By Eoin Finn
Published: Aug 16, 2014
I want to take exception to Mr. John Weston’s extraordinary scolding of the District of West Vancouver Council over their unanimous motion to ban LNG tankers from Howe Sound. His intervention is all the stranger for a variety of reasons.
In 2006-7, Steven Harper’s government was quick to disallow passage for dangerous LNG tankers through Canadian waters into an LNG import facility proposed for Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine, USA. The Government’s argument was that “LNG tankers and their highly-flammable cargoes pose an unacceptable threat to the (New Brunswick) populations along their route”. Mr. Harper himself rose in the House to support that statement. (141 Hansard 53, 39th Parl., 1st session). Why would a member of that same Federal Government scold the District of West Vancouver for having equally-valid concerns for its citizens?
Furthermore, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), including the District of West Vancouver, passed a resolution in 2008 urging the Federal Government to ban LNG tankers from the Georgia, Malaspina, Haro and Juan de Fuca Straits. That resolution is still in effect. (http://www.ubcm.ca/resolutions/ResolutionDetail.aspx?id=3757&index=0&year=&no=&resTitle=tanker&spons=&res=&prov=&fed=&other=&conv=&exec=&comm=&sortCol=year&sortDir=asc&media=mobile ).
The project proponent, Woodfibre LNG, has never constructed or operated an LNG plant anywhere in the world. It held several information sessions in Mr. Weston’s riding over the Spring and early Summer, attended by hundreds of his constituents. Many became quite concerned with the vague answers being provided by the proponent.
Citizens around the Sound and further afield have since made their feelings known. More than 1,200 of their comments, the vast majority of which are opposed to the proposed plant, can be viewed here http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/comments/woodfibre_lng_comments.html.
In May of this year the Federal Government ceded control of the environmental assessment (EA) for this plant to the BC government, which could be Canada’s first LNG export facility. A May 29th letter (http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p408/1401744773273_0fb5318e74468a16a35e51b1c73e7b12feb0869cee8d32ae0a2d2dc921fb3522.pdf ) accompanying that authorization charged BC with garnering public input both in Squamish and along the tanker route “…from the LNG facility and marine terminal site to Passage Island at the entrance to Howe Sound”. Yet the BC Environmental Assessment office (BCEAO) decided to exclude any representation in its Working Group from the municipalities of Lions Bay, West Vancouver, Bowen, Gibsons and the Islands Trust.
BCEAO did hold one poorly-organized, informationally-starved, open house in Squamish in late June, attended by over 150 concerned citizens.
Two dozen other panel discussions and expert presentations were organized by citizens in the riding in the past three months to fully explore the costs and benefits of LNG plants in general, and Woodfibre in particular. Mr. Weston did not attend any of these meetings.
Two days after BCEAO’s open house in Squamish, the government’s own senior staff Project Manager for both the Fortis pipeline and the Woodfibre LNG projects resigned and immediately started working for Chevron on its LNG facility proposed for Kitimat. This defection did nothing to bolster the tattered reputation of BC’s environment ministry and its inadequate environmental process.
Mr. Weston did organize an (invitation-only) meeting, on July 23rd, in the West Vancouver Public library, with Federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and several elected representative from around the Sound.
At the meeting, a poorly-briefed Ms. Raitt gamely tried to answer questions about LNG policy and Canada’s voluntary regulatory framework “TERMPOL” for navigable waterways (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13585-policy-mou-tc-dfo-annex-c-522.htm ). Her answers showed how little she understood the geography of the Sound and the safety issues and international standards associated with LNG. The two Transport Canada staffers present said not a word to help their floundering Minister, who is ordinarily no slouch.
Small wonder then that the public’s faith in our elected regulators and regulatory processes is at rock-bottom – after the Gulf of Mexico blow-out, Enbridge Kalamazoo River spill, Cold Lake ooze, Lac Megantic fire-storm and now the Polley Mine tailing pond failure.
Citizens have become wary of all statements emanating from our Federal and Provincial institutions and elected representatives. Are they not supposed to represent our interests and pro-actively manage reasonable controls and standards for projects …. and not behave like shills for proponents dangling political contributions before them (http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/08/12/Mount-Polley-Crony-Capitalism/ )?
The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO) is an industry group whose membership includes most of the world’s LNG companies. Woodfibre LNG is not a member and, under SIGTTO’s rigorous operating standards, Woodfibre would not qualify for membership. SIGTTO in an organization that jealously guards its pretty-good safety record.
Its safety standards state that LNG plants should not be located in narrow inland waterways containing conflicting commercial , recreational and ferry traffic (http://www.lngtss.org/standards.html ). Under this regulation, Howe Sound would never have been considered suitable for an LNG facility. BC’s hastily-compiled Version 1.0 LNG regulations (http://www.bcogc.ca/node/11268/download%20 ) has no such safety considerations and is decidedly far below “world-leading standards”.
Here are other questions Woodfibre LNG has been reluctant to discuss in any detail:
- JOBS: How, exactly, would “up to 600” people be temporarily employed in constructing the plant, when the components will be manufactured in Asia and shipped to BC for assembly? And – how many of the “up to 100” permanent jobs will be filled by locals, when BC has just signed a deal with China to facilitate temporary foreign workers to take LNG jobs? (http://www.vancouversun.com/China+agree+allow+foreign+workers+help+build+industry/10063770/story.html ). How many would go to First Nations? What will be the employment losses in the $1.4 billion Sea-to-Sky tourism industry if the Howe Sound air shed is turned into a smoggy soup from the plant’s polluting emissions?
- TAXES: Mr. Weston insists that we need economic growth to pay for our teachers, health care and social services. That is a reasonable argument. However, natural gas royalties paid to the BC treasury in 2012/13 were $169 million ($30 per BC resident). That’s not enough to pay for 2 days of those services. If continued, that amount would be needed for the next 384 years to pay off just the principal on BC’s current $65 billion debt. Put another way, LNG taxes would have to generate about $2.6 billion/year to pay off the debt over the next 25 years. However, as most of the LNG proposals are foreign-owned and many, like Woodfibre LNG’s owner Sukanto Tanoto, are known for off-shoring profits to international tax havens (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/10/asian-logging-companies-british-islands-tax-havens), is it not prudent to ask how much of any tax bonanza will indeed flow to BC?
- SAFETY: How will the safety of populations along the seaward path of these giant tanker-bombs, such as Lions Bay, Bowen, Gibsons and West Vancouver, be protected against a collision, a spill or a terrorist hijacking of one of these high-hazard vessels. The kill-zones revealed in the American government Sandia Labs research on accident scenarios (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/03/f0/DOE_LNG_Safety_Research_Report_To_Congre.pdf and ioMosaic reports http://www.iomosaic.com/docs/whitepapers/understand_lng_fire_hazards.pdf, are indeed chilling , if unlikely. But then, so was the Lac Megantic train disaster.
- MARINE ENVIRONMENT: If approved, Woodfibre LNG says it will discharge 17,000 tonnes (about 7 Olympic swimming pools full) of chlorinated, desalinated water, 10 degrees hotter than at intake, into Howe Sound every hour of every day for the next 25-plus years. The effect of this on the marine food chain in the Sound, including herring, salmon, dolphins, orcas and whales, could be devastating. This at a time when Howe Sound is recovering from the ravages of past industrial activities. California has moved to ban the practice of once-through cooling (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-California_moves_to_ban_once_through_cooling-0605105.html )
- PUBLIC SUBSIDIES: Perhaps BC will decide to respect our legislated GHG emissions targets by requiring that LNG plants be powered by electricity. But, how will BC Hydro’s rate of 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) charged to large-industrial users be reconciled with the 8-11 cents/kWh we residential users pay when proposed LNG plants in BC will require several Site C dams that cost 10 cents/kWh ($8-10 Billion apiece)? Will BC Hydro be forced to push this massive shortfall onto the accounts of BC’s residential customers?
- EXCLUSION ZONES , WAKES: International rules apply safety exclusion zones around LNG facilities – other traffic is typically kept 1.6 km. clear of the path of LNG tankers. In the narrow confines of Howe Sound, most of which is less than 3.2km wide, that moving zone will restrict recreational boating and disrupt ferry schedules during LNG tanker transits. And the wakes created by these behemoths, with displacements ten times that of a BC ferry, will impact public beaches and several West Vancouver marinas along the tankers’ path.
West Vancouver Council has every right, indeed obligation, to express concern about projects like the Woodfibre LNG that will affect its citizens and property. West Vancouverites should expect no less of their Council. That fact that it has joined Lions Bay, Gibsons, the Sunshine Coast Regional District and Island Trust in doing so is to be commended and supported – not vilified – by senior levels of Government that have handed off the responsibility, but not the authority, to make wise and informed decisions on dodgy developments.
Eoin Finn
Bowyer Island, Howe Sound
Tatiana Kostiak says
I would challenge anyone pro-WFLNG to speak to each and every one of the researched and substantiated points Mr. Finn has made here.
Jon S. says
What an incredibly biased opinion piece. Mr. Weston made a very balanced and fair comment. The misleading allegations made by Eoin do not even warrant a reply – the omission of facts speak for themselves.
Glenne Campbell says
Thank you Mr Finn for all the information you are providing.
Add to the these queries and facts, the District of Squamish’s own regulations for General Industrial zone (1-3) as shown on the DOS website GIS ( Geographical Information System) Wood fibre site :
Section 34.3 Conditions of Use.
An industrial use shall not discharge or emit across lot lines:
(a) odours, toxic, or noxious matter or vapours
(b) heat, glare, or radiation:or
(c ) recurrently generated ground vibration
M L Stathers says
Horseshoe Bay IS A PART OF WEST VANCOUVER! and its Copper Cove is the most vulnerable spot where the giant tankers would pass, not to forget the busy ferry schedules between Bowen Island, Gibsons, & Nanaimo. The SIGTTO regulations says that any vessel could provide a collision & of course a spark to set off any explosion — Copper Cove & Horseshoe Bay would witness a huge explosion with a probable 50+% kill radius. Head-shakers all ’round! If vigilant governments paid any attention to the SIGTTO regs, the LNG issue would never have been considered for the BC Coast!
Brinda says
Hi,
Thank you very much for such a detailed article. I stand upon this article when I was trying to know more about LNG.
I’m not a Canadian but I have been following a blog called Open Letter to Sukanto Tanoto and it has a very detailed and interesting blog post about Sukanto Tanoto’s style of dealing with environmental issue (I think Sukanto Tanoto’s company, RGE, is the parent company of Woodfibre LNG)
http://www.sukantotanoto.co/news-sources/
I strongly recommend you to read this article. There are so many horrible things. I cannot even imagine all of these happening in BC. I kind of agree with Wendy Tanoto’s point: which is that although we non-Canadians cannot decide whether LNG is good or not, having Sukanto Tanoto to do it is never a good choice. (Wendy Tanoto is Sukanto Tanoto’s niece who has been abused and harassed by Sukanto Tanoto since her father passed away when she was 6)
Jean says
First of all thank you Eon,
I wished I could say that to one of our Squamish counsellors or Mayor and am totally dismayed that there is nothing coming out for or against from our council, if they prefer to sit on the fence, not saying a word, except we need more information. Can they not read and write or are they all on the take and afraid of somebody. I would vote for a present elected member, not holding this issue as a privet point, but I will not vote for any that have not declared there loyalty and it is very poor public relation and almost a cowardly way of doing business,not being up front and visible and approachable on this issue, more then any other issue a real pivoting point for Squamish. A handful of jobs, are there many parents that have some qualification and are willing to work here in Squamish, even commuting, that can not afford a fruit cup for there kid as it was portrait by one of the pro LNG potential; candidates for council or having been promised a job at W-LNG. The jobs that will be created are highly technical jobs and I don’t believe that the proponent is eider willing to pay for, or even capable of providing such instructions having been never operating a LNG facility and as to importing trained people to work in Squamish, if the law allowed it why would they even consider to train and seriously keep on training as there might be a great turn over of jobs at a potential future W-LNG plant. That said, is there any grantee that the sight will only be used by LNG or are all there Cronies and anybody that has a hard time producing elsewhere or destroying or mixing dangerous chemical be invited to be part of that” Chemical Alley” to be known as “Other then Wood fibre Chemical Processing Alley”
The storage of the finished LNG product on the water is an other insanity and nobody seams to want to talk about it.
So when is Squamish Council coming out to make a statement on LNG.. they had many hrs of briefing so far and surely have also read about the community forums discussing the issue.
Jon S. says
Your comment is insanity. You cannot even spell your leader’s name (Eoin) correctly.
Al Farthing says
The facts speak for themselves — what Community — or Government — would go near this project in this setting?
Jon S. says
What facts? Can you be more specific?
G_h says
I lost the will to live at “shill” … surely the most over-used word by the BC anti-everything crew. As I understand it, Mr Finn is an retired parter in an accounting firm. I would be interested to know how many corporate clients in the resource sector he turned away when working in that profession because they offended his delicate environmental sensibilities? … I am guessing a fat zero.
It is hardly surprising that the West Van and Sunshine Coast councillors would vote against LNG, as they have nothing to gain and it never hurts to woo the green vote when nothing serious is at stake. The situation for District of Squamish is very different. The town stands to gain real tax revenue and jobs. People also forget that the WF site is privately-owned and zoned for heavy industrial use. If not LNG what do people exactly expect to see there? For sure DoS can’t afford to buy the site and turn it into a unicorn farm or whatever it is the NIMBYs desire.
Diane Benoit says
Our province should put a stop to this immediately. No ifs ands or buts. Our province can do without it.. Don’t ruin our ecology for the sake of a few people getting rich. Create jobs that preserve our water and air and beauty. We’re smart.
We can do it if the desire is there.
Jon S. says
Jobs like what?
Wind turbines kill more birds in comparison to oil and gas, each and every year.
Sarama says
Good work, and thank you to Eoin,
Further, MP John Weston, in his letter, states that decisions should be factually based on science. Now, given the record of his government in gutting scientific research, and muzzling scientists ability to do that research, and speak about the research, to the public who has paid for it, Weston’s statement that decisions should be science based, go well beyond being thin. Mr. Weston is either absolutley ignorant of his own government policy, or so blinkered that he is unable to see how hypocritical and duplcitious his statement is. What Mr. Weston is doing here is the the main thing that he has been successful at, and that is regurgitating his government policy to his constituents, rather than representing his constituents to the government. In doing this, he is abysmally negligent in fulfulling his true democratic duties.
Jon S. says
Muzzling scientists? Are you for real?
The current government has spent more on science than any past government in Canadian history.
Brad says
“JOBS: How, exactly, would “up to 600” people be temporarily employed in constructing the plant, when the components will be manufactured in Asia and shipped to BC for assembly?”
This is disingenuous, especially coming from someone with Mr. Finn’s background in the finance industry. Rest assured, ‘assembling’ something of this magnitude will require a lot of people. And let’s remember the 100 who will be retained, year after year (and their salaries and spending), to run it.
“What will be the employment losses in the $1.4 billion Sea-to-Sky tourism industry if the Howe Sound air shed is turned into a smoggy soup from the plant’s polluting emissions?”
Except the plant doesn’t create ‘smoggy soup’. It does generate CO2 (as does everything else), but the required particulates for creating smog are not there. It doesn’t smell and it doesn’t smog. That’s kind of the whole point behind replacing coal with NG/LNG.
“However, natural gas royalties paid to the BC treasury in 2012/13 were $169 million ($30 per BC resident). That’s not enough to pay for 2 days of those services. If continued”
Taking numbers based on royalties under a non-existent LNG industry, and then inferring these numbers would be similar with an LNG industry is, politely, misleading. Especially when a quick Google reveals the government doesn’t want to derive its revenue from royalties (putting BC producers at a disadvantage), but rather an income tax. Why don’t we reserve judgment on the tax impacts until after the final details are known? Finally, let’s not remember *Squamish’s* chief concern here, which is PROPERTY TAXES. Those, whatever they end up being, will be significant. And that is what we need most right now.
“SAFETY: How will the safety of populations along the seaward path of these giant tanker-bombs, such as Lions Bay, Bowen, Gibsons and West Vancouver, be protected against a collision, a spill or a terrorist hijacking of one of these high-hazard vessels. ”
As you note, the risks are minimal. The odds of a terrorist attack on an LNG carrier are infinitesimally small, because there’s no advantage and no big body count. Every day hundreds of aircraft fly over Vancouver on the way to YVR. One of them could wipe out a neighbourhood. Should we ban flying? If we’re going to think like this, really we should just move everyone out of the valley because the odds of the Cheekeye Fan wiping us out are much greater than an LNG plant.
“MARINE ENVIRONMENT: If approved, Woodfibre LNG says it will discharge 17,000 tonnes (about 7 Olympic swimming pools full) of chlorinated, desalinated water, 10 degrees hotter than at intake ….. The effect of this on the marine food chain in the Sound, including herring, salmon, dolphins, orcas and whales, could be devastating. ”
The chlorine is generated from the salt present in the water. The amount of chlorine, in PPM, is less than what municipalities all over BC are allowed to discharge into waterways. The ‘17,000 swimming pools’ figure sounds impressive, until you take a moment and calculate how much water there is just immediately around the plant. (Hint: it’s a lot of swimming pools) And remember this water is *moving*. It’s not sitting there heating up like a Jacuzzi.
“But, how will BC Hydro’s rate of 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) charged to large-industrial users be reconciled with the 8-11 cents/kWh we residential users pay when proposed LNG plants in BC will require several Site C dams that cost 10 cents/kWh ($8-10 Billion apiece)? ”
I’d like to see where you’re pulling this ‘several Site C dams’ info from. Site C is neither here nor there when it comes to this particular development. We give industrial hydro users a break because that enables our competitive advantage vis-à-vis other jurisdictions. Before you cast aspersions about it, conduct a proper study of the total economic benefit vs. the cost of the subsidy. I bet the subsidy is a bargain for the return it generates.
“EXCLUSION ZONES , WAKES: International rules apply safety exclusion zones around LNG facilities – other traffic is typically kept 1.6 km. clear of the path of LNG tankers”
Transport Canada has indicated it has no plans to create exclusion zones. Based on available safety data, it seems unnecessary. These ships are by design robust. TC is not going to make Howe Sound basically unavailable to other shipping for the benefit of LNG carriers. That is plainly ridiculous.
” In the narrow confines of Howe Sound, most of which is less than 3.2km wide”
BC Marine Pilots DO NOT consider Howe Sound a “narrow waterway”. These are the people charged with handling vessels around the coast. If you want to talk narrow, talk about the gap under the Lions Gate where ships (and boaters) pass one another every day.
Jp says
Great job Brad!
Auli Parviainen says
It’s staggering how flippantly you dismiss a need for proper and comprehensive regulatory framework Brad. Canada has zero operating LNG facilities and just like other jurisdictions before us, we are jumping in before coming up with the regulations. LNG is classified as Class A hazardous cargo by Transport Canada and exclusion zones are necessary for human safety. The good safety record that LNG carriers have so far are largely due to the zero tolerance adopted by the industry for any potential for catastrophic events. You seem to cherry pick what to consider credible. So, was the conservative government wrong when it disallowed LNG carriers from Canadian waters due to the hazardous nature of their cargo or are they wrong now to not have exclusion zones? With multiple leading jurisdictions having these guidelines in place are they just plain ridiculous too – based on your opinion?
When Eoin asks specific questions about the employment with this project you respond with ‘rest assured there will be a lot of people required for the assembly.’ Where are your numbers for this or should we just take your word for it? Or maybe we should just listen to Mr. Finn, who has, as you note, worked in the finance industry. Have you considered that perhaps he is asking these questions because his experience and expertise have led him to believe that something is amiss with the economic proposition here?
As we both know I agree with many Eoin’s points but I did not that he is incorrect in one. BC natural gas royalties actually amounted to a paltry sum of $9 million in 2012-2013 once you consider and exclude the credits BC offers for deep well, road and summer drilling programs (and the royalties are crashing -91%!) . Eoin was kind and used the government statements at $169 million but if the government actually used standard accounting practices they would have accounted for the future loss of royalties via their deep well credit program (as noted by the Auditor General last year). This is quite significant as it will help you understand what to look at critically when such things like LNG tax regime is announced. A 2-phased tax regime is proposed with the Tier 1 tax rate of 1.5% applies to an operator’s net proceeds (revenue less expenses) after commercial production begins. The Tier 1 tax that has been paid can be deducted from the Tier 2 tax. Net income for purposes of the Tier 2 tax will be net proceeds less up to 100% of the capital investment account. The Tier 2 tax rate will not apply until the capital investment account is depleted. And there is significant pushback from the industry to reduce the tax burden and quite likely there will be adjustments once this is in front of the legislature. You say we need this property tax, have you considered what property tax we may lose in order to gain this one? This is a question that I asked to be included during the BCEA process because we need to know what the net benefit of that property tax might be.
Alas, I could go one but I doubt it will accomplish much. And I do have to address your own column where you not only misquote me but also fail to simply review a report from the National Energy Board. Or perhaps today they are also not credible source of information?
Brad Hodge says
” You seem to cherry pick what to consider credible. So, was the conservative government wrong when it disallowed LNG carriers from Canadian waters due to the hazardous nature of their cargo or are they wrong now to not have exclusion zones? ”
I believe you’re referring to the Passamaquoddy Bay issue surrounding the Downeast LNG proposal in Maine. If yes, IIRC the problem there was the need for those tankers to pass through an actually extremely narrow opening in the bay to reach the US terminal. A quick google shows how different the scenario is there from Howe Sound. I’m still looking for a vote on ‘banning LNG tankers from Canada’ generally. I’m pretty sure the incident back then was specific to this area and not wanting to grant transit rights generally to US operations. It could also have been a cynical ploy to curry favor with the Atlantic provinces ahead of the federal election. I’m not sure.
“you respond with ‘rest assured there will be a lot of people required for the assembly.’ Where are your numbers for this or should we just take your word for it?”
It’s actually right on the Woodfibre LNG website. “Approximately 500 jobs throughout the course of construction”. Now, if you take the position they’re lying through their teeth, I’m afraid I can’t do much to persuade you there. But it seems reasonable that a project of this magnitude would require greater than 200 people to kick construction into gear.
“BC natural gas royalties actually amounted to a paltry sum of $9 million in 2012-2013 once you consider and exclude the credits BC offers for deep well, road and summer drilling programs (and the royalties are crashing -91%!) . Eoin was kind and used the government statements at $169 million but if the government actually ”
Royalties are a complicated subject that you are attempting to oversimplify to bolster your case. Being that royalties are ultimately paid by the consumer, you can see why governments might be reluctant to jack those up. Royalties have also fallen due to the immense amount of gas shale fracking has opened up. Prices have dropped considerably. Should the government charge more? Should we as consumers pay more? Interesting debate — but irrelevant to Squamish’s immediate concerns with this plant. This is what I was referring to in my article about tent pegs. You seem desperate for something to latch onto here, so the net is cast wider and wider.
” This is quite significant as it will help you understand what to look at critically when such things like LNG tax regime is announced. A 2-phased tax regime is proposed with the Tier 1 tax rate of 1.5% applies to an operator’s net proceeds (revenue less expenses) after commercial production begins”
I doubt the government will give away the farm – LNG is central to their strategy of debt reduction. We can argue about the deductions but let’s remember the bigger capital investments are in excess of $10-20 billion, that’s a lot of money to recover to make a project worthwhile, and that’s a lot of money being injected into the BC economy. Of course there are writeoffs. Bottom line, again, this is neither here nor there with respect to the *local* impacts of this plant, and it is being *negotiated*, so we really don’t know what the bottom line is yet.
“You say we need this property tax, have you considered what property tax we may lose in order to gain this one? ”
If you’re seriously suggesting Squamish is going to depopulate because of an LNG plant, I don’t know what to do except laugh. Do not kid yourself. There are two drivers behind our real estate market – affordability (relative) and commute time. People will keep coming here, LNG plant or no, especially when the average house price just 30 min away is $900k. You were in this industry and you know this. Flip it around — what’s the property tax impact if skilled workers start coming home?
“And I do have to address your own column where you not only misquote me but also fail to simply review a report from the National Energy Board.”
I did not misquote you. I did not quote you at all, actually. I summed up the argument you were trying to make. Here is a direct quote from the youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kfr8OwF5-Y#t=1431 @ 25:53:
“taking into consideration our domestic needs right now, the low production scenario estimates that we will be net importer of gas by 2017,
by 2017! that’s three years away!”
Maybe I misunderstood, but when you brought this point up a couple of times it seemed to me you were inferring LNG was a bad idea because it would either contribute to this scenario or accelerate it.
And by the way, from the BC gas producers themselves, we produce 1.5 *trillion* cubic feet of gas in BC alone, every year. We have 2991tcf of the stuff left, (And that’s just what we know about) which is enough on the outside for about 250 years. If we assume the largest QMAX carriers are used, Woodfibre’s output would be equivalent to 0.0003% of that. I’m thinking it unlikely we’ll be an importer in under 3 years. Either you’ve misread or misinterpreted the NEB report, or somebody at the NEB really needs to pick up the phone and call us out here in BC. If you’d link it for me I’ll get to the bottom of it.
Auli Parviainen says
Oh dear, here we go again. Let’s dial this back to brass tax, shall we?
The trouble with this volley is that we have a fundamental difference of values, some might even call it ideology albeit I don’t feel like I subscribe to one (of course). I believe that human caused climate change is real, capitalism doesn’t work and that we have entered into a post-industrial new economy more based on sharing, knowledge and collaboration. You believe, well, based on what I have seen, in the current system.
What I think of as naive and misplaced confidence in the corporate elites and government along with lemming like following of your ideology, you think of opposition being Illuminati conspiracists and whatever other colourful language you have used. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to at least attempt to accept and concede some points made by others. For instance, I have no problem acknowledging that there will be jobs and tax revenues from WLNG. I also readily acknowledge that we all participate in the current economy and that change is hard. I believe we have to start change from ourselves and our communities and take small incremental steps to create a shift to a healthier, more resilient and vibrant community. You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble acknowledging any, zero, negative impacts from such a project like WLNG. Whatever it is, environmental, social, health, culture or economic, every concern is promptly argued and dismissed. Surely even you see how funny it is that you accuse me of “oversimplifying to bolster my argument” when indeed you are doing the very same, and more frequently too (with much admiration for the time you invest). You do also dismiss the global context and attempt to frame the conversation to your purpose locally but surely *we* as a community collectively should be able to decide the framework around the conversation? Or should that too be determined by the very same people who dance in the LNG cheerleading lineup? My question to you Brad is whether you give any credence to such concepts like the powerful elite determining the grand narrative? And no, that does not suggest that there are dark evil forces lurking in the back rooms plotting against the little man., it merely suggests that the elite have no power in defining what is important and how we organize and do things in communities.
What I take from your response above is that you rely heavily on the proponent and their expertise. You also have faith in our government’s regulatory system and trust that they will do right. I am sorry , I do not have that same faith, at least not to the extent you do. In this particular case, WLNG is privately owned by a parent company with a long-standing history of environmental damage, community conflict along with tax evasion. I cannot ignore that as I exercise my critical thinking skills, part of which is understanding the motivation for inclusion or exclusion of information.
Just to briefly address your comments:
Thank you for sharing your OPINION on what the Harper government may or may not have been thinking and your expertise on the differences of the the 2 waterways. Recently Minister Raitt in charge of Transport Canada did not know where Howe Sound was but I am sure that the MInistry has this well at hand and was just too busy developing that LNG carrier specific regulation to take a look at a map.
As for those assembly jobs, my question was whether you have a basis for your information or not. I bet you are right though, there must at least 200. Gee whiz, that’s just tremendous for temporary employment and will lift those non fruit cup affording families right out of poverty as you so eloquently put during the debate.
Those pesky BC gas royalties are certainly not something the Liberal government has been shy to talk about in the past. Well, at least not in 2006-07 when we did make $2 billion but they have been a touch quieter in the last 3 years when they yielded only about $67 million in total. You are right, royalties have dropped but mostly because BC, in an effort to be competitive (US shale gas extraction), has offered a number of credit programs. So, you tell me, is there ever a point when the industry extracting our natural resources, paying next to nothing for it but a pittance of jobs should perhaps be told to live with the royalties scheme, no subsidies? You glibly dismiss this as irrelevant to Squamish, I am not sure how you reconcile that with a project which is dependant on global pricing and competitiveness. In one hand you consider the benefits (i.e. returns via tax and jobs) of global trade and energy pricing yet on the other you dismiss the potential negative impacts from the same. To me that’s relevant, but I don’t expect you to think so as you have consistently maintained a rather myopic view.
If we take a more holistic approach to this project you might start to see the relevance of BC tax regime to Squamish. Christy Clark may think LNG is central to their debt reduction strategy but unfortunately the energy economics don’t support this strategy of blissful fairytales. With the global price dropping, Russia’s deal with China, Japan bringing nuclear back on line and BC’s high cost of getting gas to the market is it any wonder that no FIDs have been made yet. You don’t think BC is ready to sell the farm when desperation sets in? You bet they are, probably throwing in incentive or 2 for good measure. So what’s a guy like you and a girl like me to do when the truth finally comes out and the prosperity fund was nothing but a pipe dream and we are stuck with a big bill from the environmental damage caused by the LNG tsunami? Oops, I forgot, you said there is no environmental damage so we’ll just be broke. And hey, let’s not get too serious about what I said there, I will concede that it’s opinion.
I wasn’t referring to depopulation of Squamish with the property tax question, I was referring to lost opportunities for business given our singular focus of resources and energy on LNG. I am sure some people will depart and some will move here, who knows really but what I do know is that residential taxes don’t pay for the services they use. I think I might laugh too if I wasn’t so depressed by the lack of willingness to explore the real impacts from a misplaced focus on boom and bust industries whose net contributions to any community leave much to be desired. And please, my statement is just as fair as yours, they are just pure conjecture, both of them.
Finally, National Energy Board is responsible for our energy security. And golly, let’s let their November 2013 report called Canada’s Energy Future (http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/nrgyftr/nrgyftr-eng.html) do that phone call you asked for. In it they expect gas production to radically decline in all other provinces but BC. Taking away the domestic use NEB in their one reference case estimate that Canada’s export capacity will be no more than 4.5 bcf/day yet they have been handing out export licenses like candy on Halloween to the tune of 14.5 bcf/day by 2020. By the way, our current production is just over 13 bcf/day. To be fair, NEB reassures us that in the low production case scenario of being a net gas importer in 2017 we can buy cheap shale gas from the US. I find your stat on BC’s gas reserves thoroughly interesting albeit somewhat laughable. Even the most optimistic readily admit that the highest end number of recoverable reserves is less than 2000 tcf although most credible estimates of recoverable, viable gas at likely not much more than 500 tcf. Be that as it may, did you know that since the 50’s we’ve only extracted 25 tcf of marketable gas in BC? And sure, technology is advancing and we are more efficient but have you stopped to think about the consequences such massive expansion in shale gas extraction? Just where exactly do you draw the line? Or is that out of scope too, and on we go in our little tiny lives, in our little tiny boxes, where people all look just the same?
Brad Hodge says
“Oh dear, here we go again. Let’s dial this back to brass tax, shall we?”
Brass tax. Like it!
” You believe, well, based on what I have seen, in the current system.”
No, I *accept* the current system, in full view of the ‘alternatives’.
“Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to at least attempt to accept and concede some points made by others. ”
I would, if the points being made actually stood up to scrutiny. You have to acknowledge you guys were just a bit hasty with some of your early criticisms. Even now you guys are repeating what is clearly nonsense (smoggy soup). You deserve to be called out on that.
“To me that’s relevant, but I don’t expect you to think so as you have consistently maintained a rather myopic view.”
What is relevant to me is this: what is being proposed, will it diminish my quality of life, what benefits will it pay. This site is zoned for heavy industry. I could drive myself mad over fracking, but fracking is going on anyway and will go on as long as we are in need of oil and gas. And I acknowledge that will be a long time yet. So I dial my focus down to the *local* issues. Will WLNG devastate Howe Sound? No. Will it create smog and smell? No. Will it employ people that benefit our local economy? Yes. Will it pay a sizeable property tax bill? Yes. Will they remediate a terribly polluted piece of industrial land? Yes. Is it better than other industrial alternatives for the site? Absolutely. Will defeating WLNG encourage other industries that you purport to support to locate here? No. Will that hurt the fruit cup people? Yes.
“So what’s a guy like you and a girl like me to do when the truth finally comes out and the prosperity fund was nothing but a pipe dream and we are stuck with a big bill from the environmental damage caused by the LNG tsunami?”
Or maybe it doesn’t turn out that way. Meanwhile, we collect $2-3M a year in taxes, people spend millions in our local economy and on it goes. Or we let the land sit empty, polluted and collect next to nothing, and maybe LNG doesn’t turn out to be a disaster and we’re watching enviously from the sidelines. Meanwhile no investor with any sense bothers with Squamish because be it ski resorts, forestry or LNG, someone is noisily against it.
“I wasn’t referring to depopulation of Squamish with the property tax question, I was referring to lost opportunities for business given our singular focus of resources and energy on LNG.”
Lost opportunities? How about this recently lost decade? Have you looked around Downtown? What stores aren’t empty are being bought up under an immigration program. I don’t know exactly what it is you do but I have been 100% in it, right here in Squamish and Squamish only, for 14 years. I’ve seen around 2 dozen businesses close, go bankrupt, or relocate from Squamish in the last 5 years. I have people negotiating terms on $150 bills. It is beyond hard out there. You think WLNG is going to kill us? I think ever increasing taxes on a shrinking base of businesses will kill us, and probably already have.
“Even the most optimistic readily admit that the highest end number of recoverable reserves is less than 2000 tcf although most credible estimates of recoverable”
The 2900tcf figure was arrived at in a report in which the NEB WAS CO-AUTHOR. So on the one hand you cite the NEBs numbers as gospel, but on the other hand you say they’re nonsense? Which is it?
Auli Parviainen says
Hey Brad, I think we might as well call the whole BC Environmental Assessment process off; you have already provided us with all the answers. And I will pass this on to the other “you guys” if you let me know who those are. You know, because “you deserve to be called out on that.”(think you mean the other guys, so not sure if that’s me or the other guys, heck I am confused who the other guys are!)
Let me bid this thread adieu for fear of boring the 5 people following it to forever seize reading and leave you with this insightful look at the Canadian economy: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/08/dismantling-myth-canadas-economic-recovery
Drill, baby, drill and let the good times roll!
Jon S. says
Even though your numbers are wrong, the royalties remain $169 million regardless of what tax credits the province gives. These are two different things.
It is like a retailer. If they have a $100 in sales but remit $12 in sales tax to the government the sales don’t change – they remain to be $100. Their gross profit may be less but their sales remain the same.
This is very basic accounting. If you cant grasp very basic accounting concepts, how can you assume the government uses flawed methods?
Auli Parviainen says
Jon, would you like me to forward your helpful feedback to the BC auditor general, who criticized the government on this particular accounting practice?
Jon S. says
Right on Brad! Way to speak to the truth!
Mark says
The Ndp will soon be vindicated of their fast ferry albatross ,passing it off to Clarke and Weston .
rob says
Brad made lots of good points, in regards to the arguement Mr Finn is trying to create.
He lives in Vancouver and has a cabin on Bowyer Island.
So i assume he is more concerned about his cabin view,
than investment in Squamish or people who need jobs.
Interesting that he opposes this Lng project, when he has had no problem doing business and supporting it in the past.
Gibsons is quick to oppose investment in Squamish.
If they were asked to close Howe Sound Pulp , I wonder what they would decide.
Also considering the current shipping traffic in Burrard Inlet. West Vancouver doesn’ t seem opposed to this.
BC Ferries has plans to change over its fleet to LNG.
To save costs and have a less of an impact on the environment, compared to the diesel they currently use.
Will Mr Finn and these communties that depend on BC Ferries, oppose the large amounts of LNG they will use and carry.
http://www.bcferries.com/about/fuel-strategies-reports.html
Elijah Dann says
Interesting comments Brad. One, in particular, was quite telling.
In his article above, Eoin wrote: “If approved, Woodfibre LNG says it will discharge 17,000 tonnes (about 7 Olympic swimming pools full) of chlorinated, desalinated water, 10 degrees hotter than at intake, into Howe Sound every hour of every day for the next 25-plus years. The effect of this on the marine food chain in the Sound, including herring, salmon, dolphins, orcas and whales, could be devastating. This at a time when Howe Sound is recovering from the ravages of past industrial activities. California has moved to ban the practice of once-through cooling. (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-California_moves_to_ban_once_through_cooling-0605105.html )”
Responding, you write, “The chlorine is generated from the salt present in the water. The amount of chlorine, in PPM, is less than what municipalities all over BC are allowed to discharge into waterways. The ’17,000 swimming pools’ figure sounds impressive, until you take a moment and calculate how much water there is just immediately around the plant. (Hint: it’s a lot of swimming pools) And remember this water is *moving*. It’s not sitting there heating up like a Jacuzzi.”
What you didn’t repeat from Eoin’s original statement is perhaps more telling. Curious how you left off the part about the discharge of 17,000 tonnes of chlorinated, desalinated water, being “10 degees hotter than at intake … at the rate of every hour of every day for the next 25-plus years.”
Most would think that rate of discharge per/day is a relevant fact in the calculation of the environmental impact on the surrounding water. What the rest of us call “the ocean.” But then again, by leaving out this detail, maybe you just don’t think it was worth repeating.
Even still, you aren’t “impressed” by this discharge. Heck. As you note, there’s a lot of water around the plant. It’s “moving” around too. Yes, Brad. Again, that’s what we call “the ocean.”
This cavalier thinking, that you can just dump what you want into the land, the ocean and the air is exactly the type of mentality exhibited by heavy industry the world over. So the problem is there are lots of other Brads out there saying the same thing.
For example, LNG facilities, around the globe, also have advocates like you, thinking that there’s lots of water, so what’s the big deal?
The frackers who get your natural gas for the LNG facility, in BC alone last year, used “seven billion litres of water… for fracking.” Just like you, they also think, “Well, there’s lots of water in ground, the river, lakes and oceans.”
Leaking methane into the atmosphere, throughout the process from fracking to pipeline delivery, there are lots of guys thinking, “Well, there’s lots of air in the atmosphere.”
I’m sure the present VP of Woodfibre LNG, Byng Giraud, former VP of Imperial Mines, might even think that the Mount Polley mine breach wasn’t so great, but there’s lots of water in those lakes too, right? On to the tar sands. God made lots of earth, right? The BP oil spill into the ocean, but it was “moving” around, right?
We could go on, though I’m sure the average person reading these threads gets the point.
Yes, there is a lot of air, water and land the world over. But thinking like yours is what we’ve been doing over the decades, a little bit at a time, but now changing the very climate that life depends on. That means economic devastation. Loss of life and property.
Just a little bit more? No. No more.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/is-lng-fracking-worth-its-weight-in-water/article16121900/
Brad Hodge says
“What you didn’t repeat from Eoin’s original statement is perhaps more telling. Curious how you left off the part about the discharge of 17,000 tonnes of chlorinated, desalinated water, being “10 degees hotter than at intake … at the rate of every hour of every day for the next 25-plus years.” ”
I mentioned it obliquely with my reference to ‘heating up like a Jacuzzi’, but I’m glad you brought it up. The technical data shows that by the time the returned water is diffused and returned it’s within one degree of the ambient ocean water. This is against a water volume that is many orders of magnitude greater than what the plant actually uses.
The plant isn’t going to ‘desalinate’ Howe Sound nor will it warm it up. I’m not sure you can say they actually ‘desalinate’ the water going in, they simply generate the limited amount chlorine they need from the salt. From my technical notes the chlorine content is 0.02mg/L which is 0.02 parts per million. Municipal sewage discharge is allowed to be 0.05PPM. Of course, we don’t chlorinate/disinfect our sewage here in Squamish before it goes into the river.
“The frackers who get your natural gas for the LNG facility, in BC alone last year, used “seven billion litres of water… for fracking.” Just like you, they also think, “Well, there’s lots of water in ground, the river, lakes and oceans.” ”
Nope, not going here. There are hours of technical argument here and that’s not the subject at hand. If you hate fracking that much, disconnect your natural gas line and do not use anything powered by gas or made from oil. Fracking is happening without any LNG development. 87% of our natural gas in BC is fracked, and again that is with ZERO LNG industry. Woodfibre is not going to materially change the numbers here. I did some math on this. Take the largest QMAX carriers out there as an example (9.4 million cubic feet per), multiply by 48 (4 per month) and then divide by 1.5 trillion (1.5 trillion cubic feet is what BC produces in a year). I got 0.0003%. Tell me how this materially changes anything on the ground with fracking? And that’s assuming the largest carriers out there, which may not be the case.
“This cavalier thinking, that you can just dump what you want into the land, the ocean and the air is exactly the type of mentality exhibited by heavy industry the world over. ”
It’s not ‘cavalier’. Cavalier was 100 years ago when there would have been no process; the land, whoever it belonged to, would have been taken, and waste material just dumped straight into the ocean. We don’t do that here anymore. Now we ask the tough questions. You are dead wrong to ascribe my support of this project to being careless about the impacts. I spent weeks immersing myself in this stuff, and have reached my conclusions based on carefully weighing the science and data I have available. You may disagree, but that doesn’t make you morally superior to me. Especially not when you’re taking me to task using a device made with the industrial processes you seem to oppose.
“Leaking methane into the atmosphere, throughout the process from fracking to pipeline delivery, there are lots of guys thinking, “Well, there’s lots of air in the atmosphere.”
No, what they’re thinking is: “Hey, that’s lost money.” That methane is not ‘waste’. That is the stuff they’re trying to sell. Losing it to the atmosphere makes no economic sense, and if you spend some time researching on the subject you see they are getting better and better at capturing it.
“Yes, there is a lot of air, water and land the world over. But thinking like yours is what we’ve been doing over the decades, a little bit at a time, but now changing the very climate that life depends on. ”
With respect, Elijah, I don’t think you have a clue about my thinking. That’s precisely the problem here.
Elijah Dann says
You are right on your last point Brad. I don’t really have a clue about your thinking.
But that isn’t particularly a problem for me, because I’m merely interested in your arguments for Woodfibre LNG, and some of the immediate implications.
When it comes to your various arguments for Woodfibre, and you wanting to share with everyone your thoughts on the subject, I’d appreciate a few links to the peer-reviewed data you are referring to. “The technical data” you mention, needs citation to back your numbers. Similarly with your other “technical notes.”
We aren’t talking about building a wood shed in your backyard, or some other hobby someone wants to take up. So it would be nice for you to have some research on your specs that comes from those who have done more than a few weeks running the numbers. Say, those who actually have university degrees on the subject. Again, if the evidence and numbers are on your side, cite the science. The peer-reviewed science.
And wouldn’t it be convenient for you, along with the BC Liberals, Woodfibre LNG, and its various proponents, if we just ignored the ever increasing, damning studies on the catastrophe of fracking. “Not going there”? “Not the subject at hand”? Of course you’d like to ignore all the problems associated with your source for natural gas. I certainly understand your unwillingness to “go there.” But you don’t get to decide what bears investigation.
So at least for those bothering to read these threads, let’s go there, shall we?
The research coming out of Duke is just one of many such recent studies. http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/avnervengosh/duke-study-on-shale-gas-and-fracking/ Just as importantly, Stanford and Canadian researchers have shown that the greatest impediment to really understanding the environmental implications of fracking is industry itself – by trying to prohibit such research. (We’ll take another look at your glowing report on the transparency of corporations below.) http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Politicians+attack+after+scientists+call+more+research+info+fracking/9799970/story.html
Nevertheless, you want to argue that because we are blazing ahead anyways with fracking in BC, we just as well use the natural gas for Woodfibre LNG.
You are missing the point. I’m not talking about what we could be doing. I’m talking about what we should be doing. It’s not sustainable. And to your point of moral superiority, that’s the talk of what ‘ought’ to be the case. Ethics. There you go. I said it.
And speaking of morality, as for your belief that corporations will try to limit waste – human made or economic – even when it should be to their benefit to do so, let’s call it a charming thought. Yet it stretches the limits of credulity for anyone remotely aware of how industry actually behaves. A course on Business Ethics would cure anyone of such faith.
It’s called the pathological nature of corporations. Just like the Imperial Metals disaster. Do you think it was to their benefit that this disaster happened? 200 million plus damages? Yet it happened not because they weren’t warned. It happened because that’s how industry rolls. What happened to those “tough questions” you say industry is asking itself? Just like the banking industry I suppose?
Disaster after disaster happens at every level of industry, but you still think they’ll ask those “tough questions.” (Asbestos anyone?) People don’t believe it any more Brad. It won’t work.
Your assurances that industry has come a long way stretches the capacity for faith even further when you add, “They don’t just take the land anymore.” I take it you haven’t lately spoke to First Nations people. And you don’t seem to understand that poisoning water and pumping it into the earth to poison more water isn’t a matter of just taking the land? On this point you also need to do a little research into what the parent company of Woodfibre LNG does in other parts of the world – where they do exactly what they want. http://www.arcticgas.gov/2013/indonesia-billionaire-proposes-small-scale-lng-export-plant-bc
Don’t fool yourself. Or perhaps, don’t try to fool us. We haven’t evolved that much in our business practices over the past 100 years. They still do what they’ve always done, just tarted up. The results are the same. No matter what promises you might make on their behalf.
MKnight says
you enviro people wonder why you keep losing arguments. probably its because your pathalogical need to feel better than others overrides control of your brain, and you work yourself into a lather throwing insults, falsehoods and empty rhetorik. if i were in an argument with you my first goal would be to calmly state the facts and then sit back and let you hang yourself. which you just did brilliantly here whilst conveniently failing to respond to the specifics that have been put before you. you pat yourself on the back for cleverly catching mr hadge on heat, he destroys you with numbers and your response is lunatic ranting about psycopath corps or totally disproven nonsense about fracking poisoning water. bravo. please keep up the good work turning reasonable people off.
Elijah Dann says
You’d “calmly state the facts”? How about this one when it comes to Brad, the facts, and running the numbers: In the August 2014 edition of The Squamish Reporter, Brad states “The opponents’ case against the plant is like a tent, each peg securing it an argument. First they argued it would bring minimal taxes. That peg was pulled up when it was revealed taxes might be close to $3M annually.” (24)
Trouble is, on the feature article a few pages earlier (7), the headline in bold reads, “Woodfibre LNG offers $2 million in taxes.” Is this an example of “being destroyed with the numbers”? And you wonder why I ask for him to cite his sources?
You and Brad apparently don’t think being off by one million is a problem. Or other numbers like not being specific about the discharge per/day at the proposed facility. Tell you what, let those reasonable people you talk about decide who has the problem with “disproven nonsense.”
MKnight says
apparently you can’t read. he said taxes *might be* *close to* $3m. as in, maybe. you know what that means right? but you’re right.. this is totally not worth it for a lousy 2 mil. what were we thinking! considering you guys were claiming it would be $100k at one point. or how about auli claiming were running out of gas in two years! id take mr hodges nimbers over yours any day.
Brad Hodge says
I am not ‘off by one million’. I said (and you quoted) “taxes MIGHT BE CLOSE TO $3M annually”. I based this on an estimate given by Coun. Doug Race, based on 1/16th assessed project value, which he pegged at $2.6M. Is the $2M offer lower? Yes. But two details: 1) It’s an offer and 2) It’s still a lot of money.
Jon S. says
He clearly said “might be close to 3 million annually”. I have a hard time believing that any one with a Ph.D., even if it is in something as irrelevant as philosophy, can misunderstand a comment like that. Your arrogance does not help your cause.
Brad Hodge says
Elijah,
I have quoted numbers given by the people who are doing the engineering for this project. I cannot point you to a peer reviewed study of the exact impacts of this particular plant. I don’t think anyone has awarded any research grants to study one small LNG plant in BC. At this point, I have to trust the engineering info, which in turn has to comply with government mandated environmental standards. Now, if you’re an Illuminati conspiracist who believes corporations are evil, governments of certain stripes are evil, all are lying and any data produced by engineers or scientists that support their position are made up or bought and paid for by said Illuminati, I can’t help you.
I’d be careful how much faith you place in ‘peer reviewed’ studies, especially given the glaring holes being exposed in the Horwath report (that claimed LNG was worse than coal) you guys were quoting:
http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/04/15/some-thoughts-on-the-howarth-shale-gas-paper/
And Horwath was, by the way, a peer reviewed paper. Peers *are* human, of course.
Jon S. says
Brad is right. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn’t make it iron clad. Even the best peer reviewed sources may not be relevant or applicable to the topic at hand. The truth is often a good engineer with local knowledge in the field can provide better, more relevant information that some dusty professor in an Ivory Tower.
Elijah Dann says
Brad, having to defend the peer-review process numbs me. Its importance and value are what undergraduate students learn in their first week of class. The fact that you don’t understand the mechanism, or appreciate its importance, is stunning. Without it, even writing papers in high school should stop anyone from graduating. And all your papers in university would get the merited value: F-
But I’ll indulge you.
Peer-reviewed articles are the mechanism for careful research. Questioning its value is an astonishing confession on your part, as all the credible knowledge we have in the sciences and humanities (then transferred to ordinary life from A to Z), is predicated on its process. All of it. Anything claimed in the university research departments, without going through the process, is of no interest to the university and what merits the ascriptions of “evidence,” “knowledge” or “justified belief.”
It also pains me to let you know that the process would never assume that it is error-free. Quite the contrary, as challenges to peer-review is precisely done through the peer-review process itself.
And it is exactly through those challenges, that are peer-reviewed, that offer the best response in working towards expanding our knowledge of the world. This is why universities can be the most exciting places in the world.
What is your alternative?
Studying a given topic on your own, running the numbers yourself, and then trying to influence people on sites like these about a very important decision that will impact the lives of thousands of people? Where’s the accountability? Where’s the transparency? The fact checking before you make claims?
You wanted to run for council in the past. If elected, I now wonder, how would you have made your decisions on policy? Your method? Or best practices based on peer-reviewed research? God man, try to reflect on this for a bit.
As for your remark about Howarth’s work, you are just digging your hole deeper. You dismiss the peer-reviewed process among specialists, in favor of blog from a Ph.D. in war studies? On what basis do you then think Levi is correct? It can’t be because he’s in the same field of specialization as Howarth, and has published his response in a peer-reviewed journal. So why would you believe Levi? Just because you don’t like Howarth’s work?
Again, it’s astonishing to think that Levi, without doing the work of getting his criticism also published in a credible journal, is doing something really worth reading. It’s analogous to all those who deny climate change, but don’t publish their “findings” in a credible, peer-review, journal.
They rather think that the equivalent is done on Facebook threads, comments on YouTube, or blogs like Levi’s. Again. Howarth may be wrong. But let specialists in the field look at the merit of your criticisms. On the other hand, if you really think Levi’s comments and accompanying blabbering in his threads is a better mechanism than peer-reviewed criticisms, ’nuff said’ as the kids say these days.
BTW, Not that I think it’s important on threads like these, but it’s “Howarth,” not “Horwath.” Careful! JonS might now doubt your leadership skills Brad! 😉
Brad Hodge says
“Brad, having to defend the peer-review process numbs me”
Nobody is asking you to. Never said: “Peer reviews are junk”. Just reminded that they are not flawless. There have been a number of studies that pour cold water on the idea that shale gas is worse than coal. If you want something more precise, try this: http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2011/august/aug18_marcellusshale.html
And that was partly financed by the Sierra Club, of all people.
“You wanted to run for council in the past. If elected, I now wonder, how would you have made your decisions on policy? Your method? Or best practices based on peer-reviewed research? God man, try to reflect on this for a bit. ”
I would have made my decisions based on what I believed, on balance, was the best outcome for the community. Would I have been as enthusiastic about an oil refinery? Probably not. From a local perspective, I can’t find much to get upset about with this one, and I find the increasingly angry tones on your side as indicative that you know you’re losing the argument.
I’dve also made that decision in full view of the reprecussions of saying no, by the way. I know Auli says she’s not against all industry, just this one, but then everyone says that. Auli likes forestry but not LNG, Finn dislikes all industry but likes ski resorts, and so on. At some point you have to grab people by the lapels and say “Come on! You’re driving a car! You’re using an iPhone! Where do you think these things come from?” I’m tired of smart people offering simplistic, impossible ‘solutions’ to our problems. Blocking pipelines does nothing to stop the demand for oil. Blocking LNG does nothing but keep coal use steaming ahead and deny us the benefits. Blocking gravel pits… I have no idea what that does. Make our roads lumpier? You accuse me of being factually lazy and imprecise.. but I’ve offered you actual numbers to which you’ve offered no rebuttal — just more arrogant posturing and a blithe dismissal because they aren’t peer reviewed. All while typing out these missives on a product made from mining, fracking and other heavy industries.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Elijah Dann says
Back to basics Brad. Just like your opening remarks about the fruit cup in your “debate” at the church, in these threads you’ve gone from bad to worse. And I just want to make sure anyone looking at these threads has noted your points.
But start with the infamous fruit cup example you mentioned at the start of the aforementioned debate – that somehow (you didn’t go into specifics) – the want of a family you knew would be somehow resolved by the building of the LNG facility. Again, it’s an interesting theory of social economics, so no wonder you didn’t want to get specific. But just like your various claims in these threads, the politician in you just wants to throw the meme out there into the audience and let them run with it. Effective political angling, but short on reality.
Yes, there is want in Squamish. But if you are trying to get us to believe that moving Squamish into heavy industry will change that fact, you’d better go to Ft. Mac and take a look around. Is there no want in a city that is completely based on heavy industry? Yes. And a myriad of other social issues as well. You seriously started with that story to get us to think this proposal will resolve Squamish’s financial difficulties? And that the placement of this facility will have no detrimental affect on its existing economic development? Do you think, for example, that the gondola experience will be enhanced? And you are willing to risk their investment for your project? But then again, it wasn’t your money, was it?
Squamish is indeed coming out of difficult times. But in the last five years there is a slow growing of sustainable business. (Such as the gondola.) Slow, yes, even though vacancy rates are at about 0%. What does that tell you about the need for a LNG facility? Because as fast as you may want to grow a community’s economy, the faster it’ll deflate.
For an aspiring politician, you’ve certainly got the rhetoric down. But you are assuming much too much from your dwindling audience. It was you who left out the daily fluid emissions of the LNG facility. When pointed out, you shrug your shoulders that it’s no big deal. When it’s pointed out that your sort of disregard is the same the world over with heavy industry, you shrug your shoulders and accuse opponents of not believing in the good will of industry. That how you understand the discharge, it won’t be that bad. That those who read the daily reports, and understand the history of heavy industry are somehow reactionary and believers in conspiracy theories. I guess like UBC’s, law professor Bakan’s study on the corporation? http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=47
But what about these “other emissions”? You assure us that we won’t have the smell, but I guess the canary in the mine is only there to let the miners know when the flowers arrive? Because what we can’t smell, can’t hurt us? “From our LNG plant there will be some emissions: CO2, sulfur dioxide, other emissions which would depend on the design of the plant.”
Just like the federal Conservative and BC Liberal politicians, your political flare is spot on too, expecting even for those with a short memory that the Imperial Metals recent disaster is just something we should quickly ignore as a fluke. Because industry just isn’t like it used to be, right? That somehow with the former VP of Imperial Metals, now VP of Woodfibre, things will be different?
Like the BC Liberals who want to ignore a recent SFU peer-reviewed report on the need to go slowly on this LNG dream, as the aspiring politician, you too shrug off the research and the studies, smirking at the peer-review process, but then essentially saying, “well, I wasn’t really saying such a thing.” And yet you think that a blogger and the various comments in his thread are on the level of peer-reviewed scholarship among specialists? http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Politicians+attack+after+scientists+call+more+research+info+fracking/9799970/story.html
Reading your interactions through these threads, that’s your Modus operandi, isn’t it Brad? You either leave out critical facts, run the numbers yourself, and make outstanding claims – like the one about the 3M dollars – and then when people challenge you, you glibly try to argue that you said it was “close” to 3M even though it was 2M. I don’t know how you’d feel, as city councilor, if someone promised the city “close to 3M,” and then just gave 2M. But actually we do know how you’d feel. You believe the original numbers you heard from industry. And didn’t bother to check back on the every changing story when you write your comments in a city newspaper.
Finally, don’t tire anyone further with the meme that because our environment is immersed in addiction to chemicals and fossil fuels, that it follows we need to continue in the addiction. The fact that industry has made their products ubiquitous – leached into our bodies as well – is our argument, not yours.
The very fact we are opposing the LNG dream of Christy is because, just like a meth addict, we are sick – literally and emotionally – of the pushers. The LNG pushers and the other pushers standing on the border waiting to put in the recently announced bitumen refineries. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=10137047
If you can’t figure your way out of this mess, and think the better solution is to just make it worse, don’t be surprised that others might see a better way. And if you think that’s just getting angry, well, that’s the politician speaking once again.
MKnight says
elijah reminds me of the story of the steam shovel that dug itself into such a deep hole that they had to turn it into a furnace because nobody could get it out. he surely has enough hot air for the job!
Brad Hodge says
“that somehow (you didn’t go into specifics) – the want of a family you knew would be somehow resolved by the building of the LNG facility.”
Please quote me where I say, explicitly, that LNG will be a cure-all. I’ve been very clear I see it as a ‘piece of the puzzle’. I prefer pursuing some industry, which will create, directly or indirectly, opportunities for our worst off, as opposed to the ‘Let them make Big Macs’ strategy of jacking minimum wage up so they can eke out an existence while we preserve our views from a non-existent calamity, meanwhile contributing to actual calamity in other places through our consumption of the very goods we despise the production of.
“For an aspiring politician, you’ve certainly got the rhetoric down. But you are assuming much too much from your dwindling audience.”
It’s funny, I’ve pretty much stated I’m not running, yet you keep bringing this up. If I have a dwindling audience and am irrelevant why bother responding to me?
“You either leave out critical facts, run the numbers yourself, and make outstanding claims – like the one about the 3M dollars – and then when people challenge you, you glibly try to argue that you said it was “close” to 3M even though it was 2M”
The funny part about this statement is that you think it helps you. First, my column was written some time before the paper went to press, and I was unaware of the offer being made as *it hadn’t been made*. Second, I’ve already stated where my estimate came from. Third, I’ve said repeatedly that it was an *estimate*. Please tell me you understand what that word means. Fourth, my estimate is a lot closer than the initial estimates (all extremely lowball) that folks in the anti-LNG camp were throwing out when this saga started. Now you guys are trying to downplay $2M a year *from a single taxpayer* as though it’s chump change! Argument wise, this is suicide. Finally, this is an *opening offer*. At $2M! Since this is coming from the proponent, that means we now have a floor, and likely the final number will move up.
“The very fact we are opposing the LNG dream of Christy is because, just like a meth addict, we are sick – literally and emotionally – of the pushers.”
Lousy analogy. First, everything you touch has a connection back to oil and gas. Everything. You can live without heroin. It’s much, much harder to avoid living without oil and gas. Second, a pusher only sells you something you’re ultimately willing to buy. Since your note isn’t handwritten I’m assuming you have an electronic device in your possession that you bought. Third, you grab onto this wrongheaded analogy with both hands and then immediately fall into the trap every prohibitionist since the teetotalers has: assuming you can stop demand by cutting down/off supply. It didn’t work with the War on Drugs and it won’t work here.
It’s all well and good to appropriate for yourself the mantle of caring about future generations, but it is worth recognizing that people tend to care more about the future when they’re not struggling desperately in the present. Your ideals will cost these people opportunities. Meanwhile, someone else somewhere else will benefit instead. Bravo.
Jean says
So much talk and no action, lets have the referendum, a moral document and a fair judgment who is for and/or against it.. even so not binding. This might put an end to just listening contentiously to all these self proclaimed experts, to get free publicity … if some only would realize how damaging to there ambition to run for a counsel seat all this talk is.
A Yes and/or a No will do it for me, as to who is worthy to make the next council.
In a not openly advertised council meeting yesterday, a decision apparently was to be make about referendum … When… and What the question would be… I bet they where working overtime on that one. And please announce who was for a referendum and who against on the end of it …that is my research I need.
.
By the way, Is Quantum setting up Shop at W-LNG if it comes to be and how many other Chemical plants are sneaking in to set up there, sneaking in unannounced and quietly afterwards ?
I have marked my ballot already from this Blog as to who deserves to be on Council the next time and believe me the heavy talkers are not on it, especially those that create lot of wind and I hate to think how long those council meetings would be with those kind of people on it.
Tatiana Kostiak says
In my opinion we can longer accept the current system that proliferates the handing over of our valuable resources for what amounts to pennies. These are our resources and our own energy security is being hastily squandered in this scheme.
Hundreds of temporary workers in our community will cause even more stress on a rental market that will make it more difficult, not less, for the fruit cup folks. Landlords will find a way to make this work in their best interest financially which means they may just be squeezed out. If they are owners, well, I expect they/we still feel a squeeze there and I don’t believe (as a current homeowner) that my property taxes would reduce at all. With all of the unrealistic expectations people have of services they see as ‘needs’ when they are really ‘wants’ a little extra money in the pot does not guarantee responsible spending.
We would all do better to dig deep and look at the long term. The system as it is has not worked for anyone who is not vested in corporate interests. The inequities are what causes people to think small. We can do better and it starts with being brave, bold, engaged and determined.
This LNG proposal has had one positive side to it. We have a lot more citizens sharing our thoughts, learning much more about our neighbours and perhaps choosing to more actively support our local business community as a side effect.
Saying no to this proposal will not scare away other businesses. Perhaps this will naturally weed out those whose business will not be inherently be supported (either financially or philosophically) by the community who has a vision. It’s OK to say no. It’s OK to be selective. In fact, it garners respect.
tj says
Tatiana…what’s this ‘we’ stuff ? Speak for your very own self please, I know I certainly do… You are not the so-called ‘we’ in Squamish…. See ? Still luv your opinion though…keep it up…
G_h says
As ever, in awe of your stamina, Brad. Keep up the good work.
Gagandeep Ghuman says
This article is now closed for comments.