rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Science behind Petronas LNG approval 'fraudulent,' says former government geologist

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca for as little as $5 per month!

Image: Flickr/BCGovPhotos

How corrupt is the environmental review process? Or how is it that DFO, CEAA and NRCan decided that Petronas LNG was not a threat to the Skeena Salmon?

I do not use the word "corrupt" lightly. If not for a fairly random connection, I would merely be heartbroken at the environmental and climate atrocity wrapped up in the approval of Pacific NorthWest LNG. Instead, I am angry and deeply concerned that the Cabinet ministers who made the decision were denied key scientific evidence by the very civil servants who are mandated to provide them with the facts.

The random event was the Saanich Inlet Round Table on May 26, 2016. The immediate local issue is, of course, the proposed Steelhead floating LNG facility for Saanich Inlet. Organizers decided a local scientist who had done extensive work for the Lax Kw'alaams First Nation on the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG would be of interest. Dr. McLaren's presentation, "Lessons to be learned from the Petronas Affair -- Prince Rupert," had no scientific parallels for us. The ecological and scientific issues are unique to Lelu Island. But the political lessons are chilling.

What Dr. McLaren shared made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I have worked for the last forty years with various branches of government and regulators. It is not that they were always perfect. DFO's blind stupidity cost us one of the world's most abundant fisheries, the North Atlantic cod, to name one example. But overall, I have come to expect professionalism and a dispassionate willingness to examine the evidence.

That is what Patrick McLaren expected. Back in the 1970s and 80s, he had worked as a government scientist with the Canadian Geological Survey. He specialized in coastal geology, left Canada for a while as a visiting scholar at Cambridge, and returned with his own consulting firm. He was the first scientist to scuba dive under the North Pole to study the ice. In other words, he's no slouch when it comes to science.

So when he presented his findings to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources Canada, he thought they would be interested. Instead, they were hostile. His findings were inconvenient. They did not accord with the numerical modelling by Petronas that said everything would be fine.

Lelu Island in Prince Rupert Sound is the now approved site for a massive LNG development. In addition to the acknowledged increase in GHG and threat to local porpoises, a huge issue is whether the project will endanger the second largest salmon run in B.C. -- the Skeena salmon fishery. The Skeena salmon depend on the rich eelgrass habitat found almost exclusively on a huge extent of sand called Flora Bank.

Up until McLaren was hired by the Lax Kw'alaams to check out the sediments and how they were transported, everyone assumed that all the sediments came from the Skeena River. Instead, McLaren found that, using his technique known as Sediment Trend Analysis (STA), the sands of Flora Bank were not from the Skeena at all -- nor from anywhere else one can find on the British Columbian coast.

In fact, they were from a glacial dump of sediments occurring between 15,000 to 8,000 years ago. The sands of Flora Bank are 8,000 years old. McLaren describes them as "ancient, relic sands."

So the question for science is not "will building a giant terminal, pounding 500 pilings, more than a metre each in diameter, into the sand banks hurt the eel grass?" The question is "what is keeping this unique geological feature in place?"

And that raises other troubling questions. If the waves and currents hold the sands in place, what impact will the pilings and huge LNG tankers parked along more than a quarter of Flora Bank's perimeter have on the ancient formation? McLaren predicts that they will reduce the energy of the processes impinging the bank enabling the sand to "escape" to the surrounding deep water. The eel grass and its fish habitat will be removed with the sand, effectively destroying Flora Bank.

Petronas wasn't the only one to dislike this prediction. The CEAA, DFO and NRCan were likewise unhappy. At first, they dismissed McLaren's work. Then he made it stickier for them by getting the research published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Journal of Coastal Research "The environmental implications of sediment transport in the waters of Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada: A comparison between kinematic and dynamic approaches.")

Once published, CEAA made Petronas redo their numeric model to at least acknowledge the troublesome prediction made from the STA. Petronas produced new versions until CEAA accepted their incredible claim that the wave action and currents along Flora Bank would not be sufficient to impact the sands and that the STA actually supported the findings of their numeric model. Incredible because in order to produce that result, Petronas had to suppress their own findings that currents were actually up to three times more intense than their model had predicted. And NRCan and DFO and CEAA all knew that the information was being suppressed.

In questioning Petronas about their model, McLaren was interrupted and told to stop by CEAA officials. He felt it was because the Petronas modellers were becoming uncomfortable. As he recalled, "It was the most important point in that meeting to get straight. And I was told to 'move on,' and stop asking about numbers that made no sense. It made me believe the modellers had not looked at their own numbers."

His conclusions are personal and powerful:

"If you cannot explain the present, and the Petronas model certainly cannot, why would you use it to predict the future?

"We know that this model is not science. You cannot use a model to prove a preconceived notion: that building on Flora Bank will not hurt the salmon. That's not science. And we know that the claim that STA supports the numerical model is just simply not true.

"The currents mean everything. The way Petronas presented the lie was to show that the currents on Flora Bank are too small to move the sediments… but they themselves (Petronas) had taken current data three times higher than what they used and they kept that secret with the collusion of CEEA, NRCan and DFO.

"And we know the model doesn't work. My conclusion is that the science and the model are fraudulent."

He presented that conclusion, including using the word "fraudulent" at a meeting with First Nations and representatives from the three federal agencies. No one challenged him. No one said a word.

Collusion. Fraudulent, Corrupt. These are not words I associate with the federal approvals process. We need to be raising hell before similar "science" is used to approve Kinder Morgan.

This article was written with the assistance of Patrick McLaren, PhD, PGeo, President of SedTrend Analysis Limited in Brentwood Bay.

This article originally appeared in Island Tides.

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Image: Flickr/BCGovPhotos

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.