LNG and the TFN

On December 16, the Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) will be asked to vote on whether an LNG terminal will be placed on their lands. As this proposal is to be built on native land, the community of Delta will have no say in this matter.

This proposal appears to be driven by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) to simplify the installation of a terminal for the storage and handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). It is not a surprise that they would choose to install the terminal in this location on Tsawwassen band lands. This could avoid conflict in the community and possibly expensive, time consuming consultations.

The drive to have a positive result from this vote has been supported by two letters from FortisBC to the Delta Optimist. These letters state that not only is LNG not harmful, but an expansion of LNG facilities in Delta will be good for the environment.

LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is largely made up of methane gas. The gas is cooled to a liquid state and thus reduced to 1/600^th of its volume for transportation. It can only stay in its liquid state as long as it is contained and kept cool. When it escapes, as it will during handling, it will revert back to its original state and volume.

The effects of LNG on the environment have been researched and well documented. In fact, the BC government has hired consultants to see what can and needs to be done to mitigate the dangers.

“If LNG development proceeds as the B.C. government hopes, we will face a climate challenge nearly as big as the Alberta oilsands, and all the risks and reputational issues that go with it.”

This quote is from Alison Bailie, a senior advisor with the Pembina Institute in B.C.

The Pembina Institute suggests that as much as 30% of carbon pollution from the LNG supply chain will occur at the Terminal. Under “normal operating conditions” this could mean as much as 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution annually in South Delta at the Fraser estuary.

Sadly, before an article in the Optimist this week, none of this was being discussed, and the vote is just four days away. All that we have is the assurance of Chief Bryce Williams that “best practices” will be followed. How that will be controlled or monitored by the TFN is not clear. How well it has been researched or discussed by the band in preparation for this vote is not clear.

What is clear is that the incentives for the TFN are financial. Undoubtedly, the pressure to perform has been there since the treaty negotiations and agreements of 2004. Agreements in which Port Metro Vancouver is a major participant.

Once again native people are being asked to trade their values of stewardship for the land in exchange for needed economic progress: pitting the value of economic gain from trade of their land against the consequential damage to their land, their surroundings and the environment. In his book, The Inconvenient Indian, native author Thomas King says; “It is beginning to look like colonization, part two”. Hopefully, the band will speak out against this ill-advised use of their land by voting against it.

 

Oh behave!

Below my response is a letter to the editor of the Delta Optimist. It is written by PR Vice President, Doug Stout of FortisBC. The heading and article completely avoid discussion of air pollution due to LNG. Perhaps their argument is that when it's in the pipes it is in liquid form and not a gas. Obviously the discussion needed is about what happens to the LNG when it escapes and changes from the Liquid state to the gas state and expands.

Oh Behave!

There is a small ad in the Optimist with a heading; Oh Behave! I would like to suggest that be the comment for the various executives of FortisBC.

Last week Mr. Michael Mulcahy, the President and CEO of FortisBC wrote to tell us that the Tilbury LNG expansion was “good for the environment”. The most recent comments come from Doug Stout, the Vice President for External Relations (ie PR). In Fridays’ Optimist his letter to the editor is titled “LNG can’t contaminate water or soil”. In his article Mr. Stout actually tells us that LNG is non-toxic.

I expect Mr. Stout wants to convince us that this (predominantly methane) gas, either in the gaseous or liquid state is not harmful. This seems strange even coming from a person we assume has been trained in Public Relations. Methane gas-not harmful??

In a study conducted for the government of BC by the Pembina Institute it is made abundantly clear that all along the LNG production chain there is carbon pollution. “Assuming standard practices, one typical LNG Terminal and the associated shale gas development would result in 12 million tonnes (MT) of carbon pollution annually”. 30 per cent of this pollution would specifically take place at the terminal (ieTsawwassen). 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution right here in Tsawwassen. If you want to discuss the ENVIRONMENTAL effects of LNG gas this is what you will need to address.

Mr. Stout must be in the minority in his belief that because LNG is non-toxic it is not harmful or a pollutant. His ingenious comment is that “LNG….would disperse into the air not harming marine life”. Leaving out the little bit of information about what it will do to the air. Interesting. LNG is a gas and yet only potential harm to the soil or water is covered with this article. No mention at all about the possible effects to our air quality from this gas substance.

Please, FortisBC, show a little more respect for the intellect of the Optimist reader. Spin is just spin. If you really want to convince us how you will make this proposal safe or good for the environment you will need to do much better than these whimsical comments.

LNG can't contaminate water or soil

Editor: Re: LNG plant comes with too much risk, letter to the editor, Nov. 27 I would like to address Bill Sharkey's question about how the processing and transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are different from crude oil. The most important thing for people to know is LNG is non-corrosive, non-toxic, non-flammable and non-explosive. It cannot contaminate water or soil. In the past 50 years, LNG carriers have travelled 135,000 voyages and 240 million kilometres worldwide, and there has never been a major release of LNG from a carrier due to a collision, explosion, fire or hull failure. If LNG ever did contact water, it would float on the surface, and as it quickly warmed up, it would disperse into the air without harming marine life. Like our Tilbury LNG facility, which has safely operated since 1971, a facility on Tsawwassen First Nation lands would be built in a designated industrial area. The facility and any associated natural gas pipelines would be built to withstand natural hazards, including earthquakes and flooding. FortisBC's facilities and transmission system have excellent safety records because emergency preparedness is woven into our culture. It will be up to Tsawwassen First Nation members to determine if LNG is something they would like to see on their lands. We look forward to their decision. Doug Stout Vice President, Market Development and External Relations FortisBC - See more at: http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/letters/lng-can-t-contaminate-water-or-soil-.