Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

After a nail-biting preliminary vote count that saw a tense tug-of-war between the BC NDP and BC Conservatives, there is still no definitive winner in British Columbia’s 2024 election. With a few ridings too close to call, the make-up of the next B.C. government is in limbo — and the BC Greens could once again end up holding the balance of power.

As of Sunday, David Eby’s NDP had won or were leading in 46 seats while the BC Conservatives, led by John Rustad, had 45, electing MLAs for the first time in almost 50 years. It’s a far cry from 2020, when the Conservatives ran 19 candidates, didn’t elect a single MLA and won less than two per cent of the provincial vote. The final B.C. election results won’t be known for about a week.

In his election night speech, Rustad reflected on his party’s historic result, telling the crowd, “we have now elected already the largest number of Conservatives in B.C.’s history.”

“If we’re in that situation of the NDP forming a minority government, we will look at every single opportunity from day one to bring them down at the very first opportunity and get back to the polls,” Rustad said.

While Rustad did not offer an olive branch to the majority of British Columbians who did not cast a ballot for his party, Eby emphasized the need to find common ground.

“We disagree on many things, John Rustad and I, there’s no question, but I will absolutely acknowledge that he spoke to the frustrations of a lot of British Columbians — frustrations about the cost of daily life, frustrations about crime and public safety — and we can agree on these things.”

Eby also said his party is committed to working with the BC Green caucus and that “our whole province deserves a premier that’s going to bring us together, not drive us apart.”

The BC Greens won two seats, the same number they held in the last government, but party leader Sonia Furstenau lost to incumbent NDP MLA Grace Lore in Victoria-Beacon Hill. 

“It’s not the outcome that we hoped for in Victoria-Beacon Hill,” a visibly disappointed Furstenau told supporters. “It does appear that the Greens are still going to play a pivotal role in the B.C. legislature. It’s a strange time in politics when during an atmospheric river people come out and vote for a party that’s denying the reality of climate change. But hey, this is where we’re at.” 

Despite the loss of their leader from the legislature, it could be déjà-vu for the Greens, who in 2017 brokered an agreement with the BC NDP to allow the NDP, which didn’t garner enough votes for a majority, to govern. 

The two Greens who were elected, neophyte MLAs Jeremy Valeriote in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky and Rob Botterell in Saanich North and the Islands, may have to decide if they are going to support the BC NDP or the BC Conservatives, allowing one of the two parties to form government. Furstenau, who told supporters she plans to advise the new Green caucus, could play a key role in brokering such an agreement. 

Regardless of how many seats the BC Conservatives end up with once the results are finalized, the outcome represents a stunning win for the upstart party, which will have a far more visible role for the next four years.

The BC Conservatives campaigned on a promise to restore “common sense” in B.C. and set a  new course for the province, primarily by eliminating or changing policies implemented by the BC NDP government during its seven years in office. While gradually rolling out his party’s election platform, Rustad was frequently asked to respond to controversial and offensive statements made by his candidates — from racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments on social media to support for conspiracy theories and climate skepticism. (Rustad himself was booted out of the BC Liberal caucus in 2022 for questioning climate change science.)

Eby and his party spent much of the election campaign criticizing the BC Conservatives and casting doubt on their fitness for office, while campaigning primarily on housing, affordability and healthcare issues. Pressing environmental issues — including the logging of old-growth forests, the expansion of the province’s new LNG export sector and meeting a commitment to protect 30 per cent of the province by 2030 — took a distant backseat. 

The three parties spent weeks presenting their visions for B.C. — visions that often offered competing views of what the province needs and where the government’s priorities should lie.

The difference between the BC NDP and the BC Conservatives is especially stark on climate action, protected areas and old-growth logging issues, although the parties’ platform promises are surprisingly similar on other issues like LNG development. The BC Greens, on the other hand, pledged to end new approvals for LNG projects, phase out fracking and “commission a comprehensive and independent health impact assessment to evaluate the health effects of LNG and fracking activities in B.C.”

So what lies ahead for climate action and nature in B.C.? Will the province stay the course — or can we expect radical changes? Is it full-steam ahead for LNG? What will happen to old-growth forests, protected areas and at-risk species? 

Read on for a breakdown of the key contrasts and similarities between the two parties in a neck and neck race to form B.C.’s next government — and what the Greens have to say as well.

Rustad says a Conservative government will repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

Despite voting for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act when he was a BC Liberal MLA, Rustad has promised to repeal the legislation. The Conservative platform promised to replace it with a new law to advance “economic reconciliation and Indigenous autonomy” and claimed the NDP’s implementation of the act “has stalled Indigenous-led development in industries like mining, forestry, natural gas and other sectors.”

On the campaign trail, Rustad frequently referenced his experience as Aboriginal relations minister with the BC Liberal government and the hundreds of agreements the province secured with First Nations during those years.

The Tŝilhqot’in National Government and the First Nations Leadership Council denounced the Conservative position in public statements.

Two days before voting day, the leadership of five Dakelh Nations, whose territory covers four provincial ridings — including Rustad’s Nechako Lakes seat — released a statement urging members to vote for candidates who “understand the important roles and responsibilities First Nations people and our governments have in north-central B.C.”

“We do not have confidence in the leader of the BC Conservative Party, who focuses on all the wrong things,” the leaders wrote, warning that under a BC Conservative government, “First Nations human rights will be challenged and violated.”

Eby and the NDP also criticized the Conservative pledge to repeal the declaration while promising to stay the course on commitments to Indigenous Rights, also pledging to work with First Nations on conservation goals and economic development.

During a televised leaders’ debate in early October, Eby said he would not re-introduce proposed changes to the Land Act. The changes were intended to better align the Land Act with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by creating a pathway for the province to make joint decisions with First Nations about public land use.

Rustad described the potential changes as “an assault on your private property rights and our shared rights to use Crown land,” drawing condemnation from former Green Party MLA Adam Olsen and First Nations leaders.

In February, Nathan Cullen, the minister responsible for developing the proposed changes, announced the plan was being shelved, pending further consultation. (Cullen lost his Bulkley Valley-Stikine riding to the Conservatives.)

Following the furor, the NDP government took a more circumspect approach to reconciliation efforts in the natural resource and conservation spheres.

In June, the province announced a massive new protected area in Clayoquot Sound, covering 1,639 square kilometres, to be managed by the Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations. The announcement came with little fanfare — just a news release and scant acknowledgement from the NDP caucus. 

The former NDP government frustrated Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs by backtracking on plans to temporarily pause new mineral claims in the Medizian watershed in northern B.C., partly due to concerns about Indigenous Rights becoming a flashpoint ahead of the election.

“I have no interest in Rights and Title and reconciliation just being a political football in the midst of a provincial campaign like they were 20 years ago,” Cullen said on a June call between B.C. ministers and Gitanyow representatives. The recording was reviewed by The Narwhal and quoted in a press release from the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

The BC NDP committed to protecting 30 per cent of B.C.’s land base by 2030; Rustad called the effort ‘nonsense’

The BC NDP remains committed to achieving the global 30-by-30 conservation target, but has yet to make much progress on the pledge. The BC Conservatives plan to abandon the province’s commitment to protecting 30 per cent of B.C.’s land by 2030. In an interview with The Narwhal in May, Rustad called the commitment “nonsense.”

At the United Nations biodiversity conference in December 2022, Canada and 195 other countries committed to conserve at least 30 per cent of land and water globally by 2030 as part of international efforts to reverse the unprecedented decline of biodiversity. 

In 2022, Eby tasked Cullen, in his former role as minister of water, land and resource stewardship, with working to achieve the 30-by-30 goal. As of the end of last year, the government claimed 19.7 per cent of B.C. is protected — although limited development and industrial activity is allowed in some areas, and critics say some areas in the tally fail to meet biodiversity goals. 

BC Conservatives have promised a stand-alone law to protect at-risk species, something the NDP once promised but never delivered

The BC Conservatives platform said the NDP government had underfunded and mismanaged wildlife in the province, leading to declines in “iconic ungulate species.” The BC Conservatives promised to introduce “made-in-B.C. species at risk legislation so wildlife protections are shaped by B.C.-based experts — not Ottawa — and are reflective of our unique ecosystems.”

In its 2017 campaign platform, the BC NDP also committed to bring in a provincial law governing endangered species. But it quietly reneged on that promise after coming to power.

The party’s platform this time around made no mention of legislation to protect at-risk species — something both the BC Greens and BC Conservatives promised to introduce. Instead, the NDP committed to working with First Nations and other partners on a “made-in-B.C. strategy” to protect biodiversity and watersheds.

There are 1,952 species and ecosystems officially at some risk of extinction in the province, according to the B.C. government’s conservation data centre — and advocates say the province’s lack of stand-alone legislation to protect species at risk of extinction remains a glaring gap. 

Late last year, the NDP government released a draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework. It said the framework would set the direction “for a more holistic approach to stewarding our land and water resources” and eventually lead to legislation to protect biodiversity.

The party initially aimed to finalize the strategy by the spring, but it was still in limbo when the election campaign kicked off in September. 

Both support LNG development — but BC Conservatives have pledged to go all in 

Over the past seven years, the BC NDP government has championed the development of a liquid natural gas (LNG) export industry in B.C. The party claimed stringent emission standards would allow the province to reap economic benefits while still meeting its carbon emission reduction targets — a goal critics say is impossible to achieve.

Like the BC Conservatives, the NDP maintains natural gas will displace more carbon-intensive coal-fired electricity in countries on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. But the claim LNG is a crucial transition fuel for the world is widely disputed by critics, who point out that countries like China are outpacing most nations in developing renewable energy projects despite their reliance on coal. The benefits of LNG are also disputed in a new peer-reviewed study, which found exported gas has a larger carbon footprint than coal.

Under Eby’s leadership, the government approved Cedar LNG — a Haisla Nation-led liquefaction and export facility that will receive gas from the Coastal GasLink pipeline owned by TC Energy. In Squamish, B.C., Woodfibre LNG, a project majority owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto’s Pacific Energy Corporation, is now under construction. Combined, the two facilities will produce about five million tonnes per year.

Four other LNG projects are undergoing environmental assessments, including the Ksi Lisims LNG project. If approved, they could produce another 30 million tonnes of LNG per year.

The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline — in the preliminary stages of construction — would ship mostly fracked gas from northeast B.C. to Ksi Lisims. Whichever party forms government will soon have to decide if the pipeline, the subject of a blockade, will require a new environmental assessment.

The BC Conservatives promised to double the province’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) production by approving proposed LNG projects while the NDP’s election platform only mentioned LNG once, saying some of the revenue raised from fossil fuel projects will be directed into a “clean economy transition fund” to help “attract even more global investment in renewable fuels, clean tech, manufacturing and critical mineral mines.”

Asked twice during a recent press conference whether his party would approve more LNG projects if re-elected, Eby avoided a direct answer.

“LNG or any other project, it needs to fit within our commitments around carbon pollution and for our energy action framework that means a realistic plan to be net zero by 2030, lifting up communities and creating opportunities for British Columbians,” Eby said in response to a question from The Narwhal.

Both parties have promised to eliminate the consumer carbon tax — but the BC NDP included a caveat

A key plank of the BC Conservative platform was to eliminate “any and all” carbon taxes for both consumers and industry. Rustad has called carbon pricing “an economic disaster and an environmental failure” that “drives up costs on everything from groceries to gas, hitting families and businesses hard while doing absolutely nothing to lower emissions.” 

Getting rid of the provincial carbon tax means B.C. will be subject to the federal carbon pricing regime — but the consequences for the province are unclear. After Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced his province would no longer collect the federal carbon tax on natural gas, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the Canada Revenue Agency would assess ways to collect the withheld funding from the province. (An impending federal election could also shift the fate of the federal carbon pricing program.)

The BC Conservatives estimated eliminating the carbon tax would cost the government $3 billion in lost revenue. 

Most of B.C.’s carbon tax revenue is returned to residents through the provincial climate action tax credit, which is income-tested. The Finance Ministry estimated 65 per cent of B.C. households will receive the quarterly credit this year, while 80 per cent are expected to get the credit by 2030.

The BC NDP flip-flopped on B.C.’s consumer carbon tax last month when Eby — who publicly supported the tax earlier this year — told reporters his government would “end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.” 

But the promise came with a caveat. Eby said an NDP government would eliminate the tax if the federal government removes a carbon pricing requirement. Federal Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre has promised to “axe the tax” if his party forms government after the next federal election — a position now supported by the federal NDP.

Unlike the Conservatives, the BC NDP isn’t talking about removing the carbon tax for industry. “We will ensure that the big polluters pay a carbon price in our province to make sure that we’re taking action on climate change,” Eby said in September.

What happens next with B.C. election results? 

Recounts will automatically take place in ridings where the top two candidates are separated by 100 votes or fewer. This year, automatic recounts will take place in Juan de Fuca-Malahat and Surrey City Centre. 

The final count — which includes mail-in ballots received after advance voting closed, along with some absentee ballots — will take place on Oct. 26. Typically, the final count includes about two per cent of ballots in any election. 

Even if the final result shifts the seat count in favour of the BC Conservatives, Eby will likely get a chance to try to retain the confidence of the house and his party’s position in government — something former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark tried and failed to do in 2017.

In order to win that confidence vote, the NDP may try to secure support from the two-person BC Green caucus, either through a formal confidence and supply agreement, as in 2017, or in an informal arrangement.

If the NDP and Greens align to shut the Conservatives out, the party may be unable to form government. But if the confidence vote goes against the NDP, the Conservatives could have the opportunity to form government.

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.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

In May, a fast-growing wildfire darkened skies and forced the evacuation of thousands of people in B.C.’s northeast. It was an early start to the 2024 wildfire season. By Oct. 1 — the official end of the wildfire season — more than 5.3 million hectares of B.C. had burned, making this year the second-worst wildfire season the province has ever recorded.

The province’s northeast — the epicentre of fracking operations to supply new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects — has also suffered from persistent drought conditions that have affected much of B.C. over the past two years, harming crops and threatening fish.

And months before the wildfire smoke began drifting across the landscape, a record-breaking cold snap devastated the province’s orchards and wineries.

About one-third of British Columbians said they have been impacted by extreme weather events this year, according to an August poll conducted by Leger and 61 per cent said they expect to see extreme weather events happening more frequently in the future.

But climate action and environmental issues have largely been given short shrift during B.C.’s provincial election campaign, which comes to a close on Oct. 19 (unless you count the climate change skepticism and conspiracy theories espoused by some candidates running for the BC Conservatives, led by John Rustad).

While issues like affordability, housing and healthcare have taken centre stage during this election campaign, party platforms and announcements reveal what a re-elected BC NDP government or a newly minted BC Conservative government could mean for B.C.’s environment and climate action commitments, as well as what a BC Greens caucus would push for.

Where do B.C. parties stand on the carbon tax?

• Both the BC NDP and BC Conservatives will repeal the province’s consumer carbon tax 
• The BC Greens will “fix the tax” instead of axing it, by making it fairer and demonstrating its benefits

The BC NDP recently flip-flopped on B.C.’s consumer carbon tax, which it previously supported. If the federal government changes the law requiring a consumer carbon tax, “we will end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia,” party leader David Eby told reporters last month, nodding to federal Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre’s promise to “axe the tax” if his party forms government after the next federal election — a move now supported by the federal NDP.

“We will ensure that the big polluters pay a carbon price in our province to make sure that we’re taking action on climate change,” Eby said in September.

The BC Conservatives, meanwhile, have led the charge to “axe the tax” in B.C. Rustad, the party’s leader, has said carbon pricing is “an economic disaster and an environmental failure” that “drives up costs on everything from groceries to gas, hitting families and businesses hard while doing absolutely nothing to lower emissions.” However, most of B.C.’s carbon tax revenue is returned to residents through the provincial climate action tax credit, which is income-tested. This year, the finance ministry estimated 65 per cent of B.C. households received the quarterly credit, while 80 per cent are expected to get the credit by 2030.

BC Greens Leader Sonia Furstenau criticized Eby’s change of heart, advocating instead for tweaks to the province’s consumer carbon price. “This is a government with no principles and no direction,” Furstenau said in a statement. “Fix the carbon tax, make it fair, show how it can improve lives and invest in the transition we need.” 

What do B.C. election platforms say about LNG?

• The BC Conservatives will double B.C.’s production of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
• The BC NDP, which has championed multiple LNG projects, will direct some of the revenue raised from oil and gas projects, including LNG development, into a “clean economy transition fund”
• The BC Greens will ban new LNG approvals and phase out fracking

Two LNG export projects are under construction in B.C., with one more approved and another four in planning and environmental assessment phases. B.C.-based LNG export production will begin next year when LNG Canada expects to start shipping liquefied gas overseas. 

The BC Conservatives are bullish on natural gas, promising to double the province’s LNG production. 

The BC NDP’s election platform only mentions LNG once, saying some of the revenue raised from LNG projects will be directed into a “clean economy transition fund” to help “attract even more global investment in renewable fuels, clean tech, manufacturing and critical mineral mines.” While in government, the NDP approved Cedar LNG, green-lighted the LNG Canada project and issued construction permits for Woodfibre LNG.

The BC Greens platform pledges to end new approvals for LNG projects, phase out fracking and “commission a comprehensive and independent health impact assessment to evaluate the health effects of LNG and fracking activities in B.C.”

Where do B.C. parties stand on nuclear energy?

• The BC Conservatives will embrace nuclear power, banned in B.C. since 2010
• The BC NDP and BC Greens say nuclear power is not needed to meet the province’s future energy needs

BC Conservatives Leader Rustad, who was a member of the BC Liberal government that implemented B.C.’s ban on nuclear power in 2010, now calls the decision to take nuclear off the table a political move rather than one grounded in good policy.

“We’re going to actually have to have a conversation about the possibility of using nuclear power in British Columbia if we want to be able to increase the ability to have affordable, reliable, clean energy,” Rustad told attendees at the Union of BC Municipalities convention in Vancouver in September. 

BC NDP Leader Eby rejects that conclusion, pointing to B.C.’s abundant clean energy options, from long-standing hydro power generation to wind, solar and potentially geothermal.

BC Greens Leader Furstenau is similarly dismissive of Rustad’s suggestion the province needs nuclear power, calling it “a nonsensical conversation to be having in B.C.”

“We have everything we need in B.C. to create an abundant amount of clean energy,” Furstenau told reporters at the annual municipalities convention. “We should lean into that with everything we’ve got and get moving into the 21st century.”

What do B.C. election platforms promise for at-risk species?

• The BC Greens promise stand-alone legislation to protect species at risk
• The BC NDP backtracked on a 2017 commitment to introduce stand-alone legislation to protect species at risk, instead promising a “made-in-B.C. strategy” to protect biodiversity and watersheds
• The BC Conservatives will introduce “made-in-B.C. species at risk legislation” 

There are 1,952 species and ecosystems officially at some risk of extinction in the province, according to the B.C. government’s conservation data centre — and advocates say the province’s lack of stand-alone legislation to protect species at risk of extinction remains a glaring gap. In its 2017 campaign platform, the BC NDP committed to bring in a provincial law governing endangered species. But it quietly reneged on that promise after coming to power.

Both the BC Greens and BC Conservatives have promised, if elected, to introduce legislation to protect the province’s growing number of at-risk species if elected.

“We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis and standing at a crossroads: either we take bold action to protect our ecosystems or we risk losing iconic species like caribou, spotted owls and orcas forever,” the Greens stated in its platform.

The BC Conservatives platform says the NDP government has underfunded and mismanaged wildlife in the province, resulting in “a decline in our iconic ungulate species, and out-of-control predator populations.” 

It says a Conservative government would introduce “made-in-B.C. species at risk legislation so wildlife protections are shaped by B.C.-based experts — not Ottawa — and are reflective of our unique ecosystems.”

The BC NDP platform makes no mention of legislation to protect at-risk species. Instead, the party has committed to working with First Nations and other partners on a “made-in-B.C. strategy” to protect biodiversity and watersheds, if re-elected.

Late last year, the NDP government released a draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework. It said the framework would set the direction “for a more holistic approach to stewarding our land and water resources” and eventually lead to legislation to protect biodiversity.

While the party initially aimed to finalize the framework by the spring, the strategy’s future now rests on the outcome of the election.

What are B.C. parties promising for old-growth forests?

• The BC Conservatives promise to set aside two-thirds of forests from industrial forestry, but the party doesn’t specify whether it will protect B.C.’s old-growth forests
• The BC NDP promise to finish implementing the recommendations of the 2020 old-growth forest strategic review, which called for immediate logging deferrals in forests at the highest risk of biodiversity loss 
• The BC Greens promise to defer logging in at-risk old-growth forests and compensate First Nations for lost revenues

The BC Conservatives promise, if elected, they will ensure two-thirds of B.C.’s forested areas are set aside from industrial-scale forestry activity and remain in their “original forested state.” But the party doesn’t specify whether it would protect disappearing old-growth forests, which are both rich in biodiversity and sought after by industry. Critics say the plan fails to protect old-growth forests and at-risk ecosystems.

In an analysis of each party’s stand on environmental issues, the Endangered Ecosystems Alliance, a conservation charity, raised concerns the Conservatives would focus protections on “mainly subalpine, rocky and muskeg landscapes with small and stunted trees of low to no timber value,” while allowing “logging to continue in areas where biodiversity conservation is supposed to be prioritized.”

The BC NDP says it will protect more old-growth forests, if re-elected, by working with First Nations to finish implementing the landmark recommendations from a 2020 old-growth forest strategic review, which called for a major shift in how B.C. manages its forests to prioritize biodiversity and ecosystem health. The party said it will create a fund to help mills re-tool so they can process smaller second-growth trees instead of old-growth trees.

The BC Greens have promised to defer logging in the most at-risk old-growth forests and fully fund their protection, compensating First Nations for any lost revenues due to logging deferrals. In an Oct. 4 press release, the party pledged to increase the number and size of community forests “to promote biodiversity, wildfire protection, rural development and ecosystem resilience.” The Greens also promised to stop clearcut logging and “switch to practices like selective logging, commercial thinning and longer rotation cycles that mimic natural forest changes.” 

Which B.C. parties commit to protecting 30 per cent of the landscape by 2030?

• The BC NDP remains committed to achieving the global 30-by-30 conservation target, but has made only marginal progress 
• The BC Greens will work with First Nations to achieve the 30-by-30 target
• The BC Conservatives plan to abandon the province’s commitment to protecting 30 per cent of B.C.’s land

At the United Nations biodiversity conference in December 2022, Canada and 195 other countries committed to conserve at least 30 per cent of land and water globally by 2030 as part of international efforts to reverse the unprecedented decline of biodiversity. 

In 2022, BC NDP Leader Eby tasked Stikine Nathan Cullen, in his role as minister of water, land and resource stewardship, with working to achieve the 30-by-30 goal. As of the end of last year, the government claims 19.7 per cent of B.C. is protected — although limited development and industrial activity is allowed in some areas, and critics say some areas in the tally fail to meet biodiversity goals. 

Both the BC NDP and the BC Greens say they are committed to working with First Nations towards the 30-by-30 goal.

BC Conservatives Leader John Rustad told The Narwhal in May he would abandon B.C.’s plans to conserve 30 per cent of land in the province by 2030, a move that could jeopardize Canada’s international commitments.

Where do B.C.’s parties stand on Indigenous Rights?

• The BC Conservatives will repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act 
• The BC NDP and BC Greens will stay the course on commitments to Indigenous Rights, and promise to work with First Nations on conservation goals

Rustad has said the BC Conservatives would repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), a law he previously supported. The Tŝilhqot’in National Government and the First Nations Leadership Council denounced the Conservative position in public statements.

Both the BC Greens and the BC NDP commit to staying the course on the province’s commitments to Indigenous Rights. The BC Greens will also invest in Indigenous-led conservation and Indigenous Guardians programs. 

— Compiled by Jacqueline Ronson

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.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

As the trio of B.C. political party leaders arrived at CBC’s Vancouver offices last week for the only televised debate during the 2024 provincial election campaign, they were met by dozens of climate activists carrying red and white signs.

“Frack Free B.C. Protect our climate,” some banners read.

“Stop PRGT,” read another banner, referring to the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline that would carry natural gas from B.C.’s northeast to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on the coast. “No new fracked gas pipeline.”

For much of the fall campaign, environment and climate action policies have taken a back seat to promises to address affordability, health care and public safety. 

But as the conflict over the Prince Rupert pipeline heats up, with an on-going blockade on Gitanyow territory aimed at stopping the first phase of construction and a major government decision about the pipeline looming, the continued development of LNG in B.C. has stepped into the spotlight as a key environmental issue in the campaign. 

When it comes to the future of energy in B.C., all three major political parties — the BC NDP, the BC Conservatives and the BC Greens — are pitching a vision that includes plentiful, cheap electricity with an emphasis on clean power sources. But their views and policies about how to achieve that vision — and what exactly clean power means — vary widely.

With television and radio leadership debates over, the party platforms (mostly) published and voting day fast approaching on Oct. 19, here’s what you need to know about where the parties stand on key energy issues. 

Will the B.C. election mean the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline gets the green light to forego another environmental assessment? 

As government, the BC NDP green-lighted an LNG export industry, claiming stringent emission standards will allow the province to reap economic benefits while still meeting its carbon emission reduction targets, a position critics say is impossible to achieve.

BC NDP Leader David Eby once agreed with those critics, stating B.C. could not “continue to expand fossil-fuel infrastructure and hit our climate goals” during his 2022 campaign to succeed former premier John Horgan. Shortly after becoming premier, Eby reversed his position on the future of LNG in B.C.

The NDP maintains natural gas will displace more carbon-intensive coal-fired electricity in countries on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, a view the BC Conservatives have also enthusiastically embraced.

“We see it as a way to try to transition the global emission profiles of heavy emitters in other parts of the world, to help them with their energy needs,” Peter Milobar, a former BC United MLA who is running for the Conservatives in Kamloops Centre, said during a recent online candidates debate hosted by Organizing for Change, a coalition of non-profit groups focusing on environmental issues.

The claim that LNG is a crucial transition fuel for the world is widely disputed by critics, who point out that countries like China, often cited for its reliance on coal for energy production, are outpacing most nations in developing renewable energy projects. The benefits of LNG are also disputed in a new peer-reviewed study, which found exported gas has a larger carbon footprint than coal.

The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline would ship natural gas from northeast B.C. to Ksi Lisims, a proposed floating liquefaction and export facility on the northwest coast — one of seven LNG projects proposed, approved or under construction in the province. 

The new provincial government will have to make a major decision about the pipeline. It will consider work done on the pipeline until Nov. 25 in its decision about whether to lock in the project’s original environmental assessment certificate indefinitely — by granting what’s called a “substantially started” designation — or to require a new environmental assessment.

Only the Greens are promising to restrict LNG development in B.C., pledging to phase out fracking operations, reject new LNG projects and direct the environmental assessment office to let PRGT’s environmental assessment expire. Following the leaders’ television debate, the party won plaudits from actor Mark Ruffalo for its anti-LNG stance. 

LNG: boost it, ban it or keep the status quo after the B.C. election?

During the leaders’ debate, BC Greens Leader Sonia Furstenau highlighted the similarities between the NDP and Conservative positions on LNG.

“They’re aligned on subsidizing fossil fuels, they’re aligned on building more LNG infrastructure in B.C. They’re aligned on continuing to drag us back to a fossil fuel age when the rest of the world is moving forward,” Furstenau said.

“Under the NDP, we’ve gone from zero LNG facilities to a potential of seven. We have a government that is all in on a fuel that is now proven to be worse than coal, that the International Energy Agency has said will leave B.C. behind because the demand will be gone,” Furstenau added, referencing a 2021 analysis that the world can reach net-zero by 2050 without further investment in fossil fuel sources.

If the Conservatives form government, the party promises to double the province’s LNG production. B.C.-based LNG export production won’t begin until next year when LNG Canada plans to start shipping liquefied gas overseas. The LNG Canada facility, in Kitimat, B.C., will be capable of producing up to 14 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Under Eby’s leadership, the government approved Cedar LNG — a Haisla Nation-led liquefaction and export facility that will receive gas from Coastal GasLink. Additionally, the BC NDP government issued construction permits for Woodfibre LNG, a liquefaction project in Squamish, B.C., that is majority owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto’s Pacific Energy Company. Combined, the two facilities will produce about five million tonnes per year once operational.

Four other LNG projects are undergoing environmental assessments, including the Ksi Lisims LNG project. If approved, they could produce another 30 million tonnes of LNG per year, mainly from fracked gas.

The NDP’s election platform only mentions LNG once, saying some of the revenue raised from LNG projects will be directed into a “clean economy transition fund” to help “attract even more global investment in renewable fuels, clean tech, manufacturing and critical mineral mines.”

Asked twice during an Oct. 9 press conference whether his party would approve more LNG projects if re-elected, Eby avoided a direct answer.

“LNG or any other project, it needs to fit within our commitments around carbon pollution and for our energy action framework that means a realistic plan to be net zero by 2030, lifting up communities and creating opportunities for British Columbians,” Eby said in response to questions from The Narwhal.

The BC NDP’s energy action framework — unveiled the same day Eby announced his government’s approval of Cedar LNG — included a promise to implement a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector in B.C. by 2026.

Electrification: Clean power is key to B.C.’s future — but what does clean mean to the NDP, Greens and Conservatives?

If there’s one policy area where all three parties are making similar promises, it’s electrification and the need for more energy generation. 

The Conservatives are pledging to “seize the opportunity to make our province a leader in clean, affordable and reliable energy” — including repealing B.C.’s ban on nuclear power generation. The NDP would make B.C. a “clean energy superpower,” while the Greens are calling for investments to “expand renewable energy while protecting our natural environment and our communities.”

Voters will need to read between the lines to understand some stark differences in what the parties are offering.

A Conservative government would consider “all power sources that could keep B.C.’s energy mix independent, low cost and green,” including nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar and hydroelectricity. Electricity demand in the province is expected to double by 2050 — with the LNG industry consuming vast amounts of electricity — and the Conservatives claim the NDP has “no plan” to meet the increased demand.

The Conservatives have also promised to increase local power production in northwest B.C. by promoting the use of waste wood products sourced from local forestry operations and natural gas. Rustad described the northern transmission line — a project still in the planning stage that would extend a new transmission line across northern B.C. to help electrify industrial operations in the northwest — as “another boondoggle project” backed by the NDP, which wants federal taxpayers to pay half the $3-billion price tag.

If the transmission line isn’t built, it’s unlikely that future LNG projects will have access to the clean electricity needed to meet the current emission-intensity limits implemented by the NDP (although Rustad has promised to do away with those as well).

Neither of the Conservatives’ two power-related policy announcements mention climate action.

The NDP platform promises to double the province’s electricity generation by 2050 and upgrade transmission capacity to address demand. It took a step toward that when, in January, BC Hydro issued a call for clean and renewable energy project proposals, aiming to boost electricity generation by 3,000 gigawatt hours — enough to power about 270,000 homes or one million electric vehicles — per year by 2028. The invitation resulted in 21 proposals that could produce more than 9,000 gigawatt hours per year. Seventy per cent were wind projects. BC Hydro plans to issue subsequent calls for proposals every two years.

Eby also announced a big funding boost to BC Hydro’s 10-year capital plan to upgrade and expand power transmission capacity across the province.

The Greens’ platform also emphasizes local power generation — but only from renewable sources — along with improving energy storage capacity and energy efficiency policies. Solar power would get a boost, with $20 million dedicated to small-scale solar projects, with the goal of solar producing 15 per cent of the province’s energy by 2035.

The party would also invest in exploring the potential of geothermal power in B.C., including whether it would be feasible to repurpose technology currently being used in the oil and gas industry to produce geothermal energy. A $20-million investment would help train the skilled workforce needed to support the renewable energy sector, including offering retraining to people currently working in the oil and gas sector, according to the Greens.

What will the B.C. election results mean for net-zero goals?

For the past six years, the guiding light of B.C.’s climate policy has been the Clean BC plan, rolled out by the NDP government in 2018 in partnership with the Green caucus at the time. 

Clean BC includes legislated targets to reduce B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030. By 2050, B.C.’s goal is to cut emissions by 80 per cent through policies aimed at boosting the use of electric vehicles and reducing emissions from industry, buildings and transportation. 

However, as Milobar, with the BC Conservatives, pointed out, B.C. is lagging on its emission reduction goals.

“We are five years away from 2030 and nowhere near that 40 per cent,” he said during the on-line environmental issues candidates’ debate. “I think it’s time, frankly, that we acknowledge we’re not going to hit that goalpost. It does not mean that we don’t still try to reduce emissions in British Columbia and also do our part globally, but to say that we are going to somehow magically go from essentially a higher [emissions] profile than we had in 2007 in the next five years, and find a 40 per cent reduction is simply not honest with people in British Columbia.”

BC Conservatives Leader John Rustad has said the party would eliminate Clean BC if elected, framing it as a costly reaction to an overblown issue.

“Our changing climate is not the most pressing issue facing us in B.C. or around the world,” a BC Conservatives statement read. “The Conservative Party of BC will not go down the rabbit hole of over-taxation, hype, scare tactics and false promises.”

During a leaders’ debate hosted by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade on Oct. 2, Rustad said he would look at axing Clean BC to reduce government spending and avoid spending cuts to public services as the Conservatives attempt to reduce B.C.’s growing deficit.

While Clean BC barely features in the NDP platform, the party is promising to pursue policies aimed at reducing emissions, including the forthcoming emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, bulk-buying heat pumps and electrifying B.C. school buses.

The Green platform mentions carbon emissions 32 times — compared to nine references in the NDP platform — and the party is promising to develop a new climate action plan to cut down on emissions. The Greens would also ban the use of natural gas in all new buildings. The Conservatives would “reverse the NDP’s radical plans to ban natural gas heating,” although that’s not an accurate description of the former government’s proposal.

The NDP government did conduct a consultation on a proposal to introduce new energy efficiency standards for home and water heating appliances earlier this year. If implemented, the proposal would ban the sale of stand-alone heating systems that use oil or gas but allow dual fuel systems, including gas heating systems integrated with a heat pump.

What could change for electric vehicles after the B.C. election?

Another NDP policy a Conservative government would axe is the Zero Emission Vehicles Act. Passed in 2019 and amended last year, the law would ban the sale of new internal combustion engine light-duty vehicles — meaning cars, trucks, vans and SUVs but not heavier transport vehicles — by 2035, in line with federal targets. The law covers fully electric vehicles as well as plug-in hybrids.

By the end of this year, zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) are expected to account for 16 per cent of new vehicle registrations in Canada. In B.C. — home to nearly one-quarter of zero emission vehicles — more than 21 per cent of new vehicles registered in the first half of 2024 were considered to be zero emission.

The popularity of zero-emission vehicles in B.C. is partly due to provincial rebates for both personal and commercial vehicles, as well as investments in charging infrastructure. 

The NDP is promising to double the number of public electric vehicle chargers in B.C. by 2030. The Greens would also expand public charging infrastructure, offer incentives to people who want to convert their gas or diesel-powered vehicles to electric and set sales targets for medium and heavy-duty electric vehicles, similar to those currently in place.

The Conservatives have called the NDP’s plan to ban the sale of new internal combustion vehicles “radical” and are promising to repeal the Zero Emission Vehicle Act if the party wins the election.

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

LNG Canada is the biggest name in British Columbia’s liquefied natural gas game. It’s also the project closest to completion. But it’s not the only large LNG export plan in the works in the province.

The Nisg̱a’a Nation, north of Kitimat, B.C., is leading an effort to construct an LNG facility called Ksi Lisims, pronounced s’lisims, which means “from the Nass River” in the Nisg̱a’a language. 

Ksi Lisims would be a floating LNG plant near the Nass estuary at the north end of Pearse Island, close to the Alaska border. It would be capable of producing up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, nearly matching LNG Canada’s initial 14-million-tonne production capacity. Like LNG Canada, it would be supplied by fracked gas from B.C.’s northeast. 

While the LNG Canada plant in Kitimat is set to begin testing its equipment soon, the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office is still evaluating the Ksi Lisims LNG production and export facility. 

The Ksi Lisims project poses significant challenges for B.C.’s climate change goals, energy supply and commitment to upholding Indigenous Rights and reconciliation. Ksi Lisims is backed by the Nisg̱a’a Nation but other nearby First Nations communities worry about its impacts on their rights and traditions. 

Documents previously obtained by The Narwhal indicate the B.C. government hopes to provide electricity for Ksi Lisims with a new taxpayer-funded transmission line. And while Ksi Lisims proponents say electrification will significantly lower emissions, it’s unclear if the province, facing widespread drought and reduced hydro capacity, will have enough electricity to meet escalating demand from the LNG sector.

Here’s what you need to know about the Ksi Lisims project. 

What would Ksi Lisims LNG mean for local First Nations?

For the Nisg̱a’a, Ksi Lisims is an economic development opportunity that will benefit both the nation and the world.

“The Nisg̱a’a Nation has long tried to establish an economic base in the Nass Valley … in a way that agrees with our principles and our values, as we live in harmony with our lands and we move forward to building that economic base,” Nisg̱a’a Nation president Eva Clayton told attendees at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George in January. 

“LNG will be a transformational opportunity for us to build our economy.”

Yet the project faces stiff opposition from some of the six other First Nations participating in the environmental assessment process. The Lax Kw’alaams Band says the LNG facility would negatively affect its traditional territory and has flagged concerns about the project’s potential impact on B.C.’s ability to meet its climate targets. 

In February, Gitanyow — a community of the Gitxsan people — wrote to Ksi Lisims LNG corporate leadership, outlining concerns about the project’s impacts, including on local salmon populations. The community says it is willing to take the project to court if necessary.

“Every nation has that right to pursue their economic development,” Tara Marsden, Wilp sustainability director for Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, told The Narwhal. “But when you have linear projects, especially in B.C., you cross so many different territories and you really need the support and the consent of all those nations to live up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

The Nass estuary, close to where the Ksi Lisims facility would be built, is “a very thriving, biodiverse area,” Marsden said. The estuary is home to salmon, oolichan and many other fish, as well as shellfish and mammal species important to local First Nations. Marsden said wildlife habitat will be impacted by construction of the LNG facility. 

In a project summary submitted as part of its application for an environmental certificate, Ksi Lisims LNG acknowledges the project’s potential impacts on freshwater and marine ecosystems, including increased sediment in streams affected by construction and higher risk of injury and death for marine fish, mammals and sea turtles due to shipping. 

However, Ksi Lisims is not expected to measurably change overall populations of fish, invertebrate, marine mammal or sea turtle populations, according to the summary. 

The ongoing environmental assessment process aims to address concerns about proposed projects, including from First Nations with differing views.

“Resolving disputes between any segments of society is complicated,” B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman told The Narwhal. “Resolving differences between First Nations over the impacts of a project is just as complicated.” 

“I know the environmental assessment office takes that challenge very, very seriously and it is a difficult challenge,” Heyman said. “Like anything in society, not everybody agrees.”

It’s not just First Nations that question whether Ksi Lisims is worth pursuing. During a public comment period on Ksi Lisims, the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office received more than 500 written submissions, including one from the City of Terrace saying big resource development projects don’t always deliver the economic benefits they promise. Although LNG Canada has attracted many people to Kitimat, much of its impact on Terrace has been negative, according to the city’s submission.

“Citizens have seen their municipal services erode,” the city said. “The influx of workers required for this type of development has seen housing in Terrace reach an all-time high in prices and a vacancy rate of less than one per cent.”

Even though the B.C. government has not yet officially approved the project, Ksi Lisims inked its first sale and purchase agreement in February when Shell Canada agreed to buy two million tonnes of LNG per year from the plant starting in 2028. 

The Nisg̱a’a Nation did not respond to a request for comment.

How will fracked gas be shipped to the Ksi Lisims facility? 

The Ksi Lisims LNG project achieved another milestone in March, when the Nisg̱a’a Nation and Western LNG announced a deal to buy TC Energy’s proposed Prince Rupert gas pipeline project. TC Energy is the same company building the Coastal GasLink pipeline to supply LNG Canada.

Originally approved in 2014, the Prince Rupert gas pipeline project was intended to supply the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG facility on Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert. That project was cancelled in 2017, leaving the transmission line in limbo. Then, in 2019, TC Energy obtained a five-year extension to its environmental certificate. The extension came with a slew of conditions the company must meet before Nov. 25, including completing a cumulative effects study for the project in consultation with First Nations.

Once the sale of the planned pipeline is finalized, the Nisg̱a’a Nation and Western LNG will assume responsibility for the permit condition obligations, according to an email the BC Energy Regulator sent to The Narwhal in response to questions. That includes ensuring the pipeline project qualifies as substantially started by Nov. 25. The environmental assessment office will make that determination by examining how much work has been done on the project, with a focus on land-based physical activities that affect the environment, according to an email from the environment ministry.

Failure to meet the conditions will send the project back to the drawing board, leaving Ksi Lisims without a supply of natural gas.

If the project proceeds, the pipeline would stretch from the Montney gas fields in northeast B.C. and Alberta to the Ksi Lisims facility — including through Gitanyow territory.

The Gitanyow agreed to the pipeline project in principle in 2014, but Marsden said much has changed in the past decade.

“In terms of climate change, the advance of the [United Nations] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the advance of Gitanyow policies and laws that we’ve developed around water, around protected areas — there is so much change,” she said. “At the time, the project was not what it could be today. It was still a big risk, but in a 2014 context it was not the extreme risk that we view it as today.”

Construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline — a project fined for breaking multiple environmental laws — and enforcement actions against Indigenous land defenders by the RCMP’s Critical Response Unit (formerly known as the Community-Industry Response Group, or C-IRG) has also changed the way the Gitanyow community thinks about the Ksi Lisims pipeline, Marsden added.

She said TC Energy wants to “refresh” the 2014 agreement it signed with the Gitanyow. 

Marsden said she’s baffled the pipeline project and Ksi Lisims LNG are treated as separate projects in the environmental assessment process, even though they are closely intertwined. She said the splintered process — in which the impacts of building supply pipelines are not factored into environmental assessments for LNG facilities — allows proponents to leave out potential downsides of their projects while emphasizing far-reaching benefits.

“They don’t apply the same splitting principle to the benefits,” Marsden said, noting Ksi Lisims emphasizes its LNG will offer cleaner fuel to Asian markets. “They want to talk about the benefits of replacing coal in Asia, that’s their bottom line … so they want to look at something way beyond the scope of anything the B.C. government can control. But they don’t want to look at the impacts associated with the project that are right here in B.C.”

The LNG industry claims liquefied natural gas will displace coal power overseas. Critics say boosting fossil fuel supply could delay urgently needed transitions to renewable energy.

Wait, how many LNG projects are in the works in B.C.?

In addition to Ksi Lisims and LNG Canada, four LNG projects are at various stages of development in B.C.

In March 2023, Premier David Eby announced the approval of Cedar LNG, a joint venture between the Haisla First Nation and Pembina Pipeline Corporation that will produce and ship LNG from a floating terminal in the Douglas Channel near Kitimat. Cedar LNG, which aims to produce about three million tonnes of LNG per year, will be supplied by the Coastal GasLink pipeline — the same pipeline feeding LNG Canada’s nearby plant.

In Squamish, Woodfibre LNG — owned by Enbridge and Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto — was to begin construction this spring, but experienced a recent setback when the company’s plan to house workers on a massive ship anchored in Howe Sound was rejected by Squamish council. The Woodfibre facility is expected to produce about two million tonnes of LNG per year.

And FortisBC wants to expand its Tilbury LNG production plant in Delta, boosting capacity from 250,000 tonnes to 3.4 million tonnes per year, potentially making it the third-largest LNG plant in the province. The planned expansion is separate from FortisBC’s marine jetty project, which recently received an environmental certificate. LNG produced by FortisBC’s existing plant will be transferred through the jetty to fuel ships and will also be sent to offshore export markets.

The latest LNG project proposed in the province is Summit Lake PG LNG, which would be located at an industrial site about 30 kilometres north of Prince George. The facility would produce about 2.7 million tonnes of LNG per year for shipment by rail to Prince Rupert for export. Summit Lake is backed by JX LNG Canada, an Alberta-based subsidiary of the Chinese company Changchun Jixing New Energy Ltd. The project, which is undergoing an environmental assessment, is open for public comment.

What about carbon pollution from LNG? 

Under B.C.’s regulatory regime, LNG plants can emit up to 0.16 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for each tonne of LNG produced. LNG Canada will come in just under that threshold at 0.15 tonnes of carbon emissions for every tonne of LNG, assuming proposed mitigation measures, such as a fugitive emissions survey program, are in place.

Ksi Lisims plans to have a much lower emission profile by relying on electricity to power its operations (something LNG Canada is hoping to do as well). If fully electrified, Ksi Lisims would produce 0.018 tonnes of carbon emissions for every tonne of LNG. 

How and when the project will get access to hydro power remains unclear. BC Hydro is advancing a $3-billion transmission line that would transport power across northwest B.C. but questions remain about whether the province has enough power to supply projects like Ksi Lisims, who will pay for the line and whether it will be able to sidestep an environmental assessment.

Rising demand and persistent drought are putting pressure on B.C.’s power grid, increasing the province’s reliance on imported power.

In the interim, Ksi Lisims plans to rely on temporary power barges fuelled by natural gas, pushing its emission intensity up to 0.156 tonnes of carbon emissions for every tonne of LNG produced, just under B.C.’s threshold.

Is there a market for so much LNG from B.C.?

If all LNG projects proposed in B.C. become operational, they would collectively produce more than 40 million tonnes of LNG per year, according to Natural Resources Canada. That includes Phase 2 of LNG Canada, which has been approved by the B.C. government. LNG Canada, a consortium of some of the world’s most profitable oil and gas corporations, including Shell, has hinted Phase 2 will proceed but has not yet announced a final investment decision.

Much like the substance itself, natural gas markets can be volatile. Prices spiked in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 but have dropped due to softening demand, according to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a U.S.-based nonprofit focused on the energy transition.

Proponents say B.C.’s LNG sector is subject to strict environmental and emissions requirements, making it attractive for countries like Japan and South Korea that aim to reduce their own emissions.

“The messaging that I get from the international world is that they need our LNG,” Clayton, president of the Nisg̱a’a Nation, said at the January resource forum. “We have a responsibility as Canadians to help the world get off the coal.”

But nuclear power and renewable energy sources like wind and solar are increasingly displacing LNG as countries look to green their power grids. South Korea’s LNG imports dropped by five per cent last year, according to the institute’s report, while Japan has reduced LNG imports by 20 per cent since 2018. In Europe, where demand for gas power is expected to remain strong due to Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine, gas consumption has dropped by 20 per cent over the past two years.

“Lackluster demand growth and a massive wave of new export capacity are poised to send global liquefied natural gas markets into oversupply within two years,” the institute’s report noted. 

What’s the next step for Ksi Lisims LNG? 

The environmental assessment office is unlikely to complete its review of the Ksi Lisims project before B.C.’s October election, in which the impacts of climate change and the future of resource development are likely to be prominent issues. 

Following the end of a public comment period in December 2023, the assessment office requested additional information from the Nisg̱a’a Nation and its partners to address concerns identified during the public engagement period. Concerns included the facility’s carbon emissions, power requirements and potential environmental and wildlife impacts.

The proponents have up to one year to submit a revised application.

The BC NDP government is broadly supportive of LNG development but has also committed to reducing carbon emissions — including developing an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector and requiring all new LNG projects to have a credible plan to be net zero by 2030.

“In the case of natural gas and LNG, we’ve been very clear,” Heyman said. “We’re serious about our Clean BC plan, we’re serious about meeting our climate targets, we’re serious about the oil and gas sector reducing its emissions.” 

Two of the province’s three opposition parties are pledging to make the LNG sector a major player in B.C.’s economy. 

BC United (formerly the BC Liberals) frames the BC NDP’s Clean BC plan as a costly job killer and party leader Kevin Falcon has pledged to scrap the plan if his party forms government. Falcon has also said a BC United government would “go all in on B.C. LNG” to help displace coal power in Asia.

The province’s Conservatives, which have been polling far ahead of BC United in recent months, are also promising to “dramatically expand B.C.’s natural gas production and LNG export facilities” for the same reasons.

Only the BC Green Party opposes LNG development. Green MLA Adam Olsen, a member of the Tsartlip First Nation, has criticized the idea that LNG projects can represent reconciliation in action.

“I am deeply concerned that the BC NDP is pitching climate change-inducing fossil fuel projects as economic reconciliation with Indigenous people,” Olsen said in the wake of the Cedar LNG decision. 

“I’m not surprised to see that industry bringing their billions of capital to partner with Indigenous people but true economic reconciliation must include the provincial government doing more to proactively increase access for Indigenous nations in clean energy production.”

— With files from Matt Simmons

Updated on May 8, 2024, at 8:00 pm. PT: This story has been updated to correct that the Ksi Lisims project is located near the Nass River estuary and not in the estuary as previously stated. 

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

In 2020, Susannah Pierce, a senior fossil fuel executive from Shell, offered a rosy outlook for a highly anticipated west coast gas liquefaction and export facility.

Speaking on a podcast produced by an oilpatch lobby group, she said LNG Canada would usher in an era of jobs and Indigenous prosperity for decades to come.

“We are a new project with a long lifeline,” she said at the time. “I think [it’s] a very positive shift to the extent to which many of these Indigenous communities have an opportunity and they have the control over that opportunity that they’ve never had before.” 

Pierce stressed the value of the project in terms of creating jobs for northern communities that “suffered through the ups and downs of the mining sector, the forestry sector.” 

“Here’s a new opportunity,” she said. “An opportunity for 40 years.”

But as countries around the world commit to ambitious emissions reductions and global gas markets react to unforeseen events, a new federal report suggests the long-term outlook of the Kitimat, B.C., project is up in the air.

The Canada Energy Regulator released the report in late June. It offers an analysis of the country’s energy future in three scenarios: business as usual, Canada achieving its climate goals and a world in which countries around the globe reach net-zero emissions targets by 2050. According to the latter two scenarios, B.C.’s burgeoning liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry isn’t facing imminent collapse — but it doesn’t have the “long lifeline” Pierce promised. 

That shouldn’t be surprising, said Jean-Denis Charlebois, the regulator’s chief economist. On a call with The Narwhal, he explained the analysis was informed by a “predetermined outcome” in which global climate commitments are achieved.

“Exports start in the late 2020s and keep going until the mid 2040s, at which point the global price declines so much that only projects that are electrified … can be cost competitive on a global basis,” Charlebois said. “The projects that are not electrified then have costs to manage emissions from their operations [which] bites into the value that they extract for shareholders.”

He said companies in a net-zero world need to be prepared to operate in a “low price environment.”

“Because if not the case, then it makes no sense to actually either build or continue to operate.”

Charlebois stressed the new analysis of the impacts of net-zero scenarios on the oil and gas sector shouldn’t be taken as an oracle. 

“Ultimately, it’s not a prediction of what will happen,” he said. “It’s actually one and two scenarios that we think are possible but we haven’t gone into the analysis of looking at how likely any of those are.”

LNG Canada — which is owned by a group of foreign companies including Shell, Petronas and PetroChina  — is working towards being the first large-scale facility to ship liquefied gas from B.C. to buyers in Asia. When its first phase comes online around 2025, it plans to power its energy-intensive operations by burning some of the 2.1 billion cubic feet of gas it would receive daily from the Coastal GasLink pipeline. A second phase would double production — and correspondingly double the amount of gas it burns domestically. For context, one year’s supply of gas at 2.1 billion cubic feet per day can generate enough power to keep the lights on and living rooms warm in nearly 10 million homes.

The consortium dismissed The Narwhal’s questions about the regulator’s scenarios, suggesting the project remains viable.

“A joint venture of five global energy companies with substantial experience in natural gas and liquefied natural gas, LNG Canada is a 40-year asset designed to be the world’s lowest carbon producing LNG facility of its size,” a spokesperson wrote in an email to The Narwhal.

Electrification isn’t off the table for LNG Canada but it’s far from a sure thing, and questions remain about whether B.C. can generate enough power to support the industry while meeting increasing demand from other sectors, such as transportation.

According to the regulator’s global net-zero scenario, gas production in Canada peaks this year, holds until 2026, then steadily drops, with LNG Canada and Squamish-based Woodfibre LNG exporting until around 2044, at which point the market drops out.

Under this scenario, LNG Canada would only support jobs for 20 years or less.

‘Really good rhetoric’

It was a different time and cooler climate when the B.C. government hedged its bets on the LNG export industry, wooing international fossil fuel giants like Malaysia’s state-owned Petronas, Shell and others to the province. In the early 2010s, a flurry of proposed projects popped up in places like Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Vancouver and Squamish. Back then, LNG was touted as an economic saviour and a climate champion. More than a decade later, things have changed — in B.C. and around the world.

The impacts of climate change are intensifying and the world is hurtling towards surpassing 1.5 C of warming above pre-industrialization levels, a point the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned will “intensify multiple and concurrent hazards” with a disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples worldwide. Canada is currently experiencing its worst wildfire season in history, with smoke from millions of acres of burning forests blanketing major cities like Toronto and New York and wafting across the Atlantic Ocean.

The scientific consensus is “human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming.” Most of those emissions are a product of getting fossil fuels — like gas — out of the ground and burning them to produce energy. To set a path for “deep, rapid and sustained [emissions] reductions” as recommended by the international panel, governments around the globe are committing to aggressive decarbonization policies. Many, including Canada, have set a mid-century deadline. The goal is net-zero emissions across all sectors.

Industry groups, proponents and supporters of the sector maintain an argument that LNG produced in Canada is a lesser of evils and a means to wean countries off of other fossil fuels. The idea is Canada has tighter environmental and emissions regulations than, say, jurisdictions like Qatar. In B.C., the provincial energy regulator is strengthening methane regulations and if dreams of electrification — including upstream, transport and liquefaction — are realized, the overall carbon footprint of burning the gas for energy is reduced. 

“We believe LNG, especially highly competitive Canadian LNG, has a significant place in the transition to a net-zero world, now and in the long term,” the LNG Canada spokesperson wrote. “LNG Canada will continue to support global LNG supply as global demand evolves.”

“It’s really good rhetoric. It sounds good but I don’t think it lines up,” Tom Green, senior climate policy advisor with the David Suzuki Foundation, told The Narwhal in an interview. “Even if you deal with all the upstream methane emissions, it’s still fossil fuel that you’re burning. It’s adding to total emissions in the atmosphere and it’s helping displace investments in renewables in receiving countries.”

By that he means locking in projects to export LNG only diverts or delays potential investment in alternative ways of producing energy, such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear.

“We hear this with oil, that Canadian oil is ethical oil,” he said. “It’s almost as if we mix a little bit of maple syrup with it and then we say there’s this special Canadian flavour. But with LNG and oil and whatnot, it’s not like wine — it’s not like people want a certain vintage. Yeah, carbon intensity matters but ultimately price is what drives it.”

LNG Canada did not respond to The Narwhal’s follow-up questions prior to publication.

Buyers are lined up to purchase B.C. LNG but the long-term outlook for the sector is a ‘downward trend’: Canada Energy Regulator

Under the scenarios developed by the federal regulator, global economics are the lynchpin for how and when declines in B.C.’s gas sector will play out.

“Producers are highly influenced by the price of natural gas worldwide,” Charlebois said. “In the two net-zero scenarios, we used the global price of the International Energy Agency, which sees a downward trend pretty significantly through the projection period.”

Marla Orenstein, natural resources director with Canada West Foundation, a policy think-tank based in Calgary, Alta., said she’s not sure the federal regulator’s numbers hold up in the real world. 

“I’m not convinced … that those estimates of what demand would be for Canadian LNG are accurate,” she told The Narwhal in an interview. “There’s a sort of bifurcation of response from different countries to LNG, depending on where they are economically.” 

She said when Russia invaded Ukraine, prompting a European energy crisis as gas supplies were suddenly cut off, it prompted a wide conversation about energy security. Countries like Japan and Germany want a “secure supply from a diverse group of suppliers,” she said.

But the International Energy Agency and others, such as British multinational oil and gas giant, BP, say the war is spurring calls for greener energy. 

In BP’s 2023 energy outlook, Spencer Dale, the company’s chief economist, said the repercussions of Russia’s actions are “likely to accelerate the pace of the energy transition.” He noted countries are looking to “bolster their energy security by reducing their dependency on imported energy — dominated by fossil fuels — and instead have access to more domestically produced energy — much of which is likely to come from renewables and other non-fossil energy sources.”

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers declined an interview request but told The Narwhal in a written statement the impacts of world events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in eastern Europe, “can rapidly alter the trajectories of energy trade and production.”

“What we know today is global demand for oil and natural gas is rising and Canada has an important role to play in ensuring a secure supply of reliable energy is available to Canadians as well as our trading partners and allies around the world,” Lisa Baiton, president of the industry group, told The Narwhal in an email. 

Baiton did not provide any specific comments about the implications of the net-zero scenarios, saying only that it is “important to look at long-term scenarios and consider a range of credible sources to inform pragmatic pathways with the goal of lowering emissions and protecting our economic prosperity.”

Under the “current measures” scenario, where Canada and other countries fail to meet climate targets, LNG exports steadily increase over the coming decades, with production rising to 21 billion cubic feet per day. 

In all three scenarios, the regulator said most of Canada’s gas will be extracted from vast underground shale deposits in northeast B.C. But access to the gas is constrained by agreements between the provincial government and some Treaty 8 nations. Following a historic B.C. Supreme Court win in 2021, Blueberry River First Nations signed an agreement with B.C. that, among many other things, restricts new oil and gas development on the 38,300-square-kilometre territory.

The federal analysis did not examine potential implications of the agreements but it flagged uncertainties, noting a rapid decline in LNG exports could come sooner than 2044 or they could continue past 2050. “Small changes to economics can alter which projects are built and when, or when projects might shut down,” the report’s authors wrote.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development recently warned Canada should not wait for global markets to dictate whether fossil fuel projects proceed or when they start winding down operations.

“If oil and gas infrastructure and investments are rendered uneconomic — that is, are stranded — by falling demand, the effects will go beyond the people employed in the sector to risk the destruction of a vast amount of national wealth, to the detriment of all Canadians,” the institute wrote in a recent report on managing the decline of domestic oil and gas production.

Green, with the David Suzuki Foundation, also worries about what would happen if the market drops out, rendering LNG Canada, Coastal GasLink and other developments uneconomical.

“My fear for the Indigenous nations in B.C.’s north is that there’s quite a risk of stranding assets on peoples’ territories,” he said. “And then there’ll be no money to decommission them.”

In the short term, at least, buyers appear to be lined up. Orenstein said the ambassadors of South Korea and Japan — two countries B.C. Premier David Eby visited in early June — gave introductory statements at a recent webinar presented by Canada West Foundation. She said those ambassadors told attendees their countries are ready and waiting.

“They want this stuff. If we can produce it, they will gobble it up.” 

‘An increasingly dubious prospect’: net-zero scenarios call into question LNG expansion

Under the federal regulator’s global net-zero scenario, demand for electricity skyrockets as oil and gas production tapers off.

“When we model the electricity demand for B.C., there is this incredible growth — 84 per cent from what we see today,” Charlebois said, noting the spike in demand modelled by the regulator includes electrifying LNG Canada’s first phase. Electrifying other facilities is outside of the scope of the scenarios, he added. 

“Either more electricity would need to be produced — and at the margin what we see is a lot more wind, solar energy and also small modular reactors relying on nuclear energy,” he said. “If that cannot occur, then something else needs to give. It’s not for us to arbitrate what gives, but it’s rather to provide those two pathways for Canada to inform a conversation.”

The regulator’s analysis did not include a number of projects on the books in B.C. In the lower mainland, Fortis BC is working on plans to expand its Tilbury LNG facility. A few kilometres from where the LNG Canada facility is being built in Kitimat is Cedar LNG, a Haisla-led export project. Recently approved by the B.C. government, the liquefaction plant plans to use electricity supplied by BC Hydro to power its operations. And on nearby Nisga’a territory, a proposed floating liquefaction and export facility called Ksi Lisims is currently undergoing environmental assessment. It, too, is banking on a steady supply of electricity.

According to a recent Pembina Institute report, B.C. is facing an electricity shortfall if it powers the LNG sector with hydro.

“If only LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG proceed, about 13 [terawatt-hours] of additional electricity will be required to electrify the terminal and upstream processes,” the report noted. “This is 2.5 times greater than what is generated by B.C.’s Site C hydroelectric dam.”

There are also a trio of pipelines previously approved by the B.C. government to transport gas to the Pacific coast.

Enbridge, which owns two of those pipelines and has a 30-per-cent stake in Woodfibre LNG, said it is diversifying its energy portfolio, including investing in wind, hydrogen-blending projects and ammonia production, and didn’t appear to be concerned about the future of its pipeline projects.   

“In 2022, we announced our investment in Woodfibre LNG, and believe expanding global access to natural gas through liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a key part of reducing global emissions,” a spokesperson wrote in an email to The Narwhal. “To that end, we have two proposed natural gas transmission projects in B.C. that could support future LNG development. The Westcoast Gas Transmission Connector and Pacific Trail Pipeline could be used to provide natural gas to Asian markets and displace more carbon intensive forms of energy.” 

But Enbridge’s bottom line will ultimately decide what happens. Whether or not those pipelines will be built hinges on what happens with global gas prices.

Green noted context is important to keep in mind. He said the regulator’s global net-zero scenario is one “where the world acts to avoid an even worse climate outcome than what we are already experiencing.”

“It shows that anything beyond [the first phase of] LNG Canada is an increasingly dubious prospect and such projects are at high risk of stranding before they break even,” he said. He added LNG Canada required “generous public financing, infrastructure provision and other concessions” to be economically viable.

“We built this plant and assumed it would be good for 40 years,” he said. “The world has shifted so fundamentally … from when the assumptions around LNG Canada were made, the assumptions that it was going to bring all these jobs and riches to the province. I just don’t think they’re going to materialize.”

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.

Invisible to the naked eye, undetectable by smell and 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide for its short-term warming impact on the climate, methane is explosive, toxic and can make helicopters fall out of the sky. It’s like something out of a superhero movie — or a bad dream.

About half of Canada’s reported methane emissions are produced by the oil and gas industry, both from regular operations and leaks. But much of the climate damage caused by the sector’s methane pollution goes undetected due to weak regulations.

As the country’s westernmost province prepares for a boom in the gas sector, with LNG Canada and the controversial Coastal GasLink pipeline set to start operations mid-decade, B.C. is planning to increase oversight.

During the international climate conference in Egypt last November, Canada proposed a new regulatory framework on methane aimed at driving “as many individual sources as possible toward zero emissions” and expanding its scope to eliminate any exemptions the sector was benefitting from.

Ari Pottens, Canadian campaign manager with the U.S.-based Environmental Defense Fund, said the federal framework is promising and sets a benchmark for B.C. regulations. The province will have to follow the federal regulations or sign what’s called an equivalency agreement with the federal government, he explained. The closer the respective regulations are to each other, the easier they are to enforce.

“We think that any provincial regs should match the ambition found in this proposed framework,” he said in an interview. “It’s close to some of the best practices that we’ve seen in the U.S.”

The federal proposal includes increasing inspections of facilities, including wells that aren’t in operation, and requiring all operators to have a plan for how they’re going to deal with fugitive emissions, or leaks.

In 2021, B.C. committed to cut methane emissions by 75 per cent below 2014 levels by 2030 and nearly eliminate them by 2035. To tackle the challenge, the B.C. Energy Regulator (formerly known as the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission) is currently asking for feedback to inform the process. 

“Right now, in B.C. you only have to do a comprehensive inspection of facilities three times a year, but the new federal regulations are much more stringent,” Pottens said. “One of the things that would make sense would be to increase the level of [B.C.’s] inspection requirements, so that it more closely mirrors what the federal government has proposed.”

What you don’t know won’t kill you — or will it?

One of the biggest challenges facing the sector is the “rapid detection and elimination of fugitive emissions,” the B.C. Energy Regulator told The Narwhal.

Remember, methane is invisible. And the majority of gas extraction and transport in B.C. takes place in the province’s northeast, a sparsely populated and remote region.  

In 2021, Matthew Johnson and David Tyner, researchers with the Energy and Emissions Research Lab at Carleton University in Ottawa, found that B.C. oil and gas facilities were emitting up to 2.2 times more methane than federal estimates.

“Over the time since we’ve started to deal with methane, our ability to detect and measure it has vastly improved,” Tom Green, senior climate policy advisor with the David Suzuki Foundation, told The Narwhal in an interview. But much of the province’s accounting of methane emissions still relies on assumptions, rather than actual measurement and Green said implementing “large scale independent monitoring” would ensure B.C. has an accurate picture of the problem.

Pottens said industry compliance is a major issue. 

A 2022 report by St. Francis University researchers on behalf of the Methane Emissions Research Collaborative noted only 60 per cent of operators completed leak detection and repair surveys in 2020. And when operators did complete the surveys and found problems, many took longer than 30 days to plug the holes.

“If you have a leak, 40 per cent of the time it’s not being repaired in the correct way or in a timely manner,” Pottens said. “Tightening up the regulations to try to strengthen compliance when there needs to be a repair, when a leak is found, seems like a no-brainer.”

Satellite technology could be a game-changer. The Carleton study showed there was a big gap between detection methods on the ground and flyover surveys. But regular aerial surveys in northeast B.C. are expensive and impractical. Satellites not only drop a pin on major industrial sources of fugitive emissions, they can also determine the rate of the leak, prioritizing the biggest polluters and keeping emissions accounting accurate. 

“In order to understand and quantify B.C.’s industrial emissions, B.C. is using a range of tools, including aerial detection, land-based detection and surveys and satellites,” the regulator’s spokesperson said. “The province, through the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, has a contract in place to detect methane emissions by satellite at oil and gas facilities, coal mines and landfills.”

The ministry confirmed its contract is with Montreal-based GHGSat, which already has six methane-detecting satellites orbiting the planet. MethaneSat, a collaboration between the Environmental Defense Fund and the New Zealand Space Agency, aims to launch its first later this year.

“British Columbia continues to lead the country in methane emissions reduction and we are on track to exceed the targets we set in 2018 to reduce emissions by 45 per cent by 2025,” Josie Osborne, Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, told The Narwhal in an emailed statement. Osborne’s ministry said the province is working with experts, industry, non-profits and environmental groups to make sure emissions aren’t being missed in the accounting. 

‘A classic boom and bust’

Regulations alone may not be enough to catch and curb emissions as more projects come online. The province has delayed a decision about whether it will green-light Cedar LNG, a majority Haisla-owned project proposed for Kitimat, B.C. The government was supposed to make a decision by the end of 2022 but has said it is taking extra time to “thoroughly review” the project. B.C. already gave the thumbs up to Woodfibre LNG in Squamish, B.C. in 2015. The province also approved three other gas pipelines in the north: Prince Rupert Gas Transmission, owned by TC Energy, the same company behind Coastal GasLink, and two Enbridge projects, Westcoast Connector and Pacific Trails.

“The province really needs to be doing everything as fast as possible to reduce methane emissions, while also abandoning its plans to expand fracking and gas transportation that leads to these methane emissions,” Peter McCartney, climate campaigner with the Wilderness Committee, said in an interview.

The B.C. regulator said regulatory changes will apply to liquefaction facilities, including LNG Canada, pipelines and all upstream facilities. 

But McCartney worries the math won’t add up as new wells are drilled and projects come online. 

“There’s sort of a twofold piece on it,” he said. “Yes, patch the holes, fix the pumps and incomplete combustion at flare stacks — all these various ways that they’re looking at reducing methane emissions. But if they’re only pulling more of this stuff out of the ground, more of it is going to end up in the atmosphere all along the supply chain.”

Public appetite for new LNG projects is declining, according to a recent Clean Energy Canada survey. The study, conducted in February, found a majority of British Columbians would rather see the provincial government direct its investments and support to clean energy projects.

Green said that new and stricter regulations are important and B.C. should be doing everything it can to get emissions down as quickly as possible but the province also needs to think longer term and pivot towards clean energy opportunities in partnership with Indigenous nations. 

“We’re going through a classic boom and bust,” he said. “I get that people are benefiting from all the jobs that are up in the northeast of the province and in Kitimat, building LNG Canada — those are real well-paying jobs. But we’ve got to also think of the long run and start that transition, or start a rational build-out of what the economy of the future is.” 

Cutting methane emissions is inexpensive and has big benefits for climate 

Domestic responsibility for methane is part of an international effort. According to the Global Methane Assessment, a 2021 report published by Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the United Nations Environment Programme, cutting global emissions by 45 per cent would save the planet from around 0.3 C of warming by the 2040s and annually prevent “255,000 premature deaths, 775,000 asthma-related hospital visits, 73 billion hours of lost labour from extreme heat and 26 million tonnes of crop losses globally.”

Green calls methane a “low-hanging fruit” partly because industry has a baked-in incentive to prevent leaks.

“By capturing that methane and putting it in the pipe, they do get to sell it,” he explained, referring to International Energy Agency analysis that shows 40 per cent of emissions can be cut using existing technologies at no net cost to companies. 

Green added there are additional economic benefits associated with reducing the frequency of costly climate disasters. “It’s a moral case as well,” he said. “Companies shouldn’t be using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for a climate accelerant.”

According to Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, “methane cuts are among the cheapest options to limit near-term global warming.” 

“There is just no excuse,” Birol said in a February press release. “The Nord Stream pipeline explosion last year released a huge amount of methane into the atmosphere. But normal oil and gas operations around the world release the same amount of methane as the Nord Stream explosion every single day.”

“Fossil fuel producers need to step up and policy makers need to step in — and both must do so quickly.”

B.C. appears to be getting a head start by launching its regulatory review. The federal government has not yet published new standards, but the province is gathering technical feedback to make sure it’s ready to identify all of the sources of emissions and ensure they are covered by regulatory changes. The provincial regulator said on top of existing technologies, new ones are under development.  

“Some examples include vapour recovery units, enclosed combustors, electrification, instrument air systems and continuous methane emissions monitors,” a spokesperson wrote in an email. Anything that gets the job done is on the table. For example, the spokesperson said the regulator could establish “an emission threshold” or it could require operators to use things like optical gas imaging cameras in monitoring.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers didn’t directly answer whether it was participating in the provincial review but said it supports a “flexible, results-oriented and streamlined approach to reducing emissions.”

“We look forward to working with the British Columbia Energy Regulator to identify opportunities to further reduce industry’s methane emissions while creating an investment environment that supports the continued development of Canada’s oil and natural gas resources,” Jay Averill, a spokesperson with the industry group, wrote in an email to The Narwhal.

Once it has received submissions, the regulator will produce a plan for more public involvement. A spokesperson with the provincial agency told The Narwhal engagement is focused on “technical details” and anticipates the process will continue throughout 2023.

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.

Editor’s note Nov. 17: Following a judicial recount, on Nov. 17 the BC Liberal incumbent was found to have won the West Vancouver-Sea to Sky riding by just 60 votes. Although the B.C. Green party candidate was declared the winner on election night, with a 604-vote lead, mail-in ballots tipped the scales. Upon final count, the BC Liberals took 37.54 per cent of the vote, while the Greens took 37.30 per cent.

On the night of the B.C. election, Jeremy Valeriote, the Green Party candidate in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky, was watching the results in the living room of the Whistler home he shared with his wife Ginny and their twin six-year old girls. 

They were joined by Ginny’s parents and Valeriote’s sister and brother-in-law, who were keen to pop the cork on a bottle of champagne to celebrate a hard-fought campaign, no matter the outcome. “Let’s wait until 10,” Valeriote convinced them. 

As the clock neared 10, the networks flashed up a checkmark beside Valeriote’s name and the room erupted in noisy celebration. For the first time, the sizable riding — which includes Howe Sound communities, Whistler and Pemberton — had gone Green. 

“It was a tremendous feeling,” Valeriote tells The Narwhal. “I was still kind of in a state of shock. There was a lot of cheering … It was quite festive. I was in a little bit of disbelief, and also aware that the results were not final.”

Valeriote, a geo-environmental engineer who is about to complete a master’s degree in leadership at Royal Roads University, won’t know for certain until Nov. 6 if he’ll be taking a seat in the B.C. legislature alongside BC Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau and Green MLA Adam Olsen. 

He’s 604 votes ahead of Liberal incumbent Jordan Sturdy, with an unknown number of mail-in ballots — about 7,700 were requested — yet to be tallied. 

Until the final count arrives, Valeriote plans to spend time with his family (he’s the primary caregiver for twins Nina and Rose), sleep (he finally managed eight hours of shut-eye for the first time in a month), unpack (the family moved house two days after the election) and consider that he might soon be a MLA.

“I’m having initial conversations about what it will look like if I become MLA elect and just getting prepared, but certainly not acting as though the results are final,” said Valeriote, who was a municipal councillor in Gibsons for four years before moving to Whistler two years ago for his wife’s career. 

Jeremy Valeriote with his wife, Ginny, and twin daughters, Nina and Rose. Photo: Jeremy Valeriote

Woodfibre LNG opposition a factor in election

The riding of West Vancouver-Sea to Sky has seen various boundary and name changes over the past 50 years, but it’s always been held by the BC Liberals or the now defunct Social Credit party. 

So why did the Greens have a breakout election, snagging what will likely be their first seat outside Vancouver Island, even though the odds were stacked against them with a snap election called one year before the fixed election date, only days after Furstenau was elected party leader?  

Valeriote credits his tentative victory to rising concerns about intertwined environmental issues, including opposition to the planned Woodfibre LNG project owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto. 

The Woodfibre liquefied natural gas export facility would see LNG offloaded from floating storage tanks near Squamish to carriers an average length of three football fields that would traverse the island-studded waterways of Howe Sound. 

The mouth of Howe Sound viewed from West Vancouver. Photo: Aditya Chinchure

The location of the Woodfibre LNG project in Howe Sound. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

According to the Pembina Institute, carbon emissions from the Woodfibre LNG project would add the equivalent of 170,000 new cars to B.C. roads each year, while the project would use the same amount of freshwater annually as 5,500 households.

The Greens are the only elected party opposed to LNG projects, which will significantly increase carbon emissions at a time when the world faces a climate emergency. 

“The overall consciousness around the climate crisis, and the action we urgently need to take on it, was probably at the forefront of most people’s minds,” Valeriote says.

“It shows up in Woodfibre LNG and discomfort with government subsidies [for LNG and other fossil fuels] and the alternative things we could do with that public money. It shows up in the climate emissions aspect of Woodfibre LNG.”

“And Howe Sound is really the marine jewel of the southern B.C. coast. It’s close to Vancouver, and people get to experience it. It was over industrialized for a time and it’s slowly recovering but it still has critical species and critical habitats.”

A related issue for voters, Valeriote says, is how climate change will affect the region’s robust winter tourism industry. 

“That’s a key one for Whistler and the whole corridor, the future of our winters,” he says. 

“The overall picture is a very strong consciousness that our impact on the environment needs to change, and I think that’s expressed in all these different issues.” 

Green vote steadily increased with each election

Tracey Saxby, executive director of the Howe Sound group My Sea to Sky, believes local opposition to the Woodfibre LNG project and deepening concerns about climate change made Valeriote the only choice for many voters. 

The Green vote in the riding has increased steadily, Saxby notes. It rose from 11 per cent in 2013 to 29 per cent in 2017 to 40 per cent in the Oct. 24 election.

“If this project goes ahead, it’s going to create more than double the emissions of the entire community of Squamish — and that’s just the locally produced greenhouse gas emissions,” Saxby, a marine scientist, says in an interview. 

“That doesn’t even account for upstream emissions from fracking or the downstream emissions from shipping and regasification and when the product is finally used by the end user.”

In May, the district of Squamish said it would only support an extension of B.C.’s environmental certificate for Woodfibre LNG, which was due to expire on Oct. 26, if the project’s operation within the district of Squamish met emissions targets set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

That would compel Woodfibre LNG to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 45 per cent by 2030 and be at net zero by 2050. 

The Woodfibre LNG project would see 70 to 100 LNG carriers travel through Howe Sound each year. Photo: Shutterstock

Similar resolutions were passed by the district of West Vancouver, the town of Gibsons and the Squamish Lillooet regional district, while the municipality of Bowen Island went a step further, expressing its continuing opposition to the project.

But on Oct. 25 — the day after the election — the B.C. environmental assessment office granted Woodfibre LNG a 5-year extension on its environmental assessment certificate, with no conditions. Reasons for the decision are expected to be released during the first week of November, according to an email from the B.C. environment ministry. 

Saxby calls the decision “irresponsible and reckless.”

“LNG is not clean or green; it’s been green-washed,” she says. “The science is very clear that we cannot develop new fossil fuel infrastructure in a climate emergency that will lock in emissions for another forty years.”

Granting the certificate extension with no conditions is just one example of how the B.C government has “dismissed and ignored local governments and the public time and time again, and continue to rubber stamp this project,” Saxby says, noting more than 20,000 people around Howe Sound have signed a declaration in opposition to Woodfibre LNG. 

“We have made Woodfibre LNG an election issue since 2014, and we’ve seen the shift happen,” Saxby says. “The BC Greens are the only party that is opposed to LNG and that recognizes the impacts of LNG.”

Local issues like Woodfibre LNG can ‘tip the balance’

UBC professor Kai Chan says it’s one thing for people to think about climate change in the abstract and quite another when they face a climate change issue in their own community.  

“Risk perception for sure is felt most keenly close to home,” says Chan, who teaches in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. “Those kinds of local issues are motivating in a way that can tip the balance, whereas global concerns sometimes don’t.”

The BC Greens came second in 14 ridings in the Oct. 24 provincial election, compared to four ridings in the 2017 election, Chan points out. 

And that’s despite the snap election, which Chan says was “super tough” for the Greens’ small party and likely why their share of the popular vote dipped slightly, from almost 17 per cent in 2017 to just over 15 per cent.

Kai Chan, professor in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, said local issues can tip the balance when it comes to votes. Photo: UBC

“They didn’t have candidates lined up in most of the ridings until the election was called. That kind of scrambling is a huge challenge. If you’ve never heard of the candidate before the last few weeks, the chances of lots of people voting for that person are pretty slim, whereas last time around there was much more time to organize.” 

SFU political science professor Cara Camcastle has been studying the Green Party for years and is the author of a forthcoming book about the Greens.

She says the Green breakthrough in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky is not a surprise given that the party’s share of the popular vote in the riding has jumped with each election.

The BC Liberals garnered 36 per cent of the popular vote on Oct. 24, compared with the Green’s 40 per cent and 24 per cent for the NDP.

Camcastle points to the NDP and Liberal’s “lack of responsiveness” to key issues for voters in the riding, including Woodfibre LNG, as a significant factor in the Green’s healthy showing. 

There’s a strong correlation between B.C. voters who do not want LNG projects and people who vote Green, says Camcastle, who studies party ideologies and policies, including those related to the environment.

“The opposition to the buying of the [Trans Mountain] pipeline [by the federal government] is another issue. The same people who oppose these projects — also the Site C dam — want to see the government doing more to incentivize greener projects.”  

The NDP were also criticized during the election campaign for not doing enough to support small businesses in the tourism sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, Camcastle points out. 

“There are many B&Bs and other small businesses that depend on a pristine environment in Howe Sound and which are affected by COVID and are having difficulties, and who want the government to move quickly to assist them.”

Then there’s what Camcastle calls “the strength of the Green environmental consciousness in the riding.”

“Jeremy Valeriote indicated he is deeply concerned about the environment and he has young children, so he’s thinking about the long-term.”

Strategic voting has tended to work against the Greens for many years, Camcastle says. 

“This time it looks like finally something happened. People might have wanted to vote Green before and held back because they think the Greens don’t stand a chance of winning in their riding. But things are changing and that’s good for the Greens. It could be because they started to win seats.” 

Valeriote said other issues of concern to West Vancouver-Sea to Sky voters also come with a climate change lens, including highway congestion, a lack of mass transit options and old-growth logging. 

The Greens said they would immediately move to fully implement the recommendations of the old-growth strategic review panel, which called for a paradigm shift in the way B.C. manages old-growth forests. 

The party also said it would immediately end logging of old-growth forests in high risk ecosystems across the province and enact legislation to conserve ecosystem health and biodiversity as an overarching priority. 

“The general opinion I heard is that we should protect what little remaining old-growth we have, for the most part,” Valeriote says. “There’s lots of people that care deeply about preserving the forests we still have.” 

Assuming he becomes the MLA-elect, Valeriote says a priority, in addition to representing his constituents, will be working with his Green colleagues to make sure initiatives started under the CleanBC plan continue and pushing for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. 

“I’m just looking forward to being involved in public service again and working for the public good.”

Update October 29, 2020 at 12:19 p.m. PST: This article was updated to remove reference to the Sunshine Coast, which is not a part of the West Vancouver-Sea to Sky riding as previously stated. The Sunshine Coast is a part of the federal, but not provincial, Sea to Sky riding. Updated November 12, 2020 at 10:08 a.m. PST: This article was updated to correct a reference to the length of LNG carriers. They are an average of three American football fields in length and not six as previously reported. This piece was also updated to note the riding has not been won by the B.C. Greens and will undergo a recount. 

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.

If you’ve been keeping abreast of pretty much any climate conversation in British Columbia, chances are you’ve heard about the role liquefied natural gas (LNG) will play in the province’s climate future.

But depending on who you’re talking to, LNG is likely to emerge as either a climate sinner or saint.

Formally, the provincial government and industry are squarely aligned around the narrative that B.C. will produce the “cleanest LNG in the world.” But calling a fossil fuel the “cleanest” of its kind is a bit like a fast-food chain purporting to sell the world’s healthiest fries. 

A bevvy of experts, researchers, think tanks and civil society groups are singing a very different tune, raising concerns about the LNG industry’s sizeable greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental and human health impacts of fracking for natural gas and the dangers of relying on LNG as a so-called “transition” fuel for heavily polluting economies in Asia.

A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Corporate Mapping Project, released Thursday, details how B.C.’s plans for LNG are inconsistent with provincial climate targets. The report found that if all proposed LNG projects go ahead, the province will exceed its 2050 climate target by 227 per cent. 

So what’s the deal with LNG? How “clean” is it? Here’s what you need to know.

What is LNG and how is it different from natural gas?

LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to -162 C, at which point it condenses into liquid form at 1/600 of its previous volume, making it much more efficient for transport. 

The plan is to transport natural gas from northeast B.C.’s fracking fields to northwest B.C. via pipelines (like the Coastal GasLink pipeline). There, it will be cooled into a liquid and shipped by tanker mainly to China and Japan, currently the world’s largest LNG buyers.

When LNG reaches its final destination, it’s warmed to convert it back to natural gas for distribution in pipelines. This gas is mainly used for electricity generation and industrial and residential heating.

Dredging activities at the marine offloading facility in the Douglas Channel for LNG Canada’s project in Kitimat. Photo: JGC Flour

What does fracking have to do with LNG?

In B.C., the natural gas used by the LNG industry is extracted from underground deposits via fracking, which uses highly pressurized water, chemicals and sand to blast gas free from shale and other rock formations. 

Fracking wastewater is highly contaminated and is disposed of either deep underground or stored in above-ground tailings ponds. Some companies reuse fracking wastewater multiple times, leading to higher rates of contamination, which in some regions includes radioactivity. Studies have found fracking wastewater can leach into nearby aquifers and contaminate drinking water sources for nearby communities. The underground injection of fracking wastewater has been linked to earthquakes in B.C. and Alberta.

Natural gas fracked in B.C. is composed mostly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a climate warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale. 

Global efforts are underway to curtail methane emissions, and as part of Canada’s international commitments, B.C. set a goal of reducing provincial methane emissions 45 per cent by 2025 compared with 2014 levels.

But so far, efforts to curtail “fugitive” methane emissions — primarily from leaks at fracking sites— have been criticized as insufficient.

Health professionals also note that air pollution from fracking releases dangerous pollutants into the air. There is increasing evidence of human health issues linked to fracking. One study found mothers who live close to a fracking well are more likely to give birth to a less healthy child with a low birth weight.

Human health issues related to fracking were also flagged by Dawson Creek, B.C., doctors as a potential cause for concern after they saw patients with symptoms they could not explain, including nosebleeds, respiratory illnesses and rare cancers, as well as a surprising number of cases of glioblastoma, a malignant brain cancer.

Fracking wastewater. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Is LNG compatible with B.C.’s climate targets?

Natural gas is often touted as a “clean” source of energy compared with other fossil fuels such as coal. But research published in the journal Nature earlier this year suggests natural gas is a much dirtier fossil fuel than previously thought, with emissions that can be comparable to coal.

The new report from the Corporate Mapping Project and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found B.C.’s LNG will not reduce global emissions even if it displaces coal-fired electricity in Asia. 

“LNG exports would in fact make global warming worse over at least the next three decades when compared to the best-technology coal-fired plants coming online in Asia,” said report author and earth scientist David Hughes.

Hughes said most LNG emissions calculations do not account for “emissions from production and processing of the gas, pipeline transportation, liquefaction, shipping and regasification.” 

An oft-cited 2010 report from the National Energy Technology Lab found that when LNG is burned, it produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions of a typical coal-fired power plant — but that calculation doesn’t take into account all the additional emissions sources during the production and processing of the gas.

Hughes also pointed out that emissions estimates typically use a 100-year cycle when comparing natural gas to other fossil fuels. However, LNG projects will only have a 40-year lifespan, and those 40 years are critical for curbing global warming.

“Methane, over 20 years, is 86 times more potent as carbon dioxide is, as a greenhouse gas,” he said in an interview. “The point being is that we don’t have 100 years to wait.”

What rock-bottom natural gas prices mean for Canada’s aspiring LNG industry

What LNG projects are proposed for B.C.?

There are seven LNG facilities proposed for B.C., but only the LNG Canada project has begun construction. 

When it comes online in 2024, the LNG Canada project will be one of the country’s single largest sources of carbon pollution, on par with Teck Resources’ controversial (and now mothballed) Frontier oilsands mine.

In its first phase, the LNG Canada project will produce about four megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year. That’s the equivalent of putting more than 800,000 cars on the road for a year. Those four megatonnes will account for 10 per cent of B.C.’s entire carbon budget by 2050, putting massive pressure on other sectors — such as transportation, building and industry — to undergo a rapid decarbonization.

If the project’s second phase goes ahead, LNG Canada will emit 8.6 megatonnes per year in 2030, rising to 9.6 megatonnes in 2050, according to estimates by the Pembina Institute. That’s roughly the equivalent of putting 1.7 million new cars on the road each year. 

B.C. has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent below 2007 levels by 2050, but emissions continue to rise and LNG development will push that goal further out of reach. Graph: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

What’s all this talk about electrifying the natural gas sector?

In a recent update on the progress of the LNG Canada project, Peter Zebedee, CEO of LNG Canada, wrote, “We’re confident that once in operation, the LNG Canada plant will provide the world’s cleanest LNG, with the lowest carbon intensity.”

The goal to produce the world’s lowest carbon-intensive LNG lies in a plan to “electrify” some aspects of B.C.’s LNG industry.

The main source of emissions for an LNG terminal comes from the enormous amount of energy required to cool natural gas during the liquefaction stage. 

Thanks to an industry exemption from regulations outlined in B.C.’s Clean Energy Act, LNG operations are allowed to use natural gas to fuel the giant refrigerators used to cool and compress gas. 

LNG Canada intends to use gas-fired compressors in its liquefaction process. The now-dead Pacific NorthWest LNG  project intended to operate using natural gas, while Woodfibre LNG in Squamish, owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto, would be powered exclusively by hydroelectricity from the grid (via the BC Hydro Woodfibre LNG connection project). 

Both the provincial and federal governments have been offering generous subsidies to incentivize emissions reductions for the LNG sector.

In 2019, Ottawa pledged $220 million to LNG Canada for the purchase of energy-efficient gas turbines. 

In the project’s early stages, B.C. promised to provide LNG Canada — a joint venture of Royal Dutch Shell, Petronas, PetroChina, Mitsubishi and Korean Gas — with subsidized electricity from the B.C. grid. BC Hydro (a.k.a. B.C. ratepayers) also chipped in $58 million toward the $82-million LNG Canada interconnection project that will connect the project’s Kitimat export terminal to the provincial grid.

The subsidized electricity, which is critical to claims that LNG Canada will provide the “world’s cleanest LNG,” will amount to savings of between $32 million and $59 million per year for the consortium, according to economist Marc Lee from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. LNG Canada, Lee estimates, will pay for electricity at a rate about half of what it will cost to produce electricity at the publicly funded $10.7-billion Site C dam.

A Site C dam work crew in July 2020. The dam, which will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, will be paid for by BC Hydro ratepayers and will help power fracking operations in northeast B.C. Photo: Don Hoffmann

The other big question is how emissions can be reduced in the fracking operations that will produce the natural gas for LNG projects. 

Transmission lines paid for by federal taxpayers (to the tune of $83.6 million) and BC Hydro ratepayers (to the tune of $205.4 million) aim to bring electricity to fracking operations so they don’t burn as much gas. 

B.C. and Ottawa also pledged an additional $680 million toward electrification projects to reduce the LNG industry’s emissions. 

Part of that $680 million will go toward the Peace region electricity supply project, which Karen Tam Wu, B.C. regional director at the Pembina Institute, wrote is expected to reduce carbon pollution by 2.2 million tonnes because of increased electrification in the fracking industry.    

But when new emissions from the LNG industry are added to the provincial tally, that reduction is paltry and B.C. emissions will still be far higher than they are today.

Can LNG be ‘net-zero’ emissions?

The First Nations Climate Initiative, a think tank coalition among the elected leaders of the Haisla Nation, Lax Kw’alaams Band, Nisga’a Nation and Metlakatla First Nation, is hoping to attract more LNG investors to the northwest as a way to “create a vibrant low-carbon economy out of the economic devastation COVID-19 has precipitated.”

In a policy framework published this spring, the initiative claims B.C. “can produce LNG that has a net-zero or even positive impact on B.C. and Canadian climate objectives.”

But getting that net-zero classification doesn’t actually mean greenhouse gas emissions won’t be added to the atmosphere. For the LNG industry to achieve net-zero status, it will have to purchase carbon offsets and credits. 

“The premise of trading credits for the sale of LNG is convoluted and concerning, at best,” Tam Wu told The Narwhal. 

In a nutshell, the B.C. government would rely on emissions reduction trading credits, purchased from other countries under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, to offset emissions increases from LNG development.

But rules for trading these credits have yet to be decided. The United Nations climate conference that was scheduled for the fall has been postponed until November 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

B.C. eyes emissions trading to offset effects of LNG development, government documents show

Is LNG a ‘transition fuel’?

For most of the past decade, natural gas has been touted as a bridge fuel that will allow countries to “transition” away from dirty fuels to cleaner, greener economies.

But whether or not LNG will be used to replace coal and other polluting sources of energy is a cause for concern.

Tam Wu says LNG from B.C. might not replace coal at all in current industrial operations. Instead, it could be used to expand operations. “There’s no guarantee.” 

Marla Orenstein, director of the natural resources centre at Canada West Foundation, echoed the concern. “Frankly, it’s probably going to be used for new builds,” she said. “China has a huge energy demand that is growing.” 

In 2016, the International Energy Agency warned that “gas may be a supporting fuel for the transition to a low-carbon energy system but this should not be misunderstood as a sustainable growth opportunity in a 2 C world.” Two degrees of warming is largely agreed to be the most the world can tolerate without dangerous, potentially catastrophic, impacts. 

Tam Wu said B.C. needs to address its own climate emissions problems before trying to tackle emissions in other parts of the world. 

“The bottom line comes down to this: we have a responsibility for emissions at home. We need to reduce.”

Why not skip LNG and move directly to renewable energy sources?

“One of the challenges is that for some industrial processes, there is no substitution available in energy sources like wind or solar,” Tam Wu said. Large-scale industry relies on consistent, dependable power and, while technology is improving, low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar need to be complemented by energy with a larger storage capacity, such as pumped storage, hydro or gas.

If LNG is used as a transition fuel, she said, it should be used only for large industrial operations that have no alternatives, while they transition to renewable energy wherever possible. 

The question we should be asking, she said, is, “What’s the best use for fossil fuels?”

China and Japan are the largest consumers of natural gas from North America. Despite its reliance on coal, China has also embraced renewable energy projects. 

“They’ve actually installed more wind power than all of the EU,” Tam Wu said. 

Given the current global surplus of LNG, there is always the chance that by the time B.C.’s LNG projects are ready to go, there won’t be a market to sell to. 

Updated at 1:20 p.m. PST on July 10 to credit Pembina Institute as the source of LNG Canada emissions estimates and to clarify that while compressors are the main source of emissions at LNG terminals, they are not the largest source of emissions in the entire lifecycle of LNG (upstream emissions are greater than terminal emissions). 

Updated at 9 a.m. PST on July 17 to remove a sentence that indicated the Pembina Institute’s emissions estimates for LNG Canada didn’t include methane emissions. The institute’s calculations do include methane emissions. 

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 headlines in oil and gas industry publications say it all. “LNG: From Hero to Zero.” “Giant LNG projects face coronavirus death or delay.” “The LNG market is ‘imploding.’ ”

As most people focus on the oil price collapse, scant attention has been paid to the similarly poor fortunes of another fossil fuel — one in which B.C. is heavily invested through the LNG Canada project. The project would ship fracked gas from northern B.C. to Kitimat via the Coastal GasLink pipeline, where it would be cooled and liquefied for transport to Asia on tankers.

The liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry was taking a hit even before the COVID-19 pandemic, with a glut in supply and several years of unusually warm winters reducing demand. But now the far-reaching global recession kindled by the pandemic has driven LNG prices to new rock-bottom lows, with prices falling faster than Brent crude.

The LNG equivalent of a barrel of oil — in terms of energy — can now be purchased for US$11 on the Asian spot market, costing less than two pints of beer at your local pub (if drinking establishments were open, that is). 

That’s an 80 per cent drop from the price LNG fetched on the Asian spot market in October 2018, when LNG Canada announced its final investment decision.

LNG carriers now idle off the west coast of India and Europe, unable to unload. Buyers have declared force majeure in efforts to wriggle out of contracts for LNG deliveries they no longer want. 

European LNG storage could be full in July instead of in the autumn, when it’s usually full, according to Robert Ineson, executive director of global LNG for IHS Markit.

“The entire supply chain is clogging up,” Ineson told The Narwhal. “We’re seeing cargos cancelled, so they’re not getting into ships in the first place — in part because the price spreads don’t justify economically making the transaction but also, as you have cargos sitting in tankers, those tankers are not available to take on new cargos.”

In April, less than four months into the year, the industry publication Natural Gas World pronounced 2020 a “catastrophic” year for LNG sellers, saying, “demand is declining, supply is growing and this will continue for some time.”

Even in the unlikely event a vaccine is rapidly developed for COVID-19 and economies quickly rebound, analysts say a bonanza of new LNG projects around the world will keep a lid on prices, making some LNG export projects uneconomical. 

It all poses huge challenges for Canada’s aspiring LNG industry, which is still four years away from exporting a drop of liquefied natural gas. 

What do the pandemic and the rapidly changing global market mean for the LNG Canada project, which was only economically viable with an initial infusion of $5.35 billion in subsidies from the B.C. government? 

And what will happen to Canada’s other planned LNG projects, including the Woodfibre LNG project in Squamish, owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto?

Here are 10 things you should know as the pandemic takes a hit on the overlooked fossil fuel sitting in the shadow of the oil price collapse.

1. What exactly is LNG anyway?

LNG is natural gas that is cooled to liquid form, in an energy-intensive process, so it can be condensed and shipped in tankers. Once chilled to -162 C, the gas shrinks to about 1/600 of its previous volume.

When LNG reaches its destination, it’s converted back into gas so it can be redistributed via pipelines. Unlike oil, which is primarily used for transportation — think planes, trains and automobiles — natural gas is most often used for heating, electricity and industrial production.

Natural gas is often touted as a “clean” source of energy compared with other fossil fuels such as coal. But new research published in the journal Nature suggests natural gas is a much dirtier fossil fuel than previously thought, with emissions that can be comparable to coal. 

The LNG Canada project will be one of Canada’s largest single sources of carbon pollution, on par with Teck’s recently mothballed Frontier oilsands mine in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Why are LNG prices falling?

To understand why LNG prices were tumbling even before the pandemic, think of the basic supply-and-demand tenet of economics. When there’s not much of something and demand is high, prices rise. But when stores are teeming with a product and everybody has more than enough to satisfy their needs — say, zucchini in August — then prices drop. 

The world was already awash in LNG when COVID-19 cases were first reported in the Chinese city of Wuhan in late December , leading, just a few months later, to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, with no end in sight. 

“Even if you take away COVID-19, the world already had a lot of LNG,” said Kaleem Asghar, director of LNG analytics for ClipperData, which provides commodities analytics. 

A big wave of LNG has rolled into global markets over the past four to five years, in tandem with unusually mild winters in Europe, which have reduced the amount of gas required for heating.

Dredging activities at the marine offloading facility in the Douglas Channel for LNG Canada’s project in Kitimat. Photo: JGC Flour

Australia has significantly boosted capacity, recently overtaking Qatar — the world’s most cost-competitive source of LNG — as the global leader in production, while export capacity has also surged in countries such as Russia, Algeria and Egypt.

On the U.S. Gulf Coast, LNG capacity has almost doubled over the past five years, according to Allan Fogwill, president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Research Institute.

“In the time that Canada has taken to discuss the LNG Canada project, [LNG companies] have built four [export facilities on the Gulf Coast] and they’re building four more,” Fogwill said in an interview.

“There’s been a significant investment in LNG in the United States and that, combined with the existing capacity in other jurisdictions, has meant that the market is well supplied at this point. You can see why the spot price would go down. No one’s building anything unless they’ve got a substantial portion of their capacity that’s under long-term contracts.”

3. What impact has the pandemic had on LNG prices?

In January, before the pandemic took hold, Asian spot market prices for LNG had already dipped to US$5.50 per one million metric British thermal units (mmBTU). 

That was already a 50 per cent reduction from the spot price in October 2018, when LNG Canada announced its final investment decision. The spot market indicates what an LNG buyer is willing to pay for a cargo in the short term. 

The unthinkable happened on April 28, as the impacts of the pandemic reverberated around the world. Platts Gas tweeted the news: “benchmark price for spot #LNG in Northeast Asia slumps to record low of $1.90/MMbtu.” 

“I’ve never seen it like this,” Asghar said. “It’s historical low prices.” 

“The economics of LNG is just imploding,” Seattle-based energy finance analyst Clark Williams-Derry told The Narwhal.

“There’s so much supply, so little demand … the price has fallen well below the break-even point for pretty much any LNG producer.”

4. What the heck is an mmBTU?

Oil is measured in barrels, which are easy to envision. Thinking about gas volumes is a bit trickier. Natural gas is measured in gigajoules (metric) or what’s much more commonly known as one million metric British thermal units, or one mmBTU for short (the imperial measure). 

One barrel of oil is the equivalent of six gigajoules of gas in terms of energy.

A new, average-sized, single detached home in Canada needs about 100 gigajoules of natural gas to heat it for one year, according to Natural Resources Canada.

That’s the equivalent of about 9.5 mmBTU — which means it would cost $250 to heat the average new Canadian home for a year at current northeast Asian spot prices for LNG. 

5. What does the oil price collapse have to do with LNG?  

About 70 per cent of the world’s LNG is sold through long-term contracts, with the remainder offered on the spot market. 

Details of long-term, locked-in supply contracts are confidential, but analysts say the contracts have traditionally had a price mechanism linked to oil, such as Brent crude or what’s known as the Japanese Crude Cocktail, a weighted average. 

Enter the oil price collapse. 

When oil prices fall, the contract price for LNG that’s tied to an oil price falls, too, Ineson said. “But assuming the oil market recovers, those prices will go back up again.” 

 Ineson said long-term contracts are “a bit of a bet” but ensure long-term supply for buyers. “If the market gets really tight and you don’t have a contract, you may find yourself high and dry. And that’s what they’re trying to avoid.” 

LNG Canada consortium members have signed a handful of long-term contracts with buyers, including one with Japan’s JERA, the world’s largest purchaser of natural gas, for 1.2 million tonnes of LNG a year. 

Trading house Vitol has signed a contract for 0.8 million tonnes of gas from LNG Canada annually. And Asian utilities Tokyo Gas, Toho Gas and Korea Gas Corp (Kogas) are also committed buyers for the project, for a total of about 2.4 million tonnes a year collectively, including the Vitol contract.

But all of those contracts combined account for just one-quarter of the 14 million tonnes of LNG that will be produced annually during the first of two phases of the $40 billion project, according to the LNG Canada website.

The Narwhal contacted LNG Canada for comment, but the consortium — a joint venture of Royal Dutch Shell, Petronas, PetroChina, Mitsubishi and Korean Gas  — did not respond. 

6. What does COVID-19 mean for the LNG industry?

At least 10 global LNG projects, including projects in Australia, the U.S., Mozambique, Qatar, Mauritania and Senegal, have been put on hold over the past month.

“They don’t quite recognize that their economic heart has stopped beating,” Williams-Derry said, noting that none have officially been cancelled.

On March 30, Royal Dutch Shell — the company with the biggest share in LNG Canada at 40 per cent — announced it would pull out of a proposed LNG project in Lake Charles, Louisiana, leaving the project in the hands of a second investor. 

In most cases, project delays were pinned on the novel coronavirus, “while ignoring the fact that LNG prices were already deflating long before the worst impacts of the pandemic were being felt,” Williams-Derry wrote in an analysis for the U.S. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

“The LNG industry thought it had a clear crystal ball,” he said in an interview. “LNG demand was rising. Asian demand was rising. And that gave them a clear pathway to profits.”

“Now there are more risks and more uncertainty than anybody had anticipated.” 

7. What impact has the pandemic had on Canada’s LNG projects?

Thirteen LNG export facilities are currently proposed for Canada — seven in British Columbia, four in Nova Scotia and two in Quebec. The LNG Canada project is the only one that has begun construction, building an export terminal in Kitimat and the Coastal GasLink pipeline that will feed it.

But the COVID-19 pandemic is tarnishing project aspirations in Canada as well as abroad. 

On April 16, Calgary-based Pieridae Energy Ltd. said it would delay making a final investment decision for its proposed $10-billion LNG export facility in Nova Scotia because of depressed markets for LNG and the pandemic.

Pieridae CEO Alfred Sorensen said the company will continue to lobby the federal and provincial governments for $1 billion in financial assistance to help build its Goldboro LNG project on the eastern shores of Nova Scotia, which would liquefy Alberta gas for export.

Construction of the Cedar Valley Lodge, worker housing at the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C. Photo: Bird-ATCO

And in late March, American business magnate Warren Buffett, citing concerns about infrastructure and the Coastal GasLink railway blockades, pulled out of a proposed $9-billion LNG project in Quebec, leaving GNL Quebec, the company behind the project, searching for new investors.

On March 24, Woodfibre LNG announced another delay in construction for its proposed export facility in Howe Sound on the southern B.C. coast, this time for one year, citing the pandemic as one factor.

The project would see LNG offloaded from floating storage tanks near Squamish to LNG carriers that would traverse the waterways of Howe Sound three to four times a month.

“Like many other Canadian companies, we are attempting to adjust timelines as the effects of COVID-19 unfold,” Woodfibre LNG said in a statement, reported by Offshore Energy, noting the virus “has had implications” for a vendor’s Chinese manufacturing facilities and fabrication yards.

Also in March, Woodfibre LNG applied to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office for a five-year extension to its environmental certificate, set to expire in October after several project delays.

LNG Canada has scaled back its workforce due to the pandemic but says the project is still on track.

8. How long will the LNG market be saturated?

Ineson said things may worsen for the LNG industry over the summer, with storage inventories of gas already well above normal in all major markets.  

“You’ve lost a lot of demand with China slowing down and, even as they come back, they’re finding the markets for the things they manufacture are not there because the countries they would sell to are under lockdown of some sort.”

As oversupply continues, analysts also note that LNG Canada is far from the only new horse in the race. 

According to the International Energy Agency, 2018 — when the LNG Canada project reached a final investment decision — saw a big uptick in final investment decisions for liquefaction facilities around the world.

Then 2019 set a new record for the most liquefaction capacity ever sanctioned in a single year, with enough new LNG infrastructure announced to meet the needs of the entire European Union that year, the agency reported.

9. Could the price of LNG become negative?

Ineson said it’s unlikely LNG prices will become negative like oil prices, meaning companies would have to pay a buyer to take cargos off their hands. 

Instead, he said gas flows to LNG terminals will be curtailed, less gas will be liquefied and LNG tankers won’t sail as often. 

“The LNG business is going to test its limits of flexibility and will ultimately have to balance by shutting down some capacity,” he said.

Already, gas flowing to U.S. LNG export facilities is down by almost one-third, Ineson noted.   

10. Will the LNG Canada project have a rosier future after the pandemic subsidies?

Ineson said the LNG Canada project faced hurdles regardless of the pandemic.

“It was a challenging future to begin with — not impossible, but challenging.”

That’s largely because LNG Canada will be competing with other new LNG export facilities under construction and buyers are increasingly reluctant to sign long-term contracts, he said. 

Clark also said the project’s viability hinges largely on how its long-term contracts are structured. 

“If they are structured as oil-linked contracts then Shell might be in for a rough time financially with that investment. … I think that Shell could potentially find itself with an expensive asset that doesn’t actually withstand the test of time.” 

The LNG Canada project’s break-even point is about US$8 per mmBTU, according to Williams-Derry. That’s four times the current Asian spot price for LNG and 45 per cent higher than the spot price was before the pandemic. 

Although prices in the US$2-per-mmBTU range won’t last forever, the maximum price China is willing to pay in the long term will likely be in the range of US$7 per mmBTU, Williams-Derry noted. 

“That leaves LNG Canada in a tough spot.”

Updated on May 2, 2020, at 10:15 a.m. PST to correct a math error. LNG has contracts in place for one-quarter of production for the first phase of the project, not less than one-third as previously stated.

Updated on May 12, 2020, at 9:12 a.m. PST to correct the cost of of heating the average new Canadian home for a year. The cost is $250, not $25 as previously stated. 

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.

Woodfibre LNG, a liquefied natural gas export facility planned for Howe Sound on the southern B.C. coast, is a big step closer to construction following receipt of a key permit from the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission on Tuesday.

The eight-page permit outlines the requirements the facility, owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto, must meet for design, construction and operation — including a tsunami hazard study, a flaring notification plan and reports on emissions such as noise and black smoke.

The waters of the 44-kilometre long Howe Sound fjord, flanked by the Coast Mountains, are home to fragile glass sponge reefs, salmon, herring, porpoises and whales. Long polluted by industries on its shores, including a large copper mine, Howe Sound was returning to life after extensive rehabilitation efforts when Woodfibre and other new industrial developments were proposed.

Woodfibre LNG president David Keane called the permit “a positive step forward” for the project, which would see LNG offloaded from floating storage tanks near Squamish to LNG carriers as long as six football fields.

The LNG carriers would traverse the island-studded waterways of Howe Sound three to four times a month, accompanied by three tugboats and two pilots familiar with B.C.’s coast, according to the company.

“This permit is a large piece of our puzzle, and with it in place, we are working towards a final investment decision to proceed with this project this summer,” Keane said Wednesday in a news release.

Fracked gas export project to add carbon emissions equivalent to 170,000 cars 

According to the Pembina Institute, carbon emissions from the Woodfibre LNG project would add the equivalent of 170,000 new cars to B.C. roads each year, while the project would use the same amount of freshwater annually as 5,500 households.

Gas for Woodfibre LNG will be fracked in northeast B.C. and sent via pipeline to the coast.

Eoin Finn, a spokesperson for the Howe Sound group My Sea to Sky, said he is concerned that the oil and gas commission’s permit approves the use of two aging LNG tankers that Woodfibre plans to bring from Singapore for floating LNG storage.

According to the company, the permanently moored tankers will be “refurbished.”

The 40-year-old tankers are “way past their best before date,” said Finn, a former partner with the global accounting firm KPMG who resides on Bowyer Island in Howe Sound.

“They would normally have been scrapped by now,” Finn told The Narwhal. “They’re amongst the oldest two per cent of the world’s 400-strong LNG tanker fleet. Both have been in accidents and have been patched up.”

Finn said new LNG tankers have thick hulls but old ones can develop weak spots and rust can affect the stability of the hull and joints.

“If you get a leak from the tanks onto marine steel at minus 160 [degrees Celsius — the temperature to which gas is cooled in the liquefaction process] marine steel becomes really brittle and you could hit that hull with a hammer and break it into bits.”

Tankers carrying flammable gas will intersect ferry crossings  

Finn, who holds a PhD in physical chemistry, said the U.S. does not allow LNG plants or tankers within 3.5 kilometres of significant populated areas.

“That cargo is full of flammable gas with the thermal equivalent of 72 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs aboard.”

Carriers picking up Woodfibre LNG will intersect with four ferry crossings in waterways with both freighter and recreational boat traffic, Finn pointed out.

If a collision occurs and a loaded LNG tanker develops a hole, everything within 500 metres will be frozen, Finn said. Should a tanker carrying LNG catch fire, he said people up to 3.5 kilometres away will suffer severe burns.

Woodfibre LNG is a member of the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators, an industry organization that has promoted best practices in the LNG shipping and terminal industries for the past 40 years.

The society’s standards state that waterways containing navigational hazards are to be avoided as LNG ports and that ports must be located in places where vapours from a release or spill cannot affect civilians. “Long, narrow inland waterways are to be avoided, due to greater navigational risk,” according to the standards.

Woodfibre LNG did not respond to a request for comment from The Narwhal by our deadline.

The location of the Woodfibre LNG project in Howe Sound. Map: The Future of Howe Sound Society

Orcas and other at-risk species could suffer from noise, flaring 

Finn said he is also concerned the Oil and Gas Commission permit allows the LNG facility to emit noise, light and black smoke and flares.

The permit stipulates the public, the district of Squamish and three nearby First Nations must be notified at least 24 hours before a planned flaring event or within 24 hours of the start of an unplanned flaring event lasting more than four hours.

“This ruling gives them permission to flare any time they want,” Finn said. “A flare is not my definition of a sightly object in the primary tourist route to Whistler.”

The Woodfibre LNG project, on the site of a former pulp and paper mill seven kilometres southwest of Squamish, has already received environmental assessment approvals from the B.C. and federal governments.

Orca whales, grey whales, Pacific white-sided dolphins and harbour porpoises will be subject to potential sensory disturbances from the project, according to Woodfibre’s executive summary for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Nine bird species listed as vulnerable to extinction, including the barn swallow and coastal western screech owl, and three at-risk amphibian species (the coastal tailed frog, Northern red-legged frog and Western toad) will be subject to potential sensory disturbances, habitat fragmentation and barriers to movement, the summary states.

Woodfibre donated generously to B.C. Liberals and NDP

The Oil and Gas Commission permit is the first major authorization for Woodfibre LNG issued by B.C.’s NDP government, which green-lighted the much larger LNG Canada project last year.

Woodfibre LNG, which employs NDP operative and former NDP cabinet minister Moe Sihota as a lobbyist, is a private company owned by Pacific Oil and Gas, which is part of the Singapore- based Royal Golden Eagle group of companies owned by Tanoto. Forbes pegs Tanoto’s personal wealth at US $1.4 billion.

The Royal Golden Eagle group, which has assets exceeding $20 billion, includes pulp and paper and palm oil divisions.

Woodfibre LNG donated more than $137,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party between 2014 and 2017, according to the B.C. political donations database. The company donated more than $72,000 to the B.C. NDP over the same time frame.

More LNG projects ‘knocking on our door’

Karen Tam Wu, regional director of B.C. for the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think tank, said Woodfibre LNG and the significantly larger LNG Canada project have already been considered in B.C.’s carbon “budget.”

LNG Canada will produce 9.6 megatonnes of carbon per year by 2050, according to the Pembina Institute. B.C.’s legislated target for total carbon pollution is 13 megatonnes a year by 2050.

“We’ve always known that this was coming … the challenge of meeting our climate commitments with this project and LNG Canada’s first phase is coming to fruition,” Wu told The Narwhal.

The B.C. government has said it will devise a plan within the next two years to enable B.C. to meet its 2030 carbon reduction goals. The government’s current plan is a blueprint for meeting only 75 per cent of B.C.’s targets.

“We do still need to see that,” Wu said. “And we have a lot of moving LNG proposals out there. So we need to see how the government will be able to get us on a path to fully meet our climate commitments and reconcile that with LNG projects that are knocking on our door.”

About 10 LNG facilities are still proposed for B.C., according to the group LNG in Northern B.C. As of January 2019, plans for seven additional LNG facilities had been cancelled.

LNG undermining carbon reduction goals: new report

LNG is often touted as a transition fuel to help lower global carbon emissions.

But a report released on Monday by the international non-profit group Global Energy Monitor found the international LNG boom is undermining global efforts to slow climate change.

Global LNG investments are “on a collision course” with the goals of the Paris climate change accord and Canada is one of the world’s worst offenders, according to the report.

Like the LNG Canada project, Woodfibre LNG will benefit from a host of public subsidies and electricity rates far lower than what residential BC Hydro customers pay.

Woodfibre has also signed an agreement with the Squamish First Nation that could see the nation receiving $225 million in benefits over 40 years.

Last week, Woodfibre announced it had signed an LNG sales and purchase agreement with BP Gas Marketing, with first delivery expected in 2023.

The National Energy Board issued a 40-year export licence for Woodfibre LNG in June 2017, extending the project’s original 25-year licence by 15 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.

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.