The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) never considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal, according to documents revealed in a federal court this week.

The documents were submitted to a federal court in Vancouver during a hearing to determine whether the information should be considered as part of a forthcoming judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the LNG project.  

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed for the judicial review of the project’s approval and received 17,000 pages of federal documents under disclosure — the release of information required by law during legal proceedings. SkeenaWild hired two experts to give expert testimony on those documents.

One of those experts Kirsten Zickfeld, a climate scientist and associate professor of geography at Simon Fraser University, testified in a sworn affidavit that CEAA did not provide the federal government with an assessment of cumulative emissions from the project and that these emissions “should be assessed, especially…in terms of their share of a provincial or national ‘carbon budget.’ ”

A second expert, policy and technical analyst from the Pembina Institute Maximilian Kniewasser, testified in a sworn affidavit that Canada considered imposing conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution, such as requiring the project be powered by grid electricity rather than natural gas, but chose not to despite doing so to varying degrees for two other LNG projects, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG.

The federal government and Pacific NorthWest LNG asked the court to strike the affidavits from consideration as evidence on the basis that they are “inadmissible…extrinsic evidence.”  

Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild, argued the two affidavits should be considered as evidence in the upcoming judicial review, likely to take place this fall.

“We are not trying to bring in new evidence,” Knox told DeSmog Canada, “just evidence to the court to show in black and white that the agency failed to provide the minister and cabinet with the proper information to make an informed decision on the project.”

Pacific NorthWest LNG To Take Up Big Chunk of Canada’s Carbon Budget

Zickfeld, an expert in climate modelling and carbon budgets, served as the lead author of the UN Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the 1.5 degree target.

Under the Paris Agreement, the majority of the world’s governments, Canada included, have agreed to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius with a goal of limiting that increase to 1.5 degrees.

Efforts to work towards that goal, Zickfeld outlines, will require countries to cap their climate pollution through carbon budgets.

Depending on the type of carbon budget Canada selects, Pacific NorthWest LNG could eat up 2.5 to 11 per cent of the country’s total all-time climate pollution allowance.

“Over the lifetime of the project (here assumed to be 30 years), these annual emissions add up to about 360 million metric tons of CO2 cumulative emissions,” Zickfeld wrote.

A large part of what makes liquefied natural gas exports so carbon-intensive is the process of turning natural gas into a liquid. The process requires running massive compressor stations 24/7 to cool gas to -162 degrees Celsius, the point at which gas turns into a liquid that can be loaded onto tankers.

In the second document Kniewasser concludes the carbon emissions from the project could have been significantly reduced had the agency assessed the technical and economic feasibility of powering the LNG terminal with grid electricity, rather than with natural gas.

“I described two alternatives to power LNG projects other than burning natural gas: using grid electricity to power non-compression load, and using grid electricity to power compression load,” he wrote in his affidavit.

These alternatives could have reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project by between six per cent and 44 per cent, or 8 and 57 megatonnes of carbon emissions, every year, Kniewasser stated.

“These potential emissions reductions are especially significant given the project’s long operating life, B.C.’s legislated long-term climate targets, and Canada’s Paris climate commitments.”

Feds Never Considered Cumulative #Climate Impacts Of Pacific Northwest #LNG, Court Docs Reveal https://t.co/CX9llm7KZ2 #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 14, 2017

Much of Pacific Northwest LNG Review Conducted Behind Closed Doors

The fact that cabinet was not apprised of the cumulative climate impacts of Pacific Northwest LNG was not a matter of public knowledge, Knox told DeSmog Canada.

“In the type of environmental assessment process we had for this project, none of that was made available to the public. And it was never provided to the public until we requested it through the legal process,” he said.

Under what is know as a standard environmental assessment process, the Canadian Environmental Assessment agency conducted a review of Pacific NorthWest LNG with no public hearing, no cross examination and no full public disclosure of documents submitted during the duration of the review.

About half of the documents that were used in the assessment process weren’t on the public record, Knox said.

“When we got those documents in the spring, that is when we got some expert witnesses to comment on the complete lack of cumulative effects assessment for climate pollution and an assessment of the viability of using electricity from the grid to reduce emissions.”

“Under CEAA both of those things should have been done and the minister in cabinet should have been given that information. That poses the question: what sort of discussions and deals were done behind the scenes and why wasn’t this proper process done to reduce and assess the climate pollution from this project?”

Knox said the federal government’s decision to approve Pacific NorthWest LNG conflicts with promises to take meaningful action on climate change.

“When the government and industry are teaming up to argue against doing their due diligence on the climate impacts of this project, it’s really disconcerting,” he said.

“I think that government in this case is standing up for the interests of industry. We believe we’re bringing information and evidence forward that is in the public’s interest.”  

Kirsten Zickfeld Affidavit PNW LNG by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Max Kniewasser Affidavit (Apr 27 2017) by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Crown's Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits PNW LNG July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

PNW LNG Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Federal ministers and Premier Christy Clark annouce the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal in September 2017. Photo: B.C. Government via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It’s been a rough start to 2016 for many companies hoping to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in Canada, with the price for the product continuing its freefall and many projects delayed due to onerous approval processes.

But LNG companies certainly aren’t letting the bad news dissuade them from pressuring government: since the Liberals were elected in mid-October, LNG companies have lobbied federal officials in 63 different meetings.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Meets with Officials 21 Times, Including 15 MPs

Pacific NorthWest LNG — the company majority owned by Petronas that’s pushing to build a massive $11.4-billion LNG export terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C. — has led the pack, lobbying the federal government 21 times.

The meetings, six of which occurred on February 2, included environment minister Catherine McKenna, transport minister Marc Garneau, the chiefs of staff for five departments and 15 Members of Parliament.

The proposed facility has been the subject of significant criticism ever since Petronas submitted its environmental assessment application in 2013 due to potential impacts on critical juvenile salmon in the Skeena watershed.

Earlier this month, over 130 scientists including renown limnologist David Schindler and 80 other PhD-holding experts signed an open letter to McKenna that petitioned her to reject the latest report by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) as it was a “flawed assessment” that serves as a “symbol of what is wrong with environmental decision-making in Canada.”

On March 21, the LNG company received a letter from the CEAA with a fresh set of questions to answer and an amended timeline. Once the federal government receives answers from the company, it will take up to a month-and-a-half to make a decision.

Chris Tollefson, director of the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre, has stated the project “could be the biggest single point source emitter of greenhouse gas in the country.”

Low Commodity Prices Force Companies to Reconsider Plans

But Pacific NorthWest is certainly not the only LNG company that’s been fighting for the government’s favour. LNG Canada Development — a joint venture between Shell, PetroChina, Mitsubishi and Korea Gas that’s pushing for permission to build an export facility near Kitimat, B.C. — lobbied the government 14 times between October 27, 2015, and February 25, 2016.

Three ministers — Hunter Tootoo (Fisheries and Oceans), Chrystia Freeland (International Trade) and John McCallum (Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship) — were among those met with by the joint venture. LNG Canada Development has also been experiencing delays due to low prices. A final investment decision expected will be made later this year.

Woodfibre LNG Pushes Ahead Following Meetings with CEAA President

Some companies have been experiencing better luck. Woodfibre LNG, which plans to build a facility near Squamish, B.C., recently received nods from the federal government and Squamish First Nation to proceed with dozens of conditions.

Between November 3, 2015, and January 28, 2016, the company met with federal officials in eight different meetings, with the most high-profile of the lot being with CEAA president Ron Hallman and vice-president of operations Heath Smith on November 19, 2015. The company still has to attain approval from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada.

The three companies mentioned — Pacific NorthWest, LNG Canada Development and Woodfibre LNG — belong to the BC LNG Developers Alliance, a lobbying organization that also includes ExxonMobil, Kitimat LNG, Triton LNG and Prince Rupert LNG as members (the alliance’s president David Keane served as a vice-president at BG Canada, which is building the latter).

On February 2, the lobbying group met with a star-studded line-up of officials, including natural resources minister Jim Carr, employment minister MaryAnn Mihychuk, a deputy minister, two assistant deputy ministers and two chiefs of staff.

Lobbying U.S. Ambassador Pays off for Bear Head LNG

But all things considered, Bear Head LNG — which plans to start exporting its product by 2019 from Nova Scotia — may be the most successful of the bunch. In August 2015, the project received import and export licenses from the National Energy Board (NEB), while the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gave it a similar approval the month prior.

In recent months, the company met with Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer eight times and treasury board president Scott Brison twice. However, in what could be interpreted as not-so-great news, both the chief operating officer and chief financial officer of the company “left to pursue outside opportunities” in early March.

There have been some minor victories for the industry, perhaps as a partial result of lobbying efforts. But the short-term future isn’t looking especially bright. A recent poll of 802 British Columbia residents suggested public support for LNG projects is slipping.

On March 22, Bloomberg reported a proposed $40-billion LNG project in Australia was cancelled due to low commodity prices.

It might be the sign of things to come.

But if the last six months have been any indication, we can be certain that federal officials are going to keep receiving plenty of visits from LNG companies.

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Indigenous leaders gather at the proposed site of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal. Photo: Skeena Watershed Coalition

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

After a week of voting in three different cities, the message from the Lax Kw’alaams Nation to Pacific NorthWest LNG is clear: even $1.15 billion dollars cannot purchase social license. 

Malaysian-owned energy company Petronas is in the process of securing permission to build and operate a liquefied natural gas pipeline and terminal near Prince Rupert on the northwestern B.C. coast. While the provincial government is extremely supportive of the project, Petronas has faced challenges convincing First Nations, including the Lax Kw’alaams. 

The small 3,600 member band is extremely concerned about the environmental risks of the project, particularly how it would impact Flora Bank on Lelu Island — a thriving habitat for young salmon and the largest eelgrass forests on Canada's west coast.

Eelgrass and a small salmon fry near Flora Bank. Photo: Travis Campbell

Hoping to buying consent from the small 3,600 member band, Petronas offered $1.15 billion in cash payments over 40 years, plus a transfer of 2,200 hectares of Crown Land from the B.C. government.

But the Lax Kw’alaams were unmoved. Over a series of three votes, the band voted almost unanimously to reject Petronas’ offer. 

“The terminal is planned to be located in the traditional territory of the Lax Kw’alaams. Only Lax Kw’alaams have a valid claim to aboriginal title in the relevant area — their consent is required for this project to proceed. There are suggestions governments and the proponent may try to proceed with the project without consent of the Lax Kw’alaams. That would be unfortunate.” – Mayor Gary Reece

According to Global News, Premier Christy Clark feels an agreement with the Nation will eventually be reached, citing its existing pipeline-benefits agreements with 28 other B.C. First Nations. 

While Mayor Reece and the 12 elected councillors of the Lax Kw’alaams make the final decision on Petronas’ proposal, the message from their constituents will be hard to ignore. 

In the meantime, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is expected to decide the fate of the project by October, 2015.

If approved, Petronas plans to begin operation in 2019. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

Abundant, cheap fossil fuels have driven explosive technological, industrial and economic expansion for more than a century. The pervasive infrastructure developed to accommodate this growth makes it difficult to contemplate rapidly shifting away from coal, oil and gas, which creates a psychological barrier to rational discourse on energy issues.

The ecological and true economic costs of energy use force us to scrutinize our way of living. And because our infrastructure doesn’t allow us to entirely avoid fossil fuels, we must face the contradiction between how we should live and constraints against doing so.

Canada has no national energy plan, other than governmental desire to be a fossil-fuelled energy-export superpower. Given the consequences of human-induced climate change already hitting home, you’d think the highest priority of governments at all levels would be to decide on the lowest-emission energy path. But politicians focused on election intervals have difficulty dealing with generational issues.

Real, important conversations and decisions are instead delayed by diversionary and often irrational arguments and tactics: accusing critics of being hypocrites, claiming foreign money drives environmental agendas and labelling activists as eco-terrorists or enemies of Canada among them. In place of true progress, we get consolidated political power and greater corporate profit and control. Enough already!

Sustainability requires conservation and abundant energy employed with minimal ecological upset. Yet the inability to consider the need to shift quickly from fossil fuels means governments and industry look to mega-technologies like carbon capture and storage to justify inaction on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while dismissing solar and wind as impractical, too expensive or unable to meet energy needs. Nuclear power may be an alternative to GHG-emitting fossil fuels, but it’s extremely expensive and would not be online were it not for enormous subsidies. Nuclear fuel is also finite, so costs will rise while the problem of radioactive-waste disposal remains unsolved.

As a northern country, Canada is especially vulnerable to climate change. Polar regions heat faster than temperate and tropical zones — Inuit have noticed the growing impacts for decades. With the longest marine coastline of any country, we’re also subject to sea-level rise. And our economy relies on climate-dependent activities such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism and winter sports, all of which are already feeling climate change impacts.

Where is the political leadership and will to confront climate change? We’re seeing some from individuals, grassroots organizations and municipalities. But what about our provinces? Just as the catastrophic loss of northern cod off Newfoundland warned against unsustainable practices, the destruction of $65 billion worth of B.C. trees by mountain pine beetles — once kept under control by winters with temperatures below -30 C for a week or more — should make the province take notice.

Where’s the leadership? Once lauded for policies such as the carbon tax and energy agreements with California, B.C.’s political leaders have now embraced liquefied natural gas, claiming industry expansion will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and add billions of dollars to provincial coffers — never mind that no one in power now will be held accountable for these promises because they’re several elections from being realized.

LNG should be labelled LFG: liquefied fracked gas. Hydraulic fracturing — fracking — requires pumping millions of litres of chemical-laced water deep underground to shatter shale and liberate embedded gas. It’s a short-term way to get energy with long-term ecological impacts on water and whatever organisms might be down there. (It was once thought life disappeared at bedrock, but we now know bacteria are found at least 10 kilometres down.)

Fracked gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Studies reveal leakage around fracking sites may be high enough to affect climate change more than coal! Calling it a “transition fuel” between coal or oil and renewables is nonsense. And fracking is known to cause seismic activity.

B.C. is also planning the Peace River Site C dam, yet a report by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association claims geothermal could generate similar amounts of power at a much lower cost.

If our leaders are serious about long-term health and prosperity, they need to stop focusing on short-term profits from rapid fossil fuel development and export and start engaging in serious conversations about our energy future.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image credit: People chatting via Shutterstock.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last year B.C. joined Washington State, Oregon and California in an effort to limit the causes and effects of climate change. A new poll released today shows British Columbians are eager to see the government keep its commitments under the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy.

The climate plan was designed to respond to “the clear and convincing scientific evidence of climate change, ocean acidification and other impacts from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threaten our people, our economy and our natural resources.”

The plan was signed in 2013, with little fanfare. Yet, residents of B.C. strongly support the initiative, and the government’s commitments to limit carbon pollution.

But with the B.C. government’s big ambitions to develop and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), there appears to be a conflict brewing within the province’s own objectives.

Today’s poll, commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) was conducted by Strategic Communications and shows British Columbians want to prioritize five things:

1.     Transition to energy efficient buildings (91%)

2.     Hit our climate targets (89%)

3.     Maintain low-carbon fuel standard (88%)

4.     Increase electric vehicles in government and company fleets (82%), and

5.     Continue the carbon tax (69%)

So far B.C. has been successful at limiting its carbon emissions. The province has a commitment to limit emissions 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below by 2050.

In 2012 the province met its interim goal of being 6 per cent below 2007 levels. The next interim goal comes up in 2016, when the province plans to be 18 per cent below 2007 levels.

But, given the province’s massive push to develop its natural gas resources and build several LNG facilities to liquefy and export the gas to Asia, experts are concerned B.C. may be in danger of failing to meet those targets.

B.C.’s failed ‘clean’ LNG promise

The B.C. Liberal government has made the development of the province’s natural gas deposits and the export of LNG a strong part of its clean energy platform.

In 2010 the province committed to having one LNG plant in operation by 2015 and three more to follow by 2020. Initially the government pledged to have these plants run on clean energy, but has since exempted LNG plants from this requirement, confusing exactly what ‘clean’ LNG might mean.

In 2012 Premier Christy Clark promised to deliver “the cleanest LNG in the world” at the World Economic Forum in China. Within a year she clarified that her “cleanest” standards would only apply to LNG facilities, and not the extraction of gas via fracking or transmission of the resource to production plants.

Then recently Rich Coleman, the provincial minister responsible for natural gas development, told the Globe and Mail the B.C. government would now only be measuring B.C.’s LNG facilities against other facilities, meaning the “cleanest” LNG in the world only has to out-perform previously existing plants to meet the province’s standards.

Coleman also dismissed the previous goal of running LNG plants on clean energy, saying “the cost to deliver the power would be so expensive that it would be ridiculous to make the investment.”

Clean Energy Canada, however, would disagree. The group recently commissioned a feasibility study to determine the reliability and affordability of regionally sourced renewable power for B.C.’s LNG development.

They found “any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule – using established commercial technologies.”

Further, they found “doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”

Kevin Sauvé from the Pembina Institute confirmed that B.C.’s LNG ambitions stand in conflict with its own climate targets: “Multiple analyses have shown that B.C. targets are not achievable if three LNG terminals are developed by 2020, as the government intends.”

“This highlights a tension between public opinion and current government priorities, and is something that government should address as it develops its LNG regulations and the next phase of the Climate Action Plan,” Sauvé told DeSmog Canada.

There are a total of 14 proposed LNG facilities for the central coast of B.C.

As DeSmog Canada previously reported, the gas industry is seriously underreporting fugitive methane emissions – a reporting error that threatens B.C.’s ability to meet its own targets under the Climate Action Plan.

Using standard industry fugitive emissions rates, B.C. natural gas production emissions are likely 25 per cent higher than reported.

Another poll, commissioned by the same three groups and released in April of this year, found 78 per cent of British Columbians want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to make the transition to using cleaner sources of energy.

“Given British Columbians desire to see the province transition away from both using and exporting fossil fuels, a wholesale push for LNG does not make sense for B.C.,” Sauvé said.

“Particularly given that the government’s current plans for developing LNG will make it impossible for the province to hit its climate targets.” 

Climate action and a strong economy

An analysis from the group Sustainable Prosperity shows B.C.’s carbon tax is both an “environmental and economic success story.”

The carbon tax, according to Sustainable Prosperity, has been remarkably good at limiting fuel use since it was introduced in 2008. And there have been no adverse impacts on the B.C. economy to speak of.

While B.C. reduced its fuel consumption by 17.4 per cent, its GDP kept pace with the rest of Canada.

Stewart Elgie, professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa and the report’s lead author said, “B.C.’s experience shows that it is possible to have both a healthier environment and a strong economy – by taxing pollution and lowering income taxes.”

Another new report from PICS shows that, despite the government’s decision to exempt the agricultural sector from the carbon tax, there is “little evidence that the carbon tax was associated with any statistically significant effects on agricultural trade or competitiveness.”

Even in areas where the carbon tax was assumed to have negative impacts, there appears to be little damage done.

“The first phase of BC’s climate action plan has been an environmental and economic success,” Sauvé said, “and now is the time to build on it.”

“Government needs to lay out a road map for how we will meet our 2020 climate target as part of the second phase of its Climate Action Plan. Following through on the commitments it’s made in the Pacific Coast Action Plan would be a good start, particularly as those commitments appear to be popular with British Columbians.” 

Image Credit: Rich Coleman speaks at the B.C. LNG Conference. Photo by the Province of B.C. via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.