Patricia Heintzman
I don’t support the current project because I think the provincial government policy on LNG is short sighted. There are concerns with fracking and we don’t have the cleanest LNG as the government is saying. It won’t be a net gain and there are several environmental issues, air quality issues that haven’t been taken into account. With the Fortis gas pipeline, we have just beginning to understand the implications. It will go through our business park, through the estuary so there are huge issues with that too. Economically, there won’t be any gains but we may have a bit of a boom. I don’t have the power…we don’t have jurisdiction but we can ask the right questions, which I think our Mayor and council are not asking about the process. We may not have the jurisdiction, but you have to speak your mind.
Rob Kirkham
District isn’t in a position to decline the project as out OCP calls for industry on that site. There are a number of benefits but my big concern is impact to environment. That is an overriding concern and that is why I directed staff to set up this LNG committee. We have decided to get an actual expert opinion on this, whether it’s impact to the marine, air or the land.
Doug Race
I have learned a lot about it in the past and in talking about this particular proposal, I have yet to see anything that is a concern to our community. There were couple of key concerns, like what the effects of emissions might be but that is behind us now. The other thing is what the effect would be on the process if it will be on the water, but now we know it’s on the land. People have raised concerns about shipping, temporary foreign workers, safety and I don’t think any of those concerns are grounded in reality.I went to a seminar given by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia on October 15, 2014 in Vancouver and they showed video of what happens when you try to light this on fire, nothing. LNG carriers in the gulf war were being hit by RPGs and missiles and nothing really happens. Certainly the missiles left a hole in the boat but no explosion and, in one case if I recall correctly, only a small fire that extinguished itself. The vessels basically carried on. I’ve been boating since I was 11 and I’m not concerned about the carriers in the Howe Sound.
The only thing we can do is comment when the EA process is complete at some point in the early next year. We sent comments on GAS, but that didn’t kill it. We can make a comment that is not supportive and that is the extent of our influence on that process. There is no discretion on the building permit and I heard one candidate mention we could downzone it to park. That would be a deemed expropriation and could expose the district to legal challenge. If we kill that deal, we face legal challenges. If you killed it by zoning, you would have to pay damages. It’s already a zoned land and it’s not a district decision whether it goes ahead or not. They need a development permit, but there is very little discretion and if they follow the guidelines, we have to issue it. And development permit dictates form and character and it’s not a land use issue. The land use is industrial and this site is zoned industrial.
Bryan Raiser
Two words: horribly frustrating.
For starters, there is a herculean distrust of the oil and gas industry. As a leader, citizen and father I cannot wait to see the long-awaited proposal because there are serious financial, social, and environmental concerns in our community that must be addressed. Equally frustrating is that our province just voted in favor of LNG. During the recent Provincial election the winning party made LNG their top platform and priority. The people had their say, cast their ballots, and the LNG-at-any-cost side won by a landslide. Now we have an amazingly well
educated, passionate town with hundreds of reasonable questions against an excruciatingly slow process that does nothing to instill confidence. So as a councilor I am charged with keeping an open mind until I see the proposal but at this time I have serious doubts our communities concerns will be answered sufficiently.
Susan Chapelle
I could only support a LNG compression facility in our community if certain criteria were met. Passing environmental assessment, this was recently submitted. It must not be a floating facility but have its infrastructure on land. It must run off of hydroelectric, not gas. It must not pollute Howe Sound or cause damage to the marine environment. Environmental regulations must be exceeded with temperature guidelines for water warming and bleach content.
I have heard many valid community concerns. Although council’s opinion may not have any affect on the development of this site, consistent communication with the province and the proponents will be essential to having our concerns met. With many environmental regulations being cut federally, we need to ensure that there is support and staffing for enforcement. Through new research facilities and partnerships with universities, Squamish is uniquely positioned to help set international standards for LNG. If this plant opens, we must take advantage of provincial funding for opportunities to educate our youth about the evolving energy sector and its environment impact.
Paul Dosanjh
The Woodfibre LNG proposal should not influence this election. All we can do is send our comments to Victoria who do not necessarily listen to our position….an example… the Ashlu IPP. I believe Woodibre LNG will breathe some life into our economy. The site is removed from the developed community. Historically it is an industrial site. We need the 100 well paying, long term jobs this development will provide. The industrial property taxes generated should enable a decrease in our residential and business tax rates. WLNG will contribute to further business opportunities here. I believe most of the employees will choose to live here for the great lifestyle and 5 minute commute to the ferry and their workplace. Those employees will spend more of their salaries in Squamish creating more job opportunities. So I support WLNG as long as our environmental and safety concerns are addressed satisfactorily by Victoria.
Auli Parviainen
I do not support the WLNG project. I cannot reconcile our urgent need to address human-caused climate change while allowing the expansion of fossil fuel resource extraction in my own community. LNG cannot be an effective “transition” fuel given that there are no effective and enforceable agreements or policies to take coal-fired plants off-line in equivalent quantity. The province cannot meet its own legally mandated GHG emission targets when you consider the whole life cycle of LNG including non-conventional shale gas extraction (fracking), liquefaction and transportation. The much-touted benefits, taxes and 100 jobs, pale in comparison to the potential impacts to our local economy, environment and community. Squamish has an opportunity to become a leading resilient community in transitioning to a new, creative economy with a diversity of less harmful industries including the renewable resource sector. I believe our natural assets, collective values and the vision for our future is much beyond the boom and bust economy we have suffered from in the past. It is up to each of us and our entire community to stand behind our shared values and be strong enough to say No to short-term small gains and invest instead in our long-term future. Our environment is our economy.
Jason Blackman-Wulf
While I do believe the Woodfibre LNG proposal must be addressed during the campaign it is my hope that we will have room for discussion of many other significant challenges that will come before Council over the next four years. There are many other issues that will come before Council; in addition to evaluating candidate positions on current issues, it is important that voters consider the approach and skills of each candidate in order to ensure their elected officials can effectively address future issues that will emerge in our community. A core value for me is an engaged and informed public that can openly and freely exchange ideas, opinions, and information. I commend the active citizens and civil society groups that have put significant time and effort into this issue. I am concerned about the Woodfibre LNG’s potential impact on the health of Howe Sound and the implications for climate change. Given that the proposed site is zoned for Industrial use, Council is not in a position to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as it would if the project required a rezoning. Council should be an effective voice to advocate for effective protections for our environment and for increasing the benefits going back to the community. In addition, Council must seize this opportunity to build community capacity and bring citizens closer to their government. With the upcoming review of our Official Community Plan, we have the ability to be more explicit about our community’s values so that future development is guided by a vision for a more sustainable and resilient community. I am also concerned about how this issue has come to divide people, and it runs the risk of becoming corrosive. Council works best when it can bring people together around common values. We need to break through the impasse of yes or no and zero in on the substantive issues at hand.
Eric Andersen
At this time, and while the Environmental Assessment processes for the LNG facility and the Fortis BC pipeline are still ongoing, I am not convinced this project proposal should be opposed. The projected benefits appear to outweigh potential risks. I do not distinguish between the gas to be handled at Woodfibre with that used in our homes and commercial or public buildings, or that shipped through Squamish to Whistler.
I have some concerns regarding the location of the proposed Fortis BC facilities; but I am satisfied the company is doing its best to find optimal facility location and pipeline route solutions.
There appear to be significant potential local benefits from the proposed Woodfibre LNG project, including: well-paying jobs for local people; municipal tax revenues; environmental remediation, making available a significant site for future economic development opportunities; marine transportation improvements which can benefit other commercial and recreational users; aquatic habitat enhancement projects; ongoing sponsorships of community projects.
All major construction projects have some environmental impact — including housing developments. I have been working to ensure these Woodfibre LNG and Fortis BC pipeline projects would have minimal environmental impacts, since they were first announced. I have lobbied strongly for electricity-powered plants, and actively participated in the Environmental Assessment processes, including on behalf of Squamish Streamkeepers and the Sea to Sky Clean Air Society.
Ted Prior
I understand that when the people of Squamish want to know where the candidates stand on LNG, what they really want to know is where their personal values lay. And this is important, as values-based leadership is the least corruptible. I am all too aware that the District is legally bound to follow certain procedures on this and other matters, but at the heart we all want to know that those who represent us share the same value system. And I value a clean, innovative, thriving Squamish that makes its mark on the world for the right reasons. I want my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to look back with pride that we did everything we could to preserve and protect our town.
Squamish should not rely on another short-sighted boom & bust economy – we need long term solutions that present the world with a current portrayal of our values and how much we respect our natural, social and community assets. We need more well-paying jobs and an increased tax base that capitalize on the knowledge and technical skills that we already have in Squamish. And we need to attract (and not detract) sustainable new businesses to invest in our town that don’t have so many detrimental impacts. There will be far more opportunities laying before us if we believe in what this town has to offer, and have a solid stand-alone Economic Development Committee in place to aggressively promote Squamish. We need to attract complimentary industries that feed off, not detract, from each other – Rec-Tech that feeds off, and into, tourism and our spectacular outdoor amenities. Expanding our education offerings while linking to high tech industry with our Digital Strategy. Forestry, our creative community and building community coming together to foster new advances in value-added wood products and cutting edge building solutions to provide better, more efficient buildings and homes.
I have serious concerns about the health and environmental impacts of fracking. And I don’t support any risks to our air, water quality, safety or threats to our marine habitat. But if WLNG is going to happen, then I want to ensure we don’t get shut out of the discussions regarding tight regulations and getting the best deal for Squamish as a whole.
Karen Elliott
I do not support the Woodfibre LNG project. The economic case has not been made, I am not convinced of the short or long-term benefits to our town, and the environmental impacts of fracking, transmission, processing, transporting and burning LNG show that it is not really a greener “transition” source of energy. It will exacerbate climate change and I believe we can do better than to build our local economy on the back of a boom and bust product like LNG. In addition, the Fortis gas line is a threat to our community as they plan on servicing the WLNG site by more than doubling the size of the existing pipeline and placing a compression station in our industrial park. This poses a very real threat to houses, businesses and tourist attractions like the West Coast Heritage Museum located nearby.
- Invite the Provincial Government to speak to the town at an Open House so that they can defend their economic and environmental policy around the LNG industry rather than our local politicians having to take the hard hits for their bad policy.
- Consult with other municipalities who are standing up to large fossil-fuel based infrastructure projects to understand all of the options at our disposal.
- Ask the questions to determine whether a bigger Fortis pipeline and a compression station are really in the best interests of our community and environment.
- Find a way to better engage with our community to hear from the silent majority to gauge the sentiment of the community and their level of understanding of the facts from both sides of the LNG debate.
- Ask Quest University to conduct an independent unbiased analysis of the impacts of the LNG plant and include both local impacts and the larger impact of how WLNG would contribute to climate change.
Glenne Capmbell
It is not a sustainable business model. As the race to shipping LNG around the world has quickened, BC is behind other operators and countries. Already prices are dropping due to supply and demand. Canadian federal marine policies are not in place to guide / support / regulate design, transfer, shipping, or personnel of LNG facilities. It has been left up to industry to take the responsibility to do this. Who is going to deal with issues? Example – the closest to home example is the derelict boats floating in the waters in Squamish area, which no one, with the mandate to be responsible, seems to be interested in dealing with. The most recent example is the Russian ship incident off the shores of Haida Gwaii.
Howe Sound’s natural and social environment deserves protection. Every generation living here believes this, even the long-time residents who may have a sentimental attachment to the word Woodfibre. If they want to fondly remember how the previous company created community in the last century, I beg them to ask themselves honestly if they think a foreign-owned, shareholder company of the 21st century has much of an actual action plan for ensuring the well-being of the community. We hear of recent financial contributions by the proponent to groups in Squamish. IF true, I would caution against future acceptance of funds. This is nothing more than charitable bribery to non-profit organizations who will be audited by the present federal government who want to ensure the donations go to those who support their vision. When I am in office, I will work hard to make sure it does not get approval.
Scott Wengi
Personally, and as a councillor (should I be elected), I don’t believe this a matter of supporting the WLNG project or not. I think the reality is that WLNG will happen if the investor wants to proceed, the Province wants it to proceed and the Environmental Assessment process allows the project to proceed. Based on that understanding, I believe that it is imperative that Council and every councillor do their utmost to ensure the best possible outcome for Squamish. Council should work for Squamish with the proponent and the Province to ensure that:
- WLNG is aware of meeting its duty of care for operating in our District as well as the areas outside our immediate boundary,
- WLNG is an open, transparent and cooperative neighbour,
- WLNG reports on key performance indicators regarding safety and the minimisation of environmental impacts, and
- That there is a clear and set process for Council/DOS to raise concerns with WLNG management.
Phil Audet
I’m not a big supporter or fan of the WLNG. We need to move away from low quality growth and more towards long-term clean industries. The price of LNG is dropping and we are already behind everyone on the world stage. We need to be less submissive in our dealings with Asia. Once we build our infrastructure I could see China balking at our price. At this point they will be holding all the cards. This does not take into account the 50000+ poison wells we will be leaving for our children.
Since it is apparently out of our hands I would fight tooth and nail for the best deal for our community. As much tax income and a solid guarantee that they will hire locally. If they are set up in the sound, there better be no environmental damage. Even the flare stack frightens me, make no mistake this is heavy industry. It has a dirty and ugly side and the proponents have been less than accommodating in their approach with our community. How many industrial disasters do we have to read about before the feds and provinces realize big industry cannot police themselves?
Peter Kent
Being the first candidate to step out and publicly announce my opposition to LNG, I believe that Squamish deserves better! As a community that prides itself on being the “Outdoor Capital of the World” and branded “Hardwired for Adventure,” how can we welcome this industry at our doorstep? Howe Sound and its marine life deserve stewardship and preservation. Howe Sound is a narrow waterway with marine, freighter, and recreational traffic. Warm, chlorinated water from the LNG cooling system would be dumped back into the sound. Fracking does incredible damage to our air and underground water tables while the toxic liquid cocktail used to force the gas out of the ground is a proven carcinogen. Our prospect of local jobs has diminished with the provincial government signing the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The promised infusion of tax dollars in our community has rapidly faded with recent announcements of lowered tax caps and increased subsidies to the LNG industry. As a family man and advocate for our community, I want to be part of the solution for our future, not part of the problem. Lets talk further about it! Email me info@peterhkent.com or visit my Facebook site: Peter Kent for Squamish Council.
Brad Hodge
Yes, I support Woodfibre LNG’s plans for an export facility in principle. Although I remain open to new information, on balance I believe the plant is a net plus for the community. The tax revenue alone is equivalent to almost 1/3 what the District receives today from business and industry, not to mention the benefit of millions in new payroll. This is not to say I would grant WLNG a blank cheque. I would insist it exceed all environmental regulations and look for maximum economic benefit for the community. But as it stands I do not believe it will harm Howe Sound nor in any way degrade our quality of life, and the benefit is just too large to ignore.
Rob Weys
With any project like WLNG, there have to a community benefits, such as taxes, infrastructure up grades, employment, and community amenity contributions.I support the project, and appreciate that some community concerns have been considered. The proponent’s decision to operate on land and power it with electricity is positive. My final decision will be made, when all required conditions and tax implications are met. The DOS needs to be engaged in conversations with the proponent and province, to ensure the best possible outcome if it proceeds. This project could still be few years away and only if market conditions are good. There are concerns with the Fortis compression station location in the industrial park and twinning of a larger pipeline. The Dos has the ability to provide input though zoning and bylaw, so that community concerns are met. Responsible government needs to consider aspects and not focus on one issue only.
Ron Bahm
If we were all financially stable and our property taxes were reasonable no one would want the LNG . As it is other cities would be glad to have it and we can defiantly use the tax base. The provincial government has fifteen proposed sites and would be happy if three of those come to fruition. This site has all the requirements to be first out of the gate as the flagship projects that would be complete before the next provincial election . There are two facts that we know ,property taxes And jobs (the number up for debate ) as well as opening up that side of the sound for adventure .All the possible negative impacts are what if scenarios . It is hard to make decisions based on things that might happen so mostly things move forward with provisions in place to rectify negative impact. So for those whom are choosing there mayor based on how we answer this question it will be like voting for the weatherman who gives you the best forecast for the weekend, my take on this is those apposed to LNG want to go up against the federal government, provincial government, huge oil company interest, big business and stop the LNG ship from coming up the sound when we cant even get Steen larson to move a rusty old ship out of the harbour . what do you think your chances of success are.
We cannot stop negative impacts but we can minimise the event by imposing a ridged monitoring system staffed by company and local interests paid for by LNG . There should also be a fund in place controlled by the district so that money is available immediately for remediation if necessary. This fund will grow with time and the accumulated interest could also be used for environmental projects in the community . When something is inevitable it is time to stop resisting and get any available benefits rather than getting run over.
shan@thedesignaggregate.com
Jean says
Please somebody tel MR DR that the storage of LNG… the most important and dangerous goods anywhere on the coast, 365 days unprotected and subject not only to the weather but especially to the terrorist, Is floating in front of there processing facility….not paying any taxes….please also enlighten him that there are 2 scenarios as to fire and explosion. A) LNG stored on land ( Pool fire) B) LNG Stored on ocean, unable to be extinguished with current firefighting methods, oposit to land based fires. please also Remind Mr. BR that the Liberal Party did not win with a Landslide…! Please tel Mr, PD That LNG and Ashlu is not no comparison. LNG is here The other far away!!!.. Please tel Mr. EA almost a Flip Flop from him, before involved in ” clean air.. as a society chief” and also MR.SW Not to play dead on LNG and let the big boys get away with it, against the will of the people.
Did I see those Candidates profiles before somewhere??
larry mclennan says
Don’t forget the brain eating zombies Jean !
Jon S. says
Great to see so many candidates open to the project! Remember what happened to Dix when he suddenly rejected Trans Mountain? He thought that would help him win the election, but look what really happened.
Just because the activists are vocal, doesn’t mean they have the support of the community at large!
MattB says
Are any of the candidates aware of any studies conducted by the BC or federal government with credible estimates on fugitive methane rates from drilling the natural gas to to getting it to market as LNG? Official estimates in BC range from zero (Rich Coleman to between 0.3 to 0.5%; as well as the US EPA estimate of 1.2% are far less than actual methane leakage rates through satellite and aircraft analysis in the US that have been found fugitive methane rates ranging from 2.8 to 17%. That’s one heck of a difference!
Also have any of the candidates been able to determine how much of our natural gas comes from traditional deep wells versus shale gas deposits drilled using hydraulic fracturing? This is important because the two types of wells are associated with significantly different methane containment challenges. I have asked Fortis as well who didn’t have a clue, and the BC Ministry of Natural Gas which referred me to the BC Oil and Gas Commission who politely listened to my questions and have received my emails but have, so far at least, not answered.
If those in government charged with regulating and industry oversight can’t (or won’t) even answer this simple question, how will they be able to enforce fugitive methane limits given that it is such a destructive green house gas, not to mention the other necessary regulations?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Sean Lumb says
Matt B,
More information of the state of the leaky wells in Canada can be found here:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/05/Canada-Leaky-Energy-Wells/
Original report here:
http://www.geofirma.com/Links/Wellbore_Leakage_Study%20compressed.pdf
Figures 2.4 and 2.5 in the report are particularly useful: they break down numbers of wells by rate of leakage in cubic metres per day for Alberta and BC natural gas wells. What’s missing is the gas flux that would allow a calculation of the rate of leakage.
MattB says
Thanks Sean. Had not seen that study before.
I found this quote particularly relevant from page 14 of the U Waterloo study, “Miller et al. (2013) suggest that anthropogenic methane emissions now account for 50-65% of the global methane budget. Although there are a number of natural sources of methane, fugitive emissions from natural gas production has been identified as one of the leading five sources in the U.S. in a recent report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013).”
If only they had converted their data to reflect the overall percentage of fugitive methane per well it would have made comparisons with other studies easier.
Its important to point out that as I understand it, these data come from the drillers themselves which means that results are potentially subject to being under-reported. Certainly there is much more work to be done in the area of measuring the true rates of fugitive methane.
larry mclennan says
What’s bothersome to me is that of all the incumbents running for re-election only one- Doug Race- appears to have done any investigation with regard to the merits of WLNG. Heintzman, indeed, declared that “…imported LNG-specific foreign workers will fill most of the 100 permanent jobs” in the Chief. According to everything I’ve read from the company- this assertion by Heintzman is TOTALLY FALSE. One would think that anyone running for council-especially the Mayoral position-would take the time to know a least some pertainent facts regarding a project which could be a significant contributor to the tax base and to good jobs within the community. It appears Heintzman and the other councillors (except Race) can’t be bothered. I’ll be voting for the pro-group but thank you to those who at least had the forthrightness to declare their anti-positions-you’ll be picking up the anti-votes. For all voters may I suggest you visit woodfibrelng.ca to get factual information regarding the project.
MattB says
Larry;
The assertion that Patty Heintzman made about hiring foreign workers is “totally false?” The only commitment this community has from WLNG is that according to its most recent flyer, “We’ll hire a quality local workforce where we can,” and “..whenever possible, Woodfibre LNG will hire locals first and contract local businesses and suppliers.” (http://www.woodfibrelng.ca/ask-us/mikael-mikkelsen/ ) That’s about as reassuring (and legally binding) as a promise that the “cheque is in the mail” from someone who owes you money.
Maybe you have a job with them or have received more binding job commitment from the company but if WLNG can access a pool of experienced workers thanks to the recent BC-China foreign LNG workers agreement for lower wages, there is nothing we in Squamish will be able to legally do about it if the majority go to overseas workers. I fully agree with Patty and have certainly heard or read nothing to the contrary.
Here’s a quote from the BC Minister of Natural Gas. “Natural Gas Minister Rich Coleman has said B.C. could need temporary foreign workers to fill some of the 100,000 jobs that would be created if several B.C. LNG facilities materialize.”
(See B.C. and China agree to allow foreign workers to help build LNG industry
http://www.vancouversun.com/China+agree+allow+foreign+workers+help+build+industry/10063770/story.html )
Oh and don’t forget this offer from Christy Clark on a recent trip to India.
“If we can help train 3,000 and 300 of them help us build an LNG industry, it’s good for you and good for us,” Clark is quoted as saying.
(See – India workers offered B.C. ‘s LNG jobs by Christy Clark, says NDP
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/india-workers-offered-b-c-s-lng-jobs-by-christy-clark-says-ndp-1.2817279
Wolfgang W says
What is most discernable when comparing the answers here with those given in the Chief, is that some candidates have increased the level of hedging their position, some even jumped back on the fence. The handful already noticed in the Chief to be on the fence are using more verbiage here, but still no more forthcoming in offering their personal opinion.
Disgruntled says
I used to support you Patty, but these days I don’t feel like I know what you stand for. You said you were ok with tax increases, then you weren’t. You said you were against unhealthy drive-throughs, then you weren’t. You said you were in favor of LNG, now you aren’t. Even your mayor bid – you said you weren’t running, then flipped again two weeks later. You talk about transparency, but then on the Sq Elections FB page you claim not to know who’s handing you their money. Don’t you want to know? You’ve said in these pages it’s about representing the people. Is it? Or are you representing yourself? I’ve supported you in the past, but you lost me with your constant flip flops this last term. When you announced you would not be running, I said, wow, that’s impressive. Maybe she’s not all about the game. You had lost my vote before that. But when you flipped yet again, you lost my respect. You ran because your friends told you to? Since when is that a good reason to run? Your platform reads like a re-hash of your first bid. Still talking about the same problems you vow to solve but failed to in 9 years. Still trying to sound like the outsider when your the consummate insider. The thing I hate most is that now that leaves me between the garage mechanic or the guy who brought us this bad SODC deal. But at least I know what those two stand for. Auli at least would have been fresh, and I know what she stands for. Right now you sound like every other career politician I’m so fed up with. I wish you’d just done the right thing and stayed home this time.
Brad Hodge says
Hi Matt,
I’ve spent months immersed in this. The answer on your fracturing question is difficult. I’ve asked several different sources and the numbers I get range from 55% fracked to 100%, depending who you ask and what you count as fracking. That is the majority of it now. WLNG is unique compared to the other plants because it is so small and owns no upstream assets. Essentially it’s just one more customer. Even if they used the largest QMAX carriers (which I don’t think they will), output amounts to a fraction of a percentage of what’s currently produced. Really if we’re upset about fracking we should stop using natural gas in our homes. That’s where most of the demand is. You have a legitimate point on the larger LNG facilities proposed up north which would be 10 times WLNGs size.
Further my reading suggests fracking is not nearly as bad as advertised. There are several studies that discuss that. Fugitive methane is an issue.. but remember that methane is the product the companies are trying to sell.. they have every incentive to capture it and indeed a few research papers suggest they are trying and should be able to.
For me, when I evaluate WLNG I do so with an eye to other possibilities for the site. While upstream activity is important, I think the most important aspect for us is the local impacts. And there will be some impacts, but I’m committed to eliminating/miminalizing them and much and possible. That is something West Vancouver gave up their ability to do by taking such a reflexive and unyielding posture with their call for a tanker ban.
MattB says
Brad. Appreciate your detailed answer. You are the only candidate to dive into these troubled waters so thank you!
Agreed, getting the specifics on where our natural gas comes from has been a real challenge. None of the relevant government departments seem to know and neither does Fortis. But your breakdown is along the lines of what I found, a little more than 50% now comes from traditional deepwell nat gas, the rest from shale gas operations. If we export LNG to any degree (say 5 plants) that ratio will quickly escalate to 90% shale gas 10% traditional wells as the latter reserves are depleted.
Maybe I have a different perspective on the fugitive methane/CO2 issue than most. As someone who studied marine sciences in university and who was a commercial diver on the coast for a number of years in a variety of locations, I am keenly interested in (and aware of) marine populations. I have also been following atmospheric CO2 over the last few years and watched sadly as it surpassed 400PPM last May. Climate models a few years ago had predicted that at that level, ocean PH levels would decrease (become more acidic) by 0.1 to a reading of 8.0. But what happened was that PH levels along the west coast from Alaska down to San Diego along coastal regions have dropped to 7.2 and even lower which is far more acidic. The result is that oyster and scallop populations (which marine biologists consider to be ‘canary’ species) have experienced larval mortality rates of between 80 and 100%. Scallop production has been decimated in the last 2 years. This is important because marine diatoms and small calcium dependent animals that build shells and capture the majority of the CO2 that ends up in our oceans are at risk. So what happens when the most important and populace carbon sequestering species in our oceans can no longer capture CO2?
Co2 levels were 280PPM 200 years ago. In the 1940s-50s CO2 levels were increasing at around 0.8% per year. They are now increasing at 2 to 2.5% per year so the levels are accelerating. At that rate we will hit the 450PPM CO2 threshold in about 20 years and that is the level that many biologists believe will be too much for these marine species (as well as a number of other marine and land species). Once that happens CO2 levels will accelerate in hockey-stick fashion and by that time it will be too late to do anything about it except to hunker down and hope for a miracle. Sounds dire until you realize that we humans are pumping more than 30 billion tons of CO2 into our atmosphere every year. These canary species are telling us that the planet is reaching a critical limit.
My problem other than perhaps being very aware of the CO2/marine environment relationship is that fossil fuel proponents have a vested interest in telling us that CO2 levels and fugitive methane rates are at the lower end of estimates. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it could well be much higher than those estimates. Unfortunately, governments in BC or in Canada have done very little research regarding fugitive methane or CO2 outputs from various fossil fuel operations. There are no studies that provide reliable and credible estimates for shale gas operations and this should concern us all.
That leaves us with US estimates. The US EPA estimate for fugitive methane emissions from natural gas and coal gas emissions is 1.2%. That will be revised unless fossil fuel lobbies get their way but I am hoping that data will show the rate at no more than 5% which is what the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration says it is. Not great and that would make natural gas more damaging in the emission of green house gases than coal.
To conclude, there are a lot of moving parts to the LNG equation and if we get it wrong, the penalty is significant not only for us, but even more so for our children.
I include some references below for those interested in doing more reading. I have had an ongoing fugitive methane discussion with LNG industry supporters who claim that one author named Howarth was discredited so his findings should not be included. He and his associated have since revised their findings but they are in line with more recent studies which I’ve included below.
Mystery surrounds massive die-off of oysters and scallops off B.C. coast
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mystery-surrounds-massive-die-off-of-oysters-and-scallops-off-bc-coast/article17156108/
Scientists zero in on what’s causing starfish die-offs
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-zero-whats-causing-starfish-die-offs/
Remote sensing of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas production in North American tight geologic formations
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000265/full
Researchers find record leaks of methane from oil shale boom areas
“Oil and gas basins in North Dakota and East Texas leaked around 10 percent of natural gas they produced to the atmosphere between 2006 and 2011. Natural gas is composed primarily of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that exacerbates climate change.”
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060007693
CIRES, NOAA observe significant methane leaks in a Utah natural gas field
“On a perfect winter day in Utah’s Uintah County in 2012, CIRES scientists and NOAA colleagues tested out a new way to measure methane emissions from a natural gas production field. Their results, accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, constitute a proof-of-concept that could help both researchers and regulators better determine how much of the greenhouse gas and other air pollutants leak from oil and gas fields. The measurements show that on one February day in the Uintah Basin, the natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days.” – See more at:
http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/methaneleaks.html#sthash.IMgThIfv.dpuf
‘Time is not on our side’: UN panel issues stark climate change warning
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/time-is-not-on-our-side-un-panel-issues-stark-climate-change-warning-1.2083153
Lots more reading material where this came from for those interested.
Shan Warburton says
Larry McLellan – are you kidding?! – when is the proponent of something EVER a reliable source of facts !? Regardless of anything WLNG say at this point, no court in the country is going to force them to hire people from here, and now let alone from our country. How many LNG trained persons do you think we have in Squamish?
The fact is that if WLNG didn’t have anything to hide, they would have been engaging the public and answering there concerns with concrete, sign-on-the-dot promises. Instead all we have is a bunch of shifty vagaries that don’t sit well with anyone that I trust. The fact that anyone, in this day and age, can deny the impacts of industries such as LNG is frankly shocking. And while our small local government should not be charged with carrying the weight of solving global warming, I do want to know they are going to step up to the plate to fight for the best deals and minimal impacts.
Also just discovered is some very ‘creative’ accounting from WLNG’s latest handout with property tax revenue pie charts from both 2005 and 2014. I have just confirmed that the 2014 chart is patently inaccurate with data directly acquired from the DoS Tax Dept – while 62.8% residential, 1.7% heavy industry and 1.8% light industry are correct, they have entirely left out the 25.5% revenues from business property tax! Even this wouldn’t be so concerning if they hadn’t then chose to depict the 62.8% as looking like 95%. Pie charts are intended to give visual reference to a total of 100%! So when you actually look at the difference in residential revenues from 2005 to 2014 they increased from 47.0% to 62.8% – a difference of only 15.8%. As the DoS pointed out to me, we also have WAY more residential properties in Squamish now than in 2005. I’m waiting to receive the comparable numbers for 2005 from DoS, but I suspect that the reason the business PT revenues were left out of both charts is because we have seen a notable increase since Woodfibre left town. I find it appallingly manipulative, as many citizens will only glance at the pie chart and possibly believe this fear mongering.
Looks like you don’t have to be a lawyer or an accountant to see through the numbers now, do you?
Wolfgang W says
Very well said Shan, but you forgot to mention that the residential property tax burden for Squamish is only marginally higher than the BC average (in 2013, 62.5% for Squamish, 61.9% for BC). So not quite as dramatic as Woodfibre LNG would like one to believe it is.
As to your comment about a remarkable increase in Squamish’s population and housing stock since 2005, you may wish to refer to an earlier article I wrote in this paper to counter the doomsayers and WFLNG’s feeding on them.
http://www.squamishreporter.com/2014/07/12/does-squamish-needs-fixing/#.VFs6i6R0ycw
As you say, Shan, pronouncements from proponents always have to be taken with a grain of salt, because naturally they put the best face on their argument, but this exercise in sloppy (or shall I say manipulative?) use of statistics and graphics? We should expect better from a company which flaunts itself as being expert and responsible in an undertaking fraught with risks. Not exactly a builder of trust, wouldn’t you say?
larry mclennan says
First off- at least spell my name correctly.
Apparently , Shan ?, you are upset with me for having the temerity to suggest that anyone who is interested in getting some factual information regarding the WLNG position on the project visit the WLNG website. Apparently any proponent of any project is not reliable (on any point ?) for information. Have you, Shan, visited their website and , if so , what specific information provided by WLNG do you dispute?If not, it would seem that you are exercising a wilful ignorance with respect to considering both sides of the issue. As, I would hope , you are aware that the project , has yet , to be officially approved , signing any final provisions also has yet to be done – your demand for signed documents then , seems somewhat premature. With regard to engaging the community , WLNG has on several occasions done so with specific answers to specific questions and concerns (power & processing provisions, methodologies used, expected number of jobs and sources of employment, etc.) as well as hosting open houses and doing mailouts. Apparently you are unaware of some, or most, this. Perhaps you could visit their website. As to “shifting vagaries”-according to my Funk & Wagnall’s a vagary is defined as “A wild fancy- A fancy notion”- for some living examples I suggest you read some of the promises & concepts of several of the local Municipal candidates. With regard to the WLNG ‘shifting vagaries” please provide some examples. You mention that these unstated “vagaries “don’t sit well with anyone you trust. Who do you trust ?- MY Sea to Sky et al ? Do you actually believe their assertions ? If not , do you trust them- personally I think you “shifting vagaries” statement can be applied to statements from their representatives (I’m thinking Eoin Finn here) very easily ( ‘marine desert, wrong type of people” to live in Squamish , driving tourism out of town, etc).
Regarding the pie charts which seem to have enraged you as being deceptive.However, you also state that “…you don’t have to be a lawyer or an accountant to see through the numbers…” so apparently, according to yourself ” for the average person ,they’re not deceptive. Somewhat of a non sequiteur argument by you isn’t it?
As to the actual tax dollar breakouts for 2014. The percentages used for the three categories (major industry, light industry, residential ) and using the rounded total tax revenue from all sources figure ($22.5 million) the breakout is as follows property- $14,130,000, major industry $382,500 , light industry $405,000. If you look to the right of the offending pie charts , Shan , you will notice the figure $2 million- thats the tax proposed to be paid by WLNG (at least). This raises the proportional tax paid by major industry from 1.7 % to 10.6 %-an increment of over 500% for that category. Furthur, as a proportion of the tax base ($22,500,000) , the WLNG tax payment is 8.9 %. I’m not certain how you class a $2 million addition to the tax base is “fear mongering”-if a $2 million addition to the tax base is used to lower other property taxes- I’m all for it. Regarding the proportion of business taxes to the total tax base , for 2014 , the business taxes were pretty much the only other significant tax source (a couple of very small ones (forest & recreation , farm)) totalled about 1/2 percent. Assuming that proportion holds true for 2005 , then the percentage of business taxes is approximately 30 % verses about 25 % for 2014 ie you are incorrect in your assumption that the ratio of business taxes has gone up. Perhaps when you really get into analysis , you would be better off referring to a lawyer or accountant.
Wolfgang W says
Come on, Larry, you are a number cruncher just like myself! Shan makes a good point. Whether sloppy presentation or manipulation, neither is acceptable in this or any other case. You wouldn’t accept it from SODC nor the opponents you mentioned, so why should you do so here?
Btw: See below, WFLNG has made a correction under pressure. Just like so often in the past few months, when the opposition had them make concessions which would likely never have happened through the chorus of approving baying and heeling by supporters. Give the opposition at least some credit for their contribution in making this a better project, should it go ahead,
Wolfgang W says
Just coming in: Correspondence with WFLNG revealed that they had received ‘other inquiries’ about their graphs and have consequently corrected them and posted the ‘new and improved’ both on their Facebook page and today’s Chief.
I wonder whether we’ll find a ‘revised newsletter’ in our mail boxes…
larry mclennan says
Addendum: my bad – I didn’t factor out the utilities component for 2005- thus the % paid by commercial is about the same for both years (not increased presumably). Just got back from a funeral- To categorize supporters as “baying” & “heeling” is somewhat derogatory as to character wouldn’t you agree? I don’t recall you taking Eoin Finn & My Sea To Sky to task for their ridiculous declarations- maybe you did but I don’t recall it. i’m not certain that points raised by the “opposition” actually caused the WLNG to alter its proposed project ( I presume you’re referring to the electrification of the liquifaction process and the location of the facilities onshore ) but I’m glad those provisions were amended. Its quite possible that the government or the company itself made those decisions. My understanding is that the modifications are not that unusual. If the ‘opponents” were instrumental in the amendments- good on them. Meanwhile wolfy- what exactly did you think of the Finn/My Sea to Sky declaraing that the WLNG project would cause such incidents as s “a marine desert” as the fate for Howe Sound , driving tourism out of town, and that WLNG employees were the “wrong type of people” for Squamish ,and that industry and tourism are not able to exist together in Squamish ? Were the followers of My Sea to Sky and others of the anti- group “baying ” & “heeling” ? Just asking.
Wolfgang W says
Ok Larry, i got a bit carried away with the Blair-Bush ‘poodle’ imagery :), yet the basic premise of my argument still holds, namely that an element of opposition is essential in bringing about better terms, be that in commercial wheeling and dealing or, at the level of society at large, to procure a better social contract. What do you think Petronas’ and others’ fierce lobbying with our provincial government amounts to, if not opposition to what Christy has on offer? They want more advantageous terms, which Christy will bend over backwards to satisfy to keep them from walking and with it her re-election platform. Same with the improvements announced with great fanfare by the company every time public opposition – allright Larry ‘activist opposition’ – flared up. Heck, they could even find themselves coming up with a starting number from which to negotiate property taxes the company would be willing to pay, a subject they had been coy about before.
Of course the ‘activists’ aim has never been about improving the project, but to scrap it alltogether by agitating noisily against it. It would only be prudent (i wrote ‘clever’ elsewhere) for the company to concede at least some points to retain support from more moderate factions. That is what I meant by saying ‘give the opposition at least some credit for their contribution in making this a better project.’
Larry, if you truly believe it ‘quite possible that the government or the company itself made these decisions’, presumably out of the goodness of their heart, to propose moving the facility ashore and electrification of the liquifaction process, (what about the tax announcement?), then you too should be joining those feeding the unicorns. And speaking of animals, away from the mythical to canine imagery again in answering your last question: Certainly no ‘heeling’ or ‘baying’ by followers of ‘Sea to Sky’ or other anti-groups, but a lot of persistent ‘yapping’ usually associated with those annoying little ankle-biters, yet also known to sometimes scare larger dogs away. With my apologies to owners of small dogs. 🙂