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

• On May 27, Canada announced an agreement to supply Germany with one million tonnes of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, annually beginning in the early 2030s.
• The federal government says the deal will help Canada reduce its dependence on the U.S. market as trade relations grow more uncertain under President Donald Trump.
• Climate experts say the deal raises questions about the long-term costs of expanding fossil fuel exports.

Last week, the Canadian government celebrated a deal with Germany to supply the European country with one million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year, starting in the early 2030s. The agreement — essentially a handshake deal, yet to be finalized — is part of a broader federal scheme encouraging investment in major industrial developments across the country.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel mostly composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and major contributor to global climate change. Fossil fuels account for around 68 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions. The more greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, the bigger the effect on global warming and the stronger the impacts felt on the ground. More frequent and intense extreme weather is one significant effect, and one that Canada is already experiencing.

In 2023, smoke from wildfires in Canada caused more than 80,000 premature deaths across the globe. Of those who died, more than 20,000 lived in Europe. That same year, nine-year-old Carter Vigh died in B.C. of an asthma attack aggravated by wildfire smoke.

The following year, fires burned through Jasper, Alta., killing a young firefighter named Morgan Kitchen and causing more than $880 million in insured damages. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, nationwide losses related to “severe weather” surpassed $9.4 billion in 2024, including $3 billion in a single hour during a hailstorm in Calgary.

In 2025, around 85 per cent of Canada experienced severe drought conditions. Meanwhile, a storm surge flooded the northern community of Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., with water levels rising to the highest ever recorded in the region at 2.62 metres.

Canada touts the new export agreement with Germany as a necessary move to diversify the economy by decreasing its reliance on trade with the United States, which has become increasingly volatile since the re-election of President Donald Trump.

“We must build projects that strengthen our economy, that diversify our supply chains and enhance our energy sovereignty as well as expand our exports beyond a single market,” Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim Hodgson said on May 27.

When asked how Canada squares its stated climate commitments with support for expansion of fossil fuel production, a spokesperson with Natural Resources Canada said LNG produced in Canada is “widely recognized for its low emissions intensity compared to global averages.”

Canadian LNG is often positioned as a “transition fuel” helping countries reduce reliance on other energy sources, like coal. But many European countries, including Germany, have been importing LNG as a means to replace Russian gas since the Ukraine war began in 2022. The current U.S.-Israel war on Iran has put further pressure on countries with gas contracts in the Middle East.  

Environmental economist Dave Sawyer said the new agreement clearly shows how the narrative of Canadian LNG as a climate solution is “patently false.”

“This notion that LNG is reducing global emissions is blown out of the water by this German deal,” he told The Narwhal. “This LNG is not being used to displace coal. There’s no incremental emission benefit from Canadian LNG in this deal.”

‘Just be honest’

Increasing long-term reliance on fossil fuel exports is also a risky economic maneuver, according to Steven Haig, policy advisor with the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

“The costs of climate change are being felt now and we shouldn’t lose sight of that,” Haig told The Narwhal in an interview. “They will get worse as time goes on and emissions increase — but this is a problem today, not just a problem for the future.”

Wildfires, droughts and floods are among the many increasing climate impacts claiming lives and diverting government funds to emergency response and health services. These costs will need to be met by higher taxes, placing a heavier burden on lower-income households.

A recent New York University School of Law cost-benefit analysis of U.S. LNG exports found that “climate damages greatly exceed economic benefits.” The analysis showed that a conservative accounting of damages — described in the report as “likely underestimates” — are roughly double the economic benefits. In other words, LNG exports cost twice as much as the revenues they earn.

“These are costs that are expected to increase as temperatures continue to rise, meaning that reducing carbon pollution today is an economic imperative,” Haig said. “Good climate policy is good economic policy and the two shouldn’t be considered [in] opposition.”

In 2022, Sawyer worked on a Canadian Climate Institute report analyzing the macroeconomic effects of climate impacts. The report detailed how the federal and provincial governments are increasingly forced to allocate public funds to respond to climate disasters and how this impacts the cost of living for all Canadians.

“Replacing and repairing damaged infrastructure, back-stopping weather-related disaster costs and funding increased health care needs all place greater demands on government budgets,” the report noted. 

Sawyer said LNG exports are like an ATM.

“It is a profitable business — it generates a lot of money for some,” he said. “But it is climate damaging and there are costs associated with climate damages. Just be honest about it.”

Canada should not subsidize fossil fuel exports: experts 

The new agreement with Germany’s state-owned energy importer is the third supply deal secured by Ksi Lisims LNG, a provincially and federally approved floating export facility in British Columbia. 

Ksi Lisims aims to produce up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, sourcing its gas from northeast B.C. and transporting it through an 800-kilometre pipeline. Construction has not started on the facility and its owners have not reached a final investment decision, the crucial last step before companies decide to spend the vast sums required to build a major project.

“This deal with Germany … only covers around eight per cent of Ksi Lisims’ projected annual export capacity, so that’s not a lot of LNG that we’re talking about,” Haig noted. “The broader market trends still point to long-term risks for high-cost LNG exporters like Canada.”

The deal also isn’t really a deal — yet. So far, the parties have signed a non-binding preliminary document known as a “heads of agreement.” An official purchase agreement would need to be finalized before Ksi Lisims could use it to attract investment.

Ksi Lisims is owned by Texas-based Western LNG, in partnership with the Nisga’a Lisims Government and a coalition of gas producers called Rockies LNG Partners. The owners have already signed deals with Shell and TotalEnergies to provide each with two million tonnes of LNG per year. 

Canada has long been a major producer of oil and gas, mainly exporting to the U.S. via a network of cross-border pipelines, but the country’s economy is not reliant on the sector like some petrostates. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the industry accounts for about 3.8 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Canada’s ambitions to become a global player in liquefied natural gas exports were first realized last year, when LNG Canada sent its initial shipments of the fossil fuel across the Pacific Ocean to Asia. Construction of LNG Canada was heavily subsidized by the B.C. and federal governments.

The federal government’s public investment agency, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, is considering providing new financial support for projects like Ksi Lisims LNG, according to recent reporting by the Globe and Mail.

“The government of Canada should not be subsidizing oil and gas development — they can bet their own money,” Sawyer said. “The government’s job is to put the safeguards in place, not spend money.”

Haig agreed.

“If Canada’s LNG projects can’t stand on their own two feet, then public dollars should not prop them up,” he said. “These are highly risky investments and public subsidies effectively shift that risk away from private corporations onto Canadian taxpayers.”

“[That], in turn, makes it more likely that projects go ahead even if they may lose money in the long run, becoming stranded assets that may need to be cleaned up with public funds.”

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.

Wearing regalia bearing the raven crests of his mother’s clan, S’mooygyet (Chief) Algax’m Hax, Murray Smith, of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe, shared where he comes from. Sharing his lineage is a necessary precursor to welcoming visitors to his lands, he explained.

“When I get up here to speak, I have to tell you who I really am,” he told a group gathered in Prince Rupert, B.C., earlier this month. “My grandfather is Haida. My mother’s mother was Ts’msyen from Lax Kw’alaams.”

“There’s a word in my language called sg̱an,” he continued. “Sg̱an is a welcome mat made out of cedar and they place it at the bow of a canoe. When the Chief steps off, he doesn’t step on the ground, he steps on the welcome mat.”

“Chiefs, matriarchs, high-ranking women, young people that are here: the welcome mat is out,” he declared.

Algax’m Hax is a Hereditary Chief of the Gitwilgyoots, one of the Nine Allied Tribes of Lax Kw’alaams. Ten years ago, he and other chiefs signed the landmark Lelu Island Declaration, placing vital salmon habitat in the Skeena River estuary under the protection of Indigenous laws. In solidarity with the Gitwilgyoots Chiefs, leaders of First Nations and elected officials from across the region signed onto the declaration, which extended an invitation to all to join in “defending this unique and precious place and to protect it for all time.”

At the time, the estuary — one of the most productive and ecologically important salmon habitats in B.C. — was threatened by the looming prospect of a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, which was to be built on the island. The following year, Malaysian oil and gas giant Petronas cancelled its plans to build the Pacific Northwest LNG facility. A totem pole was raised on the island, to keep watch and assert stewardship. Two years later, the Prince Rupert Port Authority imposed a development moratorium over the sensitive area.

This spring, as juvenile salmon migrated from the creeks and rivers out to the ocean, Indigenous leaders and allies met to mark the anniversary of the declaration and talk about the future of salmon stewardship in the estuary and watershed. Algax’m Hax spoke to the importance of salmon and expressed solidarity with all who give of themselves to protect the species.

“I see you all here fighting for one thing, and that’s for our salmon,” he said. “So goes the salmon, so do we.”

He looked around the room and said he was called to speak by his fellow chief, Yahaan, who wasn’t able to attend the gathering. He said he phoned Yahaan the night before the event and asked what he should say.

“He said, ‘You’ll find your words,’ ” Algax’m Hax recounted. “It’s easy when I sit amongst people that care, people that dedicate themselves to the wellness of our salmon here on the North Coast, on the coast altogether. I take my hat off to you.”

Salmon connect ‘communities, cultures and generations’

The protection of Lelu Island — and Flora and Agnew Banks, the delicate estuarine habitat around the island — took years of dedication and sacrifice by Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders and community members. 

Loggers, commercial fishers, scientists, politicians and more agreed building a massive LNG facility in the sensitive estuary would be a catastrophic mistake with far-reaching impacts on the livelihoods and cultures of communities across the region. Weaving Indigenous science and academic research, allyship and land defence, people from across the Skeena watershed and beyond came together to stand up for the salmon, sending ripples far and wide.

“Salmon do something extraordinary,” Julia Hill, executive director of SkeenaWild, said at the two-day event. “They connect ecosystems … communities, cultures and generations. They’re part of the social, cultural and economic fabric of this place.”

In the years since the declaration was signed, Indigenous and non-Indigenous salmon stewardship and science has been ongoing throughout the Skeena watershed. At the gathering, representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada presented alongside environmental organizations, academics and First Nations. 

Jonathan Moore, director of the Salmon Watersheds Lab at Simon Fraser University, said the reason the species is able to thrive today is because of this unity and the continuity of stewardship.

“Right now, as we gather, literally hundreds of millions of young salmon are migrating down from throughout the Skeena, potentially hundreds of kilometres away, and they’re all coming down just around the corner and they’re hitting the ocean,” he said, grinning. “It gives me chills, honestly, to think about that phenomenon that unfolds every year because of these intact ecosystems that have been stewarded for millennia.”

But while the protections of Lelu Island remain in place, wild salmon continue to face multiple threats. Many populations across the watershed are struggling. 

“This region is experiencing enormous pressure and rapid change, from climate change and warming waters to industrial expansion and growing global demand for resources,” Hill said. “At the same time, many communities here depend on resource-based economies. So the question isn’t development or no development. The question is how much, where and to whose benefit.”

That tension is rising amid talk about new pipelines from Alberta and the spectre of lifting the oil tanker moratorium on the North Coast. A slew of projects supported by the provincial and federal governments are putting increased pressure on already-impacted salmon habitat throughout the northwest. 

All of this is set against a backdrop of talk by the provincial government about amending or repealing B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It leads some to fear hard-won battles like the protection of Lelu Island could be undermined by an onslaught of new industrial developments that would provide little benefit to the communities who would pay the highest costs.

“We’re witnessing this backlash against Indigenous Rights, against Indigenous stewardship, against title to the land being recognized,” Naxginkw Tara Marsden, Wilp sustainability director with the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, said. “We’re at a critical juncture for salmon stewardship and for the well-being of our communities.”

Marsden emphasized the intersection between rights and responsibilities.

“If we receive a full basket, we have to make sure we pass on a full basket,” she said. “So in my lifetime, if I see the salmon stocks decline to a point of extirpation, then I haven’t done my job for my kids, my grandkids.”

‘This impacts everybody’

For Grace Vickers, daughter of Andrea Vickers and revered carver Roy Henry Vickers, all conversations about stewardship and economy need to start from a shared baseline. Introducing herself as Heiltsuk belonging to the House of Walkus, she spoke about the importance of place-based knowledge.   

“What’s important today is what is sustaining us,” she said, during a youth panel at the gathering. “It’s the air we breathe, it’s the fish we eat and it’s the water we drink.”

Vickers and four other young women — Nasya Moore, Oasis Cleveland, Drew Harris and Kayla Mitchell — shared what it’s like being young at a time when so much is changing. They spoke about cultural disconnection and reconnection and the strength and restorative value of spending time on the land, harvesting and processing fish.

Harris, who is Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan, said she sees how land protections, human rights and stewardship of the likes of salmon can become siloed.

“Like: there’s the fish, there’s the land, there’s the people, there’s the health,” she said. “But it’s all connected. We can’t just silo these things and differentiate them and not talk about it together. Just seeing the different connections and looking from a different perspective can really help you understand the full picture and how to treat that problem.”

She said acknowledging the scale of the problems facing communities can be unifying and called out fossil fuel expansions as a global issue.

“Everywhere we go, we meet the youth and they all have their own projects that they’re fighting,” she said. “It’s sad but it connects us all together.”

“This fight isn’t just for the Indigenous people,” she added. “This impacts everybody.”

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 average home in British Columbia uses around 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

There are approximately 2.2 million homes in B.C. This means the province needs to make sure the grid has enough energy to supply about 22 billion kilowatt hours every year to keep those homes warm and the lights on.

And that’s just for homes. It doesn’t include all the electricity needed for industry, businesses and a rapidly expanding electric-vehicle market.

In B.C., the average resident pays around $100 a month for electricity, roughly $1,200 per year for those 10,000 kilowatt hours.

Residential rates just went up on April 1, when BC Hydro increased its rates by 3.75 per cent. That’s partly to start paying off some of the sunk costs the government has already invested in building new power infrastructure. 

Electricity demand is only going to rise over the coming decades, as B.C. tries to reduce its use of fossil fuels while also bringing a whole lot of industrial projects onto the grid.

So where will all this energy come from, where is it going — and who will pay for it? There’s much we don’t know (yet) but here’s what we do.

First, let’s clear up a couple of things about the units of measurement — because utility companies use a variety of terms to describe electricity generation, output and consumption.

Kilowatts, megawatts and gigawatts represent an amount of power, at a single point in time. 

1,000 kilowatts is one megawatt. And 1,000 megawatts is one gigawatt.

Add the word “hours” to the end of any of those units and it describes how much of that power gets used up (or is generated) over time. Kilowatt hours is the unit most British Columbians will encounter, on their monthly bills, so while the others are useful to know we’ll stick to that measurement as much as possible.

Take a fridge, for example. If yours sucks up about 200 watts per hour (a large, older fridge might use twice as much) that means you’ll use around 1,750 kilowatt hours per year to keep the milk fresh. To meet the demand of millions of fridges, power producers need to make sure they have enough capacity to send all that electricity across the province every day. 

Ensuring there’s enough electricity to go around is getting expensive for the B.C. government — and the taxpayers that fund it.

B.C.’s newest source of hydroelectricity, the Site C dam, produces about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) per year, or 5.7 billion kilowatt hours. It added about eight per cent more power to the province’s existing grid.

Site C cost around $16 billion.

BC Hydro doesn’t expect to pay off the costs of building Site C until 2094, 70 years after the project began producing electricity.

Now, the province is planning to invest at least $6 billion to build the first two phases of the North Coast Transmission Line, a network of around 450 kilometres of high-voltage power lines spanning the northwest. The B.C. government says it is building the line to “enable development” of mining and LNG projects. A third phase is proposed, for power lines heading north to service mines and Ksi Lisims LNG. If that happens, the final cost for the transmission network could rival Site C.

To state the obvious: this is a lot of public money. It’s hard to grasp just how big these numbers are. Understanding the difference between one million and one billion, expressed in time, might help. 

One million seconds is about 11.5 days. One billion seconds is more than 30 years.

So when the estimated cost of the first two phases of the North Coast Transmission Line doubled from $3 billion to $6 billion in 2025, that’s like jumping from 90 years to 180 years.

On top of infrastructure investments like Site C and the transmission lines, B.C. spends public money enticing private companies to build big industrial projects. Those subsidies are eventually reflected in residential utility bills — and in other ways across the economy. 

Take the push to grow the province’s LNG industry. Last year, the B.C. government coughed up $200 million to connect Cedar LNG, a liquefaction and export facility being built in Kitimat, to the grid.

Or take LNG Canada, the country’s first major liquefaction and export facility, also in Kitimat. It received a suite of subsidies, including reduced rates for the small amount of hydroelectricity it uses, as well as tax credits and an exemption from B.C.’s industrial carbon tax for the first two years of operations. Between the provincial and federal governments, public investments in LNG Canada are estimated to be almost $4 billion.

In the years ahead, homes and businesses in B.C. are going to need more power. BC Hydro predicts annual demand for electricity is likely to climb from 58,400 gigawatt hours in 2025 to more than 87,600 gigawatt hours by 2050. These amounts are way too big to wrap your head around if we convert them to kilowatt hours, but let’s just say it’s a lot.

The more things we need to plug into the grid, the more power the grid needs to be able to deliver. The sooner we plug things in, the faster BC Hydro has to find ways to meet that demand.

Electricity demand in B.C. could rise even faster if the province prioritizes providing power to industries, which are eager to portray their products as “clean” or “green” in an increasingly climate-conscious market. LNG facilities that plan to power their operations with B.C.’s electricity are already advertising their products as “low carbon” and “net zero.”

B.C.’s history of abundant, cheap and low-emission electricity has been hailed as one reason the province is well-positioned to supply LNG to countries like South Korea and Japan.

But liquefying natural gas requires an enormous amount of energy. As a liquid, methane takes up a fraction of the space that it does as a gas, making it viable for transport overseas. That process requires not just chilling the gas, but supercooling it, which LNG Canada does by burning gas to power massive turbines. But other approved facilities, like Ksi Lisims LNG and the aforementioned Cedar LNG, want to use electricity instead. Hence, the new power line with a multi-billion dollar price tag.

So how much power does all this industrial infrastructure need?Well, Ksi Lisims, a floating LNG facility proposed for B.C.’s North Coast requested the equivalent of around 5,200 gigawatt hours, or 5.2 billion kilowatt hours, from BC Hydro.

That’s more than the electricity output of the Site C dam potentially going to power just one project.

Cedar LNG expects to use up to 1,800 gigawatt hours, or 1.8 billion kilowatt hours.

Powering just those two LNG projects could use up to the equivalent electricity that would keep power flowing to 700,000 homes.

All that electricity isn’t free, of course. But it is cheaper for industrial users. Residential customers currently pay $118.70 for the first 670 kilowatt hours they use in a month.

That climbs to around $140 for each additional 1,000 kilowatt hours. Small businesses pay about the same as heavy-use households. 

But for larger businesses it’s the opposite: the more they use, the less they pay.

Large industrial customers — consumers that use more than 550,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — pay $67.90 per 1,000 kilowatt hours, slightly over half the residential rate.

So what does all this mean for the average British Columbian?

Well, to keep the lights on in homes across the province over the coming decades, B.C. will continue to build out more power capacity. It will also keep trying to find ways to use industrial revenues to balance the government’s budget, so homeowners don’t have to pay (much) more per kilowatt hour consumed. But the province is up against the clock — and a moving target. 

Less than six months after releasing a new forecast for electricity demand, BC Hydro now anticipates needing to supply an additional 2.7 billion kilowatt hours to its customers. The LNG industry is identified as a driving force behind that increase.

Because B.C. relies heavily on hydroelectric dams, the province’s ability to meet demand with power produced domestically is subject to droughts. When this happens, the province imports electricity from its neighbours, including Alberta.

Whether on monthly bills or in other ways spread out across the economy, taxpayers are paying for provincial support of massive industrial projects, including the push to get those projects on the grid. Those hidden costs could eventually surface on utility bills or through cuts to other government services.

Either way, future British Columbians will pay for decisions made today about how to make sure all that electricity keeps flowing through the wires.

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.

Summary

• B.C.’s throne speech was not delivered in 2026 due to the tragic shooting in Tumbler Ridge.
• The Narwhal obtained a copy of the speech via freedom of information request.
• The unshared speech gives an insight into B.C.’s priorities which include mining and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

In a typical year, the spring sitting of the B.C. legislature starts with a throne speech.

The speech from the throne — as the document is formally known — is delivered by the lieutenant-governor on behalf of the provincial government. It is a snapshot of the political moment, a mixture of policies and milestones the government of the day considers accomplishments, as well as hints about legislative priorities for the coming months.

For journalists who cover the legislature, the throne speech is an opportunity to peer at the political tea leaves and guess at what lies ahead.

But in 2026, the government’s planned throne speech was never presented in the legislature. Two days before its scheduled delivery, a horrific event occurred in the small town of Tumbler Ridge, B.C.: a mass shooting that resulted in the deaths of nine people, many of them students and staff at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School.

In the wake of the tragedy, the date set for the throne speech was postponed and the province observed a day of mourning. A few days later, Lieutenant-Governor Wendy Cocchia delivered a short and somber speech dedicated to the community of Tumbler Ridge.

But what was in the speech the government was poised to deliver? The Narwhal filed a freedom of information request for a copy of the speech with Premier David Eby’s office. And we received a mostly un-redacted copy.

Over the year ahead, the B.C. government plans to continue championing liquefied natural gas (LNG) and mining development, which — along with forestry — form the province’s economic foundation, according to the speech.

“This natural inheritance remains central to our future prosperity,” the speech says.British Columbians should look forward to “a more sustainable forestry sector,” even as tariffs imposed by the United States continue to bite, the speech says. The government will also continue to work toward “delivering B.C. energy to growing markets” — supporting companies producing LNG to ship to markets on the other side of the Pacific — and “driving momentum on critical minerals,” it says.

A section of the speech is dedicated to the North Coast transmission line, which the government says will deliver “clean, reliable electricity needed to unlock tens of billions of dollars worth of private sector projects across” northwest B.C. The transmission line may almost exclusively serve large industrial customers, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG facility and multiple proposed mines. But its cost, which was most recently estimated at $6 billion for a little more than half the line’s length, will be shared between all BC Hydro ratepayers. 

The North Coast transmission line will be built “in true partnership with First Nations,” the throne speech says before it segues into a section titled “Reconciliation and Partnerships with Indigenous Peoples.”

‘Reconciliation is the responsibility of elected governments,’ throne speech says

For its next 431 words, the throne speech highlights the importance of reconciliation with First Nations and the work the province has done since the unanimous passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in November 2019. It affirms the existence of Aboriginal Title, recognized by Canadian courts and in the Canadian Constitution.

“Reconciliation is the responsibility of elected governments,” according to the throne speech. 

“Repealing the Declaration Act, or walking away from negotiations with First Nations, would not change that reality,” the throne speech says. “It would create chaos, delays, lost jobs, and endless lawsuits.”

On page 13, the tone of the speech shifts as it mentions “recent court decisions [that] have raised questions about what reconciliation means in practice.” While those decisions aren’t named in the speech, the province is seeking to appeal a December 2025 decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, which agreed with an argument from the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht First Nations that the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act — to align provincial laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — are legally enforceable.

Since December, Eby has been touting plans to amend the Declaration Act to “address some serious legal liabilities that were created … through the court decision.” This angered First Nations leaders across B.C., who told Eby in a meeting last week that his plans to amend the law were “totally unacceptable.” So, on April 2, he made an abrupt announcement saying he would suspend parts of the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act in the coming weeks instead.

However, suspension still requires legislative amendments, which will be voted on in the legislature by May 28. 

Eby said he is willing to risk the future of his government to get it done.

“This will be a confidence vote,” Eby told reporters on April 2. That means if the majority of MLAs vote against the legislation, the NDP government will have lost the confidence of the house, likely triggering a snap election.

These plans to change the landmark Indigenous Rights law over the objections of many First Nations leaders seem contradictory to the throne speech promise that the B.C. government “will not abandon responsibility for reconciliation.”

You can read the entire 25 pages of the throne speech here, except for a few lines redacted by the premier’s office under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which covers matters discussed in cabinet. 

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

• A tiny village in Newfoundland and Labrador could become the site of a major floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility
• Amid talk about exporting LNG from the east coast, some community members look to Kitimat, B.C., home to Canada’s first major LNG facility 
• Residents of the village of Fermeuse, home to about 300 people, may be tempted by the prospect of jobs but one Kitimat, B.C., resident warns: “The noise, pollution, traffic and burden on the infrastructure is not worth it”

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

About an hour’s drive from St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the little fishing village of Fermeuse sits on the shores of a deep harbour, sheltered from the tempestuous North Atlantic. Atop a hill overlooking the village, eight slow-turning turbines harvest energy from the nearly ever-present wind that flows from the open ocean. Generations of fishers have plied the waters off the coast, harvesting cod, crab and numerous other species.

More than 5,000 kilometres away, on the northwest coast of British Columbia, the town of Kitimat, B.C., is newly home to Canada’s first major liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. LNG Canada started operations here last year, lighting up the night sky with its noisy and bright flare stack and welcoming a stream of supertankers to the deepwater channel that connects the community with pan-Pacific shipping routes. Years in the making, the LNG export project has undeniably changed life for those who live alongside it.[Pause 1s]

Fermeuse could be facing similar changes.

When the Atlantic cod fisheries collapsed in the 1990s — putting more than 35,000 people out of work across Newfoundland and Labrador — many left the village in search of good paying jobs, including in the province’s booming oil and gas sector. Now, as nearby offshore oil developments like Bay Du Nord get a boost from the federal government and the province eyes new revenues from the sector, the sleepy village of around 300 residents could become the focal point for an influx of new industry.

Crown LNG Holdings Ltd., under the name of its Newfoundland affiliate, Fermeuse Energy, plans to develop a swath of the harbour to support several projects, possibly including a liquefied natural gas processing and export terminal. The company is approved for a marine base but has not yet submitted an official proposal for an LNG plant. In late January, Fermuese Energy signed an agreement with Hanwha Ocean, a South Korean shipbuilding company and expert in offshore facilities, to “jointly advance the Newfoundland and Labrador LNG development project in Canada.”  

“If the political will and the community support comes along, then we will move ahead with the project by the end of this year or next year,” Swapan Kataria, CEO of Crown LNG, told The Narwhal in an interview.

Valerie Walsh, whose family has lived in Fermeuse for generations, said many in the community are tempted by an idea that “our sons and daughters who moved away for work will maybe move back to Fermeuse” to build the LNG project.

“It’s a sought-after harbour,” she said, explaining it’s protected from the open water and safe for large boats. “It could be really rough in the North Atlantic, but boats can come in here and they’re protected.” 

But Walsh is worried residents will be seduced by industry without knowing what they’re really signing up for.

“I don’t know if it’s because the fishery collapse just took the wind out of everybody’s sails and they’re just waiting for the saviour to come along, which is oil and gas,” she mused. “[The company] can make it seem safe. They can make it seem a lot of things. I think this will be the end of the harbour and any natural thing for us. … There will be no whales coming in anymore, no puffins, no fishery, no boats, no anything.” 

“I don’t know that the community really understands it.”

Details about the potential LNG project are vague, but the company has said plans could include a 380-kilometre pipeline along the ocean floor, trenched for part of that distance to protect it from icebergs, connecting untapped offshore gas reserves to the village. There, a floating liquefaction facility could supercool the gas, reducing its volume for marine transport to overseas destinations. Kataria said the facility, if built, would process and export up to 10 million tonnes of LNG per year. The company acknowledged an LNG project would bring change to the community and said if anything were to move ahead, public consultations and stakeholder engagements would be held.

“We are only approved for a marine base and I think it’s important to qualify that in order to avoid any future confusions,” Kataria said. “We are certainly there to service the offshore growth in the industry.” 

How the LNG project fits into the picture is that those same offshore areas are home to “a lot of gas reserves which nobody is going after,” he said. “We are connected with the industry, and we feel that there is gas which can be monetized.”

‘We don’t know what’s going to happen’: locals question how Fermeuse LNG would impact community

On the north coast of B.C., the massive LNG project was under construction for about five years, employing locals and flooding the community with thousands of out-of-town workers. It now employs around 300 people and will provide the community with $9.7 million in annual taxes for the first five years of operations.

Kitimat residents have experienced months of disruption to their daily lives since LNG Canada started flaring activities in late 2024. Flaring is the burning of excess or waste gas, a normal part of operating a liquefaction facility. In Kitimat, flaring has at times exceeded 90-metre-tall flames, about the height of London’s iconic Big Ben, in part due to an ongoing equipment issue. 

That causes light pollution, noise and emissions, as well as releases air pollution. Flaring at LNG facilities releases carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, fine particulate matter and sulphur dioxide, all of which can have impacts on human health. For its part, LNG Canada in Kitimat says flaring is “safe, controlled and provincially regulated.” But that hasn’t stopped residents there from being concerned.

Walsh said she’s afraid ceding the harbour shores to an industrial hub for LNG and oil development would be a death knell for the villagers’ way of life.

“My father’s from here, his father and his father before that,” she told The Narwhal on a phone call. “We are literally closing the door on our way of life in this harbour if we let this industrial LNG come in.”

Brenda Aylward lives on the other side of the harbour from Walsh, where she raises sheep and grows vegetables while caring for her aging mother.

“It’s a fifth-generation farm and I’ve been involved pretty much my whole life,” she said. It’s a small farm-to-table operation she’s planning to expand — and she wonders what the impacts of an industrial project in the harbour would have on her livestock.

“I have fields that border the ocean,” she said, explaining the farm is just a few kilometres from the proposed industrial site. “Livestock are quite skittish, to noise and to light. Sheep are the most affected because they are the most skittish livestock.”

She said she has questions about how LNG operations and related marine traffic could alter the flock’s grazing and breeding patterns. Research from animal behaviour expert Temple Grandin has shown stress in livestock can cause agitation, increased thyroid activity and spikes in cortisol.

“[Will] I have my lambs when market time comes?” Aylward wondered. “We don’t know what’s going to happen there.”

Fermeuse Energy did not directly address questions about potential impacts and said there will be an opportunity for community members to get answers.

“We certainly understand that there will be questions from the residents of the area,” Stephen Tessier, a spokesperson with the company, wrote in an emailed statement. “We (Fermeuse Energy) are still in the discovery stage and we need to have a handle on actual product and political will in Newfoundland and Labrador in order to proceed.”

Tessier said before the company submits an application, it will conduct engineering and environmental studies.

“Once that happens, there will be public consultations and stakeholder engagements where the residents can ask questions, clarify their doubts and choose to support the project,” he wrote. “We look forward to working with the towns and residents as this project moves forward.”

One of Aylward’s neighbours, Jenny Wright, has similar questions about potential impacts to the community.

“We live right on the water,” she said. “We bought a traditional old Newfoundland home and my husband is a house builder and he’s renovated every last piece of it.”

She suggested the community should be looking at different options to create jobs beyond oil and gas.

“We are right on the East Coast Trail,” she said, referencing a 336-kilometre network of paths and trails, adding the region would be wise to capitalize on a growing tourism sector. “We can develop an economic plan here that is sustainable, like other towns in Newfoundland and Labrador have done, like Petty Harbour, who own their own fishery, have a co-operative plant and developed and promoted small businesses being around there — and then started a non-profit to educate people on the fishery.”

‘We depend on a clean coastline, clean water and a quiet environment’

Before the cod moratorium — an indefinite closure to the fishery implemented by the federal government in 1992 — came into effect, Fermeuse had a fish plant, too, and the harbour still supports an active fleet.

“Pretty soon — the end of March, early April — is the time for the crab boats going in and out,” Wright said. “Our first signs of spring are the fishery is up and going again. And then, of course, the whales that will come in shortly after that.”

She fears an influx of industry in the harbour would change everything.

“I’m exhausted with hearing everybody when they hear the word LNG go, ‘Oh, this is great, oil and gas is going to save us — it’s going to bring back jobs and all the young people, they’re going to come home and we’re going to flourish again.’ We’ve just done this over and over and over again, and we’re not learning from it.”

Walsh has been trying to get information about what the company wants to do — to little avail, she said — and help her community understand what’s at stake.

“Nobody can visualize it,” she said. “I don’t think they understand what it’s actually going to be like, physically, how the harbour will change. LNG is big money — a company can spin it whatever way they want. They can make it shiny and beautiful and never tell you the downsides.”

Kitimat’s story, some residents say, is a cautionary tale some places like Fermeuse can learn from.

“Expect all the promises they make never to materialize,” a Kitimat community member, who The Narwhal is calling James Smith to protect his family from repercussions, said. “And realize they often spend more effort trying to control the narrative than being transparent. You’re dealing with shiny on the outside, rotten to the core.”

Smith sent The Narwhal images of his property taken at night during recent overnight flaring activity.

“[My] house was lit up like daylight and shaking from the noise,” he wrote in a message accompanying the photos. “On top [of that] there was an ear-piercing whistle.”

Aylward, the sheep farmer, shuddered to think of her community changing so dramatically. 

“It’s devastating to think that something like that will come to this tiny little place,” she said. “We depend on a clean coastline, clean water and a quiet environment, for our food production and our lives. We do not want or need this here in our community.”

‘We already have the buyers’: Crown LNG says Fermeuse is well positioned to get gas to waiting markets 

Kataria agrees building an LNG facility in the harbour would mean significant change for residents of the fishing village.

“It is wrong of me to say that their life’s not going to change,” he said. “If you were looking at a peaceful water view, it is not going to remain the same. People’s expectations that the view is not going to change or the noise levels will not change or the traffic will not change, I think is wrong — because it will change. Industrialization will bring all those things.”

He said while the LNG development is in early stages, bringing industry to Fermeuse means jobs for a community that lost its base economy more than three decades ago.

“If I have the year right, it is 35 years plus [that] there has been no economic upswing in that community,” he said. “Let’s say it was a community of 1,500 people, or 2,000 people, gone down to 300. Do they need jobs? Do they need a change? I don’t know.”

“I think everybody understands that there is a give and take,” he added. 

Kataria said he’s optimistic about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s statements in recent months in support of LNG exports, but he hasn’t seen the political will to support an official proposal yet. 

If things do move forward, he said the main destination for exports from Newfoundland would be Europe, which continues, for now, to import fossil fuels to replace Russian gas since President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, but he also wants to tap into India’s “insatiable demand” for LNG. He noted the company could leverage an international loophole to get the gas there.

“There is a mechanism in place on international trading, where we could actually sell the cargo on the high seas to people taking it to Europe, and people bringing it from the other part of the world into Europe. We can take it from there and just hand it over to India.”

These kinds of high seas cargo swapping, or ship-to-ship transfers, are governed by rules set out by the International Maritime Organization — but the process is also used by the likes of the Russian shadow fleet, a cabal of shady shipping operators making vast sums of money by obscuring the origin of oil that would otherwise be heavily sanctioned.

“We already have a licence for importing 7.2 million tonnes in India,” Kataria said, adding the company is currently working on approvals to build a five-million tonne import facility in Scotland. 

“We are LNG terminal developers,” he explained. “We are not coming to Canada to … build a project and wait for somebody to come and buy the product from us — we already have the buyers. We’re coming there because we need it. It’s the other way around.” 

Lloyd Parrott, Newfoundland and Labrador’s energy and mines minister, told The Narwhal he considers natural gas a “key priority” for the province but he’s waiting on an official proposal for an LNG plant in Fermeuse.

“The department has not received a formal request for support for the Fermeuse energy project,” Parrott wrote in an emailed statement. “Our government will always make time to meet with companies to discuss potential projects that have the potential to provide benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.”

In Kitimat, Smith warned the promise of benefits may not be enough to offset the impacts of living beside an LNG plant.

“The noise, pollution, traffic and burden on the infrastructure is not worth it,” he said.

For her part, Walsh doesn’t want Fermeuse turned into an industrial hub.

“I just don’t want my community destroyed,” she said. “We’re at a crossroads. We’re caught up in this now. And I just don’t think it’ll be for the betterment of us, the people who live here.”

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

• The Norwegian company Marinvest Energy AS wants to build Canada’s third largest LNG export facility on the shores of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec
• The company has a non-disclosure agreement with Ottawa which prevents discussion of the proposal with “officials outside the federal government”
• Quebec is an ideal location for ships headed to Europe, but a similar proposal was rejected in 2021 over concerns about risks posed to Indigenous communities and the environment

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

As the war in the Middle East escalates and oil and gas prices surge, a secretive liquefied natural gas (LNG) project proposed for Quebec is steadily advancing.

The LNG project would ship liquefied gas from the deepwater port of Baie-Comeau, a small city on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, to global markets. 

The project would require a new pipeline — through a small portion of northern Ontario and a swath of Quebec — to send mostly fracked gas from Western Canada to Baie-Comeau, in the province’s Côte-Nord region.

But you won’t find any information about this major resource project on the website of Marinvest Energy AS, the Norwegian company behind it.

Nor will you find any information about the Baie-Comeau LNG project on any federal government website, even though access to information documents reveal Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government has established a multi-departmental “deal team” to facilitate the project.

“There’s been no public announcement, no project description and nothing has been made public,” Louis Couillard, Greenpeace Canada’s climate campaigner, told The Narwhal. “I’m just puzzled at how a project can move along like this without an official proposal.” 

In an emailed statement, Marinvest Energy AS confirmed it is in discussions with First Nations as it develops the project and said it will not be giving an interview “at this stage.” In an emailed response to questions, the Quebec government said it never publicly discusses talks it may “have, or not have” with project promoters.

That leaves Montreal-based Couillard and others in the dark, except for information gleaned from access to information requests that are heavily redacted. One thing they do reveal is Marinvest has a non-disclosure agreement with the government of Canada “such that this project is not to be discussed with officials outside the government.” 

So, what else do we know about the Baie-Comeau LNG project? 

And can it go ahead even though another Quebec LNG export proposal was soundly rejected by the provincial and federal governments only a few years ago? At issue then were risks posed to Indigenous communities, beluga whales and attempts to slash greenhouse gas emissions. 

Read on.

First of all, what exactly is the Baie-Comeau LNG proposal? 

Here’s what we know. 

The project has four components: a gas pipeline, an undisclosed “renewable energy supply,” port infrastructure and gas liquefaction and storage. 

That information comes from Invest in Canada, the federal agency that promotes direct investments by foreign companies. It is included in 137 pages of documents Greenpeace obtained through federal access to information legislation and shared with The Narwhal.

The pipeline and renewable energy supply “would be developed in partnership with First Nations,” according to the documents, which say the project is in the “pre-planning stage.”

The documents also say Marinvest “claims it is making progress on project development” and the company may reach out to Canada’s new Major Projects Office with a project description in early 2026. 

In an emailed response to questions, a spokesperson for Canada’s Major Projects Office said the project has not “been referred” to the office and “nor has the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada received an initial project description, which would start the impact assessment process.” The spokesperson said to contact Marinvest Energy for details about the project.

How big is the Baie-Comeau LNG project?

In a word, big. Really big. “It’s a huge project in terms of the volume [of] exports that they want to do,” Couillard said. 

Neither the company nor the Quebec or federal governments have released information about the volume of LNG the company plans to export. But a company representative earlier told Le Devoir the project would export about ten million tonnes of LNG per year.

That compares to about three million tonnes in annual exports from the Cedar LNG project in B.C., about two million tonnes annually from B.C.’s Woodfibre LNG project and about 12 million tonnes annually from the recently approved Ksi Lisims LNG export project, also in B.C.

It would make Baie-Comeau Canada’s third largest LNG export project, after Ksi Lisims and LNG Canada, the country’s first, in Kitimat, B.C.

The access to information documents lift the veil — a wee bit— on the federal government’s level of commitment to the project.

“Given the scale and significance of this energy infrastructure project, we’d like to establish a monthly coordination call to keep federal partners informed of the latest developments,” Anne-Sophie Proutiere, senior federal partnerships advisor for Invest in Canada, wrote to her colleagues last May, according to the documents.

“These ‘deal team’ calls will also serve as a forum for departments to provide guidance and support to facilitate the investment,” Proutiere wrote. 

Proutiere’s email was sent to colleagues in a variety of departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The subject line was “monthly coordination call — Marinvest Energy project”.

Another email said the calls would “coordinate federal FDI [foreign direct investment] efforts to support this investment in Canada.” 

What’s the big deal about secrecy? 

The documents also reveal the non-disclosure agreement Marinvest has with Canada.

Duff Conacher, cofounder of Democracy Watch, a non-profit organization promoting government accountability and corporate responsibility, warns against fast-tracking major resource project decisions like the Baie-Comeau LNG project and failing to consult with the public and stakeholders before final decisions are made.

Fast-tracking “usually leads to waste, and harm and corruption and boondoggles that actually don’t further the public interest,” Conacher said in an interview.

“It’s just impossible for people sitting behind closed doors in Ottawa in the government to make good decisions about anything, because they need to connect to the reality of the impact of the decisions and action,” he said. “And the only way to do that is to consult with the public in a meaningful way before making the decision.”

Conacher said fast-tracking decisions about major resource projects usually slows them down “because once the public learns about it, the pushback is greater than if people had been consulted in the first place.” That pushback can lead to court cases and other challenges, he pointed out. 

The Carney government has demonstrated a lack of commitment to transparency in many areas of government actions, he said.

Couillard said he’s worried people who would be impacted by the Baie-Comeau LNG project and the project’s pipeline won’t have the information “necessary to understand what’s being fast-tracked in their backyards.”

Phew, that’s a lot. So who’s behind the Baie-Comeau LNG project?

Greg Cano, who is connected to B.C.’s contentious Coastal GasLink pipeline, is the chief operating officer for Marinvest Energy Canada, a subsidiary of Marinvest Energy AS. 

According to Cano’s LinkedIn profile, he’s a mechanical engineer who is an executive sponsor and former chief operations officer for Pacific Atlantic Pipeline Construction Ltd, a subsidiary of Italy’s Bonatti Group. 

That name might sound familiar — the pipeline construction company was a primary contractor for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which ships gas from northeast B.C. to the LNG Canada export terminal in Kitimat. Pacific Atlantic Pipeline Construction made the news in 2022 when Coastal GasLink terminated the company’s contract, alleging poor performance.

You might be scratching your head by now, thinking Cano’s name also sounds vaguely familiar. Based in Calgary, he’s the former longtime director of project planning and execution for TransCanada, a major North America pipeline company now called TC Energy. TC Energy co-owns and operates the Coastal GasLink pipeline. 

And gas for the Baie-Comeau LNG project would be shipped to the new pipeline through TC Energy’s network, according to Couillard. 

If you live on Vancouver Island, there’s all the more reason to recognize Cano’s name. He was the former project lead for the Steelhead LNG, an export project proposed for Vancouver Island that was halted in 2019.

The Narwhal reached out to Cano by email but did not hear back. 

Marinvest Energy AS declined an interview request. “In a spirit of respect and transparency, our priority is to continue discussions with First Nations communities in order to further develop the project’s concepts,” Justin Meloche, the company’s media relations director, said in an emailed statement. 

“Additional information will be made public once the project has reached a more advanced stage and when concrete elements can be shared responsibly,” Meloche added.

Marinvest Energy registered to lobby the federal government in May 2025. The company said it would engage with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Finance Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The stated goal was to determine “the applicable conditions for implementing a transformative and beneficial energy project for the future of Quebec and Canada.”

Since then, five lobbyists from National Public Relations have filed reports saying they lobbied federal departments, agencies and the Prime Minister’s Office.

The access to information documents note Marinvest is also in discussion with Alberta and Quebec representatives.

“They’ve been lobbying [for] their project behind the closed door for over a year,” Couillard pointed out. “But for the public, there’s absolutely no info except what we find through .” 

“We’re in the dark right now in regards to the regulatory stages that this project is in.” 

Would the Baie-Comeau LNG project export fracked gas?

Yes. The vast majority — 80 to 90 per cent — of natural gas from Western Canada is extracted through hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. The access to information documents state the gas for the project would come from Western Canada.

Steven Haig, a policy advisor for the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s energy program, pointed out fracking is a “particularly emissions-intensive method for producing natural gas. 

“And also, by nature of the process … there are significant risks of methane leaks, which add to the emissions associated with the production,” Haig said in an interview. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and climate change. It can also cause respiratory and cardiovascular issues. 

What about Indigenous communities near the LNG terminal and along the pipeline route? 

Couillard isn’t convinced a majority of Indigenous communities will support the Baie-Comeau LNG project even after consultations. 

“Quebec has a problem,” he said. “It’s all unceded. There’s no treaties here. So technically, all these communities need to give their free, prior and informed consent for the project to go ahead.” The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador formally — and vocally — opposed TransCanada’s bid to build the Energy East bitumen pipeline, which was cancelled in 2017. 

The documents obtained by Greenpeace and other environmental groups list Indigenous communities and organizations that could be affected by the pipeline and LNG project, but all further information is redacted. 

In Ontario, those communities include Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario (region three), Taykwa Tagamou Nation, Beaverhouse First Nation, Matachewan First Nation and potentially Mattagami First Nation and Temagami First Nation.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada recommended Marinvest engage with about two dozen Indigenous communities and organizations in Quebec, according to the documents. They include many Cree, Algonquin, Atikamekw and Innu communities, such as Pessamit, an Innu community about 60 kilometres south of Baie-Comeau. 

Along with other Innu communities, Pessamit opposed a different LNG export project proposed for the Saguenay region of Quebec on the grounds it would pose a threat to ancestral lands and impact fish and caribou. Pessamit representatives were unable to respond to a request for comment before publication.

So what about the rejected LNG project in Quebec?

The Quebec government nixed plans for a LNG plant in the Saguenay region in 2021, saying it risked “disadvantaging the energy transition.” The province’s environmental review agency found the project’s risks outweighed its benefits. It said the proponent, GNL Québec Inc., had failed to demonstrate the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions or accelerate the transition to clean energy. 

The Saguenay LNG project would have been about the same size as the Baie-Comeau LNG project, according to Le Devoir.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada also found the Saguenay LNG project was likely to harm the environment, leading Ottawa to reject the project in 2022. The agency determined the project would have negative effects on nearby Innu communities, harm the beluga whale population through increased shipping traffic and cause greenhouse gas emissions to rise. 

Why ship LNG from Quebec?

Quebec has a distinct advantage over LNG shipped to Europe from other places in North America: geography. 

A typical shipping route between Baie-Comeau and the Dunkirk LNG terminal in northern France would take about eight days, according to the Montreal Economic Institute, a public policy think tank that receives 11 per cent of its annual budget from the oil and gas industry. (Names of individual funders are not disclosed.)

It would take about 14 days at the same speed for LNG from the Gulf of Mexico’s terminals to reach Dunkirk and more than 17 days from Doha, Qatar, another big LNG export terminal.

“Geography plays in Quebec’s favour,” Gabriel Giguère, a senior policy analyst with the society, said in a February news release. “A shorter distance means shorter delivery times, and therefore lower transportation costs, compared to dealing with its main competitors.” 

Will there be an environmental assessment ? 

Some form of environmental assessment is likely if the Baie-Comeau LNG project proceeds, but the process could be fast-tracked. 

In December, the Quebec government introduced Bill 5, which aims to accelerate authorizations for projects deemed to be priorities and of national importance. 

The Quebec bill, which has not been passed by the National Assembly, follows the federal government’s Bill C-5, passed last June. The federal legislation aims to accelerate “nation-building” projects.

What about the Baie-Comeau LNG project’s economics? 

The oil and gas industry is pushing for LNG expansion, pointing to Europe’s desire to replace Russian gas and Canada’s drive to diversify exports following tariffs U.S. President Donald Trump slapped on Canadian goods. 

“But it’s important to remember that these are multi-billion dollar, multi-decade projects and their long-term viability is a serious concern as global markets shift towards cleaner, more reliable energy sources,” Haig, from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said. 

As importers shift towards cheaper, more reliable renewables, “An oversupply of LNG is imminent, with a massive wave of new projects coming online around the world, especially in the U.S. and Qatar,” Haig said.

He said the growing war in the Middle East won’t change that. “There’s a difference between short-term supply disruptions and long-term outlook in the market.” 

Doubling down on LNG is likely to expose Canadians to “more risk and volatility, not less, by linking Canada’s domestic natural gas markets to more volatile international LNG market,” Haig said. Many countries are already investing in safe, clean energy, he pointed out.

“When it comes to backing renewables or fossil fuels, let’s pick the horse that’s already ahead.” 

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.

Canada’s first major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant, on the B.C. coast, has been having problems with a key piece of equipment since the facility fired up in late 2024. The companies behind the project, a consortium of foreign-owned corporations, have said it will take three years to fix the problem — a timeline experts have questions about. 

Earlier this year, The Narwhal revealed LNG Canada has been flaring, or burning off, more than 15 times the amount of gas its permits allow. Internal documents obtained by The Narwhal found this unexpected increase is due to an “integrity issue” with one of its flare stacks. For several months, residents of Kitimat, B.C., have been voicing concerns with the intermittent 90-metre-high flames, noise and air quality issues due to the increased flaring.

To understand why this is happening and what it could mean for residents of the coastal community, The Narwhal spoke to legal, policy and engineering experts. They speculate the three-year timeline is more likely a financial decision for LNG Canada, combined with a lack of enforcement by the BC Energy Regulator, the provincial agency tasked with regulating energy resource activities.

“Nobody wants a bunch of flaring at these kinds of volumes,” Matthew Johnson, the scientific director of the Energy and Emissions Research Laboratory at Carleton University, said. 

LNG Canada told the BC Energy Regulator it needed to flare an additional 170,000 cubic metres of gas daily to mitigate the issue, which would produce roughly 430 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per day — equal to driving a gasoline-powered car roughly 1.5 million kilometres. The regulator has told The Narwhal the actual average of gas flared due to the issue was even higher, averaging more than 205,000 cubic metres per day over the summer and early fall.

Flaring burns off excess gas, such as methane, produced at the plant when liquefied natural gas is processed. That waste gas is sent up a metal tube that stands more than a hundred metres high and ignited by a pilot light, converting the raw gas into carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide — among other potential gases — and water vapour. If the flare isn’t designed correctly, the gas may not make it to the pilot flame. As a result, more gas has to be used to increase the pressure to reach that flame.

Johnson wouldn’t speculate on the specific issue or its fix without seeing all of the technical documents, but questioned why LNG Canada didn’t appear to be able, or willing, to fix the problem sooner. Other mechanical engineers The Narwhal spoke to suggested the delay is likely a financial decision rather than a manufacturing one: shutting down the facility to replace the equipment would likely be more costly than continuing to flare gas that could be sold.

A spokesperson from LNG Canada responded to questions about the three-year timeline by referring back to a previous statement emailed to The Narwhal in mid-January. It stated LNG Canada is focused on safety and, as the facility is in early operations phase, flaring is a normal occurrence. It noted disruptions will be reduced during “regular operations.” 

“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,” the spokesperson said.  

Johnson still questions the three-year timeline. “We should pay attention to this issue, and should try to force them to get this under control,” he said. Johnson is especially worried about what has been reported about the observations and experiences of Kitimat residents.

“Anecdotes about sooty films on cars, if true, would be especially concerning,” he said, regardless of whether the flare was operating properly or not.

The BC Energy Regulator maintains “there have not been any measurements in the Kitimat Valley in excess of the B.C. Ambient Air Quality Objective metrics attributable to LNG Canada’s operations.” It referred The Narwhal to publicly available data. However, since learning about the issue in April, the regulator has required LNG Canada to submit daily reports related to elevated flaring and the presence of black smoke.

‘It’d be nice to have some transparency’

It was never a secret that LNG Canada would be one of the province’s largest polluters. Project documents produced in 2014 include estimates that, once complete, the facility will emit roughly four million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually for at least 25 years. Most of the project’s emissions are expected to come from its turbines and acid gas incinerators — not flaring.

B.C. rules require flares to convert 98 per cent of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to carbon dioxide, though Johnson said there’s no reliable way to independently verify how much is burnt off in real time.

Neither the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office, which was responsible for approving the greenhouse gas management plan for the project, nor the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, responsible for making sure the project adheres to the environmental protection and impact mitigation conditions under which the project was approved, responded to questions of when or if they had been informed of the integrity issue.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada specified in an email that one of the major concerns for flaring was the impact on migratory birds. One of the conditions for LNG Canada was to limit flaring to “what is necessary for maintenance or emergency situations.” In LNG Canada’s 2024-2025 annual report, released in April, the company listed no malfunctions had occurred during the reporting year.

LNG Canada’s first phase was always expected to increase B.C.’s total emissions by about 6.6 per cent, according to the 2015 assessment report by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. With the additional flaring due to the integrity issue, the emissions are 4.5 per cent higher than anticipated, based on the flare data provided to the regulator. 

Despite the additional gas being flared, it’s still a fraction of what will be shipped and sold from LNG Canada: an estimated 14 million tonnes of gas per year. Choosing to prioritize profits might be a “pragmatic decision and maybe that’s the correct decision,” Johnson said, “But it’d be nice to have some transparency.”

BC Energy Regulator inspected LNG Canada when flaring issue was present, found it ‘in compliance’

Public records on the BC Energy Regulator’s compliance and enforcement website show just two inspections of LNG Canada since the flaring issue was identified: one in February 2025, three months after the company identified the integrity issue but two months before the company informed the regulator. That inspection was marked “in compliance,” and another in August was listed simply as “inspected.”

To date, the regulator has issued no penalties, no inspection reports and no formal non-compliance findings. Last summer, the regulator recategorized the additional flaring from “non-routine,” a designation that allows for as much flaring as needed in emergency situations, to “routine,” meaning the company was required to submit daily non-compliance reports for exceeding the permit limit, internal documents showed.

“What you’ve discovered regarding LNG Canada is the latest example of the persistent (and frankly disgraceful) non-enforcement of environmental law in Canada against industrial polluters,” David R. Boyd, a professor of law, policy and sustainability at the University of British Columbia, told The Narwhal by email. Boyd recently co-authored a report examining air pollution enforcement across Canada, which found governments often rely on “co-operative and non-responsive” approaches and rarely impose penalties on repeat offenders. 

“Canada and B.C. governments pay lip service to the widely accepted polluter-pays principle but rarely apply it in practice,” he told The Narwhal. “Large corporations frequently break environmental laws but are rarely penalized for doing so.” 

A spokesperson for the BC Energy Regulator told The Narwhal the daily reports filed by LNG Canada are because the flaring is “not consistent” with the facility’s permits, using that term instead of the term “non-compliant.” In order for the activities to be found non-compliant, they have to be identified in an inspection by the regulator and then documented and investigated. 

“It seems very much the kind of thing that the regulator and the permitting conditions were designed to prohibit,” Amanda Bryant, manager of the Pembina Institute’s oil and gas program, said. “They’ve got the tools. I think it’s about willingness to escalate and willingness to enforce.”

The regulator did not specify whether the consortium would be facing any penalties for the permit violations for flaring, but noted “an enforcement action could occur at any time in a three-year period following the date of discovery if the facts of an investigation support compliance action.”

However, that would also mean three years of emissions before a potential penalty is levied. “It’s really difficult to see how waiting three years to actually solve the problem is in the public interest,” Bryant 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.