By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Oct 4, 2014
Woodfibre LNG claims the use of electric drive will enable the plant to be among the LNG facilities with the lowest GHG emissions in the world.
Woddfibre LNG will emit 80,000 tons of Greenhouse Gases every year, along with 20 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 17 tons of sulphur oxides (SOx). That pales in comparison to what the company claims the emissions would be if Woodfibre LNG ran on natural gas turbines.
“Limiting air emissions where possible is a priority at Woodfibre LNG.” Byng Giraud.
A year of the same operation on natural gas would emit 450,000 tons of GHGs, 310 tons of NOx, and 17 tons of SOx, said Byng Giraud, the vice-president of Woodfibre LNG.
Giraud said the majority of emissions will come from elements removed from the natural gas prior to liquefaction, which are incinerated.
“Limiting air emissions where possible is a priority at Woodfibre LNG,” Giraud said.
In an interview with the Reporter, Matt Horne of Pembina Institute said the company’s claim of lowest emission doesn’t consider emissions that would come from extracting and processing the shale gas needed to supply the LNG terminals. He said Pembina Institute research shows the shale gas emissions can be 75 per cent of the wellhead to waterline emissions.
“Those shale gas impacts are outside the control of WLNG, but they are of concern to British Columbians,” he said.
Horne said the province claims it has estimated the GHG emissions that could accompany LNG developments but hasn’t made those details public. Pembina Institute, an advocacy and consultancy group, estimates LNG plants in the province, can generate nearly 73 million tons of emissions every year.
“Shale gas impacts are outside the control of WLNG, but they are of concern to British Columbians.” Matt Horne, Pembina Institute.
That would make achieving the emissions targets set by the provincial government ‘implausible’, said Horne, director of the Climate Change program at Pembina. The provincial government’s climate action plan targets a reduction of GHGs by 33 per cent below 2007 by the year 2020.
Tracey Saxby of My Sea to Sky, an anti-LNG group, said the Woodfibre LNG annual emissions are equivalent of adding 10,000 cars to the highway, driving to Vancouver and back every day. That would be more than three times greater than current highway traffic except that all that pollution is being emitted in Squamish, she said.
“How will that pollution get trapped in the Howe Sound on low-wind days, particularly in the winter? How will that impact our air quality, our health, and our viewscapes?”
Saxby called the environment assessment process irresponsible for looking at every project in isolation and ignoring the wider impacts of fracking to obtain natural gas for export.
“Several studies are now showing that natural gas creates more greenhouse gases than any other fossil fuel,” she said.
Pro-LNG advocacy groups say the GHG emissions cited don’t take into account the emissions that would be offset as LNG starts to replace coal in Asia. Centre for LNG, a pro-LNG group based in Washington, D.C., claim their independent study shows an existing domestic coal plant produces two and a half time more emissions on a life cycle basis than that of LNG.
Replacing one coal plant with LNG would equate to removing thousands of cars off the road in the same period of time, the group says. Matt Horne says the provincial government has been making the argument for over two years but hasn’t provided any study to support it.
Dave says
But the coal is still there and will be dug up , will be sold and will be burnt.
The Natural gas will be dug up as fast as possible, will be processed to produce the emission amounts stated above, and will be sold as LNG to be transported by fuel burning ships and be burnt to produce more greenhouse gases.
And the chain will go , unbroken.
So what is the point of the above statements?….”Smoke and Mirrors”
Jon S. says
Do you understand simple economics? More LNG available = lower prices = less demand for coal.
Pretty simple stuff.
Dave says
Jon: To answer your sarcastic reply….You are correct regarding the trend, of which I was aware, but it is by no means significant in solving the problem. Check the graphs and stop being childish. Look at the prediction of the relationship between the two energy sources with respect to the demands and use. I will not waste my time looking them up again, copying them and pasting them for you…something you can amuse yourself with later.
Coal will still be used in vast quantities.
Now here is my sarcasm, to even things up…Have you ever heard of population growth and its relationship to energy demands??
Johnathan says
Mr. Byng Giraud, in 2010, was VP for Corporate Affairs with Imperial Metals. Now he is VP for Woodfibre LNG. In light of the Mount Polley environmental catastrophe, how should we now consider the claim: “Limiting air emissions where possible is a priority at Woodfibre LNG”?
monahb says
Exactly the point. Exxon promised safety and a better world and what happened, Exxon Valdez still not cleaned up 20 years later. So the LNG is supposed to offset the use of coal in China while coal is shipped from the US through BC. Makes no sense to me at all.
Jon S. says
So what? Mr. Giraud has no proven connection to the Mount Polley incident. Baseless comments, like yours, form the majority of “My” Sea-to-Sky’s information. Hardly fact, never proven, not relevant is the common theme. You people lack integrity.
Jean says
Old news rehashed — cut and pasted– but not a bit of new believable stuff.
Why waste time on details that don’t matter if W-LNG agrees that fracking is no good, dangerous etc., with 3000 new wells to be continuously drilled each year for the 25 years anticipated (if that figure is even believable!) to keep production going, because of the short “well-life of fracked gas”? Each well would use up to 60,000 HP; US estimates say 40,000 HP, which is still a brain-dead amount just to make a few companies richer by exploiting the situation and possibly walking away someday, to let the people of BC clean up or live with it. Doesn’t the statement made by W-LNG that they know about it but still are willing to buy the stuff, make them an accomplice?
As far as the article by Gord Homer in this week’s Chief, as to the safety etc., there are way more issues beyond the economics of the proposed deal (the revenue formula in lieu of Royalty) and then the additional not-lately-mentioned potential explosive cloud that will be hanging over Squamish some day if W-LNG goes ahead. Why is nobody talking about an ISIS attack in Squamish on a barge-load full of LNG stored in front of the proposed LNG Plant on water, approximately 5 miles away from Squamish, day and night until it is picked up by an equally vulnerable vessel? Terrorists would love to take out a populated area and enjoy it. Has everybody read the Chief about what the Americans are doing in protecting LNG Vessels? And we are asking them whether we can give them a hand over there, making us equally vulnerable with much less smarts and financial commitment, hoping that they will not execute any of us! (Not that I say we should not help other nations if they have a will to fight tyranny or religious fanaticism.)
Jon S. says
Jean (if that is your real name) can you please think before you write? None of the above makes ANY sense.
Jon S. says
Tracey just can’t help herself from lying.
According to the Ministry of transportation, on average 13,800 vehicles per day travel between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish.
If Woodfibre LNG annual emissions are equivalent of adding 10,000 cars (according to Saxby) to the highway per day, how is that even possible to be more than three times greater than current highway traffic?
Just because they are passionate doesn’t mean that they don’t have an agenda. “My” Sea-to-Sky will say anything to stop this project, even if it’s not true!
Check out the real facts for yourself:
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2009TRAN0003-000050.htm
larry mclennan says
I’d would like Tracy to show the arithmetic behind the 10,000 car calculation ie amount of exaust per car, composition etc divided into amount of exaust per W LNG= # cars. I suspect that that figure was pulled out of the usual location. By the way-Love ya Jean- you never cease to provide a good laugh in the morning !
larry mclennan says
Johnathan- you apparently are attempting to tar Byng Giraud by associating him with the Mount Polley dam collapse and by doing so furthur tar Woodfibre LNG through its association with Mr. Giraud. If that is your mindset then , in order to be completely fair , you should be associating My Sea to Sky with (apparent My Sea to Sky spokesman) Eoin Finn and , through Mr. Finn- a former partner with KPMG , with the numerous scandals associated with KPMG. These include illegal insider trading, charges of improper and imprudent practices (settled for $44 million ) and a $456 million US fine settled out of court for the sale of illegal tax shelters (two KPMG partners were sentenced to lengthy prision terms). Is that fair to My Sea to Sky or Eoin Finn in your mind? Check out “A Black Eye for KPMG ” on BNN website. Mr. Giraud and Woodfibre LNG , in my opinion, are owed an apology in this cheap slandering attempt.
MattB says
The problem with LNG is that the vast majority of emissions result from the way the shale gas is extracted, which is the result of hydraulic fracking, not from cooling and transporting it. Shale gas, which will provide the majority of the gas supplied to LNG plants, is actually a more damaging fossil fuel than coal if the true rates of methane leakage are factored into the equation. Credible studies put the average methane leaks resulting from fracking at 5% which would make shale gas significantly more environmentally damaging than coal.
So the real issue here is whether we as a community want to be part of a plant that sells a dirty fuel – not the clean fuel that Premier Clark and the Woodfibre LNG promoters would have us believe.
Here are some useful links for those interested in doing their own homework;
“It is a common assertion that replacing coal with shale gas lowers greenhouse-gas emissions. Unfortunately, this assumption can no longer be trusted. The process of fracking itself, plus the alarming methane leakage rates found in America’s extensive natural-gas transmission and distribution network, combine to make gas a far greater threat to climate stability than its proponents will admit. The Environmental Protection Agency’s current Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks predicts leakage rates of only around 2.4%, and natural gas reaches parity with coal (depending on your assumptions about boiler efficiency) at around 3.2%. However, a range of studies in recent years have called into question the conventional wisdom about methane leakage. One of the most recent, from a
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research group, measured methane leakage rates from a Utah gas field at an astonishing 9%, and this didn’t even include leakage from distribution and transmission.” – Feb 5th 2013, Michael Brune, Economist magazine
Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/inquiring-minds-anthony-ingraffea-science-fracking-methane
New fracking studies reveal unexpected methane levels
http://www.straight.com/news/617826/fracking-fuels-bc-governments-liquefied-natural-gas-gambit
More links on fracking;
Fracking Infographic
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
List of Chemicals Used in Fracking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_for_hydraulic_fracturing
Health Effects of Fracking Chemicals
http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail