Call on the federal transport minster to take action using the form below.
First some good news: Hawaii’s Utility Commission said no to the Fortis & Wespac plan to export LNG from the Fraser. A HUGE thank you to the Aloha state for acknowledging LNG is a bridge to nowhere! (Read about the Hawaiian export plan here.)
Wespac continues to plan for an LNG terminal on the Fraser. Join our mailing list here for updates on public input windows for this plan,
It’s time for Ottawa to bring law & order to LNG development
The rush by companies like Wespac and Fortis to stake LNG export claims takes place in an absence of federal oversight. If you thought Canada’s response to oil spills was bad, prepare yourself: our preparation for LNG accidents is even worse.
Canada has no national Hazardous Substances Preparedness and Response Regime. Industry has no dedicated response agency for LNG accidents. There is no federal process for determining if our waterways are safe for LNG tankers.
Use the form to call on the federal Transport Minister to ensure the public is not put at risk by the crazy pace of LNG development in BC.
Learn more about the Fraser River LNG proposal and the risks posed by LNG in the quick summary below or in more detail at the menu tabs above.
Further detail on these key impacts here.
1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta
Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.
None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.
2. Local Impacts: accidents and terrorism
Impacts from an accident, malfunction or terrorist attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate destruction — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.
Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.
Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, within 200m of waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.
3. Upstream Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks
Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.
4. Downstream Impacts: killer whales and climate change
Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.
For a more detailed look at concerns about this project click on the menu links above and view the video below.