This investigation is a collaboration between The Narwhal and Point Source, a U.K.-based investigative journalism organization.

LNG Canada told the BC Energy Regulator its Kitimat, B.C., gas export facility was likely to emit black smoke continuously for multiple days, a warning that came ahead of key environmental permits being granted, according to recently released documents.

The new documents, obtained by The Narwhal and U.K.-based investigative journalism organization Point Source through freedom of information legislation, raise questions over whether the regulator should have sought more assurances about measures to stop this kind of pollution before permits were granted.

Summary

• LNG Canada has been emitting more black smoke than originally planned and some Kitimat, B.C., residents are concerned.
• Black smoke can indicate gas is not burning efficiently, releasing higher levels of toxic pollutants, according to one expert.
• The BC Energy Regulator knew about the smoke ahead of giving the project approvals but has now ordered LNG Canada to make changes.

In July 2022, LNG Canada — a consortium of five foreign-owned companies led by Shell — submitted a document to the provincial government outlining its expectations around black smoke emissions.

“Given the unpredictable nature of these types of events, it is not possible to give a frequency of them occurring although an estimate is provided,” the consortium wrote. 

The colour of black smoke is caused by a concentration of particulates and unburned fuels, which is toxic. The estimate provided to the regulator said black smoke would be emitted at the facility for between 15 and 60 minutes one to three times per year prior to the facility completing 200 shipments. LNG Canada sent its 100th shipment in mid-June, nearly one year after its first. It also estimated slightly less dark smoke would be emitted continuously from the facility for between five and 15 days on four to six occasions in the first year

Despite this information, the regulator issued LNG Canada a facility permit requiring that black smoke not be continuously emitted for more than 15 minutes. The company committed to that limit, but has failed to keep to it.

On Jan. 6 2026, the export terminal emitted black smoke emissions during non-emergency conditions for more than seven hours. The next day, it emitted black smoke for over two hours. 

In April, the BC Energy Regulator told LNG Canada to identify the root cause of black smoke emissions during flaring at its facility in Kitimat, and implement a fix by October.

In late June, the regulator instituted new requirements, including mandated reporting of instances of black smoke emissions.

A spokesperson with the regulator said the facility’s permit “contains clear statutory requirements regarding black smoke emissions designed to minimize air pollutants to protect public safety and the environment.” 

“When our oversight activities identify non-compliances, such as in this case, we can place additional requirements (e.g., having to report black smoke) on permit holders,” the spokesperson noted in an emailed statement.

Black smoke from the flare stack of a LNG facility usually indicates that gas from the facility is not being burned off in an efficient manner and higher levels of toxic pollutants are being released, according to Tim Doty, a former oil and gas inspector with the Texas state government.

“The black smoke that can be visually seen being emitted from the flare is soot, basically,” Doty said in an interview. “In theory, flares are designed to burn in an efficient way that doesn’t produce this black smoke.”

According to the regulator’s reply to detailed questions, LNG Canada’s new requirements as of June include:

• Report to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER) all instances of black smoke that exceeds 15 minutes in duration and provide operational details concurrent with such instances;   
• By Aug. 15, 2026, submit a report completed by a qualified professional to the BCER that identifies the root causes of the emission of black smoke and measures to prevent the emission of black smoke; 
• By October 15, 2026, identify and implement measures to prevent the emission of black smoke based on the root cause analysis as required by the report; 
• For the months of October 2026 to March 2027, submit a monthly report to the energy regulator BCER completed by a qualified professional that assesses the effectiveness of the measures implemented .

‘I want to have a family’: community members concerned about potential health impacts

For some community members, the black smoke and presence of other potential pollutants are a source of great concern. 

The Narwhal and Point Source spoke to a young resident who we are calling Avery Sutherland, to keep her name confidential and protect her identity. Kitimat is a small town where LNG Canada is a significant employer and a major donor to local causes, and criticism is often seen as a threat to that.

Avery Sutherland said she tried on multiple occasions to get answers to questions about potential health concerns, but LNG Canada representatives would not respond.

“As a young person, I want to have a family,” she said in an interview. “There’s been a lot of back and forth I’ve seen over the last couple of years at different talks that LNG [Canada] gives, where they refuse to directly acknowledge the studies that have been done on the impacts of flaring on women who are pregnant and their children, and how that often leads to like more birth complications and more premature births.”

In response to questions about this, the regulator spokesperson said: “It is important to note for the benefit of residents of Kitimat that air quality measurements in the Kitimat Valley have remained below B.C. Ambient Air Quality Objectives since LNG Canada received its air discharge permit.”

But some critics claim the air quality monitoring program is insufficient.

“The current ambient air pollution monitoring is not sufficient to get a real handle on what the health implications are for the people that are living close to this facility,” Tracey Saxby, executive director of environmental non-profit, My Sea to Sky, said in an interview. “When you dig into the data you realize that there aren’t enough sensors, they aren’t gathering data in the right places and not enough of the sensors are continually operating.” 

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has said the facility’s flaring activity has exposed residents to “health-harming chemicals, including black carbon and benzene.”

“They are not consistently monitoring for some of the most harmful pollutants, like benzene,” Saxby said. “These are big monitoring gaps.” Health Canada has labelled benzene a known carcinogen since 1993.

In 2024, the U.S.-based Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice published a report highlighting how LNG export facilities degrade air quality by releasing pollutants known to cause respiratory illnesses, cancer and birth defects from prolonged exposure.

Scientific studies have shown that burning gas also releases other toxic pollutants as a result of incomplete combustion, such as volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fine soot particles, which are directly associated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and risks to fetal development.

“When you see this kind of pollution, it’s a sign that the flare isn’t being operated correctly and usually that comes with a lot of other emissions that are actively being released that are not visible to the naked eye,” Doty explained.

“It’s likely that the real world pollution levels are far worse than the picture painted by the current data,” Saxby said. “Even though the existing data is very sparse, it shows worrying spikes in benzene levels that raise a lot of questions about the health impacts from the LNG Canada facility.”

As The Narwhal and Point Source recently reported, LNG Canada originally told the regulator it would operate its facility without routine flaring — and then quietly removed this commitment months before commissioning. 

Sutherland wishes the consortium that owns LNG Canada was more forthcoming with information. Its presence in the community has been divisive for as long as the facility has been in development, which means for young residents like herself, it’s been a factious issue for most of their lives. 

“When I was growing up, there were schoolyard and classroom arguments about this since as long as I can remember,” she said of the facility, which was proposed in 2013.

James Smith, another Kitimat resident whose name has been changed to protect his privacy, worked at the plant during construction. He said while he was expecting problems to occur at the facility, he didn’t predict the scale of the impacts. 

“I wasn’t expecting the black smoke,” he said. 

Smith said he’s experienced excessive noise and bad smells at his house since the facility started operations and on multiple occasions found his yard covered in a thin film of black residue.

Doty said the ongoing problems suggest to him the facility’s problem with its flare tip could be causing the black smoke.

“Flares like this should be operating with about 98 per cent combustion efficiency, but there is no way that the flare is operating with anything close to that efficiency,” he said. “If there’s too much pressure going to it, you’re never going to get things to combust properly — and that seems to be what is happening at LNG Canada.” 

In response to questions from The Narwhal and Point Source, the regulator spokesperson noted: “The causes of the black smoke events have not yet been definitively determined.” 

‘Truly massive’ invisible emissions

On top of the elevated levels of flaring at the LNG Canada export terminal, there are increasing concerns about the facility routinely releasing natural gas into the atmosphere.

Natural gas is mostly composed of methane, which is an invisible, odorless and an extremely potent greenhouse gas. When released directly into the atmosphere it is 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for its short-term warming impact on the climate.

“If people could actually see the invisible emissions that are being released from the LNG Canada facility that are detectable with an optical gas imaging camera, it would really blow them away,” Doty said. He monitored emissions at the Kitimat facility with a camera.“The emissions that could not be seen with the bare eye were shocking. They were truly massive.”

Doty said the emissions — both visible and invisible — could have “very negative health implications for nearby communities and downwind receptors.” 

“If I was living nearby, I would be very concerned, and I would want the plant shut down, at least in the short term, while it is re-engineered,” he said. He noted the unburned gas could contain volatile organic compounds such as benzene and butane, in addition to the climate-warming methane.

“At the moment, the program to monitor ambient air pollution in the area isn’t effective and doesn’t have enough monitors in place to truly calculate how air quality is being impacted,” he said.

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.

Summary

• Internal documents show LNG Canada’s original plans for the project included a commitment that operations would not include routine flaring. 
• While LNG Canada and the B.C. government have promoted the site as an environmental leader, the facility burned about 350 million cubic metres of gas in its first year of operation.
• LNG Canada did not directly respond to questions about the removal of the commitments and said it is currently working to “reduce flaring and progress toward steady, long-term operations.”

This story is a collaboration between The Narwhal and Point Source, a U.K.-based investigative journalism organization.

LNG Canada, the country’s first major liquefied natural gas export facility on B.C.’s West Coast, has made international headlines over the past year — for burning off the gas it should have been exporting. 

An issue with one of the facility’s flare stacks has caused the plant to burn off extra gas since starting up in late 2024. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

Early versions of LNG Canada’s operational plans included detailed environmental commitments — and a promise the Kitimat, B.C., plant would operate “without routine flaring.”

In 2019, the consortium of five foreign-owned companies behind the multi-billion-dollar project told the BC Energy Regulator its massive gas liquefaction and export facility would have minimum disturbance to the local community, assuring the provincial government the plant would be built to specifications that would ensure flaring — the burning of unused gas — would only need to be done in extraordinary circumstances. 

These promises appeared in multiple versions of regulatory reports submitted to the B.C. government. Six versions of the reports — drafts of LNG Canada’s flaring management plans marked as “restricted” — were included in hundreds of pages of government documents obtained by The Narwhal and UK-based investigative journalism outlet Point Source. 

In November 2023, the commitments vanished from the latest drafts — and remained absent from all subsequent drafts and the final version. The removal of commitments close to completion raises fresh questions about whether potential problems during construction may have led the company to downgrade its environmental targets.

A few months later, the mega-project started its commissioning process. Then came the flaring.

As The Narwhal and Point Source previously reported, LNG Canada burned approximately 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, making it one of the most polluting LNG facilities in the world. Some unplanned flaring events included multiple occurrences of flames reaching heights of 90 metres, roughly as tall as London’s Big Ben, along with plumes of black smoke settling over the community. 

“The fact that LNG Canada showed the regulator multiple draft documents which all said that the facility would not flare on a routine basis was beyond misleading,” Tim Doty, a former state oil and gas inspector from Texas, said in an interview. “This was totally false information.”

During his tenure with the Texas government, Doty managed thousands of air quality monitoring projects as part of environmental assessments of industrial facilities. He’s now a consultant who works on behalf of companies and organizations to assess and monitor emissions at oil and gas facilities around the globe. 

Unnecessary flaring of gas essentially wastes the resource — and creates carbon pollution.

Even after LNG Canada quietly dropped its planned commitment to operate without routine flaring, stakeholders continued to tout its environmental credentials. In June 2025, Shell CEO Wael Sawan said LNG Canada would be “one of the lowest-carbon [LNG] projects anywhere in the world,” speaking at the Energy Asia conference in Malaysia. 

B.C. Premier David Eby echoed the claim in July that year, saying gas processed at the Kitimat terminal is the “lowest-carbon LNG in the world.”

Many experts now say these claims were fundamentally untrue.

Christopher Doleman, an LNG and gas specialist at the U.S.-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the volume of flaring at the facility “undermines claims being made” about low-carbon LNG.

“Statements that have been made by officials saying that the LNG is the cleanest in the world now seem to be completely untrue,” he previously told The Narwhal.

The premier’s office did not reply to a request for an interview, referring questions to the Energy Ministry, which acknowledged it received the questions but ultimately did not respond.

LNG Canada did not directly respond to questions about the removal of the commitments and said it is currently working to “reduce flaring and progress toward steady, long-term operations.”

‘An extremely big polluter’: former oil and gas inspector

LNG Canada flared a minimum of 127,900 cubic metres of gas every day in 2025, with the daily average being much higher: almost one million cubic metres. Government data show 3,648 million cubic metres of gas were sent to the facility last year via the Coastal GasLink pipeline, meaning almost 10 per cent of all gas transported to the terminal was burned off without being used for power or exported.

The average household in Canada consumed around 2,216 cubic metres of natural gas in 2024, according to the Canadian Gas Association. That means LNG Canada burned off the equivalent amount of gas that could have provided energy to 157,942 homes.

Yet, LNG Canada’s documents submitted to the provincial government claim environmental excellence. 

“LNG Canada’s ‘commitment and policy on health, safety, security, environment and social performance’ focuses on ways to avoid and minimize negative environmental and social impacts resulting from our operations and enhance the positive impacts in a systematic manner,” the early documents noted.

Doty said regulatory plans for LNG facilities are often subject to multiple revisions by the government regulator. 

“It is normal for there to be a bit of back and forth between the operator and the regulator when documents are being prepared that are associated with operating permits which allow the company to release pollution,” he explained. “However, it does seem strange that these documents contained these environmental pledges that were later scrapped entirely.”

The BC Energy Regulator told The Narwhal and Point Source the early versions of the reports “included commitments and commentary that were outside of the intended scope of the report and not consistent with the design of their facility.”

“Routine flaring is authorized for specific purposes, including pilot systems, continuous purge systems, passing valves, manual sampling systems and online process analyzers,” a regulator spokesperson explained in a detailed response to questions.

Doty questioned whether the designs were ever intended for a facility that would operate without routine flaring or if something happened while building the plant. 

“You can see from the way that this facility was designed that there was always supposed to be some kind of combustion going on — and with that comes emissions,” he said, adding additional problems may have occurred early in the commissioning process.

The regulator spokesperson disagreed with the theory that the plant was designed for high rates of flaring. 

“The [BC Energy Regulator’s] reviews of the facility and LNG Canada’s submissions during design and construction … did not identify factors that would have contributed to increased flaring rates during operation,” the spokesperson noted.

James Smith, a Kitimat community member whose name has been changed to protect his family from potential repercussions, worked on the project during construction. He said he witnessed numerous problems on the job site, ultimately leading him to quit.

“They cut corners: it was about timelines and money,” he said. “They knew even before the flare arrived, before they started building it, that it wasn’t going to work. That was the word on the ground.”

The Narwhal could not independently verify Smith’s claims, and LNG Canada did not respond to questions about alleged problems during construction. 

In January, The Narwhal revealed an “integrity issue” with the facility’s flaring equipment resulted in LNG Canada burning significantly more gas than expected — and discovered it could take three to five years to fix.

The issue was identified shortly after the LNG plant started testing its equipment in late 2024, if not before, but the government regulator did not learn about the problem until April 2025.

“I’ve been assessing and monitoring facilities in the oil and gas sector for more than 30 years, and I can tell you that LNG Canada is an extremely big polluter,” Doty said. “In my opinion, it should not be allowed to operate with such excessive emission levels.”

The facility is currently operating with a cracked flare tip as well as several leaking valves, according to previous reporting from The Narwhal and technical reports since the issue was identified. A flare tip, which sits at the top of the flare stack, helps ensure the safe combustion of the gas.

The technical problems have increased the risk of flames from flares retreating back into the system’s pipes and causing an explosion. To stop this from happening, LNG Canada has substantially increased the gas flows to all of the facility’s flares.

“A replacement flare tip is currently being installed,” a spokesperson for the consortium wrote in an emailed statement. “While the replacement is expected to improve flare tip integrity, a longer-term redesigned tip is being developed.”

LNG Canada wants the B.C. government to let it increase flaring tenfold

Earlier this year, LNG Canada revealed it was planning to ask the B.C. regulator to increase its flaring limit tenfold for the next three years. The company’s deputy chief operating officer, Teresa Waddington, disclosed the plans during a Kitimat council meeting in March and at a recent presentation to Kitimat residents.

If approved, the new limit would allow the company to continually flare up to 300 tonnes of gas per day, an increase from its current limit of 28 tonnes per day. The company said the new, more permissive flaring limit would help accommodate operational problems which have led to higher-than-anticipated flaring volumes.

LNG Canada told The Narwhal and Point Source the proposed amendment is “not expected to materially increase emissions in the local air shed.”

“The original … authorization was based on long-term, stable operating conditions and did not reflect the higher flaring volumes typically seen during start-up and early operations at an LNG facility,” the spokesperson wrote. “LNG Canada is requesting a temporary, three-year provision that reflects overall flaring during the early operations period.”

However, flare tips are large and complex pieces of equipment and can take more than a year to procure, according to Waddington. As a result, she said LNG Canada wants to keep purging extra gas to prevent the flames from spreading downward into the pipes, likely until 2028.

“LNG Canada has said that it’s going to take three years to replace the flare [tip], but I can tell you that it doesn’t take three years to replace a flare [tip] like this,” Doty said. “The plant should be shut down. It should be properly repaired and engineered and then started back up again.”

Tracey Saxby, a marine scientist and executive director of non-profit environmental organization My Sea to Sky, worries LNG Canada is setting a precedent that other liquefaction and export facilities will follow.

“Woodfibre LNG in Squamish has estimated that flaring during startup will last for one month, with intermittent flare events of three to four days,” she said in an interview. “After that, during regular operations, they are saying they will only flare three per cent of the time, which is 11 days a year. But after what we have seen at LNG Canada and other facilities worldwide, this seems unrealistic.”

She said the excessive flaring at LNG Canada held against its previously stated commitments demonstrates there is “nothing anyone can do if the operator of one of these facilities breaks its promises about pollution.”

The regulator said it is “actively overseeing LNG Canada’s progress on short-term and long-term corrective actions and measures to reduce flaring from all facility flare systems.” 

“[BC Energy Regulator] technical experts review flaring and air contaminant discharge information submitted by LNG Canada, conduct inspections and take compliance actions where required,” the spokesperson noted, adding an “investigation into potential non-compliances is ongoing.”Updated on July 31, 2026, at 5:39 a.m. PT: This story has been updated to correct a statement that the BC Energy Regulator has promoted the LNG Canada facility as an environmental leader. It is the B.C. government that has made that claim.

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.

Summary

• B.C. is preparing to overhaul its natural gas royalty system, which determines how much revenue the government earns from the industry, by 2027.
• The government is promising a better return for taxpayers while industry warns higher rates could drive investment to Alberta.
• The debate comes as some advocates argue B.C. should collect more from gas companies who are using public lands for profit.

As B.C. readies to change what it charges fossil fuel companies extracting natural gas from public lands, industry supporters are pushing back.

B.C. has been eyeing changes to its natural gas royalty structure since 2021 when an independent assessment found the existing system needed a complete overhaul. The old system was “contributing to or possibly overcompensating” for the costs of developing oil and gas in B.C., the assessment concluded, which hugely reduced royalties returned to the public.

Details on how the new framework will increase royalties have yet to be released.

According to BC Conservative Labour critic Kiel Giddens, it risks “chasing away investment potential.” He raised the issue in the legislature on the final day of the spring sitting, saying if B.C.’s new royalties are too high, gas producers could move their operations to Alberta.

“There is a real risk that we could actually lose revenue if we’re not competitive,” Giddens told reporters.

Green Party MLA Jeremy Valeriote had a different take. 

“If Alberta wants to sell off their public resources for a song, then we should let them,” he told reporters at the legislature. “We should be standing up for competitiveness in terms of getting the most out of our resources.”

Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix is confident the new royalty system will strike a better balance for both the industry and British Columbians.

“To ensure a fair return … but also a situation where the industry can prosper and invest — those are my two goals in the process,” Dix said.

The new royalty system is emerging alongside B.C.’s burgeoning liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. LNG Canada, the first production facility to begin operating in B.C., began shipping its product to Asian markets last year — although the facility has experienced equipment issues that have reduced its production capacity. The B.C. and Canadian governments are eagerly anticipating a final investment decision on Phase 2 of the facility, which will double its capacity to 14 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Meanwhile, three other B.C.-based LNG projects are moving toward being operational before 2030. Together, these LNG production facilities will create a significant boom in gas demand, one the industry is keen to capitalize on.

On April 9, Dix sent a letter to industry stakeholders, as originally reported by DOB Energy. The letter, obtained by The Narwhal after Dix’s ministry refused to provide a copy, acknowledged the feedback included several key themes, such as “the need for reliable B.C. gas supply to underpin existing and future LNG projects.”

Dix also emphasized the government’s commitment to “the growth of LNG as a cornerstone of B.C.’s economic strategy.” 

“A strong, investable upstream sector is essential to realizing this opportunity,” he wrote.

How much revenue does B.C. earn from royalties? Probably less than you think

The new royalty system is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, following years of consultations with the industry and First Nations, as well as members of the public.

Royalties are supposed to give British Columbians a share of the profits that private companies earn by pumping oil and gas from public lands. B.C.’s previous royalty regime was criticized on that front because it offered companies a generous suite of credits that could reduce their royalty payments.

In 2022, B.C. announced the end of several of those credits, including the deep well credit, which former Premier John Horgan described as “the largest fossil-fuel subsidy in British Columbia.” 

At that point, the province had given away more than $7 billion in credits to oil and gas producers, with $3.75 billion of those still on the books. Companies are able to use those credits to reduce the royalties they would otherwise pay; money that would have gone into the provincial budget to fund other initiatives. (As of last month, companies had yet to claim about $600 million in credits, according to Dix.)The billions in credits contrast with the revenue B.C. actually collects from natural gas producers. Budget documents show B.C. has collected $5 billion in royalty revenue from gas producers since 2019, nearly half of that in 2022. This year, the province expects to collect $942 million in royalty revenue — less than it projects the BC Lottery Corporation will earn. Next year, royalty revenue is expected to hit $1.6 billion, driven by higher natural gas production.

“I think the dirty little secret of oil and gas is that they don’t contribute a ton in taxes,” Sven Biggs, Stand.earth’s Canadian oil and gas programs director, said. “There is not tons of economic activity actually connected to this [industry].”

The majority of B.C.’s oil and gas operations are concentrated in the northeast, where agricultural fields are criss-crossed by pipelines and studded with well pads. Oil and gas is a way of life for many Peace Region residents but it also comes with downsides. Fracking operations use huge amounts of water to extract gas from the ground, a process that can also leak gas and chemicals into the air and water. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has called for the B.C. and federal governments to fund a health impact assessment of the LNG sector to assess links between the industry’s activities and “asthma, heart disease, birth defects, childhood leukemia, neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases like autism and Alzheimer’s.”

Beyond royalties, Biggs argues B.C. should also be seeking to recoup the cost of the industry’s environmental and potential health impacts.

“All of those costs get passed on to us if they are not paying,” he said. “Technically this gas belongs to British Columbia — it’s a Crown resource and we are licensing it to these extraction companies.”

Complaints about competitiveness ‘a smokescreen,’ advocate says

The new system the province is proposing would take into account the money companies invest in their B.C. operations, as well as the money those operations make, called a revenue minus cost system. This approach is “globally recognized for maximizing economic values,” according to a B.C. government website.

Adopting a revenue minus cost system would bring B.C. into alignment with other gas-producing places, including Alberta, notes Werner Antweiler, an economics professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

When the province began reviewing the royalty regime, the plan was to capture “50 per cent of profits after production costs are accounted for” — a pretty standard split in other jurisdictions, according to Antweiler.

“When you calculate revenue minus cost, revenue is pretty simple [because] you can see what the market pays,” Antweiler said. “The cost, that’s a different thing. … Anything that’s increasing costs will reduce profits and will lower the royalty. So one of the key questions that I have is to what extent are we calculating costs the same way as other jurisdictions?”

Depending on how costs are calculated, companies may pay only 30 or 40 per cent of their profits to governments in royalties, Antweiler said.

As for BC Conservative Labour critic Giddens’ warning about companies moving to Alberta, Biggs said those warnings are “a smoke screen from the industry.” He noted gas companies have been investing in B.C. for years — a trend partly sparked when Alberta implemented a new royalty regime in 2016.

“I don’t see a way that they can walk away from those at this point,” he said. “It would be a huge write-down. Alberta could produce more gas — hypothetically, but not really enough to meet the kind of demand we’re talking about.”

However, Biggs worries that governments remain susceptible to threats that an entire industry will “pack up and leave town and blame the administration for the lack of investment.”

“It works very well on them every time,” he said.

Years ago, when B.C. was working to lure gas companies to set up shop in the province, offering competitive royalty rates was a key advantage, Antweiler said.

“As the industry has matured, there’s really no reason to continue treating them better than their peers in Alberta.”

‘No decision has been made yet’ on B.C.’s new natural gas royalty regime

Industry priorities have already prompted the government to back down on a couple of proposed royalty scenarios, as Dix’s April letter shows.

“The province will not be advancing the Transition-Plus or Enhanced Return royalty curve scenarios further,” Dix wrote in the letter. “We acknowledge the concerns raised about the magnitude of change associated with those scenarios and the uncertainty they could introduce at this stage. Any further scenarios will consider your feedback as we work to align with the objectives of the new royalty framework.”

The Energy Ministry did not respond to The Narwhal’s questions about the letter, including a request for a description of the Transition-Plus and Enhanced Return scenarios.

Antweiler noted the two scenarios are similar to interim royalty rates outlined in 2022 under which companies pay higher royalties when gas prices are high and lower rates kick in when prices drop. The revenue minus cost system is simpler, he said, and could still give B.C. a good rate of return, depending on how it is designed

“It makes sense to me to move away from just an update of the existing system and to something that’s really robust and economically cohesive,” he said. “That’s exactly what other jurisdictions — like Alberta — are doing.”

Antweiler hasn’t seen the specific rate scenarios the province has been discussing with industry stakeholders. Those are covered by non-disclosure agreements, as Giddens pointed out to reporters.

Dix said non-disclosure agreements, known as NDAs, are a standard part of government consultations with both First Nations and industry stakeholders.

“The energy companies provide information to us about the impact of different possible royalty regimes and differences that are obviously commercially sensitive, so that’s done under NDA,” Dix said. “We put forward different proposals and asked them to comment on different potential proposals, just to see what the impact is on different companies.”

“I think that’s really irresponsible,” the Green Party’s Valeriote said of the government’s apparent concession on the two royalty scenarios. “I think we should be extracting the most value for the B.C. public out of these public resources, and caving into lobbyists and others who want to make it easier to make big profits, it’s just not good public policy.”

“No decision has been made,” Dix said when asked about the letter in the legislature on May 28.

“A lot of work has gone into the process and now we’re in the consultation stage,” he added. “This included extensive consultation with Treaty 8 First Nations and with energy companies.”

The minister told reporters he hopes to have a final decision on the new natural gas royalties later in June.

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 investigation is a collaboration between The Narwhal and Point Source, a U.K.-based investigative journalism organization.

Summary

• LNG Canada burned 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, more than the estimated highest source of LNG flaring emissions in the world in 2024.
• The high levels of flaring call into question environmental claims made about the facility, which government officials have repeatedly said produces the cleanest LNG in the world. 
• Ongoing problems at the plant, which hopes to double production by building a second phase, could persist for three to five years.

An LNG facility in Western Canada burned more gas in 2025 than any other liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on record in 2024, raising concerns about Canada’s claim it’s producing the cleanest LNG in the world. 

Burning excess methane gas, or flaring, is a normal safety procedure at liquefaction facilities. It releases greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide as well as emitting dangerous pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and small particulate matter, which affect human health. The LNG Canada facility in British Columbia flared 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, according to figures submitted to the provincial regulator and analyzed by The Narwhal in partnership with U.K.-based journalism organization Point Source. That means Canada’s first major LNG facility is one of the highest sources of LNG flaring emissions globally.

The flaring volumes reported by LNG Canada to the regulator are around 50 per cent higher than estimates for the world’s most polluting LNG export terminals in 2024, according to data that was used as the basis for the World Bank’s most recent Global Gas Tracker report.

The data was published by the Earth Observation Group at the Colorado School of Mines, a research team that specializes in producing nighttime satellite imagery to track gas flaring.

According to the group’s estimates, Nigeria’s Bonny Island LNG terminal was the highest-flaring facility of 2024. It burned an estimated 234.4 million cubic metres of gas, closely followed by the Arzew-Bethioua terminal in Algeria, which burned 233 million cubic metres.

Global flaring data from LNG facilities operating in 2025 have not yet been published but the Canadian facility will be among the world’s top sources of flaring at LNG terminals, according to Mikhail Zhizhin, a researcher at the Payne Institute for Public Policy in Colorado. Zhizhin was instrumental in the development of technology to monitor gas flaring from space.

“If the flaring data that has been supplied by LNG Canada to the regulator is accurate, it puts the facility amongst the highest flaring LNG facilities in the world,” Zhizhin said in an interview.

In an emailed statement, LNG Canada attributed the flaring to the facility being at an early phase and said it will be infrequent during normal operations.

The high volume of flaring from the $40-billion Canada-based facility raises new questions about ongoing problems with some of the terminal’s key mechanical components — and concerns about what it could mean for the local community, Kitimat, B.C. 

According to government data, LNG Canada flared a minimum of 127,900 cubic metres of gas every day in 2025, with the daily average being much higher: almost one million cubic metres. The worst month for flaring was June 2025, when the facility burned almost 110 million cubic metres. The data show 3,648 million cubic metres of gas were sent to LNG Canada last year, meaning almost 10 per cent of all gas transported to the terminal was burned off without being used for power or exported.

“This is definitely high,” Christopher Doleman, an LNG and gas specialist at the U.S.-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said. “Proponents may argue that it is regular during commissioning, but the several instances of unplanned flaring by the company suggest that this is out of the ordinary.”

Some of those unplanned flaring events included flames reaching heights of 90 metres, roughly the size of London’s Big Ben, along with plumes of black smoke settling over the community.

The export plant sent its first shipment of LNG overseas on June 30, 2025.

Flaring at LNG Canada has consistently exceeded allowable amounts permitted by the provincial government. According to the regulator, LNG Canada — owned by Royal Dutch Shell, Petronas, Korea Gas, PetroChina and Mitsubishi — has been flaring at levels that are “not consistent” with government permits, meaning the facility has been breaking provincial regulations for several months.

In January, The Narwhal revealed an “integrity issue” with the facility’s flaring equipment resulted in LNG Canada burning significantly more gas than expected — and it could take three to five years to fix. The issue was identified shortly after the LNG plant started testing its equipment in late 2024, but the government regulator did not learn about the problem until April 2025. 

Company officials have since met with local politicians but have failed to provide the public with details of why the issue might take so long to fix.

LNG Canada declined to answer this question, though the spokesperson said “we continue to tune the equipment to real-world conditions.”

“In normal operations at LNG Canada flaring will be related to infrequent activities such as maintenance, planned turnarounds and facility upsets,” the spokesperson wrote.

‘Completely untrue’: experts question environmental claims about Canadian LNG

Analysts believe the high flaring levels at LNG Canada raise serious questions about environmental claims that have been made about the facility.

Last summer, the premier of British Columbia, David Eby, said gas processed at the Kitimat terminal is the “lowest-carbon LNG in the world.”

Discussing why energy-importing countries would benefit from purchasing fuel processed at the facility, he said: “They should be using Canadian LNG that’s produced ethically, that promotes environmental protection, as well as high-quality labour standards and safety standards.”

Shell CEO Wael Sawan similarly said last year that LNG Canada would be “one of the lowest carbon projects anywhere in the world.”

Speaking in India in March, Prime Minister Mark Carney said: “Canada is well-positioned to contribute as a reliable supplier of the world’s lowest-carbon, responsibly-produced LNG from our West Coast.” 

Eby declined an interview request and did not respond to questions about the current state of the facility. Shell did not respond to questions. Carney also declined an interview request and referred questions to the federal Energy Ministry, which did not respond by publication time.

Doleman said the new information calls these environmental claims into question. 

“This flaring data undermines the claims that are being made about the facility producing low-carbon LNG,” he said in an interview. “Statements that have been made by officials saying that the LNG is the cleanest in the world now seem to be completely untrue.”

LNG Canada said high levels of flaring are normal during the start-up phase of a project of this type. The spokesperson said air quality data recorded in Kitimat show levels of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide remained “consistently low” in 2025.

“LNG Canada continues to prioritize the safety of its people, the community and its assets, to support safe and responsible operations,” the spokesperson wrote.

There is significant uncertainty about the true volumes of global gas flaring due to the difficulty of measuring emissions via satellite. Recent research by the Colorado School of Mines has suggested the true levels of flaring from the world’s LNG facilities may be significantly higher than previously estimated, Zhizhin said.

The fact that LNG Canada flared a significant volume of gas every single day in 2025 is unusual, according to researchers. A peer-reviewed paper published last September found LNG terminals in a start-up phase have a 90 per cent chance of flaring less than six days a year and only a 10 per cent chance of flaring for as many as 255 days in a single year.

Laura Minet, lead author of the paper and head of the Clean Air Lab at the University of Victoria, in British Columbia, explained “the probabilities are based on what has been happening in other facilities around the world between 2012 and 2022.” She said the frequency of flaring at LNG Canada does not appear to be typical, especially compared to LNG facilities that have moved from commissioning into regular operations. But, she said, because companies around the world aren’t required to track how much gas is flared, getting accurate data can be challenging.

“The fact that LNG Canada is saying the technical issue is going to take three years to fix is concerning,” Minet added. “It raises questions over what is getting prioritized and where the likely environmental and health impacts from this pollution fit into those priorities.”

Doleman agreed.

“The operators and project proponents should tell people why this plant is flaring so much and tell them exactly how they are going to address this issue,” he said.

LNG markets subject to instability as U.S.-Israel war on Iran continues

The ongoing global energy crisis in the wake of the U.S.-Israel attacks on Iran in late February has seen the price of LNG more than double for some importers and led to windfall profits for some exporters. 

A second phase of the LNG Canada project, which would double output from the plant, was recently given federal support and placed on a list of projects deemed to be of national importance. The consortium of companies behind the facility are actively seeking investment in the expansion.

The U.S. is currently the world’s largest LNG exporter, followed by Australia and Qatar. Geopolitical instability caused by the war in the Middle East — which saw Qatar halt LNG production in March — could influence importing countries like South Korea and Japan as they balance energy needs.

However, the current wave of high prices could have lasting impacts on demand for LNG as importing nations look to cheaper alternatives, Doleman said. Recently, a planned LNG import terminal in China was cancelled by state-owned Sinopec, which reallocated its investments to the development of domestic gas reserves. In New Zealand, plans for an import terminal are being reconsidered as the country’s government weighs the financial risks. 

“The current high price environment is killing long-term demand for LNG around the world and it is going to be interesting to see how things pan out for the [Canadian] facility over the coming years,” Doleman said.

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.

For more than a year, LNG Canada has been troubleshooting problems with its flare stack in Kitimat, B.C. As The Narwhal reported, an “integrity issue” at the plant meant LNG Canada burned significantly more gas than expected, leading to increased noise and emissions for months on end. The problem could take up to three years to fix.

“It pisses me off — but it’s no surprise,” said James Smith, a community member whose name has been changed to protect his family from potential repercussions. “And it makes me say: ‘Okay, so what do we do about it now? How do we correct this?’ ”

Smith said he feels a sense of relief now the truth has come to light, because people have accused him of “being insane or being alarmist” whenever he complained about the noise.

“I can’t take a shit in my bathroom without my Apple Watch telling me I need hearing protection,” he said. “That’s a problem.”

It’s not just noise polluting the northwest B.C. community, however. 

LNG Canada, a consortium of companies led by multinational Shell, has been consistently flaring more than 15 times the amount of gas it would need to burn if its equipment was working as designed. Provincial data provided to The Narwhal shows the facility burned an average of 205,000 cubic metres per day between July 1 and Nov. 30, 2025. It was expected to only need to burn around 11,000 cubic metres per day.

“All I know is what I see every day: big clouds of black smoke floating over my house and flares keeping my backyard lit up all night long,” Kitimat resident Chris Godfrey told The Narwhal, adding he’s curious what LNG Canada will do now the data is public. “I don’t know what the people of Kitimat can do. They can sit and bitch about it and whine about it, but there’s nothing really we can do.”

District of Kitimat Mayor Phil Germuth said LNG Canada informed him about the issue, without specifying when he first became aware of the problem. He told The Narwhal he was unaware of many of the details, including the scale of the problem.

“They let us know a while back — I don’t know exactly when — the flare tips weren’t exactly operating as sold to them by whoever the manufacturer was,” he said in an interview following publication of The Narwhal’s reporting about the problems. “Yes, it’s a disappointment, but it’s something that couldn’t have been predicted, right? I mean, LNG Canada was as surprised as we were.”

When asked whether he felt the district should have shared more information about the flaring problem with the community, he did not directly answer.

“We don’t actually do communications for LNG Canada,” he said. “They do their own so it’s not really our thing to do.”

“Most people obviously realize that, hey, this is just part of the process of getting a plant up and running and you have to put up with a little bit of short-term inconvenience to get that 40 years of economic opportunities that it brings to the community and the province,” he added.

Cheryl Brown, a member of local environmental advocacy group Douglas Channel Watch, said she recalls representatives of LNG Canada being upfront about the problem during a technical meeting with the group. While the industry officials acknowledged the issue early on, she said they didn’t fully explain the extent of the problem nor talk about solutions. 

“How do they fix this? We meet with them in February, and that’s going to be my question,” she said. “Do you have to shut the whole place down? You can’t fix a flare with the other flares burning — that doesn’t make any sense at all. So how do you do this?”

How to ‘gaslight people better’

Germuth said he believes the consortium adequately kept the public informed about flaring. 

“It’s unfortunate that maybe a little more information could have been given out,” he said. “Absolutely, that’s unfortunate — but here we are. They put their communications out to the community: ‘This is more flaring than we thought, here’s what it’s going to be, and on this day we’re expecting this height.’ … We think they’ve been fairly open and honest in that way, and doing as much as they can.”

Councillor Terry Marleau disagreed. 

Marleau directly questioned Teresa Waddington, a senior official with the consortium, during a council meeting last November, and said she didn’t give him proper answers. He said he thinks LNG Canada should have done more to ensure the public was informed.

“You’d probably do better with people and journalists and council and everybody else, if you talk about the facts,” he said. “What’s it going to cost them? Not a heck of a lot, if you actually just work on saying, ‘Here’s exactly what’s happening with those flare stacks and here’s what we’re trying to do.’ ”

He acknowledged Kitimat has a long industrial history and most residents, himself included, generally support industrial development, including LNG Canada.

“It’s a really big employer and it’s a really important part of our community,” he said. “But I also want to make sure we look after our environment and our community.” 

“The downside is not as big as they think it is, by actually coming across really openly to our small community,” Marleau continued. “But we don’t control that. We can only try and work towards getting them to realize that.”

He said one resident he’s been talking with told him he’s unable to work because the flaring has impacted his sleep so severely.

“I find that horribly sad,” Marleau said. “It’s obvious that the noise is to do with the [flare] stack. It’s nothing else in the plant — they’ve said that. They’ve checked all the parts of the plant and the noise is to do with the stack.”

Smith’s experience has been the same. He’s frustrated by the paternalistic way the companies communicate.

“They say, ‘We’ve learned. We’re a better company.’ No, you’ve learned to try to gaslight people better, and you’ve learned to become sneakier, and how to control the narrative more,” he said. 

Smith pointed out recent reports of Shell and Mitsubishi, one of the other members of the consortium, looking to divest ownership of LNG Canada. The same report noted that Petronas, which also has significant stakes in natural gas wells near Fort St. John that supply the facility, already sold some of its shares.

“It’s like you realized you bought a Temu gas plant with AliExpress discount parts and you need to get out of it, because the liability risk is going through the roof,” Smith said.

“We will not comment on or validate speculation about our joint venture participants,” a spokesperson with LNG Canada told The Narwhal in an emailed statement. “For information regarding Shell or Mitsubishi’s respective interests, please contact those companies directly.”

Neither Shell nor Mitsubishi responded prior to publication.

Both Marleau and Germuth pointed out it’s in the consortium’s best interest to flare less gas — every cubic metre burned is less gas it can sell to buyers overseas. Germuth said that gives him confidence in the consortium to remedy the issue.

“It’s to their advantage to fix it as quick as possible,” he said. “We have no doubt they’re doing everything they can to rectify it, because it’s their bottom line. They’re burning gas that they don’t want to be burning. They’d rather be turning it into LNG. So, we’re confident they’re trying to find any way they can to alleviate this issue.”

Marleau echoed the thought and added he believes the consortium should also consider the costs of not being fully transparent with the residents most impacted by noise and emissions.

“I think you’d go a much further distance by actually owning up and talking about the problem,” he said. “Try and make life a little bit better in a community that you want to be part of for 30 or 40 years.”

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.

In the fall of 2024, LNG Canada fired up its flare in Kitimat, B.C., for the first time, burning off gas to test its systems. By December, company officials knew something was wrong.

Residents were also concerned, but had little explanation as 90-metre-high flames lit up the night sky and a deep roaring sound permeated the town.

More than a year later, complaints escalated enough that Kitimat District council sat down for a special meeting with Teresa Waddington, the deputy chief operating officer at LNG Canada. About an hour into the meeting, councillor Terry Marleau asked specifically about flare tips. The response from Waddington was jumbled.

“Uh, I’d say we’re, we’re reviewing the flare tips design,” she said. “We are looking long term at what else could we do other than just reduce flaring in order to make sure that we get to a better place.”  

A couple of minutes later, Marleau leaned into the mic: “So, is there an issue with the flare stacks themselves?” 

“It’s part of the learning curve of new equipment,” Waddington replied. “So on one hand, you know, great that we brought in a technology that gets such high levels of incineration, which results in less slippage of gas, which means you have lower [greenhouse gas emissions] overall, but on the same note, it’s not perfectly working.”

Just a few kilometres away from the nearest residential neighbourhood, LNG Canada had been feeding gas into its flaring system by a magnitude of more than 15 times the typical amount to compensate for what was described as an “integrity issue.” 

Flaring is the burning of excess or waste gas produced during operations. Methane and other gases that escape the Kitimat facility during processing are sent up a metal tube that stands 122 metres high, where they meet a pilot flame and ignite, converting the raw gas into carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and water vapour. There are also often additional gases such as nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and particulates released during the process. 

It’s a necessary safety protocol — if the flare is not designed correctly for the operating environment, the gas may not make it to the pilot flame and instead the flare can creep down the tube and melt the infrastructure. The solution is to increase the pressure, increase the volume of gas and increase the size of the flame. If all the gas is not fully combusted by the pilot, black smoke appears.

The Narwhal reviewed more than 2,000 pages of documents released through freedom of information legislation about the flaring issue in Kitimat. They showed how LNG Canada officials were discussing the flaring issues internally — and that they waited approximately four months to tell the provincial energy regulator. 

We also spoke with several industry insiders, former employees and local residents and analyzed publicly available permits and other government documents to piece together a timeline of events and impacts on the community. The documents reveal regulator and industry officials grappled with the issue for months while community members and local politicians asked questions about the flaring, some complaining about excessive noise and others expressing concerns about potential toxic emissions, black smoke and particulate matter. 

Among the documents is one prepared by the BC Energy Regulator, a government agency that oversees the oil and gas sector and other industries. It detailed an “emerging integrity concern related to one of LNG Canada’s flares” in April 2025, and noted LNG Canada said the issue would take three years to be resolved. 

In the meantime, the facility was “routing additional gas” to the flare to mitigate the problem, according to the document. The system should be fine to operate by burning 11,000 cubic metres of gas per day, but due to the issue it would need to burn at least 170,000 cubic metres daily, the document stated. Burning the extra gas would result in “a noticeable impact in the community with respect to noise, light and visual disturbance,” according to the regulator’s internal briefing note.

When asked about this document, a spokesperson with the regulator confirmed awareness of the issue and said the average numbers were even higher. LNG Canada reported flaring an average of “approximately 205,000 cubic metres per day between July 1 and Nov. 30, 2025,” the spokesperson said via email. 

The email included detailed data and showed that on Sept. 1, 2025, LNG Canada flared 1,708,649 cubic metres of gas, making it the highest single day, according to the data. 

The spokesperson did not answer questions about whether the government agency communicated the problem with flaring equipment to the public, instead explaining LNG Canada had “fully mitigated” the integrity issue by “ensuring additional gas is flowed through the flare tip facilitating appropriate combustion.” The regulator spokesperson added LNG Canada is required to notify residents and local authorities “regarding certain flaring events.”

The Narwhal asked LNG Canada several detailed questions about the integrity issue, including why it did not appear to communicate clearly with members of the public, but a spokesperson with the consortium declined to answer.

“The LNG Canada facility has been commissioning and is currently in its early operations phase,” the spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement. “Flaring during commissioning and early operations is a normal occurrence in any LNG asset. In regular operations, flaring activities and associated noise reduce significantly.”

BC Energy Regulator officials kept the flaring issue quiet for more than six months

Kitimat sits at the end of a long fiord, surrounded by mountains and subject to extreme weather. Dramatic shifts in air pressure, high winds and other local environmental factors exacerbate the problems LNG Canada faced with its flare. As The Narwhal previously reported, community members have documented black plumes of smoke from the flare and some residents living close to the facility have said their yards, houses and vehicles are often left covered in a thin film of black residue.

According to the documents, LNG Canada — a consortium of foreign-owned companies led by Shell — first reported non-compliance with government permits in May 2025, citing increased emissions were required to mitigate the integrity concern. The company said a replacement part, called a flare tip, would be needed and it could take up to three years to fully integrate the new equipment, but interim changes could be made. The BC Energy Regulator responded, asking the company to clarify the environmental and health risks of any modifications and said the company might also need to apply to amend its Air Waste Discharge Permit.

In July, the regulator wrote to LNG Canada officials saying the company was on the hook for the additional emissions and needed to fix the problem. The reason, it explained, was that because the additional flaring was for the purpose of “long-term integrity management,” it was not considered a “process upset,” a designation that would exempt it from permit limits. The regulator also required the company to report any emissions exceedances. After the consortium successfully sent its first shipment of LNG overseas in late June 2025, the regulator also issued a requirement for LNG Canada to file daily reports and updates.

The regulator told The Narwhal the consortium filed six “monthly self-disclosures [related] to document flaring which is not consistent” with the facility’s permits and noted it has not issued any penalties for non-compliance. 

“The [BC Energy Regulator] does not disclose information with respect to any ongoing investigations that may be underway, but to date, no penalties have been issued to LNG Canada.”

The regulator also noted it ordered LNG Canada to contract a third-party assessment of air quality in July, which concluded “no measured adverse impacts to air quality from the increased flaring rate.”

“The [BC Energy Regulator] is engaging with LNG Canada to minimize flaring rates from all facility flares,” the spokesperson added.

The Narwhal asked LNG Canada why it didn’t communicate the problems with the flare tip to the public. We also asked for clarification on the nature of the issue, its impacts on operations and the community, including noise, emissions and other issues raised by community members. The Narwhal asked what had been done to ensure residents were kept informed about the risks posed by faulty or inadequate equipment. 

LNG Canada did not directly answer these questions.

“We continue to remain focused on safely operating the facility and minimizing disruptions to the community,” the spokesperson wrote, adding the 37th shipment is scheduled to depart in the coming days.

“We continue to meet regularly with community members, First Nations, local stakeholders and government agencies to listen and respond to any concerns raised about our activities. LNG Canada extends its continued appreciation to the Kitimat community and to the Haisla Nation for their continued support.”

Between September 2024 and January 2026, LNG Canada posted more than 27 notifications of flaring events on its website and social media, some preparing the community for weeks or months of flaring.

“Flaring is a provincially regulated safety measure that ensures the controlled, efficient combustion of natural gas during specific operational phases,” LNG Canada regularly said in these notifications. “It is a critical part of safely operating a facility of this scale and is not expected to be routine during regular operation.”

But the consortium was not telling the public why the flare was so big nor explaining why so many “unplanned” flaring events were occurring. In early November 2025, for example, LNG Canada published a notification warning residents flaring would extend beyond the “originally anticipated timeframe.” It noted this would mean more “intermittent” noise and more emissions, without explaining why. 

Around the same time, the consortium offered to temporarily relocate some residents who had expressed concerns about the noise and emissions, if they agreed to “not make any complaints or raise any concerns or objections with respect to LNG Canada, the LNG facility or the works with any third parties, including but not limited to members of the media, the [BC Energy Regulator] or the District of Kitimat” related to flaring activities.

But complaints from residents continued to come in.

Just a few months ago, in that late November 2025 council meeting, Waddington addressed questions about the flaring from Marleau and other members of council. She was accompanied by a sound analyst hired to monitor ambient noise over Kitimat.

There had been more than 30 complaints from the town’s residents about unexpected noise since the LNG export facility started flaring excess gas a year earlier, Waddington said at the meeting. The council wanted to see the results of the consortium’s monitoring, understand the cause and hear how the company was managing the disruption.

Waddington assured Marleau, and council, the company was investigating.

“If you look at how the LNG Canada startup has gone, it’s actually been smoother than most,” Waddington concluded. “We are actually kind of setting the bar.” On Jan. 5, 2026, LNG Canada published its first notification of the year, of a week-long flaring event that had already begun.

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.

Under heavy rain, an electronic sign by the side of the road in a small northwestern B.C. town warns passersby, “Flare height will vary.” It flashes to the next message: “Between 15 meters [sic] and 90.”

Kitimat, B.C., a coastal community about 1,400 kilometres north of Vancouver, is home to around 8,000 people — and Canada’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing facility. For the past 14 months, LNG Canada has been periodically burning excess or waste gas, a process known as flaring. At its highest, the flame is about as tall as London’s Big Ben or New York’s Statue of Liberty — not just the statue’s torch but the whole lady herself.

Speaking in the neighbouring community of Terrace, B.C., on Thursday, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced another LNG export facility — Ksi Lisims LNG — will be referred to the federal government’s newly established Major Projects Office. Projects flagged to the office are developments the Canadian government is endorsing as part of its efforts to diversify trade away from the United States, and considering fast-tracking through certain environmental and other approvals. 

“We are home to the world’s fourth largest reserves of natural gas and we have the potential to supply 100 million tonnes annually of new LNG exports to Asia,” Carney said.

Ksi Lisims LNG will be built about 200 kilometres north of Kitimat and supplied by the 800-kilometre Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline, yet to be built. At full capacity, it will export around 12 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Meanwhile, the flare in Kitimat has been impacting the lives of residents and raising concerns about health and climate impacts. On social media, some Kitimat residents are grieving the loss of the night sky, posting photos and videos of a dull orange glow looming over the town. Others worry about the impact of emissions on their health, citing research on toxins emitted during LNG operations. Many have compared the near-omnipresent flame to the “Eye of Mordor,” from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.

Natural gas is mostly composed of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that is invisible and odourless. Methane, which is responsible for around one-third of global warming since the industrial revolution, traps 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. In other words, methane emitted now — or leaked into the atmosphere from industrial infrastructure — will directly increase the likelihood of climate disasters like wildfires, floods and droughts over the next two decades.

Burning excess gas, as LNG Canada is, reduces the amount of methane that ends up in the atmosphere by instead turning it into carbon dioxide and other toxins — meaning it still comes at a cost for locals, and the planet. 

LNG Canada — a consortium of foreign-owned fossil fuel companies led by multinational oil and gas giant Shell — maintains flaring activity is a regular part of start-up operations and says its emissions fall within provincial standards.

“Flaring is a provincially regulated safety measure that ensures the controlled, efficient combustion of natural gas during specific operational phases,” LNG Canada said in a public notification.

On Nov. 9, the consortium told the public that “flaring associated with the start-up … will be extended beyond the originally anticipated timeframe” and warned residents this would mean “intermittent” noise and emissions. LNG Canada previously offered to pay to temporarily relocate some residents living close to the flare, according to a leaked document reviewed by The Narwhal and confirmed by the consortium.

The facility is currently in its first phase, operating four gas-powered turbines that supercool the gas to -162 C, reducing its volume for transport. An already approved and permitted second phase would double the plant’s production, adding another four turbines, corresponding flaring facilities — and, presumably, more warnings to residents.

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.

LNG Canada offered thousands of dollars in financial compensation to at least one Kitimat, B.C., resident for their discretion around “additional incremental flaring and noise” from the gas liquefaction and export facility, according to a document reviewed by The Narwhal.

In return, the resident would agree to “not make any complaints or raise any concerns or objections with respect to LNG Canada, the LNG facility or the works with any third parties, including but not limited to members of the media, the [BC Energy Regulator] or the District of Kitimat” related to operations for around one week at the beginning of November.

The document, shared with The Narwhal by a source who asked that their name not be published, details how LNG Canada offered to pay more than $6,000 in estimated costs for the resident and their family to “relocate” around 200 kilometres away to Prince Rupert for a week — or stay and deal with the impacts. By signing, the resident would agree to “release and forever discharge LNG Canada and its affiliates, shareholders, owners, agents, staff and representatives” from any legal actions against the company, including if the plant’s operations during this period led to “depreciation in property value, or damage to land or property.”

As The Narwhal previously reported, noise and emissions that smelled like “burnt plastic or burnt Styrofoam” from the LNG plant have been disrupting some residents’ daily lives for the past several months. LNG Canada has been in its startup phase for more than a year and, since September 2024, has posted 25 notifications of planned and unplanned flaring events, where excess or waste gas is burnt off. The flame can reach more than 100 metres high.

LNG Canada did not directly answer questions about the details of the document but acknowledged it has “offered temporary relocation support to some residents during the start-up activity.”

“Flaring in this phase is a normal occurrence and can result in a period of elevated noise,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement. “We continue to recognize that this may impact some residents living near the facility.” 

The spokesperson declined to specify how many residents have been offered compensation.

B.C. Premier David Eby declined to comment and referred questions to the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, which did not respond prior to publication.

LNG Canada is an estimated $40-billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project jointly owned by Shell, Petronas, PetroChina, Korea Gas and Mitsubishi. The consortium of companies started shipping overseas in late June.

Fossil fuel companies have long used financial compensation as a tool to win community support — and discourage opposition — to projects like pipelines and processing facilities.

TC Energy, the company that built Coastal GasLink, which supplies gas to LNG Canada, included a clause in one leaked impact and benefit agreement that required a First Nations band council to “take all reasonable actions to persuade [community] members to not take any action, legal or otherwise, including any media or social media campaign, that may impede, hinder, frustrate, delay, stop or interfere” with the pipeline project.

It’s rare, however, for the public to see such a contract.

The compensation offered by LNG Canada to Kitimat residents does not specify wages lost as a result of temporarily relocating to Prince Rupert.

The anonymous source told The Narwhal they are aware of other Kitimat residents who signed similar agreements with LNG Canada but not the amount they were offered. They said a decline in construction jobs now that the facility is built and operating means many locals are feeling the “strain.”

“Families are focused on keeping the roof over their heads, and food on the table,” they said.

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.

On the morning of Monday, Sept. 15, James Smith begrudgingly got out of bed to get ready for the day. The weekend, he told The Narwhal, had been hell.

“Even this morning, it was like 75 to 80 decibels inside my bedroom,” he said on a phone call from his home in Kitimat, B.C., referring to the noise. 

That’s like his bed was in the middle of a busy city street. 

The sound was from LNG Canada, the first major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export operation in the country. Ever since it fired up its gas turbines, compressors and flare earlier this year, some residents of the small northwestern community have had their lives upended.

“We maybe got two hours’ sleep this whole weekend,” Smith, whose name has been changed, said. “I’m just useless now.” The Narwhal knows his name but agreed to refer to him by a pseudonym to protect his identity and prevent potential repercussions to his family. Smith explained he felt it was necessary to protect his family in a town of around 8,000 people, where most are connected to or working for the LNG industry in some way and criticizing it publicly isn’t common.

A few days earlier, LNG Canada posted a notification to its website and social media channels, warning locals of a “planned flaring activity” as the facility restarted two of its four turbines. Flaring is burning off excess or waste natural gas, mostly composed of methane. The flame can sometimes get as high as 100 metres. 

“We anticipate increased noise and visible emissions from the flare,” the notification said. LNG Canada posted notifications related to flaring 23 times since September last year, some of which have included “unplanned flaring” events.

A spokesperson with the consortium of companies behind the project told The Narwhal “a new facility the size and complexity of LNG Canada requires a break-in period to stabilize, which is normal.” 

The companies behind LNG Canada are all from, and in three cases owned by, other countries: Royal Dutch Shell, by way of Shell Canada, Malaysia’s state-owned Petronas, the Chinese government’s PetroChina, South Korea’s KoGas, and the Japanese corporation, Mitsubishi. Together with North American pipeline giant, TC Energy, which built the Coastal GasLink pipeline that feeds the plant, the companies represent what has been called the largest private investment in Canadian history.

As the liquefaction plant gets going, “occasional adjustments, fine-tuning and restarts may initiate flaring activities outside of scheduled or planned events,” the spokesperson added. “These are typically brief and like all flaring activities, they are reported to the BC Energy Regulator and communicated to the public.”

Kitimat has been an industry town since it was settled in the 1950s to support the Alcan aluminum smelter, now owned by multinational mining giant Rio Tinto. Before moving west, Smith, who is a mechanical engineer and millwright, worked on some of the biggest energy projects in Canada. Kitimat offered him an alluring combination: the chance to make a decent salary running his own contracting team and easy access to good hiking, fishing and hunting.

“I moved here for the peace and quiet in the mountains,” he said.

When construction of LNG Canada started in 2020, most of his workforce evaporated as his employees went to work on building the plant. So he signed on, too. His skill set and expertise made him a perfect candidate, but after witnessing what he described as a “nightmare” of safety issues and endless problems with components sourced overseas, Smith quit working on the giant gas processing facility and went back to contracting.

LNG Canada did not directly respond to allegations of safety issues but said it is “committed to operating safely, transparently and in compliance with all provincial and federal regulations.”

With the LNG plant now running, Smith’s dreams of a quiet life are crumbling.

“I’m at a wit’s end with the noise and the smoke,” he said. “I built this house with my own hands. I dug the foundation, poured the concrete. I put everything I own, all my savings, into it. Now I can’t even sleep in my house, it’s so noisy.”

‘Worsening symptoms’: Kitimat registered nurse concerned increased reports of respiratory problems linked to flaring 

It’s not just the industrial noise concerning Smith and other Kitimat residents. As The Narwhal previously reported, flaring has meant a significant increase in emissions, affecting some neighbourhoods more acutely than others.

“At 2:45, my backyard was covered in grey smoke when I was cooking hot dogs,” Smith said. “You get this smell for a few seconds. It smells like burnt plastic or burnt Styrofoam.”

Another local, Chris Godfrey, told a similar story.

“I’m sitting in my backyard right now — I usually sit out here when the weather is nice — and I’m getting quite the diesel smell today,” he said on a phone call in early September. “That’s probably the best way to describe it, like your grandfather’s diesel pickup truck. I can send you video and I can send you sound, but I can’t send you smells.”

Godfrey, 63, was born and raised in Kitimat and said he supports industrial development, including LNG.

“Both of my grandfathers, my father, my uncles, my aunt, they all worked at Alcan, back to 1954,” he said. “My whole family used Alcan to put kids through university and to have the best life ever, because a lot of them came over here after the war and found a big, high-paying job.”

But the impacts from LNG Canada so far have been severe, he said, including shortness of breath when he’s out long distance running, black soot covering his property and vehicles, disrupted sleep from the noise and more.

“I can be sitting in my living room watching TV at night with all my windows wide open and I can smell diesel in my living room, and it’s coming from that plant,” he said. “Does it affect everybody in the community? No, it affects me because I’m three, four kilometres away from the plant.”

Smith is frustrated that he and his neighbours are impacted so heavily by an export operation and said Canada could make better use of its resources, suggesting the gas could have been used to displace diesel in places like Haida Gwaii instead of selling it to foreign countries. 

“I’m not anti-LNG,” he said. “I think exploiting our resources is good — but I think there’s better things to do with it than ship it off to China.”

District of Kitimat mayor Phil Germuth previously told The Narwhal the flaring has been a concern for some residents, but characterized it as the necessary cost of becoming the “LNG capital of Canada.” 

“Being a town that was built by industry, people understand that every once in a while, you’re going to have to put up with something to get the bigger goal in the end,” he said.

Germuth told The Narwhal he had nothing to add to his previous comments.

While relatively little is known about the short- or long-term health impacts of flaring, emissions from burning natural gas include “fine particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, all linked to adverse health outcomes,” according to a recent report on global flaring activity in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

Sally Harvie, a radiologist and member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said people living near fracking sites and export facilities are at higher risk of health impacts.

“Leaked gas and chemicals in the air near fracking sites and compressor stations, flaring and chemical evaporation pollute the air with substances like benzene, formaldehyde and fine particles,” she said at a recent press conference calling on the B.C. and federal governments to fund a health impact assessment of the LNG sector. “These are linked to asthma, heart disease, birth defects, childhood leukemia, neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases like autism and Alzheimer’s.”

“Is there going to be, in 40 years from now or 30 years from now, the incidents of cancer going through the roof?” Godfrey asked. “I was just reading something the other day that 95,000 people in the U.S. die a year from the petroleum industry. That’s a lot of people. Are we going to be that statistic here in Kitimat?”

Ankur Patel, a registered nurse in Kitimat, said he’s already hearing from residents about health impacts, especially seniors and those with heart disease. 

“I’ve heard first-hand accounts of worsening symptoms that coincide with heavy flaring from LNG operations,” he said at the press conference. “Kitimat is a town which has been touted as a marvel of nature and industry. It is now, due to LNG, proudly home to community notices of unplanned flaring events accompanied by noise, visible smoke and various particulate matter which are linked to exacerbations of respiratory illness and cardiovascular diseases.”

LNG Canada maintained its emissions are safe and said the “health of the community, our workers and the environment in which we operate remains our top priority.”

“Flaring is a provincially regulated and industry-standard practice that ensures natural gas is safely combusted rather than vented directly into the atmosphere,” the spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement. “Publicly available data from B.C. government monitoring stations in Kitimat show that levels of key pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, have remained consistently low over the past year.”

‘A set of f*cking cement shoes’

LNG Canada sent its first shipment to Asia at the end of June, marking Canada’s entry into the global liquefied natural gas market. This month, Prime Minister Mark Carney signalled the federal government’s support for an already-approved and permitted second phase, which would double production and add an additional eight gas turbines to the Kitimat facility. Earlier this year, the consortium of companies said they are in talks about whether to invest in the expansion.

Meanwhile, B.C. recently approved another major LNG export facility, Ksi Lisims LNG. That project — a floating facility that will produce up to 12 million tonnes per year, slightly less than the first phase of LNG Canada — will be built near the mouth of the Nass River, about 100 kilometres north of Prince Rupert. Both Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby celebrated the approval, touting natural gas exports as a much-needed boon to the economy.

For locals like Smith, the promise that this massive, export-focused LNG buildout will bring future prosperity to his community doesn’t seem worth the immediate impacts.

“A lot of the politicians, like Eby and now Carney, they’ve been convinced that this is their saviour, their life raft, when actually I think it’s a set of f*cking cement shoes,” he said.

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.

Flames as high as a 30-storey building, ships nearly as long as the Eiffel Tower is tall, $40 billion dollars. Everything about LNG Canada is big — including its promises. 

Often referred to as the largest private investment in Canadian history, the megaproject connects B.C. shale gas reserves near the Alberta border to marine shipping routes on the northwest coast. More than a decade after the project was first approved, Canada’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector is finally up and running: LNG Canada sent its first shipment to Asia on June 30.

As exports start flowing overseas from the Kitimat, B.C., facility, two more liquefaction plants are under construction — Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG. Another, Ksi Lisims LNG, could be approved any day. The promise around all this industrial buildout has always been prosperity, but whether the industry can deliver, and for how long, is up for debate.

“An oversupply of LNG is widely expected, potentially starting as early as next year, with a massive wave of new projects coming online around the world, especially in the U.S. and Qatar,” Steven Haig, a policy advisor with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, told The Narwhal. “When it comes to the economic benefits of LNG, Canada is really late to the party — and that party is almost over.”

Haig and his colleagues recently penned a deep dive into the risks of locking in more LNG infrastructure, reporting that Canadian exports are unlikely to achieve “energy security for importers or economic resilience for exporters.”

“What we explain in our analysis is that we are very likely moving into a period of oversupply with lower prices — and those lower prices may well be below what projects need to break even,” Haig told The Narwhal. “If they run at a loss for too long, then they can become stranded assets, with economic implications for the people who work for these facilities or for communities that might become economically associated with them.”

‘Higher domestic prices for Canadian consumers’ are a possibility

As Canadian LNG — the liquid form of natural gas, which is mostly composed of methane and in B.C. is extracted primarily through fracking — starts making its way into international markets, British Columbians and Albertans could also see a spike in their heating bills, according to Deloitte Canada. As the Financial Post recently reported, domestic natural gas prices could jump up by 60 per cent this year, and climb even higher next year. 

Haig said if the price a company can get from exporting LNG is higher than it can get selling natural gas domestically, prices in places like B.C. and Alberta will go up. This happened in Australia, where domestic prices tripled as Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine sent shockwaves through the supply chain.

“LNG links regional gas markets together in the global LNG market,” Haig explained. “So a local supply disruption in one place can lead to skyrocketing LNG prices elsewhere.” 

“When those high prices are in effect, then it can become more profitable for a gas producer in Canada, for example, to export that gas to the international LNG market than to use that gas in Canada’s domestic gas market.” That, he said, can lead to higher domestic prices for Canadian consumers.

LNG Canada is now operating its first phase, which will produce up to 14 million tonnes of supercooled gas per year. It’s already approved and permitted to double production.

Teresa Waddington, LNG Canada’s vice-president of corporate relations, told The Narwhal earlier this month that talks are underway about whether or not to go ahead with the expansion. She said a final decision depends on a number of factors including “overall competitiveness [and] affordability.” LNG Canada did not respond to new questions from The Narwhal by publication time.

When the international consortium of oil and gas companies behind LNG Canada (Shell, Petronas, Korea Gas, PetroChina and Mitsubishi) first started courting Canada to develop an LNG export industry in B.C. in the early 2010s, they said it would boost the economy locally, provincially and federally. With recent trade threats from the U.S. government, that narrative is gaining traction again and politicians like B.C. Premier David Eby and Prime Minister Mark Carney are celebrating the sector as an economic saviour. 

Haig cautioned the narrative should be taken with a grain of salt.

“We’re seeing this big push towards LNG expansion to diversify Canada’s exports beyond the United States, but these are multi-billion dollar and multi-decade projects,” he explained. “Their long-term viability is a serious concern as global markets shift towards cleaner and more reliable energy sources, like renewables. Investing in LNG as a supposed transition fuel in the meantime would be a long, costly detour.”

‘It’s not too late’: Canada can reduce economic and climate risks by putting the brakes on LNG exports, expert says

Alongside promises of prosperity, LNG Canada and other proponents of the sector maintain the gas is a so-called “bridge” or transition fuel — a climate solution. The argument goes like this: burning gas to generate power is less harmful than burning coal, and B.C. exports will help countries like China substantially reduce their reliance on the “dirtier” fossil fuel. The first part is the subject of much debate, especially when the entire lifecycle of LNG is taken into consideration. The second — that Canadian LNG will displace coal — Haig said simply isn’t true. 

“Coal is cheap, renewables are cheap and LNG is not,” he said. “If we look at China’s power sector, for example, it’s renewables — not LNG imports — that are eating into coal’s market share. This is mostly because renewables are cheaper than LNG and because LNG requires expensive new infrastructure, such as re-gasification plants and pipelines, to connect consumers with supply.” 

China, while still responsible for about one third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, is outpacing the rest of the world by leaps and bounds in building renewables. In May this year, the country added the equivalent of 100 solar panels per second. As the Guardian reported in June, “China’s installed solar photovoltaic capacity has now surpassed 1,000 gigawatts for the first time, equivalent to half of the world’s total installed solar capacity.” 

Haig said Canada is at a crossroads as it decides whether or not to approve more LNG projects, but added, “it’s not too late.” 

“LNG exports can delay investments in renewables and generally increase global fossil fuel use, increasing global greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. “Doubling down on LNG projects would likely expose Canadians to more risk and volatility, not less.”

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.

The phone call to the B.C. premier’s office came on a Saturday in May 2023, one day after a scathing inspection report detailed multiple environmental infractions along the route of a major gas pipeline under construction in the province.

The report, issued by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office, outlined damage to sensitive wetlands and other ecosystems on Wet’suwet’en territory in northwest B.C. It detailed howTC Energy allegedly failed to protect areas around its Coastal GasLink pipeline project from environmental impacts associated with construction and spring snowmelt.

As a result, the assessment office said in its report that it would keep stop-work orders on pipeline construction in place, potentially triggering delays and driving up costs on a multibillion dollar project already facing significant cost overruns. 

B.C. Premier David Eby’s office told The Narwhal it believes this report triggered the Saturday phone call it accepted from TC Energy executive Liam Illife, who recently resigned over comments he made during an internal call in March about the company’s outsized influence over governments.

Eby’s office said it didn’t keep records of what was discussed and declined to explain exactly what happened during that weekend phone call.

“The premier’s office would not discuss the enforcement activities or approach of the [B.C. Environmental Assessment Office], but companies will sometimes flag to government what their intended public response may be to such an event,” Eby’s spokesperson Bhinder Sajan told The Narwhal in an email.

“To be clear, we don’t have a specific record of the call, but given the timing you provided, we believe it may have been related to this event,” Sajan said, referring to the release of the report outlining Coastal GasLink’s environmental infractions and the assessment office’s decision to maintain stop-work orders on pipeline construction.

‘Call up the premier’s office on a Saturday’

Illife, a former BC NDP staffer, worked for various ministries in former B.C. premier John Horgan’s government between July 2017 and June 2022. Iliffe began lobbying the Eby government in April 2023, less than a year after leaving his government job.

The provincial lobbyist registry indicates Illife lobbied Don Bain, Eby’s deputy chief of staff, five times over 13 months. The filings also indicate Illife lobbied Eby’s office on the weekend immediately following the release of the inspection report about various pipeline infrastructure, including the Coastal GasLink project — considered by the oil and gas industry to be an important part of a plan to ramp up exports of fossil fuels and grow the Canadian economy.

The Coastal GasLink pipeline will supply natural gas for the new LNG Canada and Cedar LNG export projects on B.C.’s coast. Natural gas is a fossil fuel mostly composed of methane, which is 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period in terms of heating the planet. It is extracted mainly by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process that uses massive amounts of fresh water. Fracking activity in northeast B.C. is poised to escalate as the export projects get underway.

Calgary-based TC Energy described the phone call as lobbying activity, according to filings in a provincial registry.  

The B.C. government’s vague description of Illife’s weekend lobbying of the premier’s office leaves several stakeholders questioning whether fossil fuel executives have privileged access to government, including possible influence on the outcome of environmental inspections and enforcement activity.

“The fact that the company could call up the premier’s office on a Saturday and have a discussion about it is rather infuriating,” Shannon McPhail, executive director of Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, told The Narwhal. “I wish I had [had] that kind of access when I filed concerns with the various regulators, managers, agencies [and] ministries at both the provincial government and federal government level.”

Iliffe lobbied the government 12 times in total from the spring of 2023 to the spring of 2024 when he left his job, according to the provincial lobbyist registry. This includes lobbying Eby’s office five times.

The filing in the registry indicates one of the intended outcomes of Iliffe’s lobbying was the “development, establishment, amendment or termination of any program, policy, directive or guideline of the government of British Columbia or a provincial entity.”

While the registry doesn’t require lobbyists to disclose exactly what they discuss during their interactions with government officials, Iliffe and other TC Energy officials suggested on their internal call they succeeded in persuading different government officials to weaken some environmental policies and loosen regulations that may cut into the company’s profits.

Iliffe, the company and the B.C. government have all said some of the former TC Energy executive’s claims on the internal company call were not true, but they did not elaborate or specify which claims were unfounded. 

The Narwhal first approached the B.C. government in June with questions about Iliffe’s claims on the company recording. The premier’s office subsequently said it conducted an internal review of Iliffe’s claims about how the company had influenced the province and concluded they were false. The province’s attorney general subsequently asked a provincial watchdog to conduct its own review of lobbying activity by TC Energy.

Companies are allowed to lobby governments about public policy and decisions in Canada and governments generally keep track of the activity by requiring companies to report each interaction on public registries. In B.C., the registrar of lobbying is a watchdog empowered to enforce a lobbying transparency law and ensure lobbyists and public servants comply with the legislation.

Environmental assessment office inspections and regulatory orders are normally carried out and implemented without any involvement of elected officials. However, B.C. regulatory agencies charged with enforcement activities, including the environmental assessment office, are accountable to cabinet ministers who have some decision-making powers on regulatory matters.

Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief Na’moks said he doesn’t see why TC Energy would talk to the premier’s office about an inspection conducted by compliance and enforcement officers with the environmental assessment office.

“Absolutely it’s improper … because that is an independent enforcement arm,” he said in an interview.

The premier’s office noted that Bain’s job required him to engage with representatives from industry, environmental groups, local governments and First Nations. Based on the deputy chief of staff’s “recollection, Mr. Iliffe would at times relay his company’s commitment to fully respond to issues raised by regulatory agencies,” Eby’s office said.

In an emailed response to questions, the B.C. Environment Ministry also said it is not uncommon for industry to update government officials about how companies are responding to inspections.

Eby’s office did not respond to questions about why it didn’t keep records of Bain’s weekend discussion with Illife. Bain declined an interview request about the lobbying, but the premier’s office emailed a statement on Bain’s behalf.

“I make recommendations about further engagement and all other recommendations based on the priorities of Premier Eby which are focused on the best interest of British Columbians,” Bain said in response to The Narwhal’s questions about his conversations with Iliffe.

In 2018, Bain was among at least five B.C. government staffers who allegedly engaged in the improper deletion of government records under former premier Horgan. The story came to light when requests made under freedom of information legislation revealed Bain and other senior staff had been deleting their sent emails for months, according to a report in Victoria’s Times Colonist newspaper.

At the time, the government said new staffers had been learning their roles and responsibilities, and had subsequently received training and would take a “more cautious approach to the management of email,” the newspaper reported.

Bain did not directly comment about his weekend phone call with Iliffe, which followed the inspection report.

“Throughout his time at TC Energy, I did not have any private meetings with Mr. Iliffe,” Bain said in the statement sent by the premier’s office. “On a few occasions, Mr. Iliffe and I spoke on the phone on issues relevant to TC Energy and my role as lead on various energy-related files including the sale of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line from TC [Energy] to the Nisga’a Nation.”

In March, TC Energy announced it was selling the transmission project, an approved gas pipeline, to the Nisga’a Nation. Construction of the pipeline, which will supply the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG project co-owned by the Nisga’a, is set to start in August.

‘A small class of political insiders who move back and forth between industry and government’

The absence of any records about Illife’s communications with the premier’s office leaves some stakeholders questioning whether the company was trying to circumvent the regulator.

“That could have been an email,” McPhail said. “And why would you need to keep the premier’s office updated when you have all these regulatory and management agencies whose responsibility it is to do that? We’re supposed to have this system in place to deal with this stuff — but what was very clear with Coastal GasLink is the system was broken at every single level.”

McPhail said she still hasn’t received answers to questions she put to officials with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the BC Energy Regulator and the BC Environmental Assessment Office in 2022 regarding potential impacts of pipeline construction on fish habitat.

B.C. Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman and the environmental assessment office both declined interview requests from The Narwhal about TC Energy’s lobbying activity.

In a statement, the ministry said the office operates independently from government and neither the office nor Heyman were aware of any of Illife’s phone calls to the premier’s office.

The environmental assessment office said it has conducted nearly 100 inspections along the Coastal GasLink pipeline route by air and ground since construction began in 2019, leading to multiple fines, more than 50 warnings and 30 orders, including 13 stop-work orders.

Drew Yewchuk, a former staff lawyer at the University of Calgary’s Public Interest Law Clinic, said he was not surprised TC Energy was able to access the B.C. premier’s office so readily. 

“Is having a lobbyist contact the executive branch to have an unrecorded discussion probably asking for special treatment good governance? No — but you don’t need a legal expert to tell you that,” he told The Narwhal. “It reflects the Canadian tradition of a powerful and secretive executive branch, and decision-making involving a small class of political insiders who move back and forth between industry and government.”

TC Energy did not directly respond to The Narwhal’s questions about the lobbying activity. Previously, the company told The Narwhal its role is to advocate for the changes needed to ensure energy security, job creation, affordability and sustainability and that the leaked calls included comments that portrayed a “false impression” of how it does business.

“We continue to engage policy makers and the public in an ethical and compliant manner while meeting our regulatory obligations, including lobbying registrations across various jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S.,” TC Energy senior vice-president of external relations Patrick Muttart said in a statement on June 26.

“We are proud of our company and the work that thousands of employees do each day to safely move, generate and store the energy that our families, neighbours and businesses rely on. We are driven by our purpose: delivering the energy people need, every day.”

When pressed for more details, the company said it had nothing further to add to its previous response.

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.