Public Comments

First NameLast NameComment to Federal Environment Minister about Tilbury LNG ProposalCityProvince/State
DianneDbosNo, thank you. Definitely not before a full environmental impact study is completed by the federal government. Preferably not at all.Maple RidgeBC
LaurelBrantI would like an environmental assessment, of course. This is the only right thing to do when any fossil fuel is to be moved in our beautiful country.

Better yet, spend money on developing alternative energy sources as that is what the majority of us want!
BurnabyBC
kenjeannotteBad idea.VancouverBC
RheaWarkentinOh, where to start! This is such a terrible, short sighted idea that makes me want to cry...VancouverBC
ChrisBellamyThis proposal is a disaster waiting to happen. It is criminal that it is even being considered.Port ClementsBC
AndreaPierceAsk her to reject BC’s request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit.
Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
RichmondBC
JudithLeaThere has been more and more evidence surfacing about the toxic effect of LNG on surrounding air, land and water, in particular the damaging effect to local drinking water and fishing.

Having an LNG tanker route along the Fraser, one of the world's richest salmon habitats and runs, is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. There must be, at the very LEAST, a full, unbiased, environmental assessment done before ANY consideration of approval! The fact that WEstPac will not assume ANY responsibility for LNG tanker traffic along the Fraser is ludicrous. Who will pay for any (eventual) damage? The people who live and work there, the taxpayers, and the salmon and any habitat and wildlife that have any connection to the Fraser!
VancouverBC
ZoeyryanPlease complete a full environmental assessmentDeltaBC
DelphinaNovaI am opposed to the LNG export terminal in Delta. Requesting a federal environmental assessment that includes the terminal and the transit area of LNG tankers from the terminal to sea.

We can't afford a spill on the Fraser river, home to the salmon and to the West Coast. Look at Santa Barbara, the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska spills.

We must protect the coastal waters and coasts for future generations. It is our responsibility.
TucsonAZ
MoniqueGobrechtEA office is to turn over assessment of this project to the province!
LNG should not operate takers on the Fraser River or in the GVRD and surrounding waters ....At the very least this needs a FULL / complete federal environmental assessment and approval from BC!
BurnabyBC
reamikAsk her to reject BC’s request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit.
Ask that the assessment consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Riak of ammonia ,as coolant, to surrounding area
yvrBC
DerekSpraggEverything about this LNG business is wrong and dangerous and you know that.

Take a look at a map of the fracking wells in the States and you can easily see what is wrong, what could wrong and is going wrong. The thing that bothers me the most is as stated above ... YOU KNOW IT IS WRONG!

I'm not going to list the evils of this since they will be catalogued by many others.

I will simply say. Stop this madness while you can there are many generations to follow us and they will pay the price.

Derek Spragg.
VancouverBC
myna leejohnstoneEveryday every week we are hearing world scientists warn us about the dangerous effects of climate change and how we must act now
Citizens are pleading with governments to respond
We must turn to alternative energy systems
Support for LNG projects should not be approved because there is too much environmental concern
1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC’s request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Some key points to raise with the Minister:

Ask her to reject BC’s request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit.
I ask that the assessment consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas
Saltspring IslandBC
TavinAndersonThis cannot happen without furthur review.BurnabyBC
JakubMarkiewiczThe human health & animal health impact is hugely negative, especially from the extraction process of fracking. There is no consent from traditional indigenous governance - Band Councils do not represent First Nations/Clans. The companies planning on extracting this resource, building the pipeline, and building the facilities do not have consent.CoquitlamBC
ShirleySamplesDear Minister Aglukkaq:
I would respectively ask that a Federal Environmental study be mandated before any further steps are taken to build the LNG terminal in Delta. There are so many reasons why this should be done. The first is an true assessment of the risks associated with transporting natural gas on huge vessels on the Fraser River and the Salish Sea. The Provincial government of B.C. seems determined to pursue the course of LNG facilities and transport infrastructure, even with so much opposition by the public. Please include both the terminal and the transport of the product. These vessels full of natural gas need a wide berth in the event of an accident. This is not feasible as the bridge (not built yet) would have hundreds of people in cars and buses and the homes and businesses near the Fraser River are at substantial risk. I am also extremely concerned about the impact of further extraction projects on the climate. Saying 'NO" for all the right reasons to protect future generations must start somewhere, I respectfully ask that it start with you. Sincerely, Shirley Samples
VancouverBC
DeanneMineauHon Minister Aglukkaq

The BC Government is not trustworthy in this matter. There should not be a substitution. This is a bigger issue than the province can handle.
Please allow a federal environmental assessment by a review committee. The assessment needs to include the terminal and the transit of tankers the entire route from terminal to our territorial boundary.
There are risks to Canadians, tourists, our waters, crops and our health and future. In the wisdom of your office, we ask that the greatest of care be given to this situation.
Respectfully submitted,
SecheltBC
ElizabethDunnTo the CEAA and Minister Aglukkaq

We need a full federal environmental assessment by review panel for the proposed plans for LNG tankers on the Fraser River and the Delta area. The review should include the terminal and also the transit of LNG tankers or barges from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. These LNG plans pose pose huge potential damage to life in the Fraser River estuary, to the populations living nearby and to the surrounding coastal area where these tankers/ barges will travel.

Please include in the formal assessment:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Please act immediately to ensure that a formal federal expert review is conducted.

Thank you
VancouverBC
WendyJonesWesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly. WesPac has NEB approval and now seeks environmental assessment.
WesPac’s project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that’s not its responsibility.

Because of this, I respectfully request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

The risks are too high in many ways, especially because the corridor used for shipping is on a major earthquake fault that scientists say is overdue for a devastating quake. Please, for the sake of my grandchildren, take this into consideration along with the many other good reasons that people are petitioning for an environmental assessment.

Thank you.
VancouverBC
JoanMcCulloughDear Minister Aglukkaq.

I am requesting you to ensure that there will be a FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT of the Tilbury LNG proposal for BC.
It would be a grave error and neglect of duty on your part to turn over assessment of such a large proposal to the Province.
Prime Minister Harper is already on record as saying LNG is too dangerous for Canadian Waterways, yet our Provincial Premier is hell-bent on LNG at any cost, at pushing through not only this LNG project but others in BC also.
It will be impossible to obtain an objective and fair assessment from this current Provincial Government, therefore I again kindly request you to ensure there will be a FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT of the Tilbury Project.

Thank you.
Lions BayBC
JanetHallgrimsonPlease reject BC's request for substitution as we are not confident that the current Government will objectively evaluate the projects risks. The Liberal party has only their interests in mind not the people of this province. The impact of this project needs to have a non bias assessment done.DeltaBC
tamikosuzukiTo Minister Aglukkaq:
I am extremely concerned about the potential development of an LNG terminal in Delta, BC and feel this proposal needs a full review.
This proposal is wrong on so many sides.
-the terminal is too close to too many people and the 3.5km hazard zone on both sides of the tanker route expands past the banks of the Fraser River onto major populations. I feel WesPac has been untruthful and disingenuous putting out folksy newspaper ads that say "hey neighbour" and describe how other terminals around the world are built even closer to high density populations. As if that somehow makes it right?
-as well as the shipping lane on the narrow Fraser River, moving tankers through the crowded Strait of Georgia with the countless pleasure vessels, freighters, ferries, cruise ships, barges and log booms is a recipe for disaster.
-building the loading terminal on the Fraser River will disrupt the river and destroy sturgeon and salmon habitat. The value of these fish to First Nations all the way up the river, and the commercial and recreational fisheries will be severe.
-what is not taken into account in the proposal is the extraction of "natural" gas. . Natural gas is collected by fracking which uses obscene amounts of water. In this time of looming water shortages due to global warming, the poisoning and permanent removal of potable water should be considered a crime.
- fracking also risks the release of methane (even worse than CO2 for climate change) or H2S (toxic to humans and animals) due to leakages or blow outs.

Finally, as a concerned citizen of BC , I want to ask the government why there is such a desparate rush to extract and sell away our natural gas deposits. This is a finite store so what are my children or grandchildren supposed to use to heat their houses with in the future? How do they benefit from foreign companies making money for their shareholders right now?
You are the federal minister of the environment. You have a duty to protect this country's most valuable resources--it's citizens and the land. This LNG project is good for neither of them.
vancouverBC
HaroldStevesI am a qualified agroecologist with experience in both agriculture and fisheries. As well as Richmond City Councillor, and farmer/geneticist, I have fished in the Fraser River salmon fishery and presently serve as the South Coast Director of the Groundfish Development Authority.

The City of Richmond has asked for a full Federal environmental assement and review of the proposed LNG terminal across the Fraser River in Delta. We learned first hand that the provincial environmental review process is inadequate and is simply a rubber stamp for approval.

When Mayor Brodie and I attended the provincial review on a pipeline across Richmond and jet fuel tankers on the Fraser iver we were told we could not offer alternative solutions even those alternatives that had been investigated and dismissed by the proponents. We were told that we could only comment on the merits of the application.

Richmond is the major home port to the BC fishing fleet and has the largest number of processing companies depending on the fishery Only under full public Federal Environmental Assessment and Review will we be able to determine the full effect on the fishing industry from widening and deepening the shipping channel and constructing piers and docking facilities. Equally important is the affect on Richmonds dykes, which the Federal Government will be asked to upgrade.

The cuminitive effect of the LNG terminal combined with the already approved jet fuel terminal almost directly opposite, and deep dredging of the channel to Fraser Surrey Docks, has never been studied. It is long past due for scientists to determine how deepening the river and speeding up the flow will affect migrating fingelings that are supposed to be nurtured in the estuary. Richmond engineering staff have already determined that the present deep channel has increased the depth of the salt water wedge in the South Arm of the Fraser River. With Climate Change and low snow packs, this is making it increasingly difficult for farmers in south west Richmond and Westham Island to get salt free irrigation water from the Fraser River. Both our fishery and farms will be affected by this decision.
RichmondBC
KhyaFellinghamI don't want unsafe tankers and barges traveling this close to my (or any) community without risk assessment being done and safety measures/critical situation plans being put in place!DeltaBC
michelleschiffernsWith so many projects being highlighted and all the ones that they're pushing through and sliding them under the radar, its becoming increasing dangerous to live in Vancouver. We are overloaded with multiple industry "accidents" all over the province and the hits keep coming.
We have no assurance that that the increased tanker traffic will not harm our water, our fisheries, and surrounding lands. The money does NOT benefit BC, the "jobs are pipe dreams" quite literally. Christy Clark wants LNG to be her legacy and her government will stop at nothing to cement her position. Her 'NET JOBS" for building and maintenance are just smoke and mirrors with no significant long term employment once the ports and pipes are built.
An overhaul of the assessment process is demanded as its becoming increasingly difficult to perform a detailed, transparent and thorough investigation. Cooperation in all groups, be it residents, local authorities, First Nations,or anyone with vested interest in the environment should be given opportunity to scrutinize and comment on increase in tanker traffic, coal trains and pipelines. I demand better from NEB and BC.
New WestminsterBC
LorellGingrichDo not further the efforts of fracturing. It is insane! If as much time and money were put into green alternatives, we could have already gone green ages ago. Why this headlong dash into disaster? The jobs created will be undone by the number of jobs lost, unless paying people to clean up and try (hopelessly) to clean contaminated water count as spin-off jobs...CoquitlamBC
GarthPrestonThis deserves a full federal environmental assessment. Without question.DeltaBC
DianaSchroederPlease conduct and assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. Please include the terminal and the transit of the tankers. The assessment should include project impacts on climate, extraction and transport.CourtenayBC
MikeKnoxTo: CEAA and Federal Environment Minister

I am writing to let you know of my huge concerns regarding the coal port scheduled to be created on the Fraser River. I am asking you to conduct an assessment of this project by a review panel. I don't have faith that a provincial assessment would be unbiased and I am asking you to reject BCs request to conduct a provincial assessment. Please include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I am asking that the assessment considers an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards,

a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Mike
CoquitlamBC
GeorgeEllentonThere is no point in having LNG on the Fraser River, and dare to interfere with the Salmon RunsDeltaBC
KatiePearsonI request a federal environmental assessment by a review panel.
The image of the "Explosion risk zone from proposed Fraser River LNG tankers (RealLNGHearings.org)" Seen here is terrifying! http://media.commonsensecanadian.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Fraser-River-Tanker-explosion-risk.png
Please review this thousands of lives will be in danger, victims of the explosion, our front line responders in the event of the inevitable disaster and the environmental repercussions in one of the world's biggest salmon spawning rivers could be damaged forever.

I request that the assessment consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I live in Langley, but my heart and family live & love on this coast!
Thank you for your time.

-Katie Pearson
LangleyBC
DarleenBernardI am concerned with any government plan to transport any toxic material on our open oceans. These products are being shipped for by our government to support another country. I also feel that this agreement or product is being forced on us by a conflict of interest by our PREMIERE Christine Clarke, as her ex husband happens to be very active in this field and runs and support the LNG industry. I feel the only people who are going to benefit are her personally. This is a very selfish project I only see her bank account will definitely get fuller and the people of China. There is a very fragile ecosystem in the ocean that can not be replaced.
Recently, we observed the lack of a rapid response system available along the BC coast when an oil spill happened in English Bay. I feel we the people of BC and the oceans will bear the results of the worst happening. I hope when you make your decision, I hope you make it on the fate of the whales, dolphin fish and our future generations. DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. Thank you for your time.
Maple RidgeBC
EricDohertyI am a former marine engineer with eleven years experience working for the Canadian Coast Guard. I oppose the Government of BC’s request that the federal EA office turn over assessment of WesPac Midstream’s proposal to build an LNG export terminal in Delta to the province of BC.

Liqufied methane is an extremely dangerous cargo, and other jurisdictions including the US wisely impose extraordinary safety precautions for these shipments anywhere near urban areas or passenger vessel traffic.

The present governing party in BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and the public can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest, and would undermine professional and public confidence in the safety of dangerous goods shipments in Canada, which is already shaky given the loss of life at Lac Megantic.

WesPac’s project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that’s not its responsibility. This is not a reasonable position given the complex risks in this challenging navigational channel.

The safety implications of this project for the residents of Richmond and Delta, travelers on highway 99, BC Ferries passengers, and passengers on international cruise ships should not be underestimated. Proper safety precautions may delay international and domestic shipping, and aviation. Most of these issues are properly federal jurisdiction.

This project clearly justifies a federal environmental assessment by review panel. This assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit.

The assessment should also consider:
• an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
• a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
• an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
• an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
BooByromMinister Aglukkaq, I believe that there should absolutely no LNG traffic on the Fraser River. It is one of our largest Salmon rivers in the province. If there were an accident shipping this toxic material it would be devastating to the environment.
Rather then the government always getting the big bucks maybe it's time to reconsider our need to ship all our resources to the US and China!
Sincerely yours
Ms Boo Byrom
VancouverBC
MontyChong-WaldenThere are smarter means to getting revenue into this province than shipping explosives down arterial waterways. We do not approve of these dangerous and corrupt methods any longer and demand that the government stops this reckless idea.VancouverBC
SherryJoelWe need more public input on LNG facilities and much more knowledge about what happens in the instance of a LNG or tanker accident before this is approvedNew WestminsterBC
ChristiaanVanderkopBan potential pollution in British Columbia.Fort St. JamesBC
KeithBlaisHell NO !!! Stop the FRACKING and no Super Tankers on the Fraser River or anywhere on our Coast !VancouverBC
RussBonnyPlease order the CEAA to conduct a full environmental assessment of the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta, and reject BC’s request to substitute a provincial assessment. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit, and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.VictoriaBC
ALLANMCWILLIAMSPlease, some long term thinking instead of short term gainVancouverBC
NeilHumphreyGood for Richmond Council standing up for concerned citizens of Metro Van.!

Potential environmental disaster locations and terrorist targets should not be within Metro areas . The USA doesn't allow it and there is no reason BC or Canada should!
SurreyBC
bradterryENOUGH!!! when are we going to stop the destruction of our natural resources ie: rivers, streams, oceans, forests, farmland,watersheds all so the corrupt corporations and government can get richer with no regard to consequences to humans or nature, when will the government realize its not their land it's our land our kids futures !!hamiltonON
LaurieParkinsonDear Minister Aglukkaq,

My experience comes from the Woodfibre LNG EA, which was substituted.

Please reject BC’s request for a substitution on the WesPac Tibury LNG terminal. Please do a federal environmental assessment on this project, for the following reasons:

1. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. Please see below re how the substituted Woodfibre LNG EA has been handled by BCEAO:

So much has been biased about BCEAO’s dealings with the Woodfibre LNG EA. Woodfibre LNG (WFLNG) has made claims easily proven false – LNG tankers will only run on LNG (none only run on LNG) and the BCEAO has not called them on it (this matters re the chance of bunker fuel spills). If there is an LNG spill, the gas will rise and go away.....yes if it is a small contained spill – no if it is a large uncontained spill – major consequences then. No comment by the BCEAO. The WFLNG EA is written with Valued Components that would normally be Intermediate Components and visa versa, which makes the EA very confusing to read, and produces an odd logic that to reduces the apparent impact of WFLNG. The BCEAO did not ask WFLNG to write the EA differently. The WFLNG EA is full of conjecture unsupported by references, with the repetitious conclusion of “probably no significant effect”. The BCEAO did not call them this. The Knight Piesold Report, commissioned by WF and referred to countless times in Sec 5.6 Geotechnical and Natural Hazards, was grudgingly released it to the Working Group, and was never released to the public during the public comment period despite, several formal requests. Most inappropriate. BCEAO let the proponent drive the EA.....to the point that at Open Houses held by the BCEAO, most of the questions were answered by people hired by or who hoped to be hired by WF – hardly unbiased sources. In addition Josh Handysides, project manager for WF for some time, left the BCEAO and worked for WF for a while – eyebrow raising.

There has been no recognition of the Sandia Labs results, commissioned by the US Congress, showing major public risk from LNG tankers to populated areas – resulting in hazard zones around the LNG tankers. WF in Howe Sound is bad enough, but the having LNG tankers going along the narrow population fringed Fraser is really eyebrow raising.

2. I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

3. The Environmental Assessment should include the terminal AND transit of the LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit. The same should be happening for Woodfibre LNG, but the substitution agreement is not being done correctly. Please say no to a substitution agreement. Let’s do EA’s in a way that makes us proud, vs Canada developing a reputation of being very easy going.

4. The Federal EA should consider:

a) an evaluation of the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent. Should have been done for Woodfibre and wasn’t.

b) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5km hazard zone on both sides the entire LNG tanker route. Should have done for Woodfibre LNG, and wasn’t.

c) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (ie terrorism) as required in the US. Should have been done for Woodfibre LNG, and wasn’t.

d) An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction (ie fugitive gasses), compression, and transport of the natural gas. Lots of natural gas, a very powerful greenhouse gas, is released unintentionally or intentionally along the way. With Woodfibre LNG, we had 2 EAs (WF and Fortis pipeline). Neither dealt with this. Disappointing and inappropriate with global warming happening.

Thank you.
North Vancovuer and Bowyer Island in Howe SoundBC
JohnMackintoshWe need to start thinking longer term about the impacts to our environment especially fisheries and our oceans and beaches. These assessments take time and we need scientific studies done urgently.
Thank you.
SurreyBC
TaliaM-ODon't invest in our demise, invest in Canada's future. Fossil Fuels are a dinosaur game.VancouverBC
CeliaLewisWhat will it take to get a full detailed scientific environmental risk assessment for this proposed project?

So much economic and environmental issues here, where the Fraser meets the ocean. Where so many people live and enjoy the water, or make their living in/on the water.

Do not allow our provincial government to fast-track this project with such shoddy evaluation. This is our future!
VancouverBC
JaneCamfieldMinister Aglukkaq,
The inadvisability of putting an LNG plant near the mouth of the Fraser River can be illustrated by a simple glance at the map. The plant would be adjacent to the most densely-populated urban and marine areas in British Columbia. Not only could people suffer if a spill occurred--as it inevitably will--but the river's species will suffer too. LNG tanker traffic will add to the congestion of river and ocean-going traffic in the area, augmenting the danger. The approval of this plant may seem to be good for the economy, but in truth, are clean air, unpolluted waters not more important than the needs of a dying industry?
I am a proud Canadian who looks to my government for intelligent, careful decisions done by qualified, humane scientists. Please let them not only do the work, but make their decisions binding.
Thank you.
VancouverBC
RobieLiscombI urge you in the strongest possible terms to conduct a full and fair environmental assessment of the prized WesPac LNG terminal on the Fraser River, one of the most important salmon rivers on the west coast. I urge you to consider all upstream and downstream environmental and human health and safety impacts.VictoriaBC
MaryStockdaleWith vested interests so much at play, we clearly need several layers of accountability in our assessments!VernonBC
ErikaKoenig-WorkmanWhy would Port Metro Vancouver, provincial and federal governments allow a project like this on the mouth of the Fraser River? Is this a Christy Clarke Stephen Harper or Robin Silverster project? Does Mr. Silvester have full power from this liberal and conservative government of the entire corridor of the Fraser River from Steveston up to Hope like a child who has control of the sandbox in a playground with no one overseeing his decisions, actions and behaviour? Does Christy Clarke care about anything else other than money? Does Stephen Harper like to eat wild salmon or does he prefer farmed? Did Robin Silvester beg borrow or steal his vision for PMV from his native Australia? Why are all nine (?) individuals placed at PMV by the federal government, and not voted in by British Columbians? We deserve and demand answers to these questions. Malcolm Bodie's, (Mayor of the City of Richmond) concern for this region, his steadfast desire to maintain some autonomy from PMV will not be trampled on by neoliberal values, nor the bully in the sandbox. As citizens of Richmond we will call upon provincial and federal governments for a full EIA. That said, why would anyone in their right mind want to let an American company come into to our neighbourhood with their dirty LNG business? I share Otto Langer's anger and outrage at the silence and reckless action of this government enacting their greedy and corrupt will upon the Fraser River, and the Sacred Salish Sea.RichmondBC
RaajChatterjeeI am a resident of South Surrey, BC and the Fraser River is quite dear to me. I am asking the Federal Environment Minister to reject BC’s request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Instead, to have a federal environmental assessment that covers:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts as required in the United States; an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

These are necessary in making sure that development along the Fraser River stays safe and does not contribute to global climate change that will affect our future negatively.
SurreyBC
SusanneJacksonIt is time that our governments start taking the responsibility of the wellbeing of our environment seriously. Climate change is already here, the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of these changes and people seemed to be prepared to go full speed ahead to make it into a climate disaster. LNG is an outdated means of energy production and the money that would be poured into these projects needs to go into developing clean, sustainable energy systems that are also much safer. The damage that is also caused to the environment by fracking and the danger of transporting these fuels is a risk that does not need to be taken. The Fraser River is an extremely important ecosystem and it is ludicrous to put it at risk for these types of shortsighted projects. Step up and make the morally right decisions.BurnabyBC
CameronWilsonFederal Environmental Minister Min Aglukkaq,

As a lifelong resident of Delta, I have many concerns about the possibility of having an LNG export terminal in my community. I feel this project is being stream lined by the provincial government without providing the public with enough information to understand the potential health, safety and environmental risks. I believe the federal government must conduct an environmental assessment, and reject the provinces request to conduct their own assessment. Our province has made their stance on LNG very clear. As a result, I fear that allowing them to conduct their own assessment despite their obvious conflict of interest would constitute a serious breach in public trust. The construction of an LNG terminal in a residential community is not something that should be taken lightly, and the public deserves to know the true facts before any decision is made.

Sincerely,

Cameron Wilson
DeltaBC
LauraJonesI am writing to include my voice in requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel. A thorough assessment needs to look at all aspects of this project - the terminal and transporting LNG from the terminal to where Canada's jurisdiction over water ends. I do not trust the BC government to be unbiased in their assessment and I am concerned about additional traffic on the very busy urban area of the Fraser river.New WestminsterBC
Janet J.SlobinDue to past support of BC for LNG exports, I request that you deny any substitution by a provincial assessment. This needs a federal environmental assessment by a review panel. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment needs to consider an evaluation of the terminal's location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalents. Also it needs to consider a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Dept. of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.

it should also include an explicit assessment of risks posed by terrorism as required in the U.s. and finally, an assessment of projects impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression, and transport of the natural gas.
PortlandOR
LaurieHenryTo Minister Aglukkaq
Re: LNG terminal in Delta

I have heard very little of this project in public and assume it is because the proponents of it (WesPac Midstream) want to keep it out of public discussion.
I would like to see a full environmental assessment of it by federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq.
I would also like to see her refuse BC's request to substitute provincial assessment instead.
I would like to see the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
VancouverBC
DorothyDohertyDear Minister:

I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel on the feasibility and safety of the LNG terminal on the Fraser River in BC. This is a very busy area, and one accident could bring devastation to a major shipping route, not to mention a major First Nations food supply. Please consider a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
BurnabyBC
SusanKnoxTo: CEAA and Federal Environment Minister
I am writing to let you know of my huge concerns regarding the coal port scheduled to be created on the Fraser River. I am asking you to conduct an assessment of this project by a review panel. I don't have faith that a provincial assessment would be unbiased and I am asking you to reject BCs request to conduct a provincial assessment. Please include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I am asking that the assessment considers an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards,
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. Sincerely Susan Knox
New WestminsterBC
KayJohnsonThe citizens of BC are speaking out against this proposal every day for so many reasons - threats to the environment which will affect wildlife, human health, tourism (economy) and more. But here's another reason - our BC govt has proven that they are not trustworthy so anything that they support like this should not be trusted. We want to be very, very sure that a proper, above-board assessment is done on not only the terminal proposal but also the transit of LNG and we want it done by an independent group that is free to tell the truth.New WestminsterBC
GeraldStroppaI used to live near there, too many families living there for any type of disaster to happen?? What are they thinking???SurreyBC
JuneRyderA full FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT should be MANDATORY for a project such as this with huge environmental implications. The Fraser River and Fraser River Delta are critical areas for a great variety of wildlife, and should be maintained as natural areas. The river and its delta should not be open to (additional) industrial development.

Please ensure that a Federal Environmental Assessment is conducted.
VancouverBC
DarrenDevlinDear Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to ask that you reject BC’s request for substitution regarding an environmental assessment of WesPac Midstream's proposal to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. The BC government has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. In this case substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest and the BC government simply cannot be trusted to be objective with its review.

As such I also request a federal environmental assessment by review panel be done.

This federal assessment should also include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit. Something which is currently lacking.

I ask that the assessment consider the following:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Anything less is unacceptable and not in the best public interest. Please take my concerns, which are shared by hundreds of others living in the Lower Mainland, under consideration and ensure that this project gets the appropriate amount of scrutiny that it needs.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Darren Devlin
VancouverBC
RaymondChristophersonIn addition to all the arguments against the proposed LNG project on the Fraser River in Metro Vancouver already put forward, one must ask why the project is being considered at all when it is clearly one of corporate convenience and greed at work. Any and all LNG projects should only be considered if they are sited in the Prince Rupert area of B.C.'s north coast.DeltaBC
JennyShawMoney is NOT everything - we have to stay healthy and protect our home.SecheltBC
JohnNicholsonI am against LNG tanker traffic in the Fraser River. Too dangerous, too many people live in the danger area, and little or no profit for me, BC or Canada. Please stop this madness!DeltaBC
peggysloanInsist on an unbiased Federal environmental assessment of the effect of
LNG traffic on the Fraser rive and terminal according to SIGTTO standards.
north vancouverBC
AnniePrevostThis needs a Federal environmental assessment. A provincial assessment is not an acceptable substitute.
The terminal location needs to evaluated according to international SIGTTO siting standards or equivalent.
A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US dept. of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard. An assessment of impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Finally WesPac's project description must include consideration of LNG Tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River
BellinghamWA
SusanCunninghamThese valuable BC waters need protection not pollution. Once the damage is done it cannot easily be undone and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that damage will be done. We have seen wayyyyyyy to much of our beautiful province/country being destroyed in the name of corporate greed and we, the people have had enough! PLEASE stop this insanity, protect our waters and the life that lives there! We cannot count on our provincial leader as she has been bought and paid for by LNG and continuously has failed to do the right thing for BC, hopefully you have not.CranbrookBC
BrianBjarnasonThey are coming to BC because they have been refused by Oregon and Washington State. Why are we accepting them????SurreyBC
SheilaJonesCall for an international environmental assessment.Vancouver, BCBC
DianneCrosbieI don't understand how the government of British Columbia can be so out of touch with what the people of the province feel is importantVancouverBC
JanSlakovAn environmental review by the BC government would definitely not be adequate because the current government is basing its economic viability projections on promoting more LNG development.
We need a federal review that will be as thorough as the US requires (including a Waterway Suitability Assessment and risks posed by intentional acts.
Before investing resources (even if privately owned) in LNG expansion, we need to have an energy policy that addresses climate change seriously. Then we can determine if further LNG development is something we can support or if we would prefer to direct resources towards other forms of energy and conservation.
Salt Spring IslandBC
GordKasperHarvesting and shipping LNG is bad for the environment and our future on every level. Don't rubber stamp an approval of this activity just because it isn't in your backyard and will make more profit for the top 1% of the highest income companies and shareholders. The general public will get more of the poisoning this industry has already brought on the world.BurnabyBC
StarMorrisDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I ask that you commit to a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Midstream LNG terminal by a review panel and with adequate opportunity for public information and input.

I urge you to deny BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment for the federal one. Given the BC government's desire to develop LNG in the province, it is possible that political interests would interfere with a thorough review and assessment of this project.

The BCEAO has failed to meet conditions with the substituted BC provincial assessment that is nearing completion for Woodfibre-LNG. As set out in your substitution decision letter, dated February 19th 2014, a condition for substitution reads “the public will have access to records in relation to the environmental assessment to enable their meaningful participation.”

My experience and observations of this BC substituted EA has been as follows:
A written request to the proponent for access to a Geotechnical and Natural Hazard Assessment report that was referenced throughout, but not included in the Application, was denied.
I was notified by WLNG on May 7th, after the public comment period had closed, that the report was posted on the BCEAO website and available for the public.
I would also add that Natural Resources Canada also noted the absence of this report in the Application and had requested it to made available, citing its importance in informing their assessment. The report was subsequently made available to the Working Groups.
Many other documents and reports were also not available to the public through the BCEAO until after the public comment had closed.
The BCEAO's failure to require inclusion of important reports in WLNG's Application denied the public's access to records and prevented meaningful participation in many areas of public concern.
Therefore, I suggest that the federal government would have a more unbiased perspective and better capacity to conduct an objective full review properly.

The WesPac Midstream LNG terminal comes with many concerns where areas of assessment come under federal agencies and jurisdictions. Assessment of cumulative impacts to fish and marine mammals comes from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); safety of LNG transport is to be assessed and established through Transport Canada; and capacity to respond to marine spills and accidents is with the Canadian Coast Guard. The substituted BC government EA process for WLNG denies any public participation on marine transport safety with no more public comment and important TERMPOL reports still pending.

The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

In addition, I ask that the assessment consider:
1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States. This would be most prudent as ISIL/ISIS terrorists have identified Canada as a potential target and would be in line with the federal government's concerns as indicated in the recent passing of anti-terrorists Bill C-51.
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Sincerely,

Star Morris
SquamishBC
EnaCassellsThe fraser river and it wildlife are already under pressure from industry and it is clear that should further industry access the river, it will literally die. There are other means of moving LNG and that should be the method of choice.LadnerBC
ChristopherGordonOur coast cannot sustain LNG. It is not a matter of if but when a disastrous accident will occur and spill death to our inlet. We need to think past the greed and not sacrifice the long term health of our ecosystem for the short term gain of the few.Garibaldi highlandsBC
IsabelBlissHalifax Dec. 6, 1917. That's all ! Who predicted that? Who would have ever thought an explosion would occur in the fog. Who would suppose vessels would by great misfortune, collide. Sigh. Accidents happen. Even in these days of GPS and radar, as the Queen of the North dramatically proved. Let's not imperil our coastal environment any more than we already have.SurreyBC
RonGlouxThe Government of B.C. is clearly a biased LNG export proponent, thus in an obvious conflict of interest situation when it comes to performing a legitimate unbiased environmental assessment. Consequently, a full Federal environmental assessment is needed.SurreyBC
ArleneElphickeI believe that an Environmental Assessment should be done not only by the Federal, Provincial and Local governments but also by an Environmental Agency that is not part of any Government, but supported by the Peoples of this Province.! It is time that the Federal & Provincial governments of this Country start listening to the people who elected them to office. There has been enough lies on behalf of both governments and the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of having things like this pushed down their throats. I do not believe a plant like this should be located within the confines of the Fraser River, amongst a high density population surrounding this area. If there was ever an explosion, thousands of lives would be at risk. Not only that, the Fraser River fishing would be at further risk with the increase of all the marine traffic. My question to the NEB, Federal Government, and Provincial Government is this: Does nobody in power care anymore or is it all about the money, always about the money......?ParksvilleBC
PhyllisRuthvenI am writing to request you to immedialtly step up and initiate a full environmental
Assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG proposal.
As a resident of the area that will impacted by this proposal I feel a full environmental review by the Federal Environmental Board is called for.
The impact of this many tankers will have a deleterious on our salmon and other fish stocks. In addition, it is certainly to interfere with our local threatened whale population both by depletion of fish and by sonar interferance to their sonar navigation and communication from increased tanker traffic.
The diesel fumes discharged by these tankers will further pollute our air quality and as an asthma sufferer I can not afford anymore pooluants.
Should there be an accidental spill or puncture health outcomes in the area would be further impacted.
I urge that the BC government request to do the review rather than a full feceral environmental assessment by a review panel be denied and that the zfederal assessment include the transit of LNG tankets from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should include an evaluation of the terminal location to SITTO standards.
Waterway Suitability Assessment be including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire tanker route.
A rsk assessment should be included as to risks possed by international acts such as terrorism.
Climate assessment is also required to determine what effects it will have on climate.
DeltaBC
EllenPyeNot only will this LNG terminal adversely affect the salmon in the Fraser River, but the human population of the Lower Mainland may well suffer serious health consequences.
By the time you add the increased tanker traffic from the oil sands pipeline and the coal barges of the proposed coal terminal nearby to the tankers carrying away the LNG, the accumulative effect on the surrounding area, as well as the increase in CO2 globally from burning all these fossil fuels cannot be ignored and should be subject to the most stringent environmental assessment. It is utter folly to consider these threats piecemeal, pretending that everything will be fine. Reality doesn't work that way.
DeltaBC
CarolPaulsenThe Fraser River supports a lot of industry now. To see this expand to LNG Plants and 120 more tankers plus 90 more LNG barges sailing up this narrow (in parts) River, I feel is just asking for trouble. Tugs and fishing boats plus car carriers are plenty.

There should be a very comprehensive environmental and safety report done on this, before It is too late for the salmon and bird populations.
DeltaBC
KenMitsushioHave you personally looked at the environmental damage this may cause because of the bird sanctuaries, Steveston Village, sports fishermen who fish from the banks for salmon? I'm not referring to studies fed to you by whatever groups have been sanctioned to back up the plant, but you, as a Canadian and if you were living just a stone's throw from the river? Have you even googled for info on this matter just out of curiosity without your work mindset? Have you Minister?RichmondBC
ChristinaShyongDear Minister of Environment,

Please conduct an assessment of this project by review panel and reject BC's request for substitute assessment. Can the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit? And can the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

It is in the best interest of people that the risks of the project be fully known and made public.

Thank you for your consideration,
Christina Shyong
DeltaBC
BillHadgkissConcerns about the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.
Whether we are LNG supporters or not, we probably all agree that major projects like this need careful review.
In this case public notification has been negligible,
the comment period (broke down) and is absurdly short.
Fundamentally important questions;
- Does it make sense to build a LNG terminal on a narrow, heavily trafficked river?
--- Is a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route necessary inside a city?
--- Is an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States necessary inside a city?
- have not even been asked.
Sincerely, Bill Hadgkiss
KamloopsBC
LeonaRothneyOil tankers do not belong in the Fraser River.
NO ASSESSMENT necessary, it is just common sense.
VancouverBC
siobhanswayneKey Points
- reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
2.need a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
3.assesment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
4.The assessment should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
deltaBC
ShannonCowanTo: Canada's Environment Minister Aglukkaq

I am writing to request that you ensure the proposed LNG project on the Fraser River, B.C. sustains a full federal environmental assessment, by a review panel. The assessment should consider a full review of the transit routes for LNG tankers in this corridor, and should include the terminal, right to the limit of Canadian territory in the ocean. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTITUTE A PROVINCIAL ASSESSMENT in this case.

Please ensure:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Shannon Cowan, Ph.D.
Salt Spring IslandBC
BrentSwainWith only one major LNG exporting facility, we will become dependent on imports for our domestic use within 13 years. With several ,we will become dependent on imports far sooner, exporting our own LNG at lower prices, to honour our contractual obligations, while importing gas for our own use at far higher prices.
Where is the logic in that? Where are our leaders, who are supposedly trusted to put our national interests first? What have they been paid under the table?
Perhaps their insistence that we use the US spelling for honour, instead of the Canadians pelling, tells us a lot about where they are coming from, and where their loyalties lie!
Looks a lot like treason to me!
Sincerely
Brent Swain
RoystonBC
WolfgangSchmitzThe Provincial Government has no jurisdiction over the approaches
from / to sea and the Fraser River.
The Quebec Separatists tried that with the St Lawrence River and Seaway
in the 80's.

The Federal government must have a full scientific and navigational
assessment of the project.
At the early stages of the Northern Pipeline hearings the then Federal Minister
of Transport wrote that Canadian master Mariners fully familiar with handling
Post Panama (x) Tankers are satisfied that they can navigate the channel between
Kitimat, BC . and open waters. I asked him to name these Canadian Captains (
Master Mariners ) since Canada does not have any tankers of this size.
No answer.
White RockBC
TheaHollettThe absurdity of using any fossil fuel in this time of rising CO2, combined with the dangers on the Fraser River to diminishing salmon, humans and our taxed ocean eco-systems combine to show the ridiculous desperation of the LNG community to make money in the face of dire circumstances. That this LNG terminal and route are even considered reveals the old-fashioned, Earth-abusing, greedy thinking of all who would consider such a proposal.NanaimoBC
PatO'ConnorMy personal health and that of my family and friends is worth more than the financial health of foreign corporations. Canadian governments need to invest in green energy and the jobs that come with it. When considering fossil fuels, the environmental costs are overwhelming and the public benefit does not compare to solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and water.SurreyBC
JamesConroyIn a democracy, the people choose the government to do the people's will. If the government does not do the people's will, then the government can be unchosen in an election and replaced by a different government. I am watching this government very closely as to who it supports, the people or big business.New WestminsterBC
VickyEarleDear Minister Aglukkaq, The waterways and oceans in BC are environmentally vital habitat. Increasing LNG tanker and barge traffic poses a severe threat to oil spills and contamination of these delicate areas. Please perform a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal by a review panel, rather than allowing a provincial assessment. Substituting a provincial assessment is not appropriate. Please include a terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from that terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit in that assessment. Please also include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. Thank you.VancouverBC
LauraFrameTo Environment Min Aglukkaq:

This project needs a full environmental assessment from the federal government that
considers shipping risks along the Fraser and our coast. Please reject BC's request for substitution.
BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can’t be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks.  Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please request a federal environmental assessment by review panel. Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you
DeltaBC
DulcyWilsonI believe LNG to be bad for the environment, sea, air, water with very little to benefit citizens of BC, It seems like some government grab using the ever present carrot, jobs, jobs, jobs. But apparently not many long term jobs will be needed for LNG. And if it has a fire and explodes it will be very very bad... way too dangerous with little real profit for BC people. And the Asian market window has dried up I hear.SSIBC
MargaritesanchezDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I urge you to commit to a full review of the proposal for the LNG terminal in Delta BC.
Please consider the following:
* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
* an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
thank you,
saltspring islandBC
TedLeathleyConsidering there is still a potential risk of ignition at 3500 meters out on either side, Canada should at least follow the USA safety zones for such operations. A federal review with all the facts is essential.

Canada seems to be ignoring the dangers of this undertaking and pushing ahead without much thought for the sake of development.
SecheltBC
beanord-lethI am worried about the environmental impact if WesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. I would like to see a federal environmental assessment done. We can't risk contaminating our coastlines more than they already are.richmondBC
BerniceMelneyI request a federal environmental assessment by a review panel. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the Canadian terminal to its destination.
Assessment must consider:
- an evaluation of the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
DeltaBC
NANCYLEATHLEYPlease have a FEDeral Environmental assessment. The Provincial government is very PRO LNG and might not be objective or might skew the information in its favor.

Please give BC at least as much protection as is required in the USA; i.e. a 3.5 Km hazard zone on both sides of the transport route.

Please evaluate both the terminal and the transport according to SIGTTO standards and take into account the effect on climate of both the extraction, the compression and the transport.

Thank you for reading my wishes.

nancy leathley
SechetBC
VanessaSenecalI request that Minister Aglukkaq conduct a full federal CEAA assessment of the proposed Delta LNG terminal and reject the request to substitute a provincial assessment.
The federal environmental assessment should be by review panel.
The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
In addition, I ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SquamishBC
PhyllisRuthvenI am very concerned at the apparent disreguard various levels of government and corpotare entities are showing for our mighty Fraser and the Sahlisn Sea. The headlong rush to exploit our resourses and the disreguatd bei g shown our environment makes me quake for the future of my grandchildren and great grand children's futures.
PLEADING FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT TO BE PROTECTED

As for myself, health concerns should there be a spill or accident are utmost as the effects could be leathal. I also enjoy swimming in local waters and kyacking. I love local wild salmon also and any spill would have devastIng effects on survival of this and other species that inhabit our waters.
PLEASE RECONSIDER
DeltaBC
AnitaDEN DIKKENIt is quite clear that the B. C. provincial government wants the LNG shipments to proceed. I, as well as others, have doubts that a provincial assessment will be totally unbiased . Public perceptions are such that many of us do not trust that government to "do the right thing". Money is the driving force here regardless of who may get hurt. or what damage may occur.

It is important that an environmental assessment consider the total scope of the proposed project. A federal review panel would likely satisfy most of us who are concerned about the potential impacts of this project.
DELTABC
cristadamatoIn addition to a proper and impartial environmental assessment, the government needs to consider why it is encouraging the expansion of LNG facilities when extracting and burning this product negatively impacts the climate.BurnabyBC
margaretklimaThe public wants an independent review panel not linked to any oil and gas industry or political affiliations etc - who are independent acclaimed scientists - to do assessment -. not a bogus gov't panel our hard earned tax $ are payting to support bad corporations.vancouverBC
IreneLyttleAdding my voice to others that a thorough, unbiased federal environmental assessment be conducted regarding the proposed LNG plant on the Fraser River in B.C. Adding this with all the other hydrocarbon projects - including the proposed huge expansion of the thermal coal plant; the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan with its attendant tripling of freighter traffic, and the Howe Sound (Woodfibre) LNg (proposed) project - would mean an horrendous increase of tanker traffic, coming down narrow channels and all converging on the southern Gulf Islands and Juan de Fuca Strait . This is a recipe for an environmental disaster.West VancouverBC
KatherineBakerYou don't need a company to come and poison the waters here in BC! Find other ways to make money!SquamishBC
CherylMcEwanOur natural environment is a great risk from the real possibility of spills from the LNG project.
Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment only.
Please request a full federal environment assessment by a review panel which include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers.
GibsonsBC
ChrisYakimovTo Minister Aglukkaq, with regard to (and with great concern about) the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG export terminal project in Delta:

As a citizen of Canada, and a resident of BC and Vancouver for 35 years I am absolutely shocked that it would be possible to green light a project like this without due and impartial environmental assessment and public consultation. But here in B.C., this seems to be the agenda. We need Federal support in lifting up long-term public health and environmental health concerns above short-term, badly forecasted profit - the risk and costs just don't add up. Due process is required to make that clear - this is what such assessments are for.

Given the recent spill in Burrard Inlet, and the less than adequate response, I can only imagine the catastrophe if a similar circumstance were to happen with a substance as volatile as LNG.

For these reasons, please

1. Reject B.C.'s request for substitution - we need this assessment to be impartial and to serve the public interest. We need this to be a check and balance situation - not a cheque and balance situation.

2. We want a Federal Environmental assessment by review panel, one that includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG through our waters.

3. Please ensure the assessment includes:

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; -
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Greater Vancouver's waters have become crowded of late, and given the very real recent proof that we are not set up to handle emergency situations, the proposed LNG terminal in Delta represents a very real and present threat to public well-being. Please ensure that an impartial environmental assessment takes place by rejecting B.C.'s request for substitution.

Chris Yakimov
VancouverBC
PamelaSharifProper risk assessment needs to be done for populace areas and it would be irresponsible to move forward without one. We need responsible government not profit chasers!West VancouverBC
Jean-PaulBourque(10,06,2015, North America) -- 100+ top scientists formally demand a Moratorium on Alberta Tar Sands Development.

(06,06,2015, Montreal QC Can.)--- 100 Canadian citizens engage a 2015 Planetary Debate on Energy and Climate, demanding a binding Earth Law to substantially reduce, much quicker during this XXI Century, green house gas emissions.

(12,06,2015, Vancouver BC Can.) --- Time for Governments of British Columbia(BC) and Canada to mandate a joint BC-Canada '''Ecology Risk Assessment''' for any and all hydrocarbon based investments, beginning with WesPac's proposed construction of a '''' Fraser River Liquified Natural Gas Terminal.
Jean-Paul Bourque(12,06,2015)
MonctonNew Brunswick
CathrynRobertsonThe lng is product for other countries. It is selling our future energy resources. The tankers will spill bunker fuel, that is the nature of tankers. We do not have a spill clean up response.
As far as the LNG contents of the ships, the hazard is there, but what is more hazardous are the amount of new tankers in our waters. Our water that is now seeing the return of dolphins and whales. And, unlike most of the world our shore is still swim able and not covered in oil lumps.
Bowen islandBC
MichelleMarcusI urge you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I am requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent, a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
EarlRichardsPotentially, explosive LNG tankers have to be kept away from populated areas. Docking LNG tankers at Tilbury is a stupid idea to begin with. Many people could be killed.VancouverBC
DGRamsdenIt's sad that the Premier of BC is continuing to push for business with a person who has little regard for the environment. Madam Minister after reading this article you will understand why we are concerned about our environment. This push by our Provincial Government to "give away" our Natural Resources makes one wonder what the "backroom deal" is with this billionaire. The Federal Government would be wise to handle our Natural Resources with great consideration. Future generations must be considered.

B.C. under pressure to cut LNG deal with notorious Asian billionaire
By Mychaylo Prystupa in News, Energy | June 3rd 2015

Read the full article at -
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/03/news/bc-under-pressure-cut-lng-deal-notorious-asian-billionaire
GibsonsBC
JenniferLandelsAs a resident of Richmond I am extremely concerned with the proposed LNG terminal, and request a federal environmental assessment of both the terminal and the proposed tanker routes to evaluate waterway suitability and environmental and climate effects.

The province of BC can in no way be considered a neutral evaluator in this process, given the push from the provincial government to greenlight LNG. EA is a federal responsibility which should not be handed over to the province.
RichmondBC
SofiHindmarchDear Environmental Minister Aglukkaq,

Given the location and scale of WesPac Midstream proposal, a federal EA should be obligatory. This is already an extremely busy part of the Fraser River, and increased tanker traffic needs to be carefully evaluated by an independent review panel.

I am concerned that the province of BC has requested to turn over the EA to them.
This EA needs to be done by a third party and not the province, which has so clearly stated their ambitions about LNG expansion.
The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG, and consider cumulative effects of all current activities in this area. This project can not be looked at in isolation, and should also consider the impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. In addition, the potential negative impacts to ecological sensitive foreshore areas along the waterway of these tankers. The assessment should also include a waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.

Yours Sincerely,
Sofi Hindmarch
LangleyBC
G..ThompsonDear Minister Aglukkaq
Please advocate among Conservative Members of Parliament to develop alternate energy following the inspiration of the German people. Please advocate to stop the export of fossil fuels. Please do not go along with the export of thermal coal or LNG along the Fraser River.

Your job depends on obeying unwise instructions from Mr. Harper's Conservative supporters. Instead, please consult scientists who will explain to you that the risk for environmental damage is too great. If you ask, they will explain the certain harms. If you don't ask scientists for this information, and then publicize this information to all Canadians, you will be personally responsible for your part in the harmful decisions by industry to export fossil fuels. Do you want to feel guilty for the rest of your life for not using your position as an MP to prevent all further global temperature increase?

If you ARE able to find your backbone, by resisting Conservative expectations and instructions, you will be welcomed by Canadians who are responsible about protecting our environment. Please join us. Thank you.
G. Thompson
DeltaBC
SandraScottEnvironmental assessment must be done on the terminal as well as the transit of the LNG tankers by a federal review panel

Fraser River is an important wildlife habitat and should not be compromised by tanker traffic and the danger associated with LNG transport

Evaluation of the terminal location according to international standards

a 3.5 km hazard zone must be in place on both sides of the tanker route

A full review of this proposal is essential
VancouverBC
VirginiaRamundaThis needs a full federal environmental assesment! Please do the right thing. We all will suffer the consequences of a lightly evaluated project.
Thank you.
V. Ramunda
SurreyBC
YazanMalhasDear Minister,

I am deeply concerned about the possibility of a LNG terminal being built on the Fraser River and barges carrying cargo through our environment. I would like to ask the following as a concerned voter of the lower mainland and the province of British Columbia.

I would like to ask you to reject BCs request for substitution which is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I would also like to ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to canada territorial sea limit.

I would also ask that the assessment consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment; equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you very much for your time and I hope that you help in protecting our environment and our home.

Thank you
Yazan Malhas
New WestminsterBC
ValerieYulePlease consider consequences of an accidental release of this fuel. We sell our resources so cheaply, are the risks to the environment, surrounding structures and people working in the area worth it?
Why can't this material be left in the ground?
DeltaBC
StephanieMalhasDear Minister,

I am deeply concerned about the possibility of a LNG terminal being built on the Fraser River and barges carrying cargo through our environment. I would like to ask the following as a concerned voter of the lower mainland and the province of British Columbia.

I would like to ask you to reject BCs request for substitution which is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I would also like to ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to canada territorial sea limit.

I would also ask that the assessment consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment; equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you very much for your time and I hope that you help in protecting our environment and our home.

Thank you
Stephanie Malhas
New WestminsterBC
RayanaErlandAt the moment, water restrictions are already in place on Vancouver Island. Salmon rivers are running dry. There is no snowpack. Tanker traffic on shallow waters is more dangerous than ever before. One spill would destroy Fraser River salmon run for years to come.Port AlberniBC
KathleenBeatonThe LNG terminal project on the Fraser River has far too great an impact to simply rely on a provincial assessment. I call on you to demand a full federal environmental assessment of this proposed project. The waters of the Salish Sea and the coastline of southern BC and its islands are sensitive areas that sustain much marine life and provide a rich fishing industry for our province. Please do not allow so much potentially dangerous tanker traffic on these waters. It is already over burdened by tankers and this is severely affecting both marine life and tourism in these areas. Make sure the long term impact of terminal projects are assessed and do not allow short term gain to be the deciding factor in projects such as these.DeltaBC
Jane-AnnKayPlease conduct a federal environmental assesment of this project with review panel and not substitute a provincial one. I do not want any tankers (or any more if there are a few already) travelling the Fraser river. The Fraser River is already busy enough. The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
vancouverBC
MazellKolvynThis really is a most disruptive project. The river and its environment is sensitive and fragile.
Please reconsider this project: conduct an assessement and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mazell
SurreyBC
AllaaEla-AlimI wish that the people who have the ability to improve environmental conditions would do whatever is in their power to help. Your voices' are heard louder and clearer. Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment and please have a federal environmental assessment by review panel conducted instead. It is not in the public's interest to have wide pockets fatten while potential lives (ours including wildlife) are in danger. I would appreciate it if the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit be examined as well. Including the following in the assessment would also be a great step towards raising environmental concerns:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts such as terrorism
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas

Taking extra precautions to lead British Columbia towards become a sustainable province will set an example to others around the world and to future generations. Please take the time to consider your decisions and actions.

-Allaa E.
New WestminsterBC
MarianKempDear Premier Clark, I do not wish to have an LNG plant on the Fraser River. There is too much risk for spillage and, sooner or later, there will be a spill. I urge you not to sanction this project -- in short, reject it. Further, it is important that all big projects like this have an environmental assessment. Please allow the assessment to proceed and do not try to avoid it.

Thank you, - Marian Kemp - Powell River, BC
Powell RiverBC
EdgarDahlEnvironment Minister Aglukkaq, please do not allow the BC Government to carry out an Environmental Assessment to approve LNG operations. The Provincial Government in BC has not enforced the Riparian Areas Regulation when development adjacent to the Salmon River at Salmon Arm threatened to damage acres of prime fish habitat. And, they appeared to not be unable to confirm that the Qualified Environmental Professionals hired by the developer knew that their assessment was inadequate, and incorrect.

Please allow DFO to evaluate the situation, and carry out Professional evaluations.
Salmon ArmBC
StephenHarperI hope this passes. I was paid so much by this company. Fracking pollutes, kills, and mutates your DNA. Have fun everyone!!!Closetwalk in closet
LisaGaudetI'm disappointed with the democratic process and how there was so little time to voice concerns . It is very irresponsible to be putting all our eggs in one basket instead of diversifying our economy.BurnabyBC
VelAndersonMadam Minister, we are very concerned about our environment. It appears that the Corporations are in control, and that worries the public. Surly, common sense would indicate that adding these huge LNG tankers and barges in a very busy body of water would invite a disaster of some nature. A collision with an LNG tanker, causing the escape of gas from the tanker may dissipate, however, should the gas reach a point of ignition then all hell breaks loose. A fire ball then heads back to the gas source. Can you imagine the resulting explosion? How many people will be killed?
Yes, the tankers are well built, and yes, we have well trained personell to maneuver the tankers in and out of the River, however it only takes one mistake to create disaster. You cannot legislate against human error. Did you know that a large LNG pool fire emits high thermal radiation thus preventing fire fighters from approaching and extinguishing the fire.

Increased noise both above and underwater from the tankers will play havoc with the salmon and other fish in the river.

Are you familiar with the following?
Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators -
The de facto world authority on LNG terminal siting standards.
Virtually the entire world LNG industry holds membership in SIGTTO.
1. There is no acceptable probability for a catastrophic LNG release [1];
2. LNG ports must be located where LNG vapors from a spill or release cannot affect civilians [2];
3. LNG ship berths must be far from the ship transit fairway;
1. To prevent collision or allision [3] from other vessels;
2. To prevent surging and ranging along the LNG pier and jetty that may cause the berthed ship to break its moorings and/or LNG connection;
3. Since all other vessels must be considered an ignition source
4.LNG ports must be located where they do not conflict with other waterway uses [4] €” now and into the future. [This requires long-range planning for the entire port area prior to committing to a terminal location]; Conflicting waterway uses include fishing and recreational boating.
5. Long, narrow inland waterways are to be avoided, due to greater navigation risk;
6. Waterways containing navigation hazards are to be avoided as LNG ports;
7. LNG ports must not be located on the outside curve in the waterway, since other transiting vessels would at some time during their transits be headed directly at the berthed LNG ship;
8. Human error potential always exists, so it must be taken into consideration when selecting and designing an LNG port.
2 Sandia National Laboratories defines for the US Department of Energy three Hazard Zones (also called, "Zones of Concern") surrounding LNG carriers. The largest Zone is 2.2 miles/3,500 meters around the vessel, indicating that LNG ports must be located at least that distance from civilians. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapor hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.

Yes Madam Minister, there is an absolute need for a full Federal Environmental Assessment.
GibsonsBC
MeredithDallyPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please conduct a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

Please have the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please consider: an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
WhistlerBC
HristoHristovThis is nuts! So close to the communities. There should be more information about this in to the public. What about Safety comes first? Are money more important than our future? The planet is already polluted enough and now LNG, coal and oil has to come to BC!? Why?New WestminsterBC
ARobinsonI urge you as Federal Environment Minister to ensure a full federal environmental assessment by review panel of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal and the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit is conducted. A provincial assessment is not appropriate nor in the public interest.
The full federal assessment needs to consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

With concern,
A. Robinson
DenmanIslandBC
RobertBlairYou must reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
We Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
We require the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment needs to consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
A list of people who will be doing the review and precisely who will be accountable for any and all negative outcomes.
A monetary assurance of whom will be financially responcible for any and all public damage and restoration.
The names and postions of those that will ultimately oversee this entire operation and be personally responsible to the commons.
SurreyBC
ChristinaNelsonthere needs to be a full Federal Environment assessment before they just going a head with this plan ,this is putting the public at risk,its putting the fish at risk & the local animals at risk ,please take this in to serious consideration before you go a head with this plan ....Thank YouNew NewstminsterBC
TanisMaxfieldIt is unbelievable that you would actually consider skipping the environmental assessment! Please do not accept this request for substitution, and please order a federal environmental assessment including the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to the Territorial sea limit. This is vital information that is needed when evaluating the risks versus benefits of such a project. To neglect to do such a review is unconscionable!DeltaBC
DianneClarkI am requesting that the federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq request a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.
I also request that Minister Aglukkaq reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.

I don't feel that the provincial government can conduct a fair, objective assessment.

I also ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. and ask that the assessment consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
New WestminsterBC
JohnWittmayerNo tanker traffic on the Fraser RiverMaple ridgeBC
LesleySpenceThere is no way that this US company should be allowed to bring LNG to our waters. They needs to listen to David Suzuki when he says, " We all deserve to have clean air, water and land for our children and our children's children. There needs to be a full federal environment assessment immediately.
LESLEY Spence
New WestminsterBC
jeffMooreI urge Environment Minister Aglukkaq to conduct a federal environmental assessment, by review panel, of the proposed WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta. This terminal, together with other fossil fuel export proposals on tap, would contribute to a fossil fuel rush hour where 80 coal ships, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges make their way down the Fraser River to a shipping superhighway where hundreds of crude oil tankers ply the waters of the Georgia Strait .

While all of these proposals merit a federal assessment, an assessment of the Wetpac project is particularly needed. An assessment by the Province of BC is not appropriate as the Clark government supports LNG exports so ardently that citizens have no confidence that a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate the risks of the project.

A federal assessment should consider: whether the terminal location meets internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards; whether a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to the one required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard is necessary; whether the project will have an unacceptable impact on climate change; and what are the risks posed by terrorism.
DeltaBC
ThomasMoodyDear Minister Aglukkaq:

As I'm sure you're aware, WesPac Midstream is seeking to build an LNG export terminal in Delta, BC, and the BC government has asked that a provincial environmental assessment (EA) of the proposal be substituted for a federal EA of it. Given the current BC government's interest in developing LNG facilities in BC, a cloud of suspicion would always hang over an approval granted on the basis of a provincial EA. Thus, I am writing to ask you to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial EA for a federal one, and to instead see to it that the proposal is subjected to an EA by a review panel that would, among other things, consider the risks associated with the extraction of the natural gas to be transported, the risks associated with the transport of natural gas to the terminal, the risks associated with the compression of natural gas at the terminal, the risks associated with the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, and the risks that the ultimate combustion of the product would pose to the climate. Given the low prices of natural gas, and the already high value of the Fraser River in its current pattern of usage, I doubt that the risks posed by the project would be deemed significantly counterbalanced by any economic benefits. I especially doubt the province's willingness or ability to make sound judgements regarding net costs or benefits of any sort, I'm sorry to say.

Sincerely,

Thomas Moody
VancouverBC
DennisBoulterMinister Agulkkaq,

As a resident and property owner in the Fraserview area less than 1km away from the proposed route, I demand that the affected public's right to full environmental review be respected.

The BC government's political commitment to LNG has obscured their good judgement in this regard. We have only your department and its processes to depend on for effective review.

Regards,

Dennis Boulter
VancouverBC
KimKasasianTo Minister Aglukkaq,

I am very concerned by the prospect of an LNG export terminal in Delta.
I request that you insist on a federal Environmental Assessment of the project, and ensure that it includes all aspects of the project from the terminal, to storage, to bunkering of tankers and transport of LNG through the narrow Frazer corridor.
Canada and B.C. need to maintain high safety standards that are equivalent to recognized international safety standards, including that possibility of a terrorist attack.
Equally important to the assessment is the impact on the climate from the extraction, transport and burning of LNG, including the leakage of methane gas at all stages of the project.

Yours,
Kim Kasasian
Bowen IslandBC
BruceChengDear Minister Aglukkaq:

I wish to lodge my objection to the BC government being given the right to substitution. The BC government has made it abundantly clear they are in favour of LNG exports and would be unable to do an objective environmental assessment of the project.
In would like a federal environmental review BUT it must include all aspects of the terminal and the transportation out of Canada's territorial waters. As well as any forms of extraction such as Fracking and it impact on the environment must be part of the review process.
I hope you will take my comments into consideration.

Regards,

Bruce Cheng
New WestminsterBC
KimLowesAre you kidding - on a delta? An environmentally fragile area that supports a multitude of species - flora & fauna. It would act as a sponge to absorb toxic waste that should spill, leak, overflow . . . Think about it!New WestminsterBC
JamieDe LuceI reject BC's request for substitution.
we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks.
Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I am requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
KristinMillerA full Federal Environmental Assessment by review panel is necessary to evaluate the proposed LNG project on the Fraser River at Delta. The request for substitution by BC should be denied. Terminal location, marine transport of product, and effect on Fraser River ecology, Vancouver communities, and increased traffic on the Salish Sea must be investigated.GabriolaBC
HeatherShepherdI believe it is time we have an environmental evaluation of ALL the areas were Christy Clarke is trying to force LNG terminals. We in the Howe Sound have been beating our heads against a stone wall trying to prevent an LNG terminal in the narrow fiord of Howe Sound. It is beginning to feel like what Christy wants Christy is going to get. Someone has to be able to stop her.GibsonsBC
PercyHartThe only way that these LNG terminals will work is with gas coming from FRACKING a proven environmental disaster.SurgeNarrowsBC
RichardHobsonI think it's ridiculous that the new terminal isn't getting a federal assessment. BC is making plans to greatly increase our tanker traffic, not just for LNG but other fossil fuels. This will mean more than 10 times as much tanker traffic in our waters and it behooves us to treat those as more than a roadway, Those waters are an important resource that we must have the foresight to steward and protect.New WestminsterBC
rebekahdevitoDear Minister and Environment Minister Aglukkaq;

I am writing with regards to the potential WesPac project on the lower Fraser River, BC.

I am concerned for the well being of both the residents of the Fraser Valley and the welfare of the river habitat. As it stands right now, the river itself is still considered a viable resource.

Therefore, I ask that the you please 1)conduct an assessment of this project, 2) reject BC request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Because BC has put full support behind LNG exports, we cant be confident that a provincial assessment will be objective in its evaluation of project risk. It is my belief that substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public's interest.

Secondly, I would like to request a federal environmental assessment by review panel. This review should include an assessment of both the terminal, and transit of the LNG tanker route to Canadian territorial sea limits.

Furthermore, I'd ask that this assessment please consider the following:
a) An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent

b) A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

c) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

d) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

With deep concern and some hope,
Sincerely,
Miss Rebekah Devito
quesnelBC
DebBledsoeAre you people taken leave of your senses?? Do you not know that FRACKING is the supply side of LNG? And we are going to destroy OUR Beautiful BC so we can ship this poison off shore?? No benefit to Canada, no benefit to Canadians?? We are going to subject our north to toxic fracking that causes earthquakes, poisons water and makes people sick and we are going to submit our coast to not a chance of accidents but accidents that are inevitable, to put money in the pockets of people who dont even live here. NO TO LNG!! NO TO FRACKING!! NO TO DESTROYING OUR PROVINCE SO OTHER COUNTRIES CAN BENEFIT AND NO TO MAKING FOREIGN OWNERS RICH AT OUR EXPENSE.ChilliwackBC
InisLeBlancDear Environment Min Aglukkaq,

Please do the right thing and conduct an assessment of the LNG export terminal in Delta and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Thank you for your time,

A very concerned BC resident.
SquamishBC
ChrisPettingillSIGTTO is fine as one reference point, but it's an industry body providing industry guidance only. It should not be confused with strong regulation that has Canadian safety as its priority.

BC's government has proven its not objective when it comes to LNG so provincial assessment of this project is not sufficient.
SquamishBC
CarrielynnVictorDue diligence in regards to First Nations consultation for the entire plan remains to be done.
Deep meaningful consultation must take place with all nations on the Fraser River.
Free prior and informed consent is a necessary right and the timelines for this project overstep that right.
The province and the crown needs to sit down for face to face shared decision making before any holes or dug or more money is spent on this project.
ChilliwackBC
michelleVI would like the federal government to conduct an assessment of this project (LNG export terminal in Delta) and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.

Thank you.
new westminsterBC
normanhuberThe Fraser River and it's estuary is a very diverse and multi-use system! The proposed building of a LNG export terminal should be assessed a full federal assessment and review panel and not a forgone conclusion assessment by the B.C. government! This assessment should be of the highest International standards in order to protect this vital waterway for the use and enjoyment of all creatures big and small to protect and preserve this waterway for future generations!surreyBC
VFisher-SitarasI am deeply concerned about British Columbia's current near-sighted attempts to promote and build expensive and damaging infrastructure for coal and LNG exports.

I would like to request that, ahead of this enormous LNG project, an in depth federal environmental assessment be done by a non-biased review panel. This assessment would need to include the terminal as well as the transit route of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit in order to determine every facet of damage this project would/could cause to the environment, the wildlife, and the people that inhabit this area.

Due to the inundation of advertising the British Columbia government has been using to promote their interest in this project, I would ask that you reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment for a Federal assessment. I would hope to find a less biased approach in this way.

I would like to see the assessment to include consideration of:

- an evaluation of the location, as per SIGTTO standards, or equivalent

- A Waterway Suitability Assessment as per those required by Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, and to include a 3.5 km hazard zone on either side of the tanker's route

- an assessment of risks posed by international acts, like terrorism

- and an assessment of the overall impact the project is going to have on the climate, from extraction to transport of the LNG.

As a province, British Columbia has such an abundance of other, greener possibilities, it just seems there are so many more positive gifts we could share with the world.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter.
SurreyBC
ChristiaanVanderkopWe do not want LNG Terminals or tanker/ barge traffic.Fort St. JamesBC
JessicaHart
We need a proper and official assessment. Our children and environment depend on us making the appropriate choice now. 

Conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. Our Premier wants LNG in place, that's why they want to substitute!! So they can push this through regardless. Please help ensure that doesn't happen unless it's safe to do so.

BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks.  Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

We need a federal environmental assessment by review panel and the assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Only you can help ensure this is the right decision for BC's lower mainland.
new westminsterBC
margaretklimaThis is a shame from our liberal gov't and corporations. I will not support this. The puplic wants clean water air and land. I request an independent review with non oil and gas scientists with no link to being paid by the oil industry or other profit motivated sources.vancouverBC
ChristinaSmethurstRE: LNG terminal on the Fraser River.
Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
There needs to be a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
North SaanichBC
J.L.LemmonIt is far too hazardous and risky to permit the LNG tankers & barges to travel the Fraser River. Please permit a federal environmental assessment, not provincial, and an assessment that is by a review panel. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of the LNG tanker from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Especially have an assessment of project impacts on climate which would also include the effect of extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Risks posed by intentional acts (ie,terrorism) as required in the U.S. should also be assessed.
Thank you for your deep consideration of these pressing issues.
GibsonsBC
KimMaileyPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I would like to request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Furthermore, I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I believe the assessment should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Lions BayBC
SteveJohnsonI do not support tankers moving through our river and demand a provincial assessment of this issue.DeltaBC
ArieRossAs a long time resident of Delta, I am very concerned about the seemingly unending proposals for development along our Fraser River.

I urge you to conduct a full federal environmental assessment by review panel on the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta. We need an objective, non-biased evaluation of the risks posed to our Fraser River. This assessment should include the terminal and the transit of LNG tankers to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Do what's right for Delta and give us the facts we deserve.
DeltaBC
DonAndersonWay back in 1970, pollution from the plant at Woodfibre affected the ecology of Howe Sound almost overnight. I witnessed the loss of crabs and sea life first hand. We've spent 45 years recovering the Sound and now, in the interest of a few construction jobs and an unlikely stream of provincial revenue from an Indonesian owner, we're considering a system that, again, uses the waters as a tailings pond for both heat and chemicals. Please, think again and find better options.

Minister Aglukkaq please come visit our waters and learn first hand how Canada could be damaged if not destroyed unless the LNG plant meets standards for safety and protection of the environment.

To this goal, I ask that you:

1) conduct an assessment of this project. In particular, make each LNG project be self-contained in a closed-loop environment thus creating little to no pollution in the surrounding waters and air.

2) reject a request from the Province of BC to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

I hope you visit Howe Sound and listen to the many people of the area. Their livelihood depends upon the ocean and mountains, and they make very little impact in carving out their lives today.
Bowen IslandBC
KarlPerrinWe must reduce/eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels urgently.BurnabyBC
AWittemanPlease note
NO LNG
NO TANKERS
mayne islandBC
IanBrownDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I write to request strongly that you insist on a federal environmental assessment for the approval of an LNG terminal on the Fraser River. Since the British Columbia Premier is so keen on LNG I assume any provincial environmental assessment will be abbreviated and biased. The terminal certainly affects several of your ministry's major interests, including fish and wildlife and oceans because of the downstream effects of any accidents. I call on you to take your responsibility to protect these interests from any environmental damage and to do so by holding a full scale federal environmental assessment.
VictoriaBC
SarahAlbertsonThis needs a full scale environmental assessment. The Fradr River Delta contains more biodiversity than any other region in BC.VancouverBC
Sheeravon PuttkamerWHEN WILL THE BUREAUCRATS STOP WORKING INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE. WE DON'T WANT A POLLUTED HOW SOUND
WE DON'T WANT OIL TANKERS MOVING UP AND DOWN OUR COAST,
WE DON'T WANT OIL PIPELINES ACROSS OUR COUNTRY AND WE DON'T
WANT POLITICIANS GETTING FAT OFF OUR TAX DOLLARS!

STOP, LOOK AND LISTEN! WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY, WE WANT OUR SAY!
STOP DESTROYING OUR ENVIRONMENT, LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE
DESTROYED ALREADY AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE, WE ARE THE ONES
WHO ARE THINKING OF THE FUTURE NOT JUST OUR POCKET BOOKS.

IT'S TIME TO THINK OF B.C. AND CANADA FIRST, STOP TURNING OUR
COUNTRY INTO A THIRD WORLD DUMPING STATION!!! STOP LNG!
KILL THE INITIATIVE AND SUPPORT YOUR CITIZENS. WE HAVE TO HAVE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, BUT WE SHOULD STOP THIS NONSENSE
ENTIRELY. THE PEOPLE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DON'T WANT THIS SHORT
SIGHTED THINKING ON THE PART OF OUR OVERPAID OFFICIALS. WE HAVE
TO THINK OF OUR LEGACY TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. THINK, THINK AND
THINK AGAIN!
West VancouverBC
SilvaineZimmermannWe can not accept looking at LNG without assessing the environmental impacts of fracking - how the gas is obtained in the first place. THIS must be included in any further deliberations about LNG.Bowen IslandBC
KGordanier-SmithDear Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

I live in Burnaby, B.C.'s Big Bend community along the Fraser River and ask that you reject B.C.'s request to substitute a provincial instead of a federal environmental assessment for WesPac Midstream's proposed LNG export terminal in Delta.

My husband and I moved here in 1985 and it has taken all our communities along the mouth of the Fraser more than 30 years to reclaim the river from the poisonous dioxins built up over the years of pulp and paper industrialization of the river. The salmon are now returning though their numbers crashed in 2009, and we are still working on their return to our local Byrne Creek watershed.

Our Fraser River estuary, where WesPac Midstream's LNG proposed export terminal would be situated near Fortis B.C.'s existing LNG facility, is a fragile environment important for wild life of all varieties. Right downstream from the proposed site is the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary, an ecological site of international importance to millions of birds, fish and other wildlife. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network estimates that several million shorebirds migrate over the estuary each year and tens of thousands winter here. Fortis B.C. has already received approval and begun site preparations for a $400-million expansion of its Tilbury LNG facility. We need an unbiased assessment of the cumulative impacts of yet another major "re-industrialization" project on the Fraser estuary.

"The Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River" in 2011 established that " the Strait of Georgia and the lower Fraser River are used by both juvenile and adult sockeye salmon as key habitats and migration corridors on their way to and from the North Pacific". It suggests that variation in the quality of living conditions in the river "may have important links and potential effects on sockeye production." The report suggests that B.C.'s current programs and management initiatives "used to examine and understand the quantitative parameters of habitats, potential losses and gains, habitat quality types and the dynamics of habitat productivity" don't appear to be "sufficient for keeping track of the current and future status of habitats used by sockeye " In other words we're not doing a good enough job of understanding and regulating the estuary environment as it is.

During the last election our Liberal government campaigned vigorously on the goal of developing LNG exports to Asia. Politically it has a vested interest in building LNG exports and I do not believe it is unbiased enough to properly investigate the cumulative impacts of 120 new LNG tankers and 90 new barges travelling up and down the Fraser estuary each year should this proposal pass.

I request that you initiate a federal environmental assessment by review panel, including the proposed terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers. The federal assessment needs to consider an evaluation of the terminal location according to internationally recognized Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators' siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts such as terrorism as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

We still do not have salmon returning to our local Byrne Creek though each year our school children hopefully raise and release more fry. Please insure our efforts are not in vain because vested interests refuse to properly look at the cumulative impacts of this new LNG terminal proposal. Refuse B.C.'s request to substitute a provincial instead of a federal environmental assessment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kate Gordanier-Smith
Burnaby, B.C.
BurnabyBC
sharonGretzingerI reject BC's request for substitution.
we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks.
Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I am requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
RobertShawDear Sirs

I am concerned about the proposed location of a LNG port in the Lower Vancouver Mainland. An accident or a terrorist attack could cause thousands of deaths and economically cripple the Lower Mainland for decades maybe even a century. I strongly urge you to oppose all attempts to site such a facility in the Lower Mainland.

Regards
Robert Shaw
VancouverBC
DamienGillisDoes this notion of running over 200 LNG tankers and barges a year up the Fraser River merit a full, public environmental assessment? Is the Pope Catholic?

Where to begin with this preposterous question and situation? How about the fact that this section of the Fraser River comes nowhere near the minimum safety requirements established by the academic leader on the subject, Dr. Mike Hightower and Sandia International Laboratories or the industry's own global organization, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO).

On behalf of the US Department of Energy, Dr. Hightower has set out three hazard zones with corresponding degrees of risk based on the width of the navigation channel: 500m, 1600m and 3500m surrounding LNG tankers. I refer you to the words of Commander Roger Sweeny, Certificate of Service as Master Foreign Going, Qualified Master Home Trade, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy (Ret.) on the subject:

"The largest zone represents the minimum safe separation between tankers and people. Other LNG hazard experts have indicated that 4800m or more is a more realistic hazard separation distance. In this context it is worth remembering that the heat stored in a 50,000 tonne cargo of LNG is equivalent to several dozen Hiroshima bombs."

The other major tenet of Sandia/Hightower and SIGTTO's LNG tanker safety standards is that they not be run close to major population centres. Clearly, the mouth of the Fraser River - flanked by the people Delta and Richmond - is an egregious violation of this cardinal rule.

And what of the impacts of discharges from the terminal and tankers on the vital Fraser estuary habitat for salmon and other marine, river and intertidal zone life?

But your question is not: "Can these issues be 'mitigated'?" or "Are these worthy trade-offs for the overall public benefit?" No, your question is "Should we even ponder these questions at all?"

The very question of whether this project merits a full and proper public hearing is deeply offensive to a democratic society and the environmental interest. It obliterates whatever social licence the proponent may one day seek to establish (once it realizes how essential this is to actually building and operating this project), and wholly discredits your department and the civil servants who are paid by the very taxpayers they are treaty with such disrespect.

And yet, I fully realize you are acting within a political culture that has declared all out war on science and the public will and does not abide a modicum of independent thought or professional conduct from its bureaucratic underlings. So the fault lies above your pay grade. Still, how preposterous and unfortunate.

Finally, in a further tragicomic insult to injury, I learned that your email system for accepting comments has been non-functional - likely for the entire duration of the paltry 20-day public comment period for this project!

http://theecoreport.com/the-ceaa-has-not-been-taking-comments/

In light of this unbelievable farce, you must: A) Recognize and accept all correspondence delivered to you through the Real LNG Hearings system in which I am composing this note: B) Extend the public comment window with an apology to the public for this disgrace.

One thoroughly disgusted Canadian,

Damien Gillis
VancouverBC
ClaireRolfPlease commit to a full federal environmental assessment for the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. The Province can no longer be expected to be objective having made a commitment to LNG. This assessment by review panel should include an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. Statistics confirm that accidents do happen... an accident in this location would be disastrous. The assessment should include the suitability of this narrow waterway and safety risks if there should be an explosion or fire for whatever reason.Garibaldi HighlandsBC
TamsinMileyPlease ensure a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal in Delta.Bowen IslandBC
KenMelamedStop investing in increased GHG emissions. Invest in renewables now!WhistlerBC
JonPovillThe province of British Columbia has supported multiple LNG export projects despite massive environmental issues with those proposed plans. Now they are requesting that the proper federal assessment of the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal be ceded over to the the province instead. I ask that you reject this request as the province's bias is clear and allowing it to conduct this assessment will obviate all hope of an objective review of the total environmental impact of the proposed terminal and the resulting tanker traffic it would create.

I request that this project be assessed by a federal environmental review panel and ask that the assessment include both the terminal and the transit impact of tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The location f the terminal should be evaluated according to SIGTTO siting standards.

There should be a Waterway Suitability Assessment similar to that required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard, which requires a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.

It is also imperative that there be an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. It is madness to continue to approve projects for short term economic gain when there is a very real threat that these projects are pushing us closer to a tipping point in the planet's ability to support life.

Thank you for considering my input.

Sincerely,
Jon Povill
Lions BayBC
KristincampbellPlease initiate a federal environmental assessment for the proposed WesPac Tillbury
LNG terminal. This must be done.
squamishBC
KristincampbellPlease initiate a federal environmental assessment for the proposed WesPac Tillbury
LNG terminal. This must be done.
squamishBC
IngridWrayOur Provincial government has made it clear that they have a mandate to push through the LNG plants so how can they possibly provide an unbiased subjective assessment. I am completely opposed to this important task being turned over to the province.

In addition I would ask the question where would these tankers refuel and what would the risk of spillage during this process be ? We have already seen on a minor scale the inability of effective containment of bunker fuel in English Bay.

Since we do not have national standards to draw upon in Canada can we look to internationally recognized standards (SIGTTOO) or European equivalent, taking in to account the US Dept of Homeland security recommending a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the LNG tanker route.
Lions BayBC
DianeFoleyAllowing LNG on the Fraser is preposterous! Haven't we had enough environmental disasters?SecheltBC
MargotGrantA federal environmental assessment is absolutely needed!GibsonsBC
feonalimLets do things the safest way federal inspections, proper assessments..the environment is too precious and fragile to take short cuts..VancouverBC
ValerieMortonPlease conduct a valid federal assessment of this project,

The federal review should include both the terminal and the transport of LNG Tankers within Canada's waters.
The assessment should consider :
-- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

--a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

--an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

-- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
AbbotsfordBC
TraceyWoelfleAt a very minimum a federal environmental assessment for the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal MUST be preformed!!! This assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. An evaluation of the terminals location should be according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent.SquamishBC
KarlShenRequest a federal environmental assessment by review panel.BurnabyBC
MBakerWesPac Midstream.......R U Insane?! NO LNG EXPORT TERMINAL, PERIOD!!! Always at the beginning of these "proposals" corporations claim that it's safe, high standards, they will be responsible, blah blah blah. But whenever a distaster takes place......and it will.......they are nowhere to be seen......and it's always too late for wildlife and quality of life for everything and everyone else on the planet. BC is such an amazing place on our great mother earth with diverse eco-systems....that are already hanging on by a thread. We need to start being "Keepers" of the Earth, instead of raping and pilaging for all it's worth......until nothing is left. The World is Waking Up now and THE PEOPLE are speaking up. WE are the government and WE pay them and "hire" them.....AND WE WILL TELL THEM WHAT TO DO and not the other way around anymore. So tired of underhanded corporate/government payoffs as well.........STOP ROGUE CORPORATE PILAGING!!!VancouverBC
CarolynMorrisDon't let a short term investment in fossil fuels devastate a long term investment in a healthy environment.SquamishBC
Alexandra Woodsworth on behalf ofGeorgia Strait AllianceDear Minister Aglukkaq,
(cc'd to area elected representatives)

I am writing on behalf of Georgia Strait Alliance to request that you reject the Government of BC's request to substitute the BC environmental assessment process for the CEAA 2012 process with respect to the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project, and conduct a full federal assessment of this project.

Georgia Strait Alliance (GSA) is a registered charity established in 1990, with 7000 members and supporters. GSA is the only organization focused on protecting and restoring the marine environment and promoting the sustainability of the Georgia Strait, its adjoining waters and communities.

We believe that BC's request for substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. We request a federal environmental assessment, carried out by a review panel with full opportunities for public involvement.

The assessment should include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Additionally, the assessment should consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and

an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for considering our request, and we look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Alexandra Woodsworth
Energy Campaigner
Georgia Strait Alliance
www.georgiastrait.org
VancouverBC
ArcherJensanStop LNG, ban Embridge for any and all future development,
in the Province of British Columbia.
Follow the lead of Europe not United States of America.
Squamish, BCBC
PeteJacksonto many ships and barges too dangerous especially on inland waters such as the fraser river. One accident could prove very devastating.ChemainusBC
ThomasinaPidgeonThis project needs a full federal (non biased) environmental assessment. I ask that you refuse the provincial assessment as the current provincal government is biased and wants this project to go through with all determination despite incredible public opposition.
Plain and simple, I oppose all LNg projects as do many. The government works for the people not the other way around and it's time this power will change.
Our earth is dieing on our bill. It deserves to have stricter environmental assessments done.
SquamishBC
annmcivorThid government must conduct a full valid federal environmental assessment by review panel.. not a provincial assessment only.
The assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
We also need to consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.!!
At the very least! This is a huge projet with many many risks to the public., I do not feel that this project is worth those risks and that it should not go ahead at all.
Please do what is in the best interests of the public and not the corporations and parties who will profit.
port alberniBC
KarenBlairDear Ms. Aglukkaq,
I am writing with concern to the proposed LNG operations along the Fraser river in BC. As I am sure you are aware, this river is already heavily used by the logging industry and my concern is that increasing activity in this area would further impact salmon spawning which already experiences great pressure. Adding LNG tankers puts increased pressure and risk.
It has been proposed that you approve approve BC's request for substitution of the environmental assessment in lieu of the more complete federal process. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. The more appropriate measure would be to order a federal environmental assessment by a review panel that includes assessment of the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. Further, assessment should consider the following:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these requests.
Karen
SquamishBC
NaomiWisePlease conduct an assessment of this project. I DO NOT want bc to substitute a provincial assessment instead. it will not be objective in evaluating project risks. It is not appropriate and does not have public interest in mind. There must be a review panel. This assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to our territorial sea limit.AldergroveBC
GlenHearnsAnything as important as an LNG must go through appropriate environmental and social review.
The Provincial environmental review is important from a provincial standpoint, but it does not, and should not been seen to, supplant a federal review. This is particularly in light of the fact that only several months ago the BC government proposed that LNGs, among other industries like ski resorts, have fast track review process. If anything they should have a more extensive review.
This is in everyone's best interest (except people like investors who want to make a quick buck at someone else's cost - and surely we don't want to be rewarding that kind of attitude!)
The assessment should be with a review panel, it should consider international standards (as we don't have adequate standards developed here as yet), should obviously consider transit to international waters, amongst others.
Garibaldi HighlandsBC
BenSingleton-PolsterI am writing today as I would like to see the Federal government conduct an assement for the poposed Fraser River LNG tanker route. I would further like to see a full federal assessment by a review panel. This assessment should consider all the impacts of the proposed route.VancouverBC
LuisaGilesPlease perform a full federal environmental assessment.VancouverBC
MurrayBrownDear Minister,

I am requesting that you deny the B.C. Provincial Government's request for substitution for the proposed LNG terminal. This project requires a federal environmental assessment by a review panel. Anything less will not adequately ensure that all the critical parameters are met.

Much is at stake here.

Thank you,
Murray Brown,
Agassiz, B.C.
AgassizBC
DaveBeechWe need a full federal EA on this project.GARIBALDI HIGHLANDSBC
WwendyRobertsFollow the EXPERTS - SIGTTO Recomendations.Bowen IslandBC
DaiRobertsFollow the World EXPERTS -- SIGTTO recomendationsBowen IslandBC
donnaFrenchmakesPowell RiverBC
NicoleGimenezTo the Federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

As a resident of the Fraser Valley I have concerns over WesPac Midstream wanting to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. I am asking that you reject BC's request for substitution. I request that the environmental assessment be reviewed by a review panel. The assessment should also consider the following:

1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration.
a concerned resident,
Nicole Gimenez
SurreyBC
StevenBrownSeriously? Give up on pushing ancient fossil fuels on us, green and renewable's are the wave of the future!SquamishBC
RachelBarkessWhy am I just hearing about this now? We have the right to know what's happening in our neighbourhood, especially when it's of potential great risk to people, the ocean, the environment, animals, etc.
This project needs a full federal environment assessment including of the terminal and LNG tankers from the terminal. The assessment needs to consider the location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent along with assessing the project impacts on the climate regarding extraction, compression and transport of natural gas. Not to mention the assessment of intentional acts as required in the States along with consideration of a sufficient hazard zone on both sides of the tanker route.
DeltaBC
ChristinaSwindells-NaderDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I respectfully urge you to conduct a federal environmental assessment of this project by review panel and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. Given the BC government's support for LNG exports, I don't believe a provincial assessment would be objective or in the public interest. I hope that a full assessment would include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I also hope that the federal environmental assessment would consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
DianneBurdittConsideration needs to be taken regarding the volume of LNG tanker traffic on the busy Fraser River. You need to conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. The terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit is required.

An evaluation of the terminal location needs to be reviewed according to internationally recognized SIGTTO sitting standards or their equivalent.

I could go on and on..............You know what needs to be done, the right thing, so do it. Think about who we are shipping to, they don't care if a terrible accident should happen here, or our environment is destroyed in the process.

DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CURRENT POPULATION AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN.................

Thank you.
DeltaBC
EmmaDarlingPlease reject BC's request for substitution. It would be a conflict of interest for them to run their own review.
Please conduct a federal environmental assessment by review panel which includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, and which considers an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of natural gas.
I, along with many other BC Canadians, do not support LNG.
VancouverBC
MichaelWolfeIs Canada still a democratic nation? If you are a elected politician then your seat is in jeopardy if you fail to defend democracy on your watch. Ensure a full EA on this proposal for an LNG terminal in Delta. There will be no shortcuts when the environment and human health are so clearly threatened by the inevitable leak/spill that will occur with fuel loading over time. Human errors are a way of life, just don't make them consciously as that turns mistakes into malicious acts. Fossil fuel terminals do not belong in the Fraser River Estuary, nor the Pacific Flyway, nor the largest salmon river on the Westcoast. Get real and demand open public consultation.RichmondBC
DawnChisholmLNG terminals have no place around people or busy waterways. LNG exporting tracked gas also has no place. This project should not even be considered. Please reject the entire project. If it must be considered, a thorough federal environmental assessment must be completed.SquamishBC
AdamBurnsI demand that a Federal Environmental Assessment be completed for the proposed WesPac Midstream LNG Export Terminal in Delta.

The Federal Government should reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown blind support behind LNG exports and as a resident of BC, I can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. In it's place, I am requesting a Federal Environmental Assessment by review panel.

I am requesting that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I am requesting that the assessment consider:

1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

3 an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SquamishBC
GrantGordonCan you spell Halifax?

http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/

There is no way to remove the risk of something similar to the Halifax Explosion happening within the confines of the Fraser River delta if these ships are using the this proposed port facility.

Prudent Risk Management forces explosive companies to locate powder magazines in remote locations. When the ideal situation is not obtainable then the magazines have to be traversed with explosion proof berms to deflect the force of any accidental explosion away from surrounding areas.

How does the proponent of this enterprise propose to traverse the possible blast effects if one of these facilities or ships blows up? Traversing a ship in transit within a densely populated area located on hillsides overlooking the waterway is a situation that can not be mitigated.

All explosive installations need to submit detailed information in the pre approval stage for officials to evaluate if the location is suitable for licencing. Do not approve this proposal without the same due diligence.

As BC has tied its political and economic fortune to the LNG industry it would have a perceived natural bias to approve this proposal. Please ensure that there is a full federal review panel assessment. Include in the assessment all phases of the proposal - The approach, the site, and the get away all the way out to the US border and anywhere these tankers could come within striking distance of Canadian soil.

Grant Gordon.
Comox Valley, Vancouver IslandBC
angelamuellersPlease conduct a federal environmental assessment regarding the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.BrackendaleBC
DanielPorcinoPlease conduct a valid federal assessment of this project, ideally by a review panel.
A provincial substitution is unacceptable, due to provincial politics it may not be as objective as one may hope.
The federal review should include both the terminal and the transport of LNG Tankers within Canada's waters.
The assessment should consider :
-- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

--a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

--an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

-- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I do not feel that there has been enough evaluation to consider green lighting this project as it stands. It appears it will do much more harm than good.
SquamishBC
DianeHannahI urge you to conduct a federal environmental assessment by a review panel I as well request the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.SquamishBC
StaceyNixonThere has to be full disclosure, assessments by Federal. local and provincial governments with none of the parties contracted to do such research having an interest either by stocks, relationship to LNG in any way or to be receiving secret or known payments to government officials, to name a few.

This is our land and all people this land serves have a right to know what is going on and have the opportunity to approve or reject this by way of a plebiscite, just like was done for BC TRANSIT. No difference folks!
VancouverBC
LisaHollandHello,
I support the Federal environmental assessment process.

Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Bowen IslandBC
SophieHarrisonWe need a full environmental assessment -- especially of the impacts of LNG of global climate change. As a young person and young voter, I want to see my government fully considering the risks of the climate change to my future.VancouverBC
JohnHarveyI am willing to add my name to the many that see LNG as unsafe for water tables, water quality and geological instability. Fracking has not been proven to be healthy on the environment.
A full Federal assessment needs to be done as we all understand that there are risks to transporting all fuels. The risk of Terrorism is much alive, never mind human error. LNG may be better than Bitumen terrorizing the beautiful coast but it is short-sighted. Our greatest economy could come from our pristine wilderness with eco- conservation and recreation - sustainable industry which we could give to our grandchildren.
garibaldi highlandsBC
SallyBellPlease make it mandatory for them to undertake a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.SquamishBC
ISaramaA project of this size, and impact should require the most stringent environmental assessment review by the Canadian Federal Government.GibsonsBC
RogerSweenyAllowing BC to conduct its own Environmental Assessment for an LNG Export terminal on the Fraser would be akin to having the fox count the chickens.

In the name of sanity you must refuse to turn assessment of this project over to the Province.
West VancouverBC
GlenneCampbellAnd here you have it - expansion with out proper protocol. Please do the right thing for all peoples safety, health and well being.
DO NOT let corporate interests override the citizens of our country of Canada.
SquamishBC
KateEllisonI would like to see a full federal assessment (by a review panel) of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. Provincial substitution is not in the public interest. Please ensure that the assessment includes not just the terminal itself but the route that the tankers would take. The assessment should include the following:

*an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO sitting standards or their equivalent;
*a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to what the US Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard require, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the proposed route;
*an assessment of terrorism risks as required by the United States
*an assessment of the proposed project's impacts on the climate

Thank you for attending to this very important matter.
VancouverBC
JessicaKnowlerPlease do not allow any industries to skip environmental reviews on their proposed projects, especially when we already know that they may pose a risk to the safety of the environment and the surrounding wildlife. Any public confidence in the process of the NEB and the federal government should be lost if actions like this continue; energy corporations should not be granted a waive of environmental assessments. It's undemocratic to continue to keep the public uninformed about potential risks by waiving such assessments and ultimately looks like a corrupt practice.VancouverBC
MichelleBjornsonCanadian environmental, health and economic interests have to be more than about protecting the extraction industries. Listen to the citizens most affected by the proposed LNG barge/tanker route, and conduct a thorough federal environmental assessment by an appropriate review panel .VancouverBC
AmberGouldThis LNG export terminal project needs FULL FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. We cannot cut corners or allow a deficient and weak provincial environmental assessment process downplay the potential impacts of this project for the Fraser River ecosystem and all of its inhabitants.SquamishBC
KimMacleodAssessment should be done at a higher level than provincialSquamishBC
CinthiaBlanchetteStop messing around with our environment!CoquitlamBC
Dorte & ThorFroslevTo The Honerable Federal Environment Min Aglukkaq,
We are working for the planet on so many fronts it is hard to know where to turn. We ask, in this case that you conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
We request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

We also request:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

We should be turning out resources to environmentally sound alternative energies and we should be leaving these dangerous extraction practices behind.
It is time to halt expansion of LNG extraction and leave it in the ground. It is foolish beyond all to continue on this path.
BrackendaleBC
gordonhomerNo west coast LNG tankers, periodfurry creekBC
GeraldClowI request the Federal Environmental Minister conduct a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal near Squamish, BC, and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. The federal assessment should be by a review panel, and the assessment should include the terminal as well as the effects of transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limits. The assessment should consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you in advance for taking this stance with this life-changing project in our province and our nation.

Gerald Clow
Bowen IslandBC
JodyLorenzLNG creates more green houses gases not less. LNG is not the answer. Instead of focusing on short-term gains - and one should question who really "gains" here - let's invest in environmentally sustainable energy. BC and Canada can and should lead the way to greener energy. Let's be smart and move forward not backwards. Our decisions today our the basis for what our future world will look like. And our current decisions project a grim future. Even elementary-aged children grasp this and we owe it to all children to make better decisions now: decisions that promote a sustainable, livable future for all.

This LNG project is a huge threat to the residents of Delta, Richmond and the Lower Mainland and it's location in the Fraser River is also a huge risk to the Fraser River ecosystem.
Bowen IslandBC
GailJosephNo to LNG WE dont need it at all look to our future generations to come what will be left if we do this what will be the outcome of this nothing good at all will come from this there is no need at all whatsoever for LNGSquamishBC
AbbeyPiazzaI do not support LNG.VictoriaBC
GlenysWebsterThis project must receive a thorough federal environmental assessment, including an evaluation of the environmental, economic, cultural and human health impacts in the event of spills, accidents, earthquakes, terrorist attacks etc. The Fraser River and surrounding waters are an integral ecosystem with importance to wildlife, salmon fisheries, first nations peoples, recreation, tourism, etc. Building this terminal without a full environmental evaluation is irresponsible and shortsighted.VancouverBC
LucindaJonesAsking any citizen to stand by and allow this flavour of organized industrial activity is asking these same citizens, us, to condone hydraulic fracturing in the backyards of fellow citizens.
No single LNG industry activity exists without another. This is not about one element of the entire process, this is about: shipping and transporting - recipe ingredients in, mixed and then finished product out; mis-using and polluting our above ground fresh water supply; fracturing and contaminating below earth's surface; and then the burning of a product that should never have been created, because the continued burning of fossil fuels is known by all to be harmful to our planet!
And, on top of this the math is a joke except to industry masters who are raking in subsidies, tax advantages and clever profits, outside of Canada!
What a sorry, embarrassing, inexcusable, brainless scheme of deceit and global catastrophe.
West VancouverBC
AndrewErdelyLNG is neither economically viable nor ecologically sustainable. Because of rapidly acceleration anthropogenic climate change, we must quickly and decisively move away from the extraction and use of fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are now viable technologies and are being developed elsewhere on the globe.

Why are we Canadians so far behind? Get with the program!

Sincerely,

Andrew Erdely
Garibaldi HighlandsBC
KellyTaylorIn regards to the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal please reject BC's request for substitution.
Considering your passed and current record British Columbians (Canadians) can NOT be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate the risks of this project. Location Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
As a canadian citizen and BC resident I formally request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
The assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment must consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
On the record .. If these steps are not taken you are in effect disregarding the health and safety
of those that put you in the position of making decisions in our best interest. This is NOT. Find other sustainable means for our economy. This is a lazy attempt at 'boosting our economy! The risks do NOT outweigh the long term benefits
Perhaps the threat of short term power threatens longterm decision making but in the end you screw us all (yourselves and your children as well)
Sincerely, Kelly Taylor.
Lions BayBC
KellyJensenMinister Aglukkaq,

I am urging you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. Also, please fulfill your democratic responsibility to require a federal environmental assessment by review panel that includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please consider:

1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your time in this matter.
SquamishBC
bedokalpakianI request that a federal environmental assessment of the proposed project be made. Thank you.richmondBC
EdithGoetshIt is unbelieveable that our Government will allow these Tankers to sail in the Fraser River and/or Howe Sound to endanger the communities and Sea Life in the processLions BsyBC
RogerCampFire balls in the sky over the Fraser river taking out lives and property, give your heads a shake!!!!! We need assessments and not by the industries making all the profits, the tax payers are getting tired of being left holding the bag when things go wrong and being responsible for all the cleanup while corporations walk away with all the profits and tax concessions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Roberts CreekBC
TavinAndersonIn this day and age, with every thing that is going on, this Government thinks they can just go ahead without proper consultations? This is not acceptable.BurnabyBC
SheilaRogersI request a federal environmental assessment, by review panel, of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.VancouverBC
HeatherFeeneyCanada really needs to take note on what the rest of the world is doing. Sustainable future is of utmost importance. We need to take care of Mother Earth for our children and their children and so on. It's not about the money!!! If we don't have a planet to live on, what good is money?SquamishBC
PamelaWelganPlease Minister Aglukkaq DO THE RIGHT THING!BurnabyBC
JonRutledgeDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel for the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta, BC. I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, and that the assessment consider:

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

A thorough assessment such as the above, will help provide greater public confidence that such a significant project will not be approved unless all health and environmental risks are mitigated.
WhistlerBC
FlorinBotcaI request a complete federal environmental assessment by review panel.CoquitlamBC
JEMusserDearMinister Aglukkaq:

Regarding Fraser River LNG
Please conduct an in-depth Federal Environmental Assessment of this project, by review pane.

I urge you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please ensure the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Moreover, I respectfully request that the assessment consider:
1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and
4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The Fraser River supports many First Nations, this project is dangerous. Among many concerns is the fact that extreme hazard of combustion and thermal damage from pool fire should evaporating LNG be ignited. Cryogenic burns and structural damage from exposure to supercooled LNG would be disastrous. Asphyxiation hazard for those exposed to expanding LNG vapour plume would be devastating to citizens in BC's Lower Mainland.

We need this Federal Environmental Assessment. This is a very dangerous project and citizens of Canada need to be protected against dangerous projects of this nature.

Thank you.
surreyBC
BrideyPayneNo more cutting corners on these types of massive projects that will greatly affect out future generations! There needs to be standards in place that are followed - in this case, there has to be an environment assessment.SquamishBC
Emilyvan Lidth de JeudeDear Ms Aglukkaq,
I ask you to question the BC Provincial Government's support of LNG. The people do not support it, and it will have no more tenure than our current elected officials, who have made a mockery of us, and of democracy. Please reject their request for substitution.

Please be strong for us. We do not have to accept the destruction of our homes! We can stand for the land and water we live on, and can live in a country that is proudly sustainable instead of simperingly bending to others' resource needs.

Thank you very much,
Emily van Lidth de Jeude
Bowen IslandBC
Crista-leaKirkAs a citizen of the lower mainland, I request that you conduct an independent federal environmentally assessment by review panel of the LNG Fraser Port project.

I request to see the results of the effects to the environment on the Fraser terminal, Fraser River LNG project, tanker traffic impact on the environment as well as the emissions effect from fracking in Northern BC and emissions effect from increased tanker and production at the Port.

To be specific I would like the evaluation to include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent. A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you
VancouverBC
JohnScheunhagePlease ensure that this project goes through the most rigorous environmental review process possible - the provincial option is not trustable.SquamishBC
CinciCsereThis is absurd! Stop wasting my tax money and ruining the environment. Make smart decisions and ban fracking.SquamishBC
JenniferjordanHello, I'm writing to express concern about WesPac's plan to build an LNG terminal in Delta. Further, the provincial government is determined to expand the LNG industry and thus I am concerned about the extent to which it will be able to undertake an unbiased environmental assessment. I therefore request that the Environmental Assessment Agency step in to do thorough assessment of all the potential risks of this proposed development. Thank you.VancouverBC
RodSimpsonI am asking the federal Environment Min Aglukkaq to:
reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SurreyBC
KarelLeyI feel like I (we) are being bombarded by our own.
We seem to have no control over many issues that are destroying our way of life and the future quality of life.
For myself (in my late 70s) it will have little effect but younger generations will be faced with menacing actions form a variety of sources and it will take only one accident to destroy their futures.
We humans are not capable of thinking beyond our own "bottom lines" it seems and quality of life will be diminished to unrecognisable horrors.
A recent "minor" spill in English Bay (Vancouver) created damage with little ability to fight the effects. Why can those in power not recognise what destruction they are allowing to occur?
I am glad I will not be alive to witness the further destruction of our lifestyle but feel great pity for children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for whom we are causing less and less to look forward to.
Please examine your actions and think of your own families' future generations.
Delta (Tsawwassen)BC
MonicaAshwellPlease reject BC's request for substitution of the WesPack Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta proposal and ensure that a federal assessment by the review panel is completed instead. The federal assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Thank you, Minister Aglukkaq
Sincerely,
Monica Ashwell
ComoxBC
ChristianTheriaultHonorable Mrs Aglukkaq, federal Environment MIn,

Please reject BC's request for having a provincial environment assessement instead of the federal one by review panel.

Small rivers are not meant for huge tanker. I cross that river every day; already BC goverment is in the process to unecessarly replace the tunnel use for an expensive toll bridge because this tunnel stands in the way of the tankers that requires deeper water. The toll fee won't be for the tankers.... Our BC politicians has vested interest in LNG and I really don't trust their objectivity on LNG projects.

The maritime transportation is from federal responsability; it would just make sense that the environmental assessment was assumed by the same juridiction level. You don't want to take responsibility for someone else's bad decisions in your behalf; don't you?

Thanks for listenning to my request,

Christian Thériault
DeltaBC
BrianPearceSocial responsibility is (or at least should be) the obligation of government. Reject BC's request for substitution - it is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. A federal environmental assessment by review panel is essential.

The assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment must consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.


Protecting the interests of foreign owned resource extraction corporations and party donors without sufficient evaluation and consideration of local and global impacts is an abdication of sound governance and a good demonstration of political short term thinking only concerned with profit and personal benefit at the expense of the public.
DeltaBC
IanMacdonaldThe issue of whether or not to approve the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal is an important one potentially impacting on large numbers of Canadians in the Greater Vancouver and Victoria areas.
It warrants the most careful evaluation of the pros and cons of the proposal. Therefore, it is essential that a full environmental assessment be conducted by the appropriate federal agency and that the federal government's responsibility not be delegated to the BC provincial government.
Of course, it would be a good thing if the BC government also conducted its own environmental assessment, but such an assessment must not substitute for the assessment by the federal agency. Sincerely,
VictoriaBC
AdrianJones.SquamishBC
MagdaTheriaultDear Federal Minister Aglukkaq,

Please conduct an assessment on this project and do not allow BC request to substitute it by a provincial assessment.

As you probably know, the BC government fully supports LNG exports and it is hard to believe its assessment will be objective, including fully all the risks.

Please consider using a review panel which should include in its assessment the following:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Thank you for your consideration.
DeltaBC
GrahamRobertsonDear Minister Aglukkaq:

I am writing to ask for a full environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal, and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit..
DeltaBC
SheilaWallaceA federal environmental assessment of the proposed Fraser River LNG export terminal is urgently required. Both the terminal location and tanker routes need to be assessed with regard to impact and potential hazard to the sensitive ecologies that include the shorelines and waterways.

The BC government is incapable of carrying out an impartial review of the environmental issues and is only interested in fast tracking their political agenda. Citizens of BC desperately need a second opinion and a full public process before this questionable project proceeds any further.

Thank you.
Saturna IslandBC
MoireenPhillipsI ask Minister Aglukkkalag to do a federal environment assessment by a review panel on the proposed LNG Delta terminal as well as the
transit of LNG by tanker from port to Canada's territorial limit- hence rejecting BC's request to substitute a provincial environmental assessment. As concern for the effects of pollution on our health and atmosphere increase, yes climate change too, it is important that all precautions be taken.

Sincerely, Moireen Phillips
VictoriaBC
RobHollinsThe Harper Conservative "85 years to eliminate Canada's dependence on oil and gas" is nothing less than heads in the sand.
Much more has to be done, much sooner!
This proposed terminal will greatly increase ship traffic in a narrow strait.
Major ecological concerns have not been addressed.
This new terminal is too close to residential populations.
Stop the subsidies supporting oil and gas production.
Encourage alternative energy instead.
SurreyBC
LindaLoweWe need a full and complete Hazard and environmental assessment of the WesPac Tilbury LNG Terminal and Tanker routes.HopeBC
MayaCainWesPac's project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that's not its responsibility.

If it isn't their responsibility, who's is it? This is blatant disregard for the safety of the environment and the beings who live in it. Including the owners/operators/directors of WesPac.

We need to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

We need a federal environmental assessment by review panel that includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

As well, an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
DuncanBC
KarenWhitesideA Federal Environment Assessment is needed on the Wespac project as well as the Point Roberts project to the south of the Fraser. There does not appear to be any overall and cumulative environmental analysis determining the overall environmental impacts and each project cannot be considered in isolation. We need to be able to see clearly the overall affects of the multiple resource developments, current and future on a road map to effectively determine overall and cumulative environmental degradation impact. The federal government is best suited to track the litany of resource development and their total effects.
Additionally, the NEB piecemeal approval strategy of one application at a time in isolation to all other proposals and existing industry development is insufficient in clearly regulating the broad scope of impacts to the environment.

For example, WesPac Midstream LNG wants to add 120 tankers and90 LNG barges, Trans Mountain wants to add 360 tankers and Point Roberts terminal shipping increases to support an additional 2.4 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of
container capacity. All of these projects to travel through the environmentally sensitive Salish Sea.

In order to evaluate each new projects environmental impacts, a base line environmental assessment of existing commerce must be undertaken to assess ongoing project thresholds and to understand the health of the Fraser River delta and the Salish Sea.

The federal government is in the best position to oversee the combined environmental impacts at this time.

Thank you for your consideration.
ChilliwackBC
JasonschwartzRisky and irresponsible without a proper assessmenttorontoon
LarryAndrewsI have never heard of this. It would be very dangerous.VancouverBC
BernadetteKeenan1 reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

2 Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

3 Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

4 Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SurreyBC
KarenWeillDear Minister Aglukkaq:

My husband, Larry Hildes, and I are writing to ask for a full federal Environmental Assessment of the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project and that the federal government reject British Columbia's request for substitution, and retain jurisdiction.

WesPac's project description does not include consideration of LNG tanker traffic on the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that's not its responsibility. We respectfully reply that that is crazy. How can a company not take responsibility for its actions? If they wish to build a terminal, then they must take responsibility for the traffic coming into and out of their terminal. The Fraser River is the largest in BC. The number of salmon, other aquatic species and people that travel on it is enormous. Any accidents there would inevitably have consequences on the Georgia Straits and the Puget Sound, including our town of Bellingham, WA.

Here in the U.S., a project of this size would be required to do an assessment that includes a 3.5 km hazard zone on either side of the entire tanker route.

In addition, we are asking that any assessment include climate change impacts. In this day and age, we are being increasingly aware of how actions on the other side of the globe can have impacts here at home. This is even more important in this watershed that we share between BC and Washington state. Any impact of increased traffic on marine animals and environment and any potential spill, either accidental or as a result of potentially, terrorism, would be felt within this region.

Please help us to keep this beautiful place that we love and call home, clean and safe. We are asking that you maintain jurisdiction and require a full environmental assessment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karen Weill and
Larry Hildes
BellinghamWA
KatherineMaasAn assessment of the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta, BC must be conducted at the federal level. We cannot be confident that BC can conduct an objective evaluation, given its enmeshment with the natural gas industry. Substituting a provincial level review for a federal review is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

The federal environmental review should be done by a review panel.

The assessment should include the terminal as well as LNG tankers from the terminal to the limit of Canada's territorial sea.

The assessment needs to consider:

1. The terminal location vis a vis SIGTTO siting standards or equivalent
2. A waterway suitability assessment such as that required y the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sizes of the tanker route.
3. An assessment of risks posed by intentional acts, as required in the US
4. An assessment of the project's impacts on climate, including extraction, compression, and transport of LNG.
VictoriaBC
NinaWattsPlease show some leadership and do your due diligence.

This project needs a federal environmental assessment; not a provincial one as requested. The risks are too great and it is not in the public interest.

We would like the assessment to include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers to Canada's territorial sea limit.
And we ask that the assessment consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
MavaddatJavidIntelligent public policy depends on careful assessment of risk. This is especially true when we are putting our the Fraser river ecology in the path of harm. For this reason, I request that you assign a review panel to conduct a full federal environmental assessment and deny the BC province's request for parochial (provincial) substitution.VancouverBC
JoergMesserThe Honourable
Leona Aglukkaq,
P.C., M.P.
Minister of Environment
House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Minister Aglukkaq,

I would like to urgently request a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. Given the anticipated yearly traffic of 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges traversing the Fraser River to reach this facility, a federal assessment is absolutely essential. This environmental assessment for potentially dangerous cargo such as Liquified Natural Gas is too important to be left exclusively to the BC government and needs to be undertaken by a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency review panel. The assessment should include both the proposed LNG terminal as well as the corridor to Canada's territorial sea limit. Please also consider:

1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.


Sincerely,
Joerg Messer
Vancouver, B.C.
VancouverBC
JamesProtheroI would like to see a federal assessment completed before this project goes ahead. I am asking for this because I have no confidence that the provincial government will remain impartial.MissionBC
ChloieLeanderI am against LNG exports in BC!SurreyBC
AmandaLuuDear Min Aglukkaq,

I am a young member in the community, reaching out in hopes that I can remind you about how precious the Fraser River is.
The Fraser River has been neglected for years, and it has come to the point where even the reflection of the blue sky on the river's surface can no longer mask the devastating results of its pollution. Should WesPac's project go through, the added traffic up and down the river will put even more strain on our environment, which will further build up the problems we will have to face in the future.
The environment's condition will only get worse unless the proper steps begin to be taken. Please protect our Fraser River, our communities, and our future. Please consider the opinions and the suggestions that the public is voicing here in these comments.
Thank you.
SurreyBC
WinnieKwanThe G7 has committed to phasing out fossil fuels by the end of the century, and for the last several years, scientists have been CALLING for the need to stop using fossil fuels lest we risk irreversible climate change!
Building an LNG export terminal in Delta completely goes against that pact and those recommendations! LNG may not pollute the way tar sands oil does, but it is still a fossil fuel that pollutes and contributes to climate change!
The BC Government has completely ignored this fact, putting heavy faith in LNG as the economic future of this province. That is why a provinicial assessment of this project cannot be trusted! I IMPLORE you, Environment Minister Aglukkaq and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, to deny BC's request to substitute the federal assessment with a provincial one instead. A project of this scale and heavy potential impact must be assessed fairly, and objectively, on a federal scale, by an objective review panel, and assess not just the impact of the terminal itself, but the whole process, from extraction and compression, to its transport, including the LNG tanker traffic from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. This assessment should also consider, an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent, a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, and an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States.
For the interest of the Canadian public, and the greater global climate, please push for a complete, fair, and objective FEDERAL assessment of this LNG project
VancouverBC
DBrayProper assessment is neededVancouverBC
claireCamerom, M D Vancouver b.c.Honourable Leona Aglukkaq,
Minister of Environment
Ottawa, Ontario
minister Aglukkaq:
Re: WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project
Due to risks of unremediable threat to the human population as well as all threatened species I request an official federal assessment. This cannot be done where a conflict of interest with BC government as is currently the situation The premier is lobbying International investors for LNG trading,\this prohibits best practices
An arms length, objective. professionally licensed review panel must be tasked for a thorough federal environmental assessment,
I am a medical doctor and take responsibility seriously, As responsible stewards of protecting environment for generations of Canadians to come, we should be doing harm reduction,using safest principles and cost benefit analyses. As the cost of LNG are presumed to drop continually with large supply from Australia, Indonesia and Africa, we take a huge financial risk. Environmental risks increase green house gas detrimentally . yet have no benefit to pass to the next generation, as would be the case if we were to spend the same investment in solar,wind or wave power infrastructure.
Having spent 60 years living,working, boating on islands or on the Sunshine Coast I have seen first hand the devastation caused by Woodfibre pulp mill and Britannia Mine - For decades there have been no shellfish, salmon or those predators depending upon them, Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, it is crucial that the direct and cumulative
ese polluted fish lower in the food chain. No killer whales have been sighted until this year. Salmon are returning very slowly even though it has been fifty years since the pollution occurred.The impact will be irreversible to all species at risk when a spill does occur. We are aware that frequent smaller spills occur . The most recent spill in Vancouver's English Bay was detected rapidly but tragically for sealife, the Kitsilano station of the Canadian coast guard had been shut down. The spill in 1973 was significantly larger. The decision to close the coast guard delineates our risk aversity
Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, makes it crucial that the direct and cumulative impacts of huge increased large tanker traffic will bring the
Species protected under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2012, c 29 (€œSARA€). Collisions already occur, sea mammals are sensitive to navigation vibrations and become disoriented, British Columbians are aware of these perils for grey whale (special concern), humpback whale (special concern), southern resident killer whale (endangered), and steller sea lion (special concern) are all found within the Strait of Georgia, the Salish Sea.We are also responsible for protecting wetlands for thousand of migratory birds Due to proximity of the Alaksen National Wildlife Area and the George C. Reifel Bird Sanctuary along the Pacific Flyway. would be damaged by construction, and operation, Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
I trust that you will take these comments into consideration
yours truly,
C.L.Cameron
vancouverBC
lautrencegillSalmon and clean air and water are much kore important then profits for the 1%. At the very least demand a non biased environmental review of this project.SurreyBC
S.WatkinsFederal Environment Min Aglukkaq conduct an assessment of these LNG projects and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. BC should also complete a proper environmental assessment.

The federal environmental assessment by review panel should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. All environmental and economic impacts that will result in our community from these (economically impossible) LNG exports.
The review panel should also include an assessment of project impacts on our climate, community and country, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
White RockBC
FlorenceFarrellS T O P!!

Enough is Enough
NORTH VANCOUVERBC
EricAlexandreAll projects of this magnitude should go through Federal environmental review for both the terminal and the tanker route. We don't want to have the fox guarding the hen house.
Cheers,
Eric Alexandre
CourtenayBC
DiannaBiggWhere is the gas coming from and where is it going? Where is it being fracked ? What are the environmental impacts of this site on the Fraser River Estuary, local salmon spawning routs and white sturgeon habitat among so many other habitants the river is home to. What discharge can potentially affect our wildlife, our beaches and contaminate fish stocks we harvest for food off our coast that the river flows into? Fish stocks that are keystone species to our marine life. I urge this project undergo full and detailed environmental assessment and every step of it be made transparent to the public.SurreyBC
BryceKendrickTankers too hazardous.SidneyBC
JilenaRobsonPlease require a federal assessment of the proposed WEsPac Tilbury LNG terminal. WE DON'T WANT IT!! For our kids sake, please don't allow this to go through. Or at least do due diligence. Environmentally it is unconscionable.

Kind regards,
Jilena Robson
DeltaBC
Sherry & PerryCarknerWhy would our Government care so little for the environment, the animals or the people which we so need to maintain a balanced ecosystem required for human survival.
The recent oil spill in California shows how horrendous the impact on animal, plant, environment even human has been. This spill will impact all for many, many, years to come. Is Canada and BC going to be able to withstand such damage to our own ecosystem when such a spill occurs.
How many more lives will the Government be responsible for and at what cost?
It is imperative that BC requests for substitution be rejected. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
We ask that you will have a Federal Environmental assessment done by a review panel. That the assessment will include the terminal as well as transit of LNG.
Ask that the assessment consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
AbbotsfordBC
CherylCameronDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I urge you to reject B.C.'s request to substitute a provincial assessment for the federal one. Our provincial government has a vested interest in being able to approve LNG projects, and we need a fair and thorough environmental inquiry with regard to this proposal.

We know that with the recently stated goals for carbon emission reductions, our federal government needs to carefully review plans for a rapid expansion of the LNG export industry here in B.C.. With climate change we are glimpsing a future of water shortages, and as you know, the expansion of fracking in our North is in direct contention with these goals.

We request that an evaluation of the terminal location in accordance of internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards. We insist that a comprehensive evaluation of marine safety be instituted.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Cameron
West VancouverBC
JohnStevensA full federal environmental review is the required because the provincial government has consistently supported all current L.N.G. projects in B.C.DeltaBC
ValerieSherriffWe must have a federal environmental assessment for the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta. A provincial assessment will not do.CourtenayBC
GeoffHuenemannThe proposed site is in the middle of an important estuary, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by most of BC's population. How can skipping the assessment even be considered.

Furthermore, even if the port is okay, the real environment impact includes the use (and poisoning) of enormous volumes of water in the extraction process; the certain leak of large volumes of greenhouse gases; and the impact of getting the LNG to the coast. A reasonable EA would include such considerations, rather than pretending that the port is a standalone project. The whole system has to be worth the whole cost (factoring in the dropping value of LNG) or no portion of it should be built.
VancouverBC
RichardTowsonThis must go through a full and open public assessment process with public input as well as the problems with the increase in the river and Salish Sea traffic. Reject the BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.SurreyBC
CedarPooleDo not export LNG or any fossil fuels - our grandchildren will need them, and will use them responsibly, unlike us!ComoxBC
MargoElfertThis project should not go ahead at all.
Global warming is a real threat, and we need to move towards renewable energy sorces, not threaten our waterway and homes with this development.
RichmondBC
AlonaBesanPlease conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. I cannot put my faith on this province on making the right decision as BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports. Who speaks for the people? The citizens who are opposed to LNG investments, the people who are the main force against this project? I request a federal environmental assessment by a review panel which is to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. I ask that the assessment consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

It is only fair that this assessment is granted and information shared explicitly with the public. Consider the future. Consider the land a century from now. Consider the people then.

Please consider them now.
New WestminsterBC
EdgarDahlIt is my observation that the Provincial and Federal Governments both are likely to renege on worthwhile environmental assessments. The BC Government would not enforce the Riparian Areas Regulations, and the Federal Government has scrapped regulations to protect the Environment.Salmon ArmBC
TomPickettClearly an operation of this magnitude with so many
possibilities of going deadly wrong deserves a complete public assessment. Please subject it to a full environmental impact study.
Salt Spring IslandBC
AgnesWattsThis project is a disaster waiting to happen. It is being rushed through without consideration of the many dangers inherent in this ill-conceived plan. At the very least ALL aspects deserve careful assessment by both federal and provincial government agencies. Input from affected local communities should be included. The haste and secrecy in which this project is being rammed through bespeaks corruption. It does not instill confidence in the entire process. Do the right thing. Demand a full assessment of all parts of this project. There should be no rush. If this idea is a good one, it should withstand careful scrutiny. If not , it should be changed, or even stopped. The U. S. is by no means the country with the highest environmental standards, and yet theirs are infinitely stricter than ours for projects like this. This is unacceptable. WE are potentially risking untold lives and untold property damage. Exert your authority before it's too late.VancouverBC
LizMacdonald:Dear Minister Aglukkaq
As a concerned citizen of Delta,BC, I am writing regarding the proposal surrounding the transportation of LNG from Tilbury Island following construction of WesPac Midstream terminal.
It is troubling that the Provincial Government is requesting that any environmental study should be under their jurisdiction, and therefore, not subject to the more stringent environmental study which the National Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency wold conduct.
It ia also noted that WesPac do not consider the vastly increased tanker and barge traffic in the Fraser river to be within its' responsibility. The huge environmental impact to fish, wildlife, and farm land cannot be underestimated, especially as Delta is also facing similar environmental degradation from the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Container Port.
I ask that you would therefore reject the substitution of environmental assessment to the Provincial jurisdiction, and support a federal assessment by a review panel with adequate opportunity for public information and input.
It is also important to include the impact of the situation of the terminal itself, and the impact that natural gas extraction will have on the environment.
The Delta area has been internationally recognized as being of unique importance to the migratory flyway, salmon and fish habitat, resident and migrating whales, and its' rich farmland.
All this is under increasing threat from industrialization, and resulting air, light and noise pollution.
This is why it is essential to have an unbiased assessment, and not one which may find itself biased in favor of Provincial Government proposals.
Respectfully, Liz. Macdonald
DeltaBC
HeikeLettrariI would like to accomplish 2 things with this letter:
1. Request an environmental assessment and review of this project, and 2. reject the request that the Province of British Columbia has made to substitute a federal review with a provincial assessment instead.

We need a federal environmental assessment by a review panel of any LNG project proposed along the Fraser River. The terminal of the project needs to be assessed because of the highly valuable land, habitat for multiple species, not to mention prime real estate, as any spill would undoubtedly spread. And the entire transit passage in the Salish Sea and out to the Pacific ocean, too, where Canada's territorial border is set.

The assessment needs to consider the LNG terminal location according to the SIGTTO siting standards or something that clearly amounts to their equivalent.
The Fraser River is also small and narrow, and with the traffic proposed for this LNG plant, it would make sense to conduct a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent as that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard. Done properly, that would include a 3.5 km hazard zone on either side of the LNG tanker/barge routes.

This project should also include an assessment of the impacts on the climate, the contribution to greenhouse gas production, and an otherwise full carbon cycle analysis that would account for the greenhouse gas production during the extraction, compression, and transportation of the natural gas. Consideration of the full lifetime of this project, and the contribution to greenhouse gases over the projected amount of time would be prudent to include in this calculation as well.

And lastly, given British Columbia's desire to develop LNG in the province, it is possible that these political interests would interfere with a thorough review and assessment of this project. Therefore, I suggest that the federal government would have a more unbiased perspective and better capacity to conduct the full review properly.
VictoriaBC
margaretklimaThis has not been critically and thoroughly assessed I want an independent panel assessing air, water and land ramifications to people and environment.vancouverBC
SaulArbessFor due process to occur, the federal government must institute a full federal environmental assessment of the LNG terminal on the Fraser River. Do not allow the BC government to carry out the assessment when its intentions are abundantly clear to move forward on LNG everywhere in the province without adequate safeguards for human and environmental health.

Thank you.
VictoriaBC
davidaThe cautionary principle must be the guiding light in the transport of extremely volatile fuels, particularly in densely populated areas with high rates of traffic in all its forms (not to mention the very real threat of an attack by those that despise our very freedom and will do anything to bring us to our knees, as your government fondly reminds us)

It is up to the federal government to assess this proposal with an eye to the overall well-being of the Canadian population that resides in BC, particularly when the provincial government is pushing for the extraction and processing of this extremely controversial and damaging form of fuel. Fracking has the proven potential to seriously affect ground water in a negative (and criminal) manner at the front end of the process and the shipping of the compressed gas is equally laden with potentially adverse health effects and legal implications.

Madame, please save us from our inept provincial government while doing the right thing at the same time.
victoriaBC
ConnieCochraneDear Ms. Leona Aglukkaq,

I am writing to you with huge concerns regarding the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved it will have a massive impact on the very narrow, busy Fraser River. A project of this magnitude has the potential to cause irreversible damage to the surrounding community. Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment for this project. I have no confidence in the provincial government to be objective when they have publicly thrown their full support for LNG exports. I am asking you to make sure a federal environmental assessment by review panel is conducted of this project. A full assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. The assessment should also include an evaluation of the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards. Also such projects should be required to conduct a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route. Canada should consider an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States.
What will the project impacts be on climate change during extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas? Too many unknowns ! The public has the right to clean air, water and land. The public also should be consulted and given the opportunity to vote on such projects.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Connie Cochrane
SurreyBC
HowardRossmanMinister Aglukkaq:
The Wespac Tilbury LNG terminal must be subject to full, kfederal, environmental assessment before any approvals are granted. The BC government's request to substitute a provincial assessment must be rejected. BC is not an impartial assessor where LNG is concerned. PLease act accordingly.
Sincerely
Howard Rossman
SurreyBC
AnnZahradnikThere is NO positive outcome of this proposal. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer is so much larger than the minimal job creation. Plus the degradation of food sufficiency (loss of cropland) from bridge replacement, more and more infrastructure paid for by our taxes alone.
This requires a full federal environmental assessment. These tankers have no place in our waterways or our international waters. WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU THINKING?
DeltaBC
GrantBerezanHonourable Minister Aglukkaq,
This letter is a request by a private citizen of the City of Richmond for you to seriously consider rejecting the fast-tracked LNG expansion project by WesPac Midstream, until a true independent review can take place. I was made aware of this project being sped through the system, possibly by financially interested parties, without due care and study being made. I hereby request that you put this project before a proper review panel to have it assessed with clear eyes and impartial judgement, for the environment impact and/or other ramifications. This assessment should include review of the transit of the tanker traffic as well as risks with the additional development and use of the area affected.
As I am sure you are aware, there are four major reviews that need to be investigated and evaluated before such a project should ever go ahead. 1) Evaluation of location of the terminal according to SIGTTO standards. 2) Waterway Suitability Assessment equal to those required for such projects by the US Dept. of Homeland Security and Coast Guard. 3) Explict assessment of risks posed by the possibility of directed attacks such as terrorism, and 4) Climate impact assessment, as is required by ALL projects of this an other large-scale nature.
Without significant, independent oversight of such a major change, the immediate and future repercussions of such a project, you are failing in your duty to protect both current and future generations.
RichmondBC
RemiCaudronPraying for clariry in the heart of our leaders. Time to make courageous decision lead by love and care. No more fear.vancouverBC
MarilynWelandDear Minister Aglukkaq;
I am writing to request that you take immediate action regarding the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta, B.C. Please insure that a full environmental assessment is done at a Federal level by a review panel. Our waterways and ocean wildlife in the Salish Sea are already being pressured, which will only increase with the addition of a huge terminal and hundreds more tanker ships to the area. The ramifications would be enormous, and I do not wish to see quick decisions which will could all regret.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Weland
DuncanBC
ShaunaFarrellA full federal assessment should be required. Standards should AT LEAST meet the guidelines recommended in other jurisdictions.VancouverBC
BonnieHubertGiven the significant environmental and safety issues, I believe it is imperative that a independent federal assessment be completed. This assessment needs to include not only a review of the terminal facility but the means of transporting this product down the Fraser River and into the Georgia Straight. The importance of the Fraser River and Estuary is vitally important to the lower mainland and the province as a whole and I believe a federal assessment is required to ensure the protection of the local environment and the interests of the province at large. I do not believe that a B.C. provincial assessment remains objective enough given its intrinsic interests in the LNG industry. To conclude, I hope that careful consideration is given to having a comprehensive federal assessment of this project. Thank You Bonnie HubertDeltaBC
BobBurgelEnvironment Minister Aglukkaq : On the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal, we need a federal environmental assessment by review panel, an assessment that includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Thank you.
SurreyBC
ZaleTownI can't believe you are even considering this obscenity. You, your fellow MPs and your leader are so beyond redemption I can't believe I ever voted for you. You lost me when rammed C-51 through and now I will do anything I can to convince fellow Conservative voters to become former Conservative voters. If Alberta can stomach an NDP government so can I. I'm done with you and your sick party.RichmondBC
WilliamRameyWe exist in an integrated world and we are affected by the total of all the factors in the world rather than individual events. This means that our survival and the viability of our local environment depends on the sum of all the inputs. To understand the consequence of any one proposal it is important to look at the total picture and assess the total impact of all proposals together rather than limiting assessments to individual projects as if the existed in separate environments.

Since this is where we live, I believe that a proper, complete, public environmental assessment should be made by all levels of government and supported by all levels of government and the public before projects that potentially affect our health, well being and local economies are approved.
VancouverBC
SandraGrovesPlease conduct an assessment of the WesPac Midstream project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.

I am aware the deadline is limited. Your actions now determine the future tomorrow.

Thank you & regards
WinnipegManitoba
RobertDudonisPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we all know a provincial assessment will not objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.S. SurreyBC
BettinaGemeinhardtIt is very sad to me that I have to write this letter to request that my Environmental Minister provide the very basic due diligence in the issue of allowing an LNG export terminal in Delta.
It should be this minister's responsibility to order a full environmental assessment which thoroughly reviews location, effect on surrounding environment as well as wildlife,effect on surrounding communities, security issues and transportation of product through the local waterways,
I may be naive, but I wonder what the minister of the environment's job is, if not to
ensure the safety and suitability of proposals such as these?
DeltaBC
GillianDarling KovanicIt is unimaginable to put an LNG export plant at the mouth of the mighty Fraser River, the most productive salmon producing river in the world. An proper environmental assessment absolutely must be conducted that will ascertain that this natural resource must never be put a risk with this kind of high risk industrialization. Also this is unceded Salish Territory and to put an LNG export port here will be in direct contravention to the Tsilcoltin Supreme Court decision of First Nations having decision making powers over their aboriginal territories. To build this plant will be to defile and destroy the Salish First Nation's Territory.Bowen IslandBC
JiniPatelDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Please do not allow the province of BC to carry out the environmental assessment on the LNG export terminal in Delta.

BC leaders have already shown they are greatly biased towards industry and against the sea, the animals, and the humans that live along these traffic routes.

PLEASE appoint a federal environmental assessment by review panel, including the terminal as well as the transit route of LNG tankers to the Cdn. sea limit. And assessing both the Waterway (including 3.5 km on either side) and impact on climate; including extraction, compression and transport of natural gas.

Looking forward to hearing of your plans,
Jini Patel
SurreyBC
KristinaKirsteinThis is unsafe and illogical. DO NOT ALLOW this. Should this project become reality it will add to the historically insane things the government, in their full idiocy, has done to sell out the citizens of and the province of British Columbia itself. This cannot happen. REJECT the request! You must request a federal environment assessment. NONE of this is in the public's best interest and is inappropriate use of protected and what should be protected shoreline environments. Have you been to any of the places along the Fraser River in Delta? Have you seen and imagined what more traffic would do to the fragile ecosystems along the River? The environmental assessment MUST consider: an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
PLEASE do not let this monumentally dangerous installation happen.

Thank you for reading and considering my opinion as a person having grown up in Delta, long time resident, past commercial fisher of the Fraser River and advocate for the Fraser and her wildlife and precious ecosystems.

Kristina Kirstein
SurreyBC
DavecairnsThis is too important to not do a full federal environmental assesment for both the terminal and tankers. The BC liberals are so desperate to move forward with LNG they can not be trusted to do what is in the publics interest. It is so important to look at the standards set forth by sigtto when considering the location of the proposed terminal. Canada should be moving away from a carbon based economy not signing secret back room deals with foreign investors, incredibly short comment periods, no proper townhall meetings, etc. seems like they are once again trying to sneak one past the public.squamishBC
MSawadaNo coal export facility in Delta.SurreyBC
AmyBjorndahlPlease. Listen to the people
Do not let LNG build a port in Delta!
DeltaBC
HeatherHiebertBritish Columbians such as myself are getting fed up with poliicians at both the federal and provincial level putting private corporations profit margins ahead of our health and safety and putting our environment at risk.

Enough is enough!
BurnabyBC
LisaWicka proper environmental assessment must be doneComox,BC
MaryTaittBOUNDARY BAY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Box 1251, Delta, B.C. V4M 3T3
Contact: [email protected]

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
410-701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6
Sent to: [email protected]

10 June 2015
RE: WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project (Registry #80105)

The Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) was established in 1988 to enhance public awareness of the Fraser River Estuary Ecosystem. We have worked with other conservation groups to obtain protection and recognition for this world class ecosystem including:
- BirdLife International's Important Bird Area (IBA) designation in 2001 for the Fraser River Estuary: Boundary Bay, Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank; the Estuary is the most significant IBA out of 597 sites in Canada.
- In 2004, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) gave the Estuary its highest designation as a Hemispheric WHSRN Site.
- In 2011, Roberts Bank, the vital central link in this chain of inter-connected and protected estuary habitats, was finally declared a Wildlife Management Area.
- In 2012, the whole lower Fraser River Delta was declared a Ramsar site by the International Convention on Wetlands.

Process

Members of the BBCC did not see any notification for public input into the National Energy Board's decision to grant an export license to WesPac Texas. We only heard about CEAA's public input this week so we only have had only four days to prepare.

First, the BBCC would like to protest the National Energy Board's decision to approve an export license to WesPac Texas via €œthe outlet of the loading arm at the WesPac LNG Marine Terminal in Delta, British Columbia (B.C.)€ when no such terminal exists.

Second, given that The National Energy Board €œis an independent federal regulator of several parts of Canada's energy industry with the safety of Canadians and protection of the environment as its top priority €, how can they give approval to such a potentially dangerous project for Canadians living in Delta, BC without any public assessment of risks? And if €œprotection of the environment€ really is such a €œtop priority€ how can they give approval to a project that could have disasterous consequences for Canada's most significant environmental area: including the Fraser River Estuary (see above), the Fraser River itself (greatest salmon river in the world), the receiving waters of the Coast Salish Sea home to endangered Orcas etc. without a full environmental review by both levels of government first? Members of the BBCC want to know if CEAA can overturn this decision by the National Energy Board?

Environment

The proposed project must be subjected to a full Canadian Environmental Assessment by a Panel Review Process and a BC Environmental Assessment Review as the potential risks and the cumulative environmental impacts of this project are so wide ranging. There must be no substitution of one process for the other.

The world reknown cooperative environmental management model, namely the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), brought together all three levels of government to conduct environmental reviews of development projects along the Fraser River was closed two years ago. The main developer, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), took over as Lead Agency from FREMP for a €œtransition period€. But PMV is still handling all developments along the Fraser River which is an outrageous conflict of interest and an international embarassment in terms of stewardship of the globally significant habitats in this ecosystem. The BBCC asks when will this farce be terminated?

Some issues that must be addressed in the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project:

- Proper and timely public engagement in the review of the risks of such a project to the public and wildlife given that the site in Delta, BC could be at the centre of massive liquifaction by the forecasted largest earthquake ever in BC.
- Panel Review of the risk of all aspects of the project on all salmon species, the red-listed White Sturgeon and the Oolichan populations of the Fraser River.
- Panel evaluation of the cumulative increase in ships through the already busy shipping lanes of the Salish Sea is crucial. Current ship traffic through Orca Pass between the protected American San Juan and Canadian Gulf Islands is already having an impact on the endangered Southern Resident Orcas.
- Review of Canada's accountability to global warming by carbon fuel export?
- Many specifics about the project need to be reviewed e.g. Where is the gas liquification water coming from? Where is used water being discharged?
- Are the LNG ships dependent on removal of the George Massey tunnel? If so is WesPac going to pay for the replacement bridge over the Fraser River?

The BBCC respectfully requests that Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq follow her fiduciary reponsibilty and commit to a CEAA Panel Review for this project.

Yours sincerely, Mary Taitt
Director, BBCC
LadnerBC
JasonLewkoThis proposed LNG terminal has received little exposure in the news and many people are unaware. A full federal environmental assessment is needed to assess the LNG port and tanker traffic. The pro-LNG BC government under the biased regime of Christie Clark must not be allowed to take control of any aspect of this LNG proposal.

I do not support expansion of LNG exports anywhere on the BC coast and especially anywhere near an environmentally sensitive area as proposed in Delta.

LNG tanker traffic is also responsible for the increased height of the proposed Massey bridge and this must also be considered as a negative impact.

Thank you,
DeltaBC
GlendaBartoshDear Minister Aglukkaq
I'm extremely concerned about the LNG plant proposed for Delta. This area is extremely sensitive from an environmental aspect.
I urge you to have the federal government assess this proposed site using a full review panel and disallow our provincial government's request to make the assessment.
In terms of physical areas, it's important that the assessment include the full proposal and all potential impacts from the terminal itself as well as the proposed transport route down the Fraser and out to sea as far as Canada's waters go.
In terms of values, I urge you to ensure that the impacts to our climate from processing and compressing the natural gas and transporting it are included as well in the assessment.
BC once was a leader in hydrogen fuel cell technology and still has the potential to be so -- an energy system that can have little to no carbon footprint and a readily available fuel: waste hydrogen from industry. I respectfully suggest that Canada and BC should be looking to the future, not the past, by pursuing this clean, alternative energy system.
VancouverBC
EmmaWilsonDelta's already lost so much farmland, why not their ocean too? It starts with losing the night sky, then comes large expanses of palm trees and pavement, next it'll be the beaches shut down for swimming.DeltaBC
AngelaGallantAnd...where are the salmon suppose to go? They're already struggling with the fish farms and their parasitic pollution, now we're gonna ruin them with tankers? Our river is already over taxed with industry!!SurreyBC
TamWilsonWhy is it so hard to keep our environment
and that includes our water ways and oceans
from being put at risk with more tanker use ?
Risking spills and toxic contamination in water
is all about money - not consideration to risks
should there ever be an accident in the Fraser.
KEEP TANKERS WAY FAR AWAY FROM RIVERS
AND WATER PASSAGES - NATURE WAS THERE
FIRST.
VancouverBC
JacquelineShenMinister Aglukkaq, please reject BC's request for substitution so that a fair, proper assessment of the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal can be conducted. It is absolutely critical that AT LEAST a fair assessment happen before such big changes are implemented in a community that will be heavily affected.BurnabyBC
DeborahThieljust turn down the noise, okay?
we have Kinder Morgan and the pipeline impact implications
oil spills in English Bay
and LNG initiatives - what does this mean?

economic benefits have to be weighed against environmental costs
i don't need my government to force an artificial growth curve year after year
let's have some quiet
some time for reflection
to truly weigh pros and cons

pause the madness, at least
trust the people who elected you
we are all out of breath - including you.
vancouverBC
BethCruisePlease stop this path of destruction and reject BC's request for substitution as there is a good chance it won't be objective. It is not in the interests of the BC public.

As part of saving our planet and BC, please request a federal environmental assessment by review panel and that the assessment include the termainal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please donsider the assessment having:
1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2.a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicityassessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the U.S;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas
VictoriaBC
KatherineMooreMs. Aglukkaq, please conduct a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal in Delta. This project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River, as they say that it is not their responsibility. As you know, Christie Clark has asked that this assessment responsibility be turned over to the BC government. Please reject this request, as any assessment by her government will not be objective. This would not be in the public interest, nor appropriate, as BC's gov't is in full support of LNG exports. Any assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. I am requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel. Any assessment needs to include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or equivalent, a Waterway Suitability equivalent to that required by the US Dept. of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, and project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Please know that the passing of this project is not just a short term 'time to shine', but an opportunity to request an objective review of a project that will have far reaching, long term affects on our country's healthy future. If you want to 'shine', be remembered as a Minister who was in public service for Canada and Canadians and request a federal, objective, environmental assessment by a review panel.

thank you for taking the time to read and consider the concerns of this Canadian citizen.
White RockBC
MarcKitchinNo more disasters!!!RosslandBC
hugosutmollerLNG tankers will need a wide safety zone, to minimize the hazard of collision and subsequent explosion. The Fraser river and harbour with the busy shipping traffic and the proximity of urban development makes it impossible to provide this safety zone.
( remember the 1917 explosion in Halifax harbour ? )

I strongly urge you to conduct a federal assessment evaluation.
VictoriaBC
SusanGageI can hardly believe that this project, which would increase tanker traffic in the Fraser River (already well-travelled) and greatly increase the potential for environmental disaster, could move ahead without a proper federal environmental assessment. This assessment should include the impact of the proposed terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I urge you to undertake a full federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. It should also assess the project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. I feel it's unrealistic to expect a fair assessment from the province of BC; our premier has made it plain that she favours LNG development at all costs.

Thanks you in advance for ensuring that BC citizens have the federal environmental protection we deserve.
VictoriaBC
SarahValentineDear Minister:

Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

We would like to see a federal environmental assessment by review panel, and that the assessment include:
- the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you sincerely,

Sarah Valentine
PembertonBC
FranManaryCome on Environment Minister Aglukkaq, do your stuff, just this once, try to force yourself to do what is right for our environment!

You are one of Harper's weakest ministers, it is obvious that due to his gutting most of our former 'working' environmental laws, you have one of the least ineffective portfolios.

Why not request a federal environmental assessment by review panel?
SurreyBC
RyanBruntAny environmentally aware individual living on the coast of British Columbia would appreciate the federal involvement of the proposed LNG Fraser River construction. BC seems to have a bias towards the support of the natural resource extraction industry while simultaneously ignoring the negative environmental impacts.

A federal environmental assesment performed a review panel would be appreciated.

Such an assessment would need to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal into Canadian waters.

We all want BC to thrive both economicallh and environmentally and we have both the knowledge and ability to do so without putting delicate terrestrial/marine ecosystems at risk because of this high emission project.

Please make the right decision.
NanaimoBC
TeresaBrandvoldRe: Export Terminal at Tilbury Island on the Fraser River: To: Minister Aglukkaq
1) Please reject the Province of BC's request for substitution on this project. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and the public can't be confident that a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
2) I wish to request that you order a federal environmental assessment by the review panel.
3) This assessment must include not only the effects of the terminal itself, but also the transit route for the LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
4) Please ensure that the assessment consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SiGTTO siting standards or their equivalent.
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (ie terrorism) as required by the United States.
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including the extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Respectfully submitted.
Lions BayBC
BrianAventI live within the hazard zone and after seeing the SIGTTO guidelines for siting such a facility, the transit of LNG tankers through the Fraser River seems entirely inappropriate and a great risk to residential communities on both sides of the river. Since shipping and tidal waters are Federal responsibilities, this project must have a public environmental review.RichmondBC
GarryGreenPlease Listen to the citizens and reject the possibility of harming our beautiful Lands and Oceans. Corporations hold money for you, Citizens hold votes for you. Please choose for the people. Thank you very muchRichmondBC
Andrea CarolAndersonDear Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

LNG on the Fraser? That needs a full federal environmental assessment. I hope you can see the essentialness of this, and will a) conduct the assessment, and b) reject our BC gov't's substitution request.

Thank you.
Campbell RiverBC
KathyBoothThe LNG project needs a complete environmental and health assessment.
There has been insufficient time for people to respond to this plan.
SurreyBC
DavidGibbsDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I strongly urge that you demand a federal environmental assessment of the proposed new LNG terminal on the Fraser River in Delta. I also encourage you to reject B.C.s substitution request as this is a glaringly obvious conflict of interest.
Please imagine if 120 LNG tankers and 90 barges are added to the existing traffic on the river. To compound the situation, Fraser Surrey Docks wishes to have coal ships using the river to load at their dock. Not only would this become extremely detrimental to the salmon run on the Fraser, but the chances of vessels colliding would increase exponentially.
Please have some concern for the inhabitants of this area and exercise the power with which you have been entrusted. Thank you.
SurreyBC
LesleyGThere has not been sufficient examination of the impact on human, animal, and plant life on the building of this terminal and the subsequent tanker traffic that would ensue should any disasters happen. This must not proceed at this time.BurnabyBC
JennLeRouxPlease reject BC's request for substitution of a federal assessment because of the provincial government's vested interest in LNG exports.
I would like the federal government to do an unbiased environmental assessment.
I also request that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
VancouverBC
HelenaspearsI am against any expansion of LNG in Canada and BC!comoXBC
JackMatchesI can't imagine a more ludicrous proposition than that of bringing an LNG tanker into a populated area on a regular basis.
I would urge the minister to conduct a full environmental assessment of this project, including the transit of this commodity and the terminal at which it would be loaded. I would further urge that BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead be rejected.
KamloopsBC
KirstinGAn environmental assessment should be common practice on issues like this.VancouverBC
TiaLeschkePlease require LNG proponents to conduct hazard zone mapping that would allow government regulators to assess risks to public safety and property along LNG tanker routes. I'm writing about the Fraser River LNG terminal proposal.SookeBC
JasonWilliamsI am against LNG exports on the Fraser river.VancouverBC
DavidMallettWesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly. WesPac has NEB approval and now seeks environmental assessment.

Minister Aglukkaq please conduct and environmental assessment of this project. Reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment which will not be objective or in the public interest. This proposal must have a federal environmental assessment conducted by a review panel. Such an assessment must include the proposed LNG terminal and the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limits.

I live on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Many, many resident and friends are opposed to any increase in tanker traffic in our coastal waters.
SookeBC
AshleyDoyleThis project should undergo vigorous evaluation that includes an risk assessment of the increased tanker traffic. This is a highly sensitive estuary with numerous species at risk and migratory birds.SurreyBC
GregAbbottI ask you to reconsider the plans to out an LNG port on the Fraser river; at the very least have the proposal go through a thorough 3rd party review process at arms length from both private sector and government influence.VictoriaBC
DeborahForbesMin Aglukkaq 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

What are you thinking? I live in Richmond and we are surrounded by the Fraser River. It is a very sensitive area where we have fisherman, and Richmond itself is almost level with the water table. If a spill should happen, not only would the Fraser River be ruined, but 200, 000 residents would be poisoned.


I am shocked beyond words and cannot imagine why LNG should be put through anywhere. Christie Clark, how do you stand for British Columbians like me ? I have not approved this action at all.
RichmondBC
KimDenmanDear Minister Min Aglukkaq,
I am joining with other concerned citizens of Canada to ask that you conduct a full federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Midstream project to build an LNG export terminal on the Fraser River in Delta, BC.
This assessment should consider:
1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The residents of this area deserve full disclosure and objective, public information on such a potentially dangerous project.

Sincerely
Kim Denman
DeltaBC
RobertHaLettFirst Coal and now LNG
Come clean Christy Clark and stop trying to sneak in your bull shit corporate agenda. A complete environmental impact assessment study needs to be conducted and reviewed before anything happens with this proposal!
Why invest In something that won't even pay for the needed infrastructure costs. There's a reason why your LNG pipe dream up North has gone no where. So now your going to rip up the Deas tunnel and waste more money on another bridge with another private public partnership. Waste, lies and bridge tolls that's all you have to offer the people of BC !
SurreyBC
PatFortinA LNG export terminal on the Fraser river is not appropriate. This is a major salmon bearing river and moves through areas that are close to human habitation. The increased marine traffic is just one of the unacceptable implications of such a facility. Please ensure that this proposal is refused or at the very least subjected to a full environmental review.VictoriaBC
NicoleSimsWe absolutely NEED a full federal environmental assessment of this proposal.


an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SquamishBC
LesBendoVery short sighted!RichmondBC
sherronfairbairnPlease, please consider the impact on the health of your people and the environment in this province and access properly what you are about to do. What else can be said?white rockBC
HaroldTolmieAs s First Nations (aboriginal), OPPOSE LNG or other oil-based products to enter our lands and waters for FEAR of oil-spills and/or contamination. Our traditional foods will be destroyed beyond repair.VancouverBC
DonChesneyThis information should be regarded to:

An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent.

A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.

An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States.

An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
CalgaryAlberta
LindaHortonOur rivers need legal protection of their right to exist and be protected, as they are beginning to have elsewhere. The proposed project certainly merits the most stringent environmental impact study requirements that can be applied. The river belongs to the people and other living things of British Columbia; it does not exist primarily for the profit of private corporations. Our first obligation is to the future of our province's land and inhabitants- what action makes us good stewards for our grandchildren's future, and what puts it at risk?KelownaBC
ColinHamiltonI live and work on the BC coastline, I live on a small island in the gulf islands, and I earn my living by salvaging cedar driftwood which I turn into furniture, gates, and sculpture. If anything ever went wrong with all these fuel terminals and tankers and I could be out of a work, and out of an amazing place to live. I feel that this project should have a federal environmental assessment for both the terminal and for the transit of LNG tanker within Canadian waters. Please reject BC's request for substitution, as I dont believe our provincial gov't is acting in our best interest regarding its support to grow a larger LNG industry here in BC. Lets look at our environment first, and ask more questions about how this project effects everything around it before we commit. Thank you for your time and consideration,
Colin Hamilton
Pender IslandBC
AdeleHollingsworthTo all concerned,

Please do not allow this to happen without a full federal environmental assessment! The Fraser river is so vital to our eco-system. I cannot even believe BC government is trying to rush this through without due care! Tired of Clark's LNG dream being crammed down our throats without a say.

Thank you for listening!
campbell riverBC
davidrileyThe public is sick and tired of more and more projects being shoved into the landscape without due consideration. A REAL federal environmental assessment by a full review panel allowing public representation is necessary.surreyBC
TerryDyckElectric cars do not need pipelinesVernonBC
willdouglasWhy are we so focused on destroying our province. Find a more environmental source of power. Make our neibourhoods clean and safe to live in. Keep the threat of disastrous spills leaks and dust at zero by eliminating the potential cause all together.deltaBC
TerryPlottelThis government does not care about our environment or public health. The dirtiest fuel and dust that comes with it, is in our air, through our neighborhoods, no protection for the dock workers who are in contact with it daily Sending coal which nobody should be using in this day and age. We will be paying the price both environmentally and in our pockets for this LNG deal for decades. Shame on you! And you charge a carbon tax to the public!!!!! What a joke! Giving our water away for pennies. Start being accountable, do you have a conscience, I don't think so!!!!DeltaBC
HollieLiThis is importantBurnabyBC
BrockElliottThe federal government should protect the environment of all of its citizens. This project is unique in scope and environmental sensitivity. Please arrange to do an assessment of the river safety and environmental issues of this LNG project.SurreyBC
JoycePoleyYet another mega project on the Fraser in the form of an LNG terminal - as if Fraser Surrey Docks' plans for coal weren't enough!
These projects need thorough and impartial health and environmental impact assessments, as well as opportunities for public input.
Ms. Aglukkaq - please pay attention to the concerns of local people and do what is right for the LONG TERM benefit of all.
SurreyBC
ClintonJohnsonWhat's the worst thing that could happen? Plan for that. No environmental assessment? For something that could potentially be disastrous for the environment? Where's the logic in that?RichmondBC
Hans and JulianaKratzPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Also ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Qualicum BeachBC
ElaineGoldsI fully support the federal government moving ahead with an environmental assessment regarding the proposed LNG terminal in the Fraser River. I do not want the BC government to conduct this review as I feel they have already made a decision to support the project.

This assessment should consider the transit of tankers through all the Salish Sea as well as the terminal itself. The terminal location should be evaluated according to the SIGTTO siting standards. a waterway assessment needs to be done which will be equivalent to or better than the USA Coast Guard standards.

It is also important that the EA take into consideration the impacts of climate change as well as international commitments the Canadian government recently made at the Climate Change conference.
Port MoodyBC
TomWattMinister:
Prease provide at once a federal environmental assessment by review panel which includes the proposed terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Thank you
NanaimoBC
BrentHeardI live within 2 km of the proposed route. I am very concerned about what could happen if there is an incident where the carrier could be compromised and release LNG into the atmosphere. I am concerned about the fire/explosion that could occur when the gas cloud finds a source of ignition.DeltaBC
TedHuismanIt goes without saying - or should - that there must be a federal environmental assessment of any project that has the potential for harming the environment, flaura and fauna. The proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal, with its related ship traffic in the Strait of Georgia and Fraser River, is such a project. It is not appropriate for many reasons, not the least of which is a conflict of interest, for the BC Provincial Government to take control of this environmental assessment.RichmondBC
MartinSamsonPlease do not allow this project to go ahead without a full federal environmental assessment. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your reply.VictoriaBC
PaulRasmussenDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to you to request that you please provide a federal environmental assessment of the WesPac Midstream proposal to build an LNG export terminal in Delta, BC. This project has not yet had time to receive adequate public or government review. It may be inappropriate in terms of its impacts on water quality, salmon runs, and the endangered Orca whale population in the Fraser River and the Southern Salish Sea. It also may be inappropriate in terms of the risks LNG tankers may pose to other shipping including from acts of terrorism. And finally it may be inappropriate in terms of its impact on greenhouse gases and climate, especially when all elements including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas are taken into account. The BC government has been an enthusiastic backer of LNG and therefore can not be relied upon to do an impartial assessment of this project.

Sincerely,

Paul Rasmussen, Victoria BC
VictoriaBC
DevynHoylePlease conduct an assessment of this project and reject the province's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. The Fraser in a key to not only our economy but our ecosystem. Without a healthy environment, money is worthless.New WestminsterBC
AlissaSkinnerWe need a proper, unbiased, complete, and independent environmental assessment of this project. We cannot be confident in the ability of Christy Clark's Liberal government in BC to do their due diligence in this matter. This reckless project poses major risks to our environment and our safety. Without clean air and clean water, we have nothing. A healthy environment is our only hope for the future.VictoriaBC
KylaWhitwell1) conduct an assessment of this project
2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
DeltaBC
R.Bridger DenzFor the best interests of BC's citizens and residents, there must be a federal environmental assessment by review panel of the suggested LNG export terminal to be built in Delta. We request that the BC government's call for a provincial assessment be rejected as the citizens of BC cannot trust that this will be an objective evaluation. The assessment should consider not only the terminal but also the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. The federal government has a duty to fully assess all such projects and all levels of government have the responsibility to listen to the concerns of the public, not to keep potentially harmful development plans under wraps.DeltaBC
JenniferCondieThe government's plan for LNG exports in the lower mainland has not been given enough public scrutiny. We need an proper environmental assessment not just a provincial assessment. Given the governments political investment in LNG, there is no assurance such an assessment could even approach unbiased.

We need a federal assessment by review panel, and nothing less.

This assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG by tanker.

Important environmental concerns would include: international standards for terminal location, waterway suitability, terrorism risk assessment, and climate impacts.
SurreyBC
UllrichFischerIt is high time that the full cost to everyone affected by projects like this be taken into consideration. The current policies of ignoring scientific input and going ahead with every project the fossil fuel industry proposes are essentially giving away the environment in exchange for further erosion of our democracy.New WestminsterBC
CeliaGauthierAs usual the almighty dollar talks and the people walk. I would think that if we r going to put USA toxic coal in our harbor that the powers that be better have a good environmental impact study , and i'd like to see that report. As par usual the people are the last to be asked and i did see the smallest blip about Vancouver preparing the harbor. This is not good for the City or the marine life or the air quality or the beaches what is wrong our government??? Stop Stop StopSurreyBC
EricaFrankAs a physician specializing in population health, it is clear to me that there should be a thorough, objective federal assessment of this project.VancouverBC
JohnGoulaitNautical traffic can be dangerous on a good day. Given a high traffic are and the variables of weather it becomes even more dangerous. Take this into account when you make a decision.TappahannockVA
BarbaraHuismanI am writing to request that a full federal environmental assessment take place for the proposed LNG facility on the Fraser River. As you are aware, the Fraser River is a world class estuary. This proposal would open up the estuary to regular barge and tanker traffic, which, if an accident occurs, puts the Fraser River's marine and bird life at risk. The assessment should look at both the tanker traffic and the terminal itself.
As well the assessment should include:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
RichmondBC
JenniferLittleDear Minister Aglukkaq:

Given BC's unbiased position on this issue, we kindly request that BC's request to conduct its own assessment of the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal is REJECTED and ask that a federal environmental assessment by a review panel is undertaken instead.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jennifer Little
RichmondBC
GrantBrownI do not believe that the current pro LNG/fossil fuel government in BC will be able to carry out a fair unbiased assessment of LNG terminal impact.
The federal government is the only body who should have the authority to assess such a huge risk.
SurreyBC
MichaelPartonPlease reject BC's request for substitution of a provincial assessment for the federal one. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
We need and request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
We ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
We ask that the assessment consider:
1/An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2/A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3/An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4/An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
This matter is urgent so please act quickly to ensure this is done in a responsible and safe manner.

Mike Parton
Surrey BC
SurreyBC
HelenWilliamsDirectly loading coal ships with millions of tonnes of U.S. thermal coal, is another threat to the already fragile Fraser River which the people of British Columbia rely on for fisheries, tourism, recreation and a healthy living environment.

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." -Cree Indian Prophecy
SurreyBC
JimMorrisonThis proposed project on the Fraser River and in the heart of Metro Vancouver is significant for its potential impacts. Therefore, it is imperative that a comprehensive impact assessment meeting international standards is carried out. Going forward requires the level of information that will lead to good policy decisions. You have the public trust in your hands.DeltaBC
kriszalischukWe need a environmental assesment if there is even any thought of putting a lng plant in delta. Stop selling out our land to these major corporations for nothing in returnvancouverbc
TerryLawrenceDear Minister of the Environment,

While a LNG terminal might be suitable for Roberts Bank superport, ignoring the hazardous passage through the Gulf Islands, it is not a suitable commodity to be shipping through the narrow and heavily trafficked Fraser River estuary, Canada's largest salmon river. Any collision with other shipping could result in an environmental and human disaster of the first magnitude.

As the many shipping disasters around the world prove, accidents or negligence are inevitable, particularly in congested areas with heavy traffic. For instance, there was the collision between a BC Ferry and a freighter in Active Pass some years ago, the Exxon Valdes disaster, the Queen of the North ferry collision with an Island, and the Carrier Princess running up on the shore directly below the Georgina Point lighthouse in Active Pass, to name only a few local examples.

Steering gear fails on ships, engines sometimes fail, fires break out, and the crew can be distracted or negligent. Accidents not only can happen, they inevitably will happen. We need to ensure any resultant damage is minimized by locating any hazardous goods terminals well away from environmentally sensitive areas such as the Fraser River estuary, and away from human population centres.
SurreyBC
LouiseMacMasterDear Minister Aglukkaq,
This letter concerns Christy Clark's plan to build an LNG plant on the Fraser River. I am asking that the federal government 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Christy Clark is busy talking up a stupid project to do yoga on the Burrard Street Bridge while people opposed to the LNG project on the Fraser River have to rush to get their voices heard. The Fraser River is already overallotted and crowded; there is hardly any snowpack left on the mountains around the Fraser Valley, and the Fraser will probably be at its lowest level ever this summer. We don't need an LNG plant, and anyway, Clark will staff it all with Malaysians, so what' s the point? The people along the Fraser will get all the risk, the Malaysians will get the jobs and profits. The people of BC will get the filthy water left by fracking, too.

Please reject BC's request for a provincial environmental assessment and make sure a federal assessment is done instead.
SurreyBC
leilaoborilYour proposal definitely needs full environmental ASSESSMENTsurreybc
CatherineAdlamOur waters have enough pollution, with no funds to clean them and we don't have enough coast guard stations, we do not want nor need a port in the lower mainlandSurreyBC
DianeKyrylukDear Minister Aglukkaq

I am writing to you regarding the LNG export terminal in Delta.

This project needs a FULL environmental assessment from the federal government that considers shipping risks along the Fraser and our coast.
Please move to have this done AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Please REJECT BC's request for a substitution in the way of a Provincial Assessment. A substitution for a full environmental assessment is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I am requesting an environmental assessment by a review panel.

I am asking that the assessment include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please have the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Please help us keep our beautiful BC coastal region and our biggest salmon river safe.

Thank you
Diane Kyryluk
SurreyBC
sydneyscottall we have is out planet lets not destroy it and lets move on to free and renewable energy onlyNorth VanBC
AdamFarrellPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Please ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Please ask that the assessment consider:
* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
* an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SurreyBC
JoshDuvauchelleAsk her to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
I was shocked to hear that WesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly. I am requesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac terminal. In that the assessment, please include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. This assessment should include: 1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; 2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; 3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; 4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you!
SurreyBC
SamanthaVanDeventerHarmful to the animals.SurreyBC
RobinDel Pino FerriesHonorable Minister Aglukkaq,
As a resident of Vancouver who cares deeply about the sustainability of our natural resources,
I am requesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal, by review panel.
Please conduct an assessment of the WesPac Midstream proposal to build an LNG terminal in Delta BC. and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
Additionally, I am asking that the assessment include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal all the way out to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Please have the assessment consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Please consider my comments and requests and protect our natural resources.
Sincerely,
Robin Del Pino Ferries
VancouverBC
JazzminCunningham1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.SurreyBC
BarbaraKenneyI do not support an export terminal on the Fraser River. Our children and grandchildren trust us to care for our earth. How could you ponder any projects or construction which would foul our home and the home of our children and grandchildren. I am strongly opposed to any use of the Fraser river to move LNG.
I lived in Surrey for 18 years. My son lives in Langley. If you are comfortable with toxins so close to your loved ones, your judgement must be badly flawed. Please borrow my judgement on this one, along with millions of other British Columbians. We say NO.
ComoxBC
dongirbav"1 drop of oil pollutes 1million drops of water... it's ridiculous sending Natural Gas in 'Superbombs' over the oceans dripping oil and polluting everywhere they go not to mention the risk from transporting and storing it beforehand in such a highly populated area!"enderbyBC
TrevorMurdockFull environmental assessment including consistency with Canada's climate change commitments is neededVictoriaBC
BrendaBroughtonPlease conduct a Federal full Environmental Assessment Review by Review Panel regarding the proposed Wespac Tilsbury LNG Terminal Supertanker LNG Transport on the Fraser River.

Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we cannot be confident a Provincial Environmental Assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

The Federal EA must include transit of LNG to Canada's territorial sea limit, as well as the terminal.

The Federal Environment Assessment Review must consider:

1.an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you in advance, for proceeding with these recommendations.

Sincerely,

Brenda Broughton
Village of Lion Bay
Former 5 term mayor
Lions BayBC
TomKitchenDear Minister Aglukkaq; I am writing you in hopes that you will set aside your obvious hatred of Canada and and the health of this planet to arrange a proper environmental assesment of the Fraser river and environs before giving a blanket approval to the expanision of the Surrey Fraser Docks. It is my oppinion that such expansion would be devistating to the entire mouth of the Fraser and the communities that surround the area (Greater Vancouver). I am not following the script they have and am speaking for myself, from the heart. I have live in this area all of my life and I have seen many changes to the detriment of individuals and communities, I feel this must end, and we need to worry about everyone else, not just ourselves.LangleyBC
ColinParkDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I wish to add my name to those requesting Federal Environmental assessments in the matter of constructing LNG facilities in, and the transport of LNG through the Fraser River Delta. The reasons are well documented in the letter to you from Karen Campbell, staff lawyer for Ecojustice.

For reasons clearly stated in that letter, it is in my opinion also incumbent on your government not to acceed to the Government of BC's request to substitute BC environmental assessment in place of a Federal government assessment. There are in any case so many Federal jurisdictional issues here that a Federal environmental assessment is clearly appropriate.

As I know you are aware, all aspects of the natural environment are severely stressed, in Canada as around the world; we are approaching desperate times. I respectfully urge that you respond to this issue with the increasing gravity with which your particular office has burdened you, and with full respect for our natural environment and for humanity itself.
Respectfully,

Dr Colin Park.
ComoxBC
GinnySykesIn spite of newly passed laws. this will not happen. We will not let it happen. The people will stop it long before gov. of the day decides LNG is a good thing.

We WILL fill the jails first. Civil disobedience Will stop these idiotic ideas. Rivers/water/salmon are far more important.
VictoriaBC
LannyDebPlease reconsider this before going ahead with it. We need a full environmental assessment plan. I visit this area frequently and the route travels through some of the most sensitive bird habitats in Canada. Let alone the many other concerns.RichmondBC
AnnelieseSchultzPlease commit to carefully reviewing the proposal for a new LNG terminal on the Fraser River in Delta, which, If approved, would mean 120 LNG tankers and 90 barges travelling up and down the narrow and busy Fraser each year within sight of riverfront neighbourhoods and parks.

The Province of BC is unable to provide an objective assessment of this proposal, so it is incumbent upon you to ensure an ethical federal environmental assessment by review panel which includes the following essential considerations:

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Many thanks for your attention to this crucial matter,
RichmondBC
MaureenMoriartyWill we continue to contaminate our waters and our forests? How will we explain to our children and our grandchildren that we stood by until it was too late.TorontoOntario
EarlRichardsPotentially explosive LNG tankers have to be kept away from populated areas.VancouverBC
NancyIssenmanPlease conduct an assessment of the proposed LNG project on the Fraser River. Also do not accept BC"s request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. Thank youVictoriaBC
EdwardMacKenzieIt is ridiculous that anyone is considering opening an LNG terminal on one of the most important salmon rivers in B.C. without even an environmental assessment. I ask that the B.C. request be denied and that a full assessment by the Federal Assessment be conducted.VictoriaBC
PriscillaDennisReject BC's request for substitution. The BC government has thrown it's full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident with a provincial assessment properly evaluating project risks. These projects need a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The assessment should include the Terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should include:
1.) an evaluation of terminal locations according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent.
2.) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.
3.) an explicit assessment of risks posed by international acts as required by the United States.
4.) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of natural gas.

In my personal opinion, if any project is approved in British Columbia, they should be required to use the Best Technology available every 3-5 years.

Thank you for your time.
Prince RupertBC
JaneBrettDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I am very concerned that the federal EA office might turn the assessment of this project over to BC. The province has so-called" LNG" projects (which in reality are LFG - Liquefied Fracked Gas projects) as a major priority. Given the decline in LFG demand, the provincial government is desperate to get ANY project going and it is almost certain that they will give a "pass" to this project --and quickly!

Looking at recent maps of California drought and currently undergoing a Level 3 out of 4 Drought Alert on the island (and it's not mid-June yet), we know that water resources are the urgent priority for our grandchildren. We must protect the water every chance we get. Fracking uses enormous amounts of water and pollutes ground water with numerous chemicals which accumulate. We need to leave the gas in the ground.

Please understand that there is nothing "natural" about so-called "Liquefied Natural Gas". That is corporate spin to gain acceptance by politicians and citizens. This gas will be FRACKED gas and it will disrupt the land and the peoples living on it for very short-term profits for big off-shore corporations. Our children will be left with the costs of remediation of well sites as well as the costs of all land and shore-side "accidents" (which they aren't, because we know they WILL happen).

This is all BEFORE it gets to the ocean and all that can happen there with despoliation to the sea life due to horrendously increased traffic. Recent reports on the decline in ocean fish stocks off the West coast are shocking. What are we trying to become? The Gulf of Mexico?!?!? I live on Vancouver Island which will be affected by the accidents due to increased traffic. These ships come through our seas. We feel like "sitting ducks" here! We need you to help us by bringing some sense to the situation. Don't let the unique and unparalleled beauty of BC not be valued in what amounts to a new "Gold Rush," and on the Fraser of all historic sites! Are we to see a re-staking of claims by the international community as we did in 1858? Let us learn something from history.

We do not want to become just a "resource colony" for big Asian nations or Texas oil & gas companies. Do not betray our sovereignty by turning over the environmental review to those who have already clearly demonstrated that they have no long term vision nor any plan to cut greenhouse gas in our lifetime. This may be the most important decision of your career and it will affect so many, many lives and relations. Use your power wisely while you have it.
VictoriaBC
Michael LiamCassidyA thorough environmental review and assessment is required for a project of this scope.Nanoose BayBC
BonnieSokoloskiThough I don't live on the Fraser River, I do have family in the area. It seems absurd that a project of this size would not have more public input and a thorough environmental assessment process. Where would the LNG becoming from and how would it be getting to the terminal? Any increase in tanker traffic in the area should be very carefully assessed. There should be a federal assessment by a review panel.KamloopsBC
CatherineTongWe need public consultations and an environmental assessment, at minimum. My family lives, plays and works on this river. It matters to me, it matters to all of your constituents.New WestminsterBC
Bonnie MaeNewsmallA federal review of this project is required. This is a very busy waterway in a large metropolitan area on a major salmon migration route. There is no good reason to proceed.

The BC government should instead be looking for clean energy opportunities, of which there are many.
VictoriaBC
SueSparlinSince the Federal Government has abdigated its responsibility for our waterways, we must do all possible to protect those near at hand. There is no viable reason to increase this hazard.New WestminsterBC
HollyArntzenDear Minister Aglukkaq,

With regard to the proposal being put forward by WesPac Midstream, to build an LNG export terminal in Delta BC, I ask that you: 1) conduct a federal assessment of the environmental impacts of this project, and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Our provincial government is very committed to LNG development, and I can't be confident that a provincial assessment will do an adequate job of evaluating the project risks.

I would like to see a federal environmental assessment by review panel, that takes into consideration impact statements from local residents.

The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The Fraser River is seriously threatened by climate change and warming waters. Our wild salmon runs are at great risk. Further industrialization of the Fraser is a bad idea.

Thank you
Holly Arntzen
SurreyBC
ArnoldMcCutcheonPlease do not allow a LNG terminal along the Fraser River until an environmental review is concluded.
Thanks; Arnold
VictoriaBC
MargaretFellmannHow can you even consider approving of this project which is not far enough from human habitation without adequate consultation
with the local people. Also our Provincial Gvt. should be allowed NO PART in this.
AbbotsfordBC
TracelCarolsfeldDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Please conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment as the BC government is not unbiased in its what it wants as a outcome of any studies. BC supports LNG exports, therefore cannot be trusted to objectively evaluate the project risks.

A federal environmental assessment by review panel should be conducted, which would include the transit terminal and transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please consider the following:


- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for you consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,
Tracel Schnorr von Carolsfeld
VictoriaBC
JulieNichollsPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I am requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
I ask that that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I ask that Ask that the assessment consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
HopeBC
MichaelSmithI am against the LGN Terminal that is proposed at Tilbury.OakvilleOntario
LindaKelly-SmithI feel that a project of this size and in such a high traffic area needs a full environmental review and that review should be done by the federal government. it should be evaluated in a according to SIGTTO standards.Garibaldi HighlandsBC
NanAmesThis dangerous development needs to be subjected to an extensive environmental review that takes into consideration all the other applications that will result in hugely increased marine traffic in the Fraser River Estuary/Georgia Strait/Juan de Fuca Strait
areas.
SurreyBC
TaraClarkPlease make sure that all environmental impacts are taken into consideration. As well as the impact on people being able to continue to enjoy the banks of Fraser River with theirs families.New WestminsterBC
DONNAMARTINPlease! This needs a federal environmental assessment by review panel.SALT sPRING ISLANDBC
ROZISAACDear Minister Aglukkaq

Regarding the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta, I am most concerned about the environmental impact the increased tanker traffic will have on busy Fraser River.

Please institute a federal environmental assessment by review panel, and not the BC Government's assessment which is clearly biased in favour of the project.

Please ensure that the assessment includes, inter alia:
* the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit
* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States.
NORTH VANCOUVERBC
JohnVaillantGreetings;

The Fraser River is one of Canada's (and North America's) greatest and most ecologically important waterways.

It is also one of the most fragile, already compromised by human impacts, including pollution and over-fishing.

Permission for a project on the scale of the Tilbury Marine Jetty cannot be left to local government, especially one that already appears far too 'cozy' with the LNG industry, and whose leader has clearly pinned her political hopes on the exploitation of LNG and shipping of same.

This massive, disruptive project needs clear, objective oversight that will recognize the historical and future importance of Western Canada's most important and ecologically sensitive river.

Sincerely,

John Vaillant
Vancouver
VancouverBC
MeganBrown1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.New WestminsterBC
tasmalacroixMinister Aglukkaq...Please conduct a through review and reject BC taking on this responsibiltiy. Produce full reports to the public for further input and change re the inevidable impact and devastation of river and ocean LNG transportaition disasters.victoriaBC
MarionEldridgeThis is not the right way for BC to be helping destroy our planet and future.SurreyBC
ThomasCheneyWe should be phasing out non-sequestered fossil fuels.ChilliwackBC
MarylkeNieuwenhuisInvest in alternative energy instead.CoquitlamBC
JonHealeyLNG and LNG Export terminals are not innocuous developments. The terminal and tranort route currently proposed for the Fraser River is in an area of high density population and on a major salmon route. This needs a thorough and unbiased assessment of risks to both people and the environment. Given its declared intention to promote the industry, the Province of B.C. Is not qualified to indertake such a review. Minister Aglukkaq, we ask you to 1. conduct a thorough assessment of this project and 2. reject B.C.s request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
Thank you
Jon Healey
Salt Spring IslandBC
SusanMillarDear Environment Minister, the Right Honourable Aglukkaq,

I urge you to have a federal environmental assessment of the WesPack Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta, BC by a review panel, including consideration of the impact of the large number of tankers and barges on the heavily traveled Fraser River. It is not acceptable, in my view, to substitute the process by a BC assessment as the government has already made it clear that LNG is a top priority and therefore unable to do a proper, unbiased report.

In my view, the assessment should consider: the terminal location using SIGTTO siting standards; a waterway suitability assesment equivalent to what is required by Homeland Security; an assessment of terrorism risks, and finally project impacts on the environment.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Millar
New WestminsterBC
LauraCornishDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I urge you to reject BC's request for substitution. Given BC's public support for LNG exports, I'm not confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I'm requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider:
1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thanks you,
Laura Cornish
407-610 Victoria St
New Westminster, BC
V3M 0A5
New WestminsterBC
AshleyZarbatanyAn LNG facility in Delta will only create more environmental disasters and exasperate the environmental damage being done by fracking projects in the Peace. We need to protect the water from industrial poisoning and address the dire situation we are in with frankness instead of denial. Stop this project!MontrealBC
JohnMcNameePlease help us out here. With this province's blind rush into LNG production and shipping, a provincial assessment of the risks (and benefits?) has little chance of being objective.ComoxBC
JoanneBanksAs a lifelong resident of British Columbia, I request that an LNG terminal NOT be built on the Fraser River. Planning a LNG terminal on the Fraser River is sheer madness. Are you trying to destroy the wild salmon run? This river nurtures this keystone species. It is time to leave fossil fuels in the ground and invest in other solutions. Research into the impacts on the climate just to access LNG puts our province's water at risk . As you know drought conditions are becoming a reality all along the west coast of Canada. Providing LNG for export does not help B.C. or Canada economically as the (potential) tax rate has been reduced to provide little to no benefits . To provide for another countries energy needs and risk our environment is not viable. I also reject B.C. 's request to substitute a provincial environmental assessment for a federal one. as i feel this is a conflict of interest.
I am requesting an assessment that:
1) investigates the location of the terminal according to internationally recognized SIGTOO site standards
2) studies the impact on wild salmon;
3)investigates the impact on the climate of the full cycle of LNG; including, extraction, compression and transportation.
4) does a Waterway Suitability Assessment taking into account the 3.%km. hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.
5) studies alternatives to this source of energy.
Campbell RiverBC
Kim PatrickO'LearyI read law for 12 years. I am very concerned about the lack of review and assessment concerning this project. Based on recent history, I do not have faith in the provincial government of BC to assess the LNG terminal in Delta. This assessment needs to be undertaken by the Federal Government. There are many serious and important facts that need discussion and decision. There are far too many problems and risks involved with projects such as this, to let them be approved without a great deal of scrutiny, so that we are not all put at risk of even more environmental problems in this country.VancouverBC
GerryGaydosPut a stop to this insanity! LNG is a bad joke told at the expense of the people of British Columbia. Evidence of the lack of evidence-based decision making. Those who make this mistake in willful ignorance will be held responsible by the people of this province! Stupidity should not become the hallmark of our people. Show some respect for the land, waters, and air we depend on for life. Natural Gas belongs in the ground, not in our atmosphere and oceans. The fossil fuel era is over. Wake up!!VictoriaBC
EllenRainwalkerDon't endangerthe Fraser River. The River is too narrow and busy for this kind of tanker traffic. If this project is to be considered, a full environmental assessment MUST be done. The National Energy Board is nothing but a rubber stamp for the fossil fuel industry.CumberlandBC
lynnWalkerWe need an environmental review of this proposal conducted by the federal government with local government and first nations input.

Please do not let the BC government take over the assessment.

We needan evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SurreyBC
CliffHodginsPlease refuse BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Have a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Have the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Have the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
White RockBC
WilliamGrahamWe need to have a proper environmental assessment of the proposed Westpac LING terminal. The recently released report on LING was stated as only being a preliminary report and, altjhough it gave some support to the industry, it listed a number of critical factors that could threaten our water supply and water safety, and stated that it would continue to investigate the matter because it did not receive sufficient information yet from participants.VictoriaBC
JenniferPurcellPlease do not consider any more carbon-based fuel sources! They continuously cause environmental and health damage!!BellinghamWashington
MoraiaGrauThe Fraser is a major salmon producing river, I am appaulled to hear that a new LNG export terminal may be built without an environmental review.

I ask you to please assure that any such project goes through a most rigorous environmental assessment review and public consultation.

Sincerely.
SilvertonBC
LarissaStendieDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I have grave concerns about the necessity and quality of environmental assessments associated with LNG development in BC. While I am interested in economic development I fear that LNG must be developed in a care and highly controlled manner and given the Province's commitment to these proposals, I do not believe the best interests of residents or the environment will be served.

I would like to request a federal review panel of experts, that includes assessment of the terminals and transit of LNG as well.

The consideration of the impacts on climate must also be in the forefront of an assessment such as this, living as we do in a climate constrained world, where already this year Vancouver Island is experiencing drought conditions.

The assessment ought to also contain:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration. Our land, water and climate are the most important resources we have. Thank you for committing to protect them.
VictoriaBC
sarafralinI am formally requesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. As a someone who works in the energy industry I Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.


Please stop the expantion of the LNG industry; invest in clean renewable sources of electricity; Please help us fight climate change and preserve our natural heritage by rejecting BCs request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
VancouverBC
DaveRonaldsPlease mandate that a review of the LNG project is necessary as fast tracking projects results in missed opportunities to implement the necessary regulations to protect people, environment and public safety.Port AlberniBC
DianeManuelWhen you need a Hazard zone for LNG tanker to build this terminal you know it means hazardous waste will be spilled into the Fraser River because it will happen if they are allowed to go forward with this terminal. I don't support this terminal and demand that the Canadian Environmental Agency Not approve the permit.VancouverBC
DianaCaldwellDear Minister Aglukkaq,

This letter is a plea to you to not allow the Provincial BC government to be the body that reviews the proposed project for a new LNG shipping terminal in the fragile Fraser estuary. The government is much too biased about the whole potential for LNG here in BC, and it is doubtful that it has the social licence to force this on our population.

The impact everywhere on marine animals and fish will be horrific. Where the fracking will take place , fragile watersheds and groundwater systems
stand to be severely damaged. The very least we can ask for is a proper review by a federal environmental review panel.

This should include the following:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

For the future of our earth,
Diana Caldwell
CourtenayBC
BruceGrayTransporting LNG on the Fraser river is unacceptable. The environmental risks are too high to rubber stamp. The business case must be questioned now the G7 agree to a phase out of fossil fuels.BC is too late.AbbotsfordBC
MichaelDavisDear Minister Aglukkaq
Exporting fossil fuels is short sighted and lessens the pressure to create "green" alternatives.
The increased traffic in the Fraser River has the potential to be catastrophic (Halifax 1917 ) .
I know that the aids to navigation will be world class but all of the marine disasters I've ever heard of were caused by human error and that is something that can't be fixed.
Just a couple of concerns even before we get to the environment.
I would ask that a complete review be done by your department rather than the B.C. government as they ( B.C.) has strongly endorsed L.N.G. without a thorough environmental assessment and may be biassed.
Saturna IslandBC
SharonRogalskyA full federal environmental assessment by review panel is necessary in considering the proposal to build an LNG terminal on the Fraser River in Delta, BC, as well as the plan to transport by tankers out into the Pacific Ocean.

Far too much is at stake to leave it only to the province of BC to decide.
Hornby IslandBC
DavidSquanceThe BC government is wanting to have a LNG terminal on the Fraser River, built with no federal environmental assessment. This should not happen. I urge the minister to reject the substitution of a provincial assessment and to have this project scrutinized carefully. There are many factors to consider in regard to the local environment and the long-term effects like climate change. The BC government has gone overboard trying to promote LNG development and is not giving sufficient consideration to these concerns.VictoriaBC
DebraThorneTo the Federal Environment Minister, Ms. Aglukkaq
The BC Liberal Government wants to fill the Fraser River with Coal tankers and now LNG tankers. This is a river that is surrounded by high density human populations. The possibilities for catastrophe are immense. Therefore, please reject BC's request for substitution and immediately implement a Federal environmental assessment by a review panel that includes the terminal as well as transit for the LNG tankers, from the river to the Canadian territorial sea limit.
VancouverBC
maggicheethamWe need a comprehensive and independent assessment of this project both the terminal and the transit routes to and from it. Please, please factor the environment and all living beings into any public policies. Ask any companies seeking to extract resources to factor the environment and all that that term contains and means into their proposals.vancouverBC
MaryKellyThe proposed LNG export terminal at Delta BC needs an unbiased federal environmental assessment to ensure environmental safety and independent review the risks of the project.

The assessment should include a review of the terminal location on the busy Fraser River as well as the impact of LNG tanker and barge traffic from the terminal to Canada's sea boundary.

Please reject BC's request to conduct a provincial assessment instead of a federal review. The protection of Canada's territorial sea waters on the west coast should not be relinquished to the province.
VancouverBC
DavidRippnerMin Aglukkaq::

Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment of the LNG export terminal in Delta. It should be assessed federally by a review panel. These things should be considered by that panel:

An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for this consideration.

Davy Joel Rippner
South Pender Island,
British Columbia
Pender IslandBC
KathyThomasliquid natural gas, of all the fossil fuels burns the cleanest. So, if we want to have a good export business, of fossil fuels, then this is the fossil fuel of choice. Having said that, the process for properly evaluating an installation of an export route is incredibly flawed. There is no more trust. Anything involving Harper, who has purposefully silenced our leading environmental scientists, cannot be condoned or trusted in any way. ALL recommendations written in the report by qualified independent scientists, MUST be adhered to! That is the only way this could get any support from our leaderless population.white RockBC
DavidGreenDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I am writing with regard to the LNG export terminal proposed for Delta. As you know, there is considerable concern in BC about the export of gas and oil and its potential to do damage to the coastline we all value so much. In addition, these exports have significant implications for Canada's role in addressing climate change.

A proposal of this scope clearly needs a careful environmental review. The BC provincial government has a huge vested interest in this project since it has staked its political future on LNG projects going forward. Given that, the assessment needs to come from Ottawa. I am, therefore, writing to ask that you do not proceed with the BC government's request to take over the assessment and, instead, implement a federal environmental assessment by review panel. As I understand it, the US has much more stringent requirements for a project of this type and I request that you consider an assessment to meet the type of standards they have developed. Most importantly, though, it is important that any assessment include the impact of the extraction, compression and transportation of the natural gas on our climate. This is an issue of huge importance for us, our children, and generations to come.

Thank you for your attention,
David Green
VancouverBC
LauraBensonDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Please require a full, federal environmental assessment under CEAA for WesPac Midstream's proposed LNG export terminal on the Fraser River.

LNG extraction, processing and transport poses serious health, safety and environmental risks that must be studied in a comprehensive, democratic and transparent assessment process before any permits are considered for an export terminal proposal.

I, like many British Columbians, do not trust our provincial government to conduct proper assessments of LNG development. The province is not impartial--it has made LNG boosterism the primary function of the B.C. government. It is critical that credible, democratic assessments be conducted by senior government for B.C. LNG proposals like WesPac's.

I trust that you will use your power as Canada's Environment Minister to ensure local residents like me get the facts we deserve before any further approvals are issued for this risky proposal.

Thank you,
Laura Benson, Burnaby
BurnabyBC
FarrellBoyceBuilding an LNG terminal in the Fraser river estuary is a project that demands the most careful scrutiny of all aspects. not the least of which are the perils of navigation of clumsy tankers and barges in a narrow, changeable channel cluttered with other vessel traffic. The BC government's request to take over the environmental review of this project is inappropriate in view of that Government's clear bias, even obsession, in favour of LNG exports. The machinery is in place for a proper Federal Government Environmental Review of this project which involves Federal Government responsibilities and the national interest. I strongly urge you to reject the proposal for a BC only review and to activate the abovementioned machinery.

Respectfully,
Farrell Boyce
North SaanichBC
KenAshdownBC's request for substitution should be rejected out of hand due to the apparent conflict of interest in the Premier and cabinet's ongoing enthusiastic promotion of LNG in the province. A federal environmental assessment by a qualified review panel should be undertaken, and that assessment should include the terminal facilities as well as the transit and routes of the LNG tankers to the country's territorial oceanic boundaries.

The assessment should consider:
1. An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment that is at least equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
BruceBatchelorLook at what happened in Portland, Oregon, when a similar project was being rammed through quickly ... the project was stopped after massive public protest.VictoriaBC
KarenDurantWe all know an environmental assessment is going to say "No Tankers down the Fraser and No super Terminals" Stop the greed!EnderbyBC
MarilynGoodeMinister Aglukkaq, Please reject BC's request for substitution with regard to LNG on the Fraser River. There needs to be a federal environmental assessment by review panel.the assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. It needs to include an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Thank you,
Marilyn Goode
VictoriaBC
RickGreenDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I write to you regarding WesPac Midstream's proposed Tilbury LNG export terminal on the Fraser River. I understand that an environmental assessment of this project is not required. In consideration of the current economic importance of the river, the potential hazards faced by residents near the terminal and along the transit route, the greater risks posed by increased shipping traffic from other proposed coal and oil export projects, I urge you to require this project undergo a federal environmental assessment by a qualified, objective review panel.

It has come to my attention that the BC government has requested the assessment be conducted at the provincial level. Kindly reject this request as they are not an objective party, given their prominent public promotion of the LNG industry.

A credible environmental assessment must include the following:

1. Evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards.

2. Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.

3. Explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts, including terrorism.

4. Assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

On a final note, I also strongly urge you and your colleagues objectively consider the business case of this industry as to whether it is in the interest of Canada and its citizens. The public is expected to contribute much in terms of subsidies, accepted risks, and opportunity costs, yet the market for these products is highly competitive, volatile, and declining as Asia -- especially China -- makes considerable investments in renewable energy. The touted benefits to Canadians are growing increasingly dubious.

Sincerely,

Rick Green
VancouverBC
alanhughesI accept that LFG is better carbon wise than other products particularly tar sands oil but I would rather it was all left in the ground to be used by us as we need it, not sent overseas to fuel an economy that sells things to us. We should use our fuel to support our own jobs and economy. Further I realize the LFG has a fairly safe shipping record but any human activity has risks particularly in a high density residential area such as greater Vancouver. It would also necessitate replacing the traffic tunnel at Deas Island so that these ocean going ships as well as the powder coal freighters can use this channel. All this so we can export our own wealth and economy to a foreign country. Why would we want this to happen?surreyBC
HeatherScottThis waterway is too important to risk with this LNG project. Any accidents could be devastating. Please conduct a full federal environmental assessment.VancouverBC
DanJonesThe whole trouble with the LNG business is that it is relying on fracking which is destroying the planet and how it works forever. Once the shale is all broken up it can no longer retain natural gas under it any longer. Once they pull out the gas rises up through the ground and mixes with ground water and turns it toxic forever. Recurring natural gas requires containment, which the shale layer has conveniently provided until the greed mongers decided they wanted all the benefits in their pockets today regardless of future needs. After the massive cost of getting every home converted over to natural gas it is going to make an awful lot of people very pissed off forever at the companies that did this to destroy the economy of the province. We need to stop this process until such time they can provide a method of sealing up the shale when they are done and purify the water to a pristine condition before it goes back into the environment.MackenzieBC
GordonMillerA federal environmental assessment of a project this large and complex is absolutely essential before it proceeds any further. Gordon Miller, VancouverVancouverBC
DianneHenshawHon. Min. Aglukkaq,
I am writing to request that you initiate a comprehensive assessment by review panel, of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. This assessment needs to be done by the Federal Environmental Assessment Agency, and not the province of British Columbia, as we cannot be confident that a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate this project.
I am requesting that the assessment include the terminal, as well as the risks of transit of LNG tankers along the Fraser River, all the way out to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Please ensure that the assessment adheres to international standards and the standards of our U.S. neighbours, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, and an explicit assessment of the risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as well as accidental risks. It must also include an assessment of project impacts on the climate, as well as the surrounding environment, and the waters of the Fraser River and the coast of British Columbia.
I am very concerned about this project and wish to see a full, impartial review of its impact.
Sincerely,
Dianne Henshaw
VancouverBC
RosemaryRonaldsEverything needs an environmental assessment!!!


We needed one to build a home beside a creek!!

You NEED one for a project that affects so many people.

Wake up to the responsibility that has been entrusted to you by us, the people who elected you!!
Port AlberniBC
LouisValleeThis project will create a dangerous risk to people within range of an accident. LNG facilities should not be located in populated areas.Mayne IslandBC
FrankMartensThe BC government is attempting to promote LNG shipments through an estuary of the Fraser River that is in constant use by boaters, log rafts, fishing boats and other marine traffic without the environmental assessment that should be made by the Federal Government. This is unacceptable. A federal environmental assessment by a review panel needs to be made.SummerlandBC
GertrudeJockschI ask the the review be done by the federal government and not the provide. I also ask the the review include the terminal as well as the transit of the LNG tanker to the sea.VictoriaBC
SusanAndrewsDear Minister,
It is with grave concern that I ask you to insist on a Federal review of the LNG proposal in Delta. Sending 120 huge LNG tankers and 90 barges down the Fraser river a year is a recipe for disaster. That is one every few days in an already busy river. Please could you as for an assessment of:
- Examine the site and evaluate it according to international standars like the SIGTTO siting standards.
- Assess the impacts of the project on climate, including extraction, compression and transport of methane.
The G7 just this week declared we have to end the use of fossil fuels. This calls into question the wisdom of building NEW facilities to extract and transport a fossil fuel that is 80 times worse for the planet than CO 2. Leakage all along the infrastructure will contribute to greenhouses gas emissions.
We do not have 85 years to solve climate change. Canada needs to be fossil free by 2040 if we are to stop disaster.
Please be cognisant of future generations in your decision.
VictoriaBC
LindaMcPhieThe end of the century is too late. We should be moving away from fossil fuels NOW. Please be part of a movement of change.

If you can't do that then at least make assessments of future projects based on good environmental science not economics.
If you insist on economics as a prime motivator than at least be honest and have social costs in dollars as part of the equation.
Qualicum BeachBC
SpencerBairdI am against any fossil fuel exploitation for money without any assessment of the risks involved.TofinoBC
EdMankelowIt is unacceptable to locate a LNG terminal where there is proximity to tank farms and residential housing. An accident that involves LNG tankers, that releases the gas
would be a disaster. The released gas would expand to 160 times volume and spread until it found an ignition point and then back to the tanker causing an explosion that could destroy much of the surrounding area. Accidents do happen
and we need to take the precautionary principle.
ChemainusBC
MichaelMarkwickCanada needs a strong, diversified and sustainable economy if we are to prosper as a free and democratic society. This reckless proposal imposes enormous risks to public safety and it must not be allowed to proceed.West VancluverBC
ScottLawranceI wish to add my voice to my fellow citizens of the Salish Sea who request a federal environmental assessment of the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta, B.C. The provincial government is an inappropriate agent for such a panel, given its avowed support of all LNG development in the province of B.C.

I respectful submit that the review panel consider the following issues:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you,
Dr. Scott Lawrance,
Victoria, B.C.
VictoriaBC
AlexBallDon't allow projects with the potential for far-reaching environmental impacts to be rushed through without appropriate oversight. There is too much at stake.VictoriaBC
franciskremlerdear Min. Aglukkaq,
this project is too large in scope, to be dealt with only at the provincial level. I would like to request a federal environmental assessment by review panel. i believe that this assessment should include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
sincerely, Francis Kremler
victoriaBC
RoyHalesThis project should not go forward without a proper environmental assessment and the approval of ALL the Lower Mainland and British Columbian communities that are effected.Squirrel CoveBC
HilaryLeightonIt is imperative that we consider carefully any such endeavour...if we foul our nest, where are we going to live? Please do not be short sighted on this one. Lead as you
are called to do, be consultative, be wise, we can never manufacture another Fraser River but we do have other green technologies for energy production that can be implemented or at least discussed. Do the right thing....please.
VictoriaBC
KimFelthamA full environmental assessment is needed for any projects like this!VancouverBC
NancyBelmoreDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Please conduct an assessment of this project; appoint a review panel; include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. Reject BC's request for substitution. Be sure to insist on internationally recognized standards. Pay special attention to potential impacts on climate change.

We have only one planet and no project is so small that it can not further endanger our already calamitously endangered planet. Please, therefore, act on behalf of our only home.
VictoriaBC
ThomasHackneyThe Wespac LNG export proposal should be subjected to a full environmental review.VictoriaBC
AllanRathboneI ask that this project be assessed by a federal environmental review panel. I can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit and that it consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Sincerely, A Rathbone, Victoria
VictoriaBC
JackAndersonPlease awaken to the reality that fossil fuels are not the answer and investment in Renewable energy is the only short term solution to giving your grandchildren and mine some hope for their future.NanaimoBC
DeenaGuffeiDo your due diligence and conduct a federal environment assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. BC's request for a provincal assessment should not be approved. This project needs to be justly evaluated for the safety of people and the environment. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit and consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
Most assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Please seriously consider this request.
VancouverBC
MarciaWolterI am concerned about the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal and traffic on the already busy Fraser River. I think an assessment of this project should be conducted at the federal level by the federal Environment Min Aglukkaq . I would not feel that an assessment done under provincial direction would be unbiased and so I would like to see BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead be rejected.

Thank you, Marcia Wolter
Quathiaski CoveBC
MarionPapeMinister Aglukkuq, please ensure there is a full environmental assessment of the WesPac LNG export terminal in the Delta. Tanker traffic in the busy Fraser River will have a massive impact not only on the River but the surrounding communities and residents as well. We must evaluate that impact.

Thank you
VictoriaBC
ByronSuleyWhy does one have to ask for this assessment, it should be the law of the land. Failure to conduct a federal assessment should be considered a criminal offence against the peoples of Canada.EdmontonAB
PeterLambSuch a potentially dangerous proposal demands a full assessment of the public risks involved. This assessment must include the tanker traffic as well as the LNG terminal itself. Exercise the precautionary principle when such potential harm to the public is involved.
Reject the request from the BC government to substitute a provincial assessment on the basis that it has clearly announced its intention to expand LNG operations in the province. It cannot be expected to be impartial in any environmental assessment process.
Salt Spring IslandBC
markdaltonPlease conduct a proper environmental assessment of this project. Secondly, have this work performed by an independent agency, not the provincial government.

Thanks
SurreyBC
johnallanWe need a CEAA review of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG Terminal-way too much tanker traffic for Fraser RiverVictoriaBC
geomcfetridgeI do not accept this 'rush-job' tactic being used on the Wespac LNG terminal project for the Fraser River. Provincial-only assessment will not do; federal assessment must take place. The tactic is based on a business-first attitude, and this is not acceptable to the Earth. The Fraser around Delta is already crowded and busy. No more!burnabyBC
JBOrbeckThe waters are every ones concern. I'm disturbed that an American corporation was able to pull this stunt with out a thorough environment study. I say no to increase and think about changing your ways of producing energy and start putting your money into clean energy. The waters and this earth we live on can only take so much. Stop raping the earth for all your short term greedy needs. Start manufacturing here clean energy solutions and stop relying on this other country. It's a big mistake. And generations down the road will be paying for it. And Canada will lose its independence and beauty. It's already happening. Just stop and leave the WATERS alone. Why is it that you people In all governments look the other way. Does this other country you ship all this liquid to already have a rope lose around your necks?WRBC
JimWhitworthIt certainly looks like another phony slam dunk for the corporate sector and another stab in the back for the Fraser river, wildlife habitat and salmon. Nice touch, the extremely short time period for public participation. The war on the environment continues apace; I wonder what will be left for future generations.UclueletBC
BeverleyNeffMs Aglukkag,


Coal, LNG, oil -- all going to be exported out of the lower Frazer Valley. All of them using an already heavily used route to the Pacific. Our provincial government is too invested in having the project go ahead to be trusted.

Please, ensure that we get a Federal review of this latest, surprising LNG project.

Sincerely,

Beverley Neff
Saturna Island BC
Saturna IslandBC
FallonMaharLeave the Fraser alone!!CoquitlamBC
NathanLoewenPlease ensure there is an objective and comprehensive panel review of the environmental impact of this proposal!AbbotsfordBC
Christine and Melville botJOhnstonWe both feel strongly that an in depth federal environment assessment is needed on the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.

The Fraser is a narrow and crowded river. The BC government is not objective and has a clear agenda to approve this risky project despite major public disapproval and concern.

Terminal and transit route are both of concern.
US seems to have sriicter assessments so we request a similar objective reporting.
VcitoriaBC
susangillisbecause of the impact this project may have on our environment... our wild life... our health and safety... and future generations, i would like to request that minister aglukkaq conduct an assessment of the proposed wespac tilbury lng terminal, and reject bc request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. please give this matter careful consideration. thank youwhite rockBC
janetlawsonPlease, among all the other concerns, consider the amount of water required for LNG. Not a wise move when the entire west coast is suffering drought and water shortages. Our clean water is more valuable than oil or gas will ever be.victoriaBC
JanineBrossardPlease consider the safety risks to the public regarding this LNG tanker route. The 'industry bible' risk analysis report for LNG tankers states that safe shelters and warning signals be built for nearby populations at risk - see the following video:

https://www.facebook.com/resourceworks/videos/vb.599978396722894/781943318526400/?type=2&theater

Here is the report they are referring to:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-12_SANDIA-DOE_RISK_ANALYSIS.PDF

We need to have the 'world-class' safety that the BC Government keep speaking about regarding these LNG tankers and facilities. There should be a thorough risk analysis for each unique location where public safety is at risk within these hazard zones. Each LNG tanker has approx. 5 separate 'holding tanks' and if these were damaged accidentally or intentionally the LNG could/would spill onto the water, cause a very cold vapor cloud (-161) that not only freezes everything nearby but also displaces oxygen for up to 2 miles and then potentially blasts back to the source if/when it reaches an ignition source (and has the right percentage of oxygen in the cloud).

In the above 'industry standard' risk analysis they take into account that 3 of these tanks could spill. Please ensure that BC just don't base their risk assessment on just 1 of the 5 tanks releasing their cargo as Woodfibre LNG has done. Canadians should also be protected as much as possible from terrorist attacks too.
Vancouver/Bowen IslandBC
GuyDaunceyDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I live on the Salish Sea, close to the site of the proposed LNG facility on the Fraser River, and I request that your Department conduct a formal objective environmental assessment by a review panel of the proposed facility.

I do not trust my government here in BC to conduct a proper review, since they have not won social license from the people of BC for the project, and they are very open in their gung-ho approach to each and every LNG proposal that crosses their desk.

There are very real hazards and dangers associated with LNG shipping, and the Fraser River is in the middle of a highly populated areas. The review should also assess the full life-cycle impact of the proposed export terminal.

Sincerely,
Guy Dauncey
Ladysmith, Salish SeaBC
jordankaulbarsDear Min Aglukkaq,

Please reject BC's request for substitution, and keep the federal EA active. I want the assessment to be concluded properly and fully, including the terminal area and transit route within the bounds of Canada's territory sea limits. I would also want the assessment to include:
-An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Jordan Kaulbars.
LangleyBC
JeffGrahamDear Minister;
In these hyper greedy times, it is our responsibility to stop and think long and hard on the impact this will have on the planet and future generations, on our Fraser River and abroad. We are counting on you to DO THE RGHT THING and let the decision be made by B.C. residents
SurreyBC
huguettehaydenIt's essential that the environmental impacts of such projects be evaluated,specially since we are in an earthquake part of the world.I do have grand children and do not want their future jeopardized by our actions now.whiterockBC
BobLorrimanThis is completely irresponsible to proceed without an environmental assessment.West VancouverBC
LesleyClarkThis is madness. The environmental risks cannot be ignored.LasquetiBC
SuzyCoulterWesPac Midstream wants to build a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal on the Fraser River in Delta, B.C. The terminal would serve as an export facility for fracking operations in north eastern B.C. and would result in up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges on the Fraser River annually. The company has not adequately addressed concerns about the project's impacts in my view as a resident of a Fraser River community.

The Federal Government should do a complete review for this project that considers the location of the facility, the tanker routes on the Fraser River, safety concerns, as well as watershed and climate change implications resulting from the extraction, shipment and consumption of shale gas and any natural gas that may eventually shipped this way.
ChilliwackBC
annemorinIsn't the traffic path right next to the reifel bird sanctuary? Isn't it a conflict of interest that the province will do this environmental assessment?vancouverBC
BrentUnrauTo the federal Minister of Environment. Minister Aglukkaq.

Thank you for paying attention to this critical environmental issue.
Please step in and require a thorough assesement of the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta B.C. It would be a weak and sad short cut to allow BC to submit its own less thorough provincial assessment. With something as important as this and as environmentally sensitive as this a federal assessment is essential.
Thanks for listening and taking action.
Sincerely
Brent Unrau
SurreyBC
VirginiaFriendDear Minister Aglukkaq,
When the potential hazards of a terminal such as this could seriously affect the environment and public at large, the proposal should go to plebiscite.
The federal government appears to be thumbing their noses at the general public over most issues.
Ask the question: "what does this tell one?". What brand of government do we actually have now?
Sincerely,
Virginia F. Friend
Maple RidgeBC
RobertAgesAs a resident of Delta I believe it is crucial that the federal government undertake a full environmental assessment of the WesPac LNG proposal.

There are a number of major development proposals for the Fraser Delta in the works which both individually and cumulatively could have a major impact on the fragile ecosystems of this area.

I urge you to exercise your ministerial discretion to ensure a full assessment is done.
DeltaBC
PeterJonesThe BC Government has a large commitment to the construction of an LNG Export Terminal. The request of the BC Government for a provincial environmental assessment places the BC government in a position of conflict of interest. For that reason alone the Federal Government must conduct the environmental review.TorontoON
DebbieGrahamI understand the LNG project will go on, the strong concern I have about it is that there has not been enough consideration for the impact on the people, nature or the environment in the area. Money for a few people is not enough of a reason to push something this potentially dangerous through.KamloopsBC
MichaelHolmesIt is time for our elected officials (or appointed) to actually perform the actions requested by the public that they represent. Governments are elected to function as an administrative arm for the population of affected areas. They should not represent Corporate policy nor should they accept monies from outside sources that wish to influence policy.

Please conduct yourselves accordingly and represent the wishes of the populace whether it be further investigation into risks, costs accrued to the public or environmental stewardship.
NelsonBC
ColleenBlatzSeems like a conflict of interest to allow a government, who has a lot of personal ties to LNG, to allow them to investigate the process. How can they possibly be neutral? I strongly recommend that the federal government conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.DeltaBC
BerylPearson1 drop of oil pollutes 1million drops of water and natural gas... ridiculous sending it overseas in superbombs dripping oil and polluting everywhere they go!EnderbyBC
QuincyYoungHello,
I understand that you are considering a request from WesPac Midstreat to build an LNG terminal in Delta. I think this is a terrible idea. Increasing tanker traffic in the Fraser River is asking for trouble and is not in BC's best interest.
I kindly request for you to: conduct a full federal environmental assessment of the project (in order to ensure that both our environment and community members are protected) and to deny BC's substitution request. I suggest that the assessment include the terminal and the transit of the LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Thank you,
Quincy Young
VancouverBC
CarolineJohnsonPlease stop the progress of LNG Tilbury WesPac until further independent assessment has been fulfilled to protect our precious waterways and lands.KamloopsBC
RobinCarrWe need a full INEPENDENT federal environmental assessment. I'm not convinced that the federal government will ever allow a truly independent assessment, though.VancouverBC
GrahamMulliganThe public demands an honest assessment of this project that is not hampered by limitations to the consideration of all possible impacts, including Climate Change.SurreyBC
SarahFletcherWesPac's decision to neglect including traffic considerations strikes me as incredibly flippant and indicative of a generally lazy approach to something that should be undertaken with much more gravity. I want to see a full, thorough and impartial environmental assessment! Please reject BC's request to substitute a Provincial Assessment instead as their track record has proven to be lenient and invested in LNG exports. I need to see an assessment that takes into account the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers.OttawaON
FredHallThe high impact risk to dense population and natural resources ie: Salmon is too great and unnecessary.La ConnerWA
JeanMilnePlease use every power at the disposal of the Government of Canada to conduct a complete environmental assessment by a review panel of the proposed WesPacTilbury LNG terminal on the Fraser River in British Columbia.

Please emphatically reject the British Columbia Governments request to substitute provincial assessment.

I am particularly concerned that the proposal be viewed as one entity, and not be permitted to be considered as separate projects [such as the terminal, the tanker type and route etc].

The safety of adjacent human communities, of other types of shipping traffic on the river, the Fraser estuary, and the marine life, including the vital salmon and sturgeon, as well as the migratory bird flyways demand caution on the part of the Federal Government.

Please apply internationally recognized SIGTTO standards for evaluating the terminal site, as well as a Waterway Suitability Assessment for the proposed entire tanker route.

Please support the Prime Minister's recent commitment on climate at this week's G7 meeting by also requiring a FULL assessment of this project's impact on the climate from point of extraction to delivery endpoint.

This proposal to increase export of LNG is an ideal opportunity for your government to make its new position a reality.
VancouverBC
LeslieStanickThe shipping of LNG down the Fraser River is dangerous to humans and wildlife. One spill will contaminate water, air and soil. and destroy the salmon fisheries, and other wildlife that call the river and islands home. A full and rigorous assessment of this project MUST be done. The Fraser River is a key salmon run, important to First Nations, and other fisheries. One spill would devastate the salmon run.
- Please reject BC's request for substitution, which is not in the public's interest.
- a rigorous federal environmental assessment by a review panel
- assessment to include both the terminal and transit of LNG tankers.
- evaluation of the terminal location according to SIGTTO siting standards.
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The people of Richmond, and cities down river have a right to protect their water and land, and the health of their people and ecosystems. LNG tankers are not part of that equation.
RIchmondBC
AshleyConradStop this madness!!! Leave energy to the soulless ghouls in Alberta and that wasteland called FT McMurray.WhistlerBC
LaurentSaplairolesWe want a full environnemental assessment of this project. Risks are enormous to people around the plant and along the ships routes as well as to wild life.BurnabyBC
JuMarkPlease consider my below concerns with regards to the proposed project in the Fraser River:

- I urge you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
2) I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
3) The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. It is unreasonable not to include these aspects.
4) The assessment must consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I am further asking the federal Environment Min Aglukkaq to 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Thanks for your time and your support in that matter.

Sincerely,

Ju Mark
Prince RupertBC
Troy GermaineTaylorDear Minister Aglukkaq:

I am opposed to any sort of coal being used or even transported in our city, province or country. Coal is a dirty fuel that pollutes the air and makes it difficult to breathe for people with asthma like myself. I am also concerned with how much influence LNG has had on a proper, unbiased evaluation of this dirty fuel being transported through our city and province and do not feel confident that our citizens are receiving an unbiased report on this issue.

Instead, I ask that the assessment include a federal environmental assessment by a review panel, both the terminal and transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limits, and that the assessment consider the following:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I appreciate your attention to and support of this serious matter of using our pristine lands and waterways to transport coal or any other type of fuel. I would appreciate seeing our lands and waterways used for clean energy and non-polluting, low-risk ventures instead.

Sincerely,
Ms. Troy Germaine Taylor
VancouverBC
LeahMinoPlease consider our future when making these very important decisions. A proper investigation needs to be done before embarking on such a project that could potentially destroy the environment as we know it. I hope that there will be a federal and provincial investigation and that the decision will be made based on the scientific evidence, not on short term profit for the wealthy. Even though the 1% that is thought of as only being driven by desire to accumulate more money than any human could ever need, hopefully they also would like A habitable planet on which to live their lives, as would all humans and other Life on earth.VancouverBC
SharonPriest-NagataNO. The river is too precious, too narrow, and too busy for LNG tankersVancouverBC
EricJacobsohnHi Min Aglukkaq,

I am writing because I am concerned with the future of the planned Delta LNG export terminal. I believe with the amount of traffic that could go through the water in addition to all the possible environmental problems that this project should first warrant a federal environmental assessment. For this reason I think that you should reject BC's request for substitution for a provincial assessment rather than a federal one. Moreover, I think that the assessment should not be limited to just the LNG terminal but also to the transit of the LNG tankers.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best Regards,
Eric Jacobsohn
BurnabyBC
LeanneNuttOur Frazer River needs more protections not less, please reject BC's request for substitution.
BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

We need a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
You must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
LangleyBC
TrinityBissettHello,

I am from the Nisgaa/British/Gitsxan nations. I say this to you because you and I both know how violating it feels to have a government that does not consult with a people about important things like land, water, housing, education, etc. I grew up on Coast Salish territory (Vancouver proper) and it is still beautiful here...I want my daughter who is now 5 to grow to know the same beauty. We live in an area that experiences mega-thrust earthquakes like the one that occurred in Japan in 2011. They happen every 300-500 years right here...we are at year 312 so we're due. The last thing we need it to be injecting more chemicals into our earth, (especially in BC-lower mainland) imploding her and then taking the oil and gas like it is not going to effect us at all. It will and the results will be devastating to say the least.

Of course those of us that know are opposed because not enough has been done to ensure our safety. **Firstly, more people need to be told about this!!**

This proposal for Wespac Midstream to build an LNG export terminal in Delta is being rammed through our system too fast. In BC we were JUST told about this less than a week ago and only have till the 11th (less than 1.5 days) to do anything about it!! 🙁

Please ensure a federal review panel is set up that will assess the environment and make sure the review includes the terminal as well as the transit of the tankers. Please make sure the location is considered by international SIGTTO siting standards (or the equivalent.) Please insist on a Water Suitability assessment equivalent to the US Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including the 3.5 km hazard zone be done. Please help us by getting this panel to asses the project and its' impact on climate, which includes extracting, compression, and transport.

Please do the right thing - take care of our land and our people.

In haste and fear,

Trinity Bissett
BurnabyBC
D LynnChapmanTime to create public accountability and focus on public safety. Do a full EA Assesment. Be accountable to the people not the rich companies.
Thank you,
Lynn
Roberts CreekBC
HisaoIchikawaThe time has come to change our way of life. We are sick partly because our mother earth is sick. We must think about our sons and daughters and leave fossil fuel underground as much possible and develop renewable energy as soon as possible.VancouverBC
George A MSmithThe Fraser River is one of the most important rivers on the planet for salmon habitat. It drains much of BC. Its ecosystem provides sustenance to a significant portion of the human population of BC as well. Not to conduct a full scale environmental assessment of any major project along its shores, such as the WesPac Midstream proposed LNG terminal would be a dereliction of duty for a federal Minister of the Environment. If an enormous project such as this one, which could have disastrous impacts should a significant accident occur in the terminal or on any of the many LNG tankers or pipeline serving the project, does not deserve a full panel EA review, then what does?

Please institute the highest level of EA review. Thank you.
George A M Smith
GibsonsBC
PatriciaMcClungI most respectfully ask that you reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks
And I would like to request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
It is important to hat the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
It is most important for the assesemtn to consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both s
North VancouverBC
KOLLYHILL DAVIEThe Fraser River must not be compromised in any way, shape or form. It is a vital fishery river and must be kept clean. Do NOT replace the Massey Tunnel in order that bigger ships can navigate the South Arm of the Fraser River to get the coal and the LNG.
As a citizen of Delta, British Columbia ,Canada I remind you of your duty of office that you are working FOR the people of this community(Delta Council), this province(BC Legislature) and this country(Government of Canada).
Regarding the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta:
I ask Federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq to 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.3)
I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel and that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
4)And that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
DeltaBC
elaineangelski1Asking the federal enviornmental agency to conduct an assessment of this project and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead..victoriaBC
AndreaLeeDear Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I am requesting a federal environmental assessment by review panel, which would include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you.
Andrea Lee
RichmondBC
JenWachsmannPlease accept this as my opposition to the LNG export terminal on the Fraser River.North VancouverBC
RobertTritschlerWhat are the governmental agencies that oversee environmental impacts thinking when they even think about a LFG shipping terminal on the Fraser? Is everyone that stupid to approve it?ParksvilleBC
JeanWilkinsonIt's crucial that the federal Environment Ministry fulfill its responsibility and conduct a complete and thorough environmental assessment of all proposed LNG projects. Leaving this task to the BC provincial government is not acceptable, since Premier Clark has made it abundantly clear she fully supports LNG exports and ignores all legitimate concerns regarding environmental impacts, safety and even economic viability of these.

In addition, assessment by a federal review panel must include an evaluation of the location of proposed terminals and the routes that would be used to ship the LNG. Internationally recognized standards and requirements regarding these aspects need to be upheld in order to ensure the safety and security of local communities.

And finally, this assessment needs to consider the effects that extracting, compressing, transporting and burning natural gas will have on the local eco-systems and groundwater, as well as global climate.
Salt Spring IslandBC
johnpoirierClearly you have heard the voice of big business...
Now listen to the voices of the people you were elected to work for!
We the public do not want more tankers and more fossil fuels turning our beautifull province into a cesspool like alberta.
There must be a review to show the many many problems that come along with this rediculous proposal, a proposal that does nothing to benifit the general public.
richmondBC
ImogenWhyteWe know full well how feebly the NEB has advocated for genuine safety and environmental concerns these last few years. Here, in BC, we consider the NEB to be a laughing stock after the Kinder Morgan fiasco on Burnaby Mountain. NEB support for this project is meaningless.

What kind of stupid deal for Canada and BC is in store for us when an American company says that LNG traffic in the narrow Fraser river is 'not its responsibility".?

So don't hand this EA over to Christy Clark's hands. Her palms are already filthy with sketchy and unsafe LNG alliances. She has no interest in diversifying BC's economy in a safe and sound manner.

thank you for your sincere consideration of this matter.

yours truly, Imogen Whyte.
Bowen IslandBC
KenHamerI respectfully request Environment Minister Aglukkaq to ensure that a federal assessment of the proposal to build an LNG terminal in the Fraser River be carried out; and that the B.C. government not be allowed to make this assessment. I believe that the current B.C. government is not in a position to examine the matter impartially, and has a vested political interest in approving the proposal.

I have read a great deal of evidence and opinion that suggests that producing LNG for shipment offshore would neither be safe nor economically viable; and that transporting this dangerous material near Vancouver and down the Fraser is a poor plan for Canada and particularly for residents of the Lower Mainland.

I I would like to see a scientific study made of the practicality and safety issues involved in a project of this nature.
North VancouverBC
LindaMyresAn independent assessment of the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta must be undertaken by the federal ministry.
The Fraser River and Salish Sea are environmentally and economically linked; fewer protective resources are now available to monitor the current situation. Please reject the BC request to provide a provincial assessment.
BamfieldBC
SusanQuippNO LNG PLANTS ANYWHERE ON THE BC COAST. NO NO NO!!!!!!!!VictoriaBC
LeonardAllanA tanker accident in such close proximity to populated areas endangers the lives of all of the residents and all other lifeforms...
Why should the people of British Columbia assume all of the risks and expenses but not be in line to receive any of the benefits????
VictoriaBC
BarryFairesThis proposal must not go ahead without an environmental assessment. I understand that it will be a sham coming from this Conservative government: nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary. Do the right thing and demand an assessment, Ms. Aglukkaq! Don't ask Herr Harper; just do it.BurnabyBC
Melissade HaanWesPac's project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that's not its responsibility.
So whose responsibility is it?
What is the worst case scenario if something goes wrong?
Requiring LNG proponents to conduct hazard zone mapping allows government regulators to assess risks to public safety and property along LNG tanker routes.
In the US, LNG proponents need to assess potential hazards all along LNG tanker routes. Not so in BC.
The hazard zone guidelines reflect a worst case scenario €” the complete loss of LNG containment - this could happen if there was an earthquake. And we are due for a large earthquake on BC's West Coast at any time:

500 m zone: extreme hazard of combustion and thermal damage from pool fire if evaporating LNG is ignited. Cryogenic burns and structural damage from exposure to supercooled LNG. Asphyxiation hazard for those exposed to expanding LNG vapor plume.
1600 m zone: hazards as for the 500 m zone, with severity of consequences declining over distance.
3500 m zone: conservative maximum distance within which an expanding LNG vapour cloud may still ignite if in contact with a source of ignition. Resulting fireball would burn back to the spill source and could cause intense pool fire.

I ask that the federal Environment Min Aglukkaq 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.



Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please do a federal environmental assessment by review panel, and have the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Please have this assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States, and also by Acts of Nature, such as a large-scale earthquake.
Please include an assessment of how the project will impact the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. This summer in BC is already seeing record low rainfall and warmer-than-normal temperatures. The time for doing what we can to reduce factors that worsen our climate change is at hand.
VictoriaBC
LynneQuarmbyDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Climate change is upon us. A major contributor to climate change is human use of fossil fuels. Given these facts and the enormous negative consequences of climate change, it is irresponsible to approve any new fossil fuel infrastructure with a full and authentic plan for Canada to become carbon neutral as soon as possible.

I join the call for an assessment of the LNG project that includes impact on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the gas.

Sincerely,
Lynne Quarmby
BurnabyBC
JohnSylwesterMinister Aglukkaq,
What would your people think about this WITHOUT having a through, independent review before proceeding? The error of Omission [proceeding without a through review and being wrong] could be far more significant than the error of CO-MISSION [having a through review which had negative results but which delayed development of the project].

May the spirits of those that preceded you and those not yet born, guide you.
VictoriaBC
KenOlsonEnvironmental concerns are, of course, a major consideration in properly evaluating this proposal, and should, in my opinion, be critically assessed by independent experts representing the public interest.
Equally important are safety concerns, and it is completely unacceptable that obvious navigation risks be excluded from consideration in the approval process for the Delta port. Accidents can and will happen, as tragically illustrated by the deadly Jan 2004 explosion at the Sonatrach LNG facility in Algeria. For anyone who might be deluded by petroindustry claims that this could never happen with modern technology, research the more recent explosion that occurred south of the border at the Williams LNG facility in Benton County, Washington. This happened a little over a year ago, and tragic consequences were likely avoided due to the rural location of the facility.
Regulatory review of this project MUST include open and frank assessment of what will happen when (not if) a major leak and explosion occurs in our urban area. Lac-Mégantic victims RIP - the reality of that disaster IS relevant to this issue.
CoquitlamBC
JohnHillDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I'm writing to request that you reject the BC government's request for a substitute provincial environmental assessment and conduct one federally by review panel instead.
The BC government cannot be conduct an unbiased assessment, as their are in confict-of-interest in fully encouraging LNG exports.
This assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG from there to international waters. It should include best practices internationally for terminal location, US for transit hazard zones on both sides of the tanker route and for terrorism, and should consider impacts on climate change, surface and groundwater contamination, and earthquake risks of the extraction, pipeline transport, compression, and tanker transport of the natural, especially fracked, gas.
Sincerely,
John Hill
VancouverBC
FredRicherAnother bad idea.NelsonBC
MarkWilsonThere needs to be a full Federal Environmental Assessment open to the public. First we need to take the science and common sense aproach and not just push this though without weighing the pros and the cons. We need oversight. Know industry in Canada should be left alone to make decisions that affect the Enviroment or the citizens and cost the tax payers. We are taking to many chances with our precious and delicate ecosystem. The Fraser River Fisheries could be wiped out. The Final decision is being made without even consulting with the Aboriginal Peoples. Stop this project it is wrong.AbbotsfordBC
NikiBDear Minister
I respectfully request that a federal environmental assessment be done for the proposed LNG tankers Fraser River project. The BC is not acting in the best interests of the province and we have no faith that an objective assessment will be undertaken. Please assess the risks posed and the safety of our over crowded waterway.
Thank you
VancouverBC
LynnewheelerDear Minister Aglukkaq
I am writing to request that a full federal environmental assessment with public hearings and a review panel be done on the proposed LNG terminal in Delta. This terminal and the LNG tankers moving down the Fraser River could be a huge risk to the people of the Lower Mainland and the Gulf Islands. I am very concerned that the BC government in its drive to push LNG, is losing sight of the environmental and safety hazards that LNG entails. Please do not let the BC government conduct it's own environmental assessment. The assessment should include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers through Canadian territorial waters. Americans demand high standerrs and we expect that the location should be sited to SIGTTO siting standards. LNG is not the path to a bright future for British Columbia or Canada. Thank you.
Fanny Bay, BCBC
johnberesfordPlease conduct a proper review of the proposed LNG terminal on the Fraser River at Delta in British Columbia. The province is not in a position to make an objective of this proposal as it is an advocate for the LNG industry as a whole. A project of this scope requires more careful consideration than has been given the matter to date.north vancouverBC
DonaldGordonDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I wish to add my support to the letter written by Ecojustice to you.
Multi-billion dollar projects with enormous cumulative effects cannot be driven forward with no concern for the environmental impacts. What would your grandmother say, and what will your grandchildren say?

Thank you for taking action that you can be proud of,
Donald Gordon
VancouverBC
GiselaRuckertDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposal for a Liquified Natrual Gas export terminal in Delta. I am very worried about the future of our river and of our salmon stocks here in the interior, should this project proceed.

The Fraser River is already heavily used by boats, and the large LNG barges required for this facility would have a significant impact. Given that these tankers are necessary for the project to proceed, it only makes sense that tanker traffic in the Fraser River should be part of the project description and included in its environmental assessment.

I believe that the BC government's cheerleading for LNG projects would affect its objectivity in any provincial assessment. Therefore, I respectfully request that you deny BC's request for substitution. This project needs a federal assessment by a qualified review panel.

I would hope that the assessment evaluate the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards, and an assessment of the project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. We need a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the route, as well as a an assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (such as terrorism).

I hope that you will take these concerns into consideration -- this project could have a very serious environmental impact for communities all along the Fraser River, including interior communities like Kamloops. We need to ensure that this waterway will continue to be a salmon habitat for future generations.

Respectfully submitted,

Gisela Ruckert
KamloopsBC
NigelTearleThis must be subject to an open public environment assessment!MissionBC
trinacooperSome key points to raise with the Minister:
1.Ask her to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
2.Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
3.Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
4.Ask that the assessment consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
federal wayWA
TimTurnerThere is no responsible future in LNG. It is one of the worst business decisions our province could make.GibsonsBC
FrankDalzielThe proposed WesPac Midstream LNG Terminal on the Fraser River needs a full Federal Environmental Assessment.

Do not let the Province of BC handle this. Therefore please reject BC's request for substitution.
LantzvilleBC
MaryPikeDear Minister,
I write to you as a concerned citizen regarding the proposed LNG terminal on the Fraser. I ask you to make sure that an environmental assessment be conducted by an independent review panel. Projects like this need careful study; this one in particular would see a terminal built on a narrow, heavily trafficked river. Does this make sense?

I also urge you to reject BC's request to take over the assessment process and that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. It is vital that the assessment be done in an objective and unbiased manner which can best be assured through the federal government

Thank you.
VancouverBC
StephanieSmithTo Federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq and all parties concerned: I demand a federal environmental assessment by review panel of this project. This assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limt. There needs to be an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent and a Water Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Dept. of Homleand Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route as required in the U.S. Also, an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas. Lastly, a rejection of BC's substitution request.
More and more people are waking up.
White RockBC
petercolewake upvancouverBC
LeoLevasseurRemember, the election is coming.BurnabyBC
PatJacobsonIt is absolutely essential that a full federal review of the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta be conducted. The public interest must be served and there is no confidence that an objective process will be employed through a provincial assessment only. There are profound strategic issues like climate change and public health and safety that need to be addressed. This is a major population centre, a river of great significance and a premier North American gateway to the Pacific. We can't afford to mess it up! Please do the right thing for all Canadians and take the leadership on the assessment of this project.Qualicum BeachBC
Rev. JordanEllisOur B.C. government is trying to "sell us down the river" - and I don't mean the Fraser!
Premier Clark is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (LFG) in the hopes of saving the B.C. economy. It will not... and it will only add to more carbon pollution; ie: green House Gases.
At least do a full (and open,transparent and fair) assessment.
NanaimoBC
MargaretSmartI am concerned about increased tanker traffic on the migration of salmon in the Fraser River.VictoriaBC
MargoBoydDear Honourable Minister Aglukkaq:

I am writing to request that you please implement a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. I ask that the assessment consider the risks of transporting LNG down the narrow and populated Fraser River, the pollution risks at the terminal itself, the potential for terrorist acts and the long term effects on our climate, air, land and water caused by increased fracking.

Thank you for listening to us,

Margo Boyd
VancouverBC
Arthur & HildeAbtWe are asking you for a federal review of the proposes new LNG terminal on the Fraser River in Delta and rejection of BC's substitution request.DeltaBC
patriciakealyNo to this project on our precious Fraser River.White RockBC
EdwardGreischLNG is a fossil fuel that must be phased out to stop Global Warming before Global Warming cuts off our food supply by floods, droughts and desertification. Desertification will happen very suddenly when it does. Desertification increases at the rate of time cubed.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/unforced-variations-march-2015/comment-page-5/#comment-627687
233 Barton Paul Levenson says:
27 Mar 2015 at 6:19 AM
"BPL: We already know how to do it€“phase out fossil fuels ASAP, stop deforestation, switch to sustainable agriculture and biochar, possibly create large-scale CO2 reclamation plants. The problem is with the second part€“€œand then do it.€ That's the part that's not going to happen, partly because there simply isn't enough time left. The deniers have won. Our civilization is going to collapse, and that will happen fairly soon by my estimate€“about 2028 (call it 2022 to 2034).
I live in rainy western Pennsylvania. 28 counties here were just declared in drought. California is estimate to run out of water in 2016, which by my calculation is next year. I predicted it, but I couldn't get my predictions published. Humans as individuals are mostly rational. As a group, suicidally stupid.€
MolineIL
MarkScottto much of a chance of some major leakage or spill to happen . It has happened to many times throughout North America.Salmon ArmBC
MonaBengeI ask the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Environment to deny the substitution request from the government of BC for the WesPac Midstream proposal to site an LNG plant at Tilbury on the Fraser River.

Only a federal assessment process can properly consider both the impact on marine life in the Fraser and the public safety of all concerned in the area. The waterway is narrow so therefore the hazard zones from the LNG supertankers (as used in the US) take in the proposed jet fuel facility across from Tilbury and the condo development. I ask that you commit to including the plant and the transit of the LNG supertankers from the terminal to the ocean.

Substitution is not appropriate for this project.
West VancouverBC
CristinaLidstoneRequesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNg Terminal in Delta.NelsonBC
TammyVeltkampI am very concerned about this proposal for several reasons, but here are just two:

1. It has not been made obvious to the public, and has not gone through the appropriate consultative process.

2. If there was any kind of accident, the Fraser River would be devastated; of particular importance are the salmon migration pathways.

Please reject BC's request for substitution and have an appropriate assessment done, which includes the consultation of the First Nations and the local people of BC.
DeltaBC
JoTurnerThis proposal merits a federal environmental assessment, with a review panel. This assessment should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including exstraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Our rivers are a public resource that we all have a shared responsibility to protect and preserve in as pristine a state as possible.

LNG does not belong on the Fraser River!
VancouverBC
RandallSuttonGiven that the Premier is so set on developing LNG in BC, I do not trust a provincial assessment of this issue.vancouverBC
Rykvan DonselaarWithout the proper science this becomes an uneducated guess.VernonBC
HollyPender-LoveThe people of British Columbia deserve to have a full hearing and enquiry into the LNG proposals. Please, due diligence would be in order. thank you.TrailBC
JohnCarrollWhy no consultation???????ErringtonBC
MartinHykinWhat is the purpose of having an environmental assessment process if projects big enough to have major impacts on the environment are routinely exempted from the assessment process? Why is BC crawling on its belly to beg permission to do its own (EASIER?) assessment? What are their standards?VictoriaBC
ShannonLythgoePlease ensure that a full environmental assessment is done BEFORE this devastating project is allowed to go forward.VancouverBC
GwenNicholsonReview!VictoriaBC
RobMcDermotThis is absolutely the wrong thing for a Country that needs to wean itself off hydro-carbons. This is a terrible alternative and only contributes to the CO2 pollution that is a chief contributor of greenhouse gases and the cause of Climate Change.VictoriaBC
RogerEmsleyAttention Federal Minister of Environment The Right Hon Aglukkaq.

There needs to be a full federal enivornmental assessment - a Panel Review - for the proposed project to build the WesPac LNG terminal at Tilbury in Delta BC and to then move huge LNG tankers down and up the already congested Fraser River and through the Salish Sea.
This needs to cover both the planned location's suitability and associated risks, as well as the risks to the environment should a spill or other accident occur at the terminal and/or during the transit of the LNG vessels.
Additionally you are asked to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
yours truly
Roger Emsley
.
DeltaBC
WilliamWillsonWith the research based evidence from a quarter of a century of United Nations IPCC Reports it is insanity to be developing infrastructure for the compression, and shipping of LNG by ship or barges around and out of BC on the Fraser River.

It is time to leave the sunset fossil fuel energy economy as being immoral just like the slave energy economy was.

In light of the scientific evidence, who will pay and be held accountable for the crimes against humanity caused by the extreme weather events, rising acidified oceans and droughts of projects like this?

It is time to invest in renewable energy and a better secure future.

William Willson
CoquitlamBC
TriciaBerglandListen to the people !!! Not just the ones who will profit from this !!!Shawnigan LakeBC
travisgeorgeThe salmon and tourism industries are worth substantially more long term. Stop the destruction of our water by this corporate crony liberal government.vancouverBC
HaroldBrooksHow can WesPac say that the increased river traffic is not their problem when their proposed terminal will be the cause of the increase. Sounds like the problem will fall on the backs of the tax payers. A corporation that stands to make mega money off this proposal should also have all costs included in their figures. They shouldn't be allowed to dismiss an obvious problem by saying it's not theirs. If you wish to reap the profits make sure no costs from your operation are passed on to the people who don't share in those profits.Fairmont Hot SpringsBC
kathrynbruntonThis project requires a full federal environmental assessment.vancouverBC
AmberMacGregorPlease reject BC's request for substitution regarding the WesPac Midstream LNG terminal slated for Delta BC.
Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
A federal environmental assessment by review panel should be conducted.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

LNG is not a worthy sustainable project for this or any area of Canada.

Thank you
VictoriaBC
MargaretJohnsonDear Minister Aglukkaq:

I write to request that you conduct an environmental assessment of the proposed construction of an LNG export terminal in Delta, B.C. and that you please reject the B.C. Liberal Government's request that you give them responsibility for the environmental assessment. I have grave concerns that any assessment done by the B.C. government will not be at all objective.

I am particularly concerned about the environmental impact of LNG extraction, compression and transport, and also the need for a very careful hazard zone assessment.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Margaret A. Johnson
Vancouver, B.C.
VancouverBC
AndreaClynePlease
1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Thank you
Cultus LakeBC
JoMacleodIt will only take one oil spill to ruin our beautiful waters and natural wildlife environment for ever more. Just one spill would destroy the very things that attract thousands and thousands of visitors here each year. They come from all over the world, to experience the pristine beauty of our clean and natural environment. They come to see the killer whales in their abundance here in Vancouver waters. Do we really want to lose the income provided by these thousands of visitors who do only good for our economy and at no risk to our environment. It costs us nothing to provide and little dollars to upkeep and yet the income provided is huge. All we need to is continue to provide the natural state of beauty which is free for them to enjoy. Just one oil spill and Vancouver would be like any other infested port with nothing to offer and no wild life to catch a glimpse of. Sea life would die and dwindle and we will have lost our innocence, our heritage and our natural beauty. For what? A few dollars more in oil revenue? How greedy and power mad out politicians and big business has become. Be very careful with this decision because once our "Supernatural Beautiful British Columbia" waters are spoiled, there's no going back. It's gone. Just one spill is all; and that's inevitable if this goes ahead.........LangleyBC
DonnaStuartPlease look at this subject in light of the new world-wide commitment to lowered carbon dependence .Port MoodyBC
PaulChristensenA federal assesment is a must with this and ANY large project involving the movement of dangerous products in Canada in pipeline or otherwise. I trust our industry/business communities to make as much money as possible as fast as possible with as little corporate/business expese as possible [interest rates on government {tax dollars} money are much more attactive after all] all the while assuming as little liability as possible. This last potentially the most expensive for the tax payer [ME!] to carry the burden of clean up/ remediation and any long lasting enviromental/medical/financial burdens. I demand that the few existing checks and ballances be used in assessing this and all projects in the future. If this is ignored I will be one of the people that will be pushing for the revocation of your and ANY minister that does not do right by the ones that pay the bills in this country IE the tax payerPrince GeorgeBC
KarynWoodlandThe proposal to build an LNG export terminal on the Fraser River should not proceed without a full environmental assessment. In the view of many British Columbians, it simply should not proceed at all. Too many taxpayer dollars are being wasted subsidizing the fossil fuel industry - which includes LNG. We want our governments (federal and provincial) and our tax dollars, going towards renewable energy - a far better investment for the future.VictoriaBC
LaurieArmer1. Reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

2. Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

3. The assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
AbbotsfordBC
DavidSalsmanThere should be full and stringent environmental and risk assessment studies on such a planned development and they should not be conducted by a provincial government that based nearly their entire budget and platform on selling off our non-renewable energy resources as fast as possible and seemingly in a desperate attempt to advance the planet even more quickly into a planet-wide environmental disaster. The state of the world that we leave to future generations should be the PRIMARY concern in all such decisions and NOT MONEY.New WestminsterBC
RomiMattuDear Minister,

I am kindly asking to conduct an assessment on the LNG export Terminal and reject BC request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. My family wants a proper assessment to address many concerns which include the following:

1.an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

2.a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

3.an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

4.an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

We have to trust you to do the right thing for so many people. Our health is in your hands. We need you to take a stand for the many whom will be deeply affected by these developments.

Life is too precious to not make the right choice.
North deltaBc
AnnetteKennedyIts time Canada become a leader in environmental protection, not a stain on the rest of the world. Lets move away from oil and gas and follow the lead of many other countries! it is not what Canada needs and what we should be recognized for.. Who really benefits here is the question?? Certainly not the earth or the general population,, It is my opinion that this is nothing more than a testament to the totality of corruption in Government today!CourtenayBC
CeliaLavalI am requesting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conduct a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. Please reject the request to substitute with a provincial assessment.
Please include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Thanks for your consideration.
Campbell RiverBC
JohnDavidsonProposal needs an unbiased assessment of the terminal and the transit of LNG.SurreyBC
darlenesjostromThe future is important. Short-sighted actions have consequences. Man made structures, shifting to transportation and the ships themselves are not infallible. Accidents do happen, are we really responsible as a society if we take those kinds of risks?
Corporations have proven that they are quite unreliable and regulating themselves has not worked. So unless there are strict regulatory bodies in place to oversee these operations, there is no rational for proceeding.
ChemainusBC
Mary LynnDerecheyI have lived in Delta for 43 years and have never been more concerned than now about the transportation of environmentally harmful goods in and out of our community and waterways.

It is imparative that the federal government conduct an impartial thorough assessment of the LNG project that is planned for in Delta. Please reject BC's request to substitue a provincial assessment instead which would neither be appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please consider a federal environmental assesment by review panel that would incude the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

It would enlightening for Canadians if the government was progressive and seen as leaders in environmental issues. A good start would be their assesment of this LNG project which should include:
-an evaluation of the terminal location according to internationally reecognized SIGTTO siting standards
-A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Dept. of Homeland Security & US Coast Guard.
-An explcit assessment of risks posed bly international acts
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate.

Mary Lynn Derechey
DeltaBC
MandiGeislerA GREAT BIG NO to building LNG ports anywhere on our coast.VancouverBC
CaroleAnnLeishmanIt is in the best interest of the public's health and safety to have a Federal environmental assessment completed by a review panel and not shift the assessment to the Province for a new proposed LNG export terminal in Delta.
Please assess the terminal location, the impacts on the waterways and the ocean, the potential threats including international threats and the total cumulative impacts on climate change if this project proceeds inculuding an increase in tanker traffic and the impacts that an increase in LNG use will have including the transshipment.
Thank you for your consideration.

CaroleAnn Leishman
City Councillor, Powell River
Powell RiverBC
GavinWishartWhen Governments go out of their way to hide contentious environmental projects it says only that they are in league with the companies involved and are certainly not acting on behalf of their electorate. Did we not democratically elect governments to act on behalf of the people yet they shy away from public discussion on projects such as these. They set up the laws and processes for such discussions but try to circumvent them whenever they can, that's not democracy. Let the public get a chance to see and hear this proposal in public so that we can decide if it is something we agree or disagree with.New WestminsterBC
RichardBauerGet real carbon is carbon if we keep going like this will be TOAST !!
Give your children a future !!
Give the sea life a future !!
Lasqueti islBC
seandienothis is not in the best interest of the Canadian economy, people or environment and does not garner my supportcoquitlamBC
RichardSterndale-BennettOur waterways deserve protection from projects that don't receive careful consideration. I'm not confident the Clark government is impartial on this issue given the political investment it's made in LNG projects. I want a federal assessment.Port CoquitlamBC
SandraLaframboiseI cant believe that the government is continuing to rape the land and erase the sustance of First Nation through these types of action. There are many places around the world that has been well documented about what happens with what this type of activities does for those who live off the fishery of those waters.VancouverBC
BLightfootTO: Federal Environment Minister, Min Aglukkaq
FROM: B. Lightfoot

Dear Minister Aglukkaq,

The apparent lack of national government environmental awareness and lack of national government intervention on behalf of Canadians in the proposed Fraser Docks / LNG tanker transport expansion is deeply concerning.

You have certainly seen the impact of fuel expansion in your what-was-pristene, North, so imagine the impact of greater volumes of tankers and barges in the Fraser River! It is my understanding that we lack a national assessment of this proposed development. Despite much provincial demonstrations, including lawsuits, opposing this expansion, both our provincial and it seems, our national government environmental portfolios are ignoring such public offence.

Please consider a national environmental assessment of this situation by review panel! At present, our provincial jurisdiction is asking you to allow their 'skewed' assessment to be enough, and it is biased-all for money! Short turn gain will not benefit Canadians in the long-term with health, environmental, and educational negative impact if such an expansion goes ahead!

It is my belief that you entered politics to help 'right' some of the 'wrong' that government pushed through without adequate consultation in your area of representation. Help us to gain a proper and thorough 'right' in this situation.

Specifically, I ask that the assessment include:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Your support and consideration in this request will go a long way to helping keep Canadians healthy and be leaders in the world of 'environment' over 'economical greed'.

Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Lightfoot
SurreyBC
Davidvan BerckelIt is important that the citizenry get an opportunity to discuss and debate the pros and cons of such a significant project.
We need a full federal environmental assessment of this project without the province high jacking the process.
VancouverBC
RAYEAGLEIn addition to the proposed LNG facility the Fraser Surrey Docks coal port is seeking permission to barge coal to a holding facility on Texada Island and this combined with the expected increase in west-bound tanker traffic from the Burrard Inlet Kinder Morgan facility will see them exiting from English Bay and crossing through the north-bound coal barges which will then return empty.
Subsequently, coal-carrying ships from Texada will head south to converge on the same course as the Kinder Morgan tankers en-route for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There is a strong possibility of LNG carriers from Woodfibre being added.
If all these routes are permitted, when added to the existing long-established grain-ship traffic, the summer cruise ships and the regular B.C. Ferries' routes, it will create a concentration of shipping in the lower Strait of Georgia not seen before.
Even if a risk assessment declares the chances of a collision to be minimal, there is no absolute fail-safe, as has been proved many times with marine accidents, and if a collision should occur it will be catastrophic. With so many ships criss-crossing in a relatively small area the chances of a collision are extremely high and it would take years, if ever to restore the Strait (Salish Sea) to its present state.
THE EXECUTIVES AT PORTR METRO VANCOUVER NEED TRO WAKE UP TO THE REALITIES OF THIS GRIM SCENARIO!
WEST VANCOUVERBC
CarolStewartEnvironment Minister Aglukkaq I am writing to urge you to conduct a rigorous and thorough federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG export terminal in Delta and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and the public cannot be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

WesPac's project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that's not its responsibility. Your assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

A federal assessment conducted by a review panel must be implemented and must include the project's impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

It is time for the federal government to step forward with principled and informed leadership to make positive contributions to deal with the challenges wrought by climate change.
ParksvilleBC
WendyBalesThis is a travesty and an accident waiting to happen if it goes through. Our fisheries have so many challenges already. This should just about finish our Fraser habitats off!DerocheBC
KristaGodfreyOur area is not ready to fix any spills or problems quickly and efficiently just yet.

It appears all are just interested in the almighty buck rather than ensuring safety.
AbbotsfordBC
EdnaDouglasIt is time to stop bombarding the first peoples and our environment with projects to make others happy.

Leave the native and our land alone for a while, give us a break and let us heal.

God is watching.
CheamBC
AnniePrevostAn extensive review of this project must be done. The impact of LNG bearing ships being added to dangerous ship traffic on the Salish Sea must be considered along with the impact of additional coal and oil related traffic. We are a bio-region, how can our region safely handle all this toxic traffic that is being added. Accidents are not just a possibility, they will happen. We should not be destroying our bioregion which has provided food and jobs for thousands of years for short term gain exporting a non-renewable resource.BellinghamWA
ChrisArmstrongEXCELLENT presentation! As their track record clearly shows, PM (and Dictator between elections) Stephen Harper and Min Leona Aglukkaq care LITTLE regarding the opinions of citizens' groups and adverse impacts on the environment. Has the NEB shown any propensity to thwart the desires of Mr. Harper? In my humble opinion, it is totally a "stacked deck". (And I used to be a Conservative supporter). KEEP UP YOUR GREAT WORK !DeltaBC
KJettmarI am contacting you to urge that an environmental assessment be required prior to the consideration of an LNG export terminal in Delta. That NEB has given approval for the project without any public input seems egregious, and I would ask, at the very least that a federal environmental assessment be conducted. The assessment should include the construction and impact of a terminal, as well as the transit of LNG tankers out the Fraser River to the ocean, and Canada's territorial sea limit.
Surely you would agree that projects like this need careful consideration, particularly in light of the fact that this would be a huge amount of tanker traffic in one of the most beautiful, pristine, yet highly populated parts of Canada. To date, public notification has been negligible, the comment period is absurdly short, and fundamentally important questions -- like whether it makes any sense to build a LNG terminal on a narrow, heavily trafficked river -- haven't even been asked.
Elsewhere on the West Coast, these projects have been rejected--Squamish, Bellingham, Prince Rupert. I can't count on a transparent process if I haven't even been informed of the proposal. Please reject BC's request for substitution, as BC is extremely pro LNG and we can't count on a non-biased review.

At the very least, an assessment needs to consider:

1- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for responding to this critical issue.
VancouverBC
HeatherHestlerA federally run environmental assessment by a review panel needs to be undertaken of the project - not one by the BC government as it is already committed to LNG development and public confidence in its impartiality would certainly be in question.

The assessment should include not only the terminal but transit of LNG tankers in Canadian waters. Further, I understand there is great concern from our US friends to the South as to impact on their climate, seas, coastline, shipping and communities that our LNG tanker routes may affect.

Equally the Canadian communities on the Fraser are vitally concerned about the increase in marine traffic on the river by LNG tankers. The issues are incredibly complex and require explicit assessment of all risks from environmental to human health, climate and, the possible dangers that may be encountered from intentional acts of destruction.

None of this issues should be rushed for political advantage. Please listen to
Canadians who live here.
VictoriaBC
CarolPaulsenPlease take into account the Fraser River is arguably the most important River in Canada re:spawning salmon. We were told this would nor could ever happen as the tankers were too big to turn around on the river, it was too narrow.DeltaBC
BeverlyJacksonIt is time to start taking climate change seriously. Seriously.MissoulaMT
JaneCamfieldThe "window" allowed for citizens to make comments on this project is too small. This project needs to be reviewed--as do all projects involving volatile substances passing through urban and semi-urban neighbourhoods. People's health is at risk. Federal scientists--those who remain--are capable of assessing the dangers of letting LNG set up a depot in the Fraser River. This project should be broadcast on TV, radio, newspaper inviting extensive public comment while scientists do their work. The final decision should not be made by governments of the day when science is more trustworthy. If the government carries out the will of the people, then let the PEOPLE be heard. We cannot always let BUSINESS set our agendas when our well-being is at stake.VancouverBC
AndrewMurrayYou do not build LNG plants in densely urbanized environments.New WestminsterBC
BryanYorkeHas a feasibility or environmental impact study been done? This is a very highly trafficked section of the Fraser lined with high density housing.

Without a clear understanding of the potential impact of a leak or fire, how can this get a green light? This is extremely foolhardy and short-sighted!
New WestminsterBC
MarcLeeI am writing to request that the federal government undertake an environmental assessment of the WesPac LNG project, and not accept the Government of British Columbia's request to substitute a provincial assessment. Further, I request that the federal assessment be by review panel.

The potential impact of LNG development on the BC coast is huge in every possible way. It would have major implications for traditional fisheries and other habitat. It has significant potential for increasing GHG emissions, in BC and abroad, at a time when governments around the world are seeking to address climate change and keep fossil fuels in the ground. The potential for leaks and explosions so close to Metro Vancouver also poses hazards to people.

Instead of being an impartial arbiter and making decisions in the broad public interest, the BC government has been a significant booster of LNG development, and has routinely made exaggerated claims about potential benefits. For instance, Natural Gas Minister Coleman has repeatedly and grossly overstated the available natural gas BC has for export, giving the impression of vastly more supply than estimated by either the BC Oil and Gas Commission or National Energy Board. The BC government has also massively overstated potential jobs and government revenues arising from LNG development.

In this context, it would be appropriate for the federal government to provide a more independent assessment that is likely from the BC government. In recent years, British Columbians have been concerned that the BC environmental approval process is a rubber stamp. A recent example includes provincial approval of Taseko Mining's project in Fish Lake, BC, a project rejected by the federal government.

A federal assessment of WesPac LNG should consider the full impacts of LNG development, from upstream fracking, pipeline transport, the LNG terminals, and shipping. In addition the assessment should consider:
* An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
* An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Marc Lee
Senior Economist
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
VancouverBC
DanielBrixDo you Know the concept of the butterfly effect... Please research this industrial project before you may find yourself pooping in your own food...SurreyBC
MahriBrasfieldLNG processing is dangerous, using up huge water resources that are continuing to be liable to shrink, putting wildlife, salmon, and our citizens at risk of drought, in the process of providing fossil fuels to other countries to burn? Stupid idea!! KEEP IT IN THE GROUND! We should be trying to reduce the causes of climate change rather than making it worse! The money will not feed us, make our air easier to breathe or allow the animals, birds, fish and plants to flourish with pollution of water, pollution of air and a trend to not heed findings of crisis for our environment! Be brave, be smart, and say NO to FRACKING, and YES to Ridding our dependence on fossil fuels! A proper assessment will show the risks locally and ongoing as the air is damaged. Request a federal environmental assessment by an independent review panel of the terminal and the Canadian waterways that shipping this fuel involves!SesheltBC
GeorgePayerleI believe that heavy LNG installation and tanker traffic on the Fraser is a very dangerous idea which should be reviewed by a federal review panel chosen to be objective rather than supportive. Assigning this review to the BC government would result in a review entirely favourable to the LNG project.

Please give us a break!
Roberts CreekBC
TrudiLuethyTo the Honorable Environmental Minister Ms. Agulukkag,

the Federal Government will have to conduct the EA on this project.

B.C. residents and citizens are not confident a provincial EA process will protect us nor the environment in this process.
What happened to Super Natural British Columbia?
The mighty Fraser River needs protection from ALL OF US.

Trudi Luethy
On beautiful Howe Sound
Lions BayBC
SusanStoutKeep the Fraser safe! Salmon need a safe spawning ground.North VancouverBC
LynnShepherdConsidering the concentration of homes, amount of productive agricultural land, and location of critical land transportation corridors in Delta and along the Fraser River, there needs to be a thorough Waterway Suitability Assessment conducted by an independent panel of experts before any expansion of LNG transit or export facilities on the Fraser. This assessment needs to include impacts on climate, aquatic organisms, and public safety as well as the long-term business outlook for LNG development in world markets.VancouverBC
avrilwarrenNo, No! No LNG terminals in our Province. I request a federal (not B.C.) assessment by a review panel of this proposal.victoriaBC
MauriceShapirothe locating of an LNG terminal on the Frasr River in Delta is at best a dangerous and thoughtless plan. The passage of such large vessels carrying such a dangerous cargo virtually right by neighbourhoods makes no common sense.
A full , impartial review needs to be done by the federal level of government. To ask the BC Liberal party to conduct such a review would be essentially the wolf in the henhouse. And the review would have to include the terminal location as well as transit to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Powell RiverBC
ClaireHurley1.Ms. Minister, Please reject the BC governments notion that it should handle any Environmental Assessment in regard to LNG exports as the bias of this group in favour of LNG is recognized province wide.
2. What is needed is an independent assessment--the appointees on this Review Panel should not be friends of the Conservative Party. Rather, educated,
independent scholars and scientists (who are allowed to speak).
3. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
4. The assessment should also consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards, and,5. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including 3.l5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

FINALLY learn from the Exxon Valdez disaster. It took 25 years for the shoreline to be restored through the west coast of BC and the waterways in Alaska.
It is no long economic to consider the export of LNG. BC is too late with too little. Pay attention to what HARPER agreed to in Germany this week.
DeltaBC
GwennGuthriePlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has its own its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers
The assessment should also consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VictoriaBC
DavidChesneyPlease do not allow LNG tankers to sail up and down the Fraser River, the greatest salmon spawning river in Canada. It would be insanity.

David Chesney
White Rock,BC
LindaYaukTo Environment Minister Aglukkag
I request that your ministry carry out a federal environmental assessment by review panel of the proposed WesPac Tibury LNG terminal on the Fraser River and reject BC's request for substitution. As the present BC government has clearly demonstrated support of LNG projects, I believe it is important to have an assessment that is more objective.

The Fraser River is a hugely important salmon spawning river, which in turn feeds into the Salish Sea where other marine life is found. It is important therefore, that an environmental assessment include not only an evaluation based on internationally recognized standards for the terminal, but also a waterway suitability assessment (considering the transit of LNG tankers from the river to Canada's sea territory limits). Further, an assessment should include the project impacts in related areas, such as the extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Please consider carefully how this project has national and international impacts, and how it is most appropriate for a federal environmental assessment by panel review to be undertaken.
VancouverBC
DonnaHamiltonI am requesting a federal environmental assessment on using the Fraser River for an LNG terminal and transport. I would ask you to reject BC's request to conduct it's own review.VictoriaBC
CLaFontaineIt is highly unsettling to learn of WesPac Midstream's plan to build a LNG export Terminal in Delta that will see 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges traverse the Fraser River each year. It is highly unsettling that the NEB has already given approval for this project WITHOUT a full federal environmental assessment. It is highly unsettling that this NEB approval was given on a project where WesPac Midstream's responsibility for the increased LNG tanker traffic is NOT a consideration. It is highly unsettling that the BC provincial government is requesting a provincial assessment RATHER than a federal assessment, when the BC government has made it well known it is in favour of LNG development in BC. Would this be an unbiased provincial assessment?

I am formally requesting of the Honourable Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq to order a full and transparent federal environmental assessment of this project and to reject the bid by the BC Government to perform this environmental assessment instead. In my view, both a full and transparent federal and provincial environmental assessment should be required before this project can proceed. Please restore my confidence in the environmental review and assessment process before a venture with significant environmental impact is given permission to proceed and please reject the BC government's request to perform this environmental assessment instead of the federal government. Thank you.
KelownaBC
elizabethschleimerthis is insaneEgmontBC
cg1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

the assessment consider:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
RobertBlairThere is good reason that every U.S.A. port refused coal shipments
and we should have the same concerns about pollution and climate
change
SurreyBC
ColleenPowell12LangleyBC
LoriUselmanThis project will cause harm to the Fraser River and cause tanker traffic. Extraction destroys the environment and puts the public at risk. It has an impact on climate change too. Also, the money LNG is providing for this project is being distributed over several years therefore if one is to do the math, it doesn't add up to a lot of money at the expense of our environment. There is a high chance for an environmental disaster! This must be stopped.SurreyBC
PamBlakeThe position of any organisation proposing the suspension of due process should be considered suspect. In its request that the federal environmental assessment be suspended, this is what the BC provincial government is hoping to achieve. It is imperative that the federal government maintain its role as invested stewards of the environment. Please support Canadians in .KamloopsBC
ErenaLallDear Minister Aglukkaq:

There are a lot of concerns for the citizens of BC in regards to this project. As a concerned citizen I do not trust the government to do an objective evaluation of the projects risks.

The Fraser river is already a busy water way. What will the increase of 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges have on the environment.

There needs to be more accountability before this project is given a go ahead.

Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.

Thank you

Erena Lall
VancouverBC
EllenNiemerDear Honourable Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and a volunteer with the Richmond and Surrey Blue Dot Movements.

Please conduct a federal assessment of the LNG project proposed for the Fraser River near Delta, BC.

The Province of BC has requested that a provincial assessment be substituted instead. The BC Liberal Government is gung ho on LNG exports at any cost, no matter what the environmental risks are and with disregard for public opinion. As a resident of BC, I don't believe the Province of BC will conduct a fair, unbiased assessment of this proposal.

Please conduct a federal environmental assessment by a review panel that would include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. A federal assessment should include:

1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Richmond, BC, was the first municipality in Canada to declare its citizens have the right to a healthy environment. That declaration includes fresh air, clean water, and healthy food. Any future developments which could potentially impact Richmond's water quality and which pose a serious environmental risk should be carefully studied, not just bulldozed through by a bullheaded provincial government.

The Fraser River is home to a major salmon run each year. It's already a busy river with numerous tugboats propelling barges and log booms. Failure to make a proper assessment of the environmental risks to this mighty river will, inevitably, end in some kind of environmental disaster sooner or later.

Thank you for your consideration of this serious matter.

Sincerely,

Ellen Niemer
SurreyBC
ApostolosFyssasDear Minister,
Such a project will definitely have a negative impact on the entire Salish Sea in both British Columbia and Washington State and probably further away. An environmental impact assessment by a federal agency is absolutely required for our benefit as a complete ecosystem - including the generations to come after us. Any report done by any other agency being local, state, province or regional won't have the required weight and won't have any legal effect either. Salmon runs and our resident orca populations, plus the native fishery, will be most definitely negatively affected. The impact assessment has to be thorough and careful. Please take the necessary time to make sure that this project does not harm these marine resources we all cherish and depend upon.
Thank you.
VancouverBC
DavidMivasairA thorough and honest assessment must be done.VancouverBC
MaryDavisonPlease do not accept our premier's request that she and her government become the sole arbiters of the LNG exports pipeline. I am only one of the millions of B.C. residents who oppose this pipeline, and many of us have spoken out repeatedly objecting to the prospect of the inevitable environmental damage this will impose on the entire province, so dependent on its fisheries, forests and tourism. All it will take is one leak or spill to destroy major sources of income for communities and provincial tax revenues. You will find that a majority of residents in our cities, particularly Vancouver, do not support the premier, who clearly does not have the public interest at heart.

We need a federal assessment of the environmental impact, one not swayed by bias towards the company agitating for the pipeline. We also need to ensure that the assessment includes both the terminal and the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal all the way out to our nation's territorial limits at sea. In addition, the evaluation of the terminal location should be performed by the internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards. As we've learned to our dismay, here in B.C., our provincial government cannot be trusted to respect these standards. There should be a Waterway Suitability Assessment as strong and as clearly defined as what's required in the US by its Department of Homeland Security and its Coast Guard. It should include a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route. otherwise we risk everything that makes our province such a beautiful and envied place to live and work.

Given the increasing reach of terrorists, the assessment must address the risks to the pipeline posed by intentional acts of like terrorism. Unfortunately, we in Canada have already experienced homegrown terrorists attacking our institutions. Above all, we need to consider how the project will affect our climate. This is not just the the building, maintenance and possible breaks of the pipeline but the whole process of extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
TomMajorA full assessment must be done by an indepedent body.
Its difficult to be unbiased when your hand is in the till.
DeltaBC
marygrayi would like to see a federal environment assessment be conducted on the proposed terminal as well as the lng tankers prior to any further work on the fraser river and docks.vancouverBC
StaraMorningDear Minister Aglukkaq,

RE: WesPac Midstream building a LNG export terminal in Delta

Please conduct an federal environmental assessment by review panel, including the terminal as well as transit of this proposed LNG export terminal in Delta and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Please consider as part of the assessment the following:

-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.



thank you,

Concerned Citizen

Stara Morning
Victoria BC
VictoriaBC
YvonneSavoieIt is very worrisome to hear WesPac's projects position .....re-tanker traffic in the narrow and busy Frazer River....saying that it is not it's responsibility
BC's request to conduct the environmental assessment of this project ought to be rejected due to it's lack of objectivity to evaluate project risks as BC has thrown it's full support behind LNG exports
We need assurance that the minister is committed to a full revue of the proposal an d rejects BC's request to conduct a provincial assessment
SidneyBC
RobertTomykTo Environment Minister Aglukkag
I request that your ministry carry out a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tibury LNG terminal on the Fraser River and reject BC's request for substitution.
DeltaBC
NeilBrysonThere is no way that the community is going to accept this outrageous proposition .Please deliberate clearly and with caution regarding this venture. The safety risks are too great!Halfmoon BayBC
T.CarrollIt is crucial that the Federal Government conduct a genuinely unbiased, independent environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac LNG project on the Fraser River. To date public consultation has been virtually non-existent, thereby making a farce of the so-called consultation procedure.

The Minister of the Environment should ensure that there is full, proper and fulsome public consultation, which has so far not occurred. The timeframe should be extended. the majority of people, including myself until now, do/did not know that the consultation process was only until June11th, 3 days from now. That is totally unacceptable & worthless.

And the Minister should ensure that any environmental assessment is conducted by the Federal govt., NOT by the BC provincial government. The environmental assessment should be conducted by an independent & transparent Review Panel.

Please reject the provincial Government of BC ' s request to substitute a provincial assessment for the Federal. We know if that happens the provincial government, because of its total involvement in the LNG industry, will certainly not conduct an independent, unbiased, transparent assessment and process. The result will not be in the public interest either. Personally I doubt the BC's govt. objectivity, as evidenced on a number of occasions here in BC. I trust that the Federal govt might be a bit better.

The Assessment must include both the terminal and the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. WesPac says "no", and that is unconscionable & wrong given the potential for risk, accidents, & severe environmental damage.

Moreover the assessment must consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent (to date NOT done -why not);
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas;
+ an Assessment of the impacts on all marine life and biodiversity, as well as on human health (to date ignored).

Thank you for your consideration. Hopefully you will ensure that a Federal Assessment takes place soon.
Theodora Carroll
Squamish, BC
SquamishBC
JaneArmstrongDear Min Aglukkaq,

I am writing to express my concern over the proposal to ship LNG on the Fraser River.

I understand that there is a need for an Environment Assessment of the impact of this project, and that it has been suggested that the Province of BC perform the EA, yet it is obvious that would be biased since the Province is wanting the LNG shipping to be granted.

Please do not allow the Province to perform this EA, but have it done by someone who is unbiased. Please ensure that the EA consider terminal location according to international SIGTTO siting standards; Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard; and an assessment of project impacts o the climate - including extinction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for being responsible for looking our for our environment.

Remember, that there are other ways of having a thriving economy that is not based on fossil fuels. Canada can take a stand and be a leader.

sincerely,
Jane Armstrong
New Westminster
New WestminsterBC
RayMorrisI urge you to ensure that there is a very careful environmental assessment of this project, made by an impartial expert panel and NOT by the BC government's own political leaders. Here are some issues that this panel needs to consider:
-- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Thank you.
Salmon ArmBC
ArthurKruminsNo LNG on the Fraser!VancouverBC
Dr KenDent MDSHORTSIGHTED MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION ON TERMS BENEFITING FOREIGN MULTINATIONALS AT GREAT NET EXPENSE TO THE TAXPAYER. STOP IT!VancouverBC
JeremyWilliamsMinister Aglukkaq,
We NEED a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal on the Fraser River! Substitution from an assessment is neither democratic, appropriate nor in the public interest.

The federal assessment MUST include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should also consider:
- An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Powell RiverBC
HeatherParsonsWe must conduct a federal independent assessment to understands the risks and responsibilities of the company as well as the waterways sutability assessemnt, an evaluation of terminal location and the project's impact on the environment including land, food security and water risks for extraction, compression me transport.. We must reject BC's request for a provincial assessment as this is a national and even international issueVictoriaBc
SandraCurrieThe process of extracting LNG is called fracking. Many countries and states have banned fracking. Why? Because it uses up and pollutes water. Water is essential for life. What part of this do you not get?VancouverBC
WilliamSchussWith Global warming rapidly over coming long standing records.I think elected minds should step back and think this out to greater depthsSurreyBC
CharlesBrasfieldThis major change should not be rushed.SecheltBC
TobyDentTo sell the health and well being of environment and people to LNG profiteers with no real assessment beforehand is a criminal offense. It is already well known what LNG consequences are in America. That's why they're Here trying to further profit by subverting the truth about causing permanent damage. A responsible government would never allow this. Do the right thing by never allowing such a project to go ahead .vancouverBC
DarlenePerryI live here and want my province to stay as clean as possible. Why are they not doing from Washington State or Oregon. Why are you doing this here? Piss off!New WestminsterBC
DavidWhitmoreThere is a big push to supply the Chinese and other foreign countries with the natural gas that citizens in this country will need when supplies run low; just so that rich executives can cash in now.

Good for the economy? WHOSE economy ? Large oil corporations spend their money on tax experts and political bribes so that they pay very little taxes in the end.

And LNG is the most DANGEROUS commodity to store and handle, having to be pressurized AND refrigerated; if any system breaks down (like a power failure), the gas cannot be contained. The explosion and fire will be indescribable. And this does not include environment damage the pipelines will create.

Save the gas for our future citizens, and save our ecology too.
~ Dave \W/
VancouverBC
Dorrance`WoodwardDear Minister Aglukkaq,
This project, involving an LNG terminal in the Fraser river delta, needs a non biased environmental assessment, meaning one organized by the federal government, not the provincial government which is on record as supporting rapid LNG development in BC.

As citizens, and lovers of our Fraser river, we must be assured of the safety and ecological sustainability of this project-both the terminal and the transit of the LNG tankers.
For starters we will need to know whether the terminal meets the SIGTTO siting standards, or their equivalent.

We will need to have major improvements to the west coast Coast Guard resources, commensurate with the risk assessment that would be a part of the environmental review panel process.

Plus, because everything in the atmosphere does come back to us, or to the arctic or somewhere we rely on, the process must also take in the broader impacts on climate change.

BOTTOM LINE MINISTER: THE FRASER RIVER IS BELOVED BY THE MILLIONS WHO LIVE ON IT'S BANKS, THE SALMON WHO SWIM IT'S LENGTH ARE SACRED...THE RIVER RUNS THROUGH NATIVE NATIONS TERRITORY AND CANNOT BE PUT AT RISK WITH IMPUNITY. IF YOU WANT SOCIAL LICENSE, EARN IT LEGITIMATELY, WITH A TRANSPARENT, FAR REACHING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.

Thank you for your attention,
Dorrance Woodward
Denman IslandBC
IainRossI ask federal Minister Aglukkaq to 1) Conduct an assessment of this project and 2) Reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. BC has thrown it's full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks.Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I request a federal environmental assessment by a review panel.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG TANKERS FROM THE TERMINAL TO CANADA'S TERRITORIAL SEA LIMIT.
New WestminsterBC
FrankBarazzuolI ask, no I plead, that you give this project a full and careful environmental assessment. Please think carefully of the awful environmental state of affairs we have already left for our children when you make your decision.
Thank you
North VancouverBC
WilliamPetersonI worked in the marine field and learned that a collision could lead
To a explosion equal to a nuclear Bomb.
W. Peterson
DeltaBC
SamMaurerI want you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Extracting natural gas by fracking should be banned for environmental reasons as it has in many other countries.
RichmondBC
BradSandersonMake your last few months meaningful! DO YOUR JOB!!!!VancouverBC
MarieMayThis ecosystem is priceless,cannot be replaced .Act in a prudent and ethical way.Seek a federal envoirnmental assessment.This land belongs to all Canadians present and more importantly future.we are also sharing this world with many other species who we are killing of at a frightening rate.The planet is under siege and is already letting itself be felt,it is time to pay attention to Mother Nature ,we are already paying the price for our Careless behaviour on a daily basis.Listen to the people who elected you.We live in a democratic society not a dictatorship.Hard to tell far to often.Denman islandBC
RobertHubeleMinister Aglukkaq, I would ask that you consider this email my request to have a Federal assessment of the WesPac Midstream LNG export teminal in Delta.

The Province has made it known it is behind this Project, and I don't believe it would receive an unbiased review of the impact on our coastal and riverine systems.

I ask that you consider an evaluation of the terminal location according to tinernationally recognizefd SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent.

Also a Waterway Suitahility Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both side of the entire LNG tanker route.

An assessment of risks posed by terrorist acts, and an assessment of the environmental impact on the climate, including extraction, compression, and transport of the natural gas.
Thank you for your time,

Robert Hubele
VancouverBC
BillieMcConnellA careful assessment is needed if the proposed LNG project at Tilbury is approved.DeltaBC
shirleygantonstop nowkelownaBC
HeleneHarrisonwhen will the insanity regarding energy end? when will politicians' and corporate greed end? when will putting health of our ecosystems, animals and citizens first begin?ShirleyBC
WillDubitskyIt's ludicrous to build a LNG facility when the debt load of the shale sectors is spiraling out of control.
The US shale sectors now have an accumulated $200B debt.
http://rt.com/business/220619-shale-debt-us-companies/
Chevron has cut its liquefied natural gas related investments worldwide by 20%.
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/REPORTED_ELSEWHERE-detail/chevron-pulls-back-bc-lng-work-amid-slumping-energy-prices/
Shales, by their very nature, have extraordinarily high decline rates ...Because of these steep declines, it becomes very difficult for operators to maintain a flat or growing production profile for any reasonably lengthy period of time
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-01-16/shale-debt-and-its-implications
http://ieefa.org/peril-shale-producer-debt/
Ivry-sur-le-LacQuebec
NeilDobsonMajor projects of this kind need major, independent review. BC is tied to LNG expa soon so should not be able to 'mark it's own homework'. The NEB must be allowed to conduct a full public review covering all aspects - the environmental impact of fracking, the safety of increased traffic on a busy river route and the potential damage and risk to the local economy, environment and community if there is an accident.
Furthermore the review panel should be fully independent not just made up of extraction industry people and supporters.
VictoriaBC
LindaPeteherychI have always been against developing LNG projects in Canada for the following reasons:
- LNG will contaminate our water supply
- LNG will use too much of our public water resources
- renewable energy such as geothermal, tidal, wind and nuclear (non weapons-grade) is what we need to invest in rather than more fossil fuel projects
- LNG will produce very little benefit for Canadians in terms of jobs and taxes

LNG is a bad deal for Canadians and the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal will make the things even worse for the Lower Mainland of BC.
New WestminsterBC
SigridSingletonHonourable Min Aglukkaq

I am asking you to please 1) conduct an assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.


1.Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

2. I would ask for a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

3 I would ask the assessment to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

4. I would ask that the assessment consider:
a) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
b) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
c) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
d) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your time.

Sigrid Singleton
LangleyBC
ThomasRobsonMinister,

Please reject the province of BC's request to to substitute a provincial assessment of environmental impacts of LNG exports by WesPac Midstream on the Fraser River.

A thorough assessment, including transit of LNG, terminal facilities, location of facilities and associated risks need to be conducted by an unbiased panel.

I sincerely doubt a reliably quantitative review will be conducted if left to the current BC government.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter
VancouverBC
AndyKeirDear Ms. Aglukkaq, With regard to WesPac Midstream's plan to build a LNG export terminal in Dalta a thorough environmental assessment is required. Given the BC government's desperation to enter the LNG export market it is doubtful that an objective assessment can be conducted by this province's government and this assessment should, therefore, be conducted by the federal government.
A review panel should be established to assess the terminal and also the transit of tankers from the terminal to the open sea. The terminal should be evaluaated according to SIGTTO standards and a Waterway Suitability Assessment should be conducted. While LNG is a clean burning fuel its extraction, compression and transport certainly is not, and given concerns about climate change it'd be better left in the ground and our energy and creativeness directed to green sources of energy. If we are, in fact, to proceed with LNG exports, terminals should be located in areas as remote as possible, not in the heart of urban areas.
Thetis IslandBC
TorSvanoeDear Minister Aglukkaq,

As a long term resident of this area I am urging you conduct a full environmental
assessment of this project and reject the provincial assessment as it is obviously
not going to be anything other than a way to fast track this short sighted
and very risky proposal forward. That they would even consider allowing so many ships with enough blast power to level huge areas along the Fraser River is unbelievable. That these ships would pass below public bridges and adjacent to forested riverfront parks makes them all the more risky to all the people that live nearby. Do they plan to close all these public parks and riverfront areas for security concerns? Other than the risk of fire, gas clouds, explosions and fish kills, sunken ships, polluted irrigation water ways, dead marine life, birds, whales, plants, and wiping out riverside residential complexes, will everything else be ok?
This project MOST definitely requires not only a full all encompassing environmental review but also should be rejected as the risks are much too great!

Sincerely,

Tor Svanoe
DeltaBC
MazellKolvynPlease conduct an assessment of this project for LNG on the Fraser River and reject the British Columbia Government's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.SurreyBC
RichardFahlmanDear Minister,
I suggest that rubber stamping the approval of of an LNG terminal on the Fraser River prior to a comprehensive review would be criminally irresponsible.

There are many reasons why a careful and methodical study of the location, marine transport suitability, long term environmental effects, and risk to the densely populated area is crucial prior to allowing such a project to proceed.

Allowing BC's request for substitution would be absurd given that the current provincial administration has thrown its political fortunes on the gamble of a thriving LNG industry even at a time when the rest of the world is turning away from fossil fuels. BC cannot be neutral and objective when they are actively promoting such business.

Instead we must have a Federal Environmental Assessment by an arm's length review panel. Such a panel must take into consideration that the criteria of the American Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, which includes a 3.5km hazard zone on both sides of the proposed tanker route is simply not possible in the lower Fraser Valley with densely populated communities on both sides of the river.

I cannot imagine how you can face the voters of BC unless you can demonstrate that all appropriate studies and actions were taken prior to permitting such tanker traffic in the most heavily populated part of the province. Such LNG projects have had disastrous accidents in other places so the worry is not mere paranoia. A loaded LNG tanker has the explosive equivalent of a small thermo nuclear device. Hmmmm-worth a serious thought.
Gillies BayBC
CharlieRichmondThis underhanded and last minute application needs a full environmental review.VancouverBC
DavePalmerIt's only a small matter of time before we ruin our pristine beautiful backyard for someone else's greed.VancouverBC
LynnTaylorA Federal Environmental Assessment is essential for this project.
I strongly urge you to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
VictoriaBC
IngoDyrktonThe health of the marine life will be negatively affected. LNG Tankers and Barges will cause more noise pollution. This is one one of many Environmental risks we are All facing.
What are we living for,we are the environment.
Lasqueti islandBC
ArnoldLindstromSTOP THIS LNG PROJECT !!!VancouverBC
RobynJacobHello,

I am sending this letter to urge the government to do a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. BC is very supportive of LNG exports, and will most likely be unbiased in it's review.

An environmental assessment should include:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
BrianDanielWhy - are you bought and paid for by big corporationsParksvilleBC
TerryDayI expect our government to do the right thing and take care of our environment. I am appalled that this is being pushed through, seemingly in a sneaky, under the public's radar kind of way.DeltaBC
EileenKurtzmanAssessment needed for terminal and transit of LNG from terminal to Canada's Territorial sea limit. Reject BC's request for substitution. We need a federal assessment by review panel.Somes BarCalif
FabianGarcesLNG pipelines need careful and thorough environmental review assessments as they can, like any other pipelines, leak and spill. LNG has been deceitfully advertised and sold to the Canadian public as a clean fuel, when in fact LNG is in many ways a "dirtier" fuel than unconventional oil resources. While LNG production and exportation is not doing anything beneficial for the environment, and by extension, ourselves, the very least that can be done, should we continue to pursue this unsustainable path of economic growth, is an appropriate assessment of the environmental and health effects that a project like this will have in nearby communities.LangleyBC
CecilieDavidsonThis project requires a federal environment assessment by review panel.Qualicum BeachBC
SamiGhawiI am requesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.CoquitlamBC
RichardHooverI am greatly concerned about the construction of an LNG export terminal on the Fraser River in my community of Delta, and I am particularly concerned, at this point, about the proposed environmental review process - or, in my view, the lack of a credible environmental review process. It's not appropriate for BC to do its own environmental assessment of a project that it fully supports and is promoting. A review panel should be appointed by the federal government to do the assessment, and the assessment should review all aspects of the proposal including the terminal itself and the route the tankers will take from the ocean, along the river to the terminal, and back to the ocean. The review should take into consideration the design and location of the proposed terminal, and all of the associated with the construction and operation of the facility. Please ensure that a proper, independent review is undertaken for this proposed project.DeltaBC
SteveFaraher-AmidonDear Federal Minister of the Environment Aglukkaq:

As you are from a region of Canada in which the landscape needs protection, as it is the basis of your peoples livelihood and survival, I write with confidence that you know and you understand the importance of the Fraser River to the livelihood of the west coast and BC, especially with the protection of the salmon which form the most important habitat on the Fraser River.

It is from this perspective as well as concern for the whole region, that I write urging you to use your authority to call for a full Federal Environmental Review on the LNG plant proposal on the Fraser River at Tilbury in Delta, BC.

To begin with, it is important you reject the BC government attempt to claim they have the assessment process in place to do the job. Their ability to do the job on this proposal is hampered as the history of the BC government support for the LNG industry more than suggests they are not the appropriate body to do an assessment. In fact, it is in the public interest for your office, as the Federal project authority suggest, to do this assessment.

I am asking you do the right thing, including a federal review panel to do the environmental assessment.
As your experts know, the assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Finally, the assessment must meet SIGTTO recognized standards as much as possible, including the determination issues with respect to terminal location. As well, Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, must be done, otherwise the troubling questions re what could happen, in worst case scenario, will remain. You don't , none of us want, what happened in Quebec with the oil train explosion, to reoccur, with the concomitant impact on the authority and confidence blow to the Ministry of Transport and Minister Lisa Raitt. That explosion will always be associated with her watch, whether she herself is responsible or not. The point being, when it is on your watch, you have the responsibility, and the buck stops with the Minister...as you fully understand I am sure.

Thus due diligence and common sense would more than suggest your office needs to do the job and do it well.
Finally, climate change impacts must be included in any credible assessment. The Port of Vancouver failed to include this in its assessment for the FSD coal proposal, and that has blown back in its face, with ongoing litigation and public protest further hounding them. I know you have the where with all and experience in living in a fragile landscape to understand why a full and proper environmental assessment must be done, including regarding the extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing that you have decide to do the right thing and order a full and federally mandated Environmental Assessment, as you have the power and authority to do, and as you have wisely chosen to do on other important environmental proposals in our great nation.

While I fully understand you can't order an environmental review for each environmental impact proposal which comes along, some demand it. This is one.

Steven Faraher-Amidon
6348 190th. St.
Surrey, BC V3S 8G5
778-575-5507
SurreyBC
ChristopherParker-BinkleyThese natural resources are not the future, they are a dead end and seriously damaging the earth. Why not take the money from these projects and put it in to research for a clean renewable resource!VictoriaBC
ToryRussellI am from Yukon, not B.C., but I agree the Fraser River LNG project needs a federal environmental assessment by review panel. Infrastructure projects of this type and size affect more than B.C.
A review panel of a federal environmental assessment is better equipped to assess the waterway suitability. International standards should be applied to the location of the terminal, and to the safety and viability of the seaway.
Impacts of LNG on climate occur through the whole life cycle: extraction, compression and transport. The review of this project must find a way to measure, and mitigate, the greenhouse gas emissions related to both the infrastructure, use and the trade of LNG, given that even Canada is agreeing in principle to a carbon free future (latest G7 talks),
WhitehorseYukon
RuthCampbellRe: proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal in Delta, BC.

The government of British Columbia has requested that the federal Environmental Assessment office substitute a provincial assessment for its own concerning the WesPac proposal to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. As a resident of the province, I ask you to reject the request for the following reasons:
1. The provincial government has already given its full support for LNG exports, has a close and comfortable relationship with WesPac Midstream, and thus cannot make an unbiased assessment. Consequently, the result of an environmental assessment by the province is a foregone conclusion. The people of British Columbia need an assessment that genuinely considers the public interest.
2. The environmental assessment should be done by a federal review panel that will consider the impact of both the export terminal itself and the yearly traffic of 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges going back and forth from the terminal to the Canadian territorial sea limit.
3. The assessment should also evaluate the terminal location according to SIGTTO internationally recognized standards; assess waterway suitability, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the tanker route; assess the risks imposed by any acts of destruction or damage; and assess the project impacts on global warming, including those caused by the extraction, compression and transport of natural gas.
Many British Columbians are aware that none of these substantial points will be seriously addressed by a provincial government that is so clearly a captured regulator. Please act in the best interests of Canadians by refusing the request of the BC government.
VancouverBC
cecileheltenWe are against an LNG plan on the FRASER River which holds the distinction of the greatest salmon run i n the world.No matter how SAFE the plans are re pipelines and tankers HUMAN ERROR is always a concern. The combined plans for expansion of resource extraction in Canada are totally out of context with temperature rising and extreme weather events we are experiencing around the world. Canada should be a leader in finding solutions...Please say no to this proposal of more LNG plans in BC......Respectfully . Cecile Helten Vancouver.BCchVancouverBC
CherieDelaineyDear Minister,

My community is on the Fraser River. My extended families communities are also on the Fraser River.

This project should be subject to a full federal environmental assessment by a review panel! It should not be left to the province to decide! The assessment should also include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I ask this assessment cover a full evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards.

I ask you to conduct a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.

I ask that this assessment cover a risk assessment of intentional acts (IE:terrorism).

I ask also for an assessment of the impacts this project will have on the climate, including extraction, compression and transportation of the natural gas.

Respectfully,

Cherie Delainey
Maple RidgeBC
MaradelGaleA project of this scope, which has the potential to impact the entire Salish Sea in two countries, requires a complete environmental impact assessment by a federal agency, not a report that is done by a local, state or regional agency. The Fraser River is critically important to native salmon runs, which in turn greatly determine the future of our resident killer whale (orca) populations. The impact must be thoroughly and carefully assessed, and time taken to be sure this project does not cause further harm to these critical marine resources.Bainbridge IslandWashington
GrantRiceThe BC government can not be trusted to do a fair and impartial environmental assessment of this proposal. Premier Clark has staked her reputation on pushing through any LNG project with no regard to their environmental implications. This needs a full federal review.SurreyBC
CLBakerMinister: Reject this request for LNG tankers, enough transporting 'potential' dangerous cargo, with the 'earth' (Climate) changes, "Mother Earth" is getting tired of this abuse!
We need to save our Oceans, where we are continuing to polute and distroy!
We need to stop this transporting, as our sea(s) are dying.
Fish/mamals are getting sick!
Our Coast Guards are 'nothing' if anything were to happen with the 'bardges' of this Gas...we do not have the capability to 'respond' if anything in our oceans happen?
Fire, we had a fire in Squamish (Howe Sound), and it took three days plus to put the fire out!
Our Firefighters here do not have the training for such 'challenge', as Im sure that local firefighters along the river will not as well, so we had to rely on the Coastal Fire fighting people, which took quite some time to get to the 'dock fire'....YikeS!
Our beautiful Fraser River is slowly getting destroyed, please do not add 'more' tankers and whatever else is traveling our Rivers and Oceans...this has to stop!!!! I know that 'money' talks, we need to speak for our waters, rivers, oceans, as they cannot speak, BUT in their own way, are speaking, as we see them 'dying' as well...PLEASE SAVE OUR WILD SALMON!!!!! And all creatures in our waters!!! O'Siem...All my Relations
SquamishBC
DelenaAngrignonI am requesting a Federal EA for the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal and no allowance for substituting with a Provincial EA. I live in Squamish and have experienced first hand what happens when a Provincial EA substitutes for a Federal EA. The Provincial Liberal government wants the LNG industry in their province and at all costs. It has completely shattered the integrity of the EA process because they have all ready pre-approved it. We need to know that the Federal Government protects the rights of Canadians to have clean air, clean water and a safe environment. We ask that the EA includes all areas that will be effected by the project. In Squamish, we have 3 EA's (Eagle Mtn, WFLNG, and Hydro) that only exist because of the project but are considered separate. It taxes citizens and local government and allows for misinformation as we have experienced. For the Wespact Tilbury LNG terminal, the EA should include the terminal, the transit of LNG tankers from terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, an evaluation of site location per the SIGTTO siting standards or equivalent, a waterway suitability assessment equivalent to the US Department of Homeland Security, an assessment on the true effect this project will have on climate meaning including the extraction, compression, transport and re-gasification of the natural gas. Lastly, the EA must include the risks posed by international acts such as terrorism as required by the US. I ask that the Federal Government hires Sandia Laboratories to do a proper risk modeling specific to the area around the proposed site. The US has the highest standards for siting LNG terminals and the procedures to ensure safety. Canada needs to adopt same or higher.SquamishBC
EileenKeenanDear Minister Aglukkaq,
RE: WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal, Delta, BC
I would like to ask you to consider a federal environmental assessment of this project by review panel, and that you reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and I am not confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I would request that the assessment include:

the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thanks and Regards,

Eileen Keenan
VancouverBC
RobynMonkTo the federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq,
I am writing to you regarding the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.
I am very concerned about this project and would like to request that a) a federal environmental assessment is conducted, and b) that's BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead be rejected.
I regards to the first item (a), I would request that a proper federal environmental assessment be done by review panel and that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I would also ask that the assessment consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
As for the second item (b), I believe that BC's request for substitution of a provincial assessment instead of a federal one will not provide an adequate evaluation of this project. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I encourage you to reject BC's request for substitution and ensure that a full, thorough federal environmental assessment by review panel be done instead.
Thank you for your time,
Robyn Monk
Vancouver, BC
VancouverBC
Rae DeaneLeathamAny port of this size and magnitude needs a full environmental assessment at the federal level. I am aware of several projects in BC that I feel the provincial government has grossly underestimated the full environmental impact. This needs a broader revue.
It has a potential impact on all waters from terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. How will this impact commercial and recreational fisheries off the Frazier? ? How will this impact recreational boating along the full route?
It has a potential for a major impact on US waters in the event of a disaster at the terminal or during transport. The U.S. needs to be involved and make a assessment.
Please assess all levels of environmental impact from extraction, processing through transportation.
Port LudlowWA
RobRamageThe Fraser is sacred, all river are sacred!
....remember what happened in Halifax
LundBC
EileenSmokeNOOOOOO Frasier River salmon are a staple for the Southern Resident Orca...PLEASE reconsider...and do NOT continue with this project!!Mount VernonWA
MartineWakefieldI request a federal environmental assessment by review panel because there are too many risks such as security and environmental involved. Thank you.VancouverBC
VirginiaSmithMs. Aglukkaq,

Please reject BC's request for substitution. The BC government has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and cannot be trusted to evaluate project risks objectively.

A federal environmental assessment by a review is necessary. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
SummerlandBC
cmcmanusThe mouth of the Frazer river is no place for this kind of dangerous industrialization. This seems to me to be a hugely risky venture that must prove it will never harm the river, burns bog, or the citizens of the BC lower mainland.gibsonsBC
CarolLynkaI am writing because I am very concerned about the environmental impact of the proposed WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project near my home in Delta, BC.

There has been a lot in our local news about the need for an environmental assessment before this goes ahead. What is concerning is that the California company WesPac Midstream reportedly has no prior experience with LNG projects.

The provincial government has only given the public, including environmental experts and the Stolo First Nation Tribal Council, 3 weeks to weigh in on the impact of such a project on our ecosystem (fish) and other industries, not to mention the risk to the environment (Fraser River and Burns Bog in particular).

We need to slow down and move forward cautiously with such large-scale projects after all of those impacted and all experts have had a chance to voice concerns and make recommendations.

We must not allow our environment to be used for profit with no consideration for the greater good.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Carol Lynka
205-13900 Hyland Road
Surrey BC V3W 2C3
SurreyBC
GiliAvrahamiI am writing to request a federal environmental assessment (by review panel) of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, and that it will consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I am worried that the province's support of LNG exports will cloud their judgement when evaluating the risks in such project.

Regards,
Gili
VancouverBC
PeterCechMadame Minister,

I'm very concerned that allowing the Province of BC to assess the WesPac Midstream application for an LNG plant that will result in tankers containing fossil fuels on the Fraser River. This is one of the world's most important salmon-bearing rivers and no risk is acceptable to this vital provincial resource.

Putting BC in charge is like putting Enbridge or Kinder Morgan in charge of pipeline assessments - it's insane.

The federal government should be conducting a full and thorough assessment representing the interests of the 3 million people who live here, including the risk to us if there is an act of terrorism on such a tempting target. Checks and balances are in place for a reason, please do not let the Province of BC do an end-run on them to promote its foolhardy economic plan.

Missing from this discussion is further committing Canada to its dependance on fossil fuels when clearly we can observe the world's and our local climate changing right before our eyes. Our children's future is at stake which means Canada's future is at stake.
BurnabyBC
Dennis M.WILSONI have been here for 65 years plus , along this beautiful coastline of ours, and have depended year after year on salmon that we use and consume for our daily diet , I support others that have said NO, with this said I want the resources from the sea to be sustainable for users that soulfully depend on it, We dont not need big corporation like that destroying our environment and are abundance of the best resources we totally are dependant on..Not only myself depend on these resources, but many many others also depend on the resources, that use the Fraser River , to continue to spawn and make good come back for us to use. If you allow this to happen how are the user that do depend on these resource, and will become effected , be compensated year after year once there is no more?Bella BellaBC
VickyRadleyThere are already too many tankers coming through the Georgia and Juan de Fuca Straits.
When will governments realize that the jeopardy game they are playing - will have long lasting and long term effects on everyone?

The cuts to the coast guard and the fisheries ministries have already resulted in overfishing and not enough immediate responses to violations of any kind.

We need a proper independent assessment of risks and an alternate plan.
DuncanBC
PaulCraikDear Ms Aglukkaq,

With regards to the proposed WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal for Delta, B.C. I would like to request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

This assessment should include an evaluation of the terminal location and the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
An environmental assessment needs to consider the following:

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I am aware that the province of British Columbia has requested to substitute a provincial assessment for a federal one. I ask that you reject the province's request. The government of BC has already indicated that it whole heartedly supports LNG exports. I can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Craik

Vancouver, BC
V6E 1P3
VancouverBC
Mr. RafeSunshineThe BC Liberal government has hitched its hopes for remaining in office on the LNG issue, but their supposed GHG emission reduction statement is impossible to achieve if the LNG proposals put forward are to be implemented. There has been no funding allocation towards the so-called "world class cleanup" technologies on the West Coast. In fact there has been a combined reduction in the monitoring of petroleum-based fuels and their transportation in BC by land and by sea. This is an unacceptable situation for any government that professes to keep the public safe from fossil fuel spills.VictoriaBC
PeterWilliamsonDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment of this project. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I request that you institute a federal environmental assessment by review panel. Please include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit in the assessment and
* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and
* an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Many thanks,

Peter Williamson
Bowen islandBC
DAVID & ADELROUTLEDGE''STOP THIS>INSANITYCOURTENAYBC
PamelaEvansThis beautiful river doesn't have the room for these big tankers ! Come see for yourselves!AbbotsfordBC
GailStarnerWhen will enough be enough. We don't want this. We don't want our oceans rivers or streams to suffer the consequences of this. It needs to be stopped not just for our salmon but for all life forms. Please this has to stopLangleyBC
VicNacciWhat's it gonna take for these greedy, selfish, and ignorant bastards to realize that our coast is too valuable and fragile to allow for this kind of risk!!! Not to mention the damage and waste resulting from the fracking in the first place ! Federal and provincial governments need to get their heads out of their asses and return to policies that are good for the country not the corporate profits and their own bank accounts!! Think about our kids!Quathiaski CoveBC
DonnaJohnsonNO I am BC First Nations born and raised In the Lower Mainland and I disagree with this . This not what we want on our coast Pls sign and share this , GianakaciNanaimoBC
JeremySchollieTanker traffic is not good. Poses a potential hazard risk.AbbotsfordBC
constancekovalenkaEnvironment Min Aglukkaq:
1) conduct an assessment of this project and
2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
A federal environmental assessment by review panel is necessary.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you.
NanaimoBC
GordonWoodTime for change to low carbon energy options, and highly limited fossil fuel use, export, infrastructures!!!SeattleWA
JohnAdamsA project of this scale requires a proper environmental assessment and full input by the public. The underhanded manner in which this government is trying to force this project into existence with only days for public input is reprehensible. It has ramifications not just for the Fraser River area at which it's sited but also for all the current and potential sites where LNG is being sourced. Communities all along the coast will feel the effects of free lighting this project. With scales of this magnitude, this project absolutely requires a full and proper environmental assessment and public review. Do the right thing and put communities first, not corporations.North VancouverBC
VelAndersonMadam Minister,
As the provincial Government has aggressively promoted LNG projects, the electorate (that I have contact with), are very opposed to allowing only an environmental assessment by the Province on this controversial issue.
We feel it is in the best interest of all to have both the Federal and Provincial environmental assessment process proceed. The assessment to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
To also include an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The proposal is to export up to 400 million cubic feet of super-chilled gas a day over 25 years from Delta, B.C. just south of downtown Vancouver.

There is considerable safety concerns around this proposed project as
huge LNG tankers, and barges will be jockeying with all other marine traffic on the Fraser River. Many large units will be storing the LNG.
As we know there have been numerous pipeline explosions in Canada and other countries. This LNG can be a very volatile product and much too dangerous to be placed so close to a very large population.
GibsonsBC
EvelynHunterMinister Aglukkaq:
the Fraser River is very important river. Who do we think we are to recklesslsy endanger our environment again and again. Did the spill in English Bay mean nothing, the one Santa Barbara the Queen of the north is still causing problems for Hartley Bay. The whales have to shout because we have made it so noisy in THEIR oceans, we must give the earth and animals rights and respect.

Economic development will not collapse if we take care of our environment and give it priority.

The destruction It is not just happening in Canada this is going on around the world. For what an unsustainable energy source!!!!! We have alternative energy solutions and we have solutions now. Our governments seem blind to this fact, get behind these solutions and be heroes.

BC and Federal government has been irresponsible and hostile to its Canadian citizens. through its blatant destruction of our water and land.

The BC government is hell bent on LNG (FRACKING) and does not appear to have time to consider potential health effects of the development on local communities much less the global climate.

I'm requesting you hold a federal environmental assessment that considers the impact of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the use of the resource. Just because fracked methane can replace coal doesn't mean it is the fuel of the future. We need to get serious about our transition to renewable energy sources.

I agree with the following:

reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

.Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

the assessment should consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Sincerely
Evelyn Hunter
YoubouBC
NoahQuastelThis study needs to include a review of fugitive emissions from fracking. Of unburnable carbon. Of building new fossil infrastructure that will blow global carbon budgets. And of further industry on the world's most important salmon river--the Fraser.VancouverBC
TeresaPillottPlease ensure FEDERAL Assessment is done. Provincial Assessment would be insufficient and skewed in favour of LNG & the misguided politicians.Queen CharlotteBC
AngelaKochDear Min Aglukkaq
It has come to our attention that a federal environmental assessment for this LNG project may not even be happening, which seems unbelievable, shortsighted, unscientific, and just plain dumb. As you're the one who can change things this task is now upon you to order a proper assessment.
We all know the way things go when a project this large, with so many potential dangers can happen is that they eventually do....we want to prevent that right from the start...there are so many unanswered questions and we need to address them or we're/you're all negligent when foretold disaster strikes, and with LNG it won't be a small mishap, it will be HUGE!
I hope you do the right thing
Looking forward to your response
Angela Koch,
Quadra, BC
quathiaski coveBC
karenheapsreject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.VancouverBC
Evavan LoonThe proposed LNG project in BC involving building a gigantic LNG terminal in Delta and the movement of huge numbers of tankers and barges along the Fraser River and beyond seems so shortsighted and ill considered to many of us that it is crystal clear that the project needs an in-depth environmental assessment by a full federal review panel.

The BC Liberals have refused to listen to the people on so many issues that one would now be hard-pressed to find anyone who would believe that the province or any of its agencies could do a complete, let alone unbiased, job of environmental review. Don't accede to their transparent request to let them do the assessment themselves.

I realize that many decisions you have made in your position, while disappointing, may have been made under pressure. This choice of who does the LNG environmental assessment is, I trust, not one of them.

Please do the right thing and keep provincial paws off the assessment. It would be a great pleasure to hear that you have decided that the federal environmental assessment will include (1) an evaluation of the proposed terminal's location according to international siting standards, (2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment like those required by the US, (3) an assessment of risks posed by terrorists to the proposed project, and (4) an assessment of the effects of extracting, compressing and transporting LNG on climate.
Powell RiverBC
IngoOevermannDear Minister Aglukkaq:
The Fraser River is the longest free flowing and most productive
wild salmon river in B.C., and possibly the world. I encourage you
to consider the long term benefits of this significant resource to
First Nations and all residents of B.C. Please conduct a Federal
assessment of any application for an LNG plant on the Fraser,
and reject the B.C. government's request to substitute a provincial
assessment. The Fraser is much too valuable to take any chance
on any increased industrial degradation.
Sincerely, Ingo Oevermann, Smithers, B.C.
SmithersBC
ShawnJordanI am writing to request that you reject BC's request to substitute the LNG assessment with a provincial assessment.
I am very concerned about this project and I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as the tankers.

The assessor needs to consider an evaluation of terminal location, a hazard zone on both sides of the LNG tanker route, A Waterway Suitablilty Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Coast Guard, and an assessment of project impacts on the climate (excluding extraction, compression and transport of natural gas.
WinnipegMB
RobinLawsonTransparent and well reasoned environmental reviews are a responsible way for the governing to perpetuate the general public's interest, and not just that of big business. Fossil fuels are passé but governments are only slowly awakening to the increasing demand for action, now the horse is out of the barn. The horse, of course, is the burning of 100's of millions of years of geological accumulation of hydrocarbons within decades. The Romans in Valhalla and elsewhere will be laughing in their lead cups. Let's wake up and give our heads a shake - for the grandchildren, if we care even a smidgeon.

May reason be with you.
DuncanBC
Dr. WendyStephensonThe British Columbia premier has shown herself to be such a cheerleader of LNG projects that we can't expect her government to evaluate LNG project risks objectively. We request that instead a federal environmental assessment panel be created to evaluate the risks of locating a terminal in Delta as well as transporting this fuel on the Fraser River. The assessment should include the project's impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Assessing and Acknowledging the risks to public safety objectively should indicate that it is high time to time to come up with green energy sources rather than investing in these infrastructures that hopefully will be outdated within a few short years.
VancouverBC
ConcernedVoterI urge the federal government to do an environmental assessment by a federal review panel of the proposed LNG terminal in Delta, BC (including tanker and barge traffic in coastal waters).VictoriaBC
SheilaPrattIt is time that ALL environmental assessments in Canada include global considerations, and this is especially true of all fossil fuel extractions.
If an environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal is to be carried out, it must be done at the federal level. PLEASE reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead! BC has too much to lose (hoped-for wealth in the short run and environmental destruction in the long run!) to proceed with an objective evaluation; a provincial evaluation is NOT in the public interest.
An assessment, if valid, must include all aspects of the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. The terminal must be evaluated according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent. The assessment must include a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to what is required by the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route. There must be an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the US and a full assessment of the project impacts on the climate, INCLUDING extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Maple RidgeBC
BetteChadwickI am writing with regards to the recent NEB approval of WesPac Midstream's LNG export terminal in Delta. Because of the potential negative impacts on the environment and human populations living near the Fraser and the large number of tankers and barges to travel the Fraser yearly, AND the extremely short notice of advising local politicians and the public on this project, I am asking for a Federal Environmental Assessment by Review Panel of this project. As the province of British Columbia is giving full support to the development of LNG terminals in the province, I am requesting that you deny B.C.'s request to do a provincial assessment instead.
The terminal should be evaluated using the internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent and should consider the terminal itself and the transit of tankers from the Fraser to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should also specifically address risks posed by potential terrorist attacks as required in the U.S and impact of the project on the climate.
As time is of the essence I would ask that an environmental assessment be done by the federal government at your earliest convenience.
SecheltBC
lindsayhovdeThe Fraser is one of the worlds most important rivers for Salmon! This is a huge mistake!!!! What in the world is going on in BC???edmontonAB
MelissaWaddellDear Minister Aglukkaq, It seems clear that assessment of the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta should be reviewed at a federal level. The Provincial Gov't of BC is too invested in the growth of LNG projects to do little more than rubber stamp their approval. With a recent oil spill in English Bay, projects that will increase traffic in these waters and the terminals themselves need to be carefully reviewed.

The review process should include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your time,
Melissa Waddell
VancouverBC
LEPlease conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.Port CoquitlamBC
LESLIESLACKAs a resident of Delta I am extremely worried about the impacts this project will have on our community and the environment. This is an extremely serious matter that should not be taken lightly and therefore should be subject to an unbiased federal environmental assessment by review panel. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit and include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; as well as an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.DeltaBC
BrianKavanaghThere are too many reasons why this should not happen to even list.

I agree with BC Green MLA Andrew Weaver when he says says: €œBritish Columbians are fed up with being treated disrespectfully, things being ramrodded down their throats in terms of a top down push to governance.€

€œIs British Columbia open for business? Absolutely, but business done respectfully €“ not irresponsibly like we are seeing here, with little attempt to actually engage the public. I wonder how many people living along the Fraser River even know about this?€ said Weaver.

Quote Source: http://commonsensecanadian.ca/lng-tankers-fraser-river-brief-chance-comment-sneaky-project/
AbbotsfordBC
ElizabethMeriwetherPlease protect this river.VancouverBC
LeahPearcePlease conduct an assessment of this project and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment insteadNorth VancouverBC
HelenaPerry11New WestminsterBC
SarahBrownI am asking that a Federal environment assessment is completed and that the assessment consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Prince RupertBC
JudyOsburnI want a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WEsPac Tilbury LNG terminal.VancouverBC
AnnHoelzerI am asking you to reject BC's request to taking over the assessment process. I am asking you to establish and make use of a federal environmental assessment by review panel! It needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit!
I also ask that the assessment considers:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you,
Ann Hoelzer
Lake CowBC
Tim KTakaroDear Minister Aglukkaq:
AS a public health physician, I am very concerned about potential health impact of the proposed fracked methane export facility for the Fraser River delta. These impacts need careful consideration. I am very concerned that the Province of BC will not provide this since this government appears very committed to development of the resource and does not appear to have time to consider potential health effects of the development on local communities much less the global climate.

I'm requesting you hold a federal environmental assessment that considers the impact of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the use of the resource. Just because fracked methane can replace coal doesn't mean it is the fuel of the future. We need to get serious about our transition to renewable energy sources.

Sincerely yours,

Tim K. Takaro, MD, MPH, MS.
New WestminsterBC
KellyInsley1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.
I agree with the following key points:
Reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

Request that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Request that the assessment look at:
An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I am sick and tired of decisions being made in BC and Canada that are profit centred only and do not protect our environment now and for future generations. Enough is enough. Canadians will not take this recklessness and endangerment of our environment anymore. Environment first always. Economic development will not collapse if we take care of our environment and give it priority. We have a pristine country. BC and Federal government has been irresponsible and hostile to its Canadian citizens. through its blatant destruction of our water and land.
VancouverBC
JanetHicksI hereby urgently request a federal environmental assessment by review panel of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. Please reject the request by BC for substitution, as the provincial government cannot be trusted to conduct an unbiased assessment.NanaimoBC
DonaldGillmoreWith the need to get off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible being discussed between world leaders, building fossil fuel infrastructure is a risky proposition that warrants very careful consideration.Cobble HillBC
Jim (James)RonbackIn light of VAPOR (www.vaporbc,com) and Otto Langer initiating a judicial review against BC and its Environmental Assessment Office on the lack of adequate opportunity for pubic comment during the "harmonized" federal and provincial environmental review of the VAFFC (Vancouver Airport Fuel Facility Corporation) project for a jet fuel marine terminal and 80 million liter tank farm on the Fraser River plus a pipeline to YVR, it does not make sense that the provincial government alone be given the responsibility to review the proposed expanded LNG terminal on the Fraser River. The provincial government has no jurisdiction on reviewing the hazards of LNG tanker traffic combined with the potential increase of large Panamax supertankers carrying up to 80,000,000 liters of toxic and flammable jet fuel on the Fraser River .

The energy stored in the jet fuel tank farm and jet fuel tanker unloading at the terminal exceeds five (5) petajoules (PJ).

The Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT (0.063 PJ)

An LNG tanker with a capacity of 135,000 cubic meters would have stored energy of 2.5 PJ. If a LNG tanker were to collide with a jet fuel tanker and cause a fuel vapor/ air explosion the results would be catastrophic. The combined energy storage capacity of an LNG tanker loading up and the LNG storage tanks at the LNG terminal would also exceed 5 PJ.

These single engine supertankers are only one failure away from a catastrophic event. Loss of power would also mean loss of steering.

It must be mandatory that worst case hazard footprints be provided for public comment before this LNG project is approved. The high consequences of a potential catastrophic incident, although it may be rare, demands a federal review panel to look at all combined hazards and their risks on the river and land.

Yours safely,
Jim Ronback, System Safety Engineer (retired)
Delta BC
DeltaBC
LeahMurrayThis requires a full Federal environmental assessment. It's time to support green energy initiatives, NOW!!!RichmondBC
Dr SusanDiamondI oppose the recently disclosed WesPac proposal to ship LNG on the Fraser River without a thorough and transparent review process ( and possibly in any case, depending on the objectivity and the results).
I ask the Hon Federal Minister to examine the terminal and the transit of these goods, in context of climate change and the need to transition to sustainable energy systems.
The Federal Government should put robust assessment steps in place that are applicable to every Canadian jurisdiction. The public needs to have confidence in the government's ability to protect citizens and the future of humans on Earth.
Time frames for these evaluations, and for public comment should be fair and reasonable.
VancouverBC
David HaynesHaynesProper Environmental assessment not happened.
Disruption to shipping, ferries fishing Many speculative things without studies to support them. Obvious BC Govt bias without studies.
#rd world mentality -can we ship our raw resources and who cares about any thing else.
Nanoose BayBC
SabinaHillPlease reject BC's request for substitution. The Clark government fully supports LNG foreign exports, therefore a provincial assessment would be heavily biased in favour of this project.

We need a federal environmental assessment by review panel which includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's sea limits.

In addition, the assessment should include project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Port MoodyBC
SheaSinnottMinister Aglukkaq, I call on you to do a federal environmental assessment of this project and reject B.C.'s request to do a provincial assessment in lieu. The public needs to be part of the process; we have not been sufficiently involved.

I grew up near the banks of the Fraser River, and I'm worried about the expansion of LNG exports in a narrow, busy river near homes, parks, and people! Despite the government and industry's claims about safety, the results of an LNG tanker accident could be catastrophic.

At the very least, we need to comprehensive assessments of the location of the terminal, water sustainability, risks and safety, and an adequate assessment of the project's impacts on climate change.

Or really, we need to have a conversation (where the public is meaningfully involved) about what this means for our community.
VancouverBC
FrancesRamsayPlease reject the BC provincial governments request for substitution. The Provincial government is in full support behind LNG exports, so I do not believe that the BC provincial government would conduct a full assessment of the project risks. I request a federal environmental assessment by a review panel for the LNG export terminal in Delta. I also request that the assessment include the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please consider the following in your assessment:
1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
SSerebrinA full federal environmental assessment by review panel is essential before sod is turned to build any LNG project in BC. Scientific evidence is necessary for our democracy to exist!NanaimoBC
DorothyYadaPlease conduct a full federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG Terminal on the Fraser River.VancouverBC
ItaliaCameronStay away from our Fraser Rivernew westminsterBC
EricMarshallFederal Environmental assessment Panel is the answer to cover all aslpects of this enterprise - not the BC government which appears to be strongly in favour and therfore cannot provide and unbiased study.Cowichan BayBC
isabelwoodhouseto Minister Aglukkaq
re WesPac Midstream application to build LNG export terminal in Delta:

This application merits a full environmental assessment by a review panel, the review to include but not be restricted to consideration of the actual terminal facility, the LNG tanker traffic from the terminal on the Fraser River to the territorial sea limit, project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas,
The panel should also consider the potential for terrorism at the terminal site and along the transport corridor.

The Provincial government of British Columbia should not conduct this assessment. Their enthusiasm for LNG industry development and their policy decisions to date regarding LNG export would put them in a conflict of interest .

respectfully

I D Woodhouse
LadysmithBC
ScottDrakeIt is my understanding that the BC government is asking the Federal Environmental Assessment to be turned over the the provincial government to conduct their own assessment. Given the fact that the BC government has very publicly stated the importance of the LNG industry for their economic plans, I don't feel confident in allowing them the sole responsibility in determining the environmental impacts of this project. I urge the federal Environmental Minister to not substitute a provincial a assessment for a federal one.

Further, I would ask that the Federal Environmental assessment include the LNG terminal as well as the tanker transportation between the terminal and the Canada's territorial sea limit.
DeltaBC
LyndellLevittAny thought of bringing large tankers down the Fraser River must undergo a thorough environmental assessment before approval !! The Fraser River remains one of the most important rivers in our province for salmon migration and the Potential impact of these vessels on their habitat must be rigorously considered !! In addition, public consult is crucial if there is to be an open government review process - ramming these projects through without a full environmental impact study or public consult is totally unacceptable.

sadly, we can no longer trust the BC government to do these assessments honorably, as they are too invested in promoting LNG projects are biased towards the LNG companies. Thus, I am adding my voice to the citizens of BC asking the federal Environmental Minister Aglukkaq to do her appointed job honorably and reject my province's request to substitute a provincial assessment and conduct a full federal environmental assessment Instead. A thorough assessment should include the terminal on the Fraser River, as well as the transit route of these LNG tankers to and from the terminal through Canada's territorial waters.
CloverdaleBC
SandraHetheringtonI believe MUCH more research needs to be done before this passes. Look at the condition of our planet! We're headed in a direction that will leave a garbage dump for our grandchildren. The oceans are becoming more acidic and polluted. There are now so many other option for power that don't pollute..please reconsider.SlocanBC
WendyCrawfordPlease consider doing a very real and proper environmental assessment of the proposed LNG project on the Fraser. Try and save Christie Clark from herself, as there isn't going to be the demand she thinks.ErringtonBC
JuneRossDear Minster,

As a start this letter, I must say, as a senior I am getting so sick and tired of having to fight so hard to save our environment! Why should we be having to do this when we have elected people who are "supposed" to respond to those who elected them?? Are you all being paid off by the oil and gas industry? When do you start to put the money into sustainable green projects...like; wind, geo- thermal, solar, tidal! Leave our resources in the ground please!

Onto this latest review on the Fraser River LNG Plant; I am requesting that;

1. You reject BC's request for substitution. This request is neither appropriate or in the public interest.
2. a Federal environmental assessment by a review panel be conducted;
3. the assessment include the terminal as as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. The waters that the tankers would travel through is highly sensitive and surrounded with population that could not withstand any kind of catastrophic event.
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

There are other issues you also need to cover..but in terms of expediency, I have covered those issues that in my view are extremely important for you to consider.
I will say again to you and to other elected officials who claim economy trumps environment. UNTRUE and unacceptable! Without our environment being held in check, there will be no economy and no jobs.......in addition......there will also be no life left on this planet!

Sincerely,
June Ross
Nanaimo, BC
V9T 6E4
NanaimoBC
neilBROWNWe know Mr. Harper is fixated on protecting Canadians from acts of terror, and that he also is beholden to the oil and gas industry, so why won't his government require an explicit evaluation of the risk of a terrorist attack on one of these LNG tankers. Especially when the route they take doesn't appear to conform to accepted hazard zone requirements.
I'm also curious as to how additional extraction of natural gas by fracking fits in to the governments recent statements claiming they will drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
whistlerBC
HeatherLynnDear Minister,

The health of the Fraser River is critical for our most populous communities to thrive. Please take a cautious approach to any development here, particularly in and near the river.

The addition of tanker traffic is a significant change to the function in the community and foundational ecosystems. Any related decision made requires due consideration, if your government cares to uphold the principle of accountability. A fullsome environmental assessment is expected by the public.

Additionally, the public now expects due consideration for the fact the any encouragement of fossil fuel industry is reckless. Your government must be prepared to require any carbon emissions contributed to our over saturated atmosphere be accounted for, and removed. So perhaps a cost assessment of this project for carbon remediation is also appropriate.

Good luck with this difficult choice. I know you have pressure on all sides to "do the right thing." Please heed the guiding wisdom that is emerging from our ailing society: we can no longer afford to be reckless with and purely consumptive of our natural environment. We must seek balance.

Sincerely,

Heather Lynn
VictoriaBC
PeterLordWhatever is happening to Governments' pre-election promises of transparency in such matters as this insanely environmentally unfriendly scheme.? Unless the powers that be dramatically change their present policies of restricting public input in such decisions, they will suffer the consequences at future elections. They need to be reminded that they govern for all their electorate not just the lobby of dirty, potentially destructive outdated Non-renewable Energy development.DuncanBC
NilsThaysenLNG on the fraser sounds risky when you first hear of it. And then when you learn that the U.S. Requires a 3.5 mm water way buffer on each side of the route... Risk of terrorism in fraser river neighbourhoods, plus and most importantly taki g seriously the role an lng terminal plays in facilitating the extraction of more fossil fuels than our biosphere can handle. Please take a close hard look at this project and make it subject to a full federal assessment. Thanks.Mansions landingBC
AMearsThis is the opposite direction we need to be going. The Fraser is important to salmon, so we need to do more to preserve it.New WestBC
PamelaCarlsonI am speechless. Is there ANYone in positions of power on these issues who gives a rats ass about the environment over the economy?? Watch the movie: Gasland and then re-think this whole endeavour.KelownaBC
donnapatrickI am not in favor of any gas tankers on the Fraser river. this is BC,s best salmon river. there is a moratorium for tankers on the bc,s inside coast. we need protection from big energy??? Find another way, having GAS on this coast with such a high chance of a huge 9 earthquake is so STUPID. Wake up Christy Clarke, Protect our Coastline. Stop promoting selling off our resources to other countries. STOP FRACKING and using our Drinking water for this fossil fuel.. KEEP IT IN THE GROUNDnorth vancouverBC
ElizaOlsonThis issue needs a thorough environmental assessment before it is allowed to go ahead. Several years ago, a disaster was narrowly averted when the pipeline going through Burns Bog shifted several feet. It was caused by illegal land filling. If something this simple could place the people of Delta at risk, then the movement of LNG up and down the Fraser River places the people of Delta at even greater risk.DeltaBC
MKaterbergPlease protect the Fraser River.

A comprehensive federal environmental assessment of the WesPac LNG terminal proposal and all its potential impacts is important and necessary, and a firm committment to this process from Minister Aglukkaq is urgently needed.
West VancouverBC
RosemaryCornellI am writing to ask you to hold a federal economic and environmental assessment of operating an LNG port on the Fraser River, Delta B.C.
This plan has been poorly communicated to the communities who live and work near or on the river.
This is major infrastructure with major impact on river traffic. I am asking that the federal government retain its control over the assessment and not transfer the authority to the province of BC.
In addition it will be important to consider the following:
1. The impacts of this project on Climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas
2. Terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
3. Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
4. The will of the surrounding communities.
VancouverBC
johnsainasWe need clean energ. Not another giant Methane leak.north vancouverBC
MelanieBilodeauIt is essential that the LNG Delta terminal proposal in the Fraser River be reviewed by the Federal Government for a full environmental impact assessment. Absolutely. This should not even need a petition- aren't our provincial governing bodies supposed to be looking out for the best interests and the longevity of our province? I am in total disbelief that this proposal is even being considered, are we so ignorant in the face of disastrous environmental pollutants in our waterways, that we believe it is even an option to be pursuing this type ofenvironmental risk? At a certain point we have to TRULY get off the oil slick and change our energy consumption or there will be nothing left for future generations.Prince GeorgeBC
ShawnFlynnan environmental assessment is a necessity in all LNG site placements. How could you think otherwise. Please start thinking of the social and political ramifications of sneaking around this issue.VancouverBC
CynthiaPrestonThe environment must always take precedence over human greed.KelownaBC
RitaWongI write to affirm the necessity of a federal environmental assessment review panel of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. It is not acceptable to substitute a provincial assessment for federal matters that include the following: (1) how to evaluate a terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; (2) what is a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; (3) assessing the risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and (4) assessing project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I hope you will uphold the public trust and do your due diligence to steward the lands and waters that current and future generations need in order to survive and thrive.
VancouverBC
LaurenceGoughWhy is our elected government trying to slip this enormous project past the taxpayer? What the hell is wrong with the NEB?VancouverBC
patrickkeoughanThis governments environmental assessments are a complete sham, just look at Mount Polly. This destruction of Northern B.C. by the FRACKING method of extracting this gas brings nothing to the people of B.C. who own this resource. This has to be assessed by a reliable panel.madeira parkBC
KatherineDunsterWe do not need an LNG export terminal on the Fraser River. The Fraser River is the most important salmon river in BC. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of such as project must be measured in an independent project environmental assessment of the proposal by WesPac Midstream. By independent I mean that the BC government request to substitute a provincial assessment instead of a federal EA MUST be rejected due to the declared conflict of interest of the BC government who have indicated BC is open for LNG regardless. Further there has been no meaningful consultation with any of the directly affected First Nations.VancouverBC
JoannaBifolchiYou need to :

-Reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

-Have a federal environmental assessment by review panel including the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit
CoquitlamBC
LauraHuhnI request a federal environmental assessment by review panel and for that assessment to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial seal limit.SurreyBC
PatrickBrownIt appears that the response dates for support (or opposition) to public hearings on this LNG proposal have been deliberately set to minimize public input. This is at least irresponsible and mischievous, and would not pass constitutional review. It is remarkable that anyone would even propose such a terminal in the middle of a heavily populated area. If it is to receive environmental review, it should be federal rather than provincial.
The NEB says that they will review each proposal on its own merits. This proposal has more danger than merit.
Pender IslandBC
LindaSaffordI request that you conduct a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.

Transportation of LNG through west coast waters is too dangerous for coastal communities.
CumberlandBC
LynnMaxtedA full Federal Environmental Assessment and Provincial Environmental Assessment needs to be required for all fossil fuel extractions everywhere in Canada. These assessments must address the impact on our whole planet. Climate change will affect all Canadians!

Specifically the LNG export terminal in Delta has these key concerns:


Ask her to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Comox ValleyBC
KimHancockI am requesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.CoombsBC
ChristopherO'BrienI am requesting that Minister Aglukkaq authorize a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. I ask the Minister to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and I can't be confident that a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I request that a federal environmental assessment been undertaken by a review panel, and that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I request that the review consider the following:

1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Sincerely,
Christopher O'Brien
TorontoBC
LenoreMorreyI request that federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq:
1. conduct a federal environmental assessment of the proposed LGN terminal on the Fraser River in Delta British Columbia
2. deny the request by the British Columbia government to substitute their provincial assessment for the federal review.
I do not believe the provincial government can be objective due to the complete support they have publicly demonstrated for LGN exports. Please be certain that the federal environmental assessment is done by a review panel. The assessment must be comprehensive and include: evaluation of terminal location according to SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent, the terminal as well as the transit of LGN tankers in Canadian waters, a waterway suitability assessment, a 3.5 hazard zone on both sides of the entire LGN tanker route, an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (e.g. terrorism) and an assessment of the impact of extraction, compression and transport of natural gas on the climate.
VictoriaBC
SusanSullivanPoliticians you have to have your head up you a_ _ to not be aware of how the citizens of B.C. don't want your damn pipelines, export facilities, boats with any kind of oil on our waters!! Period. Not now! Not ever!!North vancouverBC
TOMKELLOUGHstop!
think!
Who voted you into your seat and would they not expect you to act responsibly?
INSIST ON A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT!
GibsonsBC
KathyVan BeestA project of this capacity, without a doubt, must have a complete assessment of every aspect, from roads to water and everything in between. Handing the assessment to the provincial government makes absolutely no sense as they are doing everything in there power to turn BC into an LNG hub. The assessment would be full of half truths and far from thorough. The citizens of this province deserve to have complete transparency into the risks to people and planet as well as any benefits there might be. I beseech you to have a federal environmental assessment done by a review panel and that it include the terminal and the transit of the tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. Also with considerations to an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
SurreyBC
terrymadsenLAW: do not cause to do intentional harm to any body of soul.
RULES: clarify LAW.
DUTY: uphold LAW above RULE.
OBVIOUS: RULE to circumvent LAW is a violation of LAW. A body of water contains many body's of soul. Corporations are not life forms / person's / beast's / soul's. The reward for offending universe is the exact equal opposite as the reward for worshipping life.
New WestminsterBC
roymabbettThe rush to put LNG terminals in populated areas including Delta ,which have congested waterways is very ill conceived.courtenayBC
HarryVan BeestA federal assessment of this project should be automatic, as long as it was after the upcoming federal election. Or how about the simple fact that one does not need a 130 IQ to see that this proposal is a non starter. (Insert lengthy comments regarding investing in solar & wind energy).
With respect to the BC Gov't request to allow themselves to make honest decisions, their track record to date does not indicate in any way that they have the competence to make decisions of this magnitude. Admittedly, the Christy Clark Gov't seems to be fairly good at deleting emails, dishonesty with the craft beer industry, running red lights with children in the car, just to name a few reasons why I question their level of competency.
The location of the proposed terminal along with the transport of LNG thru pristine areas will impact this great Province and need to be included in an assessment. WesPac is claiming that they hold no responsibility for the tanker traffic along the Fraser river.
Solar and wind MInister, Solar & Wind.
Be a leader...
SurreyBC
RobertaFrampton BenefielA tanker accident WILL happen, of that you can be sure. Thus, the question is, how much damage will an accident do to the salmon and salmon habitat on the Fraser?

Building a terminal ensures exporting... it stands to reason that tankers WILL travel the Fraser.

A full and complete environmental assessment of the most rigorous kind MUST be done to highlight what the costs in social, cultural, environmental and economics will be and determine whether LNG tankers are in the best interest of Canadians in general and The Federal Government Environment Department must be tasked with doing a full joint review panel assessment, not the B.C. government. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. As well, the assessment must include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider the following:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The Fraser river is too important a river to allow a project of this magnitude proceed without every possible consideration of effects.
Happy Valley-Goose BayNewfoundland and Labrador
CareyMcPhersonI am requesting a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.UclueletBC
CarrieSaxifrageDear Honorable Aglukkaq,

Please conduct a federal assessment of the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta. The province of BC has made LNG into a key piece of its political agenda without fully considering evidence that this is not in the best interest of its citizens and may even impact the world (by displacing renewable energy build out and, by way of fugitive emissions, further decreasing our chance at climate stability. A federal assessment by a review panel will be free of this history and thus has a better chance of addressing key negative impacts. Any project assessment must include the LNG terminal itself and the tankers that will ship LNG through Canadian waters. These activities are essential to the project and will have separate impacts that should be considered in the decision making.

In addition, the assessment should include:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to SIGTTO siting standards;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment such as that required by the US, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the LNG tanker route'
-an assessment of risks posed by intentional acts, as required by the US;
-an assessment of the project on the climate including the production emissions, compression and transport of natural gas.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these points. We stand at a cross roads with respect to the climate and I hope we will choose a direction that looks to the long term stability and well-being of our beautiful province. I expect that, based on the scientific evidence at hand, that direction is in the opposite direction of additional fossil fuel infrastructure.

Respectfully,

Carrie Saxifrage
Mansons LandingBC
JudithRees-ThomasRe the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.:

Ms. Aglukkaq, please conduct a Federal environmental assessment of this project by qualified review panel. There is no reason to believe a provincial assessment can be objective when the government of BC has declared its full support of LNG exports. Substituting a provincial for a federal assessment is not appropriate in this case.

I am concerned about both the situation of the terminal and the effect of LNG tankers in our waters. The assessment should take into account the standards set by other countries such as the IGTTO siting standards, the Waterway Suitability Assessment of the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, nd should consider risks by acts such as terrorism.
SaturnaBC
ColinCampbellAll LNG terminals require the highest level of scrutiny, no rushed jobs. Please allow for adequate public reviewVictoriaBC
DruHardingIs there anyone out there who cares about the Fraser River . The following is my request:

1.Ask her to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

2.Request a federal environmental assessment by review panel.

3.Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

4.Ask that the assessment consider:

-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for taking these important issues under consideration
DeltaBC
RyanProvonshaWe have got ourselves into trouble time and time again by ramming through development without proper impact studies or proper oversight. We have oil trains toppling off the tracks everywhere you look, pipelines bursting at sea, and ships leaking fuel in the middle of population centers and sensitive wildlife areas. Stop the madness.LynnwoodWA
susanallenno more risks to our rivernew westminsterBC
MikeRensmaag66VancouverBC
UrsulaEasterbrookIt isn't so much the actual LNG that I object to, it is the incredible increase in tanker traffic up the Fraser - putting not only the Salmon runs at risk, but also the Orca whales who need quiet waters to be able to survive.DeltaBC
PaulBiedermannA project of this magnitude should not be rushed. Please consider a full Federal environmental assessment including an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas, among other things.
DeltaBC
chrisdahlXVancouverBC
JordanArsenaultWhy should we keep investing in fossil fuels when it's clear that green energy is becoming more and more available. Sticking to fossil fuels is like holding on to a blankie because it's what we're use to. It's time we realize that we're growing up and need to make some changes, for the better!!Maple RidgeBC
LindsayMcLeanPlease reject this request until a FULL environmental assessment of all potential damages has been done. This is the Fraser River. Do you know how important this river is to our province?VictoriaBC
TaraStoutI'm a voter. I do not want this.surreyBC
LawrenceTaylorDear Minister Aglukkaq ,

Please ensure the Federal government carries out its responsibility to all Canadians by having this project fully, objectively, and transparently reviewed by an environmental review panel. The BC government has an enormous conflict of interest here, and cannot appropriately conduct the sole assessment.

The siting poses a significant safety hazard, and risks an environmental catastrophe in the Fraser River estuary that would have a far-reaching impact. A healthy Fraser river is vital to all of BC- just ask the Stó:lō , Lil'wat, or Xeni Gwet'in First Nations.

Canada need to be seen as 1st world when it comes to safety, environmental and climate change standards, not 3rd world laggards, if it want to do business with the rest of the world.
VancouverBC
AJKleinAbsolutely not!!VancouverBC
DanaMillerDear federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq,
I respectfully request that you reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment for a federal one. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I also request a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Further, I ask that the assessment consider:
-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; and
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
AbbotsfordBC
RohannaRoddickAs a BC resident I'm greatly concerned about the proposed WesPac LNG Tilbury Terminal and the transit of LNG tankers up the Fraser River.
Regarding the sensitive ecological areas and local communities at risk, it is a careless and irresponsible act to pass this through a Provincial level Assessment that will not objectively evaluate project risks.
As a concerned citizen I'm requesting that the proposed project have a full Federal Environment Assessment through Revue Panel before proceeding.
VancouverBC
GordonHartmanShould have an environmental assessment by a Federal Review Panel, with a full capacity for public input (in) and information (out).
As a general matter of curiosity is there any such thing a 'limits to development', or do we simply go on 'developing' and growing? Is BC, lower mainland to become another Ruhr Valley? I have see the latter, and I don't wish it onto future generations.
NanaimoBC
AlexandreVigneaultThis is a serious project with important environmental impact. Please start a federal environmental assessment by a review panel:

The assessment should include:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you,
VancouverBC
DouglasOakTwo million people live near the Fraser river. You can ship this toxic sludge through their backyards!

Put this to a referendum and the people of the lower mainland with give it a resounding no.

This project cannot be allowed to go ahead.
CoquitlamBC
JudithMacDermotMinister,
I am very concerned that you will allow an environmental assessment to be done by B.C. Premier Clark, is totally pushing for all LNG expansion and I worry, that she would engage assessors who will push the project through.
As a resident of the Lower Mainland, i am very aware of the Fraser River's role in the salmon run. What a LNG facility entails, would be harmful to salmon.
To date, there have not been enough environmental assessments done on LNG facilities . Therefore, there exist many unknown risks , environmental and otherwise.
Please really consider and listen to the people of B.C., as we give you are heartfelt opinions about Premier Clarks latest push for an LNG port.
At this time, I want to note that a LNG facility, is also being pushed by the premier, for Squamish, B.C. The location is at the head of an inlet that is currently used for tourism activities. She is wanting an environmental assessment done provincially here as well. Please consider her requests as not environmentally sound. Thank you.
VancouverBC
JosephFallMinister Aglukkaq,
I am calling on you, as a citizen of the Salish Sea in British Columbia to request that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency perform an complete assessment of the proposed WesPac LNG export terminal in Delta, BC.

It is not sufficient for the BC government to conduct the EA, and they have clearly set themselves as proponents of LNG development and have a vested interest in the EA outcome - they cannot conduct an impartial EA.

Please reject BC's request for substitution and peform a federal EA that includes both the terminal facility AND the transit of LNG tankers through the Salish Sea.

In addition to the normal processes, the EA must consider:

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Lasqueti IslandBC
VirginiaThompsonA full federal environmental assessment needs to be done on this surprise LNG project.
British Columbians do not want tankers carrying LNG bitumen or any other fossil fuel on their coast.

This ill conceived project has been rushed through without proper consultation.

Finally, in my view, LNG is a high carbon emission product and BC and Canada are going in the wrong direction by developing it. Subsidies from the oil and gas industry should be redirected to alternate energy sources: wind, solar tidal and biomass for research and development and subsidy. There are multiples of the jobs, and longer term jobs in this green energy sector than will ever be created in the fossil fuel sector. Leave LNG in the ground - it is dirty and emits large amounts of methane, and endangers aquifers.
RevelstokeBC
LouisePrevostCan we start to go the other way (solar/wind, etc.) and slow down on the fossil fuel. I know we cant eliminate it completely, BUT we could at least cut our usage by half one day. We need to go the other direction so our children and grandchildren have a chance of CLEAN WATER and AIR.. PLEASE!!!!!BrackendaleBC
AmyLubikMinister Aglukkaq,

I urge you to do a full federal environmental assessment of the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta, BC.
LNG is a terrible idea for BC. From a health point of view, the environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals released into air-sheds as well as water-sheds and ground water are too much of a risk for BC communities - there is a reason why many countries have put a moratorium on it. From a climate perspective, methane is a much worse green house gas than carbon dioxide and scientists are undecided if, in a "well to wheel" scenario, LNG is really any cleaner. We also live in an earth quake zone and the research is mounting linking fracking to seismic activity.

This particular project is extremely troubling, as tanker traffic will effect sensitive ecosystems along the busy Fraser river, one of the greatest salmon rivers. This proposal should be reviewed by an impartial body, as the BC government has already decided they want to export LNG, and the environmental review should include both the terminal and the transit of tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I would urge the Minister of Environment to 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

I ask that you please be vigilant in this review.
Dr. Amy Lubik, Port Moody
Port MoodyBC
ShaylaWalkerDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I hope this finds you well. i am writing today to request that you please allow a third party to conduct an assessment of the LNG export terminal in Delta proposed by WesPac.

I am further requesting that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit and that it considers the following:

an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Respectfully yours,
Shayla
VancouverBC
Mary JeanBuchananThe extensive scope of the WesPac Tilbury LNG Terminal project and its impact on the Fraser River requires due diligence on the part of both federal and provincial environment ministries. A thorough evaluation of all project risks is imperative, including risks of 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges travelling the narrow, busy Fraser River and beyond to Canada's territorial sea limit. Given that a growing number of BC residents are objecting to and protesting the proliferation of such unnecessary projects without long-term considerations of their impacts on climate and the environment, it is incumbent on the federal Environment ministry to conduct an assessment of this project and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.ChilliwackBC
RubyAttfieldNo barges or tankers on the Fraser River. It is a disaster just waiting to happen!!Campbell RiverBC
DonPaulsenLike any project involving the processing, handling and transportation of harardious materials, this project proposal must go through a full federal and provincial environmental review. As we all know the BC Ministry of Environment under the direction of Mary Pollak, is now a " FREE PASS " for LNG develoment. This situation is not in the public interest as British Columbians have little or no faith in our provincial regulators. It is up to The Canadain Environmental Review Agency to represent the interersts of trhe citizens of British Columbia, Canada.

We are talking about nassive amounts of explosive material that must be processed and handled up to " world class " standards. There are no shortcuts as some of us have seen the film footage of Halifax harbour after an munitions cargo ship exploded and levelled the harbour, a few decades ago ! This LNG proposal poses an even bigger threat to live on the Fraser River and surrounding area.

The last time I checked, Canada was not a third wold country so why do our elected representatives think they can fast track the environmental protocol on projects that could have a negetive impact on our environment and public safety ?

Don Paulsen - Delta, BC
DeltaBC
BrentBoatesPlease reject BCs request for substitution. The federal assessment must include the location of this terminal as well as the proposed transit of LNG tankers through the Gulf Islands and the impacts on our climate by the extraction, compression and transit of this LNG.VancouverBC
JolanBaileyIt's come to my attention that BC has requested the federal Environmental Assessment office turn over assessing the proposed WesPac LNG terminal in Delta over to the province. It's critical that we have a full federal environmental assessment of any LNG proposals under consideration for BC's Coast.

The BC government has pinned their entire brand on developing an LNG industry, and thus we can't be condident that the provincial assessment will be unbiased or free from bias.

I join hundreds of others in demanding a full federal panel review of this controversial project, that allows for local residents voices to be heard. Anything else would be an affront to democracy.

Sincerely
Jolan Bailey - V5T 2L4
VancouverBC
JensWietingDear Minister Aglukkaq,
Please reject BC's request for substitution in the context of the WesPac Midstream LNG export terminal in Delta. The BC government has thrown its full political support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
A federal environmental assessment by review panel will be paramount.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Sincerely
Jens Wieting
VancouverBC
HeatherDohertyStop LNG tanker trafficBowen IslandBC
KarenSteinI am horrified to learn that plans have been made to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly. WesPac has NEB approval and now seeks environmental assessment. I DEMAND THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BE DONE AND FEEL SECURE THAT THIS LNG EXPORT TERMINAL CANNOT BE BUILT WITHOUT IRREPAIRABLE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT ANYWHERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GibsonsBC
DianeCorbettEnvironment Minister Aglukkaq,

This is a request that the Minister reject BC's request for substitution in regard to the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal in Delta, BC. The BC government has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and cannot be relied upon to conduct an unbiased review. Citizens cannot be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks and impacts. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Thus, I request a federal environmental assessment by review panel, and that the assessment includes the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. The assessment should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The proposed siting of this operation and associated LNG tankers in the midst of a busy marine corridor within a densely populated region raises strong concerns for public safety.

The lack of public consultation on this proposal and the brief timeline provided for comment are also of significant concern.

Thank you for your consideration.
GibsonsBC
EstellaWooA thorough unbiased environmental assessment seems like a first step
to any project with such potential environmental consequences, no?
VancouverBC
KjellLiemEnvironmental assessments are critical to the wellbeing of civil society. Pollution, water shortages, global warming, these issues all have economic impacts as well as human health and social justice consequences.

The single mindedness, and repeated statement of fact and belief without evidence that characterizes the BC government on the LNG file leads me to see that the provincial government is not in a position to assess without bias. A federal assessment by review panel is necessary.

The assessment should consider the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

It should also consider:

*an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
*a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
*an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
*an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment:

Kjell Liem
Salt Spring IslandBC
AngelaMellorWith the BC governments blinkered view about LNG being some kind of economic holy grail and all the changes they have made to accommodate the industry for instance to education and taxation - how can the make a impartial decision - we need long term thinking..... is this really the best use of BC for all BC residents ? - what about those who value the clean water we vitally depend upon and the fish as a renewable clean healthy food source ? This is too narrow a channel for these huge dangerous ships - the implications for generations to come must be considered - this project is All risk and no reward for most of BCWhistlerBC
CherylMcLeanAn environmental assessment is the responsible thing to do. What are you hiding?Mayne IslandBC
RickO'NeillIt is time to put the long term well being of citizens ahead of the short term profits to a select few.Roberts CreekBC
PeterDuffeyPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Decide to hold a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should include:

Evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

Evaluate Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

Completen an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

Complete an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
DeltaBC
NadjaHockingmy key concerns are no responsibility is taken for the safety of our community and the hazards of LNGs and their tankers in our coastal waters. Plus it sets a terrible and dangerous precedent for LNG projects in BC.Powell RiverBC
LouiseTaylorTo the Honorable Ms. Aglukkaq, Minister of Environment,

I am writing to urge to please ensure that a federal environmental assessment by review panel is conducted into Westpac's proposed LNG terminal in Delta. This assessment should include the impacts of the proposed terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I respectfully also urge you to reject BC's request to conduct the environmental assessment. I am not at all confident that the provincial assessment will objectively evaluate the potential impacts of this project. Substitution is therefore inappropriate and not in the public interest.

Lastly, I would like to remind you that fossil fuels should remain in the ground given the reality of climate change. Please be accountable to current and future generations of Canadians.

Thank you in advance. Best regards,


Louise Taylor
KasloBC
PeterCummingsDear Sir and/or Madam -

The Fraser River is one of Canada's most important salmon rivers and its delta is Canada's Most Important Bird Area. The Fraser River Delta provides critical habitat to many unique species of animal - and is an important stopover for birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway.

I am concerned that our current Provincial government is not motivated to engage in a full and fair environmental assessment that would explore the impact on the area's hydrology from dredging (to allow for tanker traffic) as well a full exploration of the risks involved by any fuel or material spills or accidents.

My family would like to see an environmental assessment that supports the best way to preserve the ecology of the Fraser River.
DeltaBC
CliffCapraniCannot believe that the BC govt. is going ahead with this white elephant. According to the latest information, world demand for LNG is in decline, & BC will be one of the last to arrive at the party - if it ever does.LadnerBC
MonikaMarcoviciDear Federal Environment Min Aglukkaq
I am writing to you about an extremely urgent matter, the application from WesPac Midstream to build an LNG export terminal in Delta . It is of utmost importance
that our government takes the due diligence to
1) conduct an assessment of this project and
2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

I respectfully ask you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

We require a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

The people of Canada need strong and responsible leadership if we are to continue to thrive in this great country.

Sincerely,
Monika Marcovici
VancouverBC
kathleenMoylanSlow the process down to give adequate and comprehensive consideration to the risks. Invite all BC and Canadian citizens to comment.Haines JunctionYukon
maryamadrangiDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to request that you reject BC's request to substitute a federal assessment for the project and to have just a provincial one. An LNG terminal in a densely populated region is a big deal, and with the short amount of time for the public to respond, it is crucial that there is a thorough federal assessment.

Also, I am writing to request that the federal assessment be done by a review panel and include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment must assess the impacts on climate, including extraction of gas, compression and transport of natural gas. With the recent spill in the inlet, the government will be exercising pure negligence if it fails to do an assessment!

Thank you,

-maryam
vancouverBC
JeanetteAmundsonBC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please create a federal environmental assessment by an independent review panel
that will include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent, a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States and, an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
RICHMONDBC
MarkSchroederI'll let others address the technical, environmental aspects of the proposal. My concern is that it is all happening too fast and the consultation process has been curtailed. Frankly, it feels like a trick, and it feels like the provincial government is complicit. Allowing this project to charge ahead will bring the MNR into disrepute and further erode the public trust.VancouverBC
WayneBiffertPut the LNG plant somewhere it won't affect so many people if something goes wrong.Williams LakeBC
HilarieMcMurrayA federal environmental assess,emt of both the proposed LNG terminal in Delta BC and the transit of LNG tankers down the Fraser must happen.

The Fraser is one of the most important salmon rivers in the world
RichmondBC
PattiMacAhonicAs a mother and grandmother and former Executive Director of the BC Wildlife Federation I am very concerned about the short and long term effects of the proposed LNG tanker terminal in the Fraser River I am strongly requesting that you:
* DO NOT accept the Province of BC's request for a substitution of assessment
*That a federal environmental assessment is conducted by a review panel
*That the assessment include the terminal as well as the transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit
And further, that the assessment take into consideration:
*an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
*a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
*an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
*an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
ChilliwackBC
Annettewittemanwe live on the small Island of Mayne where we swim,Fish,eat clams,Crab,oysters,seaweed,walk our dog on all the beaches,paddle board,kayak ,farm,entertain visitors and live a somewhat sustainable existence. A marine accident in the mouth of the Fraser or along our coast will devastate our Island.Our Economy relies upon echo tourism and our shores are partly a Marine National Park.The ecology on and around this Island is mostly still in fantastic shape though is beginning to see the signs of global warming with it being the driest spring on record. Up till now we have been very lucky that a major marine spill has not yet occurred as Spill Response is virtually Not in Place!the proposed LNG plant will see countless more tankers passing our shores and with all the proposed projects heading our way this will ensure our Salish Sea and our National Park Reserve will be destroyed. A Super Highway of Tankers navigating along our shore is not the answer for Canada's Economic future. Keep the Natural Gas in the Ground where it belongs and save our incredible ecosystem for all of Canada and the World.mayne IslandBC
CarlBahnmillerLNG events are an explosive affair (unlike events involving bitumen)
LNG infrastructure is therefore not suited to such heavily populated areas.
Thank You
VictoriaBC
JonathanLangloisWe live in a democratic country and that means that there must be due process. Leaving 8 only days for citizens to voice their concerns takes away from the legitimacy of the exercise and gives a strong argument to opponents of the project.

I also believe that it's time to end our dependance on fossil fuels and move on to cleaner energies. If Canada is a great country today, it's because visionaries took bold decisions. Being a resident of Québec, the fact that most of my electricity comes from renewable is a source of pride. We should be setting the standard rather then being laggards.
SherbrookeQC
ColleenO'NeillI almost feel I am wasting my time in requesting anything from the current Federal Government of Canada regarding the environment, but feel compelled to because the Earth is not ours, it is something we borrow from future generations. The reckless actions of resource extraction must stop, and focus must be made on alternative energy sources and economies.

I request the following Minister;
- reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
- a federal environmental assessment by review panel.
- the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
please also consider;

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Regards,
Colleen O'Neill
VictoriaBC
OliverHockenhullEnvironment Minister Aglukkaq:

Concerned citizens including myself request that you reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment of this project and, instead, conduct a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The provincial government is incapable of objectively evaluating the risks associated. Substitution with a provincial review is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
We also ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
We ask that the assessment consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration of this important, and urgent, matter.

Respectfully,
Oliver Hockenhull
VancouverBC
PaulinaNelegaEnvironment Minister Aglukkaq:

Concerned citizens including myself request that you reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment of this project and, instead, conduct a federal environmental assessment by review panel. The provincial government is incapable of objectively evaluating the risks associated. Substitution with a provincial review is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
We also ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
We ask that the assessment consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration of this important, and urgent, matter.

Respectfully,
Paulina Nelega
VancouverBC
marystewartI am writing to request a federal environmental assessment by review panel for the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. Please reject BCs request for subsitition; a provincial assessment will not be objective as the BC govt has already thrown its full support behind LNG exports. The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
At this time when the web of life that depends on a clean and healthy ocean environment is already at great risk, you have a huge responsibility; please do the right thing even if it means going against the anti democratic, pro industry, anti environment policies of your government.
vancouverBC
PaulSteerHonourable Minister Aglukkaq:

I write to emphasize my oppostiion to the Government of British Columbia's request to substitute a Provincial Environmental Assessment for a Federal Environmental Assessment.

Please deny this request.

A provincial assessment, given British Columbia's unequivocal support for all things LNG cannot possibly proceed free of a perception of bias, and is therefore not in the public interest.

A federal review panel should be convened to perform a full environmental assessment instead. Such assessment should include all aspects of LNG transmission in British Columbia, from the proposed terminal to the edge of Canada's territorial limit at sea.

An environmental review must consider, but not be limited to the following:

1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts, as required in the United States;

4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Respectfully,

Paul Steer
DeltaBC
SteveCooleyWhile we are building this LNG facility, are we going to facilitate the building of a dynamite plant next door to it? These are such benign industries.Campbell RiverBC
ThomasWinklerDear Minister,
the impact of approving such a project has an impart on our children and grand children. I urge you to conduct a federal environmental assessment of the project and not deny BC's substitution request.
Thank you for thinking with our futher in mind.
Regards,
Thomas Winkler
VancouverBC
lauracruseA hearing is required to assess the environmental impact and all key requirements of both Canadian and USA laws.kelownaBC
LloydBalserWe must ensure the safety of our people plants animals water supply etc.
WE MUST
These facts are not debatable we need them to exist and we need them to be clean and in their natural state for us to be healthy in any way.
That is why, as we have evolved and learned from science .. not economics, not politics ... science, we have tried to be mindful and create systems for evaluation of our plans etc.
To blatantly disregard, or even remove these checks and balances is a criminal act against us the people.
I am not advocating the complete banning of natural resource extraction/usage ... that's what they are ... resources, But we must do these things in the most scientifically, ethically, safe manner that we are aware of or can envision.
So ... all these huge projects with the potential for consequences absolutely must be put through the process of fine tuning needed to ensure we are not overlooking the negatives.
We also must ensure that the profits generated also truly benefit us. I say truly because the projected revenues for local governments on all these projects are infinitesimally small compared to the take home of the private enterprises involved and the insurance policies for spills etc. do not take into account the "big one so to speak.
There can be profits made AND fair and just revenue sharing with gov't to support our way of life and safety planning spending etc.
It is complete abandonment of all we have learned as a species to go with the economy above everything else.
It's not actually the majority of Canadians who benefit from any of these large deals anymore and that needs to stop.
Build the thing in the right place with the right checks, balances foresight and ensure the payback to society as a whole is eqitable and fair for the risks taken.
SurreyBC
DuncanGreenlawLNG development needs to be stopped. Fracking poisons waterways with toxic chemicals and emits methane (greenhouse gas). Greater Vancouver should not be forced to accept any proposal of this kind, for the above reason as well as the choking of the Fraser River with toxic tanker traffic.

Please review and reject this plan. Do not allow the BC government to evaluate this. Our provincial government has proved itself to be pro-LNG at all costs. It will simply rubber stamp this one, as it has no interest at all in genuinely considering the environmental impacts of LNG development.
Vancouver, BCBC
DougJonesHow do you achieve 3.5 KM safety zone in a populated area? Please conduct a full Federal environmental review.VancouverBC
ShirleyIrelandMinister Aglukkaq,

I am a resident of Ladner on the Fraser River Delta and urge a full environmental assessment by a review panel of the proposed LNG tanker traffic on the Fraser River.

It is my understanding that these tankers are twice as long, wide and tall as the long BC Ferries, take 8km to come to a full stop and have a 1.5km blind spot off their bow for small vessels without radar. It seems an astounding proposal to allow such ships with such dangerous cargo to travel up the narrow channels of the Fraser. It's also my understanding that the councils of West Vancouver, Gibsons, the Sunshine Coast Regional District and Islands Trust have all called for a ban on these tankers in Howe Sound. The Fraser River Delta is a much smaller waterway, has many navigational hazards and is a densely populated and resource rich area. This proposal needs to be given full and careful assessment.

The BC Government, I believe, has lost the confidence of citizens with regards to rational analysis of issues with regards to the development of the Natural Gas Industry in BC. I urge that you turn down their request to take on the responsibility for an assessment of the project.

We need an assessment of environmental and safety issues from source to terminal as well as of the waterways and the river delta that will be impacted. We need an assessment of the project impact on our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and obligations. There isn't room for the 7 km hazard zone recommended by the USA Coast Guard for LNG tankers in the USA. We need to assess what is in our hazard zone and to determine if we have adequate emergency preparedness.

The Fraser River Delta supports one of the largest wild salmon resources in the world and it is an international fly way for migratory birds. It is also populated by the communities of Richmond and Delta. It would seem profoundly negligent to fail to conduct a full and comprehensive Environmental and safety Assessment of this environmentally sensitive, highly productive, and densely populated area.
DeltaBC
KollyHill-DavieI can't believe that after cleaning up the waterfront along the Fraser River for the past three decades that we are considering polluting it once again. LNG, Bitumen coal, what else?
We need to say "No" everything that can possibly cause harm to one of the mightiest salmon rivers on this planet.
The only reason this government has stopped maintaining the Massey Tunnel and promising a beautiful bridge that will solve our commuting problems is that if the tunnel is dark and dreary and constantly full of traffic then ignorant people will believe that it needs to be replaced because it is run down...pressure wash it! Paint it white! Turn on the lights! It is still an amazing piece of engineering and we should consider building/installing more of the same to cover the traffic needs. But the B.C. Government wants a bridge so deep keeled vessels can go up the Fraser to get to the LNG and filthy coal!
No! I say "NO!"
DeltaBC
RichardHoseinNo Tanker traffic on the Fraser!SurreyBC
RoianeEvansWhy has this government become so indifferent to the concerns of the people of B.C. It is a new dawn people! Before there is nothing untainted to carry on life for our children.Stop now. Clean energy abounds.
Take a lesson from Tim Hortons we are not asleep out here.
Kristy Clark whats up with you!! Your selling us out.
LangleyBC
MelVictorThe Fraser River is an essential salmon river that has provided nourishment for 1000s of years to the First Peoples of this land. This will definitely have impacts on the salmon and the risks with tanker traffic are simply too great. My children are from Cheam First Nation and have the right to fish for salmon as their Sto:lo ancestors have since time immemorial. The proposed LNG terminal and tanker traffic is a threat to their Aboriginal rights for food fishery. It is a threat to the environment. It should not even be considered as an option. The cost of cleanup in the case of a tanker disaster would be more than the province could bear financially and loss in terms of potential environmental devastation. It would also potentially block up the route that other boats and fishermen need to pass through without compensating others for their loss of passage. There are so many reasons that the LNG terminal placement on the Fraser River is clearly misguided and wrong.

Among the Society of International Gas Tanker And Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) guidelines:

€œShort approach channels are preferable to long inshore routes which carry more numerous hazards.€ (pg. 26)
€œEssential design for a safe jetty: find a location suitably distant from centres of population.€ (pg. 12)
€œTraffic separation schemes should be established in approach routes covering many miles.€ (pg. 26)
WesPac's proposed terminal location at Tilbury Island in the Fraser River appears to violate all of these siting guidelines:

The Fraser River approach is long, winding and narrow.
A riverside condominium development lies less than 2 km away from the terminal site at Riverport Way in Richmond, and other residential developments are located downstream along the LNG tanker route.
The Fraser River deep sea navigation channel allows for two way vessel traffic and is only 500m wide. LNG tanker exclusion zones adopted by the USCG call for 500 m clearance around LNG tankers in all directions. The Fraser river is used by a wide variety of vessels, including working fishing boats, tugs, barges, ocean going freighters and pleasure craft.
WesPac's project summary document gives no indication that the SIGTTO siting guidelines have been considered in selecting this location. Based on the available information, it appears that this location was selected simply because it is next to the existing Fortis LNG compression and storage facility.
AgassizBC
AnnaKraulisMinister Aglukkaq:

The WesPac Midstream LNG project needs a federal assessment by review panel, and I urge you to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

The assessment should include the terminal as well as transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider:
An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you.
VancouverBC
WendyBedardAs a lower mainland resident, I think this topic needs to be heard by the public before anything has been approved. The public should be educated then allowed to vote. This is why I believe the Green Party should have majority. These things wouldn't happen. At least they would fight hard against it.LangleyBC
CathyReedLNG tanker traffic -- huge tankers -- on the Fraser River!!!!! That's horrendous!

And in West Vancouver and up the narrow Howe Sound to Squamish!!!

And all the fracking in our pristine wilderness in northern BC!

Fracking hugely pollutes lakes, rivers and drinking water forever. And it is far more dangerous as far as climate change than any other form of energy.

Christie Clarke, you will ruin our beautiful BC and far beyond!!!!!!!!!!!
SquamishBC
MichaelCookeGentlemen, surely you're forgetting that carbon is so old-fashioned that you'll only contribute to killing us all with your plans. You can't be serious about putting LNG tankers anywhere near living populations of humans. May we suggest you purchase a large amount of rocky land somewhere and put up solar panels? Please!Salt Spring IslandBC
ShamDhariDear: Minister Aglukkaq

This proposal to build a LNG terminal in Delta and ship LNG via LNG tankers and LNG barges is a totally an absurd plan. What are these people thinking? Shipping LNG via the Fraser river is not safe as there is a huge risk to the safety of people living in Richmond and Delta.

Furthermore we need to keep LNG and other fossil fuels in the ground and promote alternative green technologies.

This LNG proposal is too risky and requires a full federal review. The review must include the impact on climate change, pollution caused by extraction and transportation of LNG.
RichmondBC
traciestewartI'm officially requesting an environmental assessment by a review panel.abbotsfordBC
RebeccaArcherPlease review this decision and go forward with an environmental assessment and future impact assessment. Hold yourself and LNG to the highest scrutiny and environmental standards!KitimatBC
BeverleyPlayfairNo LNG Tankers in the Fraser River.Fort St. JamesBC
mei linyeoellSurely you jest! A project like this, ANYWHERE, needs a full review...this activity will affect lives up and down the river, along all the delivery lines, human, animal, piscine, earth, air, water.... Just who benefits from this? And who bears the real costs when it gies wrong? Wnd is there any relationship between the answer to thise two questions! Just whose side is Min Aglukkaq and her government on?!?!LangleyBC
JasperCattellWe must have a proper environmental assessment for this project and us British Columbians do not have an unbiased enough provincial government to do the job. A federal assessment is the only option that can make sure that we and our environment are safe.North VancouverBC
LindaRothI can't believe this project can be approved without any public consultation. Eight days notice (by default) to an MLA.....This is the environment we are talking about....Wow.....Thanks Christy!Salt Spring IslandBC
DougHopwoodDear Minister Aglukkaq

Re Fraser Rive LNG Terminal

I do not support the BC government's request to take over the environmental impact assessment.

I support a full Federal Environmental Impact Assessment, conducted to highest recognized international standards, covering all aspects and phases of the project, including the terminal and shipping, and the impacts on climate.
Qualicum BeachBC
MaryCleaverPlease reject BC's request and conduct a federal enviromental assessment by review panel. Please make sure that in addition to local risks to waterways, biodiversity etc. that the assessment includes the impacts on climate of all stages of the process including extraction and transport of natural gas.VancouverBC
JasonStanleyThis is crazy! Please don't put the largest salmon bearing river in the world more at risk of an environmental catastrophe. Are you nuts? Wake up!!DeltaBC
DianneWrightProjects of this magnitude anywhere in Canada CAN NOT be pushed through without full, public, transparent environmental reviews.LoretteManitoba
DavidSimmsA serious and proper environmental assessment of this project must be done. Also, given that Kinder Morgan also wants to export dilbit, via tanker and other companies want to export coal from the same area, I think it is logical to ask what the total effect of these projects would be. They cannot be considered in isolation, as though nothing else is happening.ClearwaterBC
BruceElkinWe need a read a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. Please expedite same.
Thank you.
VictoriaBC
LisaDoyle-IrvineEnvironment minister Agluakka, please conduct an assessment of the impact on the environment, waterways,and possible risks posed by intentional acts.Please make sure the assessment includes an evaluation of the terminal location and the inbound as well as outbound tankers from LNG.Could you also please request a federal review panel environment assessment of the proposal by LNG exports.Please reject BC's request for a substitution we can't be sure the provincial assessment will be objective when evaluating project risks because the BC government fully supports the project.You are the voice of the public on this issue please speak up for us and make sure this is looked at throughly.Thank you for your consideration on this matter.McleodsNew Brunswick
CaraBurryToo risky. We need to protect this river from further oil and gas industry developmentMaple ridgeBC
HunterWoodDoes LNG on the fraser river really make sense?VancouverBC
KarlaKorkodilosThis is a very bad idea!! LNG on the Fraser? That needs a full federal environmental assessment! I am asking that federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

Thank you.
TorontoOntario
LianneSmithaniukA Federal review of the proposed LNG project on the Fraser River must be made before anything of this scale can be approved.
The public has NOT been involved in this process to date, and it is a question that the Fraser River could very well be a really crazy place to situate this port, given one issue of rising sea levels....I used to live about 1 km above the Fraser growing up and it was flooding all the time before dykes were built.
For the record, the amount sea levels rise in the 19th century was 6 cm, and in the 20th century was 19 cm....before the ice caps and glaciers showed the rapid acceleration in melting that has been documented more recently. Projections are for as much as a 1 metre rise by the end of this century (& presumably the LNG terminal will involve billions of dollars of investment, so would be expected to last into 2100.
Environmental assessments are a basic necessity, given the Fraser River Sockeye run is a critical part of our food supply, particularly for First Nations peoples who rely on it for a substantial part of their food supply.
Safety of the LNG ships along with other increased traffic on that arm of the Fraser requires an in-depth Risk Assessment as well....SO MANY issues to address!

Please do NOT let this project obtain a substitution to avoid the scrutiny it deserves. Corporations have lots to gain by this investment, but in recent years we have seen that "disasters" as a result of these corporate moves are often paid for in large part by the taxpayers.
We can NOT afford to create more problems for our citizenry and environment to absorb.
Do the Right Thing and hold everyone involved accountable for the long-term well-being of the planet and us all.
Thank you very much.
NanaimoBC
BillDarnellReally, trying to implement a project of this size with no environmental assessment. You must be very afraid.VernonBC
CarolMasonI live in the lower mainland. Though I am not living immediately close to the Fraser River, I drive over it every day. Any damage to the river and to the waters of the Gulf Islands and the Strait of Georgia would have terrible environmental impacts. Don't allow this to happen. Stop this project.Coquitlam,BC
DonnaBarnesMy Indian name is Quith’quit’thul’whut. I am also known as Donna Barnes. My great-grandfather, Suhilton, was the Grande hereditary Chief of all the Quwutsun Mustimuhw (Hul’qumi’num people). Therefore, I am standing in as the hereditary chief until someone with more authority speaks out.

According to the HTG's statement of intent, filed with the BC Treaty Commission, our territory "covers over 334,000 hectares of land on south-eastern Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and lower Fraser River. It reaches North of Nanaimo River, and South of Goldstream River in Saanich Inlet. It stretches West past Lake Cowichan to Tuck Lake, and east up the South arm of the Fraser River to Douglas Island. "

And our traditional fishing territory includes the following:

1. The waters of the Strait of Georgia, south of Cape Madge-Rebecca Spit area on Quadra Island and including all channels, straits and passages in and amongst the Gulf Islands.

2. The estuaries, lakes and waterways in the Hul'qumi'num Core Aboriginal title lands.

3. The Fraser River, from the Strait of Georgia up to Sawmill Creek, North of Yale.

4. The waters of Juan de Fuca Strait.

4. The waters of Hara, Rosario Straits, and Puget Sound to the South end of Whitby Island.

These tankers are a direct threat to our sockeye salmon, and thus , will contribute greatly to the continuation of the cultural genocide of First Nations people as sockeye salmon are essential to our way of life. Please reply if you would like to know how sockeye salmon are sacred to all First Nations people along the Fraser River.

I do not give my consent, and I have not been consulted.

Sincerely

Donna Barnes
duncanBC
AndyChapmanIn light of the fact the the majority of Canadians are firmly against the continued expansion of the fossil fuel industry, and the fact the it has been calculated that every type of renewable energy is economically equal or cheaper to fossil fuels. there is no reason to try and secretly rush through these large and destructive projects. please listen to, not only your constituents but to the experts in the industry. and I know that Harper has made that more difficult by publicly muzzling our scientists, however it can be done. so please actually talk to the people and make the right decision.VancouverBC
RuthWalmsleyI am writing to express my opposition to the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal on the Fraser River. I urge you to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment. Please proceed with conducting a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposed project, including the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Any meaningful assessment of this proposal should consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Sincerely,
Ruth Walmsley
BurnabyBC
LauraEldertonMin. Aglukkaq. Have you ever boated on this River? Please do, and help the folks save it from becoming dangerous industrial canal. I never thought it would even be considered with all the restrictions for LNG tanker traffic. Someone (Government) needs to take a very close look at what's going on in BC with regards to the whole industry, we need to protect what we have and repair the damage that we have done, not add more stress to the lands, rivers and oceans of this planet.North VancouverBC
Frid,AlejandroDear Minister Aglukkaq
I am writing to ask you to reject BC's request for substitution and instead assign a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal. This assessment should evaluate the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent. Additionally, it should include a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route. Critically, the assessment should also consider project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your time
Alejandro Frid
Bowen IslandBC
RichardLittlemoreThe WesPac Midstream LNG proposal for the Fraser River should be subject to a full federal review for its environmental and security implications and approval should, under no circumstances, be waived to the Province of British Columbia.VancouverBC
RobieLiscombEnvironment Min Aglukkaq,

I am writing to urge you in the strongest possible terms to conduct an assessment of WesPac Midstream's Fraser River LNG terminal proposal and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. It is unconscionable that the timeframe for public input is so short and the public has been informed of the opportunity at the last minute.

BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

The federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal must include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

It must also include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VictoriaBC
JudithPickettI am insulted that I have not been adequately consulted. This project needs a full environmental review from independent non-biased organization or agency. It is imperative that we fully understand the impact of this project before we allow it to proceed. Our salmon and watershed are at risk. We have a lot to lose both economically and ecologically.

We need to change the attitude in this province where the will of the people is an afterthought when it comes to major industrial projects.
New WestminsterBC
BillUpwardMinister Aglukkaq

Please add my name to the list of citizens/voters who are shocked and amazed that a major development like the WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal might go ahead without a fully independent environmental impact assessment. Our wildlife and clean water resources are some of our region's most important assets and I wouldn't support risking them unless a reliable and respectable independent auditor deems that risk very small. I don't trust our provincial government can do this without substantial bias.

Please do the ethical and honourable thing and insist on an independent assessment.

Thank you.
VancouverBC
PaulaAgnewreject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Our time is short! Please write today, and encourage others to write as well. It's crucial we convince the federal government to commit to a full review of this proposal. The Minister's decision will be influenced by the number of comments received.

All comments sent through this site will be posted here to create a public record of concern about this project.
DuncanBC
RONBYRONLNG on the Fraser? That needs a full federal environmental assessment!VANCOUVERBC
MichaelHeidenA Federal assessment would also be like the fox guarding the henhouse under the present Harper Government so I propose an independent one done by a third party private environmental agency, as well as an economic assessment given the current reality of prices and royalties being so low. We should keep our LNG for domestic use, homes, ferries, and our industry first, and move away from exporting any of it.
The bottom line is we all want to move away from climate changing fossil fuel extraction, the fracking and pipeline debates must stop, and this is a step in the wrong direction. For British Columbian's and the world.
CrestonBC
KateVincentDear Minister:

I have been made aware of plans to build an LNG Export terminal on the Fraser River in Delta, B.C. I don't remember any public consultation regarding this matter and am quite sure that there has yet to be an independent environmental assessment of this project. This is an an absolute pre-requisite to any project of the size and nature which will impact one of the largest salmon-bearing rivers in Canada.

Such an assessment must take into consideration the impact on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I would also ask that you reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

It is my belief that a majority of the people of the Lower Mainland are not in favour of turning our waterways into fossil fuel highways for the benefit of large corporations.

LNG, like tars sands oil, is no longer a wise investment for B.C. and it is time that all levels of government start listening to the people whose money will be spent on these ill-conceived projects.
VancouverBC
RiderPetchDear Environment Min Aglukkaq,

Please ensure that respect is shown to BC citizens and First Nations in teh vicinity of this project. Apparently a news release was submitted in May 22 (i did not hear of it until today) which clearly indicates the public notice of this does clearly not constitute 'due consultation' to use a phrase. We have until June 11 (A theoretical max of 20 days) which is unreasonable at best to generate a thoughtful response. Andrew Weaver - one of the more well respected world Scientists and most informed provincial politicians, was unaware of the terminal until just today. It demonstrates that the advertising was not successful in making people aware of this project.

Please 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Rider Petch
CumberlandBC
L.E.TherrienWE can not rush into these things.Edmonton, AlbertaAB
DavidWaterhouseWill the Federal Environment Minister Aglukkaq please reintroduce democracy to British Columbia?
We have a provincial government who does not respect its' citizens right to know what is going on behind closed doors.

More importantly we have a government who places a very low value on our environment.

Please do not allow the BC Liberal government to take over assessment of this project. They have not earned the right.
VictoriaBC
DianneVargaBack in the days, I grew up in a small town on the Fraser River. That river is part of my DNA. In my view, it's no place to build a busy LNG export terminal. But what's my view worth? What we actually need is a federal environmental assessment of this project €“ an assessment of the terminal itself as well as the projected inbound and outbound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

BC has asked to take control of the project environmental assessment. This is a bad idea given that the BC government has staked its life on LNG exports and can scarcely be seen as a disinterested party. To substitute a provincial assessment for one done by the federal review panel would be a travesty of justice.

An adequate federal assessment must consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
KelownaBC
michaelkrisingerDear Minister Aglukkaq,


I ask you to conduct an assessment of the Wespac Midstream LNG export terminal project proposed in Delta AND reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the interest of us, the public.

I request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

I also ask that the assessment consider:
1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

thank you for leading us in the right direction with long term stability!

Sincerely,
Dr. Michael J Krisinger
Biochemistry, UBC
vancouverBC
DaleLabattDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I am a BC resident and have been for 62 years as I was born in Vancouver, BC .

I want to encourage your government to hold a full environmental assessment of the proposal from WesPac Midstream to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. I would also ask that you reject the government of BC's request that the federal government allow the province to conduct the assessment as a substitute for a federal environmental assessment. The government of BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and I am not confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please appoint a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal. The assessment should include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers and barges from and around the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment should consider:
1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I am in shock to read that the BC government is "selling out" our province. We must be assured of a clean safe environment for ourselves, our children and future generations. Allowing the government to act in such a way is totally irresponsible and unacceptable.

Sincerely,
Dale Labatt
BurnabyBC
KathleenBakerDear Minister Aglukkaq,

Re: WesPac Tilbury LNG Terminal

I am writing to ask that you ensure a Federal environmental assesment is completed on the above project. Please reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment of same as the BC Liberal government has already made it plain it fully supports the LNG industry. I also ask that the terinal as well as transit of in and out bound LNG tanders from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea-limit be iincluded in the assessment.
- please evaluate the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO citing standards of their equivalent
- perform a waterway suitability assessment similar to that of the US Dep't of Homeland Security including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire tanker route
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (ie. terrorism) as required in the US should be a key part of your assessment
- assessment of project impacts on climate including extraction, compression and transport of natural gas is also required.

Please Minister Aglukkaq, we look to you for support in protecting BC from our provincial government's blatant boosterism of the LNG industry.
VancouverBC
JimKinzelDear Madame,
Regarding the proposed mew LNG depot on the Fraser River:
There needs to be a federal review panel environment assessment of the proposal. The BC government has thrown it full support behinds LNG exports and thus should not be allowed the manage the environmental assessment.
The assessment should include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Jim Kinzel
VancouverBC
PaulMagnusThe is utter madness. Please do not approve this i live on the Fraser south Richmond. And i do not approve.

Then there #climate. The reality of global warming situation is the is no more room to develop expanded any more fossil fuels.

Even n especially #lng. Why is #bcpoli ignoring this science.
RichmondBC
MargGorrieDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed LNG terminal on the Fraser River in Delta. This proposal ought to have an environmental assessment conducted by a non-partisan process and I urge you to support a federal review of this proposed terminal. The Province of BC is not a suitable party to be conducting a review of the proposal given it's support for LNG development.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Marg
New WestminsterBC
ElizabethRyersonI support a Federal commission to examine this potentially damaging to the environment action. Please let's take the time and involve our government at the highest levels in order to allow all of our voices to be heard and all of the potential risks to be brought forward. We have one earth and an obligation to protect it, as much as we can. Thank you.TorontoON
ChristineElliottWE NEED TO KNOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PRIOR TO PERMITS BEING GRANTED.SquamishBC
LynnWilburMore time is needed to comment on this proposal.BrackendaleBC
Noelcattothis can not be pushed through quickly, it needs a full federal environmental assessment, including a waterway suitability assessment.revelstokeBC
PenelopeFletcherWhen you look over the facts about LNG you will know that the answer and what your voting public wants you to say is no. Just simply no to an export terminal at Delta. You know and I know that a few bucks for a few folks made now is not worth the long term destruction to the environment. It is simply out of the question. At the end of the day can you drink a glass of oil? Can you drink a glass of water? This is the simple question you need to ask yourself. The Fraser has meant so much to this part of the world for so long - thousands and thousands of years - any profit from building and implementing an LNG plant is shameful when you look at the direct result it will bring on the river and the surrounding area. I hope you can do the research you need to do and look inside yourselves and come to the right conclusion and join your voices to so many of ours.Hornby IslandBC
RickSwayzeDear Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

It is clear that the BC government has thrown its full support behind LNG exports. As a result, we cannot be confident a provincial assessment will objectively and unbiasedly evaluate project risks. Therefore, I think it is prudent that the federal government reject the province's request to substitute a provincial assessment for a federal one as it is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Instead I strongly urge the federal government to put together a federal review panel that will do an environmental assessment of the proposal, which includes the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. It would be appropriate that this proposal considers the following:

1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and
4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

More importantly, the public should be informed of these proceedings and this assessment, rather than hiding this behind closed doors and giving the public little or no opportunity to express their concerns.

Sincerely,
Rick Swayze
VancouverBC
RoyParkinsonFull FEDERAL assessment needed as BC is HELL BENT on Rubber stamping any and ALL resource PROJECTS with little or NO REGARD for the ENVIRONMENT !!!!ColdstreamBC
MARKMC MYNI ask you to reject bc's request to substitute a provincial environmental assessment . The wespac fraser river lng project should come under a federal review panel environmental assessement. This assessment should include the terminal as well as in and outbound transit of lng tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. It is not environmentally responsible for the province of bc to ram these projects through without consultation with the people of bc.terraceBC
KerryRobinsonYou are setting us up for a natural disaster. Think twice before you line your pockets on this one, after all you should be working for the people of the province not collecting for your political party. Why does the public who voted you in NOT
have a say in any of these decisions????? Climate change is real!
NanaimoBC
ThomasTubbsWe weren't consulted in the seventies on this Fracked GAS plant why now.it's still a huge mistake.born in Richmond.SurreyBC
Johnter BorgHello Minister Aglukkaq,

Please reject the BC Governments request for substitution of environmental assessment.

The risks associated with increased tanker traffic and storage of hazardous chemicals along the banks of the Fraser River cannot be minimized. Implications for the sensitive estuary ecosystem must be reviewed under the highest environmental standards.

Risks should be addressed through a transparent and accountable process. Ideally by a Federal Review Panel and with the opportunity for contribution from independent sources and community consultation.

Risks to be assessed include, but are not limited to:
-siting terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standard
-environmental impacts to both land and water systems
-navigational accidents
-terrorist acts
-impact on climate and contribution to global warming
-public safety

Thank you,
RichmondBC
FrancesHarropMinister Aglukkaq, I'm asking you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
May I be assured that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
That the assessment consider:
* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
* an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Qualicum BeachBC
SusannaKaljurAs a concerned tax payer I am requesting you conduct a federal review panel environmental assessment of this proposed project (LNG export Terminal in Delta).
The assessment must include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I request that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration.
CourtenayBC
BillBurgessPlease ensure a robust federal environmental assessment of the proposed LNG facility on the Fraser River in Delta, BC. The BC environmental assessment process is not adequate; please do not agree that it substitute for the federal process. I urge you to particularly ensure the inclusion of fulsome attention to a) global climate change impacts and b) cumulative impacts.VancouverBC
StephenKelenDear Minister Aglukkaq,
As a resident of BC, I want to encourage your government to hold a full environmental assessment of the proposal from WesPac Midstream to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. I would also ask that you reject the government of BC's request that the federal government allow the province to conduct the assessment as a substitute for a federal environmental assessment. The government of BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and I am not confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please appoint a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal. The assessment should include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers and barges from and around the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
The assessment should consider:
1. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
AlisonStrangI fully agree with this:
Important to provide n evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
plus all the rest.
SurreyBC
TeresaDiewertMinister Aglukkaq,
I am writing to voice my concerns about developing infrastructure to facilitate the export of Liquid Natural (Fracked) Gas on the Fraser RIver. As a resident living within a few kilometers of this project I find it unacceptable that I have not been made aware of this project from elected officials. It is my understanding that the mayors of Deleta and New Westminister have not had information given to them.
I ask that there be meaningful consultation with the community. I ask that there be meaningful evaluation of the dangers associated with LNG transport - there are many, especially when you increase the volume of traffic. The proposed waterway is heavily populated and all the research I have read is clear that LNG tankers need to have sufficient space to ensure safety.
I also question the need for LNG export in the first place. LNG development, if carried out in the way the Provincial government is proposing will significantly increase greenhouse gases, contributing to devestating environmental impacts. It is essential the provincial government not be in charge of the assessment.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Teresa Diewert
SurreyBC
michaelwhiteI request that Federal Environment Min Aglukkaq to 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.denman islandBC
ChristopherHatchDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to urge you to initiate a thorough federal review panel environmental assessment of the WesPac Tilbury LNG proposal. I have only just heard of this proposal and only through the media and am very concerned the project has already proceeded so far without public scrutiny considering its location right on the Fraser River.

I further urge you to reject the request for provincial substitution in reviewing this project.

It is crucial that the review look at all aspects of the siting and LNG tanker traffic to the Fraser and transiting the river itself.

I look forward to your reply,

Christopher Hatch
VancouverBC
MarilynMedenI have read the ideas and agree with all of them, so am posting them as they were written.
Ask her to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Port MoodyBC
RuthChittyI write with immense concern regarding WesPac Midstream's project to build LNG export terminal in Delta on the Fraser River to accommodate at least 120 ships and 90 barrages annually.
There are many issues that need consideration regarding the impact on both public health and the environment. One of the critical issues is the location of the terminal and the impact of transportation of ships and barrages carrying LNG on the Fraser River~ one of the greatest salmon producing river systems in the world . The health and resilience of the Fraser's water and fishery resources is central to sustainability in the Fraser River Basin.
At the very least, a federal environmental assessment is critical. I urge you to reject the BC govt's request to substitute a federal assessment with a provincial one as we cannot be confident that the province ,given its great "stake" in supporting LNG exports, would objectively evaluate the risks of this project.
I urge you to require that the evaluation relates to the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
I also urge you to ensure that the assessment includes the following:
~ evaluation of terminal location, based on international standards such as SIGTTO or equivalent.
~a Waterway Suitability assessment, equivalent to US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, which takes into consideration a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route
~ assessment of the project's impact ( including extraction, extraction, compression and transportation of natural gas) on environment and climate.
I urge you to act responsibly to ensure that a comprehensive and inclusive assessment be carried out to protect the safety of both public health and the environment.
SurreyBC
BobCampbellThis project must have a full environmental review! How can such a dramatic change to the Fraser River be contemplated without a full assessment of the impacts?

Bob Campbell
SurreyBC
MichelleGosselinThe way we go about approving these large dangerous expansions for fossil fuels, needs to change. These companies should not be able to continuously endanger our environment. We should not have to keep fighting them back continuously. It is time for our government to step in and protect us, instead of the bottom line of the large corporation. We should not need protection from a government that is ever silent with regard to the well-being of our precious environment, and the health and safety concerns of the people in it.Nanoose BayBC
LloydManchesterI worked in the Fraser River for years. Adding this increased traffic makes it possible for accidents to happen. There has to be a full environmental assessment that includes cumulative impacts, waterway impacts, terroisim impacts and climate change impacts.KelownaBC
HerbBarboletWhy do we even have to ask for this? Why aren't you doing your jobs?VancouverBC
JudithempThis is a crucial time for you our federal Environment Min Aglukkaq to 1) conduct an assessment of this project of the Proposed Westpac Tilbury LNG Terminal. The BC' Provincial government will be biased due to pressures of Political Gain, I reject the request to substitute a provincial assessment.

Please do your own personal assessment and spend a day or two on our coast particularly in the area that will be impacted. Would you want this development in the waterway closest to your home?
qualicum BeachBC
BeverleyCliffordI am a grandmother and mother and expect government to protect our land and water from corporate interests. It is time to listen to the people.VictoriaBC
PeterLisicinMinister Aglukkaq, please ensure that a full environmental review of Westpac LNG terminal and shipping on the Fraser river be conducted. Not only is the LNG contributing to climate change, the tankers and barges will expose many residential areas to potentially devastating explosions.
Please do not agree to allowing BC to conduct the review of this project. The province has already shown extreme prejudice towards this and other LNG projects so cannot be trusted to conduct a fair and unbiased review.
Please do not allow the transfer of risk from the US to Canadian citizens.
VancouverBC
BarbaraGrantA full environmental assessment is needed.BurnabyBC
MaeMooreMinister Aglukkaq and CEAA,

I ask you to consider that the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal, be scrutinized by a Federal Environmental Assessment. As a citizen of BC, I have concerns that the provincial government lacks the capability to properly and impartially assess all aspects of this proposal.
One major concern that I have is of great current and historical importance to the BC economy; that is, the Fraser River is a MAJOR salmon route and many people and other species rely on this iconic resource. The added pressure of additional tanker transiting, coupled with the chance of accident, would devastate this already threatened region. Please do a Federal Environmental Assessment.
Pender IslandBC
SallySoanesHow can you possibly approve a project that would put this essential river in even more jeopardy. The Fraser river salmon are essential to sustaining life both in our oceans and our forests.
Please consider this carefully and do so without a dollar sign in front of you
Thank you
Sally Soanes
ParksvilleBC
DawnHancockThere are so many risks. Please do the due diligence and understand them and don't make a decision based on money, but what's actually good for the people).VancouverBC
KarlMaierI am writing to you with two requests:

(1) Please reject BC's request for substitution of assessment of this project! It is a marine terminal, which is an important federal responsibility. Also, BC can hardly be considered an unbiased party regarding LNG exports, having staked its economic future on the industry. Substitution is not in the public interest.

(2) Please assess this proposal with a federal review panel. A panel is necessary to ensure proper assessment of the significant aspects, including:

- in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit (if not, how else will those risks be assessed?);

- terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required in the US;

- risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism - have you seen the movie Syriana?) as required in the US; and

- project impacts on our global climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas to be exported.

Thank you!
New WestminsterBC
LouellaHollingtonPlease conduct a federal environmental review including terminal location, waterway assessment with standards equal to US Homeland Security, and effects on climate.Qualicum beachBc
Dr GillesWendlingPlease have a full EA completed.

Thank you.
NanaimoBc
P.CaraherDear Minister,

In regard to the LNG terminal proposal in Delta, BC.

WesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly. WesPac has NEB approval and now seeks environmental assessment.

WesPac's project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The company says that's not its responsibility

I ask that you reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal, and ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Also consider:

-an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you,

P. Caraher
Vancouver
VancouverBC
NancyJohnsonYou're dealing with one of the world's greatest salmon rivers. I'm certainly concerned about the explosive radius of any of these large ships.ChilliwackBC
BurttFidlerPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
I ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Please ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
GabriolaBC
DavidHamMinister Aglukkaq

I am asking you please to conduct an assessment of the LNG on the Fraser project and to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment.
In my opinion LNG Tankers are too dangerous to be allowed on the Fraser river and need to be banned in populated areas.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
David Ham
Lasqueti Is.BC
KenDobellPlease hold a full federal environmental (review panel) assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal, including inbound and outbound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

This is too important to rubber-stamp!
Lasqueti IslandBC
LynnPollardHonourable Minister Aglukkaq

It seems to me that we need to start taking our responsibilities to the environment more seriously. The Province of BC has been so obviously enthusiastic about LNG projects that it is clear that they should not be in charge of a review where due consideration of consequences and impacts can take place.
It is important to try to become more farsighted in these reviews and to take into account the impact both of all the transportation factors as well as all the climate change implications!
Please require a federal review panel environmental assessment for this project which will demonstrate due diligence for both us as citizens and the environment which affects us into the future.
Yours, sincerely,
Lynn H. Pollard
Surrey,BC
S. J.GoundreyI am concerned that an complete and unbiased environmental assessment needs to be performed on the proposed Liquid Natural Gas terminal in Delta.
As well as the general environmental assessment, consideration should be given to a Waterway Suitability Assessment similar to that required by the US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone along the proposed LNG tanker route from Delta out to the open ocean; an assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) ; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
Given the outspoken championing of LNG by the present Provincial Government, allowing their request to perform this assessment themselves would be ludicrous.

S. J. Goundrey
White RockBC
BrunoGodinDear Minister Aglukkaq,

I call on you along with many of my fellow residents of the Lower Mainland of BC to urge you to refuse British Columbia's request for substitution and instead ask that your Ministry undertake the environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.

This federal assessment should ascertain the environmental impacts not only of the Terminal itself but also all the associated movements of LNG tankers within Canadian territorial waters.

The assessment should include, but not be limited to, evaluation of the site according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional (and unintentional) acts; and, an assessment of the project's impacts on the climate, whether through the extraction, compression, or transportation of the natural gas.

I hope your Ministry will undertake a thorough, unbiased, and complete assessment of this project, and proceed with due care and good faith.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Bruno Godin
VancouverBC
sandymcnameeThere must be a federal review of the LNG proposal on the Fraser River in Delta.
The BC request for substitution is not in the best interests of the people or the environment.
The assessement must include in and out bound routes of the tankers.
SITTGO standards must be used in evaluating site location.
A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route.
CLIMATE CHANGE must be considered in respect to extraction, compression and transport of the gas.
The planet and all it holds, deserves complete consideration of this proposal.
white rockbc
GreorgeShipleyMinister Aglukkaq, I understand the NEB has given approval to WesPac to proceed with an LNG project in the Fraser River in Delta, BC. I heard also that the BC gov't has requested the authority to look after an env'l assessment of the project. Since the Fraser River is a fish habitat and is therefore under Federal jurisdiction, and since the BC gov't is very friendly to the LNG industry, it's important for the federal gov't to maintain responsibility. I urge you and your federal colleagues do the environmental assessment of the project. George ShipleyDeltaBC
TimLarsenWe need a federal environmental assessment of this proposal that covers all aspects of the project. Maybe we should just leave it in the ground.MerrittBC
DanielleStockdaleReally??? Anything for money? Our children play in that river ...Isn't the fact that airplane fuel is already dumped into it, enough??? YOU actually want to bring more tankers in there...That river flows in Steveston....a VERY popular tourist spot...they like to go in Garry Point park...WITH THEIR CHILDREN...and let them frolic in the water ( IN THE FRASER RIVER !!!!) ...Have you no conscience??? ..or no children???RichmondBC
DanielleSteinerThis is disastrous to wildlife and waterlife! Stop this nonsense!VancouverBC
PeterJohnstonPlease do not allow the province of BC to conduct any assessment of LNG projects. The government has become so enamoured of and committed to LNG solving the employment and financial/economic problems of our province that they will be totally unable to conduct a fair or reasonable assessment of any LNG project.

A full assessment of the project needs to be conducted, including the effects of bringing the gas from underground, transmitting it by pipeline to a port, compressing it, and then having it burned in some foreign place, which will add to the already huge release of carbon gasses from fossil fuels, which is compounding the chances of catastrophic change to our climate.

It seems quite dangerous to me to locate a Natural Gas terminal in such a confined, built-up location, and then expecting huge numbers of ships to pass through relatively confined and populated areas. Before this is allowed, a full assessment of risks, and safety measures that will be able to substantially to reduce the risks, must be undertaken.

Thank you very much for considering this. Peter
Lasqueti IslandBC
BruceMohunIt may sound benign, but global warming is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. We are changing the climate of the whole planet. Liquid natural gas requires huge amounts of energy to process and ship. And then, finally, it's burned. It's not part of the solution; it's part of the problem.
B.C. is doing this for one reason: money. Also called economic growth. But survival trumps growth. And global warming (aka climate change) threatens the survival of half of the world's species. And it threatens civilization itself.
It's a strange, unique problem. We can solve it if we get off fossil fuels. Liquid Natural Gas is a fossil fuel. LNG plants in B.C. contribute to global warming everywhere.
North VancouverBC
RobertMcCroskeyDear Min Aglukkaq,
Please conduct a proper assessment of the proposed Fraser River LNG project(s) and reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

The B.C. Government is determined to have some LNG project ribbons to cut, regardless of any and all financial costs to the taxpayers, and any and all costs to the environment. Some outside agency (such as yours) needs to have a proper assessment of these projects.

Please disallow ALL such requests by the B.C. Government fo any and all LNG projects proposed for anywhere in B.C. Our provincial government is a government of, by and for Big Business.
SURREYBC
GordonKenneyAs an emergency room physician in Delta, I have serious concerns about the health impacts of fracking and the impacts of this technology on chemical ground water contamination, and geologic seismic stability.

I also question the wisdom of directing development and wealth towards fossil fuel infrastructure development in a time of climate instability when good governance would dictate expansion of renewable energy, rather than continuing subsidization
of fossil fuels.

Canada should join the world community and work to mitigate climate change, not oppose and subvert international efforts.

I ask the Minister::
To reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.

Ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;

an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Regards

Gordon Kenney
North VancouverBC
CarolSmithThere needs to be a Federal Environment assessment of this proposed Wespac Tilbury LNG terminal. Reject B.C.'s request for a to do the evaluation the provincial government has already shown support for the project, they can not be trusted to objectively evaluate this project.VancouverBC
AndrewEisenbergWe need an honest assessment of the impacts this project will have.VancouverBC
BarbaraHourstonWe need to stop using the environment so thoughtlessly. There's already been a major spill in Vancouver Harbour in which the response was less than adequateNanaimoBC
IanGartshoreGiven the time, funding and other support the Province of B.C. has dedicated to building an export LNG market I am not confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Thus I request a Federal Review Panel complete an environmental review of the proposal, and that it include impacts on all territorial waters, the siting of the terminal, a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
NanaimoBC
UrsBoxlerThis is completely unacceptable, not just for those who live in the area, but to everyone in BC.VancouverBC
DougSimpsonThe salmon runs in Canada's greatest salmon river, the Fraser, are increasingly stressed by changing sea conditons and habitat loss. A large LNG terminal will likely affect salmon habitat and migration, which the Federal Government is still obliged to protect. Please conduct a thorough investigation.

Sincerly Yours,

Doug Simpson
VancouverBC
charlesreifThe Fraser River is the largest salmon river on the west coast, with Chinook runs that support the survival of the Southern Resident Killer Whales. Lose the Salmon and you will lose the Killer Whale population. Gone. Extinct.
The risk warrants a full Federal Environmental Assessment, or makes a mockery of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' mandate.
VancouverBC
AnneSteinoDear Honorable Environment Minister Aglukkaq,

I recently learned about the WesPac Midstream plans to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly and I am appalled that this has not received more attention from both the public and the authorities. A large-scale plan like this with potential impacts on a fragile and very important environment needs proper as assessment before a potential approval can even be discussed. A federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal should be conducted to make sure the proposal serves the best interest of the people of BC and of Canada. The assessment should include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, and should consider all the following points:
* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
* an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

As Environment Minister it is your duty to protect the Canadian environment and serve the Canadian people and as such you need to make sure that a BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment is rejected, and that a proper assessment is made by a federal review panel. I hope you will live up to my faith in you.

Sincerely,
Anne.
VancouverBC
MayHandfordHigh priority for BC apparently.....doing massive cleanup of LNG spills and paying huge medical bills for extremely sick people. Go ahead if that is how you want to spend our tax dollars but don't expect to get your job back next round.
RobertaOlenickThe proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal in Delta, BC is a major project that warrants a full federal review panel environmental assessment. The BC government's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead must be rejected. The current BC government is too politically vested in LNG to conduct an unbiased review.
The federal assessment should include not just the impacts of the terminal itself but also the impacts of LNG tanker traffic transiting into and out of the terminal to Canada's marine territorial limit.
The assessment should consider:
a. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
b. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
c. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and
d. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
VancouverBC
AdamJohnsonProtect Canada. I want the Canada M parents had and want my grandchildren to have the same. Stop letting Wall Street rape our country. Stop privatizing and selling us away to China, Saudi Arabia and Korea. Keep Canada clean. Convert to green energy. Please. Please.
SteveGarnettWe already have a backlog of tankers as it is! They are parked here in our Vancouver Island waters on a regular basis. We cannot handle any more!Cowichan BayBC
SandyDimondPLEASE DO NOT DO THIS. IT IS JUST SO WRONG AND SO VERY UNNECESSARYLangleyBC
Ronvan der EerdenThis dictatorial governing has to stop. If this proposal is in the public interest it should easily stand up to scrutiny.VancouverBC
ElizabethSeatonThe Fraser River is entirely unsuitable for an LNG terminal. It is the largest river in BC that has not been dammed and still provides for the largest run of Chinook and Chum salmon in BC. To put a Liquid Natural Gas terminal on the Fraser without a full-scale environmental review and ensure that all stake-holders are consulted would be negligent and have the appearance of corruption. To proceed to install an LNG terminal on the Fraser would be sheer folly, given the potential consequences.
I ask that at the very least a comprehensive environmental review - with full public consultations - be put into play before any decision is made on this proposal.
VancouverBC
HenryHutterOur Province will be saved hurrah ( the heck with the rest of the planet ) by extracting and exporting more hydrocarbons . Proliferation of everything : peoples , cars , trucks , planes , trains , dams , consumer goods , and more people . A never ending spiral . And we are already past the point what this earth can take without us causing more major disastrous upheavals of all kinds . We have come to and pushing past all limits .WinlawBC
NormHoffmannDear Minister:

Re: Proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal

I am asking you to please reject BC's request for substitution of the environmental assessment. The BC government is so categorically and publicly a booster of LNG that such a review could not possibly be objective and impartial.

I am requesting that the proposal be reviewed by a federal panel and include not just a review of the terminal itself but in- and outbound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit; an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent, a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you
VictoriaBC
FrancesDietzDealing with concerns over which governments (federal or provincial) supposedly have the final say over environmental assessments regarding hazardous materials is so terribly unfortunate. Local public input is largely ignored and dismissed for the sake of money and that is wrong!

This particular issue I'm writing to you about concerns LNG shipping proposals for export. There is a big provincial government 'desire' to create an economy with this energy source. And I can't help feeling that they are trying to push this commodity with the idea that it won't garner as much opposition as oil and coal.

This is another fossil-fuel generated energy source and as much as the BC government wants to call it "Clean", it is NOT .

The following are some points that I've been instructed to list so that you can take them into consideration:


1. Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

2. In this case, it is considered a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal will be more fair. This assessment should include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

3. This assessment should consider:

- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent

- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States

- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you very much for your assistance.
VancouverBC
Douglas GeoregeMasseyDoes the Fraser River Estuary exist? Is it not one of the greatest salmon bearing rivers in the world? Was the Fraser River Estuary not recognized by the world at the Ramsar Convention as a Wetland of International importance for migratory birds and fish species and diverse habitats that support a multitude of species? What are the dangers of having such a plant so near to major residential communities? What would be the health affects from the cumulative diesel emissions from all the ships that would be navigating the Fraser River to service this and other facilities , like the Fraser Surrey Docks. What measures will be in place to prevent any fuel spills? What affect will the foreign residue from the ship's bottoms on the ecology of the Fraser River? What will happen to the annual harvesting of the salmon? What about the wildfowl? Why hasn't the Department of Fisheries asked for a full independant enivronmental impact study be undertaken before any of these projects go forward ? This must be done.DeltaBC
AnnGrantTo: Environment Min Aglukkaq,
I am writing to ask you to conduct an assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.
I am also asking you to reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
I want to see a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
This assessment must include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The assessment must consider:
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
StanProboszczWe need a federal Environmental Assessment of this project for a number of reasons. Although LNG tankers are relatively safe, this will put them in close proximity to residential areas. This needs careful consideration. We also have to be certain the infrastructure will not further impact wild salmon migrations, especially stocks that are already endangered under COSEWIC, such as Cultus Sockeye.
K.HarrisonDear Minister Aglukkaq:

With this message, I request that the federal government conduct an independent assessment of the proposed WesPac LNG terminal in Delta. The project has the potential to impact on several areas of federal responsibility, including international trade, fisheries, navigation, international treaties, and marine waters. I feel it is important that an independent federal assessment be undertaken in light of the provincial government's clear support for LNG, and in recognition of the federal government's own extensive jurisdiction with respect to this project. I am seeking an arms' length federal assessment under CEAA, one that considers factors including the suitability of the location in terms of public safety, public safety during shipping in Canadian waters and unceded First Nations territories and waters, potential vulnerability to and consequences of terrorist acts (given the proximity to dense population and heavily used transportation routes), and the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions over the full life cycle, including extraction, pipeline transport, compression, marine transport, and downstream combustion.

Sincerely,
K. Harrison
VancouverBC
PattiWillisPlease reject BC's request for substitution. The BC government is supportive of LNG development and export. In fact, this was a major tenet of the governing party's last election platform. It is not in the public interest for BC, which has so much real and political investment in LNG development, to conduct an impartial and comprehensive assessment. This controversial project requires a Federal Review Panel environmental assessment that includes all components of the proposal capturing the entire life cycle of the project. Terms of reference of any assessment must also include the implications of this project on GHG emissions that contribute to climate change.Denman IslandBC
FredKayRe: WesPac Midstream plans to build an LNG export terminal in Delta

Please reject BC's request for substitution of the regulatory process to provincial jurisdiction and demand a full federal review panel environmental assessment of the project.

The panel should as a bare minimum consider all of the following points:

1) an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized
SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;

2) a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US
Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km
hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;

3) an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as
compression and transport of the natural gas.
required in the United States;

4) an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction,
compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for your consideration of this very important issue.
North VancouverBC
GerriOrmistonThe is project does not take look at the problem of tankers and barges in the narrow, busy Fraser River. The B.C. government will not evaluate the project risks objectively because of their strong commitment to developing LNG.
I would ask Environment Minister Aglukkaq to conduct an assessment of this project. and to also reject B,C,'s request for a provincial assessment.
SurreyBC
ChrisLindbergI am concerned about WesPac Midstream's proposal to build an LNG export terminal in Delta, BC. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly.

This is a significant project that needs a rigorous environmental assessment. I am writing to urge the federal government to 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

I am concerned that BC is so invested in its plan to increase LNG exports that a provincial assessment will not be able to objectively evaluate project risks as it will be subject to too much political pressure. Consequently, I think that substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I would like to request that federal review panel conduct a full environmental assessment of the proposal. I think this assessment should include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit. I think it should also consider:

-- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I hope you will take my concerns seriously, along with those of many prominent Canadians, environmental groups and politicians, including MP Fin Donnelly and Mayor Malcolm Brodie of Richmond.
OttawaON
ElsieDeanMinister Aglukkaq

Re: WesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta

This is a proposal that will impact the people of this region and it is essential that you conduct an environmental assessment of this project. The assessment should include all possible effects and include how adding this would affect all other acrtivities in this area.

Reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. BC Government is committed to advancing the LNG industry and cannot be impartial.
BurnabyBC
AngelaBarkleyDear Minister of the Environment,

It appears the LNG Terminal proposed for the Fraser River is being rushed through and the appropriate assessments have not been completed and the public has not been able to provide their input. This will affect many communities along the Fraser River as well as the rich wildlife in this area. I urge you now to do the following:

1. Conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

2, Reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

3. Appoint a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal - include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit in the assessment.

4. The assessment should consider:
a. an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent
b. a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route
c. an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States
d. an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Sincerely Yours,
Angela Barkley
VancouverBC
OdieGeigerDear Minister Aglukkaq,
I am extremely concerned about the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal. I believe that it is vitally important that your ministry convenes a federal review panel to complete an environmental assessment of this project and rejects BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead. The assessment needs to include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

The review should include an evaluation of the terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route, and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you for giving this urgent matter your immediate attention and commitment.
VancouverBC
SusanDraperDear Minister,
I respectfully urge you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and I can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest, in this particular case.
I also request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal that includes the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
It's important to me that an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent be done;
that a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route be conducted;
that an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States be completed;
and finally, that an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas be thoroughly conducted.
VictoriaBC
AliceEnnsPlease, as our representative in Ottawa, use your authority to set up a federal environmental assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal to be built on the Fraser River.

We owe it to generations to come to take the time and effort to understand what the impact of this proposed facility could be in terms of health, safety and the environment.

Sincerely,
Alice Enns
DeniseBostwickI most respectfully ask that you maintain your authority over the environmental assessments of the proposed LNG terminals on the Fraser River in Delta. We need those in authority to make an informed decision on this. We need to ask questions of the experts who can look at the whole picture. Aside from all the possible or perceived issues with the LNG terminal itself, I wonder if any conflict with possibility of thermal coal (most combustible) loaded on barges and also using the Fraser River. I imagine some might look at my question as a silly one but I don't know the answer & it is important to me. I worry that when all the proposals are dealt with in isolation from each other, then we aren't really looking at what possible outcomes could be. While I appreciate my BC government's enthusiasm in bringing new sources of revenue to BC, I would appreciate it more if I felt like they weren't reinventing the rules & blindly rushing into something without ensuring thorough and reasoned assessment by experts. I think the Fraser River belongs to Canada and not to BC. Canadian government consistently maintains it's authority over salmon farms on Fraser River & our BC government consistently confirms the same. Sincerely, Denise Bostwick
ShelleyMadsenIt's time to stand with the people.New WestminsterBC
LisaMatthausMinister Aglukkaq,

I am writing to request that your office 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC's request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.

BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and I am not confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Such substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. I request that a federal review panel environmental assessment be conducted on the proposal. This assessment should consider:
- the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit;
- an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I look forward to a response to this request, and I hope it includes confirmation that such a federal environmental assessment will be conducted.

Sincerely,
Lisa Matthaus
VictoriaBC
AnnMayoThe Fraser River is already in a precarious situation. Please do not allow more combustible and potentially deadly materials on our waterway.

We are, after all, in an earthquake zone, and human life is far more valuable than increased profits for a millionaire.

"People protect what they love."
... Jacques Yves Cousteau
CoquitlamBC
HenryMcphieHonourable Minister, Ref.the proposed Wespac Lng export terminal on the Fraser River in B.c.. It is my opinion that the B.C. Government is in a conflict of interest when it comes to doing an environmental assessment of this project.Better it be a Federal Review Environmental Panel to do this assessment and take into account a Waterway Suitability assessment equivalent to that of the U.S. Department of Home Security and the U.S.Coast Gaurd.VancouverBC
MarilynMcClellandTO: Minister Aglukkaq,

RE: LNG proposal for the Fraser River in Delta

Due to the enormity of this proposal and the imminent dangers to the area, ecosystems and human health please request a Federal review panel environmental assessment of the project and deny BC's self serving request as it may not reveal all the problems and therefore is not in the public interest. After all it is the public who will be grossly affected by the polluting affects of any LNG project. Dangerous methane gasses are harmful to humans, general environmental health and the planet.

Please include in the stringent review not just the terminal area but the shipping waters up to the Canadian sea limit. Also included should be:

* an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
* a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
* an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
* an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

LNG like the tar sands is scraping the bottom of the barrel; the process incurring great waste of water, pollution of water/land and harmful gasses as does the burning of it. We need to be diligent with projects of this kind making sure no harmful affects occur. Dealing with negative after affects to the area, the environment and health will be costly, depleting valuable funds that would be better spent elsewhere.

Please do the right thing!

Thank you for your time,
Marilyn McClelland
BC
BC
NoahBersonThis project needs a public consultation!VancouverBC
mikechapmanMinister: I strongly urge you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

I also request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.

Finally, I believe the assessment must include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
NelsonBC
raymondwallWe need to re-think this policy.New WestminsterBC
MarcelleRoyGlobal warming is upon us.
There is an urgency to invest in renewables instead of supporting projects that cost our health and that of future generations.
SSIBC
Dr. DavidHendricksonDear Minister,

WesPac Midstream wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta. If approved, 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges could travel the Fraser River yearly. WesPac has NEB approval and now seeks environmental assessment, yet WesPac's project description excludes consideration of LNG tanker traffic as not its responsibility.

This is a problem.

BC has requested the federal EA office turn over assessment of this project to the province. Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

Please initiate a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal and include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Please also consider an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and finally an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

I would appreciate a written response outlining your rationale.

Sincerely,

Dr. David Hendrickson
VancouverBC
Arthur JSolesPlease reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.

A federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal must be made.

Please have the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.

Points to be considered

- An evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
- A Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
- An explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
- An assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VictoriaBC
AllanStanleighThe proposal for building an LNG terminal on the Fraser River requires careful environmental assessments conducted by the Federal Government and not the B.C. authorities. I am opposed to this terminal because of its location so close to a large urban population and the fact that the liquid natural gas will be extracted using fracking processes. This province should be leading in wind, wave power, solar and geothermal energy and not oil and gas, a resource that needs to be fazed out sooner rather than later.VancouverBC
KimberleyWongTo the Honourable Mary Polak,

I am writing to you because I want you to reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest. I want to request a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal. I want to ask that the assessment include the terminal as well as in and out bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit, and I ask that the assessment consider:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent; a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route; an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States; and an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.
VancouverBC
DonBarthelThis is a major project and, as such, must have an environmental assessment conducted. Does LNG on the Fraser make sense? There's a lot of explosive power in a compressed LNG tanker and by being on the Fraser, it'll float amongst millions of people. Let's hear what the experts say before deciding whether to approve this project!BC
NeilVarcoeTilbury Island is about 10 miles up the Fraser River. There will be minimum of 100 cubic metres of natural gas stored on site. What this amounts to is about a 10 kiloton atomic bomb sitting our doorstep, fused and ready to go.

And this is over an above the 5 kiloton which will be on every ship 3 times a week, going down the congested Fraser River for 10 miles.

The new 2012 Environmental Assessment Act will unlikely be interested in doing an study.

This proposal is pure lunacy.

Neil Varcoe
NanaimoBC
ElizabethAndersonI strongly oppose the proposed increase in LNG traffic on the Fraser. Now is the time to be supporting alternative energy sources and protecting our environment from further degradations. Public and environmental safety are far more important than the commerce created by these ships making port on the Fraser for the transport of a product best left in the ground.Mansons LandingBC
StanOlsonDear Minister Aglukkaq.

Regarding the proposed Westpac Tilbury Island LNG terminal:

It is quite clear that we cannot expect an impartial, objective review of the risks of this project from the BC government. Please do not allow the substitution of a provincial review that they are proposing. Please initiate a full federal review panel environmental assessment of this proposed project, to include the terminal and the full inbound and outbound transit of LNG tankers from terminal to Canada's ocean territorial limit.

Please stipulate that this review consider properly all of the following:
an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
-a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
-an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
-an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas.

Thank you.
AbbotsfordBC
MartinGolderLiquified fracked Gas has the same carbon profile as coal. Follow any international thread on fossil fuel futures and you will see that this is a non starter.VictoriaBC
CatherineCulleyDear Minister Aglukkaq,
Please conduct an assessment of the proposed WesPac Tilbury LNG terminal.
Please reject BC's request for substitution. BC has thrown its full support behind LNG exports and we can't be confident a provincial assessment will objectively evaluate project risks. Substitution is neither appropriate nor in the public interest.
Please have a federal review panel environmental assessment of the proposal.
In the assessment, please include the terminal as well as in-bound and out-bound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada's territorial sea limit.
Please have the assessment consider:

1 an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized SIGTTO siting standards or their equivalent;
2 a Waterway Suitability Assessment equivalent to that required by the US Department of Homeland Security and US Coast Guard, including a 3.5 km hazard zone on both sides of the entire LNG tanker route;
3 an explicit assessment of risks posed by intentional acts (i.e. terrorism) as required in the United States;
4 an assessment of project impacts on the climate, including extraction, compression and transport of the natural gas;
5 an assessment of project impacts on salmon moving up and down the Fraser River;
6 an assessment of project impacts on recreational boating and tourism;
7 an assessment of the impact of increased tanker traffic on other wildlife, including whales, in the path of the tankers in BC coastal waters.
VictoriaBC
KevinWashbrookTo CEAA and the federal environment Minister:

I am writing today to ask that you conduct an environmental assessment, by review panel, of the proposed Tilbury LNG facility. I ask that you not substitute a BC assessment process for the federal one. Given that the British Columbia government has so enthusiastically thrown its support behind the LNG export industry, I can't imagine that a provincial assessment of an LNG terminal proposal would be objective or thorough. Acceding to BC's substitution request would be inappropriate and not in the public interest.

First and foremost I ask that your federal review answer the fundamental question of whether the chosen project site is an appropriate location for an LNG terminal, and if the Fraser River is an appropriate LNG tanker route. I draw your attention to the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators standards for LNG terminal site selection for guidance (http://reallnghearings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/sigtto-standards.pdf).

I also ask that the federal EA consider the potential risks and impacts along the length of the LNG tanker route from the proposed terminal site to the limits of Canada's territorial sea. The risks and impacts of this project are not limited to the jetty itself, and neither should the assessment of those risks be limited.

Further, please ensure that the federal assessment meets, at minimum, the standards laid out by the Department of Homeland Security | US Coast Guard in their Waterway Suitability Guidelines (http://reallnghearings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DHS-USCG-NVIC-01-2011-Final.pdf). In accordance with the DHS|USCG guidelines, I ask that your risk assessment consider potential fire hazard impacts up to 3.5 km from the facility and entire LNG tanker transit route, and that your assessment explicitly consider risks associated with intentional acts leading to LNG vessel rupture (i.e. a terrorist attack).

Finally, I ask that your federal assessment consider the cumulative climate impacts arising from the extraction, transport and processing of the natural gas that would be compressed and exported from the proposed terminal.

Thank you for giving my comments your consideration. I look forward to your careful review of this matter.

Regards,
Kevin Washbrook
Vancouver
VancouverBC
EoinFinnSir/Madam:
I am writing to express my objections to the request by the BC Government to substitute the CEAA environmental assessment (EA) of the proposed Wespac Project with a provincial-level assessment under BC Reg. 720/02.
My principal objection is the lack of independence of the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). That independence has been called into question by the recent agreement between the EAO and the BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC), which appears to remove any independence the EAO may have had in dealing with oil and gas projects. The October 17, 2013 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the EAO and the OGC commits the two organizations to work together in issuing approvals for oil and gas projects. The MOU reflects the provincial government’s single-minded priority of oil and gas development, and, particularly, LNG. The EAO’s heretofore independence enabled it to advocate for a wide range of environmental concerns ranging from threatened species and landscape to water supply, fracking chemicals, tailings pond management, river and coastal pollution, air quality, and greenhouse gas production. This MOU would appear to silence that voice, without the slightest effort at either public or legislative discussion.
BC’s Premier and Cabinet are on record as supporting the unrestrained development of BC’s natural gas (NG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. Many voters would hold that it is hardly the public-trust fiduciary duty and role of Government to do that in advance of careful examination of the costs and benefits of such ventures on behalf of all British Columbians, and that such unfettered enthusiasm is bound to affect the objectivity of a provincial-level EA … or at least the perception that such objectivity has been afforded to EAO staff conducting it. This will inevitably lead to considerable public skepticism of the EAO’s conclusions and recommendations. If the unseemly haste with which public input to Fortis’ Tilbury expansion proposal was curtailed is repeated here, that skepticism and unrest will be further amplified.

Other objections include:
• The EAO currently lacks the experience and bench-strength to conduct an adequate environmental assessment of such a plant. The office has no experience with the technical, safety, and marine loading/shipping issues involved in such a large-scale terrestrial/marine LNG venture, let alone one of this scale located in the Fraser River – a confined waterway and fragile ecosystem affected by a century of environmental exploitation and degradation. Further, technical staff levels in the Ministry have been greatly reduced in recent years, calling into question the Ministry’s ability to perform a competent EA.
• The requirement – usually lacking in the cursory BC EA process - for a thorough investigation of the proponent’s proposal, especially given the lack of clarity in the proponent’s proposal re:
o Air quality: There are scant details of the LNG tankers which will emit particulates from diesel fuels; and fugitive NG and GHG emissions will occur during the piping, liquefaction, storage and transfer/shipping stages of treatment. As all of these will contribute airborne contaminants, there is considerable cause for concern about the deterioration of the air quality in the Howe Sound airshed
o Safety: Including measures to be employed in loading the LNG carriers from an above-ground storage tank(s), and the general issue of the safety of this storage and transfer scheme for a highly flammable substance. The Fraser is far too narrow and busy a waterway to be suitable for turnarounds of these vessels. We do not want a “Cleveland event” on the Fraser
o Leakage: The class (Moss, TGZ, IHI, other?) of LNG tankers which will be employed may/may not have reliquefaction capabilities. This is important to the rate of methane leakage of this powerful GHG during tanker loading and their subsequent voyage to Asian and other markets;
o Tanker routing: The exact routing of the proposed tanker traffic, and the effects on foreshores and recreational facilities throughout the Fraser estuary by the wash created by these massive (up to 300m. long, ~150,000 tonne) vessels.
• The EAO lacks both jurisdiction and expertise in both the freshwater and marine elements of the proposal. As DFO is a Federal organization, there is no certainty that its resources and knowledge – essential for the assessment of the project’s impact on the marine ecosystem - will be available to a provincial EA.
I trust you will take these objections into consideration in your decision.
VancouverBC