Oceanfront Key Election Plank for Doug Race

Doug Race retired from the practice of law in 2008 and was elected to the Squamish council in the same year. He was re-elected in 2011. Race has been involved with Rotary Club, has served as a founding director of the Squamish Community Foundation, and co-chaired a hospital fundraising and helped organize the Squamish Triathlon.

He spoke to Gagandeep Ghuman about his decision to contest council elections this November, his confidence in the Oceanfront development, and his views on the LNG project 

How did you get involved in local politics ?

I actually got drawn into two major disputes with the Qualex proposal for the Oceanfront and the wood chip facility and neither one fit my vision and I opposed both of them. In 2006, when Greg Gardner was running in a by-election he asked me to be his campaign manager and when he got elected, he suggested that I run for council. I was retiring and I had worked in a lot of projects and been involved with a number of community activities.

Don’t you think two terms is good enough for a councillor?

There were three vacancies on council in last election so you do get new blood and six years is only one year longer than what federal and provincial politicians do. The reason I chose to run again is that we have done a lot of good work in infrastructure which isn’t always glamorous. We also have an Oceanfront deal but we have to see it to completion and we have some work to do there. The first couple of years will be very important. We have to make sure the park gets build and we get what we want and the other is the infrastructure and it will be mostly done by the developer. There will be more public amenities, wind sports, sailing centre and an arts council presence.

“The Oceanfront development is a game changer for Squamish and it has the ability to transform the community.”

Coun. Prior suggests the deal is unfair to Squamish. Your comments ?

I’m very happy that I have voted in favour of this deal and I don’t think it’s unfair. The developer getting five per cent fee isn’t uncommon when he is doing all the work. The district is only a regulatory authority and it’s the nature of the limited partnership and frankly, I don’t think Ted Prior understood this. Limited means you are limited in liability, and the condition is that we don’t take part in the management or we lose that limited status.

 Q. People have raised concerns about development cost charges going to infrastructure for the Oceanfront?

A. The developer will pay the usual DCCs on development on the Oceanfront land and will not be reimbursed for those. The developer will also have to construct or upgrade offsite infrastructure (the sewer treatment plant expansion is an example) and would be reimbursed from DCC’s from future development in other areas of the District as it occurs.

Those offsite improvements will benefit the whole district or at least other parts of the district. The developer will have to front a lot for offsite services, tens of millions of dollars. When you think about it, this developer is taking a risk for putting enough money in the belief that this will attract other developments in town. The Oceanfront development is a game changer for Squamish and it has the ability to transform the community.

What are some other issues that interest you ?

Garibaldi at Squamish hasn’t gone away and I think the next council would have to deal with it. I think it’s a real concern for the community and I have many concerns. My guess is they would get EA certificate and it would come down to zoning. I’m trying to keep my mind open.

What are some of the things this council has achieved ?

We have continued our work on the flood treatment and we have continued to work on Mamquam Blind Channel and the Marine Strategy. Dealing with the Sea Dike issue allows the Mireau to start developing and sets a pattern for the Blind Channel. I think the branding is a valuable thing. Tourism continues to grow and we support it. We were the first to jump on board with the gondola and we made some headway in transit. We have continued to work on infrastructure, we started inspecting bridges and we committed money to the Eagle Run Bridge. Getting the waterfront property was big and we didn’t pay any money for it.

Increasing taxes is a concern for a lot of people?

In 2013 and 2014, we tried to minimise our taxes and the one significant issue is that the increase in population made RCMP the largest single item in the budget. It added one million dollars to the budget, and that by itself is a six percent increase but we tried to spread it across to keep the tax increase more or less normal. Some costs were inevitable, employment costs, CUPE costs. We inherited a new contract that was four per cent increase so this is much more modest increase. Labour costs are half of the budget and we’ve gone through some significant reductions over past three years and reorganisations to become much more efficient. We have had surplus of one and a half million dollars and that is the result of Squamish Service Initiatives.

There is a limit to cutting back on services. But the other important element is to continue to broaden the commercial and industrial operations in Squamish and I think the Oceanfront will help with that and contribute to tax revenues.  We sold that parcel in the business park to Solterra and recognise that they are helping us helping the community.

“(On LNG) I have yet to see anything that is a concern to our community.”

Why did you support the removal of population cap on Cheema land?

I didn’t think it was fair. It was the only piece of land with that provision with the OCP and it just didn’t see fair to me.

What are your views on LNG?

I have learned a lot about it in the past and in talking about this particular proposal, I have yet to see anything that is a concern to our community. There were couple of key concerns, like what the effects of emissions might be but that is behind us now. The other thing is what the effect would be on the process if it will be on the water, but now we know it’s on the land. People have raised concerns about shipping, temporary foreign workers, safety and I don’t think any of those concerns are grounded in reality.

I went to a seminar given by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia on October 15, 2014 in Vancouver and they showed video of what happens when you try to light this on fire, nothing. LNG carriers in the gulf war were being hit by RPGs and missiles and nothing really happens. Certainly the missiles left a hole in the boat but no explosion and, in one case if I recall correctly, only a small fire that extinguished itself. The vessels basically carried on.

I’ve been boating since I was 11 and I’m not concerned about the carriers in the Howe Sound.

What kind of influence do we have on this process for LNG?

The only thing we can do is comment when the EA process is complete at some point in the early next year. We sent comments on GAS, but that didn’t kill it. We can make a comment that is not supportive and that is the extent of our influence on that process. There is no discretion on the building permit and I heard one candidate mention we could downzone it to park.  That would be a deemed expropriation and could expose the district to legal challenge. If we kill that deal, we face legal challenges. If you killed it by zoning, you would have to pay damages. It’s already a zoned land and it’s not a district decision whether it goes ahead or not. They need a development permit, but there is very little discretion and if they follow the guidelines, we have to issue it. And development permit dictates form and character and it’s not a land use issue. The land use is industrial and this site is zoned industrial.


  1. Marnie Lett says:

    Doug, what do you see ahead for Estuary Plan Renewal?

  2. Rob says:

    Regarding LNG Doug Race is quoted as saying: “I have yet to see anything that is a concern to our community.” Wow. Perhaps I did not quite realize what a concern DR is to our community! None so blind as those that would not see.
    DR also supported the behind closed doors SODC deal. Not aspects I find desirable in a councillor.

  3. Herbert Vesely says:

    Unfortunately the question on the LNG plant was too narrow in scope for it failed to include the new natural gas pipeline proposed for Squamish.
    This is perhaps a far more important topic on which local government ought to express an opinion. There is ample evidence of major loss of life and property damage due to natural gas line explosions in North America. Current legislation does not specify minimum setbacks from residences and community centers which all will be alongside the proposed pipeline routing. I made a great deal of supporting background information available to Council but so far I have not seen any informed feedback. Has consideration been given to cross the sound at for example at Porteau Cove?

    • Doug Race says:

      Mr. Vesely,
      The choice of route is primarily that of Fortis and regulatory authorities (BC Oil and Gas Commission for example). they have chosen a slightly different route to accommodate Squamish Nation concerns. You will be able to see a detailed description of that when Fortis and WLNG open their office on Cleveland Avenue about Nov 1. I did learn that the thickness of the pipe has to increase when it approaches a settled area. That apparently is a province wide regulation. Judging by the location of the existing right of way which comes from the top of Indian Arm, it would be significantly more difficult to attempt to have it cross Howe Sound at Porteau. Again that would have to be a Fortis and provincial decision. It would also raise the question of where the compressor station would be located.

  4. Doug Race says:

    Marnie, I am not sure what you mean by “Estuary Plan Renewal”. Can you be more specific?

    • Marnie Lett says:

      As I understand Doug, this review is now 10 years overdue. Did the District not agree to be caretaker of the Estuary Plan? All kinds of major projects and issues embedded within these subjects – Oceanfront, Waterfront Landing, derelict boats, dyking, pipelines, etc. – are soon happening with our Estuary Plan in limbo. Where is Estuary Plan renewal as a priority? Thanks, Marnie

      • Doug Race says:

        I have just confirmed that this update is scheduled and is presently in the budget for 2015-16.

  5. Marilyn says:

    I agree with Doug Race. The more I learn actual facts about the LNG, the less worried I am.
    I support the Ocean Front development and can’t wait to see it get started!

  6. Ted Prior says:

    Doug and I did agree on the chip re-lode facility .It was my wife and that took the district to court on that one and it cost me 70,000$ and we won. I can’t say Doug showed leadership in the Qulex deal rather than helping it through they shut it down and look what it cost the community 10 years and 10 000 000$ .
    May I remind Doug that the Qulex MOU was a draft brought to the community for review not like the present MOU that came to the community signed
    the partnering agreement came signed and the sale agreement came signed as well with no public input ? The Qulex deal was brought forward to the community from a 12 member board supported by the District Legal team the SODC legal team and the Qulex legal team but that was not good enough for Doug.The present SODC board is 3 staff members ?I do hope Doug is not giving us advice on these agreements.
    As far as Ted Prior not understanding these signed agreements . There are many ways of understanding an agreement .Over the last 25 years Doug has bean my land lawyer and I can say I did not always take his advice on my land discussions.I have had these signed agreements reviewed and they might not say what people believe they say. Perhaps the district can do a review for the community ?
    Although I disagree with councillor Race on a few issues I find him engaging, prepared and enthusiastic at all council meetings . Doug does share his opinions .

    • Jon S. says:

      The chip plant was a great project, it would have provided a sustainable fibre source to Howe Sound Pulp and Paper. You’re opposition was entirely self centered as you own a significant amount of property nearby.

  7. Carolyn says:

    Finally a candidate that makes sense and actually talks about the facts. I haven’t seen many other candidates to have the experience and knowledge that Doug has.

  8. Elijah Dann says:

    Doug, you state, that you “have yet to see anything that is a concern to our community.
    There were couple of key concerns, like what the effects of emissions might be but that is behind us now. The other thing is what the effect would be on the process if it will be on the water, but now we know it’s on the land.”

    These are rather astonishing statements to read about the specific details of the environmental impact of the proposed LNG facility. Exactly how do you consider the nature of these particular concerns, and how could be understood as being “behind us”? For starters: That “Woodfibre LNG has indicated that it will require 17,000 metric tonnes of cooling water from Howe Sound each hour of operation to extract the heat from the natural gas liquefaction process. The cooling system is a once-through indirect system, which means seawater is sucked up and passed through a heat exchanger to extract the heat from a closed cooling loop connected to the liquefaction train. The heated water is then pumped back into Howe Sound. These facts have been provided by Woodfibre …

    This equates to 20 Brennan Park swimming pools’ worth of seawater each hour, or over 175,000 Brennan Park swimming pools’ worth of seawater each year. Woodfibre has also confirmed that the outfall temperature of the seawater returned to the ocean will be 10 Celsius higher than the ambient seawater temperature.”

    Again, these “concerns” are just for starters. I’m sure you’ll be reminded of more as this discussion continues with the Squamish electorate.

    • Jon S. says:

      Gary Dann,

      What exactly is your point? This is water with a very low concentration of chlorine, a lower concentration that a typical swimming pool would have. There would likely be no effect on Howe Sound. The Metro Vancouver waste water system emits more chlorine into the Strait of Georgia at a warmer temperature than Woodfibre LNG ever will.

      You need to stop misrepresenting the facts to prop up your endless pursuit on resource industries, it’s frankly unethical.

      • Elijah Dann says:

        “JonS” (or whomever you are): You had me at “unethical”! For someone who has already admitted he has no use for philosophy, now you are an ethicist! But before you get all impressed with your ethical acumen, let me explain a basic ingredient to ethics. Really basic.

        In a word: accountability. Over the months you’ve spattered, mostly inane, largely goofy comments underneath those who have asked serious questions about the Woodfibre LNG proposal. You indeed have a right to express yourself – even when you claim “jackboots” are somehow coming down on you! (Lordy! What an imagination! I have to admit, I love the slap-stick comedy.)

        But here’s the serious part of it: You do it all against those who include, beside their comments, their actual names, while you do it under a pseudonym. A make-believe name.

        What’s the matter “JonS”? What do you have to hide? Why the cowardice? Why do you get to squirrel away behind the anonymity of a computer, in your basement, and yell online at those openly asking their questions about the LNG proposal? Brad Hodge identifies himself. Nate Dolha. Doug Race does too. Tracey Saxby and Auli Parviainen. Sean Lumb and a host of others, on both sides, and me too. But not “JonS.”

        Why? In my experience, it’s usually because such an individual has something embarrassing to hide. So what is it “JonS”? Maybe someone already employed by Woodfibre. And maybe – that anyone – doesn’t even live in Squamish. Maybe you live in Ft. Mac or Ft. Nelson. And yet you come on these comment sections and try to pretend you actually live here.

        But we haven’t even got to the hilarious part!

        In your anonymous – not willing to let anyone know you – mind, “dumping 17,000 metric tonnes of cooling water from Howe Sound each hour of operation to extract the heat from the natural gas liquefaction process” is no big deal!

        “[S]eawater is sucked up and passed through a heat exchanger to extract the heat from a closed 20 Brennan Park swimming pools’ worth of seawater each hour, or over 175,000 Brennan Park swimming pools’ worth of seawater each year” — but that is nothing to worry about!! Great “JonS.” The problem is that those of us whom actually live in Squamish – with real names that we are proud to use – don’t see the real world in such abusive terms.

        The upside to your defense of Woodfibre LNG, is that it gives us insight into the general modus operandi of this industry: lack of accountability. Lack of transparency. Anonymity. You’re a great example “JonS”! No wonder you don’t want anybody to know who your are.

        • Jon S. says:

          My name is Jon S.? I’m don’t understand your confusion.

          In your arrogance you clearly were in to big of a huff to even read my post, which is typical. You fail to acknowledge that the Metro Vancouver waste water system emits more chlorine into the Strait of Georgia at a warmer temperature than Woodfibre LNG ever will.

          Ethics is about doing the right thing, not some dusty ivory tower philosophy.

          • Sean Lumb says:

            Jon S. please provide your sources for the claims above re: Metro Van municipal emissions. I’d like to check them out. Thanks

        • larry mclennan says:

          Elijah-you seem engrossed on this “swimming pool ‘ comparison of water being used (desalinated and reintroduced into the sound.-17,000 metric tonnes / hour). For your information the Squamish river ,alone , discharges about 400-500 tonnes per second on average over the normal year and ranges to over 1000 tonnes per second during the summer freshette (source-the Squamish Prodelta Experiment-2011). This amount of fresh water does not include other creeks and rivers entering into the sound. The amount of water being reintroduced into the sound by WLNG then , by my calculations , is less than 1 % of the discharge by the Squamish River alone ie. not much. Furthur, much ballhoo by the anti-groups regarding chlorination of the reintroduced water has, again, be misrepresented by the usual scare-mongers. The fact is that the water is chlorinated only on an intermittent basis (not continual) and the concentration of chlorine in the water is 1/15th the concentration of what Squamish puts into their drinking water (.02 ppm vs .33 ppm for Squamish). As to the heated water concern ; the water is reintroduced through what is called diffusers. Thes diffusers reintroduce the water at depth (40-100 metres) such that the water temperature will be within 1 degree celsius of the normal seawater within 10 metres of the diffusers. Bottom line-due your own due diligence- don’t believe the usual scare-mongers especially when some of the obvious BS is stated. The obvious BS should be a flag to those concerned that they would be better informed by investigating the concerns they may have themselves.

          • Sean Lumb says:

            Larry, a couple of fundamental truths: neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed: they can only be transformed from one state to another. The heat taken out of natural gas to liquefy it has to go somewhere. The once-through cooling system extracts the heat from the closed heat extraction loop and injects into Howe Sound. The temperature at which it exits the pipe is 10C higher. Who cares what temperature it is within 10 metres? All of the extracted energy from the liquefaction train has only one place to go: it is injected into Howe Sound, which adds to the heat energy contained within the seawater and air shed. My concern, and that of many others, is what is the long term effect of this constant source of heat on the seawater and air shed of the Sound? The proponent has indicated nothing to suggest that it has any idea (or concern) for this.

            This is also the case for the chlorination system. All emitters of residual chlorine into the marine environment have to reduce the levels to 0.02 ppm. The municipality doesn’t emit .33 ppm chorine into the Sound: this is the effective biocidal level used to ensure potability of the water. The municipality uses another chemical to “scrub” the level of chlorine down to the required level for emission into the Sound. The proponent has been silent on the levels required for biocidal activity in the cooling system, and how the hypochlorite will be administered.

            Comparing the two biocidal systems is a complete fallacy. The behaviour of hypochlorite in freshwater is completely different to what it does in seawater, due to the levels of naturally occurring bromine in seawater (largely absent in freshwater). Rapid and complicated chemistry occurs when hypochlorite is added to seawater, converting the naturally occurring bromine to hypobromite, which then goes on to react with dissolved organics and amines in the seawater to form toxic bromoamines and brominated organics. And what of the anti-scaling chemicals that are added to prevent mineral fouling in such cooling systems? Again, what is the long-term effect of this on the seawater in the Sound? And again, why has the proponent been completely silent on this topic? Does it even know and understand the details?

            If there is nothing to hide and no risk associated with the environmental effects of the cooling system or the LNG plant at large, as Doug Race would have us all believe, why is there no information forthcoming from the proponent to assuage these concerns?

  9. Delena Angrignon says:

    I would like to understand how the pro LNG candidates can justify Fortis BC taking up 5 acres of land in our Industrial park for one job to man the compressor. The 5 acres is what they suggest but I have since heard that it is in fact 12 acres. What could the DOS do with 12 acres that would generate jobs for all skill levels not just one highly skilled job? Squamish already is limited in land for business use. I would love to hear what all Candidates think about this. Some have mislead with the idea that LNG will reduce business and home taxes by what the DOS will get from Woodfibre. Are we not in fact losing the opportunity to grow our business community and increasing tax revenue by giving up this valuable land?

    • Jon S. says:

      You heard 12 acres? Well if you heard it, it must be true! Not. We’re talking about private property that is currently generating zero jobs.

      I’ll take any job we can get.

    • Nate Dolha says:

      Umm, we’re not giving them land, they already own it…

      • larry mclennan says:

        Touche- Nate-touche . Don’t forget that they’re paying taxes on the land as well- regardless of the number of employees.

  10. larry mclennan says:

    Finally an incumbant candidate who at least answers questions clearly and addresses issues which he has actually researched. In the past, there are a couple of Council issues I disagreed with Mr Race on and I had planned to not vote for him in this election (I have in the past voted for him). However, his clarity, especially with regard to explaining tax increases , the LNG project and his position on the “Cheema Land” may favorably change my vote.

  11. jp says:

    Let me see here – the thoughts of the anti LNG and anti everything resident in Squamish except rec and info tech….. when we plug our devices in the wall- electricity magically exists. Our stoves and home heating systems come filled up naturally with Natural Gas. Our country was NOT built on resource extraction and exporting goods to create jobs and revenue. When we pump gas in our vehicles – fuel just appears!! When our kids go to school, or we get sick, or when we need protective services – our teachers etc get paid from tax dollars that fall from the sky!! The steel, rubber,and composite materials needed for our recreation activities apparently are not dug up from the earth and manufactured. We are ok with everything being produced in China. In Squamish, our goal is to be a bedroom community where people play here but do not work here. Somehow our MUNICIPAL CANDIDATES SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THEIR FOR or AGAINST POSITION on LNG – even though it really doesn’t matter. Lets elect candidates who will say NO to any investment in our community unless its green of course.

  12. larry mclennan says:

    JP , unfortunately I have found that the anti-groups cling onto to anything (usually a false truism or egregiously diaphonous balderdash) to justify their opposition to “whatever” (anecdotically ,as an aside- I wonder how many of the anti’s were against the gondola project but now oppose the LNG project because it might effect the view from the gondola( it doesn’t)). No amount of LNG supporting fact or pragmatic economic logic will sway the anti’s from their eco-dogma. I often wonder ( as you effectively state) where the anti’s think wealth is created (and thus benefits society). There are two basic industries in the world -agriculture and mining- ie. stone age people used rocks for tools and were hunter- gatherers for food. All other industries are, in some manner dependant on these two economic basics. IMO, many of these anti-types are cynically being used as useful idiots by those who know better regarding facts pertaining to , in this case LNG . I have done significant research on LNG in general and on the local WLNG proposal ( alot more than the anti’s I’ll wager) . I agree with Mr Race that there appears to be little to worry about and indeed wonder about the ridiculous assertions made by Eoin Finn and presumably My Sea to Sky (ie why so much fear-mongering and selective non-contextual selections of WLNG statements?) If the case against WLNG was so conclusive ; why resort to the fear-mongering BS? Indeed, with respect to LNG projects for the US and Canada; from my research , the WLNG appears to be one of the preferable projects. It’ll be interesting to see how many LNG projects actually are completed. Here’s hoping WLNG is one of them and is supported by our elected representatives. We can use both the tax dollars and the jobs.

  13. Dave Colwell says:

    Elijah Dann:
    I wholeheartedly agree with your comments regarding Mr. Jon S……who seems steeped in negativity and bitterness.
    However there is apparently some degree of ignorance too, on your part, regarding the chemistry, and effect of the chlorine/aqueous effluent from the LNG plant.
    I am actually not a supporter of this venture for a number of reasons, but your comment on this particular issue really amounts to a “red herring” and this could well harm the stance of many who are opposed to the proposed plant.
    You should check the science on this, and I really think you might agree with me. The temperature difference is minimal, the dilution will be almost instant and the absorption of the chlorine …given the aqueous ionic regime of the seawater will ensure equilibrium very soon.
    But please look this up from a definitive resource….and please note that my name is my own :-)

    • Sean Lumb says:

      Hi Dave, check out my response above to Larry’s post. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

  14. MattB says:

    You said, “I have done significant research on LNG in general and on the local WLNG proposal ( alot more than the anti’s I’ll wager) .”

    I’d like to see that research.

    Here is a sampling of just some of mine showing the risks and dangers of LNG and where we will be getting the majority of that gas – from hydraulic fracturing which in aggregate caused me to change my position from support to opposition.

    Article/Overview about Andrew’s presentation at Quest

    Andrew’s Full Presentation and Slides on YouTube (Well worth the time if you haven’t seen it yet)

    Victoria’s LNG plans morph into ‘hope for the best’

    Fracking may be a threat to B.C. ecosystems: SFU study

    B.C.’s LNG industry won’t help fight climate change, says Pembina report
    Environmental group questions Premier Christy Clark’s claims LNG will cut coal burning

    Researchers find record leaks of methane from oil shale boom areas

    Scientists warn time to stop drilling in the dark

    European Space Agency’s Envisat Data
    Remote sensing of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas production in North American tight geologic formations

    Methane Leaks Wipe Out Any Climate Benefit Of Fracking, Satellite Observations Confirm

    BC LNG Reality Check – David Hughes

    I have provided a more detailed explanation of fugitive methane leaks as well as some of my economic concerns (pending moderation Oct 31) at http://www.squamishreporter.com/2014/10/25/rob-weys-declares-candidacy-for-2014-squamish-elections/

    And can we please keep this civil and too the point? As I said in my last post, I have a thick skin and will simply ignore rude, inane, irrelevant, ignorant, off topic posts or personal attacks.

    • Jon S. says:

      Matt, (please note the correct use of a comma, and not a semicolon after your name)

      The vast majority of your “research” appears to be from non peer reviewed sources. Many of these sources are from left leaning publications with obvious biases. This goes beyond just the “research you have listed above.” Do you ever dig deeper? Do you ever consider the vast majority of research that points to natural gas, even when it comes from fracking, is way better than coal?

      Your statement “can we please keep this civil and too the point” is comical. You either have a very short memory or are the biggest hypocrite of Howe Sound. This earlier comment from you seems like a rude attack:

      “Jon S;
      You have my sympathy. Every time you post you dig yourself into a deeper hole. But quoting a source like forbes on global warming? That’s a new low, even for you. Keep it up, you are the comic relief!”

      Now I’m not saying that I don’t attack the lies you people tell, because I do. I’m also not asking people to stop attempting to retaliate my attack on your lies, as that would make me a hypocrite, like you.

      • MattB says:

        Jon S; (You are obviously no punctuation, grammar or spelling expert. The use of a colon, semi-colon, dash or comma after one’s name are all perfectly acceptable on a comments forum and there are no strict rules limiting use to one or another except perhaps in your own mind. I don’t know why you continually feel the need to create such an inane rule other than trying to distract readers from the subject at hand. )

        You claim that the vast majority of my research and that of others posting here and elsewhere appears to be from left-leaning or non peer reviewed sources. In a quick search of your posts, the only one I could find was to a Forbes magazine which is a well-known big oil lobby supporter and global warming denier, which goes against the opinions and the research of more than 90% of climate and atmospheric scientists. So compared to your source, every article that discusses fugitive methane or other of the many problems with fracking or the fossil fuel industry be it from the Vancouver Sun, CBC, John Wiley & Sons, Simon Fraser University or Cornell University or the host of other publications on the topic are not valid according to you.

        I have asked you in other posts to share the credible research you say you have to support your pro-LNG stance. You have continually derided those who have shown their research and links but as of yet have provided no credible evidence of you own.

        • Jon S. says:

          Hi Matt, ( read pg, 84 http://dc.halflinuxoid.ru:18888/books/Blue_Book_Grammar.pdf. I would challenge you to find any resource that indicates that a semicolon is EVER acceptable after a salutation. You’re refusal to accept the fact that you are wrong is a prime example of how blind you are to any evidence that opposes your opinion.)

          I don’t feel the need to continually slap down links all the time, like you do. Most of the links you throw down are unrelated, not reliable or are not applicable to BC. Yes, from time to time some are from reputable sources, but most of those again are small studies or not even based upon Canadian date (like that SFU study.) We’ve been over the deeply flawed Howarth report, but below here is summary of the flaws in the Howarth report from four prominent Cornell researchers:


          • MattB says:

            Jon S;
            Unlike you, I won’t try to distract readers from the real issues by making inane grammar suggestions. I’m not writing a formal letter nor is this a spelling bee, this is an internet post on the topic of the LNG industry and real rates of fugitive methane.

            As to my “slapping down links that are not reliable or applicable to BC,” how many times do I have to repeat myself here – there are no studies or data about the natural gas industry or hydraulic fracturing practices discussing methane leakage or any emissions that have been conducted or produced by the BC Ministry of Natural Gas or any BC government environmental agency. That is the problem! The Liberal government has committed to build a multi-billion dollar LNG industry but has conducted no research, studies or even investigations into it. That should concern all BC residents.

            Other than the one link above, the only reference you could provide was one from Forbes magazine and founder Steve Forbes is a well-known climate science denier and big oil supporter. Here is a Steve Forbes quote on the topic. “Even if you buy into man-made climate change, the inconvenient truth indicates that, overall, warming does more good than harm.” http://www.Moneynews.com/Economy/Forbes-Paulson-climate-financial/2014/07/02/id/580486/#ixzz3Hz4CaOrx
            That statement alone runs counter to the evidence of 97% of the climate scientists and including the UN IPCC report published last week to the contrary. But based on your position, that probably describes your position too. But I share this information for those who live in the real world, have realized that CO2 levels are indeed rising and we need to do something to reduce our 30 gigaton per year CO2 habit.

            Regarding the Howarth criticisms by Cathle et al, Howarth addressed those here in this rebuttal.

            Since then (2012) there have been a number of new studies including one by CIRES and NOAA which will form part of new, more reliable and credible fugitive methane rates using both top-down and bottom-up estimates to update the outdated EPA estimates.

            Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development
            “Methane emissions from natural gas contribute 22–62% of the estimated bottom-up flux in this region. Using our top-down flux measurements, the assumed range of methane from natural gas contribution (22–62%), and industry reported production rates, we estimate a possible range for the fugitive methane emission rate of 2.8–17.3% of production in this region, which applies only to these two specific study dates.”

            CIRES, NOAA observe significant methane leaks in a Utah natural gas field
            “On a perfect winter day in Utah’s Uintah County in 2012, CIRES scientists and NOAA colleagues tested out a new way to measure methane emissions from a natural gas production field. Their results, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, constitute a proof-of-concept that could help both researchers and regulators better determine how much of the greenhouse gas and other air pollutants leak from oil and gas fields. The measurements show that on one February day in the Uintah Basin, the natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days.” – See more at: http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html#sthash.IMgThIfv.dpuf

            And let’s stay on topic shall we? If you’re interested in debating the merits of grammar or spelling, take it elsewhere.

            BTW, I can’t help but wonder what your involvement is with WLNG? Are you working for them in any capacity of looking for a job with the company?

  15. Sam says:

    I don’t profess to be an expert on any of the issues others have raised, but one of the first things that came to mind when reviewing is whether it’s possible to convert the excess heat produced by the LNG process into usable energy/heat? I see North Van is considering this very thing (although from a pet crematorium!) and there are many other cities around the world who are taking a similar approach to waste heat.

    I truly believe there are legitimate concerns on both sides of any polarizing argument, but it would be most constructive if each side had enough respect for the other to look for ways to address the concerns. Personal attacks and unrelated rants about grammar or punctuation are counterproductive at best.

    • Matt Blackman says:

      Here is one solution that could utilize both heat and CO2 from WLNG on site if regulations and company allow…

      • Sam says:

        Interesting – thanks for sharing Matt. I’d want to check out what the impact of this type of system would have on residual amounts of undesirable elements in any food it was used to grow, but this is the type of innovative solution I think deserves further review. Thanks again!

        • MattB says:

          Since I posted that post more than a year ago, there has been no progress by WLNG toward using the heat and CO2 for Carbon Capture Sequestration from the plant so this option must be considered Dead On Arrival. The company I had in mind to build the greenhouses has no interest whatsoever in working with WLNG.