Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, But Not Where You Expect

AulismallBy Auli Parviainen
Published: Sept 12, 2014

 

Since the closure of Woodfibre mill in 2006 many in Squamish have bemoaned the loss of industrial tax revenues and well-paying jobs. With eyes firmly planted in the past resource-industry glory it is easy to miss the fundamental economic shift taking place now and into the future.

Between 2001-06, our population growth was in sync with the provincial rate of 5-6 per cent. In the last eight years the population of Squamish has grown 14.6 per cent and well outpaced both the provincial and national rate of 7 per cent and 5.9 per cent respectively. The new arrivals have altered Squamish’s demographic profile, which is now one of the youngest in BC, with most babies born and consistently boasting higher income and educational levels than the average. It begs the question on what has caused this flurry of new residents as it surely cannot be the jobs offered by the heavy or resource-based industry.

Some answers maybe found in Dr. Greg Halseth’s (University of Northern BC and author of The Next Rural Economies) work on the shift to place-based economies, which require an understanding of the unique mix of assets and aspirations a place offers. Place-based development zeroes in the assets small communities have: lifestyle, sense of community, high quality of life, affordable housing and much more.  

Well-known examples of emerging new economies like Boulder, Colorado and Coachella Valley in California not only feature these lifestyle assets but also actively combine it with support for a vibrant entrepreneurial eco system by fostering opportunities for innovation, business, education and collaboration. An economic impact study of Coachella Valley’s Innovation Hub has shown on average of 1,375 new jobs created, 47 new companies operating and $275 million in revenue per year!

Employment Projections to 2031 expect the highest (60% +) employment growth to come from high technology and public sector. Surfing this wave already Squamish has an emerging cluster of technology-oriented businesses, two universities and growing private healthcare sector. Unlike some who have argued that our existing economic profile and well-researched future opportunities can co-exist with Woodfibre LNG, I see a fundamental conflict with our emerging place-based economy founded on our attractiveness as a highly livable and healthy community with an exceptional lifestyle.

Woodfibre LNG’s 100 jobs (unlikely to be filled by the existing workforce) amount to less than 1 per cent of our entire current labour market and the proposed $2 million property tax about 4 per cent of our total annual revenues.

Surely it is unacceptable to most to potentially sacrifice our environment, health and safety for such a paltry sum never even mind damaging future economic prospects in our emerging industries?

 

 

Comments

  1. L gerhardt says:

    Exactly…do we really need an eyesore that large in a very small very livable very environmentally friendly beautiful city that is our Squamish! We can keep growing all by our little selves without huge gas tankers parading through our very narrow Howe Sound

  2. Jean says:

    Yes future Mayor well said

    • Jon S. says:

      That comment makes you sound like a possessed cult member.

      • L gerhardt says:

        I hope that wasn’t directed at me, I was simply writing in my opinion, i happen to live in Britannia beach and I and my neighbors are the ones that this is happening right in front of, most of u won’t even notice a difference because u can’t see it from Squamish actually and I think my opinion and my neighbors should be loud!

  3. Michelle says:

    Well said. And another place Squamish is celebrating growth in the job market is tourism. Tourism generated a direct contribution to BC’s GDP by 6.5 billion in 2002, exceeding resource industry. Today’s numbers are higher and the salaries in tourism are well paid. The sea to sky gondola is still hiring and so far has exceeded the number of hires WLNG will ever hire. Job growth is coming at us through a myriad of channels and the lowest performer will be WLNG.

    • Jon S. says:

      The S2S gondola is great. But it’s payroll will never meet that of Woodfibre LNG. Look at how many of the positions are seasonal (summer only), on call (the team of 18 rescue workers) or low pay (the majority).

      We need a balanced economy!

  4. Douglas Day says:

    Indeed, very well thought out commentary which I agree with.

  5. Gailforce says:

    excellent!

  6. Chris Laundy says:

    Thank you for this well written piece. This community has bundles of potential which is only just being realized and the evidence of this profound shift in our demographic, and our values is all around us. WLNG will set us back decades if it is approved and our Council should be utterly ashamed for not speaking out against it. Thanks again, well done.

  7. Brad Hodge says:

    Comparing Squamish to Coachella Valley (pop: 345,000) and Boulder (pop: 101,000) is a more than a bit of apples to oranges. Speaking of oranges, guess what Coachella’s biggest industry is? Not tech. Holding up Coachella as an example of tech led prosperity would be news to residents, who earn just under $15,000 a year less than the California average and who’s unemployment rate is mired 2% higher than the rest of the state, still in double digits. Boulder fares a little better, but really it is a part of much larger Denver.

    Speaking of which, I’m always amazed at the doomsayers who claim LNG would somehow destroy our (less than stellar) economy, in full view of Canada’s biggest port. The oil tankers, freighters and industry of every kind sprinkled right in front of new multi-million dollar condo buildings don’t seem to be doing anything to dampen enthusiasm for the place, either in terms of livability (ranked 15th in the world), tourism ($3.4 billion in 2013) or real estate prices (avg: about $940,000), speaking of which — the latter is probably more than a significant reason why so many have moved here.

    I find the claim of WLNG’s tax and employment contributions being paltry to be especially spurious. The ‘only 4% of total annual revenues’ comment is particularly misleading. ‘Annual revenue’ is not the same thing as ‘property tax’. Annual revenue includes not only property tax but also investments, grants, and sale of services (user fees). In terms of property tax (2013: $21.4M), WLNG’s (opening offer of) $2 million annually is equivalent to almost 10% of all tax revenue, all by itself. Stop for a moment and list in your head the number of private companies in town that alone represent that proportion of taxes. Among corporate and industrial ratepayers (2013:$6.2M), it is equivalent to a whopping 1/3. *By itself*. Alone, it would increase the amount of tax paid by industry by a factor of almost 6. There simply isn’t anything comparable to it on an individual basis. And when you’re looking for money for dike repairs, road repairs, affordable housing and new services, that’s a hard number to stare down. It most certainly is not peanuts, and by the way, this was an *opening offer*. And that’s to say nothing of the economic impact of 100 well paid, highly skilled workers, no matter where they come from, living and working here in our area.

    • Wolfgang W says:

      …as to Boulder being a part of much greater Denver, so is Squamish: 45km and 41 min. by car to downtown Denver, about the same for Squamish to Vancouver.
      It is a phenomenon observed throughout the world that big cities and urban agglomerations are becoming ever more nodes of attraction.

      You accuse Auli of comparing apples with oranges, but what
      about you, Brad? Comparing mighty Vancouver’s diversity to Squamish?

      • Brad Hodge says:

        I think my point about Boulder still stands. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Boulder itself is 6 times the size of Squamish. They don’t have a deep water port. They don’t have options that we have. Why limit ourselves to what cities like Boulder are confined to? Why put our hopes in the same basket (rec-tec) some many others are is when we have something they don’t?

        The point of the Vancouver example is that industry and tourism co-exist every day there. That isn’t a feature unique to large cities, there are smaller coastal towns closer to our size that pull this feat off every day also.

  8. G_h says:

    WLNG’s opening tax offer of $2 million is almost 10% of 2013 tax revenues, not the 4% Auli claims. Even if you include all of DoS’ revenue sources in the denominator, the proportion is still well above 5%. Hardly a “paltry sum”.

    • Jon S. says:

      Auli likes to make up the facts as she goes along. Do we want a mayor who cant even understand basic arithmetic?

  9. Jean says:

    utterly ashamed

  10. Jean says:

    Here is a a website that should be obligatory reading and contributing to by anybody running for council or Mayor and afterwards, all the others that are thinking in running in any other election. I am not German but am fortunate that I can read it and admire this approach, worldwide to be duplicated everywhere, especially in Canada. Please google and press translate http://www.wahl-o-mat.de ,What I mean, we should make a similar website for us…this would be a worthy Start-up project for our IT gurus.

  11. MattB says:

    Some good points Auli. And I was originally supportive of the proposed WLNG. But on conducting further research, I have concluded that its a a decidedly bad idea for the following reasons:
    1) The vast majority of the natural gas that will be exported will come from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) which is a highly destructive process that results in up to 75% of the methane (30 times more damaging than CO2) being released into the atmosphere. Water used for fracking cannot be recycled or reused so must be discarded and the damage to water tables is significant. By supporting WLNG we are saying yes to building thousands of these wells in our province and the damage that this assault will entail. As well, the carbon dioxide content of fracked gas is approximately 12% which makes burning the gas more environmentally damaging than non-fracked gas.
    2) Due to the high amount of energy (approximately 15% of the LNG produced) required to cool the gas to -162 degrees, LNG is much more expensive to transport versus oil or coal – up to 10 times more expensive. It is far better transported locally via pipelines. As well exporting large amounts of LNG will drive up the domestic price in future making nat gas much more expensive to BC residents. Also, the company has asked for a hydro subsidy which as I understand amounts to more than $80 million. This translates to a cost to BC taxpayers of $1 million per permanent job created!
    3) WLNG have made no assurances or guarantees regarding what percentage of the proposed 80 or so permanent jobs will go to residents of Squamish or British Columbia so there is a risk that most will go to those with experience in the industry from offshore.
    4) The WLNG will be responsible for pumping approximately 6.6 Olympic sized swimming pools worth of heated (+10 degress C), chlorinated water into Howe Sound every hour. This will have a strongly negative impact on local marine life. The plant will also raise noise levels significantly and I am aware of no credible studies on the impact of water and noise contamination on marine wildlife.
    5) Natural gas production in BC peaked in 2002 and has been on the decline since despite increased expensive and invasive efforts to the contrary. This brings into question the long-term economic viability of the WLNG project here and elsewhere in BC. Who will pay the cost of cleanup when the Singaporean company which is building the project and has a history of structuring dealings through offshore companies to undoubtedly avoid taxes and other liabilities, ultimately mothballs it?

    I could go on but suffice it to say, that they cons of the proposed WLNG facility greatly outweigh the pros of the promise of jobs and tax revenue in my books, both of which remain highly uncertain.

    • Jon S. says:

      You know who else pumps out swimming pools of water with even higher concentrations of chlorine?

      The District of Squamish, and right in the estuary! What impact does it have: None.

      • Sean Lumb says:

        No, the District doesn’t. They scrub it out by adding sodium sulfite which reacts with the hypochlorite to form salt (NaCl) and sulfate. Check your facts. Comparing chlorination in a seawater once-through cooling system, and chlorination in freshwater grey water, is comparing apples to oranges. These cooling systems are being phased out in California due to their deleterious environmental and economic impact.

        • Jon S. says:

          You’re wrong, a small amount of Cl makes it back to our waterway. Just like the small amount that Woodfibre LNG would.

  12. Jon S. says:

    We need a mayor that can do more than repeat three consecutive words to make a point.

    • L gerhardt says:

      Stop being so ignorant and open your ears and eyes…I don’t see any relevant facts coming from your comments.

  13. MattB says:

    Jon S
    The big difference is that the Brennan Park pool is drained and refilled once per year not 10 times per hour!

  14. MattB says:

    Question – Does anyone have reliable information regarding the percentage of total natural gas production in BC that come from hydraulic fracturing?

    In my research I did find this article – http://www.straight.com/news/617826/fracking-fuels-bc-governments-liquefied-natural-gas-gambit

    How can the BC Liberals’ be so so consistently wrong on their forecasted natural gas revenues?

  15. larry mclennan says:

    At least Auli has come out as (in my view) totally against the WLNG-good -I won’t be voting for her ! Apparently a $2 million to the tax revenue base is to be sneezed at especially where wistful future fiscal imaginations are taken into account. In terms of operating revenue , the $2 million is closer to 10% of gross. If one wants to compare jobs created etc with other communities, perhaps Auli might want to see jobs created in Ft St John and areas in the North- I’m guessing that they might look pretty good for the commodity sector.
    L Gergardt- you are quite correct that the main area where the LNG plant can be easily seen is from the Britannia Beach area- not Squamish and barely visible from the top of the Gondola. Isn’t Britannia Beach where a tourist attraction is located? Isn’t that tourist attraction an abandoned mine with a converted large building known as the BC Mining museum? What is your argument with having a LNG plant across the water? Its an eyesore? Is the Museum an “eyesore” ? I don’t see where the LNG plant which , as I understand it, will upgraded and painted green to basically blend into the background is to any more of an eyesore than the museum. Indeed, I was up on the gondola recently when a ship headed for Squamish Terminals happened to come into view and guess what happened- several tourists were snapping pictures of it. Apparently, they thought the ship in the harbour was noteworthy from the tourist point of view. Thus, anecdotically, it may be argued that the LNG plant may actually be a tourist attraction especially if the water taxi/ferry allows for travel across the sound to explore that side of the inlet.
    MattB
    I suggest that you re-check your facts. For example:
    The LNG at WLNG is to be cooled electrically – not by natural gas usage.
    WLNG is NOT getting a preferred hydro rate (its the same as other comparable industries) and any infrastructural hydro upgrades are the full responsibility of WLNG.
    The “chlorinated water” is only on an intermittant basis (NOT continual) and the chlorination concentration is 1/15 th that of the concentration Squamish has in its DRINKING water.
    The so called 10 degree Celsius introduction of water is diffused and designed to be within 1 degree celsius within 10 metres of its diffuser ports (located 40-100 metres below surface). By my calculations , the amount of water running through the system is less than 1% of the average outflow of trhe Squamish river ( never mind the other outflows up and down the sound).
    BC is home to a HUGE geological formation called the Montney Formation straddling the BC / Alberta border. Its estimated reserves are approximately 450 TRILLION cubic feet cubic feet of natural gas. If the demand for LNG is there then the supply certainly is. Costs for extraction compare favorably with other areas in North America. Without LNG demand , obviously supply will remain diminished. Interestingly, two proposed LNG plants in Oregon (in Astoria and Coos Bay) both state that their possible supply of gas will be from Canada or the US. My view is that, if there are no LNG plants in BC then plants in the US will be setting the price they’re willing to pay for Canadian gas (probably lo-balling). Personally, I’d like to see the Canadian producers having a home-based option in that regard.
    Don’t you think that, with a 1-2 billion dollar investment, consideration might have been given to both supply and demand?? Its called business planning.
    Companies in Canada are subject to Canadian Tax law. Lots of luck with the Canada Revenue Agency if you try to pull a fast one on them.
    What clean up are you referring to? LNG simply evaporates when exposed to air. There are no toxic chemicals of any significance involved that I am aware of. The WLNG is currently actually cleaning up the site so even if they left tomorrow, the site will be cleaner than it was when they (WLNG) showed up.
    Bottom line- don’t believe so much of the blather that you get from the anti-groups- do your own due diligence.

    • MattB says:

      Larry;
      I take from your comments that you have no environmental concerns about the proposed project on water quality and marine life in Howe Sound in an area that is approximately one mile wide near the site. I do have major, well-founded concerns but let’s just agree to disagree on the impact of the project for the moment.

      1) Another major concern of mine is the economic sustainability of the project. At present, natural gas is selling for $3.86USD per million BTU (NYMEX). What makes the project enticing is that LNG sells for around $17/mBTU in Japan up 15% from a year ago. In Dec 2010 the price was $10.75 so prices tend to fluctuate significantly. Due to the cost of extraction, cooling to -162C plus transport, puts the break-even price for WLNG at around $10/mBTU. Here’s the challenge. BC is not the only jurisdiction vying for LNG clients – so is Russia, Malyasia, Australia, and the US. China, a big consumer of LNG today, is ramping up its natural gas production and has reserves greater than both the US and Canada combined. Prices are a reflection of supply and demand. More supply translates to a lower prices for customers. So in five years, with all the new LNG production coming on stream especially from places like Russia which is closer to Asian markets and with significantly lower costs of production, what happens when the price drops below $10/mBTU which is a very real possibility? What’s to stop the Singaporean company that owns the project and is well insulated from such liabilities thanks to ownership through offshore companies in places like the British Virgin Islands from simply walking away? Who will play the dismantling and cleanup costs? From an investment standpoint given the incredible ramp-up in supply, the current BC government LNG plan equates to a lousy risk/reward proposition.

      2) Let’s look at supply here in BC. I have attempted to determine from Fortis, the BC Government and from the folks at Woodfibre LNG what percentage of gas being piped/shopped to WLNG will be from traditional natural gas wells versus extracted from shale gas by hydraulic fracturing, next year and up to 2020. According to projections from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, shale gas from BC’s two current major shale gas zones — the Horn River and Montney Basins — could account for fully 22 per cent of all of North American shale gas production by 2020. To provide further scale to this projection, the combined estimated annual production from the two basins that year is 5 billion cubic feet of gas per day or, on an annualized basis, 70 per cent of all the gas used in Canada in 2009. Based on this estimate, it appears that BC will be relying on shale gas for the majority of its gas in the next 5 years. Good to know because there is growing body of evidence to suggest that shale gas is actually dirtier than burning coal if you factor is leakage during extraction. Leakage estimates range from a low of 1.2% to a high of 9% according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA). Even at the lower leakage rate, because methane (which is the type of gas extracted in BC) is a significantly more destructive greenhouse gas than CO2, and the fact that shale gas contains 12% CO2, makes BC LNG a dirtier fuel than coal.

      3) What about the impact of drilling all those wells to be fracked? In the early 1990s, there were about 200 wells drilled each year in the province. By 2007, that number had jumped more than sixfold to 1,300. It is estimated that if 7 of the proposed LNG plants/pipelines are approved that the number of new wells being drilled each year will grow to about 3,000. So how safe will those wells be? According to a report by Michael Brune in Economist, “fracking is an inherently risky drilling procedure that has been allowed to proliferate with little oversight. There is growing evidence that fracking can contaminate groundwater and that it causes significant air pollution. Thanks to natural-gas drilling, parts of rural Wyoming have smog worse than that of downtown Los Angeles. There is also the problem of tens of millions of barrels of toxic waste water that the process generates. A ProPublica review found that structural failures inside wells like the ones used to store toxic, and often radioactive, fracking waste are common. From late 2007 to late 2010, one in six deep injection wells examined had an integrity violation—more than 17,000 violations nationally [hence the much higher actual rates of methane leakage than estimated].” There are still no known ways of cleaning and recycling fracking waste water due to the high amounts of toxic chemicals.

      4) The best case scenario would be an average long-term price of around $12/mBTU landed in Asia which will fluctuate seasonally and with new suppliers joining the party. It is very realistic that there may be a window of five years or less in which to build the new LNG plants and get them on stream before profit margins render them non-economically viable. But in the meantime, shipping out natural gas overseas is not only costly (about 10 times more expensive than shipping the same amount of energy units in coal or oil), it will drive up prices here at home as the prices in BC approach global prices while exacting an expensive toll on our environment.

      5) Another real concern is the potential fire hazard. We have been told that there are a multitude of safeguards in place to prevent fire and explosion but no one can guarantee than such a catastrophe will not happen. Where could they tow a flaming hulk in Howe Sound that wouldn’t pose a significant fire risk? I also haven’t heard of any plans to provide armed escorts for these vessels or the plant to protect from attack. What defensive safeguards are there in place?

      Rather than rushing into to an ill-conceived LNG program fraught with risks, wouldn’t it be a preferable to develop a more economically viable strategy to invest in sustainable, clean technology that will continue to provide residents with many years-worth of energy as opposed to projects with a short-fuse and high environmental cost?

      • L gerhardt says:

        Here Here! Thank you! I’ve been waiting for someone with relevant facts :)

      • Wolfgang W says:

        As a corollary to your economic argument, here how the Economist sees it in its May 31, 2014 article on the developing LNG market ‘Bubbling up’: “Buyers will gain more than sellers.”

  16. MattB says:

    For those interested, since shale gas using hydraulic fracturing will be the biggest component of gas exported by BC’s proposed LNG plants, its important to assess the risks of this industry. Fracking poses the single biggest environmental and economic risk in exporting LNG. Unfortunately, fracking not only poses a risk of contaminated air and ground water around the wells but will also significantly increase global CO2 levels due to high and uncontrollable methane leakage.

    Here are a few recommended links:

    Billions of Gallons of Oil Industry Wastewater Illegally Injected into Central California
    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-10-06-2014.html
    https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/10/06/18762523.php

    Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/inquiring-minds-anthony-ingraffea-science-fracking-methane

    New fracking studies reveal unexpected methane levels
    http://www.straight.com/news/617826/fracking-fuels-bc-governments-liquefied-natural-gas-gambit

    US Fracking Infographic
    http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

    List of Chemicals Used in Fracking
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_for_hydraulic_fracturing

    • Jon S. says:

      With such strong sources like Wikipedia, you have sold me! Fracking must be evil!

      Not! Anyone can slap a few random links down.

      • Sean Lumb says:

        Jon S you should spend the time you’re wasting with asinine commentary educating yourself on the facts of fracking and the sham business case for an export LNG industry in BC.

        • Jon S. says:

          Do you really think that this company is going to make the single largest investment in the history of Squamish with no business case?

          I don’t need to slap down useless, unrelated links to unreliable sources , such as Wikipedia, to be right.

          The real facts speak for themselves.

    • Sean Lumb says:

      Thanks MattB for a factual and well-considered response!

  17. MattB says:

    Thanks Wolfgang, interesting article, thanks! The biggest challenge facing LNG and the use of shale gas is the unpredictability of leakage from drill sites. As Andrew Nikiforuk explained it at the Quest LNG presentation in September, the type of rock (known as shale rock) that contains methane gas is such that once fracking compounds and chemicals are pumped into a site, the the naturally fractured nature of the material makes it very difficult to know where methane as well as the fracking chemicals and water etc will come out. Nikiforuk explains this in this video starting about 33 minutes into the presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv6RVyi-Zfg

    “One of the key issues of fracking is that you cannot always control the fracture growth, width, length, and direction particularly when you hit other natural fractures,” Nikiforuk said. In other words, given the poor quality and split nature of the rock, how does a company fracking contain methane leakage without covering the whole site, often many acres, to catch it? This is a huge challenge and one that would be nearly impossible to overcome. So instead we must suffer huge leakage rates of methane that is more than 30 times more damaging to the environment than CO2.

    The Economist article highlights the fact that there are many new suppliers entering the industry like prospectors to the California gold rush, except LNG demand has a high potential of being relatively short lived as Russia, the Middle East and the U.S. fight for market share and nations such as China, which has more gas reserves than the U.S. and Canada combined, brings its supplies on-stream. The recent jump of the price of LNG in Japan is due to the decommissioning of its nuclear plants but what happens when the Japanese fill that void and either realize that nuclear power wasn’t such a bad thing after all and build newer and safer plants and/or change their focus to more sustainable/renewable energy projects?

  18. MattB says:

    A more complete list of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (see pages 5-34 to 5-51). I also include a link to an info graphic outlining a few of the known health risk for a summary of these compounds.

    CHAPTER 5 NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND HIGH‐VOLUME HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
    http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap5.pdf

    Health Effects of Fracking Chemicals
    http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail

    • Jon S. says:

      What do we have here…

      1. American State Government. Last time I checked, we lived in Canada. We have our own regulations, and our own geography. Hardly relevant.

      2. Backwoods newspaper. What does this have to do with Woodfibre LNG again? Right, Nothing. They don’t have upstream operations, they don’t frack.

  19. MattB says:

    Jon S.
    You really do live in a state of denial don’t you? The regulations governing fracking in Canada are much more lenient than in the U.S. and in fact companies engaged in the practice in Canada don’t even have to disclose what chemicals they use. So Canadian companies can use all the chemicals used in the U.S. plus those that have been banned due to their toxic nature in the U.S.

    Just where do you think WLNG will get the gas they will be exporting? The majority of gas we rely on now and will rely on in future comes from fracking – oh but wait, I have to careful not to confuse you with the facts.

    Besides, you have clearly already made up your mind. This information is designed for those who are still trying to assess whether they believe the WLNG is a worthwhile project or not. You have added nothing to that discussion.

  20. MattB says:

    For those still evaluating the efficacy of developing an LNG industry in Canada (and BC), here is a recent report that provides an interesting overview of the industry here. What quickly becomes obvious is that there has been negligible study in Canada to date due to the relative youth of the industry here (a decade or so). The paper’s recommendations can be found beginning on page 216 published by the Council of Canadian Academies in 2014.

    Here is the first paragraph from the final page of the document titled ‘Final Word’ with some sage words of advice for the wise.

    “The lessons provided by the history of science and technology concerning all
    major energy sources and many other industrial initiatives show that substantial
    environmental impacts were typically not anticipated. What is perhaps more
    alarming is that where substantial adverse impacts were anticipated, these
    concerns were dismissed or ignored by those who embraced the expected
    positive benefits of the economic activities that produced those impacts (EEA,
    2001, 2013). Many of these adverse impacts could have been lessened, if not
    entirely avoided, if appropriate management measures, including monitoring
    programs, had been put in place from the beginning.”

    Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction
    in Canada
    http://goo.gl/p97Iuo

    Full link:
    http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/shale%20gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf

  21. Jean says:

    Hi Jon,
    Finally I can give you credit for your statement… “single largest investment in the history of Squamish with no business case….. Do you know, have you seen there books .. do you know it is 1.6 B of a potential investment they then can depreciate against revenue taxes that should bring in money to the BC government in lieu of royalty, which they would have otherwise to pay immediately like Alberta demands, from there oil that is taken out of there ground. They should upon leaving with the LNG ship pay us Royalty, if we would follow Alberta,s system we would be guaranteed some money …. do you really think 1.6B is the actual cost or is it totally inflated for there book keeping sake, have they or will they actually shown the true figures.