By Nate Dolha
Published: March 7, 2014
As public consultations begin on Woodfibre LNG’s proposal for Squamish, we have witnessed the rhetoric ramp up around industrial activity in Howe Sound and the BC gas industry in general.
Parallel to this discussion, our municipal leaders are looking for ways to get our communities balance sheet in line with our reality. As a community, we are facing year over year residential tax and fee increases to maintain services, and infrastructure that requires renewal over the next 30 years.
Our water and sewer utilities alone will require an investment of $254 million over that 30 year period, and without an industrial tax base, that sum will come out of your pocket.
I’m not suggesting we just throw the doors open for any industrial development that comes along.
I’m suggesting we open the door for this one. An LNG plant in our community holds the promise of high paying jobs and large municipal tax payments without many of the drawbacks of the former heavy industry tenants of Howe Sound.
To dispel some myths, let’s examine some facts:
Upstream
Much has been made of where the gas would come from for this plant, with a connection being made between fracking and this plant.
Yes, fracking is happening in the Horn River and Montney sedimentary basins in Northeast British Columbia. In fact, the gas that reaches your home was likely produced from a fracked well, and this plant will use the very same commercial gas that you and I do.
What seems to be left out of the discussion is that fracking is a 60+ year old technology, and at depths of 1500 – 4000 meters, the direct risk towards fresh water aquifers from fracking is slim to none. The images of flaming tap water make great theatre, but hold zero truth.
There are, however, legitimate concerns surrounding the amount of water needed for fracking operations. To address this, the two largest players in the Horn River basin, Encana and Apache, have developed the Debolt water treatment plant to source over 80 per cent of their fracking water from a depth of over 700m. Not perfect, but certainly a step in the right direction.
Processing
To produce LNG, natural gas must be dried and then chilled to a temperature of -162C. At this temperature, the gas turns to liquid, and the volume is reduced to 1/600 of gas. The liquified gas is stored in liquid form at atmospheric pressure. The product itself is just methane, which is not toxic.
Transport
At 300m, these tankers are larger than the 200m ships we are used to seeing in Howe Sound, but are a far cry from the super tankers plying their trade on world oceans. By comparison, it is not uncommon to see 350 m container vessels calling Port Metro Vancouver. In our waters, ships are required to take on a local pilot, and LNG Tankers will be escorted by tugs for the journey up Howe Sound.
According to the Centre for Liquified Natural Gas, the industry’s trade association, there have been over 135,000 LNG voyages without major incident at sea or in port, and there is no reason to expect it would be any different here.
This is a once in a generation opportunity, and if we as a community can embrace it, we can help Squamish recover from the loss of industry, bring family supporting jobs, and afford the lifestyle we have come to expect here.
Sure, it may not be the perfect solution, but it’s the best one we’ve got.
I can be reached on twitter: @natedolha, or email me: natedolha@gmail.com
Jean says
The tremendous bargain of CNG…Not LNG
People in general don,t know, the tremendous bargain and domestic advantage/ job creator, CNG could be, if they would get involved, using the now available Gas and demanding, especially for CNG to be readily available throughout Canada, at lowest cost to the consumer .
It might be confusing as to the many abbreviations used to describe Gas.
In principle it is very easy, it is mainly Methane gas from the ground and so, some Spin Dr,s are calling it Natural Gas, sounds so much better then Methane.
Here are the various abbreviation and again, it is all about marketing and selling the same snake oil to cure different illnesses. CNG, Household Gas, LNG,…RNG.. the biggest laugh ( Renewable Natural Gas ) what is so renewable about Methane gas that has been burned up, with all the sulphur etc. particles floating some where, surely the burned up gas will not come back down from the stratosphere where it has done it,s damage, back to earth, again!!!noting renewable on that one.
There are more, NVG, FLNG,… having said that however, Gas is the least damaging as to low level pollution and with this, it beats gasoline and diesel by a mile and in transportation, cost about less then half the cost to drive your car if converted.
I have been waiting for household Gas at my house for years and to date still no date or cost by when I could expect it. Same with Transportation fuel, there is only one gas station that caries the CNG and that is in North Vancouver, so why would anybody consider to convert a car with this inconvenience, as not being able to fill up everywhere, even so if I had household Gas I could charge my car at home and never would have to see a gas station again and not ever going to be taken advantage of, by the multi national gas companies again, that jack up the gas when ever they like as we all know.
Every body that wants to get household Gas at there location should make an effort with all my Neighbours, as we are making a submission to the BC utility commission, that is set up to look into any complaints by BC residents, in case of a dispute with the gas supply company, in this case FortisBC.
Not getting domestic Gas, every where and at reasonable cost, has to be addressed first… So for me “No Domestic Gas” …. “No LNG development and export !!!!” if this issue is not resolved first.
LNG at this moment should be set aside and the local household Gas and the supply of transportation CNG, should take highest priority. As by exporting our best kept secret and not promoting it here first, to attract businesses to take advantage of this low cost energy source and with it, providing employment and more security then trying to sell it to China, that already has made it clear, that they are only interested in LNG from us, as an interim solution, as they just discovered in there own country Natural Gas and have installed more per capita on solar energy, then any other country, with the goal of self sufficiency from there own resources in the future.
I believe rather then spending all that money i fracking and pipeline construction and sending all the promised jobs elsewhere, as we don,t have the expertise and the workforce trained, to take these in overdrive pushed projects on and would be better off to start working on self sufficiency in Canada and with it, use our resources that are here for the development and for the benefit of the Canadian people.
Also with more people in Squamish getting involved in the aspect of safety and what is really the benefit, if any for Squamish, with the resent gas line failures and explosions, demanding that not just under Highways and Railways, but within any populated area, any gas lines should have double pipe with flaring at designated areas. Also the air concerns of compressor sites and the proposed Woodfiber-LNG Plant especially, being the main concerns of a movement to stop LNG Export from the Howe Sound.
The traffic on water on the narrow passage where these LNG Tankers would have to navigate, with the heavily used ship-traffic of Horseshoe Bay, with its Ferry traffic and pleasure boating suggests, that a location on the Salish See would be more preferable then Woodfiber should a LNG project be approved and should be examined accordingly .
Tracey Saxby says
Yes, let’s dispel some myths and propaganda Nate. Here we go:
1) High paying jobs? Maybe, but not necessarily for locals.
The proponent’s estimates of 300 construction jobs may or may not materialize as the proposed floating facility is being constructed overseas.
The 100 promised jobs once operations commence are also not going to go to locals, as they are 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. There is currently a global shortage of workers for these highly skilled LNG jobs, and the proponent admits that they will most likely be importing the 100 workers required to operate the plant from Texas, Asia, and other places. The only way that Squamish will benefit from this is if these workers also live and shop locally in Squamish.
2) The amount that Woodfibre LNG will contribute to our tax base is peanuts.
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, and whether the Province sets the municipal tax rate for LNG facilities. As things currently stand, the DoS will only get municipal taxes for the assessed value of the land-based facilities. The floating component of the proposed LNG facility will not contribute to our tax base.
The current assessed value of the Woodfibre site is ~$10 million (Reference: http://evaluebc.bcassessment.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx accessed 11th February 2014). Looking at the Woodfibre LNG plans, the buildings that will be located on the land are all supporting infrastructure only “to ensure the safety of the workforce and community, and storage facilities, heliport, etc.” These buildings don’t look that different to what is currently located on the site, although yes, additional equipment may increase the values. Tax revenues will not be anywhere near the $2 million Woodfibre used to bring in, and current estimates are $300-400K which is peanuts.
I spent the better part of a weekend delving into the total municipal taxes from 2005 to 2013, and discovered that the amount of taxes the muni has been collecting has nearly doubled from $12.3 million to $21.6 million SINCE THE PULP MILL SHUT DOWN! That’s an increase of $9.3 million, and that’s without the $2 million in tax revenue that we lost when the pulp mill shut down (Reference: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/statistics_index.htm accessed 16th February 2014).
This increase is partially due to increased property values, contributions from new developments, contributions from new businesses, and slight increases in residential tax rates along with a slew of other factors. Is an extra $300-400K really that big a deal? What about the LOSS of taxes that might result if property values are negatively impacted? Or the LOSS of taxes if businesses move away due to increased air pollution and reduced quality of life if we have an LNG plant here? How will this NEGATIVELY impact our tax revenue? These are the questions we need answered.
3) Clarifications about fracking as a 60+ year old technology
The argument that fracking has been around for 60+ years is misleading propaganda at best, and this is why:
“Early wells were only a few hundred feet deep. Applications of the fracking technique consisted of using gelled crude oil and kerosene as the fluid injected into wells to force the fracturing. Screened river sand became popularly used as the “proppant,” or material used to hold open the fractures. Quantities of the materials used were small, consisting of approximately 750 gallons of fluid and 400 pounds of proppants.
In comparison, today, Chesapeake Energy, a company active in the Marcellus Shale, reports that an average well is now 5,300 feet deep4. Drilling a typical well now uses between 65,000 and 600,000 gallons of water, and the ensuing fracking operation requires an average of 4.5 million gallons of fluids and hundreds of thousands of pounds of sand5.” (Reference: http://energy.wilkes.edu/pages/203.asp accessed 7th March 2014)
So implying that fracking is safe because it is a technology that has been around for 60+ years is completely misleading. The technology has been changing rapidly and it has been poorly researched to date. We don’t know what the longterm impacts of fracking will be. We don’t know the implications on our groundwater. With the current gold-rush mentality to frack everything we have THOUSANDS of wells being drilled in close proximity, and the impacts of this has also been poorly researched and poorly regulated. The BC Liberal’s LNG dreams are to drill 50,000 new wells by 2040. Fracking has never been done on this scale before.
5) Legitimate concerns about water consumption? You bet.
According to a 2013 report by the BC Oil and Gas Commission, fracking in the Horn River Basin in BC uses an average of over 16 million US gallons per well. This is much higher than the typical fracked well in the US (5 million US gallons per well). So concerns about water consumption are spot on. (Reference: BC Oil and Gas Commission, 2013, Hydrocarbon and by-product reserves in British Columbia.)
The suggestion that sourcing water from depths of over 700m is a solution is also misleading. Once this water is removed, it is injected into the well to “frack” the gas. Most of this injected water remains in the well. The water that does return to the surface is mostly injected into disposal wells, permanently removing it from the hydrological cycle. (Reference: Huges 2014, BC LNG: A reality check.)
This practice of injecting contaminated water into disposal wells is a huge concern as the groundwater can become contaminated due to improper frack water disposal (poorly regulated), and leaking shallow casings in old drill holes. This is of even more concern when the number of wells in a region is very large, as the risk of contamination is much higher. (References: 1. Huges 2014, BC LNG: A reality check. 2. Muller and Muller 2013, Why every environmentalist should support fracking.)
We can live without gas, but we can’t live without fresh water folks.
6) “Non-toxic” methane is a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide
Sure, methane is non-toxic Nate. But it is also a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. The problem with fracking, transporting, processing, and then liquefying natural gas is that carbon dioxide and methane leaks into the atmosphere at every step of the way. Well pads flare methane, poor seals in compressors leak carbon pollution, pipelines leak carbon pollution from valves, pumps and other sources, processing facilities vent more CO2, pneumatic controllers vent more methane, and finally the liquefaction terminal here in Squamish may burn gas to cool and condense the LNG = even more pollution (REFERENCE: Pembina Institute 2014, Wellhead to Waterline).
These leakages also undermine the case for LNG as a transition fuel as “leakages of only 1.2 per cent are enough to erase claims of having an advantage over coal. Typically, from wellhead to final combustion, including processing and transportation, leaks of about two to four per cent are standard. Those leaks can be much higher for fracking operations, the technology that will be used to supply B.C.’s LNG industry.” (Reference: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2014/01/30/bcs-big-favour-lng-exports-and-ghg-emissions/ Accessed 7th March 2014)
7) 300 metre tankers and the required “safety zone” may have a huge impact on recreational users
How big is a 300 meter tanker exactly? Roughly 3 football fields? And this doesn’t even account for the “safety zone” around the ships which is yet to be determined and may impact recreational users from Squamish and all the way along the proposed shipping route.
8) Number of LNG voyages don’t add up…
According to Woodfibre LNG’s Discussion Guide there have only been 70,000 loaded cargos of LNG shipped from 1964 to the end of 2012. These numbers don’t quite match yours Nate. Are you including the return trip when the tanker is empty? Not sure that counts.
9) Is this the best solution we’ve got? Absolutely not. We can do better!
We have a choice right now. Do we want to invest in industries that continue to pollute and continue to drive climate change? Or do we want to want to invest in low-carbon technology and infrastructure? Let’s leave a legacy for our children and our grandchildren and the coming generations, and make it clear that we are the ones that stood up and demanded something better.
Adam says
The Squamish Reporter seems to be writing a not insignificant amount of pro LNG content. I’d be curious what percentage of ad revenues are expected to originate from the project over time? Time will tell.
Gagandeep Ghuman says
As I write this, there are two articles right on the Squamish Reporter homepage which are critical of LNG with writers voicing concerns about the project. One responsibility I have as someone who runs this paper is to ensure every voice is heard, and none is stifled.
Why don’t you write an article and I will be happy to post it.
You can also send letters to news@squamishreporter.com. In fact, there were two letters in this edition opposing the project, and one urging the council to act wisely.
As for ads, LNG bought one ad to inform the community about open houses, which they also ran in all papers locally, as they are required to do.
Adam says
Gagandeep,
Thanks for addressing this. I was under the impression that critical stances were opinion vs. feature. Appreciate you adding some transparency to the equation.
TJay says
Gagandeep…I like the ‘not stifling’ part…no leaning towards..’the ones we grew up with in this town’ mentality..like another ‘almost’ well-known paper in this town seems to adhere to big time…….
So good on you!….
Don’t know about the long windbaggy diatribes though……
TJay says
Well done.
Chris Laundy says
Well done Tracey – I would love to see Nate debate you on even one of your points. His commentary does not stand up well to even the most gentle scrutiny. People, democracy works best when those participating forego self interest and cast their votes with at least SOME thought for how their views affect the community in which they live and not just their own life. This piece is laughably low on facts and on any kind of real data. Tracey’s rebuttal however is eloquently argued and makes point after point that is impossible to dispute. The thing that should be of real interest is that her position comes from one of compassion for the larger public who don’t have jobs lined up with these people and who don’t stand to benefit – the 99% as it were. We should all be so selfless when casting our votes or putting ourselves in the public eye. One view is genuine and fact based, the other morally bankrupt. People of Squamish, you decide which is which.
Nate Dolha says
Wow, I’m part of the 1% and morally bankrupt? Who knew?
Chris Laundy says
Great response Nate – we all knew. Almost as good as your constructive comments on ‘Squamish Doesn’t Speak’ last week. How’s this? You wrote this piece why don’t you craft your most meaningful, fact laden, professional rebuttal to Tracey’s excellent post? We are all watching and waiting. Point by point why don’t you take her on?
Alexandra Suhner Isenberg says
Nate – how about actually responding to Tracey’s comment?
Jean says
Lets stay with the facts …well done Tracey, Great research.
You forgot that we still don,t know about the third component, besides water and sand, apparently a trade secret…could it be a hard to get rid of chemical, conveniently buried 5000 ft down?
NO LNG until We all have CNG available and household Gas at reasonable cost. It is our resource and should not be squandered for a quick gain and then a life long paying for it on many sides.
moe freitag says
Chris the only morally bankrupt people are ones that do not take all perspectives into view when making decisions. Nate’s position is simply an opinion. Tracey represents a demographic of our society that definitely need to be brought to the table however is just as polarized as the most right wing conservatives! Lead Now ! Is no way a balanced part of our society but rather solely environmentally focused . Check out there website and those that lead there efforts! Happy cold Friday sitting inside burning natural gas. Thank goodness my furnace , fireplace , and heat pump all run on electricity!
Moe Freitag
Tracey Saxby says
Moe, what does this have to do with Lead Now?
Jennifer says
Leadnow.ca is an independent advocacy organization that brings Canadians together to achieve progress through democracy.
Their tagline states: We’re working together to build a stronger democracy that protects our environment, creates economic opportunity while increasing equality, and guarantees that everyone receives the care they need.
So, yes, Lead Now is interested in the environment, but no more so than they are interested in economic development and social justice. These are things that any of us, regardless of our political stripes, can embrace. Right now, even staunch Conservatives are questioning Stephen Harper’s government. Lead Now is for all Canadians to protect the democracy we hold so highly in Canada that is slowly decaying before us.
Dave says
Well done Tracy.
This is a compassionate, intelligent, well researched piece of work. The motives of this venture may be tainted or may be not. The outcomes may be beneficial to just a few or to many. The harm may come to a few or to many, but you have stated a case which is certainly worthy of this long and important debate and should be admired by the “YAYS”, the “NAYS” and those who are still “FENCE SITTERS”.
Johnny Duguay says
Thank You Tracey ,For Your research and insight to this situation our community is facing.
Rich Duncan says
Tracey, thank you for spending the time to do this. i have been shaking my head ever since i heard that this is what the plans were for this property. and then they said there were 3 options for this plant. my first thought was they are putting 3 options out just to throw fairy dust in our faces. i knew from the start that the water based option is the best option for the project and that this is what they will be going with. it makes the most sense from a business perspective. they can refit the ship over seas at a huge cost savings. they can sail away at any time they choose. Canada has some of the most strict maritime laws in the world. unfortunately they are for Canadian ships. not for foreign vessels. and this floating lng processing plant would be considered a foreign vessel, and would not have to be built to Canadian standards. i know this first hand as i have been a part of an ocean based business in the past. as for the workers you are so correct in that nobody in squamish is qualified to work on this project other then a few carpenters on the build. canadas foreign workers policy has been in the news the past year for allowing as many foreign works to take locoal jobs as possible. so what is there to make this company forced to use local employees? absolutely nothing. so wood fibers claim to say that they will try to train local workers is all hear say. the fact that they have no answers to 75%+ questions is mind boggling for a company that is looking to invest 1.7 billion dollars. the fact that a company with the worst track record for environment on the planet is trying to do something they never have done before in our front yard, i would walk away if it was me. but who am i to say anything. i am no scientist, i am not in government, i don’t even own a house here in squamish. but i do own a very large growing business here, i do own water front in howe sound, i want what is best for squamish, for my children, for the people who live here. i watched the last time we had the gas line extended to whistler. and saw all the workers and the trucks that came from albreta. yes they filled the hotels and the rentals here. the bars did very well. the housing market didn’t change any. when they were done they all went back to where they came from. so we had a bit of a spike in our economy. so we had to hire a few more employees in the sectors that needed it. but when they finished they left. we laid all those extra staff off. and we were back to business as usual. how is this going to effect what we have been growing on? you can say tourism doesn’t bring higher paying jobs here all you want. but it does bring businesses here. locals opening up business that lower paying jobs are getting filled. squamish is the outdoors capital of the world. shouldn’t that mean something when we say it? just my 2 cents…
Dave says
Oops, I meant passionate rather than compassionate…but it will do since Tracy obviously CARES very much for our planet’s well-being!
Brad says
” There is currently a global shortage of workers for these highly skilled LNG jobs, and the proponent admits that they will most likely be importing the 100 workers required to operate the plant from Texas, Asia, and other places. ”
Most likely a number of them will end up living here. It’s a long commute to Asia.
” What about the LOSS of taxes that might result if property values are negatively impacted? Or the LOSS of taxes if businesses move away due to increased air pollution and reduced quality of life if we have an LNG plant here? How will this NEGATIVELY impact our tax revenue?”
Come on. People were moving here while Woodfibre was still sending up giant plumes of exhaust into the air. A family could actually *afford* to live here back then. You really think an LNG plant on the other side of the Sound is going to send people scurrying away? And businesses? Businesses are going to leave because of an LNG plant? By that logic, Vancouver should be empty once Kinder Morgan finishes their pipeline. Actually should have been empty years ago, what with all the shipping and those giant yellow sulfur piles at North Van. Do you know how many businesses have closed in the last decade or relocated because of our depleted economy? How many decent jobs have left since I moved here in 1999? How many more of each will be lost because Council has to keep jacking up residential and business taxes to pay for ever increasing expenditures?
“We have a choice right now. Do we want to invest in industries that continue to pollute and continue to drive climate change”
Climate change is a very hotly debated topic and the science so far as not backed up the fearful claims. As for industries that pollute, *all* industries pollute. All of them. Even the *clean* ones. Directly or indirectly. The computer or phone you typed all this on was made using some pretty foul processes using some of the very oil you protest we should not be fracking with. Bike tires. Paint. Clothes. Solar panels. LNG is no saint, but from what I’ve read it could significantly impact the pollution picture in places choking on smog like China, in a positive way. In our zeal to protect our local environment sometimes we forget the bigger picture. It’s a bit hypocritical for us to scream about the environment here while continuing to buy and use and benefit from products born from pollution that other people have to suffer elsewhere.
If I sound jaded, it’s because I keep hearing from folks like yourself that they’re all in favor of ‘clean’ industry. But in 15 years I’ve not seen a proposal that reaches that threshold. LNG, woodchips, gravel pits, logging. All of them protested, I think, because the end goal of some is not clean industry but *zero* industrial development and nothing that ‘spoils the view’, even if you need binoculars to see it. Our generation in particular has a very warped view of how an economy works and what creates the wealth and products that enable the lifestyle we have, and how those products are made. We bemoan the lack of ‘living wage’ jobs in the community but protest and block every serious attempt to remedy the situation. Sure, 20 or 30 local jobs (I think that’s a minimum for this proposal) isn’t much, but it’s a start. And the taxes aren’t exactly nothing at a time when we’re pondering shutting off inter-library loans and closing the pound earlier. These things add up. If we keep protesting every innovation like modern day Inquisitionists, one day we may get that zero pollution world we seem to be after. But we’d better stock up on toilet paper for our future outhouses.
Tracey Saxby says
Hi Brad,
Are you a scientist? Because I am. I have conducted research related to climate change, and worked extensively with government agencies and other organizations around the world for over 12 years now to communicate the impacts of climate change, and how we can adapt to and mitigate these impacts.
Let me assure you that more than 99% of scientists are agreed that climate change is real, it is happening now, and it is human-caused.
Need proof that scientists agree on this? This scientist (James Lawrence Powell), analyzed every scientific journal article printed in 2013. Of 10,885 articles that mention “global warming” or “climate change” only two of them disagree that it is happening and that it is human-caused. Two out of 10,885. Don’t think you can say that “climate change is a very hotly debated topic” any more.
http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html
As for backing up the “fearful claims” I have some science for you. New data confirms that past predictions of the severity and cost of global climate change impacts have been conservative. It’s worse than scientists predicted. Greenhouse gases have increased more rapidly, arctic sea ice has retreated faster than expected, and sea level has also risen far more rapidly as a result. (Reference: National Academy of Sciences (2010) Strong evidence on climate change underscores need for actions to reduce emissions and begin adapting to impacts. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010 Accessed February 28, 2013).
Even more recent, let’s look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s most recent report published last year. This collection of expert scientists states:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased”
AND
“Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.”
AND
“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
To read the full report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
To clarify my position, I am not anti-industry. I understand the need for industry, but there are more sustainable industries than LNG, and there are choices we can make now to hold all of our current industries more accountable.
As for our LNG improving pollution in China, I suggest you read this article:
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2014/01/30/bcs-big-favour-lng-exports-and-ghg-emissions/
It states “ A number of independent projections show a growing appetite in China for all energy sources, including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels… For now, LNG is anticipated to pile on top of China’s growing coal consumption, rather than displace it.”
Just some light reading for a rainy Saturday afternoon.
Brad says
If you don’t mind me asking Tracey, what are your degrees in? Which universities? (This is a serious question, not intended to be confrontational)
I am not a scientist, but I do know scientists and I do know that science is never, ever settled. Your assertion that 99% of scientists agree global warming is happening and man made is false. I can provide a pretty lengthy list of scientists who disagree. Further, I can provide evidence, actual climate results that refute pretty much everything you’ve posted above. There is nothing settled or certain about any of this. If there isn’t a vigorous debate going on, it is because unfortunately climate science has intermingled itself with politics and it is impossible to disagree without having someone shout epithets like ‘denier’ at you. When people resort to that sort of thing when challenged on a scientific issue, you know they’ve crossed the line between science and opinion/belief, and probably aren’t as secure in that belief as they make out to be. A real scientist is always skeptical, always aware that they do not know everything they think they know. All of the dire global warming predictions are based on computer models which are only as good as their inventors. And apparently they weren’t very good because the IPCCs own predictions fell almost laughably flat and they were reduced to literary semantics to try and dodge embarrassment.
This is not to say there isn’t a huge number of scientists out in the climate change field. Scientists often go where the research dollars are and there is a lot in that field. I wouldn’t expect many to be willing to throw out, essentially, their meal ticket, their life’s work. But to say the end data hasn’t been contradictory is just fundamentally untrue. Even James Lovelock, *the* father of global warming said he and others had been too alarmist. I have an open mind, but I am distrustful of people with agendas. A scientist with an agenda is just a propagandist by another name.
“To clarify my position, I am not anti-industry. I understand the need for industry, but there are more sustainable industries than LNG, and there are choices we can make now to hold all of our current industries more accountable.”
You know, you say that, and I want to believe you. But re-reading your article and posts, I’m not so sure. You said it yourself, you don’t want to look at an ugly LNG plant (even one way across the water). I don’t think that invalidates your other points, but I think it’s closer to the real heart of the opposition here. If ugly is the fallback position, no industry can meet the standard. And as I’ve said, I’ve lived here 15 years and have yet to see one that did. There is always some reason to oppose.
“It states “ A number of independent projections show a growing appetite in China for all energy sources, including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels… For now, LNG is anticipated to pile on top of China’s growing coal consumption, rather than displace it.””
But if they aren’t burning NG, then they will be burning more coal. Obviously there is a market for this stuff. And it isn’t just China that wants it, Europe is also interested because their investments in green technology aren’t panning out and they need a fallback that isn’t coal. Even Germany has had to admit failure.
Anyway, the key to defeating LNG, indeed all fossil fuels, is to stop using the stuff. Demand is why people are fracking, why LNG plants are proposed, why people are drilling left and right. Solve the demand and you solve the problem. But nobody seems to want to give up the oil products they use..
Tracey Saxby says
That assertion isn’t false, but by all means please do go ahead and show me the “actual climate results” that refute climate change is happening. Would also love to see the lengthy list of names of scientists that disagree.
I’ve posted links and references. Please do the same because right now there is nothing I can see that backs up your arguments.
Auli Parviainen says
Brad, I would echo Tracey’s call for the the long list of scientists and sources you speak of. I am wondering also what you base your assertion of climate science being intermingled with politics and it being impossible to disagree without being name-called. Coincidentally, last year, when speaking of Northern Gateway process, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said of environmental groups “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda,” stack the hearings with people to delay or kill “good projects,” attract “jet-setting” celebrities and use funding from “foreign special interest groups.” In Canada the oil and gas lobbying efforts have increased exponentially since 2006, doubling in meeting volume in one year from 2010 to 2011 alone (stats from CAPP. In the US the oil & gas industry spent over $144 million last year towards lobbying. In both cases their spending dwarfed spending by any other industry. I suppose you could say that the industry has been compelled to spend more resources than ever to fight against this massive influence and agenda-setting power of the radical environmental groups.
Finally, I would use some refrain for advancing this polarized ‘if you use it, and oppose expansion of fossil fuel extraction you are a hypocrite’ silliness. At every turn we have ample choices to make, not just yes or no. Even a slight reduction in use by every person globally would make a massive impact in our consumption. Whether this might be driving less, car pooling, energy efficient building, turning down the thermostat, reusing containers, choosing less packaged items, not taking plastic bags for every veggie you buy, buying less consumer goods and for heavens’ sake, using your Iphone or other devices just 1 year longer, the impacts on energy consumption could be staggering.
Brad says
Start here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.pdf
Here’s more:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Here’s a short wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I can keep going but you get the point. I have a whole bunch of peer reviewed surveys, etc. with many, many names. Are they the majority? Who knows. But it’s more than just a couple, as Tracey was trying to suggest.
“(stats from CAPP. In the US the oil & gas industry spent over $144 million last year towards lobbying. In both cases their spending dwarfed spending by any other industry.”
Tom Steyer helped raise $50M to elect Democrats and plans to dump another $100M into anti-fossil fuel candidates in the upcoming midterms. Alone. Yes, I think the energy companies need to do some lobbying here.
“Finally, I would use some refrain for advancing this polarized ‘if you use it, and oppose expansion of fossil fuel extraction you are a hypocrite’ silliness.”
Auli, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that. We all use the product, therefore we are all driving the demand. Fracking is happening because the easiest sources are just about tapped out, or in places we don’t want to be dependent on. It is suicidal to be trying to shut down North American fracking/oil sands/etc, and hypocritical to do so while continuing to use the end product. I agree we can all contribute by reducing our use a little, but in the end we will still need the stuff, and until a better option comes along, I support doing what is necessary to keep us going, at least in the short term. I am certainly not suggesting we frack for the next 200 years. But I trust that as time progresses and costs mount, more efficient and better ways to extract will evolve. That is the pattern for just about every industrial development out there. Further, it is hypocritical to oppose industrial production here while buying products from other countries who ultimately suffer the costs. I look at LNG, on balance, as a way to help the other side. Why should we get to keep a pristine view so that others can choke on smog and toxic chemicals?
Now Tracey — what are *your* qualifications please?
Tracey Saxby says
I have three degrees from the University of Queensland, Australia: a Bachelor of Arts , a Bachelor of Science (majoring in marine science), and a post-graduate Bachelor of Science Honours – Class I in Marine Botany, which is equivalent to a Canadian master’s level degree.
I have had an ongoing contract with the University of Maryland since 2003, collaborating with scientists and organizations around the world. A few of the organizations I have worked with include the National Parks Service (USA), United Nations Environment Programme (International), UN-Habitat (International), Maryland Department of Environment (USA), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (USA), Maryland Forest Service (USA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USA), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (USA), the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (USA), Forest Trends (USA and Mexico), Conservation International, the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (Pacific), the Government of Samoa (Pacific), Lami Town Council (Pacific), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia), University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and the University of Western Australia (Australia).
Jen Reilly says
I’ve been following the LNG discussion with interest, and am impressed by the level of commitment that residents of Squamish have to our community. This is one of the reasons I love living here so much. I wanted to add a point to this discussion that I think is important.
I’m seeing some discussion of peer-reviewed journal articles here. As someone who teaches post-secondary, I know there is a lot of misunderstanding of what this means. A peer-reviewed article has more credibility than a government document, industry publication, or news article. I believe that it’s important to compare apples to apples.
When a peer-reviewed article is published, it reports on scholarly research that has been evaluated anonymously by other experts in the field (peers) before it is accepted for publication. The peers who do this evaluation are picking on things like methodology (If they did this study again, would they get the same results? Did they actually measure what they thought they measured?), the quality of the study, the relevance of the study, and so on. Other sources typically rely solely on the judgement of the editors, which includes their bias.
In order to help my students understand what goes into a peer-reviewed article, I show them this short (4 minute) video on TED Talks: http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline The speaker talks a bit fast, but my students find it valuable. In terms of climate science as reported in peer-reviewed articles (which in my view as an academic have the least bias), climate change is real and it is human-caused. Ten to fifteen years ago, some scientists were disputing whether it is human caused – that debate is over and the jury is in.
To me, the discussion shouldn’t be around whether LNG extraction, processing and shipping has a negative environmental consequence. The research shows unequivocally that it does, and I think that we can all agree on that although we might further discuss the extent of those impacts. The debate should be whether or not the community of Squamish can get behind an LNG processing facility with all its accompanying pros and cons.
I appreciate that people like Nate and Tracey are taking the time to fully explore what these are, rather than taking a private company with what appears to be poor track record at face value. Do we want Woodfibre LNG in our community? Some people are in support and some are not. We can’t answer this question accurately until Woodfibre LNG answers some of the questions that have been posed to them. Right now, whether or not we want to believe in climate change, we have more questions than answers about the project on our doorstep.
Tracey Saxby says
Thanks for posting these Brad. As Jen notes, there is a big difference between a peer-reviewed scientific journal article, and the reports/links that you listed above, two of which are created by the very industries that want to spread this kind of misinformation about climate change.
The author of the first and second documents you posted is Marc Morano. He is the owner and founder of the website “www.ClimateDepot.com,” which is funded by right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who made his fortune in banking, oil, and aluminum. It also receives funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron. Marc Morano himself is not a climate scientist – his degree is in political science.
This report has not been peer-reviewed, or published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is only published on his own website. It has since been debunked, as it cites a significant number of people that have no expertise in climate science.
Reading through the Wikipedia article you posted, it doesn’t support your argument:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming),
a) It states that the findings of the IPCC report “are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.”
b) It also discusses that Marc Morano and his publications have been “criticized on a number of grounds.”
c) It states that “Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change.”
d) The first list of scientists (total of 9) only question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections, rather than dispute its existence. This is fair, science is not a crystal ball, and as you mentioned earlier, scientists question things. For example, previous climate projections were so conservative that actual climate change impacts are occurring faster than scientists predicted (see my earlier post).
e) None of the scientists in the second, third, or fourth lists deny that climate change is happening, they are included in the lists for having varied opinions on WHY it is happening.
To clarify my comment above, I referred to the 10,885 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published in 2013 that state that climate change IS happening and that it IS human-caused, compared to only 2 which state otherwise. Two “deniers” to use your terminology, compared to 10,885 supporting articles, all published in 2013 alone.
So this comes back to what I wrote earlier, that “scientists are agreed that climate change is real, it is happening now, and it is human-caused.”
This is one of the reasons I am most concerned about this LNG plant, as it further encourages the extraction and export of a fossil fuel that is not necessarily any cleaner than coal after you account for leakage rates, the amount of fossil fuels burned to transport the gas (when China has their own reserves), and the independent studies that show that this LNG will not necessarily displace coal in China, but will only add to it.
Brad says
See Tracey this is why these kinds of conversations are pointless. You have already made up your mind on all of this. Any opposing viewpoints I offer you will counter with ‘oh they are shills for the oil industry’ or faked or whatever. It would be like me stating that the peer reviewed articles you mention are tainted because the people doing them are dependent upon research grants that would quickly dry up if suddenly they said ‘actually, this isn’t correct’.
I accept that there are a lot of scientists that believe in global warming via CO2. Personally I keep an open mind, having seen over the course of my lifetime plenty of reversals in mainstream scientific opinion on any given topic. My opinion on this topic has moved with each revelation. Again, if those in that field (especially the IPCC) wish to be taken seriously, they need to start making predictions and projections that actually line up with reality, and stop tossing out Koch Brothers conspiracy theories and threats every time the science doesn’t go their way.
TJay says
Hear hear Brad…bloody well said …..
Jean says
Hi everybody, friends of LNG looking for a job or having a bit more revenue for a short time in your business and….. Hi to all my potential Friends of CNG…readily available in Squamish
Do you know anybody that would like to have Household Gas and cant get it?
Would you know anybody that would like to switch, or add CNG to there car and drive for half the cost?
Would you like, or know anybody that that likes to make money, buying CNG …converting it to electricity and in process selling the excess that you don,t need back to the grid … but here is the best one,…..use the exhaust during the process, being used to heat your house and greenhouse freeeeeee !!!
Sounds like Utopia… don,t think so. Big conglomerates like Eaton Corp and GE are working parallel with little guys like me, to revolutionize the energy sector and be cost effective for transportation and home heating for years to come.
So maybe you will understand why I am fighting not to export our jewel and in process, having our household and CNG for cars jacked up in price on the domestic now available Gas and CNG. This just to find out, that in a few years after all the damage has been done up north with Fracking and big Gas lines across to the coast, that the market will collapse, as the Chinese have stated that they are only interested in LNG on an interim base, even worse, they just discovered plenty of Natural Gas in there own area.
If you want to join me and other residences here that have been promised and then reneged on by DOS and FortisBc, because of the developer of a new subdivision pleading poverty.. We now have to take up the fight and take it to the BC Utility Commission ( BCUC) … with no guarantee, but with more people demanding access to Household Gas now….in Squamish, we might wake the world up to consider, that Gas should be first available to all the locals, before shipping it past us to the World.
Here is my website http://www.is.gd/2from1 to add a comment and for your support, hopefully will give us Gas. I can add you to the next Blog and if you have a need to make your view known on my website I will upload it for all interested to read.
TJay says
So…the best thing to do is to hide the head in the sand and do absolutely nothing…out of fear…..hmmm. How uninspiring.
I’ll take my natural gas heat, thankyou.
Peter says
“I’ll take my natural gas heat, thankyou.”
I don’t think even the most staunch environmentalists amongst us here are suggesting that we need to / should / or even can get rid of our dependance on natural gas right now. Our home furnaces are small potatoes in the scheme of things. We should definitely work towards it, but that is not the issue facing Squamish right now.
What I think many of us are objecting to is the waste of using large amounts of energy to compress and then transport an energy source to the other side of the globe. China has discovered its own natural gas reserves and are becoming world leaders in solar technology. Why not have them make use of their own resources, at least that way we are skipping the incredibly wasteful compression and transport processes.
TJay says
Are you riding on the back of so-called Tracy there Bruce ???
Squish says
Hopefully one of these imported, high paid LNG worker will buy my house and then I can move somewhere that doesn’t have a gas plant as the main focal point of the community.
Something tells me the jobs created for local Squamish residents will be few and short-lived; contribution to our tax base will be nominal; and the first industrial clean-up that happens (which it will) will end up on the shoulder’s of the community to deal with and not the LNG company.
The only real beneficiary in this whole deal is China.
Squamish may as well save it’s money on any rebranding exercise – it will simply be known as the gas plant on the way to Whistler.
Dave says
My view:
Keep and use our natural gas…they are going to be extracting it for the rest of the century.. Don’t export it to China. They will not use it properly to save the world from climate change …they will just add it to the pollution resources they are already using….ie Coal. They will just keep their masks on and carry on choking us downwind. If they do develop more gas fields of their own, they will cut off our exports and we will have built own LNG plants for nothing anyway.
We will not benefit substantially economically as a Province…that is just a Cristi- type political “red herring”, anyway, she will be gone soon. Squamish will not get many jobs out of the venture and we will not get a substantial amount of tax spin-off. And we will have to pay indirectly for the electrical power the company uses. Oh and it will not be a pretty site/sight. My crystal ball tells me all this 🙂
Enough already, I have to cook my supper on my gas stove, then have a bath with my gas heated hot water and warm myself in front of my gas fireplace! I’m thinking getting a gas dryer and a gas barbecue too, if the taxes don’t go up too much. The reason I use gas is because I cannot heat my house properly with a mere 100 amp service and oil is dirty. The old tank was leaking and had to be removed. Wood stoves are antisocial, smoke out the neighbours and my house insurance company doesn’t like them. Good afternoon.
Bruce McGregor says
Nate is obviously not an investigative journalist and just got completely schooled by Tracey.
tjay says
No he didn’t Bruce…it’s called having an opinion, which Nate is entitled to…
Star says
A hydrologist speaking on Northeast BC explains the use of brinewater for those citing fracking and the impacts to water …
Delena Angrignon says
Thank you Tracey for providing a detailed response to Nate’s comment. I have spent an enormous amount of my own time looking at every angle of the pros and cons. I have tried to find a benefit to WFLNG and not only can I not find one but all the opinions like Nates which lack detail just leave me convinced that their is none. The reality is Russia has more shale and is already piping to China. China has it’s own huge resources of shale. Why should we extract what little resource we have to possibly ship off shore to create wealth for NON CANADIANS? The US has a security policy to ensure its citizens have their own internal resources for the future. What is Canada doing to ensure this? Nate, I have to wonder why you wrote this opinion. It’s a strong opinion but lacks anything of value. What were you trying to achieve? If you truly believe that it’s good for Squamish and Howe Sound (as it effects the whole region), then please share the details of what has formed this opinion.
I found Brad’s comments interesting that people moved to Squamish throughout the polluting Woodfibre days. I am thinking he doesn’t realize that the population of Squamish stayed the same for years at 15,000. It didn’t start growing until the last bunch of years, after Woodfibre closed down. Squamish has attracted people who move here for lifestyle. They want to raise their families in an environment that is healthy. My husband and I moved here because we wanted to live in a smaller town and be apart of a more active, healthy community. People come here from all over the world to explore our backyard. We have taken our fare share up the Chief so they can enjoy the views of the sound. It should be a heritage site. 350,000 people are slated to enjoy the new Sea to Sky Gondola. What will they be looking at? Tourism provides huge benefits to our region that is just starting to take off. If Squamish was such a bad place to live, people would be leaving. Interesting that we are at the start of a building boom. Our newest tenants in our rental property moved from Banff to Squamish to enjoy the biking, hiking and ocean life. I would hope that those who expressed support for the WFLNG would take a hard look at the cost. If you don’t know where to look, just google Australia and LNG. LNG exports have driven up the cost for the average citizen. Let’s not make the same mistake.
TJay says
This…isn’t Australia…
Brad says
Delena the reason Squamish didn’t grow dramatically had nothing to do with the pulp mill, and had everything to do with the lousy road. I had friends who lived here in the old days who routinely were unable to get to work due to weather conditions. Your assertion that the pulp mill was holding things down is just not true. And again, if your thesis is correct, theoretically Vancouver should be a ghost town, along with San Fran and any other city with industry within view. I am glad you moved here for the lifestyle. I moved here because this used to be an affordable community where most anyone could find decent work and aspire to live in a way that was totally out of reach in Vancouver. I’m sorry if that’s incompatible with your beliefs but I am not alone on this and we have the right to our view and a say also.
TJay says
True.
Brad says
Delena the reason Squamish didn’t grow dramatically had nothing to do with the pulp mill, and had everything to do with the lousy road. The reason it took off wasn’t because the mill closed. The mill was still running until 2006, well after the housing boom started. The boom started because of the Olympic announcement, which generated tons of investor interest and triggered the highway redevelopment. *That* is what brought everyone up here. I had friends who lived here in the old days who routinely were unable to get to work due to weather conditions. People avoided Squamish like the plague before 99 was fixed up. Your assertion that the pulp mill was holding things down is just not true. And again, if your thesis is correct, theoretically Vancouver should be a ghost town, along with San Fran and any other city with industry within view. I am glad you moved here for the lifestyle. I moved here because this used to be an affordable community where most anyone could find decent work and aspire to live in a way that was totally out of reach in Vancouver. I’m sorry if that’s incompatible with your beliefs but I am not alone on this and we have the right to our view and a say also.
Peter says
Please people become educated about the company behind Woodfibre LNG!
“Meet Squamish’s New Neighbour, Sukanto Tanoto, owner of Pacific Oil & Gas, the company behind the #Squamish LNG Plant.
Tanoto has a abysmal environmental record, making him Indonesia’s Lead Driver of Rainforest Destruction. Tanoto has contributed to many animal rights violations and has been linked to orangutan graveyards and widespread peatland destruction in Sumatran Tiger habitat. When Indonesian villages complained about Tanoto’s pulp mill pollution and land grabbing, they were hit with paramilitary force resulting in 6 Dead, 100+ Injured.”
http://www.featuredpixels.com/squamishs-new-neighbour-lng-plant-could-ruin-a-beautiful-sacred-town/
TJay says
Sensationalizing aye ?
This isn’t Indonesia or Sumatra. I doubt if Canada will send troops here to kill us.
Peter says
Not suggesting anyone is going to send troops to kill us. All I am saying is that I don’t want someone with those morals and ethics profiting from Canadian resources.
http://www.terracestandard.com/opinion/letters/248038281.html
“Every penny Petronas, Shell, Sinopec, et. al., spends on LNG infrastructure gets 100 per cent subsidized by the BC taxpayer.
Instead of what Cristy Clark promised, a tax on revenues that would lift BC to wealth and prosperity, what she delivered is tax-free revenues to the wealthiest corporations on earth.”
TJay says
Well never the less, the world turns & turns, and freaking out in an overly emotional fashion doesn’t accomplish anything thing either.
My Dad used to say to us 4 boys when we were mouthing off, “You have all of the questions, but non of the answers…& He was right.
Adam says
TJ. Peter was providing you with ‘answers’ about the backer of the proposed LNG facility. I’m also really unclear how his concern about a corporate entities use of paramilitary death squads is ‘freaking out in an overly emotional fashion’. Do you not see the connection between their behaviour overseas and what they might do here when it comes to environmental, labour and health and safety regulations? Are these really the types of people you want as part of your community?
G_h says
Nate: excellent SUCCINCT article making all the key points. If only some of the windbag respondents here could learn to express themselves similarly (you know who you are).
Tracey: “scientist” normally implies someone who does scientific-method based primary research (and, at an absolute minimum, has a doctoral degrees). You are not a scientist.
Dave says
G_h,:
True, by your criteria, Tracy is not a scientist- but it is possible, too, that she has more of a scientific grasp on these issues than most of the “wind bags” here. To obtain a mere first science degree (B.Sc.) one does have to indulge in the basics of scientific method and certainly, for a masters degree,(M.Sc.) one has to perform in and defend a thesis.
Everyone here who has expressed themselves has a greater or lesser grasp on the concept of science. So let it be.
For some amusing interest, one of my colleagues at Uni. became a Ph. D. His thesis was the innervation of the rectal region of Cancer paguris ..a common Atlantic crab (It took him three years to do the research).. He freely admitted, when he reached this towering academic height, he had almost forgotten most of his basic biological knowledge….. so much for the Ph. D. higher plane!
I only aspire the B.Sc. diminutive level, and so in your eyes, I would not be qualified to refer to my scientific training in any argument! One wonders what your towering heights of academia are?…Please tell.
Adam says
G_h,
This article makes all the key points? So in your mind this short opinion addresses all of the environmental, tax, labour, health, safety, tourism, and economic considerations for a multi-billion dollar project will impact many generations of British Columbians? Well then fire up that plant and forget the science and common sense.
What always blows me away about these debates is the ferocity with which people like yourself will attack those who a fighting for your right to clean air, water and long-term health.
Christine Elliott says
My son in law grew up on a farm in the Okanagan. They grew fruit trees and his father sprayed them with chemicals. I was always opposed to spraying and was fortunate enough to have stumbled across naturopathic/cook books by a man called Dr. Paavo Airola who was a PhD and also ND in my early 20’s. Arguments about the pro’s and con’s on occasion would pursue and my son in law and daughter said he needed to spray because of the insects and other diseases that would ruin the fruit. Now that my daughter has children, we had a discussion about getting fruit from her Father in Law. She said no way, that she only buys organic or picks from the fruit trees that are wild and unsprayed. All I could do was smile. Humans have a knack of continuing to do things that are harmful until it affects them. Time will be the teacher, because history does show, that we are not good listeners, and that we repeat mistakes no matter what factual information is staring us right in our face. Nate and Tracey know I am opposed to the LNG plant and appreciate the opportunity to share my opposition.
TJay says
Ahhh yes I see the similarities now, Okanagan fruit and natural gas…..yes, I see…..
Jean says
TJ keep your smart remarks to yourself
TJay says
Hey Jean smart ass …how’d you like to try and make me ol’ high and lofty omnipotent one. ‘in your own mind’ ….pffffft !
Adam says
Hey TJ,
Why don’t you actually contribute to this debate instead of hanging your hat on insults and name calling. If you have a point, present your case. Calling someone a ‘smart ass’ isn’t going to do much to help your point of vie gain traction. Further, it highlights the mentality of people who are often swayed by corporate misinformation and whitewashing. Time to be an independent thinker….this is a big deal with real consequences.
TJay says
I could reply Adam, but in my manner ,not yours, Dictators really bug me, bugger off. It’s called freedom of speech, if you don’t like, then don’ t read….
..Yep could say more..if I found something worthy to comment on, but nothing yet, alas…
Also I interject a thought here, and one there, in an attempt not to be a big wind bag…My choice.
Have fun man, why so bloody serious ?
Don’t worry, be happy……
Adam says
TJ. As you’ve rightly noted, you do have the choice to contribute whatever you wish to the dialogue. Was just curious what value you thought you added by attacking people? As you’ve so eloquently outlined above, clearly not much. Thanks for confirming.
TJay says
Well little boy Adam, you may be a weenie and feel attacked. But I don’t concur with you, as far as your sensationalized so-called ‘attack’ hurl….. But doooo call you a panty waist, and not only that, freedom of speech is not an attack nitwit !…. Be a man and stand up to it. Or go and get a case lot of soothing pacifiers at
Save On Foods…..
Getting back on topic though, I am in camp ,working hard, making big money, which pays for huge taxes for both you and I and all the whiners in Squish too…….Yes both our agendas, are looked after by our chosen government and our, not your…money, to do for all citizens, not just a select moly coddled few.
I like Natural gas and O B S
Glenne C says
Wonder what the LNG Woodfibre proponents have to say about the recent explosion at the LNG plant in Washington State on March 31st, 2014. Question the science, engineering, & economics AND the vapour cloud explosion histories.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/07/blast-at-u-s-lng-site-casts-spotlight-on-natural-gas-safety/?__lsa=645f-588a
http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/07/after-lng-explosion-community-cove-point-export-concerns/
BC is not selling gas, BC is selling exploitation.
TJay says
So what. It is what it is…Remember a few residential neighborhoods down South where the natural gas pipelines blew up houses ? Same thing.
Sensationalizing is just that…
Coleman says
Marketing PlanThis section should clearly outline the ways and means by wwhich you will ultimately pitch to your audience as possible.
In its history, the American Small Business
League ASBL criticizes President Barack Obama’s latesst plan to stimulate small businesses and job creation and
contribution to the economy. The business plan should include such
details as the date you are planning to start a business,
so why not create a business plan.
TJay says
Obama is not Canadian…you ruin your diatribe…
Suzanne says
We’re a gaggle of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community.
Your website offered us with useful info to work on. You have done a formidable job and our whole community
might be grateful to you.
pcsoftwarespro.com says
What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious
experience about unpredicted emotions.
Tjay says
Hear hear !……. Well stipulated.