By Tracey Saxby
Published: March 1, 2014
The community consultation process has started for the proposed Woodfibre LNG project, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing and export facility located on the former pulp mill site in Squamish. I attended several of the community consultation sessions over the last two weeks to learn more, however, these sessions left me with more questions than answers.
How many jobs will be created for locals?
Woodfibre LNG is estimating 300 construction jobs for 2 years, and 100 jobs once operations commence. These will be a mix of highly skilled and specialized jobs that the proponent admits will most likely be filled by workers from outside the community, depending on the expertise available in Squamish.
How much will Woodfibre LNG contribute to our tax base?
The amount of taxes that will be paid to the District of Squamish (DoS) will depend on the final plant design, and assessment of the facility by the BC Assessment Authority. Tax revenues will also depend on whether the facility is built on land or on water. If it is built on land, the tax benefits for the DoS are clear; however, the proponent is proposing a floating facility, with only a few buildings on land for supporting infrastructure, which means fewer taxes for Squamish.
The municipal tax rate for LNG facilities is unknown at present, and it is possible that the Province will cap the rate¾similar to what they have done for port facilities–especially given their mandate to encourage LNG development in B.C.
Gas versus hydro: what will the energy source be?
LNG plants require huge amounts of energy to cool the natural gas to -162°C to liquefy it. The proponent says that their preferred energy source is hydro, but they are currently doing a systems impact study with BC hydro to evaluate whether the required 140 megawatts of electricity can be provided, and how the grid will interact with the facility. My biggest concern is that the proponent admitted that their final decision on gas vs. hydro will come down to economics; if hydro is more expensive they will choose gas as the energy source, despite what this means for our air quality, our health, and greenhouse gas emissions.
How will this impact our air quality?
If gas is the chosen power source, there will be a significant increase in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour, sulphur dioxide, NOx (mono-nitrogen oxides), and SOx (sulfur and oxygen containing compounds). The gas and diesel burned by the 3-4 LNG vessels a month and the guiding tugboats will also add to these pollutants.
There may also be residual CO2, hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans (rotten egg smell), heavier hydrocarbons, and mercury in the gas that Fortis delivers which will need to be removed before it is liquified. The proponent stated that there are a few options for disposing of these materials: one is incineration; the other is removing these materials in a physical manner off-site. The proponent could not answer which technology would be used until the design of the facility is finalized. How much gas will be burned in the processing plant? How does this compare to the amount of gas that is burned to heat our food and power our homes?
How will poorer air quality affect our health?
What are the health implications associated with reduced air quality in Squamish and the Howe Sound airshed (West Vancouver to D’Arcy) if gas is the chosen power source? Emissions of NOx and SOx interact with other compounds to form fine particles, which can affect both the lungs and the heart. Exposure to these particles is linked to increased risk of respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; onset of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.
How will this impact the desirability of Squamish as a place to live?
Since the pulp mill shut down, Squamish’s population has increased from ~15 thousand to ~19 thousand residents. Our demographic has changed dramatically, with a large number of young, educated, and sustainably-minded people moving here to enjoy the lifestyle and start families. How will the LNG plant affect this demographic? Will it change the perception people have of Squamish? Will it impact the desirability of Squamish as a place to live? Will increased emissions and associated health impacts mean that people move away? How will that impact the value of real estate? Will the visual impacts, light pollution, and noise pollution from Woodfibre LNG impede the sale and development of the SODC lands? What about our ability to attract new businesses and tech start-ups? Are we limiting ourselves to heavy industry development and scaring away more sustainable businesses?
How will this impact our emerging tourism industry?
Squamish has been attracting outdoor recreation enthusiasts for decades, however our ability to capture tourist dollars is still evolving. The Sea to Sky Gondola is our first significant investment in tourism infrastructure, which will in turn generate additional tourist dollars within the community as Squamish becomes a destination.
How will the proposed LNG facility impact the Sea to Sky Gondola? Will tourists want to pay for tickets to look out at a highly industrialized view? Water vapour emissions from Woodfibre LNG may create cloud layers in the sound, so how will that affect viewscapes? What about noise pollution? light pollution? Will we be able to see the stars at night? Will the view of the LNG plant from the highway discourage potential tourists from stopping in Squamish? Will the safety zone restrictions around both the plant and the LNG carriers affect recreational users of the Howe Sound?
What about safety?
What is the worst-case scenario? A rupturing LNG tanker? Explosions? Diesel or LNG spills from the LNG carriers? Who is responsible if there is a spill or leak of any kind? What is the emergency response? Squamish Fire Department has questioned how they could possibly fight an LNG fire in an across-the-water plant housing 100,000 tonnes of flammable methane? Will the ships be escorted by the Coast Guard or military escorts, similar to LNG ships in the USA that view them as a terrorist threat? Who is responsible for ensuring compliance and monitoring?
What about greenhouse gas emissions?
Both the processing plant and the gas and diesel burned by the LNG tankers and tugs will increase our greenhouse gas emissions, although the amount will depend on whether the power source is hydro or gas. The proponent was not aware that Squamish signed on to BC’s climate action charter in 2008, and that we agreed to be carbon neutral by 2012. So this raises other questions: how will the community be compensated for these increased greenhouse gas emissions?
Where does the natural gas come from?
Woodfibre LNG will be purchasing gas from the open market. Given that the supply of conventional sources of gas has nearly halved since 2000, the proponent has admitted that they will be buying a mix of conventional and fracked gas. So what are the impacts of fracking at a provincial level? What is the cost to other communities in Canada that will suffer the consequences of this “clean” alternative to coal, such as earthquakes, massive amounts of toxic wastewater that can contaminate drinking water sources, gas leakage, and potential spills? How do we propose to make fracking companies accountable? Especially when it’s still a fairly new industry and best management practices are still being developed? What about all of the environmental impacts that we don’t know about yet? What will the long-term impacts of fracking be?
How long will this LNG boom last?
Right now, LNG is selling in Asia at four times North American prices. This has created a “gold-rush” mentality, and several other countries (e.g., Australia, Russia, USA) are also scrambling to export LNG to Asia. How quickly will the price of LNG in Asia drop as the market becomes saturated? What about the huge natural gas reserves that have just been discovered by PetroChina in southwest China? Or the fact that China installed more solar projects in 2013 than any other country? Will this project still be viable if the price of LNG drops significantly? What is the burden to Squamish if it is built and then fails?
What are the environmental impacts?
How will this project impact the recovery of Howe Sound? How will it affect herring runs, wild salmon, and the dolphins and whales that are returning to our coastal waters? How will the new Fortis gas pipeline impact the estuary? How will marine plants and animals be affected? Will the wake from the boats further erode our shorelines? How will it affect viewscapes? What about light and noise pollution? What about climate change? Is LNG really a “clean” fuel? By investing in infrastructure that supports fossil fuels, are we missing out on opportunities to fund renewable energy?
Will this project benefit Squamish?
The answers to many of the questions above will depend on the final design of the plant (whether it is land-based or floating), what technologies will be used, and whether hydro or gas is the power source. I appreciate that the community is being consulted so early in the process, but at this stage it is difficult to determine whether this project will benefit Squamish.
Get informed. Get involved. Get connected. Talk to your friends and neighbours and start asking questions. This project will impact all of us, good or bad.
NOTE: As the Environmental Assessment process moves forward there will be additional open houses, and more opportunities for community input for both the Woodfibre LNG proposal and the Fortis gas pipeline project. In the meantime, please write to the District of Squamish Council council@squamish.ca and to Jordan Sturdy, MLA for the West Vancouver – Sea to Sky Constituency jordan.sturdy.mla@leg.bc.ca to let them know your concerns about this proposed project.
Dave says
Well done. I hope/assume you have sent this to Council and all relevant agencies. It would be a shame to miss the opportunity.
Jean says
Hi Tracy,
With great interest I red your contribution in the Squamish Reporter.
I would love it, if more people would buy into the less scientific questions easier to understand and of most importance, not that I think your valid questions raised are not valuable, but I wished everybody would consistently and deliberately make the public aware of the most important first, as the important one should constantly be highlighted as being the basic issues and always refer to them first in any submissions, as the rest can easily be set aside by some, for later reading and possible overload, as they don,t even know the difference between the basic gas commodities and don,t know of the tremendous bargains if they would get involved and adjust accordingly.
I would like to have a Jam session of people that are interested and or have taken advantage of gas in there life and or are thinking, but don’t know how to start, as the gas company goal is by turning on the information overload button, with having just announced 2 more gas shortcuts or abbreviations and the industry adding an other one.
Like Gasoline I am sure they want to pave the way, as to be able to market all different and individually, even so they are all basically the same … noting natural … noting renewable… and already used in cars for transportation but now by designating other catch Phrases ( abbreviations) I am sure they are going to accordingly, suck some extra $ out of the public’s pockets, that wants to use it.
So here they are CNG, Household Gas,LNG,…RNG.. the biggest laugh ( Renewable Natural Gas ) what is so renewable on Methane gas that has been burned up, with all the sulphur etc.
partials floating some where, surely they don,t think that the same gas is comes back down from the stratosphere where it will do it,s damage, back to earth, that it can be used again!!! there are more VNG, FLNG,…please add what you know that I have not mentioned, and let me know.
Here a bit of highlights send to W-LNG on there request to fill out there questionnaire just send to them ……
…..Squamish says…… NO TO LNG… before not household gas and transportation CNG is available and cost effective, here in Squamish……
………The design of your website is rather antiquated as I hope it was not made deliberately that your questionnaire is not hot, to type into or paste into.
The benefit would be much greater and would let people faster enter, to supply you with good input, even so maybe you would have gotten also some….
…….it would have shown your advanced state of the art and honest desire on an 1.6 billion anticipated venture, to get the most out of as many people as possible and with it, silenced some critiques that have been made very angry, by the short 10 working day window to reply to the federal environmental question period by Jan 6th. ……..
…..not like FortisBC, where I have been waiting for answers for years on a solution, to the real important issue of every body that wants to get household Gas at there location. Getting the domestic Gas, every where and at reasonable cost is first priority. So for me “No Domestic Gas…. No LNG development with export”. If the most important and pressing issue is not resolved first, we don,t want even to talk about LNG…….
…..Besides many unanswered and scary questions popping up, without solid answers and to many “we will look into…it, or look after…it” promises, LNG at this moment should be set aside and the local household Gas and the supply of transportation CNG, supplied at reasonable cost, should take highest priority. Not like the hated Gasoline Companies fluctuating prices at will, supply policy, where the public deep down is convinced that they are being gauche,d by the multi national companies……
……………….more people in Squamish are getting involved in the aspect of safety and what is really the benefit, if any for Squamish………..your involvement in the new supply pipe,through Squamish, with the resent gas line failures and explosions, demanding it, not just under Highways and Railways, but within any populated area, where a break could occur, that double pipe with flaring at designated areas would be required, as well as the noise and air concerns of compressor sites and the potential W-LNG Plant, being the most common concerns of safety …….
……..So to keep this process simple, the issue about the Gas pipes through populated areas, as well as traffic on water, especially through a heavily used ship-traffic area like of Horseshoe Bay, with its Ferry traffic and pleasure boating, almost suggests, that a location on the Salish See would be more preferable then Woodfiber and should be ex-amend and planed for.
Kevin says
Excellent article. We cannot allow our beautiful sea to sky return to days when Squamish was engulfed in an acrid cloud of pulp mill gases. There is so much at stake here. New families have invested their liveihood here – a beautiful, clean and natural environment. Real money is in the natural beauty. This quick $bucks Liberal government has proven itself to take the easy way out when it comes to financial stability. LNG is a superfiscial and gutless quick fix. Better to show some real economic prowess and start trimming fat government paychecks and investing in the true gold of BC – its natural beauty. We have to get all the Sea to Sky Communities involved here – West Van, Lions Bay, Bowen Island, Britannia Beach, Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton; to come together and realise our collective wealth and not sell it to overseas interest via a lazy, umimaginative and gutless provincial government. Howe Sound is finally returning to its power and beauty – whales are coming back along with increased fish runs; new families are relocating here and the potential for healthy and productive lifestyles is what is drawing them. We cannot let our dreams be torn from us by his ridiculous proposal. Time to make a stand…time to tell the government – “No Way are you going to destroy this amazing part of BC and Canada”.
Mona says
I agree. All concerned need to phone the MLA and MP on this issue. Letters to the Editor and opinion pieces are really well worth while to get the word out. I have already sent this article to many people I know. I urge you to do the same and join the Save Howe Sound Society. Their website is very informative and shows all the proposed developments being considered, Gravel mine at McNabb creek, Garbage incineration plant at Port Melon, the LNG plant and several IPP’s. plus the pipeline expansion which will put a compression station in Squamish and the pipeline will run through the district and across the estuary. The tankers for those who do not know are 1000′ long x 150′ wide x 80′ high with a 36′ draft. Time to get active because the Environmental Assessment is in BC hands now and will no doubt be done quite quickly.
heather gee says
Thank you, Tracey, you raise excellent questions. If WoodfibreLNG can save taxes or can cut costs for this reletively short-term business, they will.
Some residents are shocked at this sudden change with this development because, a number of years ago, there was an agreement with the BC Govt to steer clear of dirty industries. So many positive changes have taken place since the cleaning up of previously polluting industries. Now Squamish seems to be welcoming air and water pollution all over again, despite its success in clearing up this environment.
Brad says
There has never been an earthquake caused by fracking. That is one of the biggest myths out there. As for the new demographic, lets not forget the old one.. there were 15,000 of us here before the Olympic boom put house prices out of reach for most of us thanks to the influx of people moving in. Woodfibre did not cause anyone to turn away any more than the huge sulphur piles in North Van cause people to shun Vancouver, and it provided actual rather than imagined ‘living wage’ jobs while it was here. It’s a bit hypocritical for us to oppose unsightly industry and energy production here while we use products produced under horrific conditions elsewhere, just to preserve our lovely views. LNG could make a significant difference for developing countries choking on smog. Now, obviously there has to be substantial benefit to the community. Most industries do not draw all of their personnel from the communities they live in, but its quite possible some of those outside workers could choose toblive here. The main thing though is tax revenue, which we desperately need. If that isn’t substantial then by all means we should say no. But if it is, hard to make a case against it. Unless we want to further ruin Squamish’s affordability with high taxes to match high property values, we should embrace some perhaps unsightly industry. What’s that, you say? Just wait and we’ll have a clean, green knowledge based economy instead? Yeah. Been waiting on that train since 1999. Much more likely we will end up an expensive enclave of Vancouver, out of reach for blue collar folk. Which sometimes I think is precisely what some of us want.
Mona says
Brad. Perhaps you should tell the small town of Azle Texas that has just had 30 earthquakes hit them. http://rt.com/usa/azle-texas-austin-fracking-979/
Fracking, the process of injecting large quantities of a chemical cocktail into the earth to tap subterranean natural gas reserves, has long been associated with seismic activity, and researchers last year linked drill sites to a series of quakes in parts of Ohio Look up Fracking bans & you will see there are communities across the US, Canada banning fracking. Australia has banned it in areas, France has completed banned it, UK is looking to follow. It is just commonsense. It pollutes the groundwater which goes into creeks and rivers, wells. Big corps make lot’s of money but people everywhere near the wells that use massive amounts of fresh water are left with the mess.
Dave says
Brad: These are the problems with Fracking other than earthquake danger:
•Contamination of groundwater
•Methane pollution and its impact on climate change
•Air pollution impacts
•Exposure to toxic chemicals
•Blowouts due to gas explosion
•Waste disposal
•Large volume water use in water-deficient regions
•Workplace safety
•Infrastructure degradation
The tax base will be lower than we got from the Pulp mill. China is unlikely to reduce its coal and oil imports unless they all choke to death, merely adding the LNG on top…and you have heard all the stuff anyway.
I agree that there is an element of hypocritical NIMBYism in this issue if you look at it one way, But there are transportation dangers, unrealistic hopes for Provincial economic overall benefits too. Esthetics should be of the least concern but we should ensure that this operation is as safe as possible without any corners cut. The company does not have a great world record in this regard so the “kicking and screaming” should go on to help avoid any of these kinds of possible outcomes. Other than this I do concur that there are many newcomers to our town from metro who are here because of lower property prices and rents. Our tax base is truly stretched. Our taxes will certainly have to go up to pay for the difference and the newcomers will have to share the cost. Every effort must be made to attract clean industry wherever possible and I don’t believe that this has been done with enough fervour. If we are going to allow further residential development then it should be the kind that will tip the tax/cost differential in our municipal favour.
Brad says
Hi Dave,
Certainly we should push for the best possible deal and have everything on the table. No doubt industry in the past has abused people and the environment. That said, I do not believe in the mythical ‘clean industry’. All industry involve pollution, waste, accident risk, unsightliness, etc. Even solar panels have as base components stuff produced under pretty nasty processes. But we keep buying the end products and let other countries citizens suffer the effects. Fracking has its demerits but let’s keep the big picture in mind, chiefly China, etc burning insane amounts of coal that will negate anything we try to do here in terms of climate change. If fracked LNG can stop Beijing from looking like Mordor and reduce CO2 and other pollutants then I think it is worth the costs. *If*. I think some of the people purporting to be on the fence are being disingenuous because they aren’t, really — they are against, period. With many it seems to boil down to aesthetics — not wanting to look at a plant across the water. Well, if that’s the case there is no hope of bringing some to town and I begin to question Squamish’s long term viability.
Dave says
Brad: To quote you…
“Much more likely we will end up an expensive enclave of Vancouver, out of reach for blue collar folk. Which sometimes I think is precisely what some of us want”.
Alas, this is very likely to be the case. There are even “protesters” here that are well heeled. They are newcomers; their husbands/wives have well paying jobs and they are sitting pretty on property they have bought for a song or they have relatively low rent. They will cry when the taxes go up and so will we. But it is probably, as you intimate, inevitable. If the rest of us are to continue to be comfortable ,we must encourage new business and be a little less squeamish about what kind…including even tattoo parlors 🙂 . Never mind the LNG plant…all the pundits will hassle and sort out some kind of compromise, I am sure. But we must get Council to focus on taxable ventures which will work without the stifling red tape.
All this being said, in an ideal world I would like to see a pristine Sound with no pollution anywhere and everyone earning great salaries or wages and live happily ever after!
gillian says
Please sign and share the petition to Save Howe Sound:
https://avaaz.org/en/petition/SAVE_HOWE_SOUND
Bridey Payne says
There are so many great questions in this article. I, along with other member of the community, would like to see these questions answered. It’s really brutal how uninformed the public is on this whole project. It has been very quietly pushed along by the Provincial government. An LNG strategy for BC = an end to Supernatural BC. #christyclark #britishcolumbia #saynotolng #woodfibre #lng #portmellon #squamish #woodfibrelng #environmentaldisaster #environmentalassessment #pacificoilandgas #tanoto