So which LNG plants will be going ahead and in what order in BC 2

178 posts / 0 new
Last post

The title of the following 2016 article says it all:

"Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels Record: Clean Energy Investment Outpaces Gas and Coal 2 to 1".

With all of the benefits provided by renewable energy and none of the global warming drawbacks of fossil fuels, renewable energy has become the winner globally. 


Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance.




2015 also marked the first year in which renewable energy installations surpassed those fo fossil fuels, adding further support to the argument that this is the energy future of the world is, while under the BC Liberals we are tying ourselves to fossil fuels for another three decades as it declines. Greatly helping the growth of renewables is the ongoing rapid fall in renewable energy prices.


Renewable energy reached an important turning point last year with record new installations of emissions-free power surpassing sources that burn fossil fuel, according the International Energy Agency.

New installations of renewable energy overtook conventional power for the first time in 2015, the Paris-based agency said Tuesday in its Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report. Global green power rose by a record 153 gigawatts, equivalent to 55 percent of newly installed capacity last year. Total installed capacity exceeded coal for the first time, the IEA said.

“We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the center of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said. ...

The report shows the acceleration toward clean-power generation was already picking up pace before governments agreed in Paris in December to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Renewables will be the world’s fastest-growing source of electricity over the next five years, according to the report. ...

Renewables capacity will be supported by falling costs, according to the agency. Solar panels are projected to be a quarter cheaper over the five year forecast period ending in 2021. Onshore wind-turbine prices may drop 15 percent.





epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Shades of the 2013 BC election. Where's your hard hat Premier?   Laughing

Petronas Eyes New Island for $27 Billion Canada LNG Plan

..a comment from the Unist'ot'en Camp

With a good arm you can literally hit Ridley Island with a stone from Lelu. The fact that the proponents (Malaysia Petroliam and the BC Government) are leaving the hereditary leadership from Lelu Island out of all talks shows that Christy Clark is completely ignoring the true stewards of the land. Instead she is undermining a Supreme Court of Canada court case ruling from 1997 called "Delgamuukw vs Queen". By further misleading elected Indian bands into land deal talks off of reservation lands she is deliberately fueling infighting amongst the Indigenous communities. This is her Legacy. Not her failed LNG empire.


The Mistress of Spin brings another breathtaking announcement to the people of the province. Once again she has basically told the FN involved in negotiations what the end result will be. She's a two faced lying sycophant.

As the article explains the numbers don't add up. IMO that is unless there is some unseen sweet honey flowing to the billionaire.


“This is the first of 20 projects that are in the pipeline somewhere to go forward so far, and we are just delighted to be able to say that LNG in British Columbia is finally becoming a reality,” said Clark with a grin.

But odd to the local newspaper and the mayor of Squamish was the absence of the Squamish Nation band council. The project relies on the First Nation’s support, since the company has agreed to abide by the band’s environmental and economic conditions.

So where was the band? Abstaining on purpose, Chief Ian Campbell recently told The Tyee.

“The Squamish Nation chose not to participate in the announcement that would frame this project as a green light due to the fact that we’re simply not there,” said the hereditary leader, elected councillor and political spokesperson.

“To be candid, it’s misleading, and it’s not fully respecting the Squamish Nation’s process or our authority to work with the province,” Campbell said.


So far, Woodfibre LNG’s ownership firm in Asia — RGE, controlled by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto — has authorized the funds for the $1.6-billion plant to move forward and has indicated that construction would start this year “pending permitting.”

Yet as of early 2017, there are no jobs posted to career section of the Woodfibre LNG website.

Howe Sound retiree Eoin Finn finds that odd for a $1.6-billion project that the premier said was “finally getting underway.” He’s a former KPMG managing partner who has studied the LNG project’s viability, and a well-known opponent of the project.

Finn believes Clark’s announcement was more of a stunt to “save her political hide” than a final investment decision (FID) in the usual sense.

He explained Woodfibre LNG is a privately held company, so the wealthy owner’s decision to proceed can easily be reversed. That’s different than FIDs made by large publicly traded energy companies, such as Petronas, Shell and Chevron, which are legally accountable to investors, he said.

“Why in earth would a smart fellow like Tanoto decide to spend money making LNG [in B.C.]? Where he says he wants it is in Southeast Asia, he can buy all he wants at much lower prices from Australia,” Finn said Sunday.

Then there’s the question of actual buyers. When Giraud was questioned by the Vancouver Sun on Nov. 4 whether Woodfibre LNG had any customer contracts to justify the project, he replied, “stay tuned.”




epaulo13 wrote:

Petronas Eyes New Island for $27 Billion Canada LNG Plan

..a comment from the Unist'ot'en Camp

With a good arm you can literally hit Ridley Island with a stone from Lelu. The fact that the proponents (Malaysia Petroliam and the BC Government) are leaving the hereditary leadership from Lelu Island out of all talks shows that Christy Clark is completely ignoring the true stewards of the land. Instead she is undermining a Supreme Court of Canada court case ruling from 1997 called "Delgamuukw vs Queen". By further misleading elected Indian bands into land deal talks off of reservation lands she is deliberately fueling infighting amongst the Indigenous communities. This is her Legacy. Not her failed LNG empire.

Hmmm... I would expect locals already know this. But a big advantage in shifting from Lelu to Ridley, not mentioned in the article, probably because it is so "base"....

Is that AltaGas has an agreement with the tiny Metlakatla First Nation to use Ridley Island for exporting propane (brought in rail cars, so this is not dependent on any other projects). So there is already a worn path for Petronas.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..not sure what you mean by "base" ken.

..but i don't see things being resolved just more manoeuvring to try and get around "consult" before the courts. i don’t know enough about the indigenous perspectives to make comment on the territories involved. i’ve just been able to gather a bit here and a bit there but i think the camp is justified in saying clark is "deliberately fueling infighting amongst the Indigenous communities"

eta: pipelines are still needed and pretty much all would run through wet'suwet'en and gitxsan territory that has rejected them time and again.


Petronas’s Pacific NorthWest LNG project would continue as planned with the liquefaction plant on Lelu Island in British Columbia. The company would move the docking facilities to neighboring Ridley Island, where ships would berth to take deliveries of the fuel for export, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

Such a re-design would eliminate the need for a costly suspension bridge that was part of the original plan and also circumvent an environmentally sensitive marine area that’s been a flash point of controversy.


How the Ridley Island deek and dodge would work is not clear cut, and connects with how aboriginal jurisdictions are not clear cut.

It would mean that the most controversial aspect of crossing Flores Bank would be cut out. And it would shift aboriginal claims away from FN opposed to the project to those FN already with a track record of cutting deals.



Right now the project has implacable opposition both on the Coast, and with Unistoten (who block the pipeline).

Getting around coastal FN opposition would isolate the Unistoten- and just eliminate the way the two oppositions feed off each other.

The occupation on Flores Bank for example would then be toothless for example. Petronas has enough potentional FN partners with solid territotial claims on Lelu and Ridley. Its not the same situation there as the Unistoten and the pipeline- no opportunity for a physical blockade against what other FN will sign on to (which is the case with the occupation at Flores Bank).

I'm not saying this will trump opposition- but it would make it harder.

On the other hand, changing the shipping terminal would mean exposing themselves to the risks from re-starting the environmental assessment process. THAT would be a big can or worms.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

txs ken

..forgive me if i say things you already know. for me it's about the rhythm. i'm telling a story. :)

..we will need to see how this plays out for sure. while the flora banks threat will decrease somewhat by moving the tankers to ridley i will look for more info on the threats from the plant itself. and the other big issue is of course the plant itself. i have no doubt this will go before the courts. already funds are being raised for this to happen. and you may remember the large coalition behind that.

..the government and corps may try and isolate the unist'ot'en camp. hell they've been trying to do that for years but i don't think they will be successful. they are part of the wet'suwet'en territories and all those hereditary chiefs are united against the pipelines.

..there is also an alignment with the gitxsan territory. together the are responsible for the  "Delgamuukw vs Queen" decision. they will not let this go. the gov tries to get around the hereditary chief by getting agreements from the bands but that very decision says otherwise. bands have no jurisdiction over greater territory just band land.


all in all, I think its a good sign Petronas wants to dodge to Ridley.

Ridley has always been there as an option. If it was as suggested about being cheaper to do, they would have gone there long ago.

I would not go so far as to say they are getting desperate. But the big picture is that deeking around, and needing to deek around, does not bode well for them. .... Regardless of whether my hunch is right that they are doing it mostly to try and leave some of the opposition behind.

If I'm right- they still have to make it work. All they will have achieved is giving up on Plan A. That doesnt make Plan B work.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i agree ken.'s a new video that brings folks up to date. in this short video there is a connection to the flora banks that i hadn't been aware of.

Winter at Unist'ot'en 2016-2017

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i'm listening to a live monteal no one is illegal radio interview with the camp. the camp is saying the proposed gas pipeline is being built for oil and not gas. link to the archieve listen here. starts at 9:06



Martin N. wrote:

And, once again, you cherry pick my post to ignore relevant info to snivel about perceived 'attacks'. I think you post reams and reams of one sided climate change technobabble hoping against hope that someone will stumble in that you can freak out on. Carry on. Over and out.


Once again you offer no evidence to support the use of fosil fuels, including LNG, in BC. 

In 2015, even Christy Clark admitted that global warming is already causing environmental and economic damage to BC. 


As she toured a fire zone in her Okanagan riding, Premier Christy Clark heaped praise on the more than 2,000 people fighting hundreds of wildfires in British Columbia and warned there could be worse to come for the province because of climate change.

“I am mostly concerned that … the forest fire season won’t give us a break and that we’re going to see more homes threatened, more people’s livelihoods threatened, more forest resources lost,” Ms. Clark said Wednesday. She said B.C.’s extreme fire season has been bad, but it appears to be part of a longer-term trend rather than an anomaly. So far this year B.C. has had 1,300 fires, which have burned more than 295,000 hectares – far exceeding the 10-year average for the same time period of 708 fires and 41,000 hectares.

“Climate change has altered the terrain and it’s made us much more vulnerable to fire,” she said. “The earth is very dry and I think that we have to be planning with the knowledge that this isn’t going to be an unusual year … these things are going to happen more often … we have to be more ready for that.”

The province budgeted $63-million to fight fires this year but has already surpassed that, spending $143-million so far. “We could be at $300- to $400-million by the end of the season if this keeps up. You never want to have to spend more money than you need to but we’re going to spend as much as is needed,” Ms. Clark said, as she visited crews fighting the Westside Road blaze on Okanagan Lake.


Unfortunately, Christy's 2016 climate change plan has given up on achieving the 2016 and 2020 goals set out in Gordon Campbell's orignianl plan. 


Climate change mattered to the government for a few years. In 2007, then-premier Gordon Campbell got religious on global warming after treating the issue as irrelevant for six years. He had read some enlightening books, he said in explaining his conversion, and was shocked by China’s sprawling, polluted cities on a 2006 trade visit. (Campbell had also noticed that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rode the issue to a big election victory. Schwarzegger’s chief environmental advisor Terry Tamminen was quietly brought in to help the Liberals develop their plan.)

Campbell, who had opposed ratification of the Kyoto accord on climate change a few years earlier, said the battle against climate change was as important to the planet’s future as the last two world wars.

The government followed up with a plan in 2008, with specific targets. By 2012, emissions would be cut to six per cent below 2007 levels. By 2016, to 18 per cent. And by 2020, to 33 per cent. By 2050, they would be 80 per cent lower than they were in 2007.

An action plan — starting with a carbon tax — was created to achieve the goals.

The government met the 2012 commitment, helped by the 2008 global recession. 

By the province’s count, emissions fell from 64.3 megatonnes to 60.5 megatonnes (including one megatonne in forestry offsets) — 5.9 per cent, close enough to claim success. (Though hardly a grand achievement — Canadian emissions declined 5.3 per cent in the same period without a carbon tax or climate plan.) 

But the government has no chance of coming close to meeting this year’s target, which called for carbon emissions of 52.7 megatonnes. Statistics Canada reported B.C.’s 2014 emissions at 62.9 megatonnes — up from 2012. 

Which in turn means the government has no chance of meeting its 2020 commitment to cut emissions to 43.1 megatonnes. That’s a big failure, as the reduction is required under the Liberals’ own legislation. ...

The new Climate Leadership Plan pretends the 2016 and 2020 commitments don’t exist. It focuses on 2050, but offers no plan to meet that target. ...

The team’s report had specific recommendations, including increases in the carbon tax to be offset by a reduction on the sales tax from seven to six per cent. It warned that with current government policies, emissions are on track to reach almost 70 megatonnes by 2050, more than five times the level allowed under the goverment’s climate plan.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

B.C. First Nation expected to launch court challenge of LNG approval

Members of a B.C. First Nation are expected to launch another legal challenge of a massive liquefied natural gas project proposed for the province's north coast.

Several hereditary chiefs with the Gitxsan First Nation will be in Vancouver today to announce their opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG project, a project backed by Malaysia's state oil company Petronas.

The group's traditional territory is in northwestern B.C., near the area where a $11.4 billion LNG export terminal would be built close to Prince Rupert, B.C....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i do not post this as a matter for debate here. this is an internal matter. but i add it to the information we alrady hold on how the system works.

Delgamuukw land claims case, pipeline divides Gitxsan Nation

Revelations that Delgamuukw is among chiefs who accepted money to support LNG development without consulting all members threaten to undermine landmark court victory


Fast-forward to the fall of 2016, when it emerged that Muldon was among a group of nine Gitxsan chiefs who had accepted money in exchange for their support of a controversial liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline without consulting all of their nation’s members. Some Gitxsan people say that decision broke “ayook,” traditional Gitxsan law — and could undermine what the nation fought to prove in court 20 years ago.

So how did Muldon, who holds the hereditary name, Delgamuukw, that represented the unified Gitxsan Nation in their fight for their land, come to be among the group supporting resource development and spurring internal conflict among the Gitxsan?


The Delgamuukw decision set several important legal precedents that many other First Nations have built upon in the courts ever since. Firstly, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that oral histories like the Gitxsan’s adaawk were as valid as written evidence. This means that First Nations across Canada can refer to their own oral history and laws when claiming their traditional land in court.

Secondly, overturning McEachern, the court case confirmed that Aboriginal title, ownership of land had never been extinguished in British Columbia. This is because, unlike in most provinces in Canada, British Columbia didn’t negotiate historical treaties when settler populations moved into Indigenous territories.

In short, the Gitxsan proved that traditional Gitxsan land is still Gitxsan land.

“It’s bribery, more or less”

In October 2016, two confidential documents were leaked on Facebook. They fuelled divisions over who can speak for the Gitxsan and how decisions are made on behalf of the Gitxsan people. These divisions have been growing gradually since the end of the Delgamuukw legal victory.

The documents showed that several Gitxsan hereditary chiefs, including Muldon, gave consent on behalf of the Gitxsan Nation for TransCanada’s proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project (PRGT). The 900-kilometre pipeline would carry LNG from northeastern British Columbia to the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal proposed for Lelu Island on British Columbia’s north coast, crossing the territories of 10 Gitxsan wilp groups along the way.

The signatures of eight out of these 10 wilp chiefs appeared on a document called “Trustee Resolution of the Amdimxxw Trust,” dated Sept. 6, 2016. This document lists the chief names next to dollar amounts, dividing a total of more than $5.3 million between them. After this document was leaked, the chiefs released an information package to members, confirming that nine of the 10 wilp chiefs whose territories would be crossed by the pipeline had given their consent to the project.

The second document leaked was called the “Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Natural Gas Benefits Agreement.” It says the B.C. government will provide the Gitxsan Nation with numerous payments, adding up to nearly $6 million, at various stages of construction in exchange for support of the project. It contains a clause that prohibits any Gitxsan member from challenging the LNG pipeline project in court....


And away we go. There should be lots of good jobs here.

Woodfibre LNG applies for 40-year export licence

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

B.C. government scared of 'informed consent' from First Nations says expert


In the fall of 2016, a small group of Gitxsan hereditary chiefs secretly signed an agreement approving the project on behalf of the entire Gitxsan Nation. The group is made up of chiefs whose lax yip is directly crossed by the proposed pipeline route. They accepted millions of dollars in exchange for their support of the project. Since the deal was made public when documentation was leaked to the community late last year, the chiefs have stated publicly and in interviews that the money would help support development in a region plagued with unemployment and poverty.

Wright’s main concern is that a man named Gordon Sebastian signed as a hereditary chief on behalf of the Luutkudziiwus wilp. Wright claims Sebastian did so without consulting the wilp members. He also says Sebastian shouldn’t have been signing in the first place because he’s not their chief at all. Wright is now attempting to stop the project in court. He says the provincial government and PRGT have been negotiating with the wrong people and sparking conflict in the community.

Internal conflict over who has the authority to speak for the entire nation when it comes to considering resource deals is not unique to the Gitxsan. Some critics say that the B.C. government, which has a legal obligation to consult First Nations when developing deals, fuels and benefits from internal division by negotiating behind closed doors only with those individuals who are likely to say yes. They argue that the government appears afraid to seek informed consent from the nation through a consultation process that is inclusive of all members.

How this conflict unfolds will not only influence the fate of one major LNG project — it could forever impact the way the Gitxsan Nation governs itself.



'Why do I have to consult with them?'

Darwin Hanna is an Aboriginal lawyer with expertise in First Nations land rights. While not speaking specifically about the Gitxsan, he stresses that First Nations leaders have a duty to inform their own people.

“First Nations generally have a fiduciary duty to make sure the membership is fully engaged and provided with full information prior to making any decisions that may affect the way of life,” he says. This duty was confirmed in the landmark 1997 Delgamuukw court case, where the Gitxsan went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight for their legal right to the land — and won. The case also confirmed that Aboriginal land rights are held communally, which means that decisions regarding the land should be made communally.

“The issue here is: Has the leadership taken certain measures to provide for informed consent?” says Hanna.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Shell officially shelves plans to build Prince Rupert LNG project

Royal Dutch Shell PLC has officially shelved its plans to build the Prince Rupert LNG project, which had been planned for Ridley Island in British Columbia.

But the Anglo-Dutch giant will continue in advancing the $40-billion LNG Canada plant, another liquefied natural gas-export venture.

Shell had placed the Prince Rupert LNG proposal on the back-burner since it inherited the project through its 2016 acquisition of BG Group PLC. Earlier this year, Shell had said it was in the process of reviewing the combined Shell and BG portfolio, including the project located at the southern end of Ridley Island at the Port of Prince Rupert.....


TransCanada seeks to start building B.C. gas pipeline without LNG project's OK

TransCanada Corp. is seeking regulatory approval to begin construction of a pipeline that would help feed a proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal on B.C.'s north coast even though a final decision has not yet been made whether to build the terminal.

The Calgary-based company has conditional federal and provincial approvals for the North Montney Mainline, but they are subject to a positive financial investment decision for the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, B.C.

TransCanada says the modified proposal filed with the National Energy Board would allow it to move forward with construction of the majority of its North Montney Mainline project at a cost of $1.4 billion ahead of that decision.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Vancouver Island First Nation approves LNG plan

..and then there's the real story

Sarita Bay LNG Vote Came with Promise of Multimillion-Dollar Education Fund

On March 25 Huu-ay-aht members voted 140 to 61 in favour of moving ahead with a “co-management development arrangement” with Steelhead LNG. The Huu-ay-aht First Nation government said it is the first such agreement for an LNG plant in the province.

But Stella M. Peters, a citizen of the nation, said members were left with little choice after leaders promised $2 million for education and training and to more than double monthly grants to elders — but only if the LNG development was approved in the referendum....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Three Fibs Premier Clark Uses to Sell LNG Dream

The more Christy Clark defends her dream of an LNG industry, the more she turns cold gas into hot air. The B.C. premier's interview with Andrew MacLeod published last week in The Tyee is a case in point. As MacLeod pressed with many LNG-related questions, Clark resorted to three big, bloated fibs.


Fib #1: LNG is 'clean'

While making our documentary Fractured Land about fracking in B.C., co-director Fiona Rayher and I journeyed to Cornell University to interview Dr. Robert Howarth. He is a global expert on the climate impacts of fracking.

We told him our premier has affixed the label "Cleanest Fossil Fuel on the Planet" to B.C. LNG (derived almost entirely from a massive increase in fracking in the province's northeast).

Howarth chuckled and said: "Your premier has her facts wrong!"

It is true that "natural" gas, an old euphemism for methane, burns cleaner than coal when you turn on your stove or fireplace at the end of the line. But when it escapes into the atmosphere before it's burned, it's some 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20-year period....

Fib #2: The business case for LNG is solid

The Asian LNG market is in freefall. Prices that peaked at $18 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) just a few years ago are the reason we started down this path. Now they have plummeted to the $7 range today, with leading analysts forecasting $4-5 per MMBtu in 2016-17. Just to break even on gas fracked in northeast B.C., piped to the coast, compressed and loaded onto tankers bound for Asia, you need to fetch about $12 per MMBtu. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to figure out why. As The Tyee's MacLeod put to our premier, expert consultants like IHS Inc. predict "19 out of 20 planned gas export projects in the world won't be needed by 2025.".....

Fib #3: First Nations and communities broadly support LNG

Premier Clark maintains, "We've got pretty broad agreement from First Nations and communities along the way [for LNG]." The Tsawwassen First Nation's recent rejection of an LNG plant on their reserve is just the latest example of why that's simply untrue.....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Federal scientist has proof: fracking by Petronas-owned company caused a big B.C. earthquake

The largest earthquake yet detected in British Columbia’s northeastern shale gas region was conclusively caused by fracking from Progress Energy Inc. in August 2015, says a federal scientist whose study was published this month.

Honn Kao, a research scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada, says it’s now clear that the 4.6 magnitude quake, which was felt at the surface near the resource town of Fort St. John, was the direct result of liquids being pumped into underground rock formations under high pressure to extract natural gas.

“It confirms what we’ve learned so far, that the majority of earthquakes induced in northeastern British Columbia appear to be related to hydraulic fracturing operations rather than other injection operations,” Kao said in a telephone interview from his office in Sidney, B.C., near Victoria....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Horgan: “I support LNG, provided the conditions are met”

B.C. Premier-designate John Horgan said today that he supports the province’s oil and gas industry, and the creation of a liquified natural gas industry, provided that the industry meets conditions.


When asked about how his conditions are different from those of her predecessor, Horgan stated that the former Premier spoke incorrectly about both his views and those of the NDP on the oil and gas industry. He gave the example of Shell Canada’s proposed LNG Canada project. “It has all of its permits in place, has social license from First Nations in the region, has the support of the community, and is waiting for economic conditions to turn around, and that project will proceed,” said Horgan.

On the topic of Pacific NorthWest LNG, Horgan said that First Nations participation needs to be complete, not passive. He explained that while there is a large amount of opposition to the facility being located next to Flora Bank, a habitat for juvenile salmon at the mouth of the Skeena River. “I know they’re working on trying to find a way around that. I think working together with the community, with First Nations, and investors we can find a better location. I want people to be embracing these economic opportunities across the board, and not just piecemeal.”

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Feds Never Considered Cumulative Climate Impacts Of Pacific Northwest LNG, Court Docs Reveal

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) never considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal, according to documents revealed in a federal court this week.

The documents were submitted to a federal court in Vancouver during a hearing to determine whether the information should be considered as part of a forthcoming judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the LNG project.  

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed for the judicial review of the project’s approval and received 17,000 pages of federal documents under disclosure — the release of information required by law during legal proceedings. SkeenaWild hired two experts to give expert testimony on those documents.

One of those experts Kirsten Zickfeld, a climate scientist and associate professor of geography at Simon Fraser University, testified in a sworn affidavit that CEAA did not provide the federal government with an assessment of cumulative emissions from the project and that these emissions “should be assessed, especially…in terms of their share of a provincial or national ‘carbon budget.’ ”

A second expert, policy and technical analyst from the Pembina Institute Maximilian Kniewasser, testified in a sworn affidavit that Canada considered imposing conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution, such as requiring the project be powered by grid electricity rather than natural gas, but chose not to despite doing so to varying degrees for two other LNG projects, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG.....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Fort Nelson First Nation Files Legal Challenge to Gas Pipeline Claiming It Will Threaten Caribou Habitat

A First Nation in northeastern B.C. is challenging the province’s approval of a proposed gas pipeline that would cut across critical habitat of threatened boreal woodland caribou.

Fort Nelson First Nation (FNFN) has filed for a judicial review of B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s approval last month of a pipeline, proposed by Rockyview Resources Inc. and Shanghai Energy Corp., that would run through FNFN territory, resulting in 78 hectares of disturbance to caribou habitat.

“The 39-kilometre proposed gas pipeline cuts right through core caribou habitat in our territory, in an area with the most concentrated and highest-known use by boreal caribou for forage, calving, rearing and protection from predators,” said Lana Lowe, FNFN land and resources director.

“This area has been important harvesting grounds for our people, but, in particular, the area contains very important habitat for caribou, which our people have relied on for many generations to feed our families,” she said.


Not good enough. You have to have concrete proposals for alternate good paying jobs. It's possible but much work has to be done on the alternative jobs or the Shell plant in Kitmat is going to go ahead. So far so good for Shell's project.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..under the libs, fed and prov, your right that lng trumped indigenous rights. new gov now though. if they are to be believed decisions will be made based on undrip.  

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

BC NDP to press on with LNG support; Green allies remain opposed


Jen Holmwood, a spokeswoman for the NDP, said in a statement last week a more detailed outline of the new government's view on LNG will be upcoming, but she said the NDP will conditionally support the industry. The Liberals campaigned in the last two elections on an LNG sector becoming a major boon for the province, creating jobs and revenues.

"We will ensure any LNG development guarantees jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians, gets a fair profit for BC for our resources, benefits and includes First Nations in a meaningful way, protects our air, land and water, and lives up to our climate-change commitments," Ms. Holmwood said in the statement.

But Adam Olsen, one of three BC Green Party members of the legislature who have committed to support the NDP as government, said the Greens remain opposed to LNG development.

"LNG is going in the wrong direction," Mr. Olsen said, referring to moving beyond economic development based on fossil fuels.

But he added the differing positions on LNG do not indicate a schism between the two parties and said the issue will be a matter of discussion between the two in coming weeks. The Greens are giving the New Democrat support allowing them to govern.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this is why the ndp ok'ed site c. lying fucks.

What is John Horgan thinking on LNG?!

In his desperate bid to keep Christy Clark’s LNG pipe dream alive, John Horgan has become completely untethered from reality.

Today, he announced further tax incentives for the industry – as if the sweetheart deal the Liberals gave them wasn’t bad enough for BC taxpayers already. Now, the industry won’t pay PST on construction costs for their plants and it will receive hugely-subsidized electricity from BC Hydro. Prior to the NDP taking over, the industry already secured big federal tax breaks and such a huge discount to the export tax that was supposed to fill our “Prosperity Fund” coffers as to render it meaningless. What was supposed to be a 7% tax got slashed to 1.5% and the industry could deduct its capital costs, so that it would pay no export tax until those were recouped (a.k.a. never). Apparently that wasn’t enough. The NDP is also repealing the LNG income tax.

This all makes for some real head scratching when one reads the technical briefing on the NDP government’s new LNG framework, compiled by Deputy Minister Don Wright. For instance, it boasts that Kitimat LNG – a joint project of Shell, PetroChina, KOGAS, and Mitsubishi – would bring a windfall of public monies:

The Ministries of Finance and Energy have estimated that the project will generate $22 billion in direct government revenue over the next 40 years…Significantly more if “multiplier” effects are taken into account


On those Hydro rates, the NDP wants to extend to the LNG industry the old sweetheart deal we’ve given sawmills, pulp mills and mines, which used to be around half of what you and I pay for power but would now amount to less than a third of the cost of Site C’s new electricity. So you will get the privilege of paying $15 Billion-plus for a dam you didn’t need – which wipes away First Nations’ rights and vital farmland – all to give the power away for pennies on the dollar to Shell and PetroChina! Doesn’t that make you feel so much better about the NDP’s decision to forge ahead with Site C?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I guess the morons in the BC NDP won't consider ammonia because the Toronto Sun published an article on it.

This would be a perfect replacement for LNG, and much cheaper to produce. If you actually study hydrocarbons, you will find that natural gas is much more difficult to find than oil.

For example, US natural gas reserves are 1,400 trillion cubic feet at 1.037 BTU per cubic foot, or 1451.8 trillion BTU.  By contrast its oil reserves are 36.5 billion barrels at 5,717,000 BTU per barrel, or 208.67 quadrillion BTU. Hence in terms of energy yield, there is 143 times as much oil as natural gas in the United States. In addition, natural gas is very expensive both on the production and consumption sides, and there is a very long time from the breaking of ground to its potential use. Nonetheless, natural gas has half the GHGs of coal and tar sands shit, whereas ammonia has zero GHGs.

In terms of BTUs, there is less natural gas than oil under the ground. However under the sea, there have been estimated about 1 trillion tonnes of frozen methane. Apparently this forms because dead stuff sinks to the bottom and then rots under extreme pressure. Apparently 360,000,000 years ago there was a natural global warming event which heated up the oceans considerably. The methane bubbled to the top, and everything on the surface caught on fire, destroying 99.9% of life. What could go wrong with mining undersea methane?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Resignation from the BC NDP

Please receive this as my official resignation as a member of the New Democratic Party, its provincial council and its Surrey-Green Timbers riding executive after seventeen consecutive years and a total of twenty years as a party member. I have served on constituency executives in Surrey, Burnaby, Vancouver and Toronto. I provided your party with a crucial endorsement that altered the campaign narrative during the 2001 election; I served as a paid consultant in 2002-03; I have recruited dozens of party members over the years; I have been attending conventions as a delegate from Forum 2000 with Ed Broadbent in 1985 to the 2017 Victoria convention; and, most recently, provided substantial assistance to the Surrey-Guildford GoTV operation that saw Garry Begg defeat Peter Fassbender.

I did all of these things based on the belief that the BC NDP had learned something from its near-annihilation in the 2001 election, that it would not return to office and repeat the mistakes of the 1990s. Clearly, such a belief was utterly unfounded. Rather, it seems that the brain trust that led the party to within a hair’s breadth of total destruction is back in the driver’s seat with a goal of re-enacting a style of governing even less appropriate for today’s BC than it was a generation ago.

It is not the 1990s anymore. The world has lost its appetite for centrist triangulation, Blairism and the Third Way. Nobody is looking for a BC NDP government to strike a course on minimum wage that places it to the right of Andrew Cuomo’s New York Democratic Party. Nobody is looking for a BC NDP to show it is serious by maintaining outlandish private school subsidies, subsidizing the oil industry through the LNG scam or completing WAC Bennett’s Two Rivers policy vision. One can no longer even make the case for the Third Way based on pragmatism.

I am forced, therefore, to reach one inescapable conclusion following Thursday’s $6 billion LNG subsidy announcement: the BC NDP believes that subsidizing transnational oil companies to increase fossil fuel exports is the right thing to do, that, in the eyes of today’s NDP, the global investor class who own and run companies like Petronas are more deserving of a break on PST than homeless people trying to replace their shoes. The NDP believes in these things because it is just another capitalist party indifferent to the global extinction event the capitalist system is producing. That must be why, for instance, the terms of reference of the government’s fracking study include the approval of continued fracking.

All the signs were there that this is where we were heading but I held on after the party enacted a fee to prevent poor people from seeking its nomination; I held on after the party approved Site C; I held on after the promise to keep BC’s minimum wage below New York’s, Seattle’s, Ontario’s and Alberta’s for the next four years; I held on after it became increasingly clear that the government is rigging the proportional representation referendum not just to fail but to discredit PR nationally for a generation.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

B.C.’s climate targets will be impossible to reach if LNG Canada project goes ahead, critics say

Environmentalists are warning that it will be impossible for British Columbia to reach its climate targets if a Shell-led liquefied natural gas project forges ahead along the northern coast.

The BC NDP government has suggested that other industries would need to sharply reduce their greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions should the LNG Canada project in Kitimat get built.

Hannah Askew, executive director of Sierra Club BC, said in a letter this week to Premier John Horgan that the NDP’s support for LNG Canada means the government believes “every other industry, business, community and individual in B.C. should be required to drive GHG reductions at a significantly accelerated rate.”

Last week, Mr. Horgan said it will take sacrifices from other sectors to secure LNG projects for B.C. and still decrease the province’s carbon footprint. “If we have an increase in emissions from the advent of LNG, then we are going to have to see concurrent reductions in other sectors," he said.

Ms. Askew sent her letter as Shell and four co-owners of LNG Canada assess whether to proceed with the project. The consortium is expected to make a final investment decision by the end of 2018.

“We will have a hard enough time meeting our existing targets without the addition of LNG Canada. B.C. is not yet even close to meeting the weak target set by the previous government, reducing emissions by 33 per cent by 2020, compared to 2007,” she said. B.C. emitted more than 65 million tonnes of GHGs in 2007, and environmentalists say the level of annual emissions has barely budged since then.

Ms. Askew’s letter is copied to Environment and Climate Change Minister George Heyman and Energy Minister Michelle Mungall. Mr. Heyman is a former executive director of Sierra Club BC.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Industry, government signing agreements with wrong chiefs

TransCanada’s press release about their Coastal GasLink pipeline project having 100 per cent sign on with all the elected Indigenous bands is an incredibly misleading statement.

What the average Canadian does not know is that some of those bands (band councils) only have jurisdiction within their reservation boundary while the hereditary chiefs have jurisdiction over the traditional territories. It’s the same as a municipality, like Smithers or Terrace, that only has jurisdiction within their city limits and can’t sign development agreements for projects in Telkwa, Thornhill or rural areas.

In the case of the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan, the hereditary system has been tested in court several times and has helped form the very laws from which most aboriginal rights and title cases have been based. “The Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs’ have never ceded nor surrendered their territory, nor have we lost it to war,” from time immemorial the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs mandate has been and continues today and into the future is to protect the land and its people. The Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs do not endorse nor support pipeline projects that threaten the health and well-being of our lands and our people.” –DebbiePierre, executive director of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en.

In a nutshell, the Band Council doesn’t have jurisdiction over traditional territories regardless of impact benefit agreements, so why is TransCanada touting this in the press as if they do? This isn’t about whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing for Bands to sign on — I don’t begrudge any Bands for signing these agreements, as money is needed for all the work they have to do to support their communities.

What I do begrudge are the repeated efforts of industry and the complicity of the B.C. government in creating these deals with band councils when they know there are hereditary systems they need to consult. First Nations have won more than 200 consecutive court cases in Canada around this very sort of issue — governments failing to consult the appropriate First Nations leaders. Touting these signed deals in the press creates unnecessary division and conflict in communities that have already been pushed to the margins....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

How this man’s legal challenge could stall LNG Canada

LNG Canada has announced that the international consortium is ready to proceed with Canada’s largest ever infrastructure project, but, in a David and Goliath scenario, a challenge by a Smithers environmental consultant is aiming to temporarily derail or delay the $40-billion megaproject.

Michael Sawyer is arguing that the Coastal GasLink Project, a 675-kilometre pipeline running from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, should have faced a federal review by the National Energy Board instead of relying on provincial approval.

Although the $4.7-billion pipeline is set to be built entirely within B.C. — which would usually put it under the jurisdiction of the province — the pipeline, which would supply the LNG Canada export terminal in Kitimat, connects to an existing pipeline system that is federally regulated.

Also, Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of TransCanada Pipeline Ltd., which means under the Constitution Act the pipeline is within federal jurisdiction and should be regulated by the National Energy Board, Sawyer says in an application to the board.

“A pipeline that crosses international boundaries or provincial boundaries would normally be federally regulated,” Sawyer told The Narwhal, pointing to a 1998 Supreme Court decision that said if a provincial pipeline is “functionally integrated” with an existing federally regulated line, it becomes an extension of the federal line.

Sawyer wants the National Energy Board to conduct an environmental review of the pipeline and, if that application is turned down, he is prepared to ask the Federal Court of Appeal for leave to argue to overturn that decision.

It is a process already familiar to Sawyer, who, last year, launched a similar action dealing with the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline.

That application was rejected by the National Energy Board, but the Federal Court of Appeal then ruled that the National Energy Board had erred and sent it back to the board for reconsideration. The question became moot when Petronas killed the Pacific NorthWest LNG project because of depressed natural gas prices.

Sawyer is hoping the previous ruling will give LNG Canada and the provincial and federal governments, which both support the project, pause to reflect on the financial ramifications of a delay.


Challenge presents legal risk to LNG Canada

West Coast Environmental Law staff lawyer Erica Stahl agrees there is a risk to LNG Canada going ahead before the application is resolved.

“This case means there is a legal risk to them going ahead without a full resolution of the matters raised by Mike Sawyer,” Stahl said.

“They would be wise to take this seriously because of the Federal Court of Appeal’s previous ruling in the Prince Rupert case,” she said.

West Coast Environmental Law is helping fund the case through its Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, a grant provided by the Law Foundation of B.C to help pay for legally meritorious environmental cases.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Blueberry River and the death by a thousand cuts

When Chief Marvin Yahey was a young man, he was a competitive bull rider. He spent more than a decade travelling the summer rodeo circuits across western Canada, licking his wounds from one farming town to the next. Now in his late forties and long retired from riding, the second-term chief of the Blueberry River First Nations (located about 1,300 km northeast of Vancouver near Fort St. John) is discovering that life as a political leader can be just as bruising.

Blueberry’s traditional territory is at the centre of one of the biggest deposits of natural gas on the planet, the Montney formation. In the space of just 50 years, their territory has been transformed, despite a 1900 treaty that guaranteed no such mass destruction would ever occur.

Oil and gas, forestry and hydro-electric power (among other things) have transformed the land and water beyond recognition: by 2016, more than 110,000 linear kilometres of roads, pipelines and transmission and seismic lines had been cut across less than 40,000 square kilometres of land. Faced with the destruction of their last critical wilderness areas, the chief, backed by his council and elders, is taking action.

Yahey is now the plaintiff in an unprecedented, on-again, off-again series of legal actions in B.C. that started in 2015. On behalf of Blueberry, he is suing British Columbia for the full sum of destructive impacts over the last 50 years — including the many smaller developments that a lawyer familiar with the situation called “death by a thousand cuts.”

The current Supreme Court of B.C. case, which claims the 1900 treaty has been breached, is unique because, instead of focusing on a single industrial impact, it is based on thousands of individual authorizations which have collectively degraded the land and water. And if successful, it has the power to transform the way First Nations, industry and governments plan and execute resource projects in this gas-rich region — and far beyond.

“This is one of the first cases where a court is being called upon to analyze and understand what the cumulative effects are on a territory from many different sources, and how this affects environmental sustainability moving forward,” says Chris Tollefson, executive director at Victoria’s Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation....


From above article:

"If you can't beat them, you join them. And you can't beat them."

How the West was won.


Foolish Leaders & LNG   -   by Judith Sayers

"...Just when  you thought your opinion of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier [Horgan] can't go any lower, your opinion sinks to greater depths. We as a people need to be more vocal and proactive and fight for a world that future generations can live in. We don't want to be responsible for actions that cause hardship and heartache to them. 

Trudeau and Horgan will wear this decision and its effects but it is all of us who will have to live with it. These leaders may be fools but if we don't call them on it, we are allowing the foolishness. 

The time to act was yesterday and time is running out."

Martin N.

NDPP wrote:

Foolish Leaders & LNG   -   by Judith Sayers

"...Just when  you thought your opinion of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier [Horgan] can't go any lower, your opinion sinks to greater depths. We as a people need to be more vocal and proactive and fight for a world that future generations can live in. We don't want to be responsible for actions that cause hardship and heartache to them. 

Trudeau and Horgan will wear this decision and its effects but it is all of us who will have to live with it. These leaders may be fools but if we don't call them on it, we are allowing the foolishness. 

The time to act was yesterday and time is running out."

Considering the abject failures of Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris Accords, one should be able to reason that overly ambitious political gimmickery designed to keep the more excitable elements of the environmental industry quiet is not working.

The simple reason for recent global population growth is that fossil fuel use makes it possible to feed the additional population.QQ And, attempting to implement grand strategies and policies that are against the grain regarding personal well being are non-starters.

Implementing strategies that address productivity constraints such as providing individual small solar systems are more effective but do not have the same capacity to engender that smug frission of superiority in politicians that save-the-world fantasies do.

ETA: In the meantime, the beatings will continue until morale improves!


Thanks for sharing Martin N. I love a man who preaches that he knows how to stop climate chaos (unlike all useless activists) while bragging about making money buying and selling oil and gas stocks.

Martin N.

Ah, the righteous outrage of a keyboard warrior whose only contribution to environmental concerns is.....righteous outrage.

Tell me, sage, if the world is consuming more than a hundred million barrels of oil per day and you agre with the premise that global population growth is inextricably linked to the need for fossil fuel products to produce enough food to feed them all, do only those that can pay get food?

I live off my investments ( and pay income tax there on). The reality is that all pension plans, especially the CPP invest in whatever generates the best returns and therefore all pension plan contributors and recipients are complicit in oil and gas investment. I know, I know....... ethical investing. Ethical investors are marks for stock pimps peddling crap.

Your welcome. And by the way, rabble took my dirty oil money. I am glad to assist in making divergent views known. Did you offer them any clean morally superior funds of your own or are you all morals and no money?

Its too bad we are consumed by ideology and blame games rather than working toward realistic solutions. Fortunately industry is working on solutions but it takes years to implement them while the more excitable members of the outrage community gnaw on about fantasies and political games.


Martin n you paid money to rabble so you could verbally abuse people i see.

good on ya...let's  us know you really go above and beyond to be a dick.


 That gas was under immense pressure 

Any idea what caused this?

I thought it was thunder': Gas line explosion near Prince George, B.C., causes evacuations


Social media posts show orange fireball in the skies over Shelley, 15 km north of Prince George


A fireball rises from Shelley, B.C., a small community about 15 kilometres northeast of Prince George, after a pipeline explosion. (@Dhruv7491/Twitter)

Residents of a northern B.C. community are being allowed to return home after a natural gas explosion saw homes evacuated Tuesday evening.

Prince George RCMP said an incandescent orange fireball that could be seen for kilometres at approximately 5:30 p.m. PT was from an Enbridge natural gas pipeline exploding in Shelley, about 15 kilometres northeast of Prince George.