By Craig McConnell
Published: April 5, 2014
I enjoyed the point-counterpoint debate between Tracy Saxby and Nate Dolha.
My experience in the mineral fuels, oil, gas and pipeline industry spans 25 years and covers primarily midstream, downstream, refinery and marine terminal environments. Educated in earth sciences, I chose a diverse career that included my interests of environmental & industrial process gas monitoring and analysis problems.
Clients have included BC Gas (now Fortis BC Natural Gas), Chevron Burnaby Refinery, Encana, Husky Oil-Prince George Refinery, Petro-Canada Burnaby, Shell-Burmont Terminal, Spectra Energy,Terasen Pipelines-Kinder Morgan, and Westcoast Energy, among others.
How is it scientifically credible, and representative of responsible reporting, for Ms. Saxby to imply “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” without a baseline study of all existing criteria pollutant emissions including all forms of asphalt/asphalt plants, mobile emitters (cars, trucks,buses, sleds, motorcycles), poured concrete, and community combustion sources (gas, oil and wood).
Extrapolating the Woodfibre LNG Project emission scenario to “nonfatal heart attacks and premature death in people with heart or lung disease” is simply a form of fear-mongering to create a polarized community response.
There are no human engineered systems of which I am aware, whether the Sea-To-Sky Highway or a community garden, that can satisfy 100% risk-free involvement.
If Squamish engages the Woodfibre LNG Project team, researches from credible sources, and envisions a “best-in-class” facility like the recent Norwegian Snohvit LNG plant (the first to adopt electrical drives), then perhaps our community will attract the international investment and trade which contributes to rebuilding BC’s deteriorating social infrastructure.
Skill professionals and apprenticeships in specialized trades and technology (ie: instrumentation technicians, environmental technologists, marine terminal architects, energy process engineers) will be needed for an emerging industry in BC that will exist for the entire career lives of the participants.
Jean says
Now we finally have a technical person that we can get the actual facts I hope and with it maybe we all will get a bit less worried about LNG .Let me state first of all, why to push for LNG when it is only good for a few years, as per Georgia Straits April 3rd issue.
Then there are the people that think “Modern Fracking” is in order, to get more of the stuff that makes up LNG.. Did the government say 50,000 wells to be done by…… Anyway, about all the other countries discovering Gas, some in the Oceans, and the new Panama Canal that will let the east coast export from there tremendous discovery to Asia , just as our government anticipates to do the same . What about our southern neighbour that is starting to do expansions in Oregon and elsewhere for LNG export, with the goal, to be self sufficient and ready to export the additional excess by 2020 .
So now we know, there is lots of LNG coming on and it is a race by the looks of it, as to market share. Now where are the Tankers that will deliver all that gold and if they are already here, they will not switch from there contracts, so if there is going to be a glut of LNG, who is building the Ships and by when? Now China having discovered more then Canada and the USA together, where do we think the future LNG will come from in China? Now to the scare mongering. Has any body checked the internet with regards to potential accidents .. not the Spin Dr,s version, all is save and no big accidents in the past… Is 38 houses destroyed in Gas explosion a small thing , how about the 8 dead and many more burned…so would your expert please put my mind at ease .We have a present high pressure Gas line passing through populated area right here in Squamish. All I got so far from Officials and Company personnel, we know what we are doing, we have a shut off design in case. Has it been tested , how often, what is the time from detection of a leak to total shut down…. San Bruno it took 90 Minutes ,where is the gas in the line vented, how many BTU in the pipe when the gas supposedly has shut down, who has the data, when was it tested the last time, who certified the results, where are the records kept, who is in charge of compiling this information, where can we get a copy of past tests, which country demands double and triple shielding of high pressure gas lines through populated area ,what is considered a populated are with how many person or houses potentially effected, does the high pressure gas have the rotten eg smell in it, or is it added on the reduction site, when it is reduced to household gas low pressure, would we smell a high pressure gas leak if it does not have the rotten eg smell in it, who would pay for damages if a catastrophic incident would occur, would a gas company have to provide a performance bond sufficient for damages when building the proposed new gas line feeding the LNG export . As it is the policy of the present gas companies to have the consumer pay for expansions ( a new household Gas line to a residence requesting Gas) .. please no double standards .. does the LNG company exporting the Gas also have to pay for the tremendous cost of making a line to them and what terms, are they going to pay, just like the household consumers are asked to pay prior to ever having gas available and only after having paid to the gas company, will they eventually get the gas supply and some with delivery charges added afterwards, does that mean double dipping , first you pay for there network and then they charge you for maintenance and for pushing the gas to you, possible the cost to reduce and putting the rotten egg smell into it, this all under the pretend that they don,t want to burden the existing customers with additional cost and there by not likely to go broke, even so with no guaranty as to cost increases an profit taking limitations and what if the gas company would pay for the expansion for LNG gas line and the market would collapse would the domestic market (eg Government ) have to bail them out, or the consumer being on the hook and having to make up the shortfall. What kind of contribution is the gas company making in form of taxes to the community, so we can have a fire department suitable to fight a catastrophe , again San Bruno , CA had the waterline also wiped out at the same time and the water needed, to fight, had to be trucked in, what kind of regulation with regards of separation of Gas and water lines are in effect and who is in charge in a municipality like DOS to oversee and who is going to pay there wages …Maybe the Gas company. I have to stop asking for now, wishing and hoping, I don,t get the standard …We Know, We do the best for you, We have studied it, don,t Worry, don,t Worry….. turn the TV up and watch the hockey game and get a Draft, it is good for your nerves .. We do our best .. don,t Worry…
Melyssa Desilles says
Mr. McConnell,
I am not clear what Ms.Saxby said that you deem is ‘fear-mongering’.
The fact that there are no ‘risk free systems’ actually tells me to pay attention in detail to the risks associated with bringing a fossil fuel industry to my door step. There are countless examples of communities that live nearby heavy resource extraction and processing where health effects are negative and a simple google search can pull up articles all across the U.S and Canada in relation to oil and gas.
It is no secret (well industry tries to keep it secret) that the northern communities living near tar sands extraction are increasingly experiencing higher rates of cancers, respiratory illnesses and birth defects. Please do yourself a favor and expose yourself to the realities that exist with participating in the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. To discredit someone’s concerns for the health of this community that prides itself on access to nature and healthy living is a bit insulting for those of us that see through the immediate and short term benefits that we COULD POTENTIALLY get if this project were to proceed. Please take 10 minutes to hear a story from the front lines communities that have oil and gas in their backyard. Residents of Squamish have every right to know the other side to the story before supporting natural gas processing in our town. Sadly, your position offers no insight and appears to be aroused by false job numbers and monopoly money. It appears that what Ms. Saxby is doing is simply asking for more truths to be spoken so this community can know exactly what they are getting into. Perhaps you’d like to attend Boom or Bust? BC’s LNG Legacy on April 8th at Quest. boomorbust.eventbrite.ca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz3nSscXamI or http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140218/fracking-boom-spews-toxic-air-emissions-texas-residents
Brad says
On the subject of allegedly higher cancer rates:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2584323
Tracey Saxby says
Dear Craig,
In response:
1) I am not a reporter. The opinion piece that you are referring to appeared here in the “Your View” section of the Squamish Reporter, similar to this opinion piece that you have written and submitted.
http://www.squamishreporter.com/2014/03/01/more-answers-needed-on-squamish-woodfibre-lng/
2) My opinion piece, published online on March 1st, took the form of a series of questions. I did not “imply,” as you suggest, “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.” You have taken this quote out of context.
The original quote in full is actually in the form of a question:
“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?” Please note the question mark.
I completely agree that we need a baseline study of all existing pollutant emissions, and then we need to look at what the emissions from Woodfibre LNG will be and model the potential impacts to our air quality and our health, among other things.
3) How is sharing information and asking questions fear-mongering? If natural gas is used to power the proposed Woodfibre LNG project, it will produce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides among other things. Note that NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 (nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide), and SOx refers to many types of sulfur and oxygen containing compounds, including sulfur dioxide. It is well-documented in the scientific literature (and again I quote from what I originally wrote so that it is not taken out of context) that “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.”
4) I agree that a “best in class” facility that uses electric drives is something that Squamish should demand if this project is to go ahead. This would alleviate some valid concerns about air pollution and how that will impact our health. However, using hydro as the energy source to compress the natural gas into liquid form (LNG) raises a lot of other questions: a) How much power will be required? b) How many new IPP projects will need to be created to supply this much power? c) Will this mean that Site C Dam needs to go ahead now or in the future because of this increase in power demand? d) What are the environmental impacts of creating new IPP projects and/or the Site C Dam? e) What are the costs of creating new IPPs and Site C Dam for tax-payers or will this very energy-intensive industry be picking up the bill for that?
5) The entire point of what I wrote is that we have not been given much information by Woodfibre LNG, and the community has a lot of questions about this project. I’m not the only one asking these questions. Have a look through the transcripts from the Small Group Meetings and Open House sessions that Woodfibre LNG conducted in February, and which are now available online here: http://www.woodfibrelng.ca/the-project/project-overview-document/). Approximately 306 people attended these sessions in Squamish, and an additional 47 people attended the various sessions in Brittannia Beach, Whistler, and West Vancouver.
If the proponents are not going to provide this information, we as a community need to start finding the answers to these questions. For example, I am calling for the DoS to conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis of this project to look at what the potential benefits this proposed project will bring to Squamish, as well as the potential costs. This is the kind of information we need to weigh up the pros and cons. We cannot base our decisions solely on what the industry or the Provincial government tell us.
I have already suggested this during the April 1st council meeting. To see my comment during the open question period, go to minute 135.40 on the April 1st video recording of the regular business meeting. http://www.squamish.ca/yourgovernment/council-meetings-and-decisions/video-library/2014-meetings-video-archive/regular-business-meetings/
I will be following up this verbal suggestion for an independent cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Woodfibre LNG project with a more formal request in writing.
Sincerely,
Tracey Saxby
Brad Hodge says
I think the ‘fearmongering’ charge comes from the style and undertones (real or perceived) in Tracey’s questions, and more particularly her answers in various back and forths here on this site. She never says so, but the impression one is left with is that she opposes this project, full stop, and has created an substantial series of outs with which to disqualify it and justify opposition — criteria for approval that an LNG plant could never hope to meet.
And that is fine — one has the right to one’s opinion. I’ve actually read through a lot of what Tracey has posted and a lot of it has merit. However if her position is definitely thumbs down on this project, I would prefer she just said so. Too often lately it has been a tactic of those with a certain position to conceal it and attempt to persuade others by posing as dispassionate. That is dishonest and when exposed undermines the very legitimate foundations for concern that are laid out. I hope that is not what is happening here.
G. Elijah Dann says
This debate, like other substantive debates, is about the truthfulness, relevancy, and adequacy of our arguments. To that extent, Tracey has argued her position carefully, responding to various claims made by others.
To make the point rather simply, but perhaps more pointedly, no one should care about the intent of someone arguing that 1 + 1 = 2. Either the facts speak for themselves and it’s true, or it isn’t. Don’t attack the character of the one doing the addition.
Jean says
I like to peacefully sleep and breath clean air, don’t like to have the domestic gas price go up, because as much as possible the Gas company would like it to export as much as possible in bulk and the market will dictate the price of the domestic gas eventually, but most of all, I believe the Gas company is gouching us, even so I still have no Gas at my residence and in order not to provide it, they claim that it would cost 94,000 $ to dig a trench 600 M to my place and put a 2 inch plastic pipe in it, to supply about40 houses in our neighbourhood. The BCUC that should be our abuts agency is totally in the pockets of the big business and appointed by the government that don’t care about the small people and the economy of a community that could use a less expensive fuel source and is not even prepared to put a fuelling station in on there facility in the business park, so cars with CNG conversion could be filled . When asked wedder we at least could get access to LNG for car use at a later date from the proposed W-LNG plant , I was told no, it was only for export .. to take the pollution etc. and not any benefits for Squamish, we should insist to get some tax revenue from them proposing to ship it through the valley on route to export and especially the DOS should impose that a triple casing of any new pipeline under populated area with venting should be mandatory, if any expansion should go trough,…. against the will of the maturity of residences here. You can guess that under these conditions I am against the W-LNG chemical plant!
Her is the latest story just in… on explosion of LNG in Washington just yesterday http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/07/blast-at-u-s-lng-site-casts-spotlight-on-natural-gas-safety/?__lsa=f18b-f878e it is a bedtime story for those that can take it without getting nightmares.
Craig D. McConnell says
Hello Commentators,
Public discourse and debate is valueable on a topic as important as the Woodfibre LNG Project. Although the location is a brownfield and District of Squamish-zoned industrial property included in our OCP, the scrutiny placed on the project by stakeholders, four levels of government (DOS, SLRD, Provincial, Federal) and the participation of BC Hydro, could evolve the Project to a “best-in-class” LNG export marine terminal.
As a contribution to the community in which I live from 25+ years of career experience in environmental & industrial process monitoring, and also as a past Director and Education Chair during the late 1990s with the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) BC-Yukon Chapter, I am obligated to wade into the Woodfibre LNG debate. I will attempt to be light on opinion, refrain from internet sources of research (ie: Wikipedia), ask questions of my network of colleagues, peers and practicioners that I cannot answer, and generally offer the voice of experience. However, over the years I have learned from interactions with clients and special interest groups that the never ending stream of questions can jeopardize establishing priorities of greatest consequence, resulting in digressive and tangential argument. Therefore as a tactic, of asking for $4.00 to answer any initial question, and attaching that exponent to the next Q & A, followed by the remaining exponential scale for the balance of questions, I have found that the effort and thought placed on development of fewer questions evolves very quickly and with brevity. Otherwise, I would be a millionaire.
Humour aside, I will focus initially on emissions, ambient air quality, and some recent history on the impacts within the Howe Sound airshed. Defining an air contaminant or polluting emission (ie: human breath exhalation of CO2, a GHG, INDOORS within a confined space without adequate ventilation) versus anomalous air quality conditions (ie: SVMF concert crowd with human breath exhalation of CO2 OUTDOORS, or marshland emitting “swamp gas” of methane and sulphur compounds) is the result of perception, place, and statistically significant long term health effects on individuals.
Natural gas derived from stratabound geological formations is composed primarily of methane, minor ethane, minutae of other hydrocarbons, and impurities of CO2, moisture, and particularly with “sour gas” wells, quantities of sulphur compounds and mercaptans. The impurities are quantified by on-line continuous process stream analyzers on the producer/upstream/inlet side of gas processing plants (ie: Spectra Energy, Fort Nelson Gas Plant) where they are removed and the natural gas is re-quantified before entering the pipeline transmission system for delivery to the Huntington facility in southern BC where Fortis BC accepts custody transfer.
Sulphur and mercaptan compounds (including all oxides of sulphur – SOx) have a very low threshold of recognition to an individual’s sense of smell, within the range of 3 parts per billion (ppb) and well below two digits ppb (consider that is 3 in 1,000,000,000 or 0.0000003% by volume) which make these compounds exceptional community-safe additive odorants provided by Fortis BC Natural Gas in the distribution pipeline system prior to delivery to your home, children’s school, workplace, favourite restaurant, or vacation hotel.. In BC the natural gas odorant addition blend within the ppb tolerances indicated above has been in a ratio of 65% tertiary butyl mercaptan (TBM) and 35% methyl ethyl sulphide (MES) (Reference: Odorization Techniques, Canadian Gas Association, Western Operations Workshop, April 8, 2003). The additive odorant blend is regularly analysed with accuracy and precision by laboratory-based gas chromatographs using either a sulphur chemiluminescent detector (SCD) or flame photometric detector (FPD) per Odorant Regulation: CSA 662.
With odorant addition being just above 3 ppb but within the range suggested for all human olfactory senses, there is no emission permit required for sulphur (including SOX) and mercaptan compounds when solely combusting or detecting fugitive emissions of natural gas. There are no regulated fine airborne particulates measureable as fugitive emissions or in the combustion stream as Total Suspended Particulates, or respirable micron cut-points PM10, or PM2.5, unlike the situation with the handling and combustion of solid fuels such as wood, coal, and municipal solid waste incineration. On the range of human response to the odorants, there are those that are hypersensitive (sensitive at very low ppb levels) displaying coughing/irritation, and those people that are hyposensitive (reduced in sensitivity) at the other end of the curve. Then there are the vast majority of people who represent the “normal” distribution (per Gaussian statistics) of response to the odorants, acknowledge the smell as a safeguard, and just go about their daily routines.
On the other extreme of emissions within the DOS and Howe Sound airshed was the long historically operational pulp mill at the Woodfibre site. The final owner, before closure, Western Forest Products, was a client. They were most interested in receiving technical and operational support for the recovery boiler’s “continuous emission monitoring system” (CEMS) which analyzed Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) composed of hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulphide, and dimethyl disulphide (but not COS) that was stack emitted by the combustion of black liquor (spent liquor with wood lignins) from the recovery boiler. Sulphur dioxide (SO2) was the “reduced” instrumentally analyzed and measured proxy for TRS emissions 24 hours per day, 7 days a week with 97%+ regulated operational uptime because of the very significant environmental impacts and health effects on plant workers and the community. These TRS compounds, and other non-condensible gases (NCGs) give all “pulp mill towns” a distinctive aroma because of the pervasiveness of recovery boiler combustion emissions within an airshed or geographic area of impact. The TRS stack emissions were regulated by BC Environment to a threshold emission permit “ceiling.” The TRS emissions were continously recorded by the CEMS computer-based data acquisition system (DAS) which could be remotely polled, on-demand and without notice, by BC Environment computers, to determine if the TRS emission permit ceiling had been exceeded at any time. The high toxicity of TRS compounds from a pulp mill combustion source also required an ambient air monitoring network beyond the plant fence line, a community health effects measure in all pulp mill towns.
However, a dated pulp mill derived TRS combustion emission source is at the other end of the spectrum concerning environmental and health impacts versus that of a modern natural gas “combined cycle” power generation plant with gas turbines and waste heat recovery “co-generation” that can be envisioned at the Woodfibre LNG marine export terminal. It is important to recognize the technological and environmental spawn between these two industrial activities. Never will they be remotely comparable.
In closing, I will reiterate the opinion of Nate Dolha’s April 5 observations: “We are the reason we need to export our resources to Asia.” See his current column “The Villain is You and Me” for further insight.
Best Regards,
Craig D. McConnell
Geoscience Analysis Technology
Enviro-Guard Technology
Adam says
Hi Craig,
One question. Have you, will you or do you expect that you might receive remuneration of any kind for work associated with this project or for any known or potential suppliers to the project?
Craig D. McConnell says
Hello Adam,
Absolutely. By bringing my knowledge and experience to the assessment, planning, engineering design, and safe operations of the Woodfibre LNG Project, I could create locally derived added-value. I expect that my role could also include mentoring recently graduated environmental technologists, energy process technologists, and instrumentation/analyzer technicians interested in developing their skills and career path. Perhaps my cumulative activities might also assist in diversification and advancing community economic development within the District of Squamish. As a proponent of knowledge-based economies, I would support direct and indirect opportunities from our current base (ie: Quest University) as they relate to the traditional and alternative energy industry.
Adam says
Thanks for clarifying Craig. In future, disclosure of financial interest in something of this nature might be a valuable inclusion in your post. You have a conflict of interest on this matter and I’d suggest that information is material to most readers – particularly on such a contentious issue. I’m not proposing any wrong doing simply highlighting that you have a vested interest in this project proceeding and that some readers may wish to keep this in mind as they review your opinion.
Craig D. McConnell says
Hello Adam,
In the interest of full transparency with our exchange, I need to challenge your use of wording or terminology which you have assigned to me with prejudice, bring forth another role which I occupy within the community, and offer some volunteer history of community service.
I am not an investor or shareholder in the Woodfibre LNG Project. I DO NOT have a “vested interested” nor do I have a “financial interest.” It is a privately held company. I am not a paid employee, consultant, or contractor at this point in my career with any affiliated company of the Woodfibre LNG Project.
My years of experience, knowledge, and skill set may contribute to a balanced assessment of the Project on the path to possibly achieving a social license. Again, I bring locally derived added value as a long time resident (since 1993) of Squamish. Maybe I will see some personal future economic benefit.
However, I claim to be a stakeholder within the broader community. I am the volunteer Chairperson of the Community Futures Development Corporation of Howe Sound (CFHS), a non-profit society based in Squamish. I have been a volunteer with them for 8 years. The mission statement of CFHS is “to promote and support economic growth and diversification in partnership with community organizations, industry, and governments.” CFHS provides assistance to small businesses in the form of business loans, training, support, business advising and counselling. Our geographic area of responsibility includes the region from Lions Bay to Birken, including the communities of Britannia Beach, Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton, Mount Currie, and D’Arcy. CFHS’s volunteer Board of Directors and Community Loans Committee (CLC) is made up of 8 long time community members of diverse background. See http://www.cfhowesound.com for more information, and please be respectful of the organization, volunteer members, and employees. We do good work. Just ask you neighbours.
During 2004/2005, I was a volunteer member of the Select Committee on Business Development for the District of Squamish. My personal mandate at the time was to support the local efforts of Sea Breeze Power Corp, a consultant to DOS and proponent for airshed assessment and possible development of wind turbine sites and even manufacturing within the District. Unfortunately, initial meteorlogical studies suggested inadequate wind currents to support wind power generation at the selected locations within the DOS.
IF you deem my career and activity as a “conflict of interest” then that is fine by me. Let me be judged by my community.
OK Adam, it is your turn in the interests of transparency. How about disclosing your full name, community history, and any past or current membership or affiliation to Non Government Agencies (NGOs), non-profit societies, or special interest groups?
Best Regards, Craig D. McConnell