling notebook entries as they decorated ancient spirit trees with fluorescent yellow flagging tape. New clothes.

Confronted with a red cedar far too massive to encircle open-armed, and draped with yellow plastic, our youngest daughter asked me that day why the flagged trees were so special. Her question was genuinely innocent. My impromptu reply surprised me for being as inspired as it was brief: “Every tree is special.” I withheld elaborating. I could not bear to unload on our then seven-year old, half a lifetime’s cynicism derived from matters environmental.

The bearers of that flagging tape, who had helicoptered to work from Seal Cove that morning, and who would helicopter home that afternoon, needed to document every instance of culturally modified tree on south Digby Island. This, so that Aurora LNG could comply with a tedious impediment to business, known as an environmental assessment process, before intending to proceed, with the blessings of governments, to utterly destroy the place.

Legions of “biostitutes”

As the Northern Adventure chugged along, I attempted to visualize Aurora LNG’s conceptual plans (three of them) for berthing facilities among the islets off the southeastern tip of Digby Island. Those berths would accommodate ocean-going vessels 345 metres long – ships that would load and transport a dangerous cargo closer to human settlement (Dodge Cove, Metllakatla, and Prince Rupert) than the LNG industry itself deems safe. How can anyone in Prince Rupert get a good night’s sleep anymore?

Some contractor on the company’s payroll had supposedly done the fieldwork; had checked the soundings and the substrate, had given a cursory nod to wild species and natural processes, had deep-sixed concerns over risks to human life and to the circulating atmosphere of the planet, and had nonetheless drafted the plans. How much money does it take, how much take-home pay, to utterly pervert a person’s connection to place, to fresh air, wild things, and clean water; to permit a person educated in environmental science to say: “This will work. Build it here. We can mitigate. We can get to ‘yes’.”

I now agree with a sentiment that I initially had found repulsive: These people, doubtless well-intentioned at the outset, and now with diplomas and degrees now in hand, have become biostitutes. And there are legions of them, ATV-ing and helicoptering their per-diemed ways across the wilds of BC.

A bald eagle wheeled by. I watched the wind pummel the bird as it turned a wing skyward and fought to hold its track.

North of Hazelton

As Digby Island fell away to stern, a woman interrupted my silent lament, joining me at the starboard railing where I sought shelter from the rain under one of the lifeboat davits. She asked where I was from. “North of Hazelton.” Brief rain-soaked silence. “Beautiful country,” she replied. “My son has been working there for two years with an environmental company. Finding the best place for the pipeline to go.”

When we made landfall at Skidegate, Premier Clark and Petronas were the top story on the CBC Radio news. The Petronas board of directors had given Pacific Northwest LNG conditional approval. TransCanada Pipelines was already saying that it would begin, within six months, construction of the fracked gas pipeline that would supply the LNG plant proposed for Lelu Island in the Skeena estuary and, perhaps inconsequentially, wreck the place some 300 kilometres upstream that my wife and I had chosen to make home, exactly sixteen years ago.

By late evening that day, newsfeeds were reporting that the BC Oil and Gas Commission had issued the first two construction permits for that pipeline.

No matter

No matter that the federal environmental assessment of Pacific Northwest LNG – the destination of that proposed pipeline – was still underway, with the principal concern being impacts to wild salmon. No matter that Madii ‘Lii Camp of the Gitxsan First Nation nobly shuts down a 32 km length of the proposed pipeline’s route on unceded territory. No matter that this one LNG plant would increase the province’s greenhouse gas emissions by 8.5 percent over 2012 levels, at a time when law states that the province must decrease those emissions by 20 percent from 2007 levels. No matter that the “clean” label of LNG is a lie – the lifecycle emissions of shale gas converted to LNG are 43 percent dirtier than burning coal to achieve the same BTUs.

No matter that two of BC’s LNG proponents have atrocious environmental and human rights records elsewhere in the world. Sukanto Tanoto, president of Woodfibre LNG (proposed for Howe Sound), has been called “Indonesia’s lead driver of rainforest destruction.” In 2012 he was found guilty of US tax evasion and agreed to pay over $200 million in fines. Petronas has been accused of participating in “environmental genocide” in Sudan. (During her Asian LNG junkets, Premier Clark posed for photo ops with Tanoto and with Shamsul Abbas, then CEO of Petronas.)

No matter that the Blueberry River First Nations, in part seeking to thwart the upturn in fracking that the LNG industry would require, have filed suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia over the breach of Treaty 8 that the oil and gas industry has brought to bear on their traditional lands. No matter. No matter. No matter. A chaos of vain carts before a stampede of proud horses.

“Generational opportunity”

For northwestern BC, Premier Clark’s ”generational opportunity” of an LNG industry requires of locals – who have a storied history with the comings and goings of boom and bust industries – an acceptance of more new clothes. A plague of white pick-up trucks descends on the landscape while helicopters buzz overhead at the edges of human settlement, sometimes at rooftop level. People who live elsewhere deem what will be imposed on the landscape of home, and why, and that it will be good for all. Motels and truck rental companies have a brief field day. Communities grapple with the ethics of huge money being proffered them by the agents of corporations from afar, who, until the dossier was dropped on their desk, had no idea where Hazelton was, or Gingolx, or Lax Kw’alaams.

Environmental consultants pop up in empty second floor suites all over Smithers, Terrace, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert, sometimes above the vacuous, street-level presence of their corporate employers. Smalltown main street becomes a meet-and-greet, “we are listening” playground for the denim and plaid, dressed-down suits of oil and gas corporations, domestic and foreign. And everyone knows that all these people want to do is to sell enough snake oil to allow the serpent to slither westward to the coast, to deliver its venom and devour a landscape, before it moves on to its next meal.

What money?

The provincial government claims that a billion dollars of taxable commerce has already taken place in BC’s new LNG economy. That’s a lot of leased trucks, hotel rooms, and restaurant meals. The revenue to the province (perhaps 70 million tax dollars) will not even begin to compensate for the government’s absolute giveaway of the methane resource. No net export taxes will be paid by LNG proponents until the capital costs of their projects have been recouped. The rate of levy then due the government will be less than you and I pay on a bag of potato chips.

Petronas and the government forecast the corporate investment in Pacific Northwest LNG, its pipeline, and its fracking fields at 36 Billion dollars. The government cannot estimate its own LNG expenses already incurred, but to anyone who has lent even a cursory ear to the media, to the parade of announced pay-offs to First Nations, and to the glut of government-sponsored open houses, it is evident that the sum already far exceeds 70 million dollars. It is well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, with pledges to First Nations of $1.6 billion more over the next 40 years.

If the experience of the LNG industry in Australia were to play out in BC, there could be project cost overruns that approach fifty percent. Thus it would be decades after the first LNG shovels were put in the ground before the taxpayers of BC might see a nickel of return. Yet governing politicians continue to utter lies about the economic benefits of the industry almost nightly on the news.

Fear, distrust and grief

Going broke and dealing with a poisoned land are potential long-term fallout of the proposed LNG economy. In the present, nothing of lasting value has been created by its supposed billion dollars of activity. To the contrary, much of lasting harm has come to pass. Fear, distrust and grief have been bred in the hearts and minds of those who live on the land and who love it the way that it is, along with a sense of betrayal that is profound.

How far will the people of northwestern BC bend before they break? How much crap are they willing to take from a governing party that they did not elect; from an industry that they did not ask to trespass in their home? How much longer can they live in a mythical land that is off-the-radar of those in other parts of the province, just enough of whom apparently thought that the BC Liberals were a good idea?

As I arrived in Queen Charlotte City and the radio news concluded, I could still feel the damp, the rain, and the wind of earlier that day, as Lelu Island had fallen to port. And I knew – damp or not – that the inherent condition of that intertidal realm would not be enough to prevent the ignition of northwestern BC in the coming social and environmental firestorm.

LNG as metaphor

From wellhead to waterline, and yes, even out to sea, LNG has become a metaphor for many things. Rendered to fundamentals, the proposed industry represents for BC and Canada a place of clear reckoning: Accept the industry, and nothing about how we care for the Earth will change at all, let alone for the better. Oppose the industry, and we buy time for the Earth, its people, and its wild species and natural processes while we (perhaps) collectively figure out less harmful ways and means to exist here.

Governments long ago, at the bidding of their corporate patrons, reached their sell-out decision points. Individuals from all walks are just now waking up to this. We will have to co-operate; will have to intend a different reality if a different reality is to come to pass.

Billions will drop at the slightest shaking from the money trees of industry and government. That’s nothing new. The takers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will take. Those opposed will fret and will hold their higher ground. The ocean will pulse twice daily on the shores of British Columbia, like a measuring heartbeat.

But beware. This will go on for but a while longer, until and if each of us takes on the new clothes that the Earth and the ticking times require.

Graeme Pole is a resident of the Kispiox Valley and the publisher of nomorepipelines.ca