By Maximilian Kniewasser and Stephen Hui.

Under Premier John Horgan and the NDP, British Columbia’s government is no longer promoting liquefied natural gas exports as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to snag 100,000 jobs, a $100-billion Prosperity Fund, and more than $1 trillion in economic activity. Nevertheless, proposed LNG development remains a thorny issue to be tackled by the new provincial government.

This week, the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions published Liquefied Natural Gas, Carbon Pollution, and British Columbia in 2017, an update on the state of the B.C. LNG industry in the context of climate change.

Here are three highlights from our report.

1. 18 LNG Projects Still Eyeing B.C. Coast

No LNG export projects are up and running in B.C. Currently, natural gas products are produced at two small domestic LNG plants, with two additional domestic facilities proposed.

However, 18 LNG export proposals in B.C. are at various stages of development. Only two — LNG Canada in Kitimat and Woodfibre LNG near Squamish — have regulatory approval and are close to being realized. (The latter also has a final investment decision from parent company Pacific Oil & Gas.) A third approved project, Pacific NorthWest LNG in Port Edward, made headlines in July with the announcement that it “will not proceed as previously planned.”

The remainder of the LNG proposals are in the early stages of development. Most are located on the North Coast, with five projects on Vancouver Island and the South Coast.

2. Woodfibre and LNG Canada Make B.C.’s Climate Targets Virtually Impossible to Meet

B.C. was responsible for 63 million tonnes of carbon pollution in 2014. In contrast, B.C.’s legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets call for annual emissions to be lowered to 43.5 million tonnes by 2020 and 12.6 million tonnes by 2050.

B.C. is currently on track to miss its legislated 2020 target by a wide margin, with emissions projected to increase until at least 2030. Measures in the province’s Climate Leadership Plan are forecast to bring annual emissions down as low as 54 million tonnes by 2050 — well short of the legislated goal.

The two approved projects analysed in our report — LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG — would collectively increase carbon pollution by 9.1 million tonnes per year by 2030, further increasing to 10.2 million tonnes per year by 2050.

That would leave less than 3 million tonnes per year for the rest of B.C.’s economy — including transportation, buildings, and industry — and make it virtually impossible for the province to meet its 2050 target.

If LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG were built using best practices and technology — including greater electrification, as B.C.’s Climate Leadership Team recommended — emissions would be halved. However, these combined emissions would still make it very difficult for B.C. to meet its targets without drastically eliminating emissions from the rest of the economy.

What's Up with #LNG in B.C.? Three Things You Need to Know https://t.co/0166XLRGt6 @Pembina @StephenHui #climate #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 31, 2017

3. Pacific NorthWest LNG Could Rise From the Dead

Petronas-backed Pacific NorthWest LNG’s cancellation was attributed to prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy sector.

Prior to the announcement, PNW LNG was among the projects considered most likely to proceed, having secured export, pipeline, facility, and (conditional) environmental approvals, as well as agreements with some local First Nations.

However, other First Nations groups and the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust launched court challenges in an attempt to block PNW LNG, citing issues involving the consultation of indigenous communities, impacts on fish habitat, and carbon pollution.

Although PNW LNG is officially cancelled, various permits for the project remain valid. These include a National Energy Board export licence and a positive environmental assessment decision by the Canadian government.

Until the permits are forfeited or voided, the project should still be considered a potential LNG development along B.C.’s North Coast.

If the permits for PNW LNG were resurrected by the current or a new owner, the project would make the province’s legislated 2050 climate target impossible to reach.

Such LNG export terminals, fully powered by natural gas, are almost four times more polluting per tonne of LNG produced than terminals using clean electricity.

Several policies in place in B.C. are designed to reduce emissions from LNG and associated upstream development. However, these policies fall short of requiring projects to adopt best practices and technologies. They should be strengthened to ensure that, if development proceeds, it is with the lowest impact to the climate.

Maximilian Kniewasser is the director of the B.C. Climate Policy Program at the Pembina Institute, Canada’s leading clean energy think-tank.

Stephen Hui is the B.C. communications lead at the Pembina Institute.

Image: Former B.C. Premier Christy Clark visiting a Petronas LNG facility in 2014. Photo: Government of B.C. via Flickr

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

Indigenous leaders from northern British Columbia are calling on the UN to investigate whether ongoing industrial development of Indigenous lands and waters constitutes a violation of UN conventions this week.

Canada is up for review by the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In a submission, tribes from B.C.’s northwest said Canada’s environmental assessment laws continue to measure money instead of impact.

One of the signatories is Deneza Na’Moks (John Ridsdale), a hereditary chief of the Wet’suwet’en. He travelled to the UN on the heels of the recent approval and then cancellation of Petronas’ plans to build a pipeline and the Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the Skeena River estuary.

The project and its approval point squarely back to failures in Canada’s environmental assessment process and a lack of recognition of Indigenous nationhood, the committee heard.

“We asked [the Committee] to use any force that they can to get Canada to uphold support and use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),” Ridsdale told DeSmog Canada.

The project was approved, despite concerns from scientists about it being sited in critical juvenile salmon habitat and about the plant’s enormous greenhouse gas footprint (if built, the plant would have been the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada).

ICYMI: The 40-Year-Old Federal Salmon Study That Should Have Killed Pacific Northwest LNG

Petronas announced the cancellation of the project in late July, citing “market conditions.”

“The cancellation of one project because of poor gas prices does nothing to address the underlying legal issues that will plague any project that threatens the wild salmon,” said Kirby Muldoe, a member of the delegation of Tsimsian and Gitxsan descent.

Site C Dam Puts Canadian Government in Hot Seat

Much of the committee’s attention was paid to the issue of the controversial Site C dam under construction in northeast B.C.

The committee saw the issue of Site C as “emblematic of a deeply disturbing disrespect for the rights of Indigenous peoples,” Craig Benjamin from Amnesty International told DeSmog Canada. “The attention that the committee gave to Site C was in my mind unprecedented.”

Robyn Fuller, councillor for West Moberly First Nation, made an especially fiery presentation to the committee.

“We will no longer allow our people to be poisoned, starved, and pushed aside as if we do not matter,” she said. “We do not only fight for ourselves, we fight for our future generations to continue our way of life long after we have left this world.”

Benjamin said members of the committee spoke at “incredible lengths” on the rights violations associated with the project, including impacts on cultural heritage, failure to respect “free, prior and informed consent,” violations of Treaty 8 and barriers to accessing justice.

However, the delegation representing the Government of Canada — made up of civil servants from a variety of departments — didn’t include a single mention of Site C in their initial response.

When Government of Canada delegates were asked by the UN Committee about the omission, it was chalked up as an “oversight.”

Benjamin said that when they did provide a response, it was fundamentally wrong, contradicting what the Government of Canada’s lawyers told the courts.

“At what point does the Trudeau government have to admit that their movement on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not match up with their actions?” Candace Batycki, program director at Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, told DeSmog Canada.

Canada in Hot Seat for Resource Policies at #UN Racial Discrimination Hearing https://t.co/XioUOuvVRQ #cdnpoli #LNG #SiteC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 16, 2017

Environmental Process Marred By Failure to Seriously Involve Indigenous Peoples

What Pacific NorthWest LNG and the Site C dam have in common is that they both come to a head with the environmental assessment process.

It’s really why presenters identified Article 2 of the United Nations Committee on Ending Racial Discrimination as a key leverage point. It reads:

“Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.”

Currently, the environmental assessment process for resource extraction projects in Canada effectively presupposes Indigenous consent, insofar as consent is understood as the legal “duty to consult.”

That’s vastly different from the expectation of “free, prior and informed consent” as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

An April 2017 report written by a federally appointed panel on modernizing Canada’s environmental assessment process recommended a series of changes, including moving to “reflect the principles of UNDRIP within [impact assessment] legislation, processes and procedures,” providing Indigenous peoples the “right to say no” if “exercised reasonably” and creating long-term funding to help with specifically including Indigenous peoples.

Those recommendations have yet to be implemented by the federal government.

ICYMI: Canada On Precipice of ‘Huge Step Forward’ For Environmental Assessments

A joint statement signed by 11 organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Amnesty International Canada explicitly recommended the UN Committee “urge Canada to ensure that the right of free, prior and informed consent is upheld in all decisions pertaining to resource development and to reform pertinent legislation accordingly.”

“It’s crystal clear that there’s a problem with the implementation of UNDRIP and the way that the federal government talks about its relationship with First Nations and how they actually act,” said Galen Armstrong of Sierra Club BC.

UN Committee Report Expected Soon

The committee’s formal report is expected in late August.

Batycki said she hopes Site C will figured prominently in the report, especially given how well the testimony was received.

But as Ridsdale noted, for a fundamental change to come about “industry has to stop leading the government.”

The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and recognition of Article 2 of the Committee on Ending Racial Discrimination would likely require an overhaul of the relationship between Indigenous nations and the Canadian government.

At the very least, the UN committee recognized that there are fundamental problems in the way that Canada approaches resource development projects.

The next clear step for the federal government is following the recommendations of its own expert panel and modernizing the environmental assessment process to recognize Indigenous nationhood.

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.

Malaysia’s Petronas has cancelled plans to build the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, B.C., in a move seen as a major setback for B.C.’s LNG dreams and as a major win for those concerned about climate change and salmon habitat.

The project would have involved increased natural gas production in B.C.’s Montney Basin, a new 900-kilometre pipeline and the export terminal itself.

Here’s what you need to know about Tuesday’s announcement.

1) Why did Petronas decide to cancel the project?

In a press statement about the investment decision, Petronas cited “changes in market conditions.”

“We are disappointed that the extremely challenging environment brought about by the prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy industry have led us to this decision,” said Anuar Taib, chairman of the Pacific NorthWest LNG board.

Just a few years ago, B.C. was banking its future on the fate of about 20 proposed LNG facilities — based on the idea that our natural gas would be super-cooled into liquid and exported by ship to lucrative Asian markets. But it’s widely acknowledged that B.C. came late to the party, with the U.S. and Australia beating Canada to the punch.

The B.C. projects were predicated on exporting low-cost gas to Asia where prices were as much as five times higher than in North America in 2013. But by 2016, prices had plunged and have shown little sign of increasing.

Former premier Christy Clark had promised three LNG plants by 2020, 100,000 jobs in the LNG industry and a $100 billion Prosperity Fund. As it stands, it looks like only one small plant, Woodfibre LNG in Squamish, may go ahead.

The B.C. NDP, now in power, has opposed the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal but supports the LNG industry generally speaking, provided it meets certain conditions.

2) Why is exporting liquefied natural gas bad for the environment?

The key concerns about Pacific NorthWest LNG have been salmon and climate change.

On the salmon front, the project was sited in a location the federal government had studied decades ago and found to be unsuitable for industrial development due to its importance to juvenile salmon.

“Out of all the places that you could imagine in the area, it is the worst possible place in terms of risks to fish,” Jonathan Moore, Liber Ero chair of Coastal Science and Management at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada last year.

About 300 million juvenile salmon rear in the Skeena estuary every year at the critical moment when they graduate from fresh to salt water. The Skeena salmon run is worth more than $110 million annually.

On the climate change front, the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant would have been the single largest source of emissions in the country, emitting as much carbon dioxide equivalent as 1.9 million cars? How on earth would it have been that belchy?

Well, turning natural gas into a liquid is a hugely energy intensive process that consumes the equivalent of about 20 per cent of the gas along the way. To turn gas into a liquid it must be cooled to -160°C, which involves running giant compressor stations 24/7. That reduces the volume of the gas by more than 600 times. It then gets “regasified” (that’s really a word in the LNG world) on the other end.

Pacific NorthWest LNG was going to use natural gas to power that whole crazy process, making it a particularly egregious polluter. If built, Pacific Northwest would have accounted for between 75 and 80 per cent of total allowable emissions under B.C.’s 2050 climate target.

Despite all this pesky science, it has been a favourite BC Liberal talking point that exporting LNG will reduce emissions in other parts of the world — an argument that has been thoroughly debunked.

3) What does this all have to do with the Site C hydro dam?

Nothing. And everything.

Let us explain. It was the subject of much debate, but Pacific NorthWest LNG ultimately was going to rely on its own gas, not electricity, to run its compressors, so it wasn’t going to be a huge electricity consumer.

But at least three new transmission lines have been built in B.C.’s northeast to service the natural gas industry.

“In the name of making ‘dirty’ natural gas companies marginally less so, BC Hydro at the behest of the provincial government is aggressively pursuing a policy of providing ‘clean’ hydroelectricity to the gas industry so that its greenhouse gas emissions are lowered here in B.C.,” wrote Ben Parfitt of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives last year.

“It is this policy that provides the only credible explanation for why the Crown corporation is rushing to build the controversial dam at this time.”

Which is all to say: the entire narrative around the need for the Site C dam has relied heavily on the development of B.C.’s natural gas industry. Now the future for an LNG industry in B.C. looks bleaker than ever, it further calls into question the demand for the $8.8 billion publicly funded dam.

4) What does this announcement mean for B.C.’s natural gas industry?

That’s unclear right now, but the Petronas press release stated that the company and its North Montney Joint Venture partners “remain committed to developing their significant natural gas assets in Canada and will continue to explore all options as part of its long-term investment strategy moving forward.”

But how without a West Coast export facility? Well, TransCanada announced in June that the company would spend $2 billion to expand its NOVA Gas (NGTL) system to connect northern B.C. and Alberta natural gas producers to “premium intra-basin and export markets.”

That’s code for: our gas is going to go east, not west.

The North Montney Joint Venture is operated by Progress Energy Canada Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Petronas) — the company responsible for building at least 16 unauthorized dams in northern B.C. to trap hundreds of millions of gallons of water used in its controversial fracking operations.

Other partners in the joint venture? Japan Petroleum Export Corporation (JAPEX), PetroleumBRUNEI, IndianOil Corporation (IOC) and Sinopec-China Huadian.

Their goal? To develop the resources in the North Montney formation located along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in northeast British Columbia.

They own approximately 800,000 acres mineral rights in the North Montney with more than 52 trillion cubic feet of reserves and contingent resources, and more than 15,000 identified drilling locations. This is all “unconventional” gas, which means it’ll be accessed via fracking.

5) Wasn’t the project already approved?

Pacific NorthWest LNG was approved by the federal government in a controversial decision last September.

The company — wholly owned by the Malaysian government and boasting a questionable human rights record — had lobbied the federal government 22 times between February 1 and April 21, 2016, including meetings with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and her chief of staff Marlo Raynolds.

It recently came to light in court documents that the feds hadn’t even considered the cumulative climate impacts of the project while approving it and had actively decided not to impose conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution.

The approval was condemned by environmentalists as a licence for Canada to break its climate commitments. It was also broadly regarded as a horse trade, wherein the provincial government got the approval it wanted in return for the federal government getting the approval it wanted (B.C.’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — which the new NDP government says it will fight with “every tool available.”).

Pacific Northwest LNG donated more than $18,000 to the BC Liberals between 2014 and 2017, while negotiating a reduced tax rate and reduced hydro fees.

Indigenous nations had wrestled with internal divisions over whether or not to support the project, but Lax Kw’alaams had rejected a $1 billion pay-off from Petronas. In Gitxsan territory, the Madii Lii protest camp had strategically blocked the path of the proposed pipeline, the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline

The pipeline had received provincial approval, but hit a roadblock last week when a federal court ruled the National Energy Board had made a legal mistake in not considering whether the pipeline was under federal jurisdiction since it was explicitly for an export project.

— With files from Christopher Pollon and James Wilt

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 Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the National Energy Board (NEB) made a legal mistake by not considering whether TransCanada’s Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline is under federal jurisdiction, thus requiring NEB approval.

The 900-kilometre natural gas pipeline would move mostly fracked gas from northeastern B.C. to the proposed Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal near Prince Rupert.

The pipeline was approved by the B.C. government but Smithers, B.C., resident Mike Sawyer requested that the NEB hold a full hearing to determine whether the pipeline is actually in federal jurisdiction.

The NEB regulates the construction and operation of pipelines that cross international or provincial boundaries, as well as the export of oil, natural gas and electricity.

Map of the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline via the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The court sent the matter back to the National Energy Board for re-determination. Speaking for the unanimous panel of three judges, Justice Donald Rennie said the board looked only at the location of the pipeline within B.C. and failed to consider that the entire purpose of the pipeline is to move gas for export.

The judge said courts don’t usually overturn NEB decisions, but in this case the issue involves the constitution so the court is stepping in.

“This shows that the NEB was too quick to dismiss a legitimate constitutional argument without a full hearing,” Sawyer said. “I’m convinced that PRGT is just one part of a massive natural gas export scheme that is clearly within federal jurisdiction and needs federal approval to proceed.”

If built, the Pacific NorthWest LNG terminal would be the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The federal government’s approval of the export terminal is facing a judicial review this fall. The project has also been criticized for being situated on Lelu Island, where it will disturb critical salmon habitat at Flora Bank.

“I don’t think we should be exporting our natural resources, particularly energy resources, if we haven’t determined what’s in our public interest,” Sawyer said.

Pacific NorthWest #LNG Hits Road Block as #Gas Pipeline Sent Back to National Energy Board by Federal Court https://t.co/njBsxmWzjC @PNWLNG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 20, 2017

TransCanada now has 60 days to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal the decision.

Apart from that, the constitutional issue will go back to the National Energy Board for a full hearing to determine if the pipeline is in federal jurisdiction and would require a federal environmental assessment and approval.

Image: Lelu Island, the proposed site of the Pacific NorthWest LNG terminal. Photo: Lax U’u’la

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 14, 2017

Much of Pacific Northwest LNG Review Conducted Behind Closed Doors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirsten Zickfeld Affidavit PNW LNG by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

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

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

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

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

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

By Trevor Jang for Discourse Media.

Opponents of a massive liquefied natural gas project proposed for the north coast of B.C. have dug up a scientific report that band members were never shown.

In January of this year the Lax Kw’alaams Band signed an impact benefit agreement worth approximately $1 billion over 40 years in exchange for support for the $36 billion Pacific Northwest LNG project. But documents filed in federal court last month show the band council suppressed scientific research it had commissioned when the research report did not support the band’s position on the project. Members of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe, who filed the documents, are also arguing the band has no authority to approve the project.

“I don’t believe that they’re very ethical with the way that they’re doing things,” Murray Smith, a spokesperson for the Gitwilgyoots, tells me. “Why won’t [they] show us [the report]? Because it would work against them.”

The Gitwilgyoots launched their court challenge last October to have the federal government’s approval of the LNG facility overturned. Then in March, the Lax Kw’alaams Band filed a response to have the tribe’s challenge overturned.

Pacific Northwest LNG has been controversial because of its proposed location on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert. The island sits next to a sandbar called Flora Bank, which contains tall eelgrass that protects juvenile salmon as they adjust from the fresh water of the Skeena River to the salt water of the Pacific Ocean. Opponents of the project fear it will cause devastating impacts to the nursing grounds of millions of salmon and other species.

The report suppressed by the Lax Kw’alaams Band says the location of the project is a key concern. It was written by Asit Mazumder, a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Victoria. According to court documents, Mazumder was contracted by the band in the spring of last year to conduct an independent review of the project’s risk to fish and fish habitat in the Skeena River estuary.

Mazumder has not responded to requests for comment. But his report concluded that the research paid for by Pacific Northwest LNG, which informed the federal government leading up to Ottawa’s approval of the project, was “inconsistent.” It said the company’s modelling assumptions and lack of baseline data “make it difficult to conclude the project is at a low risk of significantly impacting Flora Bank.”

Mazumder wrote that the purpose of his report was to help Lax Kw’alaams band members “come to an informed judgement as to the likely safety of the project.” Lax Kw’alaams Mayor John Helin did not respond to requests for comment, but on April 21st he testified in a cross-examination that he didn’t share Mazumder’s report with the community. “I felt the road that he was going down was not an objective or independent review of all the necessary information that was out there,” Helin testified.  

"An Extremely Sad Experience for the Scientists"

Professor Mazumder’s was not the only science to be suppressed in the months leading up to the approval of the project. Geologist Patrick McLaren is President of SedTrend, an independent consulting firm specializing in sediment trend analysis. McLaren was hired by the Lax Kw’alaams Band in 2015 to evaluate the environmental effects of terminal development over Flora Bank.

His research concluded plans for development would have a disruptive effect on Flora Bank, and that the sediments there are ancient and irreplaceable. Then last September, just weeks before the federal government approved Pacific Northwest LNG, McLaren was served a cease and desist letter from the band warning him to stop “making references to any research, information, or other matters relating to our about your work with the Lax Kw’alaams Band.

“All of a sudden Dr. McLaren’s analysis disappeared. They never showed it again,” Smith recalls.

The letter came after McLaren wrote a memo to band members last July summarizing his concerns. This memo was read out at a community meeting in which members accused the band of spreading misinformation. McLaren says he was asked by concerned band members to write the memo, and that he was not allowed to attend the community meeting himself.

“It was an extremely sad experience for the scientists. I think we were all very distressed,” McLaren tells me in a recent interview.

The band’s letter called McLaren’s memo to band members “egregious” because it “appears to be clearly aimed at swaying the membership’s opinion.” The letter also accused McLaren of breaching his confidentiality provision in his contract with the band by writing the memo. McLaren argues he could speak out because his research was made public when it was submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

“All the science that had been done had been published in international literature with people that have got nothing to do with Lax Kw’alaams, nothing to do with Flora Bank, only to do with assessing whether the scientific method and the results were reasonable. And if they weren’t, there wouldn’t have been [any] hope of having that published,” says McLaren.

The letter warned McLaren not to share or refer to any of his previous work done for the band publicly, adding that if he did, the band would take steps against him.

Suppressed Science Report Questioned Location of #PNWLNG Plant https://t.co/Cwr84uUGHR #cdnpoli #bcpoli @SkeenaWild @SkeenaWatershed pic.twitter.com/eMbWjmzf7r

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 8, 2017

Battle over Lelu Island continues

Mazumder’s report and the letter to McLaren were submitted as evidence in the ongoing legal battle to stop Pacific Northwest LNG. The submissions on behalf of the hereditary leaders of the Gitwilgyoots Tribe accuse the Lax Kwa’laams Band of “producing decision-based evidence rather than evidence-based decisions.”

The Gitwilgyoots are attempting to have the federal government’s approval of the project overturned, on the claim that the tribe and its hereditary leaders were not adequately consulted. The tribe claims Lelu Island and the surrounding area as its traditional territory.

But the Lax Kw’alaams Band also claims jurisdiction over Lelu Island and is attempting to have the tribe’s court challenge dismissed. The band is arguing that the tribe, which represents the hereditary governance system of the Lax Kw’alaams and broader Coast Tsimshian people, is not a legal entity and therefore did not need to be consulted.

The outcome of the case could have broad implications for the question of who can speak for First Nations: hereditary chiefs or the elected council of federally administered Indian Act bands.

The two sides return to federal court June 7 and 8 in Vancouver.

Image: Juvenile salmon in the Skeena estuary. Photo: Tavish Campbell

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.

By Maximilian Kniewasser, Pembina Institute.

Four years ago, the government of British Columbia bet big on the prospect of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports creating overseas markets for the province’s shale and tight gas resources.

LNG development would deliver 100,000 jobs, a $100-billion Prosperity Fund, and over $1 trillion in economic activity, British Columbians were told. Since then, however, the economics of LNG have shifted, and the predicted LNG boom has yet to materialize.

In order to attract LNG investment, the provincial government has provided myriad incentives, exemptions, and direct transfers to the natural gas industry. Financial incentives that shield the emissions-intensive industry from current and potential future increases in carbon costs are of particular concern to the Pembina Institute.

For one thing, these measures lessen the incentive to reduce carbon pollution — as the world increasingly demands that polluters pay for their emissions. Furthermore, such incentives use scarce public dollars to support the fossil fuel sector at a time when government should be removing barriers to clean innovation and investing in green jobs.

Here is an overview of six carbon-related incentives that benefit LNG projects and the natural gas industry in B.C.

1. Carbon Tax Exemptions

B.C.’s carbon tax currently only applies to combustion emissions and fails to put a price on non-combustion sources (especially venting and fugitive emissions). According to B.C. government reporting, combustion emissions in the natural gas sector account for approximately 60 per cent of total emissions associated with the industry. That leaves 40 per cent of the industry’s emissions un-priced.

The current value of this exemption for the natural gas industry is estimated at over $150 million a year. This value would increase if a substantial LNG industry emerges. As well, a recent report shows that vented and fugitive emissions in B.C.’s oil and gas sector are 2.5 times higher than reported, making the exemption even more valuable.

By expanding the coverage of B.C.’s carbon tax to include all currently accurately measurable emissions, about half of these exempted emissions could be priced.

2. LNG Environmental Incentive Program

The Liquefied Natural Gas Environmental Incentive Program rebates industry 50-100 per cent of the compliance costs of the LNG benchmark regulations established by B.C.’s Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (GGIRCA). Of the three most advanced LNG projects, this incentive only applies to Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG), which is the only project that fails to achieve the emissions benchmark set by the provincial government. The value to PNW LNG is estimated at up to $16 million a year.

3. eDrive Electricity Rate for LNG Facilities

The eDrive electricity rate offers a significantly lower price to LNG projects that choose to use grid electricity to power the main liquefaction process. In 2013, B.C. Hydro announced an LNG-specific electricity rate. The rate was higher than the current industrial rate — to reflect the cost of new supply and to protect existing ratepayers.

However, the eDrive rate reduces this LNG electricity rate to the standard industrial rate. Woodfibre LNG announced that it would proceed with its project on the same day the eDrive rate was made public. The value to Woodfibre LNG is estimated at $26 million a year.

Six Troubling Subsidies That Support B.C.’s LNG Industry https://t.co/hpVLpox3QE #bcpoli #bcelxn17 #LNGinBC #cdnpoli @Pembina pic.twitter.com/y0Tk5TaxIH

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 5, 2017

4. Upstream Electricity Infrastructure Spending

In last year’s climate plan, the B.C. government announced it would invest in electricity infrastructure in the Montney basin to enable the electrification of upstream natural gas development. As details are not yet available, the Pembina Institute is not able to quantify the potential magnitude of the incentive.

5. Competitive Electricity Rate for Upstream Development

B.C.’s climate plan states: “Programs are also being developed to close the gap between electricity and natural gas costs.” Under current market conditions, using natural gas is generally cheaper for the industry compared to electricity.

As such, any public programs to equalize the costs of electricity and natural gas would be associated with material costs to government. As details are not yet available, the Pembina Institute is not able to determine the potential value of the incentive.

6. Project Development Agreement with Pacific NorthWest LNG

In 2015, the B.C. government signed a project development agreement (PDA) with Pacific NorthWest LNG. For PNW, the PDA locks in the current GGIRCA — the main legislation regulating carbon pollution from LNG facilities — for 25 years. It also locks in the aforementioned LNG Environmental Incentive Program.

If the government chooses to strengthen GGIRCA or alter the LNG Environmental Incentive Program, it could owe compensation to the proponent. In effect, the PDA is a significant barrier to future administrations strengthening regulations for the industry. This is an important point, because it will be the case over a period that we know must see the ambition of climate policy increase.

Wait, There’s More

This suite of carbon-related incentives for LNG projects and the natural gas industry is substantial in value. In addition, there are numerous non-carbon-related incentives, such as the cutting of the LNG income tax by 50 per cent, federal capital cost allowances, and significant upstream royalty credits that have led to record low royalties from a public resource.

Currently, 19 LNG projects are proposed in B.C. Only three — Woodfibre LNG, LNG Canada, and Pacific NorthWest LNG — are at an advanced stage and have received environmental assessment certificates. Together, the three projects would emit 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e), making it impossible to meet B.C.’s legislated 2050 climate target of 13 Mt CO2e for the whole economy.

Instead of spending public dollars to bolster the carbon-intensive fossil fuel sector, the provincial government should be putting resources into revving up the clean growth economy. After all, a prosperous future for B.C. depends on investments in the industries of tomorrow — not yesterday.

Maximilian Kniewasser is an analyst at the Pembina Institute, Canada’s leading clean energy think-tank. Learn more: www.pembina.org.

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 B.C. government is subsidizing the LNG industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars — and British Columbians are going to pay the price, according to a new report by Sierra Club B.C.

The report, Hydro Bill Madness: The BC Government Goes For Broke With Your Money, lays out the impact of tax breaks, subsidies and reduced electricity rates negotiated by industry.

“Power subsidies to even just two or three of the proposed LNG plants could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars per year,” reads a press release accompanying the report.

Two LNG export terminals have been approved in B.C. — Petronas’ Pacific Northwest LNG on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert and the Woodfibre LNG plant in Howe Sound near Squamish. Another 18 are proposed.

Both companies have been major donors to the B.C. Liberal party, which has ruled the province for 16 years and faces an election on May 9.

Malaysian-owned Pacific Northwest LNG donated more than $18,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 2014, while Indonesian-based Woodfibre has found itself in the midst of a growing scandal over illegal donations.

The Globe and Mail recently revealed that two Woodfibre lobbyists were reimbursed by their company for more than $75,000 in donations to the B.C. Liberals. This practice, which conceals the true source of political donations, is illegal. The investigation has now been handed over to the RCMP. Woodfibre also donated close to $60,000 under its companies’ names.

These donations took place while Woodfibre negotiated a subsidy on electricity rates and other tax breaks from the province.

WoodfibreLNG donated $60K to @BCLiberals & @ the same time negotiated electricity subsidy & other tax breaks https://t.co/xZkEX6PxU8 #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/4PuR692rC0

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 27, 2017

In November 2013, the B.C. government announced it would charge the LNG sector $83.02 per MWh for grid electricity. But three years later, in November 2016, the government announced it would lower that rate to $54.34 — a 35 per cent cut.

“That reduced rate will not cover the cost of production, so ratepayers will have to absorb the loss,” reads the Sierra Club report.

Looking just at the two approved LNG plants in British Columbia, Sierra Club found BC Hydro ratepayers could be on the hook for more than $150 million per year in subsidies if the plants use grid electricity.

“Construction of any of the 18 other plants currently being proposed would dramatically increase that amount,” reads the report.

Last year, the B.C. Liberals promised to have at least three LNG export terminals in operation by 2020, but not a single plant is yet under construction due to market uncertainty created by falling natural gas prices and the rise of renewables.

“Why is our government expecting British Columbians to pay a handout to international corporations each time we pay our hydro bill?” said Sierra Club BC campaigns director Caitlyn Vernon. “In their desperation to secure a deal, they are making terrible deals with serious consequences for all B.C. residents.”

Not only are LNG companies receiving a deeply subsidized electricity rate, but the power needs of northeastern B.C.’s fracked gas fields and LNG plants have been used to justify the construction of the $8.8 billion Site C dam — which is also being built with public money.

“The B.C. government is building an expensive dam we don’t need in order to offer subsidies to fracking and LNG companies, with BC Hydro ratepayers footing the bill for generations to come,” Vernon said.

The corporate handouts don’t end there. In return for access to British Columbia’s resources, oil and gas companies are expected to pay royalties. However, the B.C. government has been waiving much of these royalty payments — a practice called giving “royalty credits.”

In 2016, the B.C. government handed out $348 million in royalty credits and approved the carry-over of more than $520 million in future royalty credits by oil and gas producers, according to the Sierra Club report.

When those liabilities are applied to the earnings from 2016, oil and gas revenues were in the negative by $365 million.

“In other words, if you factor in future lost royalty revenue because of subsidies allocated in 2016, the natural gas sector actually cost the B.C. government, and therefore B.C. taxpayers, a million dollars per day in fiscal year 2016,” reads the report.

Additionally, in 2013, the B.C. government announced a seven per cent LNG tax — but as the import price in Asia collapsed, this rate was cut in half to 3.5 per cent.

Sierra Club argues the subsidies go beyond the LNG industry, and apply to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline as well. That pipeline will be powered by subsidized electricity at a cost of ratepayers of at least $27 million per year, according to the Sierra Club report. Across the 20-year life of that pipeline, the subsidy will amount to $540 million.

Kinder Morgan and its Alberta-based backers, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and oilsands producers contracted to ship oil on the new pipeline, have donated nearly $800,000 to the B.C. Liberal party.

Photo: While on the Spring 2014 trade mission, Premier Christy Clark visited the Petronas Twin Towers and met with CEO & chairman, Tan Sri Dato’ Sahmsul Azhar Abbas. Photo: Province of British Columbia via Flickr.

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

This article originally appeared on The Tyee.

Imagine if you lived in a nice quiet community of about 30 people, and the Chinese government got permission to plunk a $20-billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on your doorstep.

Holy snapping duck shit! Chances are you’d want a pretty strong say in whether that could or should happen, under what conditions, with whose permission — and you’d want a very clear, objective analysis of the costs and benefits, and the risks, to you, your family, your neighbours, not to mention the physical place that would be so massively disrupted by such a project — you know, the place you currently call home.

Most of us don’t live in nice quiet communities of 30 people — or maybe we do. On my residential block in East Vancouver, I’d say that (based on the census’s estimated average of 2.6 people per household in Vancouver) there are 30 people on my side of the street alone. Maybe you live in an old apartment building with 30 people in it total; maybe a condo with 30 people on your floor. Anyway, 30 people isn’t a lot, but $20 billion is, and right now, on Digby Island — right across the harbour from Prince Rupert in northern B.C. — the tiny community of Dodge Cove is staring down a project that would pretty much destroy it.

It’s become a “sacrifice zone” — yet another bucolic corner of the world at risk of being flattened on the anvil of progress.

“This community has a right to exist unmolested,” says Des Nobels, Dodge Cove resident, long-time fisherman, diligent regional politician and a tired man with a tether whose end he is very close to arriving at. “They (the company planning the project) says we’re their only problem, and we assured them we’ll be as big a problem as possible.”

The company that wants to pipe fracked gas to Digby Island — home to the Prince Rupert airport, Dodge Cove’s motley lot, and barely a stone’s throw from the City of Prince Rupert itself — is Aurora LNG. Aurora is a joint venture between Nexen Energy and INPEX Gas British Columbia Ltd. INPEX is Japan’s largest oil and gas exploration and production company, and its B.C. subsidiary fracks shale gas in the Horn River, Cordova and Liard basins in B.C.’s northeast. Nexen was a Canadian company till it was bought in 2013 by CNOOC Ltd., China’s national oil company.

Nexen and INPEX want to build a pipeline to an LNG plant and export terminal they intend to build on Digby Island, near the mouth of the Skeena River. If that has a familiar ring to it, maybe that’s because Malaysia’s national oil company, Petronas, wants to do pretty much the same thing, terminating on nearby Lelu Island — where a mighty resistance has already been joined by some members of the Gitwilgyoots tribe of the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation. Petronas already has qualified with controversial approval to build its project (First Nations, and others, are contesting the permit in court). Aurora doesn’t have an environmental certificate yet but it is working hard to get one — and it could be mere weeks away from succeeding.

“Aurora has been very good at flying under the radar,” Nobels said.

While much of the media chatter about pipelines in B.C. has been about Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project (permit denied), Petronas’s Pacific NorthWest LNG (approved), Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain project (approved, also being fought in court), and Shell’s recent decision to shelve its Prince Rupert LNG project due to market conditions, Aurora LNG has been quietly undergoing an assessment by B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office. Through what the boffins call a “substituted process,” the federal government takes a back seat, deferring to Christy Clark’s gas-loving government to objectively examine the pros and cons of the deal and impose whatever conditions it deems necessary if the project passes muster.

These approval processes typically cost millions of dollars. Aurora’s proposal has been in review for more than two years now, and in addition to the proponent and its galaxy of high-priced experts, more than 100 interested parties — the province, the feds, First Nations, local governments, a “full suite of the agencies” according to the EAO’s project assessment manager Sean Moore — have been poring over Aurora’s plans as part of a technical working group. Its work will be completed on July 8. By Labour Day, Aurora could be approved.

“It’s a pretty rigorous review,” Moore told me.

It’s a stitch up, says Nobels. “The province can do anything it wants.”

Behold The Allure of the Energy Megaproject https://t.co/Tnq3veVhG9 @Gillwave @TheTyee @discoursemedia #AuroraLNG #bcpoli #bcelxn17 pic.twitter.com/BjbPqk2pqO

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 21, 2017

The EAO review perforce includes consultation with First Nations, paid for by the federal government, which announced last December that its Participant Funding Program transferred $364,560 to the province to help seven First Nations groups evaluate Aurora’s project. The Gitga’at, Gitxaala, Kitselas and Kitsumkalum First Nations each got $54,040 from the government for the process, while Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla received $67,550 apiece, and the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia got $13,300. The people of Dodge Cove? At first they were told there was no money for them. Then on the last day of February they were told they could have $12,000, but it couldn’t be applied retroactively to work they had done in the consultation process. The public comment period closed nine days later.

“An afterthought… an afterthought — if we were thought of at all,” says Nobels, He doesn’t begrudge area First Nations getting funds to participate in the project review, but in the case of his community “we basically volunteer our time, search for inconsistencies with what little technical knowledge we have, call in favours from friends… it’s an extremely onerous and lengthy endeavor which takes its toll on people who aren’t versed in all of this.”

Moore said he “cannot comment on the fairness or adequacy of how governments choose to fund public consultation processes” — that’s a policy issue, and the EAO’s policy is that it doesn’t fund public interest groups. He says local communities can rely on “all the agencies that are looking out for their concerns,” but concedes “there is probably a trust challenge.”

Yeah, just maybe. Especially when the province writes, as it did in early February, warning the North Coast Regional District that proposed amendments to Dodge Cove’s Official Community Plan — the only land-use process that gives voice to local interests — “appear to attempt to prohibit key elements of the proposed LNG facility development, in an attempt to render the project infeasible.” It warns that the province has entered into agreements that “provide the proponents with the exclusive right to move forward with the planning necessary to build LNG export infrastructure at their proposed facility sites.”

Brian Hansen, assistant deputy minister and lead negotiator, energy and LNG initiatives in the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, claims in a nicely ironic twist that the province is not being properly consulted with by the community, even though — when it comes to planning processes — “(the province) can do what they damn well want,” Nobels says.

In other words, there is a manifest lack of fairness any time big oil and gas, or mining, or logging, or any resource extractor with a commodity lust and some capital, comes to town. This is not exactly breaking news. For decades now, the Dodge Coves of this province — be they on Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, in the Great Bear, the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the Chilcotin, up north, on Burnaby Mountain, wherever — have been where the David and Goliath battles between industry and community have been inequitably joined.

The technical tables are always stacked against communities, which is why local activists end up resorting — in ways that offend the order of the bureaucratic, technocratic and legalistic mind — to public sympathy. Which is why they end up being called activists in the first place, because industry and their government sponsors prefer to restrict all activity to processes they control. Going outside the process to engage a battle for hearts and minds retains its potency for people who feel that the system renders them impotent. But while this route offers those who resist industrial projects a channel to protest, it also offers industry and governments powerful opportunities to deceive.

Primping the wares

Like pornography, the imagery that proponents of industrial development use these days to primp their wares is soulless, plotless, spotless, and hairless. (Mmm: note to self: that’s a good name for a law firm, or maybe a corporate communications consultancy). These days no proposal for an industrial project that threatens our environment comes without videos or television ads extolling the proponent’s almost childlike reverence for nature, its almost custodial sense of duty to nurture the ecosystems it is about to befoul, its solemn vow to mitigate any “disturbance,” its prophylactic commitment to safety, its championing of the benefits to everyman — the worker, and his or her dependents — and of course an almost prayerful obeisance to the betterment of Indigenous people.

See what I mean? This is Pacific Northwest LNG's rendering of its spotless industrial plant on Lelu Island.

Enbridge’s campaign ads for Northern Gateway were like Dove soap commercials, its depictions of the B.C. coast more suited to promoting a 10-day wilderness adventure in the Great Bear than what its project was actually going to do there, which was to bring tar sands oil to tidewater and clutter our waterways with tankers. Its scripts presumably were written by robots, since it defies belief that an actual human could come up with tripe like, “The first step in making things better is to be sure that it’s not at the expense of making other things worse.” That would be almost Hippocratic if it weren’t so utterly moronic.

Aurora LNG has produced some YouTube bling of its own, including animation of its Digby Island facilities (albeit set to music that would kill even the healthiest libido) that makes the place look like a university campus or a small airport with nice, tidy outbuildings fed by clean white pipes, which rather airbrushes the degree to which these plants are dirty, noisy, dangerous industrial sites that destroy local habitat and pollute the air with, among other things, greenhouse gases that we are supposed to be reducing. Meanwhile, the animation showing the impeccably choreographed arrival and departure of massive LNG tanker ships seems to favour blue skies and waveless and windless ocean conditions for which B.C.’s north coast is not exactly renowned. And of course whenever newspapers or television stations run stories about LNG plants, they illustrate them with company handouts of lovely neat, clean, almost always bright white buildings and pipes and tanks and rustless ships berthed at glistening docks. Is there not a photo editor left in Canadian journalism who might think to find an image of what these facilities actually look like when they are operating?

Meantime, after taking Aurora’s “facility tour” on YouTube, you can “meet the team” before viewing another video about your “neighbour of choice,” which might seem a bit ripe to people on Digby Island. Who is choosing whom, exactly? But what’s really curious about all these manipulations is that, other than letting viewers meet the team who are duty bound to say nice things because they are on the payroll, the illustrations seldom depict even cartoon people doing actual work at an actual LNG plant — surprising, given that every sales pitch about LNG features the promise of good, local jobs. Perhaps my favourite entry in the unintended irony category comes courtesy of Pacific NorthWest LNG, the Canadian front for Petronas, which has been at pains to promise jobs and other benefits to local First Nations, all the while assuring everyone that its planned operations on Lelu Island and nearby Flora Bank pose no threat to wild salmon. Check out their Current Opportunities page, scrolling down to look at the background image, with its echo of Toni Onley’s coastal scenes, complete with a fishboat christened — this is cute — Lelu. Note that the spotless boat has neither skipper nor crew, which probably wasn’t intended to be a comment on current or future job opportunities for local fisherfolk.

Aurora, unnaturally

Word has it that Petronas might move its loading docks away from Flora Bank to nearby Ridley Island, an already industrialized site. Lelu will still be flattened to make way for the gas plant — assuming Petronas goes ahead at all, market conditions being what they are.

Over on Digby Island, meantime, some of the locals probably feel like the ghost crew of the good ship Lelu. In the public comment period that ended March 9, almost 800 comments were posted, an overwhelming number (773 against, to 25 for) registering their opposition to Aurora’s plans. Many of the comments were generated via computer-assisted campaigns run by the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Committee, the kind of formulaic write-in responses that governments tend to discount as being biased and unscientific. Many commentators, however — including a number of people from Digby Island for whom that last-minute $12,000 came too late — posted detailed, sophisticated and often heartfelt critiques of the project.

To read all 800 or so comments, which I did, is to detect an air of fatalism in some of the responses, and a clear sense of distrust and despair at a process triggered by a proposal that came out of nowhere and that, even if it never gets built, has placed an unconscionable burden on a few people who have nothing else to draw upon except their love of place. One resident calls it a “death sentence” for the community, and another talks of “falsifying” of information presented on maps displayed at project open houses that didn’t even show there was a community of Dodge Cove on Digby Island. “It is ridiculous to wipe an over 100-year-old community off the maps to present to the public a pretty picture of where Aurora LNG wants to build,” the writer said. (In my reading of the comments, there was one Dodge Cove resident who thought the arrival of industry might bring with it a more reliable water supply, so community opposition is not unanimous.)

Aurora has done much to burnish its image. It even sounds innocuous. After all, Aurora is the Roman goddess of the morning. It’s also the name of the princess in Sleeping Beauty. It’s a town in Ontario. It’s a naturally occurring electrical phenomenon, as in borealis. And now, on the north coast of B.C., it is an unnaturally occurring industrial phenomenon that could also lighten the night sky, yet another flickering green light in Christy Clark’s gas-lit casino economy.

Will it happen? If getting a passing grade from a B.C.-led environmental review seems like an awfully low bar, perhaps low gas prices will function as a brake on Aurora’s plans. But Des Nobels isn’t so sure. “CNOOC have the supply, they are the market, they own the ships, they have all the capital in the world. The Chinese want the gas, they want to take it home and do things with it.”

If Aurora gets its permit, Nobels said the people of Dodge Cove can look forward to another couple of years of invasive exploration and site assessment and four to five years of construction.

“The net effect of all of the impacts will probably be enough to drive most of us out.”

And then those settlement-free maps will prove to have been prescient — there’ll be no problem community of Dodge Cove after all.

Image: Province of BC

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.

Between the Site C dam, Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and the Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility, it’s hard to keep track of all the projects that have been approved in B.C. But for First Nations that will be affected by the Pacific NorthWest LNG terminal and pipelines, the environmental and cultural impacts are impossible to escape.

In what is now the fourth federal lawsuit filed against the federal government’s approval of the $36 billion LNG project, two Gitxsan Nation hereditary chiefs have filed a judicial review arguing that Pacific NorthWest LNG infringes on their Aboriginal fishing rights.

In October of last year, judicial reviews were also filed in federal court by the Gitanyow and Gitwilgyoots First Nations, as well as the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.

The main concern? Salmon. Specifically, salmon stocks in the Skeena watershed, which supports Canada's second-largest salmon run. The LNG export terminal is planned for Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert, a site the federal government studied 40 years ago and found unsuitable or port development.  

“Lelu Island is an area that is very, very unique,” explained Yvonne Lattie, hereditary chief of the Gwininitxw house group in the Gitxsan First Nation and one of the plaintiffs in the judicial review.

“It has a pre-glacial shelf where the eelgrass grow, which is vital for the survival of the little smolts (a smolt is a salmon that is getting ready to go out to sea).”

Salmon need to get used to the salt water before they make their way out to sea, in a process that can take up to six weeks. This means they’re susceptible to changes on the Flora Bank, where Petronas — a Malaysian based company that holds a 62-per-cent interest in Pacific NorthWest LNG — is hoping to build off-loading terminals.

“If we do not have Lelu island, if we do not have the eelgrass, our salmon will not survive. Lelu island is vital in the survival of the salmon and in the survival of the aboriginal people that live on the Skeena,” Lattie added.

The Gitxsan First Nation has fished salmon on the Skeena for generations, but Lattie explained that since Lelu Island is not technically their territory, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency decided the Gitxsan wouldn’t be impacted by the LNG terminal. Studies conducted by both the Gwininitxw house and Simon Fraser University contradict that assessment.

A study conducted by Simon Fraser University professor Jonathan Moore found that salmon on the Skeena River originate from 40 different populations, spanning more First Nations territories than those consulted by the government.

The First Nations have partnered with RAVEN Trust to raise funds to see the lawsuits through. Last week they held a fundraiser in East Vancouver where hereditary chiefs and environmental activists were joined onstage by Grand Chief Stewart Philip from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

Communities Divided by 'Secretive Deals'

Richard Wright, spokesperson for uncle Charlie Wright — hereditary chief of the Luutkudziiwus house group and second plaintiff in the federal lawsuit against Ottawa and Petronas — says the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency chose to consult with the Gitxsan Development Corporation, who Wright said have no aboriginal land rights or a mandate to represent the Gitxsan First Nation.

“Premier Clark’s secretive deals foster corruption and divide our communities but it will not avail her when our case gets to court,” Wright said.

The tensions sown within the Gitxsan Nation by the B.C. government’s push for LNG have been well documented by Discourse Media.

“They (CEAA) stopped talking to us and continued negotiating with this corporation,” explained Wright. “Afterwards [CEAA] says their study says that there will be little to no impact on the salmon, therefore little to no impacts on our rights. And that the depth of consultation will be very shallow. I said that was inadequate and that it was not up to them to determine to what extent the consultation process will go to.”

That’s when Wright decided to “shut down” his territory. He placed a large industrial gate on the only road coming in and out of the Suskwa valley, and built a large permanent camp.

“Since we've done that, we've been running youth programs out there, primarily focused on cultural revitalization and connecting youth to the land,” added Wright. He says he also started kicking surveyors out.

When contacted about these claims, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) reiterated that the Government of Canada stands behind its decision on the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project. They added that the decision to approve the project “was made following a rigorous federal environmental assessment with over 190 conditions in place to protect the environment.”

The CEAA also maintained that it consulted with Indigenous groups “based on the project’s potential impact on their potential or established Aboriginal rights or title.” Meanwhile, Pacific NorthWest LNG also says that it consulted with First Nations who are located closest to Lelu Island.

Wright and the rest of the plaintiffs hope that the judicial review will reverse the order of approval on the LNG project, and grant them the right to be properly consulted.

“We have the right and ability to manage our own rights and resources, and they're going to have to recognize that,” said Wright.

‘Our Salmon Will Not Survive’: Gitxsan Nation Raising Funds to Fight #PNWLNG in Court https://t.co/5ZdVO4jmAC #bcpoli #cdnpoli #Skeena pic.twitter.com/JbCewoUgU3

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 17, 2017

B.C. Subsidizing LNG Industry

Besides the potential harm to the Skeena watershed, some critics of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project think the project makes no sense economically.

“B.C. was late to the LNG race, renewables are cheaper now. But B.C. is subsidizing these companies as our hydro bills go up,” explained Caitlyn Vernon, a campaigner for the Sierra Club BC.

Even though the Sierra Club is not involved with the lawsuit, the environmental non-for-profit has been working to raise awareness about the Petronas project. The organization is about to publish a report about the B.C. government’s reduction of corporate tax rates for LNG.

“Industry is paying less than the cost of producing the power. And then it's hydro rate payers that are making up the difference,” explained Vernon.

“We don't need the Site C dam for existing power needs in British Columbia. We have enough power for our needs, so the only reason that we would build this would be to provide electricity to fracking and LNG facilities or for the tar sands. That's going to take 70 years to pay off and that's gonna mean increases in hydro rates for all B.C. So we're going to be paying for it.”

With a B.C. election coming up on May 9, Vernon thinks these issues will play an important role.

“This is an issue for all British Columbians, not just because of salmon or climate impact but also because we are going to be paying for these industries for generations through our taxes and our hydro rates.”

Photo: Freshwaters Illustrated

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 years, B.C. Premier Christy Clark has been under immense pressure to deliver on the liquefied natural gas (LNG) promises that formed the backbone of her 2013 election campaign.

Back then, the Liberals predicted LNG could create almost 40,000 construction jobs in BC, 75,000 full-time jobs once in operation, and much more.

“It’s no fantasy,” read the Liberal platform of 2013.  “We can create $1 trillion in economic activity and create the BC Prosperity Fund with $100 billion over 30 years.”

But four years later, the opportunity to cash in on LNG exports to Asia has dissolved, while the $100 million currently sitting in the Prosperity Fund has been drawn not from natural gas, but from sources like the premiums for the BC Medical Services Plan.

On the cusp of the 2017 election, just one relatively tiny LNG plant (Woodfibre LNG), owned by Singapore tycoon Sukanto Tanoto, has committed to move forward. Meanwhile the long-time front-runner, Pacific Northwest LNG planned near Prince Rupert, continues to stall despite receiving federal environmental approval in September 2016. And last week, Royal Dutch Shell announced it’s abandoning its Prince Rupert LNG project.

In hopes of luring major LNG producers to our shores, the BC Liberals have offered perks and subsidies of unprecedented generosity. What follows is an incomplete list of the public giveaways offered to spur the creation of a B.C. LNG industry. Taken all together, the largesse of these incentives prompts a disturbing question: at what point do the perks offered by government negate the public benefit of owning the resource in the first place?

Cheap Susidized Power

Around the same time Woodfibre LNG made a final investment decision last November, Clark announced that all LNG projects using electric drives powered by the grid would qualify for an industrial electricity rate of around $60/megawatt hours (MWh).

This slashed the previous LNG electricity price of around $84/MWh by 2020.  This higher price recognized that new and future supply used by potential LNG companies, from sources like Site C, will be much more expensive than the electricity generated by our older, already paid-for legacy hydro dams.

The savings implication of this price cut is astronomical for future LNG operations if they appear. An independent analysis by Paul Ramsey conservatively calculated that Woodfibre LNG alone will save at least $13.8 million annually from the change. (A separate analysis found the annual subsidy to be closer to $34 million per year for Woodfibre).

Ramsey’s analysis concluded that the BC government was paying $138,524 for each of the 100 permanent jobs being created by this LNG facility.

“Government is about choices, and this government is making some batshit crazy choices,” concluded Ramsey.

Sweetening the electricity deal even further, the latest B.C. budget phased out provincial sales tax (PST) on electricity purchased by businesses, which will result in millions more in savings for Woodfibre LNG.

Carbon Leakage, Changing Laws and Gutting Targets

Since former premier Gordon Campbell introduced North America’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008, British Columbia has been celebrated as a climate action innovator. But a major problem with the tax, beyond B.C.’s failure to increase the per tonne cost over time, is that it only covers combustion sources.  (Combustion only accounts for only about 70 percent of total provincial emissions). That leaves 30 percent untaxed, and a huge share of these come from the upstream production of natural gas, says Pembina Institute analyst Maximilian Kniewasser.

“It’s pollution that is not taxed,” he says.

Consider that the natural gas sector in B.C. is responsible today for about 11 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, or about 17 per cent of all of B.C.’s emissions. About 40 percent of those natural gas-related emissions are from non combustion sources – like venting of carbon dioxide and leaks of methane all along the supply chain — and the industry does not have to pay carbon tax on these emissions.  It’s a gaping loophole that remains wide open, costing industry nothing.

The carbon-related perks do not stop there: it was originally proposed that LNG plants would have to meet a greenhouse gas emission benchmark for each tonne of LNG produced.  If they could not meet this, they would have to either pay for offsets, buy credits from other companies or pay into a clean technology fund at $25/tonne. Since then, the province has created an incentive program for LNG projects that come close (but fail) to meet the benchmark, which rebates anywhere from 50 to 100 per cent depending on the company’s performance.

Here’s a laundry list of how @BCLiberals are bribing the #LNG industry @ the public’s expense https://t.co/mr890mZYCg #bcpoli #LNG #bcelxn17 pic.twitter.com/CWEVouj4qv

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 15, 2017

Climate Leadership Plan Subsidizes Dirty Industry

In 2012, the Clean Energy Act, which stipulates that B.C. must get 93 per cent of its energy supply from clean sources, was changed to lift any restrictions on future LNG plants using natural gas to power their operations. By making the change, B.C. signalled a willingness to abandon its climate change targets for the sake of enticing energy-intensive LNG plants into the province.

Flash forward to last August, when the BC Liberals unveiled their Climate Leadership Plan, which contains a scheme to spend public money to electrify gas extraction.  The idea to “green” gas production had actually been set in motion months before, in January of 2016, when BC Hydro announced the construction of a $300-million, publicly funded transmission line deep into the Montney gas fields (one of three being planned).

“Before, industrial customers had to burn gas to power their facilities,” stated Christy Clark in the press release. “The new transmission line not only makes more projects possible, it means they’ll be even cleaner.”

Providing BC Hydro grid power to the gas fields is particularly important because the Montney Basin is home to a lot of “wet” natural gas, meaning it contains valuable things like propane, ethane and butane. Especially during the ongoing commodity slump, such spinoff products are more valuable, so gas companies are loath to burn wet gas just to generate energy.

“Irrespective of what happens with LNG, it is in the financial interest of the gas industry to see those operations electrified,” said Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who wrote on this subject in DeSmog Canada.

It’s this policy of providing hydro power to the gas industry that provides what Parfitt calls “the only credible explanation for why the Crown corporation is rushing to build the controversial [Site C] dam at this time.”

Greasing the Wheels of Social Licence 

In February 2017, the B.C. government announced it was spending at least $145 million in deals with two north coastal First Nations affected by proposed LNG projects near Prince Rupert.  In addition to the money, the communities of Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla will receive about two cents per tonne of LNG shipped (to be placed in a coastal fund), and a transfer of more than 2,100 hectares of provincial Crown land.

The agreements will allow the Pacific Northwest LNG to work “on a common goal of realizing the project,” said Wan Badrul Hisham, the company’s chief project officer at the Victoria announcement.  The B.C. government confirmed to DeSmog Canada that the benefit agreements will be funded by the province and not by industry.

Trouble Brewing Upstream

In 2013, the BC Liberal election bus was wrapped with a “Debt Free B.C.” banner, an idea predicated on a bullish outlook for future gas royalties. But in 2017, not only have B.C. royalty rates plummeted (largely due to low commodity prices), but the revenue to the Crown continues to be eroded by provincial “royalty credits” — estimated by the Centre for Policy Alternatives’ economist Marc Lee to average $244 million per year over the past decade. According to Lee, these credits for deep fracking and “road and pipeline infrastructure,” in addition to super-low usage charges for water, are examples of how the upstream gas producers needed to supply a future LNG industry are being subsidized by the public.

Selling Out The Province…For A Song

In summer of 2015, the province signed its first Project Development Agreement with front-running Pacific Northwest LNG — a project led by Malaysia’s Petronas (and including China Petrochemical Corp., Brunei National Petroleum Co., and others). Among other things, the agreement locked in taxes (including a tax rate of 3.5 percent, cut in half from the previous LNG rate of seven per cent) and various environmental regulations for the first 25 years of commercial operation.

One impact of the agreement, says Pembina’s Kniewasser, is that if a future government attempts to strengthen LNG specific environmental regulations (like those found in B.C.’s Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act), they will have to pay compensation.

“It insulates companies from future increases of carbon costs,” he said.

The deal particularly incensed Martyn Brown, Gordon Campbell’s former chief of staff, who vented during a conversation with Vancouver Province columnist Michael Smyth.

“It’s an unprecedented giveaway to the biggest oil companies in the world,” he said.  “This is not a deal that the Campbell government would have ever, ever put in place because we are selling out this resource for a song.”

Photo: Province of British Columbia via Flickr

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