Public Comments Sent Through This Website:

First NameLast NameCityProvince/StateComment, Concern or QuestionEntry Date
GeoffMaySurreyBC

Canada is the least of the problem it is China India Taiwan and those countries that need to step up to the plate NOT Canada. The best thing for Canada to do is to STOP importing products from those Countries and to start supporting local Canadian industries where we do look after out emissions

Slap a tariff on imported goods from those countries

2016-03-07 08:00:12
trinacooperfederal waywa

Please reject the PNW LNG project, given the conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.
Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage your assessment includes and why is this leakage rate reasonable in your estimate of upstream emissions. Please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. Please use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your response analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Please take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, re-gassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 08:02:59
PatJacobsonQualicum BeachBC

Please do not approve this project, the climate change impacts are real, significant, and well documented. Until we start saying no, we will not be moving on to a new social and economic model that we so desperately need.

2016-03-07 08:07:41
DougHopwoodQualicum BeachBC

Dear CEAA

I believe the Pacific Northwest LNG project is incompatible with Canada's commitments and obligations to reduce GHG emissions. The myth that LNG is a low-Carbon "bridge fuel" has been debunked. When methane leaks are considered LNG is perhaps no better than burning coal, or even worse. We have to put the fossil fuel era behind us and move towards a true low Carbon economy.

I encourage CEAA to to fully consider methane leaks from fracking and all phases of LNG processing in your assessment.

The CEAA has found that PNW LNG will cause "significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions" A key point to consider is that climate change is expected to kill millions of people. So, when you say "environmental effects" we have to acknowledge we really are talking massive loss of human life. That is a morally unacceptable outcome. Please reject the PNW LNG project.

Sincerely,

Doug Hopwood

2016-03-07 08:11:26
HilaryKnightVictoria, British ColumbiaBritish Columbia

Please reject Pacific Northwest LNG.

I've been around on this earth for quite a while now, and I still can't get my head around the intractable stupidity of human beings when faced with obvious and pressing problems like climate change. Who precisely do we think is going to address these exhaustively documented threats? We're already seeing catastrophic climate events.

It is our moral responsibility to our children, to the other species on this planet, and to ourselves to do our utmost to live sustainably. Projects like Pacific Northwest LNG just take us down the same stupid path that's got us in the mess we're in today.

2016-03-07 08:12:25
DonnaBeaumontVancouverBC

If we know about catastrophic spills and greenhouse gases, why would we approve it? Too many negatives for our earth.
Thank you for including our voices.

2016-03-07 08:12:56
KarenDeanBurnabyBC

It is very important that the Agency provide us with a full estimation of GHG emissions from leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Thank you.

2016-03-07 08:13:10
Julie-AnneNorth Le GrasNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

In B.C.., we have lived with the threat of the disastrous consequences of LNG projects for some time now The CEAA report is so welcome to those of us who care deeply about the environment, and all life affected, now and in the future. I am no expert but I know that, if this project is allowed to proceed, we will suffer unforgiving consequences. I note that you have reported on upstream emissions... but what about downstream emissions, what about fracking. what about processing and transporting of LNG? These are no less harmful, and if considered, would, I am sure, add to an already strong and convincing argument to reject the project.
Short term economic gains and employment are just that - short term. Environmental damage will be here to stay and undermine the smallish efforts that are made to slow down global warming, poisoning of our planet, and of all that lives on it.
I urge you to put a stop to the PNW LNG project!
Thank you for considering my input.
Julie-Anne Le Gras, North Vancouver, BC

2016-03-07 08:13:30
EdwardGreischMolineIL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8VFxeRRZ6Q

Watch the result of Global Warming. Also, the war in Syria was caused partly by Global Warming. Continued GW [Global Warming] will make Canada look like Syria does now.

2016-03-07 08:14:33
WilliamSchussSurreyB.C.

The gas is extracted via fracking. which is harmful to our Province. and China survived without L/N.G before and can use solar or other means of energy

2016-03-07 08:15:38
HilaryStrangSidney BC

I appreciate your inclusion of upstream effects of Pacific Northwest LNG. There are many reasons to reject this proposal, and the effects on climate change given the high estimates of CO2 emissions are alone reason enough to reject the proposal. If downstream effects, methane leakage, and damage to salmon nursery beds are included, surely your only answer is to deny the application. I most strongly urge you to do so.

sincerely
Hilary Strang

2016-03-07 08:20:53
LeanneNuttLangleyB.C.

This project will be harmful to the climate and the coastal environment, Please reconsider these potentially devistating affects

2016-03-07 08:23:24
PaulChristensenPrince GeorgeBritish Columbia

At first glance no this project should not be completed.However natural gas as an export commodity is a component to BC's and Canada's financial well being.We need the jobs and the governments need the royalties....not sure how much BC will get after the dust settles but not much to no royalties would be accurate enough for me.If there were concrete plans in place for carbon capture equal to or better yet exceeding estimates for annual emissions,through any variety of means.That were not funded or otherwise subsidized by tax dollars I would give my okay to this and more projects of the same nature given a proper assessment for damage to fish/wildlife habitat as well IE Lielu Island salmon habitat. What is happening in this case is a disgrace period!

2016-03-07 08:25:46
ElizabethSeatonVancouverB.C.

Thank you CREAA for your accurate and blunt assessment. The estimation of the greenhouse gases emitted by the Pacific Northwest LNG project is alarming, but not surprising. Please do not allow this project to continue. The political purposes of LNG in our province of B.C. are cynical and careless. We hear from our Premier that "natural" gas extraction will be our magical economic salvation, and yet there is no mention of the upstream CO2 emissions - "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent". Nor is there mention of the consequences of fracking, the high methane leakages that occur and the consequences of injecting toxic liquids into the ground. Please proceed with your astute analysis and come to its logical conclusion: that the PNW LNG project cannot be allowed to continue.

2016-03-07 08:26:52
DonnaHamiltonVictoriaBC

Please do not approve Pacific Northwest LNG as it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

2016-03-07 08:29:53
shirleygantonkelownaBC

Keep the planet safe by rejecting this plan .We need to begin taking care of the earth so it is still livable space for future generations

2016-03-07 08:30:04
BruceBatchelorVictoriaBritish Columbia

Someone has to have the courage to say, "No," to more fossil fuel infrastructure. Why increase the problem? Far better for everyone to invest in the carbon-free future. That's where the world is headed, so please use your authority responsibly.
The next generation will wonder why these decisions were not totally obvious.
thanks, cheers, Bruce

2016-03-07 08:33:54
DerekSpraggVancouverBC

What green energy (wind, solar, geothermal,wave etc.), besides existing dams (which are nor really green anyway) do we have in BC?

2016-03-07 08:37:11
SigridSingeltonLangleyBC

Please reject the PNW LNG in Prince Rupert for the following reasons:

1.Given that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate
2. Please consider the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project
3. Please clarify what methane leakage rate is OK from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas -
4. Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane calculations using the most recent 20 year GWP for methane in the analysis.
5. Estimate the DOWNSTREAM EMISSIONS from the report, regassificaiton and combustion of the LNG. The damage to our climate down stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 08:37:19
Noah QuastelVancouverBC

Thanks for considering upstream GHG emissions in the Draft Environmental Assessment. Now, please reject the project, it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

There is a need for a full lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions. This requires a precise discussion of methods, and debates around methane leakage and for any estimates of leakage to be clearly justified. In particular, a full analysis of leakage needs to be included and one that considers the full range of possible gas extraction technologies, such as hydraulic fracturing. The Agency should clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations and make sure it is up to date. There is also a need to consider how the project will have downstream effects, contributing to an overall natural gas market through increasing supply and consumption of a dangerous pollutant--to whit, carbon.

The EA needs to include analysis of path dependency and momentum created by new built fossil fuel infrastructure. What are the future effects on the economy and political decision-making, of having large scale investment be locked in to this type of built infrastructure?. How will this lead investors and firms to oppose future GHG reduction measures, such as increases to carbon taxes? For theoretical reference, please start with Unruh, G. 2000. Understanding Carbon Lock-In. Energy Policy. 28, 817-830. The deeper point, is that building more LNG is an obstacle to building a clean energy economy. The EA requires a broader analysis which asks how the project contributes or detracts from a necessary energy transition.

Yours,

Noah Quastel

2016-03-07 08:37:37
FionaRayherVancouverBRITISH COLUMBIA

I call on CEAA to reject this project given recent findings.

2016-03-07 08:39:06
JulieJohnstonPender IslandBC

Burning LNG = carbon. Simple as that. But the Burning Age is ending. It's over. Period.

LNG is not a good alternative to coal or oil just because there's a chance it's slightly less bad. So no more fuels, no more burning, no more new fossil fuel projects, no more support for new fossil fuel infrastructure (no more pipelines), no more subsidies for fossil fuels.

It's time to move on to the climate-safe era of non-burning energy sources ... a golden era of non-burning, perpetual, ever-lasting energy sources that will help us rapidly reach our urgent goal of zero carbon emissions by mid-century while creating a safer, cleaner, healthier, more peaceful and more equitable world for all the children - of all species.

Please reject this (and any) project that isn't moving us in the direction of zero carbon. Thank you for considering upstream GHG emissions. I'm sure if you combined calculations on the downstream impacts with up-to-date information on how quickly the climate system in descending into chaos, your decision would be a hasty "Hell, no!"

2016-03-07 08:42:45
JoanneVan SnellenbergDeltaBritish Columbia

Do not approve the Pacific Northwest LNG. The environmental cost is too great!

2016-03-07 08:48:47
Jef KeighleyHalfmoon BayB.C.

Dear CEAA:

Say NO to fossil fuel combustion! Say YES to a low carbon future!

I am writing to both give my congratulations on your study finding that the Pacific Northwest LNG project, on balance, "is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions" and to voice my opposition to approval of the project.

Once the land is fracked and the released gas begins to migrate towards the surface, there is no way to know where it will go, what it will contaminate in the process and when it will stop. Even if the impossible were achieved and a fully leak-proof gas transmission system were possible, the fugitive gas would continue to rise unabated. The poisoning of clean surface waters used in the fracking process is also a major adverse environmental impact.

Negative human and animal health impacts around fracking fields is a serious and growing problem and has to be seen as a negative environmental impact.

Those who believe that fracked natural gas can be liquified into LNG and sold overseas as a "clean" transition fuel to get us off fossil fuels are a little like believing that 'light' cigarettes can wean a person off of tobacco. It doesn't work. Nicotine is nicotine and combusting fossil fuels is combusting fossil fuels, with the added kicker that the upstream fracking process is not a benign enterprise devoid of adverse climate impacts.

It is clear from virtually all of the scientific evidence that humans have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel consumption as quickly as is possible to save our planet from the worst rages of climate change. Any project of the magnitude of Pacific Northwest LNG intends to be producing and shipping for the next 25 - 35+ years to recover the capital investment in the infrastructure and to make a profit commensurate with the investment. That's just good business. But we don't have 25 - 35 years to spare before we get off of fossil fuel combustion. We need to act NOW!

The scale of the capital investment in natural gas extraction, construction of pipelines, LNG compressors, shipping terminals and LNG tankers would be better spent developing low carbon, renewable energy technologies and facilities so we don't need to be combusting fossil fuels. There are hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs and healthy corporate profits to be made in the emerging green economy that will counteract adverse climate change and bequeath a healthier planet to our global heirs.

Much of the capital investment in LNG extraction-to-shipping is significantly subsidized through federal and provincial tax incentives, which artificially skew investments towards continuing fossil fuel consumption. Canada needs to shift any available incentives towards a low carbon, renewable energy future and accelerate the leap to a low carbon economy.

Should the CEAA approve Pacific Northwest LNG, you will be directly and deliberately prolonging the transition off of fossil fuel consumption and be prepared to accept responsibility for exacerbating climate change and despoiling the planet we bequeath to our global heirs. Don't do it!

Say NO to Pacific Northwest LNG. Say YES to a low carbon economy and help speed our path to a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous future.

2016-03-07 08:48:53
KatherineDunsterDenman IslandBC

There are many reasons why CEAA should not approve the Pacific Northwest LNG Project. Considering upstream GHG emissions was a good start. To be honest to the planet however, all sources of methane leakage from LNG projects must be considered - from fracking, processing, and transport - upstream and downstream - wherever it is sent there will be local and global problems.

The accident at the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Field in California emphasizes the problem - that leaks are very bad news for the climate. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide, but pound for pound, methane can be 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Methane that enters the atmosphere takes about 12 years to break down — it is mostly removed from the air by chemical reactions with other compounds.We do not have 12 years. Cumulative effects must also be taken into account.

In a blink, the Aliso leak negates all of the excellent work California has done to reduce GHG emissions over the past decade, could be responsible for a large percentage of all of the state's methane emissions this year, and could be the worst methane leak in California's history. We do not need this to happen in Canada.

The Draft EA review has concluded that the PNW LNG Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. CEAA must reject the project.

2016-03-07 08:50:21
RobMillerVictoriaBC

It is commendable that CEAA is considering upstream GHG emissions in the analysis of the Pacific North West LNG proposal.

Now it's time to take a comprehensive project assessment approach by also considering downstream GHG emissions.

I urge you to not approve the PNW, LNG proposal until a comprehensive project assessment has been undertaken.

Respectfully Yours

Rob Miller

2016-03-07 08:50:39
OdieGeigerVancouverBritish Columbia

It is agonizing to hear of one project after another that seems to view fossil fuel exploitation as a reasonable strategy. If the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has concluded that this project will cause emissions that are "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent" how is it possible that anyone can see this as sane or acceptable? The life you save may be your own. I urge the CEAA, to deny this permit!

2016-03-07 08:50:53
kateclarkvancouverBC

I do not support PNW LNG or any other initiative which will continue to exacerbate our existing climate change. Please do not put more taxpayers dollars into this form of energy. Let's use our investments towards new, green alternative energy sources. It's now, or never. sadly.

2016-03-07 08:51:42
SpencerBairdTofinoBC

Please reject this proposal that will be detrimental to the world and all the people living in it. Climate Change is real and is happening so we need to really curb carbon dioxide emission.

2016-03-07 08:52:33
RoyParkinsonColdstreamBritish Columbia

I recommend the CEAA reject "all" LNG EXPORT Projects as these projects have questionable economics they are uneconomical without massive tax breaks & subsidizes . These LNG Projects all require emissions exemptions that are unacceptable and will push Canada further away from controlling Green house gas emissions and making its commitments to halt climate change !! Upstream Green house gas emissions that cause significant irreversible environmental effects must be halted !! The world can not continue on its path of environmental destruction for "Corporate Profit" I thank you for accepting submissions form ordinary citizens (A new Beginning) Please keep in touch with the people and be a leader in putting the environment and humanity as a "priority" !!

2016-03-07 08:52:34
ChrisBarrington-LeighMontrealQuebec

I would like to congratulate the CEAA on its inclusion of upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

However, it is unclear why the downstream emissions are not equally a part of the impact of this project. The agency recognizes the global impact of the upstream emissions. Therefore, it must also assess the additionality of
from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG downstream. Ultimately, it is likely that assuming 100% additionality is the closest approximation to the actual elastic response because the limitations about what stays in the ground will largely ultimately be regulatory and/or reflect the rising cost from carbon pricing.

Please extend the GHG analysis to include the inevitable downstream emissions which, in simple terms, would come very transparently from this project.

Also, on account of the global environmental damages you have identified, and because we may be near a tipping point within the timescale of methane residency in the atmosphere, I call on you to reject the project.

Prof Chris Barrington-Leigh
Department of Economics, School of Environment, IHSP
McGill University

2016-03-07 08:54:08
JessicaCarsonVancouverBC

I applaud the CEAA's consideration of the upstream GHG emissions of the proposed Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG project in Prince Rupert. You have concluded "that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions..." I urge you to estimate the downstream emissions from the transport, regassification, and combustion of the LNG once it is exported. I also urge you to strongly consider the cumulative environmental effects and total emissions, in light of Canada's and BC's current and forthcoming targets for emissions reductions. If the environmental costs are too high and risky, as you already seem to have concluded, please reject the project.

2016-03-07 08:55:36
DavidHamLasqueti Is.BC

I am very concerned that the global warming potential of LNG has been underscored in the determination as to whether the project Pacific Northwest LNG that proposes to ship LNG from Prince Rupert should proceed. The methane leakage factor must also be seriously considered in any decision. The damage done to our precious planet's climate does not stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Please do not forget that the wants and desires of the local indigenous people must be considered in any decision.
Thank you
David Ham

2016-03-07 08:59:01
mikechapmannelsonBritish Columbia

My family and I urge you to reject PNW LNG.

We absolutely need to rapidly reduce emissions to avoid runaway climate change.

2016-03-07 08:59:30
JeffMooreDeltaBC

Thank-you for your environmental assessment of the Pacific Northwest LNG project. Given the significant and irreversible effects of the project, I urge you to reject it. At the very least, please provide Canadians with a more complete picture by conducting further analysis to determine the effect of downstream emissions on climate change.

2016-03-07 09:01:01
ToryRussellWhitehorseYukon

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you for considering upstream GHG emissions. Downstream emissions - i.e. transporting, storing and finally burning the fuel - should also be considered.

This is about climate change. A full life-cycle analysis of methane is critical to understanding all the climate impacts of this project.

I urge the CEAA to reject this project, based on the irreversible harm it will cause our climate.

2016-03-07 09:07:45
JimKneeschDeltaBC

I am concerned about the upstream impact on the green house gas emissions as well as the impact on ground water and the huge amounts of power required to process LNG.

The net effect of utilizing LNG, may help the countries using the gas, but the production of the LNG will be very detrimental to Canada

Building an LNG terminal on the Fraser river would be insane.

2016-03-07 09:08:14
GordonMillerVancouverBC

Dear Sirs,

As I understand the CEAA report on the PNW, LNG proposal for Prince Rupert,
the upstream greenhouse gas emissions from this project are estimated to be 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year, and can be characterized as similar to direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent. The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

It is my strong belief this project should not be approved by the CEAA.

Gordon Miller

2016-03-07 09:09:09
charlesreifvancouverB.C.

Thank you for estimating the upstream emissions from the PNW project in your Draft Environmental Assessment.

How can the results for projects such as this one be justified in light of the Paris accord and our Federal Government's agreement, in fact the world's agreement, that emissions must be drastically reduced to avoid a 2 degree or greater increase in global temperatures and the havoc that would result?

Your assessment does not even consider the downstream emissions that will result from the burning of the fossil fuel being extracted and exported. How can world leaders and governments know how much emissions must be cut if they do not receive adequate information about the full impacts of industrial and other greenhouse gas emitters?

2016-03-07 09:09:45
Ronvan der EerdenVancouverBritish Columbia

In a world awash in a glut of natural gas it makes no economic or environmental sense to build yet more capacity - particularly since most of the supply is fracked. Natural gas may well be a useful bridge fuel under certain limited circumstances but it seems most likely that current global capacity can meet that need.

2016-03-07 09:10:20
Christine JohnstonVictoriaBC

My son and family live in the Skeena valley and I hear much work is going on to install PNW LNG. But most objective environmental research shows this is highly risky for the long-term health of the river on which so many people depend, The famous salmon fishing is at high risk especially from a proposed port at the mouth.
The climate will be damaged by greenhouse gas emissions and the whole issue of methane leakage is most worrying, indeed scary. This is a high risk venture which we expect all with rue not only in the Skeena valley but in BC, Canada and much of he world. Please think of long-term health and welfare and not short-term gain for a few.

2016-03-07 09:20:26
DaiRobertsBowen IslandB. C.

As an amateur mariner and very long time resident of the Howe Sound, I know Howe Sound, its beauty and wild life well. I have sailed, fished and scuba dived in these waters for close to fifty year. I have witnessed the slow but sure recovery of the aquatic life since the massive upgrading of the Port Mellon Mill, the closing of Woodfibre and the Britannia mine, the almost cessation of log sorting on the water. Howe Sound is at last again a place of natural beauty that is featured on postcards and calendars as the pride of Canada. It is central to the tourism of Vancouver, Whistler and the Sunshine Coast.
Just this week, some of the thousands of skiers on their way to Whistler were able to watch Orca, the killer Whales that have at last returned to Howe Sound, plying the waters right in front of the old Woodfibre mill. We now know that herring spawn very close to the mill site and that they are the primary feed for salmon that is vital to our fishing industry and the sport fishing is a major tourist resource.
How can our Federal Government possibly consider allowing an LNG industry to intrude on this beautiful place. There is no question that the proposed cooling system will reverse the recovery of our aquatic life. How can our Government, our protector, consider allowing LNG tankers to operate in our busy recreation waters where three major ferry routes cross the propose shipping lane. During normal hours, on average, one ferry passes in or out or Horseshoe Bay terminal and crosses the LNG shipping lane every twenty minutes. This means that there is there is a ferry in or close to the shipping land at almost all times. International Shipping Standards (SIGTTO) would totally disallow such shipping in Howe Sound, or anywhere so close to residential communities for numerous safety reasons. USA has adopted these standards for all our neighbouring waters of Puget Sound for very good reasons.
The financial and tax possibilities of Woodfibre LNG are worse than bleak. The market price of LNG is very low, probably destroying the viability of the business. The tax record of the proponent is questionable. The ownership is by one foreign individual and any profits from the sale of this, our Canadian resource, will be spent and invested outside of Canada.
The whole project is centered on the use and burning, by persons unknown, of more fossil fuel. Regardless where the fuel is actually burnt, it will add massively to the generation of greenhouse gas. Is the export of greenhouse gas emission a reasonable option when we consider the way that Climate Change is affecting our lives?
Considering all the above reasons to ban LNG in Howe Sound, I suggest that it is clearly immoral for our Government to allow it to proceed.

Say a loud and clear NO.

2016-03-07 09:21:12
StellaDodgeNorth VancouverB.C.

LNG projects raise concerns about the negative impact resulting from injecting materials ro release shale gas. Greenhouse gases will be elevated if these projects are allowed to proceed. Have First Nations been consulted thoroughly on these projects. There are also concerns over earthquakes resulting from these projects.

2016-03-07 09:22:55
TobyDentVancouver 

Cancel PNW LNG in Prince Rupert. Not only is it a gross carbon emitter causing irreversible climate change, it also causes earthquakes. If you take a good look at what LNG has done in the US...you really don't want it here. What a disaster this project would be. No-one wants it and for good reason.

2016-03-07 09:23:01
CurtisJohnsonFanny BayBritish Columbia

Stop expanding industries that pollute everything on the planet and sponsor additional non-polluting energy projects..

2016-03-07 09:26:49
D.R.McLarenVancouver 

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I am so grateful that the CEAA has delivered such a clear message about the adverse effects of the proposed LNG project for Prince Rupert. The world is desperate for this type of honesty about climate impacts.

I would respectfully ask that you include in your final report details about the leakage of methane from fracking, production and transport of natural gas and the global warming potential impact according to the most recent 20 year GWP factor for methane.

Finally, please include an estimation of the downstream GHG emissions from this project.

The only hope we have for ensuring a future for the human race on this planet is to turbocharge the development of clean energy by slowing the tidal wave of carbon production and emissions.

Please continue to do your very best in the life or death job of clarifying all of the very real threats to our environment and our very existence on Earth.

With sincere gratitude,
D.R. McLaren

2016-03-07 09:30:18
LeslieSlackDelta Bc

Our country needs to stop investing money in the dirty fuel business and instead invest in renewable energy. I urge the CEAA to reject this project as it will cause irreversible damage to the climate.

2016-03-07 09:30:28
ThomasRobsonVancouverBC

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

I stand with many Canadians in opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG project because of the irreversible and negative global impact it will have.

We have an opportunity now to make a significant gesture that is harmonious with Canadian values and it needs to be made.

Please reject this project and set the stage for the difficult work ahead of us as we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Sincerely,

-Thomas Robson
Vancouver, BC

2016-03-07 09:32:34
AnnGrantVancouverBC

I call on CEAA to reject the project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

I applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

I ask you to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you included and to justify the leakage rate you used in your estimate of upstream emissions. Please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

I ask you to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. You should use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

I ask you to take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 09:32:47
AndrewLarigakisVancouverBC

I wish to call on CEAA to reject the PNW LNG project given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

I would like to request that the Agency clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rate used in your estimation of upstream emissions. Please include the estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Please also clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. Kindly use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

It is also important that the CEAA to takes its analysis one step further and estimates the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Sincerely,
Andrew Larigakis

2016-03-07 09:32:55
JudithMcphieVancouverBC

Please DO NOT approve this LNG project. It is clearly a backward step in our work towards a cleaner environment and sustainable clean energy.

The adverse effects of such a project, as your agency has clearly articulated, are not to be permitted in 2016.

It is the wrong path for our economy and our global responsibility.

Thank you
Judith McPhie

2016-03-07 09:33:58
RobynJacobVancouverBritish Columbia

I am writing to put in my opinion that the CEAA should reject the Prince Rupert LNG project. In today's world, where we talk about climate change and living in "green" cities, projects like these have no place. I would like to say thank you for considering things like upstream GHG emissions, but would like clarification on the sources of methane leaks and also on how that is permissible. Also, what would the downstream emissions be from the export, regassification and combustinon of LNG?

Coast Salish philosophy looks from seven generations behind and towards the well-being of seven generations into the future. It's the least we can do as settlers to acknowledge the destruction and impact that a project like this would do. There are always other ways to bolster the economy, as long as we are smart about it and act proactively.

Robyn

2016-03-07 09:35:53
GrahamMulliganSurreyBC

Dear Sirs, Mesdames,
I am pleased to have the opportunity to register my opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG proposal for Prince Rupert. The risk to the environment from upstream burning of this gas is unacceptable. Therefore the CEAA should reject the project. Can you clarify what sources of methane leakage you include? Does this include fracking, production, processing, transporting? Also can you clarify the global warming potential factor for methane? Is this the most recent GWP for methane? What about downstream emissions from the export process, regassification and combustion of the LNG?

Sincerely,
Graham Mulligan

2016-03-07 09:38:47
raymondwallNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

This government made a serious commitment to us as well to all of the world that we are now once again a contributing member of the international community and to that end we have made carbon reduction a serious issue going forward.There is no shortage of LNG projects as evidenced by the price and availability of the product. We need to work with the environment and I for one when voting Liberal for the first time in sixty years was under the impression that Justin was following this path.

2016-03-07 09:39:31
MichaelLawrenceGrand ForksBritish Columbia

You yourselves are aware of the environmental destruction of these projects, I, as a citizen of British Columbia and Canada cannot see a benefit to us. I only see big business and corporations making money and leaving a mess for us to clean up but we may not be able to clean up this mess.

2016-03-07 09:40:28
TeresaPhillipsComoxBritish Columbia

It's time to change how we treat the environment before it's too late!! Be the government that made the difference!!

2016-03-07 09:43:53
LeslieStanickSurreyBC

Thank you for your assessment of the LNG project of the Pacific Northwest. I am strongly opposed to this project and others like it for the unprecedented release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Raising greenhouse gas emissions estimated to be 6.5-8.7 million tonnes of C02e per year IS OUTRAGEOUS! AND IT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED.

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions. Methane leakage from from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas must be included in the equation. Analysis of near term impacts is also crucial.

i urge you to also calculate the downstream emissions for the export, regassification and combustion of LNG. WE must be aware that these tonnes of emissions continue when they leave Canada...The whole process must be closely examined step by step.

I am strongly opposed to continuing to export LNG, at the risk of polluting Canadian waterways, air, soil, food sources and the impacts on local communities and the larger ecosystems through burning of fossil fuel. I urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you.

2016-03-07 09:44:17
Greg J.EdwardsDeltaB.C.

Thank you for delving into all of the environmental effects of LNG from pollution of the ground to fouling our atmosphere.

2016-03-07 09:51:31
KateVincentVancouverB.C.

Regarding the Pacific Northwest LNG project in Prince Rupert:

"The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.
The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions…"

This statement from the CEAA's draft assessment alone makes it abundantly clear that this project is not in line with commitments made at the Paris summit in December, 2015. Furthermore, were the downstream emissions from this project to be factored in as well, there could be no doubt that this, and any similar project, would be irresponsible bordering on criminal considering the dire effects predicted worldwide.

It is simply not good enough for politicians to giggle the numbers, reduce emissions in this sector only to let them balloon in another in order to meet some random target that will allow us to continue with business as usual. This is head-in-the-sand behaviour, and I urge the CEAA to reject this project and any others that may endanger the future of our children and grandchildren.

2016-03-07 09:53:02
JenniferCondieSurreyBC

Please, please do not approve the Pacific Northwest LNG in Prince Rupert.
The Government has a responsibility to think about the long term impacts of such a project, not just short term financial benefits.

Thank you for considering upstream emissions, please clarify how leakage estimations are calculated, and include leakage estimates through the whole process of extraction, processing and transport. Please use the most current methods to calculate the GWP, and calculate the downstream emissions that will result when the gas leaves Canada.

2016-03-07 09:55:34
DorothyYadaVancouverBC

Considering the fact that Pacific Northwest LNG will cause significant adverse environmental effects, I beg you to reject this project.

2016-03-07 09:58:07
sandymcnameewhite rockbc

Please do NOT approve PNW LNG. The irreversible emissions alone and the harm to our climate should be enough to stop this project. The CEAA is on the right track with upstream GHG and now needs to do downstream GHG analysis. I would also like to see methane leak estimates and GWP for methane, using the updated 20 yr GWP for methane.

I hope you can be a role model for the change that we all know is coming. It's a matter of who will claim the rights to being at the forefront of rationality and putting our planet and our health ahead of corporate profits.
Thank you for the chance to comment.
sandy

2016-03-07 09:59:19
StaceyNixonVancouverBritish Columbia

Climate change is real and we all are feeling the effects of the extraction of fossil fuels. We are moving to renewable energy, like the rest of the world. All you need to do is to take a flight to Japan, China, all Asia and Australia to see the move to renewable energy. We mustn't be the followers, losers!
The CEAA has concluded it will cause irreversible harm to the climate and that should be enough to reject all projects related to LNG and fossil fuels. It needs to stop NOW, for the future of all living mankind and animals. Big money needs to remove themselves from ruining our climate and move over to renewable energy where full time jobs will be for thousands, not just the lucky few with part time jobs while building these projects, and a few full time jobs once the projects are up and running.
Thank you for making a wise decision and to reject projects that lead to polluting our environment.
Thank you

2016-03-07 09:59:45
ChristopherHatchVancouverBritish Columbia

To whom it may concern,

I urge the CEAA to reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project on the grounds of significant greenhouse gas emissions. At a time when the federal government has agreed to phase out fossil fuel emissions through the UNFCC, it is incompatible to be building additional projects that will increase our fossil fuel emissions.

Respectfully,

Christopher Hatch

2016-03-07 10:01:00
Rev. JordanEllisNanaimoB.C.

It's heartening to see - finally - an important government agency release some clear, direct statistical evidence on the harm of GHG emissions, particularly LNG from fracking. It's been commonly understood anecdotally for a long time now.
Clearly, the harm being even presently caused must be stopped, so considering adding more is ludicrous.
Methane release is particularly harmful. My studies at Vancouver Island University have taught me that methane is approximately 80 X more deleterious to our atmosphere than Co2.
Creating the proposed LNG facility at Pr. Rupert brings into play many other parts of the system your study does not address in it's scope. Aspects such as the increase in large tanker traffic in some of the most dangerous seas in the world and their risk to large eco systems of the area and the deleterious and possibly disasterous effects on the 'Salish Sea' area of the South Coast. Our unpreparedness to deal with those issues has been demonstrated clearly.
Of course, the economic arguments for the need for LNG and it's financial viability are now seriously in question, so, in the end, this project and others like it will be harmful to the B.C. and Canadian economy rather than helpful.
First Nations issues lie unaddressed,still, also.
And, of course, there's the largest question of all. The global question of whether or not our planet can sustain the growth of GHG's without catastrophic results, even to the possible extinction our our species, along with many, many others from the planet.
Please, back us up, now, to help us move forward in a healthy, sustainable manner.

2016-03-07 10:02:36
Kim PatrickO'LearyCoquitlamBC

I can not believe that the federal and provincial governments of Canada continue to persist with backward thinking regarding energy, the environment, physical costs to people's health, and the cost to the planet with regard to continuing to pursue such ridiculous and dangerous projects such as LNG (or the tarsands).

This is 2016 and not the 1950s! We know SO much more now than we did then. It is unconscionable that you are still even considering any LNG plants in Canada. The costs are too high, for very little benefit - except to China of course. But the people of China will suffer just as much from all the negative effects of LNG. But China doesn't care about anyone or anything.

Does Justin Trudeau and the federal government care about Canadians, our health and the environment?
Then say no to LNG.

Thank you.

2016-03-07 10:03:36
CathyReedSquamishBC

Of course Canada must reject PNW LNG!!!

Canada made commitments at the Paris Climate Conference, so how could we possibly say 'yes' to PNW LNG??? We would prove to be an immediate fraud right out of the starting gate!

To Trudeau and the new Liberal government: Don't let us down! Canada must live up to her commitments. If not now, when??

2016-03-07 10:08:27
ChrisRoseQuathiaski Cove, Quadra IslandBC

As far as I'm concerned there should be no LNG/LFG production of any kind anywhere. The gasses produced by this production method will contribute to further increases of Green House Gasses in the atmosphere. be that during the production, transportation and utilization phase. Further I'm opposed to any further mining of any other fossil fuels and their transportation and utilization as an end-product.
The time has come when all societies of the world have to change over to "Clean Energy". There is not much time left for a transition period of 20 years. The action has to take place now.
If countries like Denmark can do it why can't we and look at some of the Canary Island who have become totally fossil fuel free within a few years.

2016-03-07 10:10:16
Chris Vanderkop Fort St. JamesBC

We do not want the LNG program in BC. Too many negatives such as destruction of marine life and fish stocks, excessive GWP pollution to the air quality and environment. NO LNG IN BC. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND WE DON'T CARE WHAT OUR PREMIER HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT. SHE DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE VOTERS THINK. AGAIN, NO LNG EVER IN BC PROVINCE.

2016-03-07 10:12:27
PennyOyamaBurnabyBritish Columbia

Finally!! The CEAA has done it's most complete job to date! So why would this damning declaration of environmental destruction NOT result in rejection of the Pacific Northwest LNG project??
This whole plan to frack, extract and export LNG - and all the other very toxic non-renewable fossil fuels MUST STOP!!
LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND!!

2016-03-07 10:13:22
DorteFroslevBrackendaleBritish Columbia

The damage fracking is doing to our earth is intolerable on so many levels. From science that has no idea what long term damage it is causing and even fewer ideas on how to mitigate consequences, from leaking methane and uncontrollable leakage (California) to earthquakes, from contamination of groundwater and threatened rivers and lakes to pipeline failures and increased tanker traffic, we must stop this madness. Fossil fuels need to be left in the ground, if not forever, at least until we learn how to control the consequences on climate and local environments. It is time to cover over the mess we have already made and build solar and wind farms instead. It is time to move to a green economy and there is no time to lose. Please act on the science we already know.
Thank you for the work already done and hoping for so much more.

2016-03-07 10:14:05
LorraineFralinVancouverBC

For years I have written to private agencies and Municipal, Provincial and Federal Governments expressing my deep disapproval over the extraction method, water contamination, land contamination and transport of LNG product. I believe in my heart that the time has come to see the state of the planet as it really is: slowing dying. I also believe that if a huge change occurs now it may, just may start to reverse. You have or are close to people that have children or grandchildren and therefore you must realize that green alternative energy is the only way that these young people have to grow and flourish for this is their right and you may not take that away. Please, please do the right thing and look outside the box to wind power, water turbine power, solar power and geo-energy power. Look to these alternative sources and be the first to congratulate each other for a job well done!

2016-03-07 10:15:11
GiliAvrahamiVancouverBC

There is ONLY one answer to this permit question - DENY it is tha ONLY WAY TO GO.
We've been ignoring the environment for too long, putting short term profit and greed over everything else that is important to our livelihood and communities. We must gradually end our dependancy in fossil fules and go towards green and sustainable economy. Any decision which allows the distraction of the environment is clearly a decision in the wrong direction, which we and our children and great grandchildren will pay for.
Let's do the right thing, now.
Thank you,

2016-03-07 10:17:51
SandraCurrieVancouverBC

Thank you for considering the entire impact of this project. So often, these issues are looked at in a piecemeal way. I presume you'll also be looking at the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of LNG.
In order to meet our international commitments to address climate change, it is imperative that this project does not go forward. Your assessment of all the impact to the environment is essential in getting Canadians to understand the real human cost of these projects. My children and grandchildren thank you.

2016-03-07 10:19:09
PatCaraherVancouverBC

Re: PNW LNG climate impacts serious, irreversible

I call on CEAA to reject the project, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate. I applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA. Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions, and include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. Also, please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations, using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial. Please take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores!

2016-03-07 10:23:10
RobMcDermotVictoriaB.C.

How are we reducing our overall environmental impact by potentially poisoning our groundwater to extract hydrocarbon fuel (natural gas)? We are not! The whole idea is fraught with dangerous envirnomenal implications that have not been taken into consideration. DO NOT DO IT!!!

2016-03-07 10:24:34
DavidWaterhouseVictoriaBC

Please do not encourage Premier Clark to proceed with LNG. It is not compatible with a safe environment. Contrary to Ms. Clark's musings, BC does not lead Canada in environmental stewardship. We wish that it did. We need to stop fracking too.

2016-03-07 10:25:28
Dr. SusanDiamondVancouverBritish Columbia

CEAA has issued a remarkably blunt Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. It's worth quoting the conclusions on climate impacts:
The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.
The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions…
I note these conclusions and support the REJECTION of this project on the grounds you cited above.
Downstream effects should also be quantified and weighed in to the decision.

I've been reading about the first-known uses of fire by human ancestors over a million years ago. We are on a track toward our own extinction if we pursue energy avenues such as this one, and in a few small generations. We're not as smart as we think we are.

2016-03-07 10:28:57
CarolCrabtreeVancouverBC

I strongly believe that the Pacific Northwest LNG project should be rejected because of your findings that it will produce an unacceptable quantity of GHGs and contribute to Canada not being able to reach its reductions in GHGs as promised in COP 21 meetings in Paris.

2016-03-07 10:30:35
FrancesRaftisVancouverBC

I'd like to encourage you to reject the proposed Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG Project in Prince Rupert. As the CEAA has already determined, this project will have a significant negative (and likely irreversible) environment impact. The economic benefits likely to come from this project are unlikely to compensate for this damage, as renewable energy resources such as wind and solar power become more viable every year.

I am heartened to see that the CEAA is considering the upstream GHG emissions that would result from this project. However, it would be even more encouraging to also see an estimate of the downstream emissions that would result from the project.

2016-03-07 10:31:26
MonaHelcermanas-BengeWest VancouverBC

To the CEAA:
Thank you so much for considering the upstream ghg's which were not considered by the BCEAO. And for your conclusion that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously you must deny approval of the EA for the project and I urge you to do so.

According to Jon Christensen, Institute of the Environment & Sustainability at UCLA "the warming caused by methane is 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide - it's very, very important and harmful greenhouse gas."

Please do what is right for BC, Canada and the world.

2016-03-07 10:32:13
RickO'NeillRoberts Creek, B.C.

The PNW LNG project must not be approved.
Your agency has concluded that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental affects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

It is time now to put ethical considerations above the short term profits of a few.

The health and well being of humans must take precedence over corporate desires.

Please do not approve this project

2016-03-07 10:37:10
IngridPedersenQualicum BeachBC

I oppose PNW LNG. We must stop using and promoting these dirty fuels. Our future is in alternative environmentally friendly energy.

2016-03-07 10:42:06
JonLeBaronDenman IslandBC

I call on the CEAA to reject all LNG proposals/projects! The Environmental risks/hazards are obvious and too drastic to justify! You/We need to stop waffling around trying to make a BAD thing appear good! Take a strong stand for ensuring that LNG projects are all rejected and stopped from going any further! Attention and funding for research and development of clean, environmentally friendly energy technology needs to be supported! We must stop the way we have been going and pay attention to what the Earth needs from us before we destroy everything!
Sincerely, Jon LeBaron

2016-03-07 10:44:30
HisaoIchikawaVancouverBC

We must keep fossil fuel underground and develop renewable energy. Everything we use come from Earth. Faster we use any thing especially fossil fuel, faster we pollute our already sick planet. Economical growth depend on how fast we buy and waste, but now we must think the most gentle way to step on Earth, so the many generations to come also survive here peacefully. We can help the oil and gas companies to leave the harmful operations and switch into renewable energy development. Developing renewable energy must become the first priority and our tax money should be spend for saving our environment.

Hisao

2016-03-07 10:46:41
SusannaKaljurCourtenayBC

AS a concerned Canadian voter I request CEAA reject the PNW LNG project given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
I am very grateful that the Agency considered upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in Draft EA.
To be thorough please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include to justify the leakage rate used. Also please include estimate of upstream emissions. Include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, process and transport of natural gas as these impact the environment.
I request the Agency clarify the global warming potential GWP factor for methane used in your calculations. Please use the most recent updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to tipping point now (note accelerated melting of Greenland) and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Please take your analysis one step further and provide an estimate of downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of LNG. The damage done does not end when the LNG leaves our coast.
Thank you.

2016-03-07 10:49:37
KaarenSobyTelkwaBC

The ever increasing DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEMS....WATER, AIR, WILDLIFE, FORESTS, MARINE LIFE ( we ARE DECIMATING OUR WILDLIFE BY THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, WE ARE DESTROYING OUR OCEANS )WITH THE PATH OUR CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENTS AND POLITICIANS HAVE TAKEN BASED ON FULL STEAM AHEAD RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, MAXIMUM EMPHASIS ON SHORT TERM GAIN FOR FALSE IDEALS AND MAXIMUM PROFIT)....THIS IS NO LONGER VIABLE. iN BC ALONE, SITE C DAMN, PETRONUS-LELU ISLAND, UNLEASED AND UNEXAMINED DESTRUCTION OF NORTHEASTERN BC FOR UNVIABLE FRACKING PROJECTS. IT IS HORRIFYING FOR ALL OF US CONCERNED THAT OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN INHERIT A WORLD
WITH BREATHABLE AIR, HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS AND PURE WATER..... GREEN And SUSTAINABLE has a much better economic potential without destroying our home planet. please STOP! STOP! STOP!

2016-03-07 10:54:35
BerylPearsonEnderbyBC

On the outset let me encourage you to reject approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG project. I am a 64 yr. old teacher who has watched this province's natural resources being plundered and misused for decades due to lack of understanding of long term consequences. To approve this project would be short sighted and once again irresponsible not knowing the long term effects in innumerable areas. We are in a time period of runaway climate change but we don't really know why. That means STOP and figure out why first! Then make corrections and proceed. As an example: Do you know what potential negative effect this project could/would have on marine phytoplankton? Since NASA has stated that marine phytoplankton could be responsible for producing up to 90% of our global oxygen, it would be a wise decision to make darn sure that we are emphatically protecting the BC coast line for that reason alone, if no other. Now, think of the plethora of other possible issues this decision could have long term effects on. My grandchildren along with every other Canadian child deserve our wisdom not our greed to be making the decisions which they will have to live with. You have gained respect with your consideration of the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW Project in the Draft EA but now we need you to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rate you use in your estimate of upstream emissions. Seriously, we need you to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. My late husband was a lawyer working with the Alberta E.U.B. when fracking was introduced for approval. As a result of our discussions and also sitting in on some of the presentations I KNOW now, with hindsight, how sugar coated and short-sighted we all were due to the clever 'marketing' from those who would benefit the most. As things stand today, from past experience and given your conclusions I believe your decision has the potential of protecting us or putting in line for irreversible harm to the climate and BC's fragile ecosystems. Thank you for allowing us to provide input. Beryl Pearson

2016-03-07 10:59:04
PeterLambSalt Spring IslandBC

The Pacific Northwest LNG project must be rejected based on your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

If the Canadian Government is serious about reducing GHG emissions to meet its targets, then you must start to take urgent action to avoid approval of such major new fossil-fuel infrastructure, which will be in operation for decades
.
I agree that the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project must be considered in any environmental assessment of such a major project and I would argue that the same should apply to downstream emissions. Approval of this plant will inevitably lead to additional GHG emissions from regasification, transportation and consumption wherever it is used, whether in Canada or elsewhere.

Finally, have you adequately considered the significant associated issue of methane leakage in your assessment? This would include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

2016-03-07 11:01:02
AnneSteinoVancouverBC

Dear CEAA,

I am a mother, a scientist and a citizen of an increasingly scary world. Climate change is the largest threat our society has ever faced and I urge you to act on this threat. For the sake of our children and their children, please reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project.
At a time where climate change is at the top of political agendas worldwide and where Canada's prime minister recently signed the Paris agreement, it is unjustifiable to approve a project with an impact on climate change that your own report characterizes as "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent."
I applaud you for including the upstream emissions from the LNG project but I miss an estimate of the downstream emissions as well as a justification of the methane leakage rate used in the report. Methane gas is many times more potent as a green house gas than CO2, and the extent of methane gas use in the Pacific Northwest LNG project should be very clear and include all steps (fracking, production, processing and transportation).

It is crucial that we start action now and show leadership to our children and to the world in this challenging time.

Reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project. It is the right thing to do and you know it.

Sincerely,
Anne Steino.

2016-03-07 11:05:42
Mary LynnDerecheyDeltaBC

Please reconsider approving the Pcific Northwest LNG project. Global warming is a huge concern for our family as well as the health and welfare of the people living on this planet. If you want to make a real difference, it is important to stop or at least make strict guidelines to reduce and eventually eliminate the offending emissions. LNG would add to these emissions at a time when the government has stated they want to reduce these emissions. Please do not break your promise!

2016-03-07 11:08:54
joanrussowVictoriaBC

In 1976 at Habit I, the transition SOCIALLY EQUITABE ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND RENEWABLE ENERGY began in Vancouver - all along Jericho beach wer proposals for solar and wind.

At Globe 2016, "transition" is being used to justify the continuation of the oil sands, pipeline LNG.

How long will the transition last?;
It is 2016, climate change is urgent; to stay at 1.5 degrees, the carbon budget is estimated to be used up by 2035,

It is time to implement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and abide with the precautionary principle and the principle of the rights of future generations and embrace solar, wind and gothermal.
At 2016, the Consul from Ecuador exclaimed; why does BC not develop geothermal.
Why risk methane leaks, earthquakes, and pollution of water source for drinking
water, agriculture and food Security

2016-03-07 11:11:42
jacquimacdonaldvictoriabc

i Call on CEAA to reject the project, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
i Applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.
i Ask the Agency to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Ask them to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
i Ask the Agency to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. Ask them to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
i Ask the Agency to take their analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 11:19:22
JaneGibneyVancouverBC

Please don't allow fracking in this province or in Canada. Just a little research on the web tells the horror stories from Virginia USA, polluted ground water, Peaple getting ill, leagal battles with large fuel companies and clean ups that will take centuries to repair! Other countries around the world are outlawing this practice. Why are we even considering fracking? How damn stupid are we? The average ten year old can do the research! Please stop all fracking in BC Canada!

2016-03-07 11:20:39
ChristineDujmovichSurreyBC

Please make the right decision and say reject PNW LNG. Climate change can be slowed down and we need to take action now.

2016-03-07 11:22:26
colettegaretyvancouverb.c.

This is urgent! While as an energy source, natural gas is reasonably clean, the fracking process and the end product is not. The emissions are the equivalent of burning coal.

Please help us all to take measures to safeguard the health of the planet and all who dwell therein.
.
Gratefully,

C. Garety

2016-03-07 11:26:45
TimBartooBurnabyBC

I call on the CEAA to reject the PNW LNG project in Prince Rupert.

You have displayed scientific integrity by including upstream greenhouse gas emissions in the environmental assessment.

You conclude the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

This should be, and is, sufficient to reject the project.

Downstream emissions should also be included in a comprehensive environmental assessment, and would add further rationale for rejection.

2016-03-07 11:30:13
GeorginaHuntSurreyB.C.

There is no amount of money that justifies the amount of damage these greenhouse gases WILL create. This is global and it is time the Canadian government and their agencies started to get their out of the sand and said no to LNG

2016-03-07 11:30:40
VickiPauzeWhite RockBC

Good Day

In the last election, my husband and I listened to all the candidates and researched what issues concerned us the most. The saving of our environment is clearly our top priority. It is no longer a matter of if we do something but when we do it. British Columbia is our home and we did not vote for Christy Clark and her dirty vision of LNG. It is not a clean fossil energy and truly if one does even a minimal amount of research they will find that it is one of the dirtiest and emits methane into air at a greater rate than our mainstream media wants to admit. Site C was or is being built by the Clark government entirely for the use of LNG and as a taxpayer, senior and Hydro customer, I resent the fact that I have to pay for this white elephant that the BC govt's own review report said was not necessary. That our future food basket is being destroyed for billionaires from China, the US and Indonesia with virtually no income staying in this province.

This past election we both voted for Trudeau - going against my long standing commitment to the Green party because we believed he would listen to our environment and its cries for help. That he would understand that 500 + tankers plying their way up and down the BC coast was not the direction we need to go. That, in fact, what we need to to produce more of our own resources so that we are not reliant on trade with countries with despicable human and environmental issues.

We are calling on our government to make good on promises to listen to the people who voted. We ask that the CEAA reject LNG and save our air and water. That upstream emissions must be thoroughly accounted for in all decisions. We do not want to hear that the agency is looking for reports on emissions from CPA or any other group that is self serving to the LNG industry. It must be based on independent scientific proof. Also we hope they look further than just emissions but also to the contamination of our water, the cost of well cleanup into eternity, the pollution caused by mega tankers, the proven likelihood of earthquakes and how little LNG will give back to our province compared to what it takes away.

As for worldwide concern - we hope the agency also considers that countries worldwide are condemning the act of fracking. That they are embracing sustainable energy developments rather than subsidizing dirty fossil fuels. Our CEAA must consider all aspects of the LNG development - from fracking emissions, pollution of the aquifers, earthquake statistics, both upstream and downstream environmental repercussions and what happens when it leaves our shores. Also who benefits - corrupt corporations that take advantage of our low dollar, lax tax laws and pockets their cash in off shore tax havens? It is time to consider the whole picture, not just the one that a few greedy, power hungry politicians want us to see because they have received donations and now are paying the piper. No, we want science involved, we want affect on tourism included, we want to know our future food producing areas will not be destroyed, we want clean air and water considered and we demand that our government fulfill its promises to us, the voters who gave you a chance in Ottawa.

2016-03-07 11:37:42
ShaunaHughesSaltspring IslandB.C.

Please do not give the green light for this project. The trashing of the planet has got to stop somewhere & it may as well be here. In good conscious we cannot keep letting a handful of people destroy this planet that we ALL live on, for more billions of dollars.

2016-03-07 11:39:26
GeorgePayerleRoberts CreekBC

The CEAA's own analysis finds Pacific Northwest LNG upstream emissions to be a hazard. I think it would be wise to also investigate the *downstream* dangers.

I assume that "fracking" is one of the sources of methane leakage the CEAA identifies, but that and other sources are not identified.

On the whole, I applaud your efforts thus far. Please carry on, and recommend that this folly of BC Government be a project rejected!

2016-03-07 11:42:54
jacketkinvictoriaBC

We have to stop using fossil fuels and move to Less Consumption and the use of renewables.. so please do NOT approve this project. This is mass murder.
thank you
jack

2016-03-07 11:44:03
GlenSteinSquamishBritish Columbia

My wife and I live in Squamish, approximately 5 kilometers from the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant. No one in this town wants it here, as was apparent at the community meeting here. We have just finally had our Howe Sound regain most of it's lost marine life, due to the pulp mill that was situated there years earlier. Now all our provincial government wants is to start the development no matter what. Who gives big corporations or the government any permission to have this facility in our community, or the right, when it's blatantly clear that citizens here value far more the return of our marine life..herring..dolphins, orca's, among many, many others. Fracking should be illegal in the first place. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the underground damage, or the underground water contamination, and why the hell would any of us here want any of these nightmares, not to mention the chance of an incident, possibly explosion, that will level everything, and every living thing around for miles. Should that happen, is someone going to step up to the plate to take blame, or will it be another Mount Polley mass destruction, and get away with it again at the cost of the citizens. Also, why does Canada care that the Asians need clean air, maybe they should have thought of that decades ago in Asia. So our government wants to sell out our lands to overseas, and Squamish Nations wants to sell off the land, not so there members can experience any income from the sale, but rather, so the chiefs and council can purchase their own personal real estate deals, and personal toys.....What part of stupidity doesn't anyone get...the planets going down, and everyone wants to keep killing it. Go ahead if you must, just not on our front door. Opposition will be 10 fold next round.

2016-03-07 11:46:21
FranDietzVancouverBC

Please do not approve Pacific Northwest LNG!!!

The whole planet has got to move away from using fossil-fuels as an energy source. It doesn't matter that Canada may be a relatively minor producer and user of oil, coal AND gas. Canada has a huge opportunity to be a leader in developing alternate energy sources, that do not harm the environment.

It doesn't matter either that some people claim that CO2 emissions are not the cause of Climate Change and that too many other factors, beyond our control, are responsible. It may be so. But ... our human activity certainly does have impact on environment, and definitely, the use of our fossil-fuels IS the most harmful, polluting and destructive of all our activities. We know that NOW!!!

We HAVE TO clean-up!! It's not good enough to search out technologies to make the production of these resources better or 'safer'. We have to eventually STOP using fossil-fuels for creating our energy. Besides, these precious materials are a finite resource. It just seems that it would be so much more effective and simpler overall to push the 'harnessing' of renewable sources, without having to deal with the devastating side effects of burning them.

Thanks for the opportunity to make a comment.

2016-03-07 11:49:33
IanBrownVictoriaBritish Columbia

We do not need any significant increases at all to our greenhouse gas emissions. The future costs as a result of the ensuing climate change is enormous in comparison to the small addition to our GDP. Furthermore, as our Environmental Assessment Agency, you need to be taking into account the additional greenhouse gases emitted when these fuels are burnt. Surely no-one believes that the greenhouses gases will stay where the fuel is burnt and not cause any climate change here in Canada. This Pacific Northwest LNG project is a crime against humanity and should be stopped by our federal government. The only way we can get away with it is that the costs will be dumped on our children and grandchildren. Just because we won't be alive to pay the terrible costs of runaway (anything above 2degrees over pre industrial) climate change doesn't mean we are not culpable. We count on your agency to protect us against this kind of vicious greed.

2016-03-07 11:50:24
DavidWhitmoreVancouverBC

I am opposed to this more because the Pipeline will be used to EXPORT or resources to China and elsewhere for quick profits today; we will need those for ourselves in the future. An I doubt China or anyone else will help pay for environmental damage caused by it.
The gas isn't going anywhere, save for our future.

2016-03-07 11:51:58
JonPovillLions BayBritish Columbia

LNG is an obsolete, climate damaging, technology being foisted on the public at a time when Canada needs to be leading the way on clean, sustainable energy. Canada has already relied on fossil fuel extraction and sales for far too long, making it guilty of being a big part of the problem of climate change and making it far too susceptible to drastic swings economically with the booms and busts of the commodity cycle. Brainpower will serve us much better in the future than will oil, coal or LNG as the problems caused by the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere demand that the use of fossil fuels must be drastically reduced in order to avert climate catastrophe. In addition, now that sustainable energy has achieve grid parity with fossil fuels, it makes no sense at all to invest another dime in these harmful, obsolete technologies. Let us rather invest in the creativity and intelligence of Canadian industries to develop world leading and world beating sustainable technologies that can be marketed to the benefit of Canada and the rest of the world.

I applaud the work you've done so far, particularly the fact that you've taken the upstream emissions for this proposed project into consideration as part of your assessment. I would ask that you also consider the further downstream emissions resulting from the export, regasification, and ultimately the combustion of the LNG from this proposed project.

Finally, I unequivocally ask that you deny the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project the permit it would need in order to move forward. We can, and we must, do better than resorting to 20th century technologies in dealing with the needs of the 21st century -- especially when those 20th century technologies are a big part of our 21st century problems.

Thank you very much,
Jon Povill

2016-03-07 11:54:48
DouglasBrownVancouverBC

Please do not approve Pacific Northwest LNG, the greenhouse gas emissions from this project (both upstream and downstream) will be far to high and bad for the environment.

2016-03-07 11:56:51
BudLoganCampbell RiverBC

We need to sit back and take a good look at this, is getting a few bucks out of the ground worth destroying the earth over. we only have this planet and just look at what damage we have done so far. The world is in bad shape, lets be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Stop this nonsense.

2016-03-07 11:59:41
DouglasSageSquamishBc

Let's start the drive towards renewable energy now,and start putting funds and energy towards fuels with a future and not towards a dead end street!!

2016-03-07 12:00:06
DianaSchroederCourtenayBC

Irreversible harm to the climate is a very good reason for the CEAA to reject this proposal.

In addition, we must have a more accurate assessment of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transporting natural gas. Please us the morst recent 20 yr. GWP for your analysis.

An accurate assessment should also include the emissions from the export , regassification and combustion downstream. Isolating emissions at one point does not accurately reflect the emissions created by the entire project.

2016-03-07 12:00:26
shahlabozorgzadehvancouverbc

life over money. care over greed.

2016-03-07 12:09:17
RubyAttfieldCampbell RiverB.C.

Stop PNW LNG by rejecting it because it will cause adverse effects on our environment!!

2016-03-07 12:14:30
nancyessigQuadra IslandBC

There is nothing in the LNG projects that will benefit our Country. Perhaps a few wealthy asians will get wealthier but we will be here with our poisoned water, shaking ground and polluted watersheds and dead salmon. Let us put our resources into renuable energy which, as a diverse country, we have an endless supply of. Keep the poisons in the ground, PLEASE.

2016-03-07 12:28:04
YvonneFarrySidneyBC

The average layman can try to educate himself / herself as much as is possible on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions and its compelling noted significant adverse impact on climate change...
There are so many conflicting opinions..but we aren't the scientists who are out in " the field"observing the environmental obvious detrimental effects..global in extent that is happening
The relevant questions have all been asked..we cannot be reassured by the industry's answers...and note that the damage done to our climate won't stop when LNG leaves our shores...significant point
I therfore ask CEAAto reject Pacific Northwest LNG's application..deny permits for Fossil fuel export projects...not in the best interests of our country..."we want for those who come after us to have clean air to breathe"
Is our new government commited to take strong action to address climate action

2016-03-07 12:29:13
AshleyZarbatanyWhaletownBritish Columbia

I am writing to call on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) to deny a permit of approval to the PNW LNG project in Prince Rupert. This is especially important given your own conclusion that it would cause irreversible harm to the climate by increasing greenhouse gas emissions by 8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year. I am glad that your Agency has taken into consideration the effects of GHG emissions in determining whether this project should be granted permits; however, I would encourage the Agency to go further in its environmental impact assessments by taking into consideration the harm caused by methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transporting of natural gas.

It is important that the Agency use the most recently updated 20 year global warming potential factor for methane in your analysis since we are so close to a climate tipping point, especially after the recent catastrophic methane leak in California, which is said to be one of the worst environmental disasters in North America since the BP oil spill. Furthermore, the Agency's analysis should estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification, and combustion of LNG. The potential damages caused by LNG projects such as PNW LNG does not end when it leaves Canadian shores.

In addition to the Agency's vital consideration of GHG emissions and climate change, it is also of extreme importance that the CEAA consider the negative impact that a LNG facility at the mouth of the Skeena River would have on the salmon population. Flora Banks, where Petronas would like to build the proposed facility, is of vital importance to the salmon populations in northwestern British Columbia because it is where millions of salmon spawn. The salmon rely on the delicate and rare ecosystem created by the eel grass, and the destruction of Flora Banks would devastate the salmon's ability to reproduce.

Currently, the Skeena River is host to the second largest salmon run on the west coast. It is second only to the Fraser River, which has recently been contaminated by Imperial Metals' Mt. Polley mining disaster that leaked millions of tonnes of toxic heavy metals into the water system, poisoning the Fraser's salmon populations. These circumstances have made the remaining salmon populations in the Skeena River, and it's tributaries, of vital importance to First Nation's people who rely on salmon for their livelihoods and cultures, as well as the commercial fisheries that rely on salmon for their economy.

Many First Nations on the west coast have never ceded their lands and continue to hold aboriginal title to the land, as was demonstrated in the Tsilhoqot'in decision in Canada's supreme court. The community of Lax Kw'alaams, who will be directly impacted by the project and who hold aboriginal title to the land, have stated their opposition to this project and even rejected a $1 Billion deal with Petronas on the basis that the project will destroy the sensitive salmon habitat. I encourage the CEAA to listen to the Tsimshian people who have relied on and stewarded their lands for thousands of years and whom understand the environmental significance of Flora Banks.

Finally, I would encourage the Agency to take into consideration the environmental impacts fracking of natural gas has on underground water reservoirs. The PNW LNG project would only increase the production of natural gas in northeastern British Columbia, furthering the problems associated with fracking in the region. It is well established that fracking pollutes aquifers and causes powerful earthquakes. The negative environmental consequences of LNG far surpasses its dangerous contribution to climate change and extends to the destruction of key food and water supplies.

I call on you to stop this project from going any further, and to stop similar projects from happening.

2016-03-07 12:30:26
ThomasMoodyVancouverBC

I wish to refer the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to “Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update” (
http://donellameadows.org/archives/a-synopsis-limits-to-growth-the-30-year-update/). Evidence shows that the trends described for the business-as-usual model in “Limits to Growth” have proven correct (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse), and that now, as some did expect and as all should have expected, the collapse of the system that tied humanity’s well-being to an exponentially increasing rate of resource extraction is imminent. We must quickly construct a new system to minimise adverse impacts on our well-being, and we must start by first putting an end to the very worst of the extreme forms of resource-intensive projects that arose during the late stage of doing business as usual. Such projects include those that propose to extract natural gas by such unconventional methods as fracking (which now appears to be especially prone to release large quantities of the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere), construct and maintain an ever-shifting network of pipelines to transport that natural gas from its highly ephemeral sources to a port, use a substantial portion of the energy in that natural gas to liquefy it and ship it across the vast Pacific Ocean, and finally deliquefy and distribute that natural gas by yet another network of pipelines so that it can be burnt as a fuel, primarily in China, if current proponents are to be believed. The overall result would release more greenhouse gasses, including CO2, than would, say, leaving it to Russia to supply China with natural gas, as Russia’s geographical proximity to China would obviate the need to liquefy the gas and transport it by marine vessels, to say nothing of saving the vast quantities of capital and resources that would be expended just to build the enabling facilities and vessels to liquefy and ship such gas from Canada. Furthermore, as China is already contracting Russia to supply it with natural gas, and as power generation by renewable resources such as wind and solar energy are rising, there is an ever increasing probability that any Canadian investments in the LNG industry will quickly wind up lost in the form of stranded assets. To add to the potential calamity, such LNG investments would further industrialise the British Columbian environment, thereby reducing the existing value it now provides as one of the few remaining natural environments that can even remotely be considered robust. (For example, compare the health of British Columbia’s fishery with that of most other fisheries in the world.) I therefore call on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project in Prince Rupert, along with any other British-Columbia-based LNG projects that may come before it in the future.

2016-03-07 12:36:19
DeniseBostwickNew Westminster 

Political representatives used to be trusted as making best decision on behalf of citizens but that isn't true any longer. Now decisions are based often on profit to very few & what meets immediate needs of the political parties. As a citizen of BC I am saying that I do not believe building site C to enable the LNG industry full of all it's unknowns & without the support of our scientists and First Nations people is the right direction to go. Our federal politicians need to ensure that they have a full understanding of what it means to our future (food supply, climate change come to mind) to move forward on a such a major project without full support. If our First Nations leaders and scientists come out in full support then these projects have my support - until then - absolutely not. I will continue to be a No Sayer from BC. BC Liberal branding attempts only further lessen my support & pique my belief that there is a well funded agenda.

2016-03-07 12:37:39
Lawrence RuskinLions BayBC

please do not allow the LNG plant in woodfibre, it is dangerous and will wreck Howe Sound, which has just been brought back to life by the local environmentalists. Keep the LNG in the ground anyway...

2016-03-07 12:41:27
RuthHowardCourtenayBritish Columbia

The only way this project can proceed is if it is subsidized. Stop this project, take climate change seriously, and use Canadian resources for Canadian people not corrupt Malaysian State-Owned companies.

2016-03-07 12:42:18
LaurieWattNew WestminsterBritish Columbia

Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for considering the "upstream" effects of this project.

Please also consider the "downstream" effects of the project.

My understanding of this type of project is that the environmental damages outweigh any benefits, and I ask you to please reject this project. There are other ways of providing energy and employment. British Columbia does not need or want any LNG projects!

2016-03-07 12:45:27
GeorgeKofoedTerraceBritish Columbia

First of all, thank-you for including the upstream emissions in the draft EA. Your conclusion is sound, and I can only ask that you please reject this project. The potential to do irreversible harm to the climate is significant. Please include esitmates of methane (CH4) leakage from all sources, including fracking, production, processing, storage and transport of "natural gas." I would also ask that you use the most recent 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis, and please also estimate the downstream emissions from the export/re-gassification/combustion of the LNG once delivered. This is crucial, as CH4 is 4 times more effective than CO2 in producing the "greenhouse effect."

2016-03-07 12:49:51
EdgarDahlSalmon ArmBritish Columbia

CEAA evaluations certainly point to "testing" our luck against a "run-away catastrophe" of rising, and out of control temperature and environmental unknown ocurrences

I believe the risks are to be avoided if at all possible. Lets keep the fuel in the ground and focus on procedures to lower environmental threats due to ever increasing temperatures and storm hazards.

2016-03-07 12:54:15
SteveGarnettCowichan BayBC

We voted for the Liberals to do something about climate change. The Pacific Northwest LNG project will undermine efforts to combat climate change. This is a no brainer! Stop the export of Natural Gas, particularly if it is "fracked" gas!

2016-03-07 12:59:25
marelanevictoriaB.C.

So much energy is being expended by the Old Guard in order to keep it's power, when we are
hoping for investment in safer forms of energy.
They are fighting the battle of inevitable change
toward remembering our connection to Mother Earth - we can't destroy her without destroying ourselves. Very short-sighted & greedy!

2016-03-07 13:05:05
WilliamDavisVancouverBC

At this point in our planet's history adding any fossil fuel infrastructure is dangerous and economically unwise. It seems the upstream emissions from this project are serious and will impact Canada's ability to reach its own emission targets. But climate change and global warming is not a national issue although the Paris agreements subdivide it into national contributions. If the upstream emissions are bad think what the downstream emissions will be. True the downstream emissions will not count against Canada's targets. They will, however, count against the survival of human civilization on the planet. This project must not proceed.

2016-03-07 13:06:49
VirginiaTupperNorth Vancouver BC

Dear CEAA Panel

Please reject the Pacific NorthWest LNG project based on your own conclusions that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate of our earth. I applaud you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the project.
Thank you.

2016-03-07 13:07:48
DarlenePerryNew WestminsterBC

I am totally opposed to this. It's all about these big companies making money. They don't care what happens to environment. Those jobs they keep dangling out there are inky temporary. I wouldn't be surprised if they imported workers too.

2016-03-07 13:23:28
RobertaOlenickVancouverBritish Columbia

Please reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project proposed for Prince Rupert, BC given your conclusion that it will contribute significantly to climate change.

I laud CEAA for considering the upstream GHG emissions from this project in the draft EA.

Please also clarify what sources of methane leakage have been included. Methane leaking estimates should include sources from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gases.

Please take your analysis one step further by estimating the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. While these emissions occur beyond Canadian borders, they still affect the entire world climate.

2016-03-07 13:24:54
Percyof the familly HartSurge NarrowsBC

Global warming has now been identified as a major threat to to the planet and the people. If you allow projects of this magnitude to go ahead you open yourself to action or claims in the courts of Canada and the world. If you are taken into a common law court your "limited liability" under the corporation you work for will not protect you. You can be charged as a man in a common law court such as a Queen's Bench in Canada.

2016-03-07 13:30:38
MattBlackmanSquamishBC

If this LNG project moves forward, 100% of the natural gas feeder stock to supply BC LNG will be obtained using hydraulic fracturing. The type of rock in which the shale that the gas is found is highly fractured making it nearly impossible to stop unintentional leaks and that capping thousands of these wells after their relatively short industrially active lives has proven problematic in the US and elsewhere. The Aliso Canyon in California leak spewed nearly 200,000 tons of methane in just four months. From my research there is very little study on this issue.

Methane, the principal gas in natural gas is 86 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas in the first 20 years than CO2 and that if fugitive methane leaks above 3.2% make it dirtier than coal. Multiple studies show that methane leaks in fracking operations are well above this level.

In fact, according to the Globe Advisors report commissioned by the BC government, LNG total upstream leakage rates under "best practices" which are still to be demonstrated top 0.5 tons per ton of LNG which include estimated fugitive methane leaks at the wellhead of 0.04 which is 4% which would make LNG dirtier than coal. (See report at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/reports-and-data/liquefied-natural-gas-greenhousegas-background-reports/british_columbia_lng_greenhouse_gas_ghg_life_cycle_analysis.pdf)

According the Globe Advisors' report one ton of LNG generates more than 3 tons of greenhouse gases when you consider the full life cycle and that assumes "best practices."

LNG now sells for $4.50 per million BTUs in Asia and that the cost for BC LNG is above $10/mmBTUs. According to a report from Oilprice.com there will be an estimated 70 million tons per annum of global LNG oversupply by 2020 which will keep prices depressed for years to come. If this business fails which is looking increasingly certain, BC taxpayers will be at risk for paying the cost of dismantling and cleanup after these offshore-owned Canadian subsidiaries declare bankruptcy,

The BC Liberals slashed LNG corporate tax rates to 7% and then when they complained cut it again to just 3.5% for 25 years and in fact, "in B.C., taxpayers prop up the natural gas sector with low royalties, royalty credits, virtually free water for fracking and other perks," according to one article.

So why are the Canadian and BC governments subsidizing the cost of natural gas and LNG to be exported at taxpayer expense through slashed tax rates locked in for the next 25 years to allow foreign companies to sell LNG at a substantial loss for the foreseeable future and in the process pollute our environment and increase overall greenhouse gas emissions?

2016-03-07 13:32:18
BarbaraBeamissLangleyBC

Hello CEAA panel,
Re: PNW LNG project permit
- Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

- Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you are including in your report and justify the leakage rate you're using in your estimate of upstream emissions. Are you including methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas in your estimates?

- Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. The most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane should be included in your analysis. I understand we are currently dangerously close to climate tipping points and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
As the production and transport of the LNG involves downstream use by foreign markets, I ask that you analyze those downstream emissions from export, regassification and combustion of the LNG in your calculations. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen who wants more government investment in wind, solar and geothermal technologies and an end to using fossil fuels.
Barbara Beamiss

2016-03-07 13:38:51
KathleenBakerVancouverBC

I urge CEAA to reject PNW LNG project in Prince Rupert. Your findings conclude the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The Agency is to be applauded for considering the upstream GHG emissions. Further clarity regarding what sources of methane leakage are included in the estimate of upstream emissions as well as from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas is required. Also please clarify the global warming potential factor for methane used in your calculations by using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climaate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial. Finally, please take your analysis one step further and estimate downstream emissions from the export, regassificationand combustion of the LNG. The damage done to the planet does not stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 13:47:34
DawnHancockVancouverBritish Columbia

I just wanted to say thanks for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project.

Also, will you please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. I'd like to know that you are using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis.

We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

Dawn

2016-03-07 13:59:33
HeleneHarrisonShirleyBC

Please reject this project, the deleterious harm to the environment outweighs $$.
How can you justify the methane leakage; what about downstream emissions; and the global amrket for LNG is in a glut.

2016-03-07 14:03:28
DianeCorbettGibsons 

I applaud the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions in the draft EA for the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project. Thank you!

I request that the CEAA also estimate downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG, to paint a clearer picture of the potential whole life cycle impacts on climate of the fracked gas proposed to be mobilized by this project.

Please also clarify what sources of methane leakage are included and justify the leakage rate used in the estimate of upstream emissions, including estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in the emission calculations, and use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in the analysis.

PLEASE REJECT THIS PROJECT in light of the CEAA assessment of its potential to cause irreversible harm to the climate.

2016-03-07 14:07:55
mei linyeoelllangleyBC

It will take courage to break the mould for assessing environmental impact of any major project.....ie to include ALL phases of a development, upstream, downstream etc etc, instead of considering only one segment, thereby inevitably biasing the result of the analysis. The planet and its systems know nothing of $$$ and political ambition. We either get it right, cut GHGs and other forms of ecosystem pollution, or we kill the planet. The choice seems pretty clear to me!

2016-03-07 14:15:30
ScottLawranceVictoriaBritish Columbia

Having noted that the CEAA's own report concludes that the PNW Project in Prince Rupert is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. That, plus other serious environmental concerns and opposition by local First Nations lead me to join calls for a rejection of the proposal.

Sincerely,
Dr. Scott Lawrance, Ed.D.

2016-03-07 14:17:06
DeirdreGottoVictoriaBC

Please reject PNW LNG B.C.'s focus on growing an LNG industry makes no sense either economically or morally. The market doesn't justify it and the future of the planet is at risk from normalizing the growth in any fossil fuel industry. We must grow green alternatives and give up the addiction to fossil fuels, and what sense is there in even contemplating it when LNG will be a bust for us economically? Thank you for your attention

2016-03-07 14:26:35
robertweavervictoria bc

if it will climate change do not do it

2016-03-07 14:28:03
JillianRidingtonVictoriaBC

This project is unnecessary and destructive. We must protect our beautiful coast and the air we breathe.

2016-03-07 14:30:28
AndyKeirThetis IslandBC

It is my understanding the the province of BC does not count GHG's emitted during the extraction of LNG but only considers them after extraction is completed. By this means they feel able to refer LNG as a clean source of fuel, which is not, of course, a truthful claim. It is my further understanding that if GHG's emitted during extraction were to be included then LNG might well be as dirty a fuel as coal.

Secondly, the impact of LNG extraction on water in the province is huge both in terms of water used in the process and damage to aquifers, to say nothing of the potential for damage due to earthquakes induced by this activity.

2016-03-07 14:32:11
Carrie SaxifrageMansons Landing BC

Dear CEAA,

Thank you for the honest assessment of the climate destabilizing impacts of the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project.

Could you please clarify whether your GHG estimates include the fugitive emissions, emissions on decommissioning of the fracking wells, other production emissions and the transportation emissions?

Research indicates that these emissions can be high enough to put natural gas on a par with coal in terms of climate damage.

Methane is one of the most potent GHG gasses. Wikipedia states is global warming potential is 86 in 20 years time and 38 in 100 years time. Could you confirm you used this commonly accepted estimate in your emissions calculations?

In assessing the climate damage imposed by a project, it seems essential to include downstream emissions to receive a complete picture. Could you please include this in your environmental assessment?

Given our proximity to tipping points that could make large sections of the Earth uninhabitable, it seems essential that this (and other) LNG project be rejected on the basis of its destabilizing impact on the climate. Otherwise, the best case scenario will be that this facility becomes a stranded asset, an entirely avoidable business loss.

Thank you for your consideration.

Carrie Saxifrage

2016-03-07 14:35:47
DonaldRennieVancouverBC

Deny this permit;

LNG is as bad as coal, due to methane leaks.

We cannot build more fossil fuel infrastructure and reduce GHG emissions at the same time.

2016-03-07 14:36:46
David DorringtonRichmondBC

I think that the downstream effects of this project ought to be considered too. The amount of fossil fuel needed to ship LNG to Asia. The amount of climate warming gases produced by the use of the LNG and any methane leakage that will occur in the process.
As part of the review of environmental damage it is also vital to consider just how much fresh water will be permanently poisoned by this project and how many aquifers will be permanently damaged.
Water is going to become a far more valuable resource than fossil fuel in the future and this future value has to be taken into account.
In view of the droughts that have been occurring in California It is foolish to believe that fresh water is an unending and infinite rescource.

2016-03-07 14:42:06
PaulWittDeltaBC

More than ever, I am convinced that the building of LNG plants, the fracking involved in sourcing gas, and the marketing of LNG, are wrong-headed efforts on the part of industry and our governments. I am asking that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency reject the Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG project in Prince Rupert, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
It is excellent that the Agency considered the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA. However, it is not entirely clear what sources of methane leakage are included. And how does the Agency justify the leakage rate used in the estimate of upstream emissions? Any assessment needs to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now, if not already “over the top”, and analysis of near term impacts are crucial. The Agency needs to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in the analysis.
Please take the analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, re-gassification, and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 14:44:01
KlothildeGroseVancouverBC

Fracking for LNG, poisoning our water table, causing earthquakes and methane leakage is not good for the environment. It is harming our native population and all the wildlife on land and water ,we depend upon.
The damage does not stop when LNG leaves our shores.
The future is in clean , green energy, creating many more jobs for an educated workforce.
Times have changed , we are not advancing with horse and buggy anymore either.

2016-03-07 14:47:39
lorraineprestwhite rockBC

Please don't pass the PNW Lng'

2016-03-07 14:56:07
SusanDraperVictoriaBC

The science has been done and the conclusions reached indicate that this project is going to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion was reached based solely on an examination of upstream emissions. While I'm pleased that the agency looked at this project from this perspective, if the agency were to examine the downstream emissions once the LNG leaves BC, I believe the evidence would lead everyone to conclude that Pacific Northwest LNG is a major GHG producer and must be rejected.
Everything is connected. What we do to one part of the web of life, we do to all of it. I call on CEAA to reject this project so that we can get on with creating a cleaner energy future for British Columbians.

2016-03-07 14:59:22
TraceyMaynardVancouverBritish Columbia

Dear CEAA,

As a concerned citizen of Canada, I call on you to reject the PNW LNG due to unacceptable and irreversible harm that will be caused to our climate. As one of the first acts of the new Liberal government, Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna announced ambitious plans to take real action on climate. This inspiring leadership gave Canadians, such as myself, hope for a new kind of governance over our resources and our climate. In order to meet these commitments, projects such as PNW LNG, must be rejected.

After reading the GHG emission analysis, I am concerned that methane leakage during fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas has not been included in the estimates of the climate impact of PNW LNG and the global warming potential has not been calculated to include methane leakage.

Please support good governance over our climate and our future by rejecting this project.

Thank you,

Tracey Maynard

2016-03-07 15:06:34
LesleySpenceNew WestminsterBC

You need to give up this project and stop ruining our environment all for the sake of money . We don't need oil products. We need clean air and water for ourselves and for the future generations to come .
Find a career that will help our environment. There are lots out there .

2016-03-07 15:07:49
GinnyPrinsWhitehorseYukon Territory

What about tankers. What about the ocean - our oceanj What aout First Nations Methane Salmon Global warming

Quite often I am ashamed to be a Canadian. We HAVE to save our lands and water.

2016-03-07 15:28:32
BillieMcConnellDeltaB.C.

Regarding the Prince Rupert Liquid Natural Gas Project.
The impacts of this project are serious and irreversible.
The damage to the environment is already evident.
What will it take before these warnings are taken seriously?

2016-03-07 15:28:42
jameshermonburnabyBC

How is yet another wasteful, destructive, polluting, Big Oil project supposed to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and bring us in line with the recent Paris agreement? Where are all the project proposals targeting renewable energy sources? Most importantly, shouldn't we be instituting laws governing population growth and energy consumption? Did your agency not get the memo? . . . . or does our newly elected 'Liberal' government simply intend to re-wrap Harper's ecologically destruction agenda and put a nice pretty pink bow on it? Pretty much, right?

2016-03-07 15:48:04
HermanBakkerVictoriaBC

Dear members of the CEAA,
Given the scary conclusions of the report regarding the PNW gas project I am asking that permission be denied for the construction of the PNW LNG plant.

2016-03-07 15:51:28
Dr. DavidKiddLake CowichanBritish Columbia

Sir/Madam:

I have been following studies of LNG production. When fracking with transport of water and left over chemicals, limited time of well production with need to continually drill new wells, transport of gas and compression for export is considered this is a very high energy project and upstream costs and GHG emissions make this a proposal highly doubtful. We don't even have good data on likely Methane leakage along the way and this is a very potent greenhouse gas.
I sincerely believe this project that should not be approved.

David Kidd

2016-03-07 16:01:54
Dr. DavidHendricksonVancouverBC

Dear CEAA,

I am urging you to reject the Pacific NW LNG project based on the upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year that can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.

The Agency's own conclusion states that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project and please clarify what sources of methane leakage you include to justify the leakage rate used in upstream emission calculations. i.e. Does this include fracking, processing, production and transportation of natural gas?

Also please consider the downstream emisisons from the export and regassification and combustion of the LNG.

I would appreciate a written response to these questions at your earliest convenience.

Dr. David Hendrickson

2016-03-07 16:03:19
AgnesWattsVancouverB.C.

It's not possible to reach our Paris emissions reduction targets unless we act now. The CEAA is only as good as the actions that result from its findings.

2016-03-07 16:07:28
MikeMesfordFanny BayyBC

This project MUST be rejected. Thank you

2016-03-07 16:07:58
JanineDonahueVancouverBC

To the CEAA, concerning the Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG project in Prince Rupert:

Please reject this project, given the conclusion of your Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that the project will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

While it is commendable that the Draft EA considers the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project, please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and justify the leakage rate you use in your estimate of upstream emissions. Please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Please also clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations; please use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane.

Additionally, please also estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Thank you!

2016-03-07 16:27:29
MariaPetrucciVancouverB.C.

Canada must not continue to be run by global corporations such as Pacific Northwest LNG, that do not take into consideration the land, the environment and our health.. Our prosperity in Canada depends on investing in green energy and changing and progressing away from dangerous industries like LNG. I am writing today to ask once again to not approve the Pacific Northwest LNG plan.

2016-03-07 16:28:36
MikeBothmaWest vancouverBc

We need to consider future generations please reject LNG

2016-03-07 16:34:23
DebBledsoeChilliwackBC

For this to even be considered is insanity. In order to get LNG you have to frack. Fracking has already been proven to contaminate ground water and to cause earthquakes. An LNG port on the west coast will be devastating to the salmon and herring runs. Someone needs to explain to me and to all Canadians, why are we letting foreigners take our resources at great cost to our environment and with so many tax incentives that royalties mean nothing, in order to sell it to foreign nations. Negligible benefit to Canada or Canadians while we take ALL OF THE RISK. It is time to say NO period. NO LNG< NO TANKERS< NO PIPELINES on the west coast. NO MORE.

2016-03-07 16:35:14
DianneHenshawVancouver BC

I would like to express my appreciation for the work of the CEAA in considering upstream GHG emissions from the Pacific Northwest LNG in their assessment of the project, and I would urge the CEAA to continue this good work by including estimates of methane leakage from all aspects of the project, including fracking, production, processing and the transport of natural gas. In addition, I would like to see an estimate of the downstream emissions, as the environmental damage doesn't stop once it has left Canada.
Taking all of these environmental concerns into consideration, I would respectfully submit that the CEAA should reject the project, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

2016-03-07 16:42:11
QuincyYoungVancouverBC

Given your detailed examination and report on the long term impact of the PNW LNG, I strongly urge you to NOT approve this project. I am very concerned about the serious and irreversible environmental impacts of this project.

I appreciate you considering the upstream GHG emissions associated with the project. I would encourage you to also estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the damage to our planet does not stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Thank you for doing your due diligence in assessing the risks and impacts. Now I implore you to please follow through and REJECT the project.

2016-03-07 16:56:10
JunePitcherChilliwackBC

PNW LNG in Prince Rupert is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. I urge you to reject the project given these conclusions.

2016-03-07 17:11:39
HendrikBoeschCalgaryAlberta

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you in order to express my concerns about a possible acceptance of the Pacific Northwest LNG project in Prince Rupert.

I just learned from the media that the CEAA concluded "that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions".

I would therefore appreciate if the project would be rejected. In times of more global ecological awareness I don't think Canada would make a right choice by outweighing financial opportunities over environmental concerns in the long run.

With kind rgeards
Hendrik Boesch

2016-03-07 17:27:40
JohnFellowesSecheltBC

There are alternatives to LNG, there are no alternatives to water and it seems no guarantees that water supplies will not be damaged. Common sense says this is a no Brainer.
Water over gas every time

2016-03-07 17:30:20
Aragorn KlockarsNanaimoBC

I commend CEAA for its considerate assessment of the effects of LNG extraction and the up-stream GHG effects of the Pacific Northwest project.
Bearing these conclusions in mind, I call on you to reject the project on the grounds that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
To further my understanding, I request clarification as to exactly what sources of methane leakage are included and to justify the leakage rate used in the estimate of upstream emissions, including estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. Please include Global Warming Potentials used in your emission calculations using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis.
However, harmful GHG materials are not released just from extraction and processing. To make your analysis more complete, perhaps you could make an estimate of the downstream emissions from the ex-port, regassification and combustion of the LNG.
It would be shortsighted to let this report to become ineffective. I urge you to fully exercise your mandate and inform and direct governments to comply and help address what is a serious and imminent concern.
Aragporn Klockars

2016-03-07 17:44:57
LindaGoodVancouverBC

I am vehemently opposed to the PNW LNG in Prince Rupert. We can no longer justify damaging the environment for future generations, no matter how many economic benefits or jobs there will be in the present.

2016-03-07 17:57:55
Ray Brown golden B.C.

I think that this project should be rejected because of the impact that it will have on our climate. I applaud the work that has been done to show this but I think that there is some things that were not looked at that would make the negative impact on the climate even greater than predicted. Please do not forget to check downstream and to remember that the damage doesn't stop when LNG leaves. As a concerned citizen I don't think that this project should go forward.

2016-03-07 18:08:40
HannelorePinderVancouverBC

The LNG technology is flawed from the very beginning. Not mentioned chemicals are added to immense amounts of water and forced down into the earth, were you never know where things end up. Many people had their wells poisened and many little earh quakes have been caused by this process. Also the amount of water needed is immense and can not be justified since fresh water is a limited and crucial resorce..
Let's faze out the production of LNG in Canada.
Sincerely, Hannelore Pinder

2016-03-07 18:13:54
chensarafVancouver bc

The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.

2016-03-07 18:56:40
RichardHoseinSurreyBC

Canada must take steps to reduce emission and promote clean and renewable energy technologies. The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent. The CEAA concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions…

2016-03-07 19:16:20
lezlie Russell Grand forksb.c

No lng no wfb. Save the money and salmon.in vest in alternative energy Please!

2016-03-07 19:25:52
JudyGreenRichmond BC

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) emissions report on the proposed Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG Project in Prince Rupert concludes that "this project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions".
It has been established that GHG emissions need to be "reduced" to avoid runaway climate change.

Our new Liberal government needs to stand behind it's election promises and the commitments it has made to address climate change. The PNW LNG Project should be "rejected" due to the conclusion that it would cause irreversible harm to climate.

Further Comments:

1. I applaud the CEAA for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

2. Can the CEAA clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and justify the leakage rate used in their estimate of upstream emissions; as well as include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

3. Can the CEAA clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations: using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

4. Can the CEAA take their analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 19:32:43
phyllisRuthvenDeltaBC

I. Am encouraged to see that you have considered the upstream Greenhouse Gas Emmisions in your assessment of the PNW LNG Project.
A defined list of the upstream leakage rates from fracking etc would be helpful as well.
Also, deeper consideration must be given to the impact of this plant on the largest salmon habitat in the province. The estuary at Lelu Island will forever be degraded or destroyed by this facility, should it be built. The ecological impact is devastating .
In view of our commitment to keep greenhouse gases to 1,5 in order to slow and hopefully reverse climate change, it is imperative that projects such as PNW LNG be held to strict measures or cancelled.
My understanding is that methane is one of the highest factors in tipping our global warming, so request you also include in your analysis the emisions of gassifying, regassification and export transportation emissions that c will result.

2016-03-07 19:35:10
PaulBiedermannDeltaBritish Columbia

Although I have serious doubts that CO2 is driving climate change rather than being a result of climate change, I am against the export of natural gas, especially if it involves fracking to extract the gas. I am also concerned that money spent for infrastructure to be able to export natural gas will be wasted if the price of natural gas continues to be lower than the cost of extracting it from the ground. It makes absolutely no sense to waste taxpayer money only to lose more money selling a product for less than it costs to produce!

2016-03-07 19:45:09
FredKayNorth VancouverBC

I wish to commend the CEAA for a realistic environmental assessment of the true impact that the PNW LNG Project would have on greenhouse gas emissions.
I do however think it is essential to go further and specify exactly what sources of methane leakage are include in the EA and how the leakage rate was calculated for all upstream emissions. And what exactly is the global warming potential factor for methane used in the equations. Please be sure to use the most recently updated20 year GWP figures for your analysis.
It is essential that all downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion are included as impacts do not sudden cease when the LNG has left British Columbia.
I trust that, given your findings of the irreparable harm this project would cause to our climate that you will reach the only reasonable conclusion possible and reject the proposal.

2016-03-07 20:03:50
ElizaOlsonDeltaBC

There is another aspect that needs reviewing and taken into account--that is the destruction of any peatlands in the process of creating and the transporting LNG.

We ignore the amount of carbon peatlands store at our peril. We talk about the amount of carbon stored by trees. Yet the bottom line is that peatlands store 10 times more carbon than rainforests.

Until we take into account the lost carbon (C02) AND the Methane released by their destruction we are not creating a true carbon assessment of any proposal. It's time to recognize our disappearing peatlands and the impact on any proposals to reduce climate change

2016-03-07 20:06:28
cgsdCalifornia

Call on CEAA to reject the project, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
Applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.
Ask the Agency to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Ask them to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
Ask the Agency to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. Ask them to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Ask the Agency to take their analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 20:12:57
Shirley IrelandDeltaBC

As you have concluded that this Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions I urge you to reject the proposal.
At what point do governments become liable for the irreparable damage that they knowingly cause by the action of granting approval for destructive projects?

2016-03-07 20:19:17
michaelkrisingervancouverBC

Dear CEAA,

Please do NOT approve the Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG in Prince Rupert. There is no more room in our atmosphere for carbon emissions. All carbon should be left in the ground including LNG. LNG is after all a fossil fuel and when oxidized (burnt), regardless where, will yield CO2.

It is commendable that the CEAA is considering upstream GHG emissions BUT downstream emissions MUST also be included. The product WILL be burnt, not simply stored by the recipient nation.

I ask that the most current scientific data is used in analysis. Importantly, the global warming potential factor for methane used in the analysis should use the 20-year GWP.

Most importantly, simply reject the project. Any fossil fuel carbon burnt at this time is too much. It is after all 2016 and we have been burning for 100+ years already! Time to move on and move off fossil fuels!!!

best wishes,
Dr. Krisinger
UBC Biochemistry

2016-03-07 20:28:55
TonyThompsonVancouverBC

If we are to keep world temperatures at a reasonable level it is imperative
to keep as much fossil fuel as possible in the ground and to transition
to sustainable energy generation as quickly as possible.

LNG represents unsustainable energy production for several reasons:
a) it will be burnt to produce CO2; b) it is produced using fracking which
releases methane into the atmosphere; c) fracking also uses huge amounts of water which cannot be reused.

For these reasons I applaud your consideration of upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project and urge that you reject the project since you conclude
that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

2016-03-07 20:32:17
MaryDonaldRiondelBC

Cudos to the CEAA for releasing your report and being honest and courageous in presenting the adverse effects to the environment by the increased GHG emissions in this proposed PNW LNG project.

It has now been made abundantly clear by international scientists that to increase LNG production on this planet will accelerate climate disruption. We need no more convincing, and the Paris Summit talks confirmed the need and desire for action to prevent catastrophic events on our Earth.

As well, there never seems to be talk on the absolutely enormous amounts of energy that are needed to compress LNG to enable it to be exported in the massive ships. This in itself increases GHG emissions, along with using more fossil fuels to extract, transform and export LNG, ie using more fossil fuels to get more fossil fuels!

And then there is the important issue of methane leakage, a GHG much much worse than CO2. Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage would occur and justify the leakage rate you use in your estimate of upstream emissions. Also please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Where has our common sense gone? How can you approve a project that you conclude will cause irreversible harm to the climate?! How can we face our children and grandchildren knowing that we care not for their future world?

I call on the CEAA to strongly reject this PNW LNG project. Canadians will thank you for showing the courage to act with wisdom and foresight.

Thank you.

2016-03-07 20:45:19
WilliamWinderVancouverBritish Columbia

LNG makes no economic sense in 2016. Renewable energy will have conquered the world before any LNG is exported.

But most importantly: will the Canadian government has to take climate change seriously --not just as a political hot potato-- and implement policies that will save our planet? If Canada can't do it, as a first world country that has traditionally valued the environment, then very simply we are lost.

2016-03-07 20:48:58
MarilynMcClellandFanny BayBC

CEAA: To Whom it May Concern:
Re: PNW LNG proposal:

Firstly thank you for your refreshing consideration of the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project. A start in the right direction!

You need to clarify the exact source of methane leakage included and justify the leakage rate in the estimate of upstream emissions. The methane from the fracking, production, processing, transportation and the final burning should all be included. The downstream emissions should be assessed and included as methane gas causing Climate Change doesn't stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Please clarify the Global Warming Potential factor for methane used in the emissions calculations using the most recent updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. Being so close to the tipping point now the future impacts are crucial.

Given the danger, pollution and destruction LNG exploration, production and transportation does ALL potential projects MUST have thorough assessments considering ALL aspects of negativity they produce. Irreversible harm to the climate is the end result after water, air, land, wildlife and humans have been negatively impacted!
Please reject this project if any harm is for seen.

Thank you,
Marilyn McClelland

2016-03-07 21:35:43
AndreaLeeRichmondState *

I am calling on the CEAA to reject the project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.
I would like you to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. Please use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Can you take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 21:37:23
KennethDresenVancouverBC

I congratulate you on your Assessment.
Given your conclusion that this project will cause irreversible harm to the climate, I ask that you not approve Pacific Northwest LNG.
You might also consider estimating the downstream emissions from LNG export since the damage done to our climate doesn’t stop until its regassification and combustion is completed.
Estimates of methane leakage from fracking and production should also be a consideration. The news has carried many reports already of this wasteful, toxic pollution jetting unchecked into the environment.

2016-03-07 21:43:21
marcelleroysalt spring islandBritish Columbia

Please reject this wrong headed PNW LNG project.
If Canada is serious about keeping global warming at or below 1.5 degrees
this project must be stopped. As per the CEAA own's estimates the upstream GHG emissions will be irreversible, continuous, high in magnitude and global in extent. Isn't it like saying if we cut off our legs we won't be able to walk! So why even ask anyone: Do you think we should cut off our legs?
Fracking is wrong wrong wrong on so many levels: methane leaks, radioactive and toxic waste, usage and toxifying of enormous amounts of groundwater, using extremely high amounts of energy to extract, liquify and transport.
The damming evidence of this technology is mounting worldwide, and is not even economically viable!

2016-03-07 21:57:57
TeresaDiewertSurrey.BC

I am hopeful that because you have recognized the impact this project will have on Climate Change you will not allow this project to proceed. Climate change is only one of the many reasons this project should not be allowed. Please do not approve this project.

2016-03-07 22:08:38
MMcLachlanComoxBC

Dear commissioners
The conclusion reached in your assessment that "significant adverse environmental effects are likely" as a result of this project could read, indeed, should read, will cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The jury is in and GHG emissions are causing significant adverse environmental effects !

It is reassuring that you did this assessment and have come to an open and honest evaluation in terms of the project within our geographical borders, will you now do the same to determine the total emissions to include the shipping and the fundamental reason for this project, the use of the LNG.

The present assessment alone deemed the effects significant, high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global, and should be enough to conclude that the ultimate cost to the security and well-being of our descendants is too great a price to ask them to pay.

The knowledge we have now must displace the flawed view of our atmosphere which allowed us to treat it as a free waste disposal pit instead of the life giving womb it is.

You have a great decision to make and I trust you will reach it considering all the consequences of such a great decision knowing our progeny will live with it.
Thank you
M McLachlan

2016-03-07 22:30:11
RuthRiddellsaltspring islandbc

PLEASE reject this project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate!!

I congratulate the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rate you use in your estimate of upstream emissions.

PLease include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Can you clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations?

I would like to see you using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

And, please take their analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, re-gassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-07 22:40:44
LianneSmithaniukNanaimoBC

Every step of the fracking process involves either huge amounts of fresh groundwater, and/or high levels of chemicals that are injected into the ground. They do not miraculously "disappear" but move into the earth & there is no predicting where they turn up.

Not to mention the cracks that are created by the process, which enables the gas that is being sought to migrate into neighbouring groundwater.
We couldn't think up a more polluting process if we tried!

Find another way to extract the gas, or don't extract it at all! We should treat the earth like Hippocrates urged us to treat humans..."First do no harm".

2016-03-07 22:51:52
ErenaLallVancouverBC

To the CEAA:

I have a lot of concerns about the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG. With all of the concerns about climate change and what is already happening in the world, it seems that this is an opportunity for our Government to take a stand about what is really important.

Yes we need jobs and industry, but it is time to stop thinking about the immediate short term and think long term. Fracking uses a lot of water and causes a lot of problems to ground water and has been know to cause earth quakes. Not to mention the concerns about spill and contamination to the environment.

Thank you

Erena Lall

2016-03-07 23:35:14
JimErkiletianNanaimoBC

We could have used methane as a transition fuel to renewables if we had started 10 years ago. Thanks to government support for the fossil fuel industry this is now impossible. Our only hope to avoid catastrophic climate change is to outlaw all fossil fuels and go straight to renewables. To do otherwise is to condemn our children to a world of 10 billion people with only enough food production for half that number. Or much less.

2016-03-07 23:41:51
DianneVargaKelownaBC

I am in total agreement with the CEAA's draft environmental assessment that finds that the upstream emissions attributable to this project would be irreversible and would cause significant adverse environmental effects. Scientists understand the same about *all* GHG emissions. I wish the CEAA would take the analysis a step further by estimating the downstream emissions from the transportation, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The full environmental effects of the project are obviously not limited by national borders. They should therefore be fully accounted for by the environmental assessment.

I would also like to know that all methane leakage has been included in the analysis. The public should be informed of the sources of methane leakage accounted for, as well as the leakage rate used in the estimate of upstream emissions. Leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport should be included in the environmental assessment.

The assessment should clarify the GWP factor for methane that's used in the emission calculations. It's best to use the most recently updated 20-year GWP. Analysis of near-term impacts are crucial the closer we get to climate tipping points.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

2016-03-08 00:05:33
MichelleMarcusVancouverBritish Columbia

The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.

The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

I ask you to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations and use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis.

2016-03-08 01:24:14
Helen VlaanderenPritchardBC

Please, decide for the greater good, not the greater profit. You are intelligent human beings. Please use your intelligence to promote planet-friendly solutions to our needs. We must stop our current petrochemical nightmare.

I will never vote for a government that supports increasing petrochemical projects.

Our children's children will damn us for our selfish short-sighted thinking on this issue.

2016-03-08 06:18:19
KarlMaierNew Westminster BC

Thank you for estimating upstream environmental impacts of this project. Please describe the specific leakage sources you identified and the amounts estimated, and use the most recent factor for methane GHG effects. Also please include leakages and GHG emissions from downstream including transport and re-gasification if not combustion. Lastly, please recommend against this project on the strength of your analysis!

2016-03-08 07:09:57
DerekNansonVancouverBritish Columbia

I am very concerned about this LNG proposal and permanent impact it could have on our world. Why would we jeopardize our world, our climate on which we all depend in exchange for a few dollars and a few job, it would be lunacy. We (humanity) needs to be aware of the catastrophic change we are knowingly creating.

2016-03-08 07:15:59
DonnaNansonVancouverBritish Columbia

I am very concerned about this LNG proposal and permanent impact it could have on our world. Why would we jeopardize our world, our climate on which we all depend in exchange for a few dollars and a few job, it would be lunacy. We (humanity) needs to be aware of the catastrophic change we are knowingly creating.

2016-03-08 07:16:57
DonBarthelVancouverBritish Columbia

We need to rapidly reduce carbon emissions, not increase them. LNG exports would contribute to an *increase* in carbon emissions. Please reject this project.

2016-03-08 07:20:49
ElaineHoferParksvilleBritish Columbia

Please reject the project given your conclusion that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The Skeena River is very important in a large salmon run and should not be altered.

2016-03-08 07:28:43
JoyHoferParksvilleB.C.

irreversible harm to the climate is not acceptable---stop the project

2016-03-08 07:47:18
CatherineTocherSaltspring IslandBritish Columbia

I hope you will see that it is more important to have a pristine natural environment here in Super Natural British Columbia, and to be more thoughtful as we move forward.

2016-03-08 07:53:19
KathleenWhippDeltaBC

My concern is climate change and its devastating impacts. We must immediately stop more fossil fuel developments in Canada, as world-wide climate rise is so close to the critical 2 degree mark. We need to educate the public on the REAL truth about LNG. The extraction is now mostly from fracking, and the entire process leaks so much methane and is so energy intensive, that it is as bad for climate, or worse, than coal, according to Cornell University studies. I am grateful that our federal government is finally looking at this impact. Now we must stop these developments before we loose our children's future.

2016-03-08 08:07:45
ErichHilbrechtKamloopsBC

You need to reject the project. It will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
Also consider the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project.
You need to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include. How can you justify the leakage rate you use in your estimate of upstream emissions? You need to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
You need to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-08 08:32:01
JaneCamfieldVancouverBritish Columbia

Comment: I would (emphatically) say that such a project should be shut down without any more reviews, appeals, examinations of the numbers. It is simple: it's bad for the environment, disastrous for water/land/air since no one can guarantee any "safeguards". Prime Minister Trudeau's promises in Paris, his meetings with the premiers indicate how difficult it is to stop these climate-threatening projects. If further evidence to reject this project is needed, consider the methane leak in California which took at least 4 months of human effort to stop; consider the outrageous practice of fracking in suburbs of Los Angeles; consider the number of lakes and rivers too polluted to support life. Canada cannot afford to sustain the kind of business practice like PNW LNG. We need to make dramatic choices. As a citizen/voter, I am tired of claims for the "economy" used to trump preservation of our environment. It's time to legislate on the principle that environment is --by far-- more important than fossil fuels industries.

2016-03-08 08:32:27
ValerieDareParksvilleBC

Any short term economic gains do not outweigh the repercussions of longterm negative effects on the environment. I ask that the CEAA reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project.

2016-03-08 08:50:51
PamelaLockhartSurreyBC

I am writing to you to reject the PNW LNG project on the basis that there will be direct emissions and then upstream CO2 emissions which will be unacceptable .Canada signed the Paris agreement to comply with the goals for stopping the rise in temperature on Earth.This project contravenes this agreement.

2016-03-08 09:21:21
Nigel PielothVictoriaBC

Climate change is here now. We all need to stop the consumption and extraction of dirty fossil fuels. Investment must be in clean green technologies. There has to be an end to the materialistic consumerist greedy life style that is killing us all. 100 percent clean green technology is completely possible.
No to LNG, fracking, coal, oil... YES to life and clean air and sustainable practices.

2016-03-08 09:41:14
PamelaHaggartyVancouver British Columbia

Reject,reject,reject! As a 64 year old woman who has beeen to over 40 countries over the years and have seen the real life horrors of climate change in revisiting both Africa and Asia over thirty years, it is our duty to humanity to do our part. REJECT!

2016-03-08 09:54:19
Lawrence HewittTelkwaBC

How is it that the DFO determined that the proposed location of the Pacific Northwest LNG plant would not have a negative impact on the Skeena River estuary when the 1973 study clearly showed it would. And especially in light of Dr. Johnathan Moore's three year study of the same area concludes the same. And especially in light of the current Russian Scientists review of this project detailing their experience with a similar project. Their conclusion was the Pacific Northwest LNG project would be catastrophic. Please see a video of their presentation.

2016-03-08 09:55:35
LavonneGarnettNanaimoBritish Columbia

From now on we must choose all human activity with a focus on a clean, healthy environment that will not contribute to exacerbation of climate change. All LNG projects need to be cancelled, as the fracking involved poisons an abundance of water that needs to be buried, with risk of leakage sometime in the future. The more readily available natural gas is basically gone, so the industry requires more invasive methods that risk the health of life on this planet. Let us put our efforts into renewables, such as solar, geothermal, tidal and wind sources. And, let us save the Peace River Valley from the projected Site "C" dam that would flood valuable farm land and release methane.

It is a conflict of interests for the BC and AB governments if they exchange Site C dam hydro power for pipelines to the coast. After all, we were told that BC needs that power; reports tell us now that BC's electricity needs have been dropping and with more alternative energy this can continue. The Site C dam is not warranted to trade for a pipeline that would carry more carbon producing products overseas, to threaten our BC coasts.

2016-03-08 10:14:29
avrilwarrenVictoriaBritish Columbia

Please reject this . We don't need it on our coast

2016-03-08 10:23:32
yvonraoulvancouverBritish Columbia

It is clear that increasing production of gas from fracking is bound to make it even more difficult to achieve the goal of reducing our carbon output in BC by 33% just six years from now. Even without increasing our output of unconventional gas we would have a hard time reaching that target. According to what I have read, the Suzuki Foundation claims that we would need to remove 17 megatons of CO2 to reach our 2020 target. They claim that we are going to do exactly the opposite: increase CO2 by 17 percent!

Reported emissions have increased between 2012 and 2013. (63 to 64 megatonnes). The initial success of the B.C. carbon tax in curbing greenhouse emissions seems to be faltering. Why wait to 2018 to increase it (by only 10%) if we want to make it effective? The Suzuki report mentions a possible programme to offset carbon production, but provides very little information on the form it might take. How would such a programme work and how effective would it be in countervailing the effects of increased carbon emissions?

if BC’s proposed LNG venture should be canceled or fail for economic reasons, there is no Plan B, so to speak. We know what happens when an extractive industry becomes the sole cash cow in a volatile energy economy. The Albertan government and taxpayers are now confronted with this reality. The proposed scale of shale gas extraction projects in B.C. could meet a similar fate, given the availability of gas from cheaper sources.
Can we rely on Asian demand to sponge up an excess of world energy? Right now (and for the foreseeable future) there is a glut of real and potential gas and oil offered at prices that could put us out of the competition. Quatar, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Brunei and others are providing natural gas to India; China is maximizing its energy independence by developing synthetic natural gas (SNG) derived from an abundant coal reserve, while fast tracking sustainable clean energy. It seems that the U.S.A., at least for the immediate future, does not need our gas...or our tar sands. Add to this th cost of an $8 billion dam, built to provide electrical energy to back up extractive mining and fracking. That money could be put to better use by providing a permanent sustainable energy infrastucture that would first serve our needs. Are we condemned to be hewers of natural resources and drawers of gas and oil for ever? Why is the panel not seriously considering geothermal energy, which abounds in B.C.? “Big is better” is an outdated mind set.

What is needed is a courageous but realistic leap into a new future based on the reality of climate change and the need to wean the world off fossil fuels and into renewable, sustainable sources of energy.
"The path of the past won’t lead us to the future we want".

2016-03-08 10:35:35
JimmyHodgsonBurnabyBritish Columbia

Thank you for taking into consideration the entire impact of this project. We are in a crucial turning point right now where we will have to make uncomfortable decisions that will be counter to the status quo. The time to move towards a sustainable future is now. Publishing hard truths that are factually backed is more important than ever. Please do the right thing.

2016-03-08 11:01:14
JaredHoweSeattleWA

I call on CEAA to reject the project, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

I applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

Please take their analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-08 11:02:53
JenniferShawSecheltBC

It is not acceptable to ruin our homes and lives in the pursuit of money. Stop the madness.

2016-03-08 11:05:48
GwennGuthrieVictoriaBC

As your conclusion suggests irreversible harm PLEASE the Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG in Prince Rupert. I would ask that the CEAA also clarify the global warming potentual for methane for emissions in your calculations.

2016-03-08 11:06:00
LaszloBendoRichmondBC

In this day and age of climate concerns we have to step back and look at the big picture. The long term effects of this would create a world that our grand children would curse us for. I say no to this and other such projects!

Laszlo

2016-03-08 11:19:19
DenisAgarvancouverbc

Hi CEAA,

I'm wondering what benefits you consider when evaluating whether the Pacific Northwest LNG Project will be worthwhile? Surely, there must be a high bar to overcome in order to justify the "significant adverse environmental effects".

2016-03-08 11:25:39
RobinDel Pino FerriesVancouverBC

I call on CEAA to reject the LNG project, given the conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

I applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

I ask the Agency to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rate used in your estimate of upstream emissions.
Please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Additionally, please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. Please use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Please take your analysis one step further and estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG.

The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.
Thank you,

2016-03-08 11:26:40
GeneMcGuckinBurnabyBC

CEAA's praiseworthy calculation of upstream GHG emissions will become a sick joke if the assessment of those emissions as globally harmful does not lead to denial of the Pacific Northwest LNG project permit.

Please continue rather than reversing your good work on this project. Expand your assessment to include downstream GHG emissions related to the transport, processing, and combustion of the LNG.

Please DO NOT become another case of recognizing world threatening danger and doing nothing to prevent it.

2016-03-08 11:27:06
AnnMayoCoquitlamBritish Columbia

Please, for the sake of the salmon and all living things on the ocean and on the land, do not permit this project to go ahead. Accidents will happen. No amount of money is worth the risk.

2016-03-08 11:31:09
AnnMayoCoquitlamBritish Columbia

Please, for the sake of the salmon and all living things on the ocean and on the land, do not permit this project to go ahead. Accidents will happen. No amount of money is worth the risk.

2016-03-08 11:31:10
StuartSmithVancouverBC

I do not support LNG resource extraction in BC, both on environmental grounds and financial grounds.

2016-03-08 11:33:10
LarrySharpVancouverBC

The greenhouse gas emissions produced by this project will significantly impact the environment, contributing to an increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. By denying the project proponent a permit, CEAA will help safeguard the interests of future generations.

Larry Sharp
Vancouver

2016-03-08 11:40:10
RandyDuclosVictoriaBC

Please in your wisdom and kindness ,,reject the Pacifac Northwest LNG ,,WE HAVE KILLER WHALES HERE and I do not want ithe ecosystem destroyed ,,PLEASE THINK OF YOUR GRANDCHILDREN,,and BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA ,,with kindness

2016-03-08 11:43:10
hEIDIBoehmRichmondBritish Columbia

I wish to simple state that Nothing but NOTHING justifies abusing the Environment it MUST BE RESPECTED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS otherwise all will be lost and in the end there will be NO TURNING BACK.....the DAMAGE WILL BE DONE!!!!

2016-03-08 11:50:59
KateWalkerVancouverBC

I am very worried about the effects of fracking for natural gas. Pumping carcinogens into our water supply, destabilizing the land, increasing the risk of earthquakes and generation of huge amounts of methane gas - this is not a clean energy.
There must be innovations in extracting LNG in our future but we aren't there yet, so we should leave it in the ground.
Exporting fossil fuels only exports the problems that contribute to global warming and our current climate crisis.
The amount of money poured into advertising and trying to convince us, and our First Nations, that these projects are safe is shocking and their message is insulting.
We should not plan a future around these exports but should be developing sustainable and renewable resources for our own future needs.
Another tremendous concern is the increased tanker traffic in our local waters if we were to export LNG. Besides the various dangers from pipelines and explosions, the threat of irreparable damage to our marine life is totally unacceptable.
Please do all you can to protect our land and our future by rejecting industries that cause harm.

2016-03-08 11:53:57
LauraZadoroznyRichmondBC

I am calling on CEAA to reject this project given that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate. Damage done will not stop when the LNG leaves our shores!

The fact that the Agency is considering the upstream GHG emissions from PNW project in the Draft EA is a step in the right direction. We need clarification of what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Include, please, the estimates of methane leakage from tracking, production and transport of natural gas.

I ask that the Agency clarify the Global Warming Potential factor for Methane used in their emissions calculations. I ask that you use the recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to the climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

I ask that you take your analysis one step further bye estimating the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG the Methane leakage from tracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. We already know that Methane gas is by far a higher risk to our environment that CO2.

We are at a critical state with Global Warming and must Act Now to ensure that our environment is protected for our children and the generations to come. You know what the right thing to do is please act on it.

Regards,
Laura Zadorozny

2016-03-08 12:07:21
BrendaKlausNanaimoB.C.

Are we not ruining this planet quick enough all ready?

2016-03-08 12:08:58
MichaelCoatesVancouverBC

That this project will cause irreversible harm to the climate is all you need to know to reject it. However while you analyse this could you please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. After all this is necessary to understand the full impact on the environment. Speaking of the environment could you please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emissions calculations. Please use the most recently updated twenty year GWP for methane in your analysis. While your at it could you please take the analysis one step further and estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. We all want the whole truth about this and other projects like it. Without a full analysis from the gas field to the combustion of this methane including all emissions en-route we cannot fully understand the impact of such projects. Remember we as humans need to live here forever not just the few decades (maximum) that these gas projects encompass while leaving the decades following in a questionable state of viability.

2016-03-08 12:15:22
ISaramaGibsonsB.C.

This development is reckless and shortsighted in the extreme. It is all about a short term vision, which completely ignores the long term destructive consequences to future generations of humanity and our fellow species, that we seem so often to take for granted.

Stop this now. We have healthy alternatives.

2016-03-08 12:20:30
annmcivorport alberniBC

Please, Please please, do not approve the unnecessary and potentially deveasting LNG project. The risks really are too big. Not only environmentally but also financially. We really do not need to keep going backwards, there is no shortage of better income generating ideas to replace this.We could be developing a hemp industry as they have been doing in Europ for years, amking all kinds of products., from building materials to plastic composites, ect. LNG the jobs we are told of, especially when they are wanting to; and are hire foreign workers, as we know these kinds of corporations want maximum profit as all costs..usually to the citizens. There are far too many examples of this happening now.
Its time to get away from fracking, the main means of extracting the gas. That reason alone should be enough to end this. We know beyond doubt it causes water damage, and also earthquakes! The potential for disaster in the case of an explosion cannot be underestimated. Look how many extemel accidents we have been having since so many regulations have been lifted..Lac Magantic for one comes to mind..even that is not the same thing..its a good example of negligence causing harm..I could go on and on about that..these corporations have way too much power and that is one of the big reasons I have NO trust in these high risk projects. Research on Petronas shows it not to be a good company that cares about anything about the communities where they set up.
There have been more than enough studies to show how dangerous LNG is. Natural gas will be liquefied and compressed and shipped via LNG carriers to foreign markets. It makes no sense to take these risks which far outweigh the benefits. Accidents do happen. Here is one list of someaccidents http://citizensagainstlng.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cabrillo-Port-EIR-Appendix-C3_List-of-LNG-Accidents.pdf
thanks

2016-03-08 12:23:01
RobertMacDermotVancouverBC

Aside from the horrendous environmental impacts listed in the document, and which eloquently speak for themselves, LNG in strictly business terms is just a bad investment. We can't effectively compete with the Russians, our main competitor for the Chinese market. Like the disastrous losses, both financial and environmental, already incurred from tar sands bitumen development, approval of the LNG project will couple enormous business losses with equally enormous costs environmentally.

2016-03-08 12:24:51
MichaelBatesTorontoOntario

I strongly urge the CEAA to reject this project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

You are to be congratulated for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

It's important that the CEAA clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and your justification of the leakage rate that is used in the estimate of upstream emissions. Include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
It's imperative that the CEAA clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in emission calculated. You need to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial
Pleaseto take ther analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Thank you
Michael Bates

2016-03-08 12:27:39
JamesMackVan Anda B.c.

This project in not in the best interest of the vast majority of Canadians.
Not needed when other alternative are available.
Do not approve this project.

2016-03-08 12:37:38
DorothyRandallSurreyB.C.

Whatever happened to green technology?
Where are the initiatives for wind, wave and solar energy?

LNG technology is already outdated, harmful and irrelevant.

2016-03-08 12:40:49
ChristineNydahlCroftonBC

COUNT MY NAME AS A VIGOROUS VOTE OF "No!" TO LNG!!

2016-03-08 13:02:30
DeirdreWhalenRichmondBC

Thank you CEAA for including the upstream GHG emissions fro the new PNW project. People seem to forget that in the making of LNG, tonnes of GHG emission are produced. That's even before the LNG is shipped offshore and then used, which of course produces more GHG. All the GHG emissions should be accounted for, from inception to use. On this basis I urge the CEAA to reject the project.

2016-03-08 13:21:43
ChrisArmstrongHornby IslandBC

The PNW LNG Project perhaps should not even be open for consideration, because it could destroy the major Skeena River SALMON RUN (while emitting unacceptable volumes of greenhouse gasses). The siting proposal seems to demonstrate a lack of good faith on the part of the BC Government with regards to their required consultations, particularly concerning adverse impacts on local populations. On the other hand, the merits of the project also are important, including the very substantial monetary improvement to the local economies, and surfeit of short and long term employment opportunities..

2016-03-08 13:38:11
KeithMastinBethuneSk

Just adding my name to those opposed this project for reason stated

2016-03-08 14:02:40
KellyMcConnellPender IslandBC

I want CLEAN air and water. Turning our coast into the main export hub for North American LNG is anathema to that desire. Our own Environmental Assessment Agency has concluded that this project will cause significant adverse environmental effects.

At what point do the rights and desires of Multinational Corporations have more sway than the rights and desires of the Canadian people?

We want you to assess the upstream AND the downstream emissions and consequences and stop allowing the corporations to pollute OUR environment for THEIR profits.

I ask that you PLEASE PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT and NOT approve Pacific Northwest LNG

2016-03-08 14:10:39
TeresaDiewertSurreyBC

I am writing to add my voice to the thousands of people across Canada who are speaking out against the PNWLNG project. As a grandmother who would be ashamed of myself if I did not do all I could to stop climate change so my grandchildren will be able to flourish I must ask that the CEAA reject the project on at least 3 grounds. First and foremost the project has been rejected by the rightful gaurdians of that land. The territory is on unceded land and the Indigenous peoples there have said no to the project. Secondly, scientific research shows that LNG is indeed not a clean energy. The process by which gas is extracted - fracking - has been proven to emit more methane into the atmosphere than coal and finally, how can you even think about endangering the salmon habitat that will most definately be destroyed by this project. I am heartened that the CEAA has come out strongly in terms of the adverse environmental effects of the project and am hopeful that you will take that knowledge one step further and reject this project. Thank you for your time.

2016-03-08 14:21:07
TomChildsRichmond BC

LNG extraction not only endangers our 1.)water resources in the processes used, 2.)hydraulic fracturing causes dangerous seismic activity, and 3.) releases of methane, a GHG 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide is released always into the atmosphere during extraction. Sometimes uncontrollably.

It is therefore a dangerous path when Canada follows the fossil fuel industry and subsidizes their reckless practices. Canada should be subsidizing sustainable energy resource infrastructure in solar, wind and tidal power. To not do this is a climate crime where all life is put in continuous peril.

2016-03-08 15:37:31
GerryParkinsonNorth vancouverBC

this is the most pristine whale, dolphin, salmon habitat in the world. how could we even dare to jeopardize it with more tankers and LNG. All for a few extra bucks....that is sad.

2016-03-08 15:50:26
KarenMcMahonRichmondBC

The way we do business and create jobs needs to change. It is a time to be innovative and find new pathways to create jobs and transport our goods. We can not afford these harmful choices anymore.

I have every faith in our government to use the great minds and hearts to find a different solution in our future as a country and a healthy earth. Let us be leaders in a new green future rather than continue in its destruction!

Please do not go forward in the LNG on the Fraser. Nothing about it makes sense except to make money. This can not be the bottom line.

Make us Proud!

2016-03-08 16:04:33
LauraHuhnSurrey 

It's time to stop polluting the world.

2016-03-08 16:15:52
TomPoultonSurreyB.C.

Think BIG picture! No, not just B.C. and it's coastline, but the planet! No, not just this and the next generation, but those that will inherit the bleak future such projects ensure! Economically, any investment for short-term rewards from LNG would be far better directed towards clean, sustainable energy sources. Please reject this project.

2016-03-08 17:00:32
BonnieHubertDeltaBC

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I am writing to ask that you do not approve Pacific Northwest LNG. I am deeply concerned about the effects this project will have on climate change given that your assessment on this project indicates that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
I also am concerned about the risk to wild salmon habitat on the Skeena river estuary. Canadians have voted for and expect strong leadership and commitment in the decision making process that will protect our environment.
Thank You Bonnie Hubert

2016-03-08 17:01:12
kathyDuttonParksvilleB.C.

We need to rapidly reduce emissions to avoid runaway climate change.

2016-03-08 17:22:06
AndrewLoveridgeGalianoBC

The methane emitted will cause great damage to the earth's climate.

2016-03-08 17:24:26
stephankropfWhiterockbc

To whom it may concern,

The onslaught of proposed LNG projects is extremely overwhelming to the average person especially at a time when global climate change action is required. I have read that the approval of just one of these huge proposed single LNG plants in BC will destroy any chances of BC meeting its commitments to lower CO2 emissions. Carbon capture technology must be a mandatory requirement in order for even one of the projects to be approved. The Pacific Northwest LNG project is one of many to me. There are just too many projects to keep track of. CO2 emissions must be factored into the decision process for Pacific Northwest LNG and the other adverse environmental effects of this project.

2016-03-08 17:43:23
Sheila PrattMaple RidgeBC

I do not need to tell you all the reasons that this project should be rejected. I'm sure you've read it all before. Fortunately, I am now retired and have time to send you a loud "NO", unlike those who have family and work obligations that often keep them in the dark about what is proposed, and even if they know, they often don't have the time to voice their opinions. It's time for the CEAA to stop listening to the proponents, who of course, will paint a rosy picture of their proposal; the CEAA should start listening to the public, First Nations and environmentalists who have a long term vision of what can support the health of British Columbia.

2016-03-08 17:46:02
LaurieArmerAbbotsfordBC

The time for advancing the switch to sustainable energy is now! Others cities and even countries have done so and we, the public know 100% this technology is available and already in use elsewhere. Even one iota of compromise to the environment and animals is too much. The continued stance of supporting the negligent, filthy-rich fossil fuels industry is over! There is no amount of PR that can be done by these entities, or the governments, by trying to support their position to convince anyone that this continues to be a viable source for energy. It is akin to saying that the empty manufactured glass is more important that the toxic water it was meant to hold!!!! These egregious, profit-driven, lying fossil fuels companies AND shill government staff that continue to endorse them, will not and cannot win. Their demise if inevitable.

2016-03-08 17:47:51
ShasChoBoston BarBC

This LNG project is a bad idea. It is a violation of our U.N. responsibilities, a violation of First Nations rights and treaties, an assault on the climate and on our air and on our water, it is unsafe, it is a navigational nightmare, it is in the world's most active earthquake belt, and it is a personal monument to Christy Clark, that Enbridge employee. Please stop this catastrophe now.

2016-03-08 17:50:34
AlejandroFridBowen IslandBC

The proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project in Prince Rupert should not be allowed to proceed. Denying a permit for this project would prevent climate impacts (Howarth 2014) and damage to wild salmon populations (Moore et al. 2015).

Of all fossil fuels, natural gas has the highest rate of methane emissions. Although the direct climate impact of methane lasts only a few decades (much less than CO2), the global warming produced by methane over 20 years is 86 to 105 times greater than that produced by an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide (according to the three most recent estimates) (Howarth 2014).

Thus, the overall climate impact of natural gas can be quite large (Montzka et al. 2011; Howarth 2014). Sustained warming caused by methane over 20 years at a rate that is 86 to 105 times stronger than CO2 can contribute to “positive feedback loops”—indirect mechanisms in which relatively small temperature rises initiate other processes that accelerate further heat (Montzka et al. 2011; Howarth 2014). For instance, warming in the Arctic and Subarctic already has reduced the area covered by summer sea ice and begun to melt permafrost. Consequently, solar radiation that would have been reflected back to space by white sea ice is now absorbed by dark unfrozen ocean, and the melting permafrost releases greenhouse gases that had been stored frozen underground. Both of these mechanisms exacerbate global warming (Belshe et al. 2013; Riihela et al. 2013). Due to these sorts of positive feedback loops, the short-term yet powerful warming associated with methane emissions make the overall climate impact of natural gas very significant. As climate scientist Robert W. Howarth emphasises, reducing methane emissions over the next 15-35 years is critical to avert severe runaway climate change disasters (Howarth 2014).

BC government propaganda has focused on the fact that CO2 emissions from natural gas are lower than for other fossil fuels, and that methane emissions last relatively short periods of time in the atmosphere. Their argument for LNG as a “climate solution”, however, is flawed because it fails to account for the tremendous warming potential of methane over 20-year periods, and how such warming might contribute to runaway climate change. Also, as climate scientist and MLA Andrew Weaver points out, the BC government has not accounted for the large amounts of natural gas required to fuel large-scale liquefaction and that increase the climate impacts of LNG.

If we are to meet the Paris-agreed target of keeping global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius (relative to pre-industrial times), then the last thing we should be doing is building new infrastructure for fossil fuels (Anderson 2016). Instead we should be phasing out existing fossil fuel infrastructure while transitioning into a low-carbon economy (Jacobson & Delucchi 2011; Anderson 2016).

Additionally, there is grave concern for direct impacts of proposed LNG facilities on wild salmon. Fisheries ecologists have pointed out that proposed LNG facilities on the Skeena estuary would threaten “40 populations (of salmon) that are harvested in at least 10 First Nations territories throughout the Skeena watershed” (Moore et al. 2015).

Clearly, denying a permit to the Pacific Northwest LNG proposal is in the best interest of Canadians.

References

Anderson K. (2016). Talks in the city of light generate more heat. Nature , , 528.

Belshe E.F., Schuur E.A.G. & Bolker B.M. (2013). Tundra ecosystems observed to be CO2 sources due to differential amplification of the carbon cycle. Ecology Letters, 16, 1307-1315.

Howarth R.W. (2014). A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering, 2, 47-60.

Jacobson M.Z. & Delucchi M.A. (2011). Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy, 39, 1154-1169.

Montzka S.A., Dlugokencky E.J. & Butler J.H. (2011). Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change. Nature, 476, 43-50.

Moore J.W., Carr-Harris C., Gottesfeld A.S., MacIntyre D., Radies D., Cleveland M., Barnes C., Joseph W., Williams G., Gordon J. & Shepert B. (2015). Selling First Nations down the river. Science, 349, 596-596.

Riihela A., Manninen T. & Laine V. (2013). Observed changes in the albedo of the Arctic sea-ice zone for the period 1982-2009. Nature Climate Change, 3, 895-898.

2016-03-08 18:01:35
UrsulaEasterbrookDeltaBritish Columbia

Would you clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations, using the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

I would also like to see you estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

On another front, pls include the extra noise level and constant small oil discharges from the increased number of tankers/freighters and how that will affect the water and animals that they travel through.

2016-03-08 18:05:18
AnitaRehhornGibsons 

Please do NOT approve Pacific Northwest LNG
Thank you
Anita

2016-03-08 18:49:28
MargaretBrownVictoriaBritish Columbia

I am encouraged by the Agenciy's finding and applaud any and all efforts to stop current and future production of L.N.G. for the sake of our planet and to stop contributing to adverse climate changes..

2016-03-08 19:07:03
RexEatonSurreyBritish Columbia

I take note of the assessment of the LNG project by the CEAA. It is heartening that Canada is now in a better position to move forward with policy based on science and rational thought, rather than the narrow, biased ideology of the previous administration. I would prefer that the assessment also include the downstream effects on CO2 emissions, but this is a start.

I request the CEAA to reject the project based on their assessment of harm to the climate, let alone the downstream consequences.

On behalf of my children and grandchildren,

- Rex Eaton

2016-03-08 19:07:11
SylviaSamborski , SylviaVictoriaBritish Columbia

We urge the CEAA to reject PNW LNG, since we know that it will cause irreversible harm to our climate. Many thanks to the CEAA for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

We ask you to clarify what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rateyou use in your estimate of upstream emissions and include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

We ask you to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

We ask you to take your analysis one step further: estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Sincerely,
Sylvia and Ron Samborski

2016-03-08 19:59:34
gordhomerfurry creekbc

thankyou for considering the upstream effects of GHG. The total emissions of LNG both upstream and down must be considered and weighed very carefully against clean coal processes and must include carefull review of methane not just CO2.

Thanks

Gord Homer

2016-03-08 21:02:45
Lydia Martens Regina Saskatchewan

These multi-billion dollar companies, willfully and knowingly, by force, contaminated our lands beyond repair, for one reason. Profit. They props to sue us and our governments for said profits via TPP. We the people say NO! You will not sue anyone for anything. You will pay each and every citizen for the damage you have done to our waters, our lands, our wild life and our health. I can think of only one penalty that could come even remotely close to covering your debts to humanity. And that would be for all these corporations to pay off all debts, including our massive deficit. Followed by hiring the unemployed and homeless, at an above cost of living wage, to help clean up as much of the mess they made as possible.
We need to stop tiptoeing around these bullies and make them accountable for what they have done. How many have died and will die as a direct consequence to their greed. It's time for the piper to start paying back.

2016-03-08 21:53:13
KeithLightPender IslandBC

I commend the Agency on their blunt forceful conclusion that an Lng plant and all that is involved, would cause irreversible damage to the environment.

I am very thankful that the Agency has spoken clearly, and urge you reject this project, and all others that promote fossil fuels.

If the money that was to go into this project, as well as the proposed pipelines, and site C, was to directed towards solar, wind, other renewable technology, it would show the world that we are serious about reversing climate change, while at the same time supply clean power all over Canada.

2016-03-08 22:02:27
GaryBlidookKelownaBritish Columbia

Not to belabor the point but this plant is a bad idea, as is further fracking anywhere in the world. The heating of the ocean water will be bad for marine life.

2016-03-08 22:10:38
PatO'ConnorSurreyBC

If we are to meet are international commitments to keep our contributions to climate rise to one and a half degrees we must curb our fossil fuel exports including LNG. Even if we were not contributing to global warming the risk to our ground water is enough to turn down the project. The miniscule public benefit is far out weighed by the public costs.

2016-03-08 22:12:30
TrudiLuethyLions BayB.C.

We urge you to consider to listen to the many voices from Coast to Coast.
NO more extra GHG.
Thank you!!!

2016-03-08 22:50:33
RudyLuethyLions BayBritish Columbia

Do not add more GHG.
If you want to walk your talk to need to LISTEN to what people have to say.
Respectfully Rudy Luethy

2016-03-08 22:52:16
MichaelHaleChilliwackB.C.

I note that the draft CEAA Environmental Assessment Report finds that the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects in the form of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, I call on the Agency to reject the project.

The CEAA is to be applauded for considering upstream effects. In order for Canada to meet its commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement, it seems advisable to also include DOWNSTREAM effects, including the eventual burning of the LNG.

In making decisions on fossil fuel extraction projects, post-Paris, a complete life cycle assessment of both upstream and downstream effects on Canada's GHG emissions is essential. This would include all GHGs emitted in the production and transportation of LNG and the combustion of the regassified natural gas.

2016-03-08 23:03:12
PaulSchouwAbbotsfordB.C.

The worldwide uncontrolled emissions over the last 200 years has created the "Greenhouse" effect that has led to global warming. The damage we have done is irreversible. If we can't stop the madness let's at least try to slow it down, and definitely not create new sources! Future generations will inherit a scorched earth and wonder how we could have let this happen on our watch...

2016-03-08 23:05:20
TanyaPaulsKelownaBC

I am disgusted that even after the environmental report is out and greenhouse gases are highlighted, that there is even any question or discussion about following through with this disatrous project...why does man continue to try to destroy our beautiful planet, instead of protect it...one word...money! 🙁

2016-03-08 23:52:54
janettynanLions BayBritish Columbia

Keep Howe Sound environmentally safe, Keep our climate clean, naturally, without chemicals. Don't kill our waters through the leakage from fracking production and the processing and transporting of natural gas.

Janet

2016-03-09 00:07:28
Margriet CoolsmaSurreyBC

This project and all projects like it should be rejected. PNLG will cause irreversible harm to the climate. You also need to consider the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to the global climate doesn`t stop when it leaves our shores.

2016-03-09 00:30:16
NancyHarrisMaple Ridge BC

Please do not allow the NorthWest LNG development. I feel the environmental impact will be too great at a time when our fossil fuel supply is very limited and our main goal should be in the development of alternate energy sources. I feel this is a change in direction we must make immediatlty so as not to burdon our children and grandchildren with the results of our lack of wisdom and courage.

2016-03-09 00:36:04
LynnMaxtedFanny BayBC

Thank you Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for your conclusions about the Pacific Northwest (PNW) LNG project in Prince Rupert BC when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

As your report states:
"Environment and Climate Change Canada advised that if the Project were to proceed, it would be amongst the
largest single point sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the country."
Well this says it all, we absolutely must not allow this project to go ahead.

Your conclusion that:
"...the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of
greenhouse gas emissions after taking into consideration the implementation of best achievable technology and
management practices and compliance with the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act."
...only exemplifies the fact that it is not possible for this project to address the BC governments standards. Now: BC government please stand by your word and do not approve the Pacific Northwest LNG Project!

The CEAA also addressed our federal governments commitments to climate action...
"Environment and Climate Change Canada also explained that with the Government of Canada’s recent
commitments to climate change, the information in the proponent’s analysis no longer completely reflects the
Canadian context. The Government of Canada has made climate change a key priority, committing to reduce
greenhouse emissions to approximately 200 million tonnes below current levels by 2030."
It is now time to put an END to this project!

The most important issue of our time is climate change. Our future depends on us changing our priorities NOW!!!

I call on both the Canadian government and the BC government to put an end to this LNG project.

Note: I have other concerns about this project: salmon runs, safety of the Prince Rupert community members, and the environmental impact of fracking. I do not think the CEAA has properly addressed these issues.

2016-03-09 00:40:46
SharonSkibinskiLions BayBC

I would like CEAA to reject the project as the conclusion given that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate. As stated "CEAA has issued a remarkably blunt Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project.
The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.
The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions…"
I would like the Agency to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Also include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. Can you clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. What will be the estimate of the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-09 06:30:09
Shauna HartwellCumberlandBC

Stop the LNG plant from going through. We have better options for clean power through wind, tidal, and solar. We are harming our planet with all the Fracking needing to be done for Natural Gas. The dangers out way the need for this product.

2016-03-09 07:40:16
WendyKotillaCourtenayBC

Please reject this project to transport LNG from the Prince Rupert area. This is the mouth of the Skeena River, which is important salmon juvenile and adult migration, habitat and feeding river. Your own data concludes that this project will contribute unacceptable levels of GHG emissions an further data collection and analysis is required to better understand the full impact. Please reject this project for the health of present and future generations of all species.

2016-03-09 07:54:05
GeorgiaRamosVictoriaBritish Columbia

I am concerned about the level of Greenhouse gasses that would be emitted by the PNW LNG project in Prince Rupert. It appears that your draft assessment has found that this project will cause serious environmental harm.

I would ask that in your final report you commit to further clarifying just where the methane leakage is, how this leakage is measured in your estimates, and all sources of methane leakage in the fracking, production and processing of LNG.

I am concerned that we are dangerously close to a tipping point in the ability of our atmosphere to absorb more greenhouse gasses, and that this project will move us significantly closer toward that edge. I thank you for your efforts on behalf of all creatures who share our biosphere. Your work to protect all of us is essential.

2016-03-09 07:56:58
TeresaBrandvoldLions BayBC

I applaud the CEAA for their blunt and unfavourable conclusions about the effects of LNG on the climate and I urge them to go further in the analysis of methane in particular as well as the full effects, including all the way to the end user, wherever that might be. I sincerely hope that our new government will heed the warnings and abandon this "fool's gold" of a so-called economic opportunity. There are many other, better ways to develop our resources that do not compound our contribution to climate change. What should you do when you find yourself in a big hole? Stop digging! We have the technology, all we need is the political and collective will.

2016-03-09 09:28:18
Joseph & JoanneRonsleyLions BayBC

It's heartening to know that Canadian scientists can now speak freely and accurately. Especially in regard to Howe Sound, the LNG operation would be a terrible mistake. This fjord should be registered as a UNESCO heritage site. It is spectacularly beautiful, has an abundance of returning marine wildlife, contains a rare organisms of interest to scientists, is the most southerly fjord in North America, and has a close proximity to Canada's third largest metropolitan area. It is not suitable for industrialization.

2016-03-09 09:35:56
BarbaraEnnsLions BayBC

ANY project that produces irreversible environmental damage MUST be rejected. Let's put all our efforts into energy alternatives. Let us stop this madness.

2016-03-09 09:57:48
CBradburgLions BayBC - British Columbia

Why, oh why is this even being considered? Why wasn't it thrown out the moment it was proposed?
NO, WE DO NOT WANT ANY MORE POLLUTING INDUSTRY. We want clean, renewable initiatives. It is now time to protect, not pollute this planet. Are we, the average people, the only ones to see reason here? Or is it because instead of lined pockets we will have breathing difficulties and poisoned water sources?

For the love of all that is right, deny this permit and trash all ideas relating to an outdated and - hopefully soon to be - obsolete fossil fuel industry.

2016-03-09 10:35:08
Kaylene Johnstone Nanaimo BC

I am concerned about our environment and our future and would like to less capitalism causing all of our environmental issues and more people trying to solve them. Canada needs to be at the forefront of green energy!!

2016-03-09 10:55:28
IngridWrayLions BayBC

I have serious concerns regarding the process of fracking which is required to obtain the gas .
There are still many unanswered questions and evidence of water contamination as a result of the process and indeed the excessive amounts of water required to frack.
Furthermore the integrity of the the tailings ponds containing who knows what chemicals is always a risk.( See BC Mount Polley disaster) The limited lifespan of each well drilled leads to the need to drill thousands of wells to maintain a viable production, each time pumping water and chemicals into the ground .

I am opposed to Pacific Northwest LNG as it will contribute to GHGS and the process to obtain the gas has too many risks to the environment

2016-03-09 11:54:39
DianneVargaKelownaBC

An update just came out this morning about the science that underwrites the CEAA environmental assessment. According to the more than 130 scientists who signed the open letter to Minister McKenna, the CEAA draft report "is scientifically flawed and represents an insufficient base for decision-making." The letter stated industrial development proposed by the LNG export facility project is associated with lasting damage to the salmon population in the second-largest salmon-producing watershed in Canada. "The CEAA draft report for the Pacific NorthWest LNG project is a symbol of what is wrong with environmental decision-making in Canada," stated the letter. "An obvious risk of a flawed assessment is that it will arrive at an incorrect conclusion."

This project must not be approved.

2016-03-09 12:23:37
RoyHowardDunsterBC

Dear Commissioners:

Please reject the PNW LNG project.
Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emission from the project. This alone should be sufficient cause to reject the project.
However, downstream emissions should also be considered. I urge you to estimate the downstream emissions as well. Burning of any fossil fuels contributes to the imbalance of CO2 in the atmosphere. While it is clear that we can't halt the use of Fossil fuels tomorrow, our country has committed to so by the end of the century and to greatly reduce their use by 2050. Building this project, or any LNG facility, or new pipeline (oil or gas), commits its use until the infrastructure has paid for itself- basically its useful physical lifetime; several decades. (I live near the Transmountain Pipeline, which is still in use after 50 years). That directly contradicts our commitment to be mostly off fossil fuels by 2050.
Thank you for your consideration.

2016-03-09 12:37:44
EarlLublowVancouverB.C.

The environmental long term risk is not worth the short term reward. Our Great Grandchildren will appreciate our prudence in this instance.

2016-03-09 13:48:12
Jennifer ThossLyttonBC

Why are we encouraging mega-projects that contravene our intentions to curb global greenhouse emissions? The BC government is acting as an advocate/lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

Please do not approve this project (Pacific Northwest LNG). We must more aggressively make the transition from a fossil fuel based economy to a greener, sustainable economy... now before the inevitable is forced upon us.

Thank you, Jennifer Thoss

2016-03-09 14:36:24
TheresaSlikVictoriaBC

One sky one chance to breath.... say no to LNG

2016-03-09 15:49:29
Sally LorraineShawnigan LakeBC

I am happy that investigation has been done into the long term effects on the wildlife and environment from LNG and similar invasive projects.
I ask that you prevent these projects!!! They cause irreversible damage. Our descendants will thank you!!!

2016-03-09 16:05:24
HelenNogatchLions BayBC

Forty three years ago, when I moved here, there was an abundance of sea life in Howe Sound, which disappeared with pollution. After years of fighting for the Sound, otters, seals and even whales are beginning to return. Let's keep it that way.
This area is more beautiful than many of the UNESCO sites I have visited around the world. It is worth preserving.

2016-03-09 16:52:26
DianePhillipsLions BayBC

LNG is highly promoted by our provincial government who are not taking into account any of the complete costs - either economically or environmentally. Please do the diligence that they are currently failing to do. Please do not support the PNLNG plant or Woodfibre LNG.

2016-03-09 17:24:33
LarryToltonRichmondBritish Columbia

Deny this application because of its dire environmental consequences.

2016-03-09 17:32:58
Verna J.TolmieParksvilleBC British Columbia

Why would you, meaning the CEAA, move forward with this project WHEN "It will cause IRREVERSIBLE HARM TO THE CLIMATE", and please clarify what sources of methane leakage that you have included AND TO JUSTIFY THE LEAKAGE RATE THAT YOU USED IN YOUR ESTIMATE OF UPSTREAM EMISSIONS. General knowledge from reading on Liquified Natural Gas is that it is A VERY HIGH VOLATILE GAS - Preventative measures followed will not guarantee that there won't be any EXPLOSIONS during the FRACKING, PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND TRANSPORTING OF THE GAS. Scientists from around the world HAVE EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT "GLOBAL WARMING" IS OCCURRING AT A VERY CRITICAL RATE AND WE, MEANING ALL OF HUMANKIND, NEED TO DO OUR PART IN SLOWING IT DOWN AND/OR ELIMINATE THE DAMAGING OF OUR ATMOSPHERE ALTOGETHER. . .REFINERIES CONTAMINATE THE LAND, AIR AND WATER AND THEY ARE THE #1 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO "GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS".

2016-03-09 18:32:38
HerbJohnstonLions BayBC

It is time to reduce the GHG emissions and hence the proposed PNW LNG in Prince Rupert should NOT be permitted to be developed. I respectfully request the government to stand by its commitment to reduce GHG, and reject the proposal.

2016-03-09 18:40:35
Rob Janssen Coquitlam bc

If we are to be serious about climate change we need to cancel this project... period.

2016-03-09 18:47:26
GillianDarling KovanicBowen IslandBC

To: The Honourable Catherine McKenna
Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change

From: Gillian Darling Kovanic, Bowen Island, BC

Date: March 9, 2016

Re: Serious scientific flaws in assessment of environmental risks from the proposed Pacific NorthWest Liquified Natural Gas facility at Lelu Island, Skeena River Estuary

Dear Minister,

Based upon the findings and determinations of 135 preeminent scientists whose names appear on this original letter already in your possession, it has become clear that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s(CEAA) draft report of the environmental risks of the Pacific NorthWest Liquid Natural Gas (PNW LNG) project, proposed for the Skeena River estuary at Lelu Island, is scientifically flawed and represents an insufficient base for decision making.

Therefore I strongly urge you to reject the CEAA draft report. Given that the PNW LNG project is proposed for the Flora Bank area of the Skeena River estuary, an area with economically- and culturally-important fishes, such as salmon, eulachon, and herring, the primarily focus of these scientists' analyses outline risks posed to these species including:

1. Misrepresentation of the importance of the project area to fish populations, especially salmon. The CEAA draft report has not accurately characterized the importance of the project area, the Flora Bank region, for fish. The draft CEAA report states that the “...marine habitats around Lelu Island are representative of marine ecosystems throughout the north coast of B.C.”.

In contrast, five decades of science has repeatedly documented that this habitat is NOT representative of other areas along the north coast or in the greater Skeena River estuary, but rather that it is exceptional nursery habitat for salmon that support commercial, recreational, and First Nation fisheries from throughout the Skeena River watershed and beyond. A worse location is unlikely to be found for PNW LNG with regards to potential risks to fish and fisheries.

Proponents of previous industrial projects and decision makers have historically avoided development in the Flora Bank region because of its
known enormous value to fish. Thus, the draft CEAA report has failed to
adequately characterize the potential risks of the project to fish
and fisheries.

2. Assuming lack of information equates to lack of risks. CEAA’s draft report concluded that the project is not likely to cause adverse effects on fish in the estuarine environment, even when their only evidence for some species was an absence of information. For example, eulachon, a fish of paramount importance to First Nations and a Species of Special Concern
likely use the Skeena River estuary and project area during their larva, juvenile, and adult life-stages. There has been no systematic study of eulachon in the project area. Yet CEAA concluded that the project posed minimal risks to this fish. It is scientifically indefensible to conclude
that a species will not be negatively impacted when it is unknown how
it relies on habitat that would be destroyed.

Indeed, there are many aspects of this ecosystem and the proposed
PNWLNG project for which there is little scientific understanding.
Lack of knowledge does not mean lack of risks.

3. Disregard for science that was not funded by the proponent. CEAA’s draft report is not a balanced consideration of the best-available science. On the contrary, CEAA relied upon conclusions presented in proponent-funded studies which have not been subjected to independent peer-review and disregarded a large and growing body of relevant independent scientific research, much of it peer-reviewed and published. For example, CEAA marginalized a published peer-reviewed study that revealed risks of widespread erosion of Flora Bank, a unique marine coastal landform and eelgrass habitat, due to disruption of water currents by the proposed trestle and suspension bridge.

Instead, CEAA adopted the conclusions of a proponent-funded model
that claimed “no harmful effects” of the PNW LNG project , even though external and professional analyses identified several critical errors in their
methods.

Similarly, CEAA did not adequately consider decades of scientific research on salmon in the Skeena River estuary, and instead relied on proponent-funded studies that were substantially more limited in scope and duration and that reached different conclusions compared to the larger body of available science. In these and similar cases, the CEAA draft assessment of the PNW LNG project presents an unbalanced assessment of the project’s environmental risks through the disregard of the larger body of
independent science.

4. Inadequate consideration of multiple project impacts and their cumulative effects. The CEAA draft report did not adequately consider the multiple potential impacts of the project and their cumulative effects and thereby provided an unbalanced assessment of risks. The PNW LNG project presents many different potential risks to the Skeena River estuary and its
fish, including, but not limited to, destruction of shoreline habitat, acid rain, accidental spills of fuel and other contaminants, dispersal of contaminated sediments, chronic and acute sound, seafloor destruction by dredging the
gas pipeline into the ocean floor, and the erosion and food-web disruption from the trestle structure.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Natural Resources Canada provide detailed reviews on only one risk pathway –habitat erosion –while no such detailed reviews were conducted on other potential impacts or their cumulative effects.

5. Unsubstantiated reliance on mitigation. CEAA’s draft report concluded that the project posed moderate risks to marine fish but that these risks could be mitigated. However, the proponent has not fully developed
their mitigation plans and the plans that they have outlined are scientifically dubious. For example, the draft assessment states that destroyed salmon habitat will be mitigated; the “proponent identified 90 000 m of lower productivity habitats within five potential offsetting sites that could be modified to increase the productivity of fisheries” , when in fact, the proponent did not present data on productivity of Skeena Estuary habitats
for fish at any point in the CEAA process.

Without understanding relationships between fish and habitat, the proposed mitigation could actually cause additional damage to fishes of the Skeena River estuary. Independent scientific analyses indicate that mitigation frequently fails to recover original levels of ecosystem function. For these
stated reasons the CEAA draft report represents a flawed assessment of the environmental risks of the PNW LNG proposal. While these 135 eminent scientist are not decision-makers, they can assess when decisions would be made based on false premises. This is one of those instances.

I therefore urge you to reject this draft report. The CEAA draft report for the Pacific Northwest LNG project is a symbol of what is wrong with environmental decision-making in Canada. An obvious risk of a flawed assessment is that it will arrive at an incorrect conclusion. Indeed, scientific research from other estuaries has found industrial development, such as that proposed by the PNW LNG project, is associated with lasting damage to salmon populations.

While these 135 scientists who have signed this assessment finds that the CEAA draft report is scientifically flawed, the greater body of science also
demonstrates that protection of the Lelu Island/Flora Bank area would benefit the second-largest salmon-producing watershed in Canada. Protection of the Flora Bank area would demonstrate the Liberal Government’s commitment to protection of marine ecosystems, rights of indigenous people, and scientific integrity.

Yours sincerely,

Gillian Darling Kovanic

Gillian Darling Kovanic
Natural History and Documentary Filmmaker
255 Robert Road
Bowen Island
British Columbia
V0N 1G1

2016-03-09 19:05:09
TalhaQadirVancouver 

One does not simply -- wait, nevermind, actually, in this case, you can completely ruin the environment.

Please deny the permit.

2016-03-09 19:21:51
WayneGoinMontroseCO

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.
Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage your study include; and define the leakage rate they used in your estimate of upstream emissions. Please include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas; include the actual calculations which show how these estimates were derived.
Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in the emission calculations. Note that the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane would be the preferred analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Please take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-09 19:25:20
NormHoffmannVictoriaBritish Columbia

I do not see how you can possibly approve this project in light of your own conclusion that The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 -8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent. Given what we know about climate change it would lunacy to proceed. Please do the rational and right thing -- do not approve.

Thank you

2016-03-09 19:33:20
ed & JanJangSaltspring IslandB C

The Pacific Northwest lng project should definitely NOT go ahead Why would we want to cause ir reversible harm to our fragile environment?

2016-03-09 20:02:45
DavidHuntSurreyBC

I emphatically support the rejection of this the project, given the certainty that it will cause irrevocable harm to our global climate and as well as local environments.
The extraction, transport, processing and ultimate burning of this GHG adds to the accelerating demise of our climate, ocean acidification and permanent ground water contamination.
I would like to sincerely recognize and thank the CEAA for considering the negative consequences of GHG emissions from the PNW project in this (and all other) environmental assessments.
David Hunt

2016-03-09 21:09:08
JohnHagenNew WestminsterB.C.

I strongly urge the CEAA to NOT approve Pacific Northwest LNG.Canada,per capita ,is one of the highest gas emissions polluter in the world.REJECT THIS PROJECT!

2016-03-09 22:48:01
DavidWimberlyHead of St Margaret's BayNova Scotia

I call upon CEAA to reject the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project on the basis of climate impacts as well as it having adverse economic effects, particularly with full costs of ecological impacts of properly included.

It is refreshing to finally see an EA done properly to include the upstream climate impacts of a fossil fuel export project. For that I thank you, applaud your innovative work in this, and encourage more. This must be the standard in the future. And it should also include all downstream effects as well.

I agree with your conclusion that: emissions are high in magnitude, continuous and irreversible. And that he environmental impacts are likely to be significant.

I submit to concur that the project is not "justifiable under the circumstances"

Please demonstrate your commitment to real climate action.

2016-03-10 04:01:29
Mr. RafeSunshineVictoriaBC

The BC LNG concept of fossil fuel resource extraction by fracking is wrong-headed and environmentally irresponsible as it does not consider the ramifications of the poisoning of fresh water by chemical additives, does not consider the release of methane from wellheads, does not consider the destruction to the surrounding environs and the destruction of forest ecosystems with a pipeline to the West Coast. The LNG process adds GHG's by burning the gas to cool the LNG for transport by pipelines and does not have a proven safety record for the shipment of LNG by tankers in a marine environment. The offshore export of LNG is only considered viable for economic and political purposes and does not consider the burning of this fossil fuel and its addition to Canada's GHG emissions into the future that will have a devastating effect on Global Warming and the flooding, drought, firestorms, and other environmental consequences of such profit-driven projects in BC. I encourage your governing body to reject any LNG projects in Canada and support sustainable alternative technologies that Canada may comply with its international obligations in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

2016-03-10 06:49:13
VelAndersonGibsonsBC

Petronas, a global oil company owned by the corrupt government of Malaysia, wants to load LNG tankers on Lelu Island, in the mouth of the Skeena River. The impacts on salmon habitat and climate change would be irreversible.
When we see that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency describes the climate pollution from this project as “high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent,” alarm bells should ring loud and clear. 

The climate pollution of the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal is not acceptable. 
I pray that our new Federal Government will proceed quickly toward reducing emissions to avoid runaway climate change

2016-03-10 07:30:09
JaneArmstrongNew WestminsterNew WestminsterBC

Please listen to the CEAA's findings , and deny the project!

2016-03-10 08:09:47
JoanSommerSidneyBC

I urge the CEAA to reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project. We cannot risk the irreversible harm to the global climate.

2016-03-10 10:43:35
DONNAMARTINSALT SPRING ISLANDBC

We can't continue to do this! It is past time to be considering allowing projects that will inject more GHG emissions into the overburdened environment.
We need to be doing everything possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to be responsible to the future.
It is thoughtless to do otherwise. .

Please CEAA do not approve Pacific Northwest LNG

2016-03-10 11:42:54
RonaldHyattThetis IslandB.C.

Men of sience tell us that we have very little time left in which to reduce the use of fossil fuels before their use causes irreversible harm to our planet. Why then do we allow projects such as this by Pacific Northwest LNG to go ahead. It can only be Profit at any price...

2016-03-10 12:39:52
AndrewMurrayNew Westmister 

I'm opposed to this project for the following reasons. First of all if this LNG facility is built it will render the Province's GHG emission targets unreachable. When the upstream emissions from the fracked gas are included this commodity has the same ecological footprint as coal. Secondly the site Lelu Island is hugely important to the salmon runs of what is one of the last great wild salmon areas in the world. We can not risk losing a key long term sustainable industry that supports thousands of existing jobs and is hugely important to First Nations in the area to a pipe dream. I would encourage you to assess the independent science available and either say no outright or force Petronas to move the site elsewhere of which there are several viable options.

2016-03-10 12:45:19
AuromaitreyiSalmonDeltaBC

I strongly urge you not to approve the PNW LNG project. I am deeply concerned with the environmental and global impact the CEAA report has shown will occur if this project is approved.

2016-03-10 12:56:10
ReneeRodinVancouverBC

I have great faith that CEAA will understand how irreversibly destructive this project is and therefore not approve Northwest LNG.

2016-03-10 13:12:16
DianeManuelCourtenayBritish Columbia

Attention: Honorable Justin Trudeau: Please honor your climate
commitments and also not allow LNG tankers anywhere near coastal British
Columbia.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency describes the climate pollution from this project as “high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and
global in extent.”

5.28 million tons of CO2 pollution per year from the facility itself
6.5 to 8.7 million tons of CO2 from expanded fracking operations
In total, that’s equivalent to all the cars and trucks in B.C. (14 Mt)
This one project would crank up B.C.’s emissions by 18 to 22 per cent

LNG tankers on Lelu Island, in the mouth of the Skeena River. The impacts on
salmon habitat would be irreversible.

As a Canadian citizen I am apposing any permits by my government to any
company who wants to have oil tankers go through our B.C. Waterways. That
NO tankers of any kind be allowed anywhere on the British Columbia coast and especially!!! Petronas, a global oil company owned by the corrupt government of Malaysia who wants to load LNG tankers on Lelu Island, in the mouth of the Skeena River. I am apposed to LNG or any tankers anywhere on the west coast of Canada, and am also apposed to any company building anything to do with oil anywhere near our beautiful BC coastline.

Justin Trudeau, lets move forward to alternative energy sources like Solar
and Wind and move away from oil. Let these companies understand that Canada is moving away from Oil and that you want them to divest to Solar if they want to business in Canada. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand by our leaders in Canada and it needs to start today by you.

Sincerely,

Diane Manuel
367 11th street
Courtenay, BC
V9N1S4

2016-03-10 13:32:11
StarMorrisSquamishBC

I wish to call on CEAA to reject the PNW LNG project given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

I thank the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

I would like to request that the Agency clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and to justify the leakage rate used in your estimation of upstream emissions. Recent studies are indicating that the amount if fugitive emissions have been underestimated. Please include the estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Please also clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. Kindly use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

It is also important that the CEAA takes its analysis one step further and estimates the downstream emissions from carrier transport, regassification and combustion of the LNG. According to Clean Energy Canada the majority of emissions for BC LNG export to Asia occur downstream with just over 50% in the combustion phase.

Sincerely,

2016-03-10 15:17:06
Antonvan WalravenBowen IslandBC

Bowen Island, March 10, 2016

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Regional office Vancouver
410-701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1C6

Dear Ms. / Mr.:

Re: Pacific NorthWest LNG – project 80032

I am writing to formally request the Pacific NorthWest LNG project to be rejected based on the environmental damage this project will cause to Lelu island, to direct adjacent marine areas to Lelu Island, to Skeena salmon runs, to the area where 192,000 cubic meters of dredged sediments would be disposed, to the terrestrial environment, wilderness and wildlife habitat in North East BC where the resource, that will be processed at the facility, would be extracted, to the marine environment of Fishes and Cetaceans close to Lelu island and along the proposed LNG tanker route(s) due to the introduction of shipping and facility noise, and to the global climate due to the project’s Green House Gas (CO2 and NH4) emitted during extraction, transportation, processing and use.

The consideration itself, to sacrifice Lelu island, a natural jewel of incredible beauty at the mouth of the Skeena River, for any reason, is obscene.

The consideration itself, to put an Methane processing facility and LNG export terminal at the mouths of one of Canada’s most important salmon rivers, is obscene.

The consideration itself, to take resources from unceded First Nations territory, to pipe the resource over unceded First Nation territory, to process the resource on unceded First Nations territory, and to put at risk the life source of First Nations who depend on the Skeena salmon runs for food, is in breach of International law and is considered an act of genocide.

The consideration itself, to continue the investment in Fossil Fuel infrastructure, extraction and port of fossil fuels, when it is clearly understood that we need to stop emitting Green House Gasses very soon to keep our COP 21 Paris commitments, and more importantly, to keep the planet habitable for life, can be regarded as a premeditated crime against life in general.

The consideration itself, to continue colonialism as usual when it has been ruled time after time after time that Canada and its provinces must respect Aboriginal Rights and Title within the whole of Canada, again acknowledged in the Supreme Court of Canada Tsilhqot’in ruling on June 26 2014, and to have the Government of British Columbia continue its uncritical support for the Pacific NorthWest PNG project, is in breach with the Tsilhqot’in ruling and the predating rulings in regard to Aboriginal rights and Title

To consider an application by a proponent that concludes at the end of every section of its project assessment that no significant effects are to be expected, and than, as an agency to adopt these conclusions ‘The Agency concludes that the Project, in combination with past, present and future foreseeable projects, is not likely to result in significant adverse cumulative effects’ is simply an assessment embarrassment since it is simply based on a absence of proper long term base line studies and an absence of understanding of the natural environment in general.

To suggest that the construction, the operation, the extraction of the resource in question, the use of the resource will not have significant adverse effects, is like saying were are going to trash this beautiful island, build this horrendous facility on top of it, destroy the adjacent marine environment by dredging, introduce low frequency and very disrupting noise into the marine environment from the facility and the LNG super Tankers, seriously add to Canada’s GHG emission output, but eh, you won’t even notice its there. The suggestion is simply too ludicrous for words and it will do absolutely nothing to regain the publics trust in the CEAA, the Environmental Assessment process nor the Federal Government.

I stand shoulder to shoulder to the First Nation who oppose this project.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with all who oppose the development of a new LING fossil fuel industry in Canada.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with all people of this planet fighting to keep this planet habitable for life as we know it

I urge you to change the final recommendations from the Agency to the Minister of Environment to reflect the reality we are facing for Lelu Island and the direct environment, the issues laid out above, and the reality of out off control climate change.

Sincerely,

Anton van Walraven
351 Eagles Nest Rd
Bowen Island BC V0N 1G1

2016-03-10 16:40:03
lynnewheelerFanny BayBritish Columbia

I am extremely concerned about this project's impacts on the environment. With the upstream environmental gas emissions estimated at 6.5-8.7 million tonnes of CO2e per year, we can't afford to do this to future generations. Gas fracking contaminates millions of litres of fresh water per well. Water is much more precious than gas. We can't live without it. We are already at a 2 degree temperature rise. Please do the right thing and don't approve this terrible project. Our children's future depends on you and people like you to help protect this planet. Thank you for all that you do.

2016-03-10 16:53:39
LaurieParkinsonNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

Please reject PNW LNG. This LNG plant would produce a vast amount of greenhouse gasses. As your report said: high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible, and global in extent.

Thank you for considering upstream ghg emissions from this project.

Could you please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you have included, and justify the leakage rate you used in your estimate of upstream emissions? Include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing, and transport of natural gas.

Please clarify the GWP factor for methane used in your emission calculations. It's important to use the most recently updated 20 yr GWP for methane in your analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now, and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

Please include the full picture of ghg emissions from LNG - estimate the downstream emissions from export, regassification, and combustion of LNG.

There is only one Earth, for us and for our grandchildren.

Please reject PNW LNG, because you have concluded it would cause irreversible harm to the climate.

2016-03-10 17:23:43
TristanRyanVictoriaBC

Hello,

I'd like to thank you for opening up this process to public feedback. It's a great step forward for accountability. I hope my and other suggestions will be closely considered.

While I applaud you for working consideration of upstream GHG emissions into your draft EA, I implore you to consider downstream analysis of export, gasification and point-of-use as well. We all share one climate system, so it's methodologically flawed to be concerned about upstream while writing off downstream as someone else's problem.

I am curious of the global warming potential factor of leaked methane used in your analysis. If not already, it is important you use an up to date figure here, as climatologists have concluded recently that leaked methane has a stronger warming impact than previously thought.

I believe that if appropriate and up to date methodology is used in conducting an EA, that this project will not pass muster on the grounds of an unjustifiable severe environmental impact. As such, I implore the CEAA to reject this project after a rigorous assessment.

Thank you,
Tristan Ryan

2016-03-10 17:26:42
MaryBrownLions BayBC

This project will cause irreparable harm to the environment in the long term and in the short term threaten the waters and ecosystems within Howe Sound. Reject this project!

2016-03-10 18:52:37
l.bTsawwassen BC

Sadly, Aboriginal People and their traditional ways of life will suffer even further with LNG on the Fraser. The Fraser is not just a"waterway" to Aboriginals: its living, breathing part of culture and tradition. So much so that every year prayers are said and songs sung for the return of the Salmon. The Elders are also acknowledged everyday as people ask for safety on the water.

Please Creator give others the courage to open their eyes, the hearts and their minds so that they see how important the gift of the river is to our people, and our community. Protecting the Fraser is like protecting a wise and great Elder who will only teach you much in return.

2016-03-10 20:49:06
R.NazarewichBurnabyB.C.

Given the CEAA's assessment, I cannot see any overriding justification for allowing the project to proceed.

Now is the time to reallocate massive resources to job-creating renewable energy projects via subsidies, tax credits et al. Climate tipping points are repeatedly found to be nearer than climate scientists previously predicted.
Many heads must be yanked out of the sand.

2016-03-10 21:24:23
MARYTYRRELLVancouverBC

If the Federal Government is truly serious about its stance on Climate Change, it has no choice but to reject the PNW LNG proposal.
I urge you to continue the upbeat and trust-engendering path that your government has taken so far.
Thank you.

2016-03-10 21:45:32
sandraleckiesalt Spring IslandBritish columbia

To those tasked with review of Petronas proposal for an LNG facilty on Lelu Island.

I believe that the Minister should reject the Draft Assessment Report (Report) as inadequate. On March 9th, 2016, more than 130 prominent Canadian scientists signed or co-signed a synopsis of the Report’s shortcomings. As the signatories state, the letter is about scientific integrity in decision-making and there is much in the CEAA's which falls far short of science. As the former chief of habitat assessment at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Otto Langer says,"The CEAA report is less than scientific, full of speculation and wishful thinking."

The report does not consider the peer-reviewed science by Dr. Patrick McLaren, published in the Journal of Coastal Research, which concludes that building the LNG facility could cause significant erosion of Flora Bank and damage to the vital salmon habitat. In DFO's review of potential erosion effects, Dr. McLaren's published research is not referenced, analyzed or mentioned. This is a basic scientific error. Dr. Jonathan Moore (Simon Fraser University) and the Skeena Fisheries Commission found in 2015 that 20 times more juvenile salmon rely on the Flora Bank eelgrass habitat than any other eelgrass area in the Skeena estuary. Despite this finding, the CEAA draft report is negligently superficial in its discussion of risks to salmon, giving only 4 pages to the agency's analysis and conclusions of the risks to marine fish. Independent scientists have identified multiple risk pathways to salmon that have not been adequately evaluated, such as: dredging of contaminated sediments, blasting, light and high frequency noise pollution, accidental spills, removal of terrestrial salmon food sources from Lelu Island, pipeline dredging, and erosion of Flora Bank. Furthermore, the report does not consider the cumulative effect of multiple risks to salmon. All of which begs the question of how risk assement can be done without accurate or substantive baseline data?

Science aside, if this government is sincere about establishing respectful relationships with First Nations then surely their wishes must be considered. Here is that the wish list:

The Lax Kw'alaams First Nation already voted 100% against this project in May, despite an offer of $1.4 billion from Petronas.
The Lelu Island Declaration was signed by First Nations leaders from across the Skeena watershed, as well as Grand Chief Stewart Philip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, MLAs Jennifer Rice, Doug Donaldson, and Robin Austin, and MP Nathan Cullen, to protect the proposed site – and its salmon – from LNG development.
Lelu Island has been occupied by Lax Kw'alaams members since August 2015, who have been working to prevent further work on the rejected project.
Madii Lii territory, which the fracked gas pipeline would pass through on the way to Lelu, has been closed to pipeline development by Luutkudziiwus people since Aug. 2014.
Over 100 first nation leaders, scientists, fisherman, and organizations across the province signed a onto a letter from Lax Kw'alaams Hereditary Chief Yahaan to Trudeau requesting the project be rejected.
The Haida Nation passed a resolution banning LNG tankers in their waters in Nov. 2015. The tankers from this project would use this area.

And finally, one year ago my husband and I installed a 4 kw PV system on our home in the Pacific Northwest. Even with the cloudy winters we produce over 10% of what we consume. We are committed to doing our part to reduce climate change. At the 2015 COP talks, Prime Minister Justine Trudeau said,"People want to do more, but they want to know that what they do fits into a bigger picture, because there is no point in bending over backwards if your neighbour or your government is not also doing its part to ensure that we all have the maximal impact together.” Indeed.

When the CEAA states that climate pollution from the project is “high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.”, it seems that the conclusion regarding climate pollution may be the only consideration the CEAA got right and for that I'm thankful. Based on the massive greenhouse gas impacts of this proposal;5.28 million tons of CO2 pollution per year from the facility itself,6.5 to 8.7 million tons of CO2 from expanded fracking operations, I ask that the Minister demonstrate this government's commitment to climate action and reject the Petronas project in its entirety.



​Sincerely Sandra Leckie, John Walper, Marjorie Leckie
173 Sarah Way
Salt Spring Island​

2016-03-10 21:59:33
HilaryMackeyVictoriaBC

I absolutely DO NOT approve Pacific Northwest LNG. The Canadian Environment Assessment Agency has clearly concluded it will affect climate change in a serious irreversible way.

2016-03-10 22:04:30
LucindaJonesWest VancouverB.C.

Canada Environmental Assessment Agency
Representatives of the Federal Government of Canada
Representatives of the Government of each Province of Canada

To you all, respectfully,

This is a time like few others in recorded history. The revered position which you all hold requires exacting precision, spiritual insightfulness, courage and passion as well as the modelling of inspired leadership.

Over the past 3 years, since my brave-hearted, resilient and life-loving 18 year old son passed away struggling with a rare disease, I remind those who sometimes may forget, that every negotiation and every issue needing to be resolved must have youth and the generations to come, foremost as the grounding basis for each decision along the way. Without this priority we are lost as a culture and as a species.

The real life experience of the peoples who live around the fracking fields have been told, and science has substantiated the claims of contaminated water, air and land, and of the animals which are hunted for food.

Much of the honestly collected data has been hidden, discarded or illegitimately refuted, and accordingly has earned the government of Canada and of British Columbia, the reputation world-wide, as dishonest and eco-terrorist for these actions.

And so I thank you for including the upstream GHG emissions from the Pacific Northwest LNG project in the Draft Environmental Assessment.
I would like to believe that this s a true indication of your resolve to engage fully and honestly.

The opportunity now is upon each and every one of us to shine, to inspire and to encourage each other to step into a world of sustainable, renewable, abundant energy sources. This will not come about by behaviours such as perpetuating the engrandisement of fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation, further infrastructure investment, and false claims about it's economy.

For too long, the oil and gas industry has avoided the ecological catastrophe that grows with each ensuing year.

Enough already. The human species, which is inhabitant of every continent, is brilliant, and perfectly capable of providing energy to a realistic level of need, without destroying the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Both GHG emissions and methane leakage from the hydraulic fracturing operation, production, processing and transport, must be included in your estimations. What sources have you included to date, and at what leakage rate are you using in your estimation? Justification for the rate which has been used, is required.

Clarification is also required regarding the global warming potential factor for methane, which you used in your emission calculations. It is necessary to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. Near-term impacts are crucial!

With the upstream emissions fully disclosed and taken into consideration, the downstream emissions also require closer scrutiny. Wherever on this planet the LFG/LNG export operation takes place, it is the emissions at the point of import, re-gassification and combustion which also need to be fully analyzed, quantified, estimated and disclosed internationally.

This is an industry and product that affects the entire life-support system of the planet. Surely it is clear by now that this down-grade of the ecology of Canada is nothing other than prostitution, and a travesty of the entire planet.

This PNW project must be rejected as I agree with your findings that it WILL cause IRREVERSIBLE HARM to the climate and health of this planet.

With thanks for your attention,

Lucinda jones

2016-03-10 22:38:29
PaulCraikVancouverBC

March 10, 2016

Dear Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,

Please reject the Pacific North West Liquefied Natural Gas (PNW LNG) facility proposed by Petronas for Lelu Island and Flora Bank at the mouth of the Skeena River.

The most important reason to reject this project is the irreversible harm it will do to the climate as was concluded by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) itself.

I think it is a positive step on the part of the CEAA to consider the upstream Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from this proposed project in the draft EA.

Please clarify exactly which sources of methane leakage are included and justify the leakage rate used in your estimate of upstream emissions. Estimates for methane leakage should include leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emissions calculations. The CEAA should use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. Analyses of near term impacts are crucial because we are dangerously close to climate tipping points.

It is also critically important that the CEAA takes its analysis one step further and estimates the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

Thank you for your attention to these important matters.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Craik

2016-03-10 23:12:15
AmyChuVancouverBC

I implore you to reject the LNG project. This is a dying stock, this is going to cause nothing but bankruptcy to the region and our province. The environmental damage and the harm it will come to the BC people is unacceptable.

Thank you so much for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA. What sources of methane leakage will you include? Which leakage rate will you use in your estimate of upstream emissions? PLEASE include estimates of methane leakage from FRACKING, production and transportation of LNG.

Can you please clarify the Global Warming Potential factor for methane used in your emissions calculations? Please use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane for the analysis. We are so close to the tipping point of climate change, this is such a dangerous game to play with a downward spiralling stock.

PLEASE REJECT the LNG project. There is NO GAIN in this industry.

2016-03-10 23:25:21
TammyHudgeonGabriola IslandBC

Over 130 scientific experts have written an open letter to the Government of Canada outlining the scientific flaws in the draft assessment of environmental risks from the proposed Pacific NorthWest Liquid Natural Gas facility at Lelu Island, Skeena River estuary, British Columbia

PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM.

For the sake of everyone and everything.

Thank you

Tammy Hudgeon

2016-03-10 23:46:35
SolveigBrandvoldNorth VancouverBC

This project must be stopped in order to meet climate targets. We should be reducing GHG production to combat warming and such a drastic increase in emissions is irresponsible and unethical. Please stop this project.

2016-03-11 02:59:36
johnapostolidesroseneathontario

It is time to change our economy and move away from fossil fuels...we should be leading the way on the green energy revolution..not lagging behind....our commitment in Paris to changing our ways starts here....Why? .It's 2016 ....

2016-03-11 03:34:06
CynthiaMcNeilAgassizBC

Say no to the Pacific Northwest LNG believe the scientists conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate and the project will cause significant adverse environmental effects.

2016-03-11 06:46:39
Adele SchmidtAbbotsfordBC

I am against the Pacific Northwest LNG project because of irreversible damage to the environment. I am born and raised in BC.. love where I live and would like to see it stay that way.

Thank you

2016-03-11 07:18:38
BrendaMoyseyvictoriaBC

I am against the PNW project because of its negative affect on climate change. Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.
Kindly clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include and please justify the leakage rate you use in your estimate of upstream emissions. Seriously consider including estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in your emission calculations. Moreover, use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in your analysis. You must be aware that we are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term if you impacts are crucial.
Lastly, it will justify the rejection of the Northwest LNG Project if you take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-11 08:35:06
Geoffrey MayMargaree Harbour Nova Scotia

Over 30 academies of sciences have conducted literature reviews of the science on climate and they all arrived at the same conclusion , that the planet is warming dangerously from increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activity . Atmospheric records contained in ice core samples, shows us that for the two million years prior to the industrial age, atmospheric CO2 never rose above 280 ppm . Most science agrees that 350 ppm CO2 would be maximum, of "safe" threshold . We are now at 405 ppm, and we are now routinely experiencing unprecedented levels of "non-normal" temperatures and extreme weather globally . Climate change is real, it's here, and its worse than expected,
The frac'ing of shale formations to release natural gas is an investment banking scam . At least one industry insider called it a Ponzi Scheme . No company has ever made a profit from the production and sale of shale gas .
No jurisdiction has ever received more money from the gas industry , than what the industry cost in damage to public roads and bridges .. At most 6% of the gas is recoverable by frac'ing . 6% , is also the amount of wells that will leak from their first day of operation . Eventually they will all leak . To prevent leakage the industry fills the annulus with cement . However a core property of drying cement is shrinkage , so an annulus filled with wet cement will not be filled when the cement dries . That is why it is impossible to build a well that does not leak , which has been an industry goal since before the frac'ing scam came into existence , a scam designed by investment bankers not the gas industry .Contrary to empty industry projections, that wells would become safer over time, with improved construction, the facts are the opposite, Financial pressures on debt ridden companies exceed industry safety margins . leaking wells drive climate change .
From it's inception frac'ing shales to release gas was the child of investment banking , and just as it's inability to deliver became clear to the banks, so did the subprime mortgage disaster. Investment banking used the exact same playbook , bundling and flipping worthless ( aka , Toxic) assets on a naive market , hyping the wonders of natural gas , destroying watercourses and communities across what ever regions were unfortunate enough to occupy the Earth's surface above the shlaes . As one Montana Rancher said " I used to live on a farm, now I live in a refinery ".
Yesterday two families in Dimock Pennsylvania were awarded millions of dollars in a civil case charging Cabot Gas with destroying their water supply .Most of their neighbors had already settled for smaller sums , but Cabot has announced it will appeal, and Cabot may very well go bankrupt before these families ever see a penny of compensation .
OPEC is holding a going out of business sale , and reductions in the cost of wind and solar power make the LNG industry high and dry .Whatever benefit these projects could have achieved when they were first conceived are no longer functional . Even the CEO of CP recognizes that the age of fossil fuel mega projects is over .
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas , far stronger than CO2 , yet shorter lived . the science is clear that we must avoid anthropogenic warming of 2C , which all but guarantees near term human extinction ,a s a result of feedback mechanisms, melting permafrost etc . To get an idea of how close to the abyss we are , we need only look at Paris , where the world negotiated a treaty , that's first reporting period is two years before the treaty comes into effect . Current predictions have us on track for hitting 1.5 C in 2020 , the amount the treaty seeks to hold warming to . at current estimates we hit 2C by 2030 , and that's when we get to see what Hell on Earth looks like .

The CEAA must reject this project to prevent irreversible environmental damage and drive runaway greenhouse effect and all the horrors that entails .

2016-03-11 08:45:08
GrahamParkinsonNorth VancouverBritish Columbia

Please deny the permit for PNW LNG.

The upstream greenhouse gas emissions, as assessed by the CEAA, would be high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible, and global in extent.

After Canada's great stance at the Paris Climate Conference, PNW LNG cannot be given a permit.

Please, CEAA, reject PNW LNG.

2016-03-11 09:45:36
jamierackleyFriday HarborWA

Because the PNG LNG project has been assessed as causing "significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions" it should be denied.

Thank you for taking this into account.

It is imperative that sources of methane leakage be included and how it is calculated for the estimate of upstream emissions. Also to be included, leakage from: fracking, production, processing, and transport of natural gas.

Please also make clear the global warming potential factor for methane used in your emission calculations, and please use the newest 20-year GWP in your analysis.

Finally, please estimate the downstream emissions from export, regassification and combustion of the LNG.

Thank you,
Jamie Rackley
Lee Schiff
740 Guard St #10
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

2016-03-11 10:06:39
LouisPetersonLions BayBC

The seriousness of problems associated with the continued and even increasing exploitation of fossil fuels for energy is receiving much needed attention from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Not only are fossil fuel reserves finite, but their use contributes to green house gas concentrations and associated global warming effects and human quality of life issues. A concern for the needs and quality of life of future generations must define the standard of current civilised society.

For methane and LNG, it would be premature to allow projects such as the Pacific Northwest LNG to go ahead at this time, until full knowledge and clearer understanding of the complete picture is established. The issues include: (I) the impact(s) of irreversible damage due to greenhouse gases and global warming on a global scale; (ii) the sources of methane from fugitive leakages and otherwise; (iii) impacts due to fracking and other LNG-related processes.

An earlier submission to the CEAA concerning a Woodfibre-LNG proposal can be found on their website.

2016-03-11 10:58:47
WilliamReesVancouverBritish Columbia

I wish to commend the CEAA for its bluntly accurate conclusion that the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW LNG project are " likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions".

However, I do have several remaining concerns. Most important is the failure of such assessments to consider the downstream emissions and impacts. The major effects of LNG development come from burning the fuel once it has been exported. Indeed, if the project proponents were to 'plug' all the upstream leaks, this would presumably increase the quantity of natural gas available for export and therefore subject to both downstream leakages and combustion emissions. The net global gain of 'plugs' in Canada might well be negligible.

In any event, the CEAA should be required to operate in the context of the best available climate change science. As I understand matters: 1) avoiding catastrophic climate change requires an absolute 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by mid-century; 2) as much as 80% of Canadian tars sands and fracked natural gas (fossil fuel reserves generally) should remain in the ground.

This is the logical framework within which the CEAA should work, and in this case, its recommendations should not be constrained to addressing the merits and impacts of individual projects.A better question is, how can the project review process be used to assist government and private sector energy planners: 1) to allocate our usable 'quota' of fossil fuel reserves in the most economically effective and least ecologically damaging manner; 2) facilitate the energy sector and the nation in its inevitable transition to a post-carbon economy.

These objectives may not lie within the present compass of CEAA's mandate. Nevertheless, they are certainly legitimate foci in the context of avoiding potentially disastrous global ecological and social consequences of fossil fuel use. The need drastically to reduce fossil fuel use is the elephant in the environmental assessment living-room that Canada cannot continue to ignore.

2016-03-11 11:07:26
LisaDescaryRichmondBC

Prime Minister Trudeau famously said about pipeline projects that "governments grant permits, but communities grant permission." Well, I think it is clear that our community does NOT grant permission for this LNG project. It will cause upstream GHG emissions far in excess of what was originally thought. Scientists are concerned that we will never meet our allowable carbon budget if LNG projects are allowed to expand. Based on the science,, it would be unthinkable to proceed with this project.

2016-03-11 11:19:46
BarrySaxifrageMansons LandingBC

I am strongly opposed to the Pacific NW LNG project because of the budget-busting scale of the projected climate pollution which exceeds BC's entire legislated 2050 carbon budget.

Please reference my chart showing emissions from this project compared to BC legal climate pollution limits, at http://www.saxifrages.org/eco/show90h0s/BC_climate_promises_vs_Pacific_NW_LNG_pollution

This is a "make or break" climate decision for British Columbians. We can either approve this large, multi-decade expansion of fossil fuel extraction -- or we can meet our legal and moral climate commitments. We clearly can't do both.

The Draft Environmental Assessment Report shows that expected levels of climate pollution -- inside BC -- that come with this project would make it impossible for British Columbians to meet our legislated climate commitments.

According to Draft Environmental Assessment Report, the BC emissions from this project will be around 13 MtCO2/year (eight from upstream, plus five from the facility operations). The report concludes that these emissions are "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent". It also states that the emissions from this project are expected to continue beyond 2050.

BC's entire 2050 legal carbon limit is less than 12 MtCO2/year. That is 20% of 2007 levels of 62 MtCO2 (Canada's National Inventory Report data).

When the proposed project's emissions begin sometime after 2020 they will already be one third of BC's 2020 legal limit. By 2035 they will be around half of our provincial carbon budget. By 2050 they will single-handedly exceed our province's legal limit.

Any decision to abandon the climate goals that British Columbians have set should be made explicitly by the British Columbian people and not by fiat via this kind of backdoor project approval.

I'm am further opposed to the project because of the additional 51 MtCO2/year that will be released outside BC when the project's LNG is burned. This pollution is four times BC's 2050 climate target. While it isn't part of our official carbon accounting metric, it is something we have control over and moral/ethical responsibility for. All that additional fossil carbon will come from BC. The extraction of it is being permitted by BC. British Columbia will monetarily profit from it. It is far too large of a gross carbon impact over the coming decades for BC to be a party to at this point in the climate crisis.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments,

Barry Saxifrage

2016-03-11 12:04:37
ArieRossDeltaBC

Thank you for considering the upstream greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific Northwest liquid natural gas project. I'm hopeful that every fossil fuel project assessed under the CEAA will be subject to such reviews. Please include methane leakage from fracking, production, transport and processing of natural gas in your assessments. Please also consider the downstream emissions from the export and combustion of LNG as well. Given the conclusion that this project will cause irreversible harm to the climate, I call on you to reject this project and help us move towards a more sustainable energy future for my generation and ones to follow.

2016-03-11 12:57:36
DruHaardingDeltaBC

Please reject the project - this impact will have a serious, irreversible harm to the climate. There are way too many projects going on in Canada that will have the same affect on climate, land, fish and wildlife etc. etc etc. When is anyone going to come to their senses, tku

2016-03-11 13:30:29
LorraineSharpsteenVancouverBC

I strongly urge you to not approve Pacific Northwest LNG in Prince Rupert.This project entails huge environmental risks locally and globally.

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions. The enormous amounts of energy involved extracting the natural gas through fracking and then liquifying it for transport will increase Canada's greenhouse emissions across the province.

Please explain the sources of methane leakage you have included in your estimate of upstream emissions and how you arrived at the leakage rate used. The integrity of your estimate depends on the inclusion of estimates of methane leakage during the entire process - fracking, production, processing and transport(by pipeline) as well as the downstream emissions from exporting (by ship), regassifying and combustion.

Please explain the GWP factor for methane used in your calculations. It is imperative that you use the updated 20 year GWP in your analysis to predict more accurately how the methane leaked from this project will affect future levels of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

I applaud you for looking at how this project will affect climate change. Including data from ALL aspects of the project (extraction to combustion) and using up-to-date figures (20 year GWP) will increase the accuracy of your predictions and help our country make the decisions necessary to successfully combat the potentially devastating affects of climate change.

2016-03-11 13:55:16
STEVENGODFREYVancouverBC

Hello,

I am writing today to express my concerns and opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG project. I have great concerns about the local and regional environmental impacts. Particularly given the report out from independent scientists this we that's said that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's draft report:

"is scientifically flawed and represents an insufficient base for decision-making. We urge you to reject the CEAA draft report." - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/scientists-call-on-ottawa-to-reject-flawed-lng-report-1.2193554#sthash.muMANZ66.dpuf

More importantly for me, is the impacts on our carbon budget within Canada and globally. Fracked gas releases enormous amounts of methane, which is 30 times more powerful in terms of warming our climate then carbon dioxide. The direct and upstream impacts will be massive.

Canada needs to think very carefully right now. I am very impressed with Prime Minister Trudeau and our first time Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna. They spoke convincingly in Paris about the need for Canada to be a world leader when it comes to climate change. They said we would be a world leader and committed to 1.5-2°C limit for global warming. They clearly understand the scale and urgency of our climate challenge. We have to accelerate our transition away from fossil fuel projects like this one. In addition, all projects and government decision making by all departments going forward must be considered in terms of how they will impact our carbon budget and that information needs to be front and centre for all Canadians to see and understand. This is not a government problem to solve. This is not a citizen problem solved. It is a problem that requires all of our collaboration and partnership. As such, I believe that we need a proper framework in place to evaluate all projects in terms of their impacts on carbon budgets and that includes the impact of burning those fossil fuels domestically as well as in other countries.

I understand this is not an easy task. We are talking about a full and complete transformation in our industrial economy. Lots of people want to keep going as we have been going. It's the only thing they know and it seems like a smart strategy in the absence of knowing what else to do. I can empathize with premier Christy Clark for wanting to keep the economy humming with megaprojects. I also understand that energy is the ability to do work and fundamental to the stability of our society. That's what makes all this much more challenging. And I'm sure that you are aware of this so my apologies if I'm telling you something you already know.

PM Trudeau said in a speech at the American University in Washington DC that:

"We're in an incredibly short-term world."

I agree with him. This project seems to be operating along those same lines; focusing on growth now while ignoring the long term impacts for someone else to deal with. We have to think bigger. We have to be smarter. We have to really change how we live and also how we do business. Why? Because it would be a betrayal to current and future generations to do anything less.

Thank you for your time and for reading my submission. I am a proud Canadian citizen who is admittedly a little bit scared of this moment in history what also very excited that we have the knowledge, the skills, the resources and the resilience to make the tough decisions that might cost some in the short-term to get us to vital future in which we may all thrive.

Thanks again,

Steven Godfrey
Vancouver, Canada

2016-03-11 14:57:15
AlexandreVigneaultVancouverBC

We can't say that we are commitment to 1.5-2.0oC warming and keep building GHG intensive industry. You can't reduce methane emissions by extracting more of it, your latest and welcome commitment with the US.

Last time Liberals were in power in Ottawa, they made commitment with the Kyoto Protocol, and at the same time, start the massive investment in the oil sand industry. What happen after is well known. We can't do both. Clean energy is the future, not the fossil fuel industry. Please don't repeat history.

For this specific project, putting a big plant at the estuary of a salmon-bearing river it well beyond common sense. Wild salmon in BC is already under tremendous pressure from climate change and fish farm industry to say the least. Salmon is the livelihood of many communities and critical for the health of so many.

Do the right thing. This is the wrong project, wrong place, wrong time.

2016-03-11 15:07:51
JaneCamfieldVancouverB.C.

Will this project do "irreversible harm to the climate"? Can the Agency "clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations"? Can the Agency "take their analysis one step further--estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regasification, and combustion of the LNG"?
Answers to these questions need to be openly, honestly stated and interpreted by credible science, then provided to ordinary citizens. All of us need to know what LNG can do to damage our environment. Unless and until answers are provided, I recommend that Canada reject this project. Do not give permission to build it.

2016-03-11 15:10:34
StephenReesVancouverBritish Columbia

There is now no viable market for LNG exports. The price has collapsed and many users have already locked themselves into long term contracts. At the same real alternatives are available that create zero greenhouse gas emissions - both solar and wind are competitive to LNG in most markets. The proposal is unnecessary and uneconomic. The province has already made far too many concessions to the proponents, and now has no realistic expectation of economic benefits.

The production of LNG depends on the use of fracking to extract gas from tight shale. Experience is now widespread that releases of methane due to this process are far higher than previously thought. Fracking has resulted in degraded aquifers, endangering drinking water supplies and also in increasing earthquake activity. These upstream impacts are significant and must be accounted in the EA.

The Agency could take the analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-11 15:33:44
kateHodgsonVancouverBC

To whom it may concern;

I'm calling on the CEAA to reject the PNW LNG project. We can't afford to continue expanding our fossil fuel infrastructure, at a time when we need to reducing our climate impact as much as possible.

I'm grateful to the Agency for considering the upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the PNW project in the Draft Environmental Assessment. However, I would like for the Agency to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include, and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. What are the methane leakage estimates from fracking? Production? Processing? Transportation?

I also noted that the global warming potential factor for methane is outdated -- the recently updated 20 year GWP for methane would be more applicable in terms of your analysis. Furthermore, we are dangerously close to climate change tipping points right now, and the Agency must provide an analysis of near-term impacts.

I appreciate your investigations into the upstream emissions of this project, but I would also like to see research into the downstream emissions from the export, regassification, and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn't stop when LNG leaves our shores.

An economy based on LNG is not an economy that I want for my future. Please consider the climate impacts of the decisions you make today.

All the best,

Kate Hodgson

2016-03-11 15:38:16
ArlessMcNeillParksvilleBC

Exploiting LNG makes little common sense as we should be reducing our use (globally) on fossil fuels instead of going for quick profit for corporations and long-term pain for people. All levels of government have stated they are "committed to climate action", very few state what that commitment means, and even fewer back it up with meaningful action. Our climate cannot afford LNG.

2016-03-11 16:18:43
CathyReedSquamishBC

CEAA has found that the climate impacts from Petronas/PNW LNG are serious and irreversible.

We are counting on you to NOT approve PNW LNG.

Remember PARIS! We went there for a reason!

This is our chance to emphasize that we are "committed to our commitments"!!!

2016-03-11 16:36:22
CathyReedSquamishBC

CEAA has found that the climate impacts from Petronas/PNW LNG are serious and irreversible.

We are counting on you to NOT approve PNW LNG.

Remember PARIS! We went there for a reason!

This is our chance to emphasize that we are "committed to our commitments"!!!

2016-03-11 16:36:28
AnitaGeorgyVancouverBritish Columbia

To whom it may concern,

It is imperative that you reject the PNW LNG project in Prince Rupert. We need to stand together with the global community and ensure this planet is safe and healthy for future generations. This is a critical moment for humanity: we have the information and all who help support this project will be forever remembered in history, despite knowing the deleterious effects on the planet, for the sake of personal gain with scorn.

Please stand with the people of this planet and make the right decision for all of us.

Thanks you.

2016-03-11 16:41:49
Holly ArntzenSurreyBC

TO THE CEAA:

I urge you to not approve the Pacific Northwest LNG project. Thank you for considering the impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions; it is refreshing to see these being taken into account. Please take into the account the big picture of all the impacts associated with the project, including fracking, production, processing and transporting natural gas.

We really don't know exactly where we are, with regard to global warming. Please use the precautionary principal and reject this project. It's an investment in the wrong direction. We need to be shifting away from fossil fuels.

Thank you.

2016-03-11 16:44:23
Johnter BorgRichmondBritish Columbia

RE: Pacific Northwest LNG facility proposed for Lelu Island and Flora Banks

My name is John ter Borg and I urge you to respect the decision of the allied tribes of Lax Kw’alaams living along the lower Skeena River and on the North Coast of British Columbia.

Please reject the proposal for siting an LNG terminal on Flora Banks.

The moratorium on tanker traffic on the North Coast is acknowledged and appreciated. I will remind you about the Federal Government’s commitments to renew Canada’s relationship with First Nations.

First Nations
The people whose lives revolve around a connection to wild salmon for the spiritual, mental, physical and cultural health of their communities have rejected this project within their territory. These First Nations communities have spoken and their reasons are important and legitimate.

Climate Change
The Federal Government of Canada has made climate change a key priority, committing to reduce greenhouse emissions to approximately 200 million tonnes below current levels by 2030. This project alone would produce 5.28 million tonnes of CO2e annually, while upstream activities would contribute an additional 6.5 million to 8.7 million tonnes. The plant plus upstream emissions represent an 18 to 24 % increase in B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions and, incredibly, again, a 1½ to almost 2 % increase in Canada’s emissions.

These climate impacts are significantly adverse, irreversible, and it is not clear how this project will contribute to B.C. achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and Canada’s longer term goal of no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature. This was obvious even before the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions as an important first step. As an appropriate next step please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage are used to justify the leakage rate estimated for of upstream emissions. Include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. Also, please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in emission calculations, and the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in the analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

Canadians need to take full responsibility for fossil fuels that are extracted on Canadian soil and burned elsewhere. It is incomplete to focus only on upstream emissions and the environmental analysis of this project must include the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The pollution of the climate is in our “international interest” and that interest doesn’t end when LNG leaves our shores.

Science
• In 1977, a similar plan to build an LNG facility on Lelu Island was rejected for the same reasons.
• A 1975 North Coast Environmental Assessment Team found that the site was unacceptable for any industrial development because of the unacceptable risk to fisheries.
• Recent research conducted by the Skeena Fisheries Commission, Simon Fraser University, SedTrend Analysis, and others, has confirmed the importance of the Lelu Island/Flora Bank area.
• That research shows 88% of all Skeena salmon, approximately 330 million out-migrating smolts per year, rely on Flora Bank for shelter, food and protection as they adjust from fresh water to salt water.
• Sedimentology reveals that the proposed jetty pilings, bridge supports, dredging, and LNG tanker traffic could disrupt the balance of complex river and tidal currents that hold the relic sediments of Flora Bank in place, eventually degrading and destroying this critically important habitat by erosion or deposition.

Project Siting
Proposing to place LNG Terminals at the mouth of significant Canadian rivers is irresponsible as the risks are simply too great. For both the Skeena River and the Fraser River the health of the environment is simply greater than any economy connected to fossil fuel expansion through these estuaries. The flawed environmental review process does not provide the opportunity to review the potential for alternate sites for these projects.

Fisheries
The Skeena River Estuary supports important fish populations (salmon, eulachon, herring, smelt, sandlance and more) that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries. The cumulative impacts of industrializing Flora Banks are damaging to fish habitat and natural systems.

Eulachon is of species that is of special concern and previously threatened. This culturally important species is not well understood and eulachon are endangered or extinct in many historical ecosystems along the West Coast. Any impacts to habitat must be addressed.

Herring are an important link in marine food webs. Annual herring spawn events contribute greatly to the overall productivity of the local area. Herring are a considerable proportion of the diet of many commercially important fish species,

The Skeena River supports one of the largest salmon runs in the world, and includes all six species of pacific salmon (Chinook, Coho, Chum, Pink, Steelhead and Sockeye). Salmon are consumed by many different organisms throughout the various stages of their life cycle. As adults in the open ocean, when they spawn, even in death, they return nutrients back to both the freshwater and terrestrial components of the Skeena River ecosystem.

Economy
Canadians need to invest in a new clean energy economy that’s built to last - not doubling down on risky fossil fuel projects that pollute the land, water and climate, and make our economy vulnerable to changing global markets.

Closing
Please take immediate action to prevent the destruction of the irreplaceable Skeena River and Fraser River waterways. Reject the project, given the conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

Thank you.
John ter Borg

2016-03-11 16:54:18
JaredHoweSeattleWA

I call on CEAA to reject this project, given their conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.

I applaud the Agency for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

Please clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Ask them to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

Finally, please take the analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.

2016-03-11 16:55:32
SharonMacGouganRichmondBritish Columbia

I respectfully request that the CEAA reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project.

"The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions ..." is enough for me to hear.

What is more important that protecting our environment?

When projects like these—with harmful and irreversible effects— are stopped, it speaks of respect for our world: a world that we hold in trust for the future generations.

2016-03-11 17:10:37
LeslieStanickSurreyBC

THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO INVEST IN LNG! PUT THAT MONEY AND INFRASTRUCTURE INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY NOW!
- LNG is not a viable fuel for our future, Canada must invest in renewable energy now to keep emissions levels down.
- LNG fracked gas is damaging to habitat, polluting water, wasting huge resources of precious fresh water that humans, animal and plants will need in the future.
- LNG is toxic, high emission fuel that is leaving a mess of wells that ate not being closed and cleaned up after use by fracking companies.
- Transport of LNG is dangerous with the possibilities of leakage and devastating explosions which have happened in numerous locations.
- Building infrastructure for shipping is hugely expensive and short sighted. Once the boom is over, we are left with huge toxic areas of old wells, toxic waste water, high levels of air, soil and water pollution, and dramatically increased greenhouse gas emissions, raising global temperatures.

2016-03-11 17:11:35
MelyssaDesillesSquamishBritish Columbia

I call on the CEAA to reject the PNW LNG project immediately due it its impacts to wild salmon and most importantly the impact the LNG facilities will have on climate change.

With each LNG facility proposed in BC, there will be an increase in hydraulic fracturing required to supply the extra fracked gas. Without the estimates of fugitive emissions of methane gas, we do not know the real impact to air quality and greenhouse gas emission output in BC/Canada. This is not the time for Canada to be increasing it's fossil fuel production and creating a new fossil fuel export industry. This is the time for transition and bold action to increase renewable energy infrastructure and clean technology to decrease overall greenhouse gasses in Canada.

I ask the CEAA to clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. I ask for the CEAA to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

2016-03-11 17:15:28
JamesFrenchSeattleWA

This proposal is another climate boondoggle which will only benefit Big Oil. KEEP IT IN THE GROUND!

2016-03-11 17:27:57
Sharon Priest-NagataVancouver 

absolutely not worth it. The buyer is waffling, the location is the worst possible choice if we're thinking about impact on the salmon. We can't afford "irreversible harm" to the climate: this project does not have enough merit: there is no surety at all that it will bring in the money the BC govt claims it will

2016-03-11 17:40:55
MarionJolicoeurRoberts Creek 

We need to take the threat of climate change seriously.......for one thing,this gas is being brought to the surface by "FRACKING".which is a destructive process..We need to start being more responsible and less greedy as a nation.

2016-03-11 17:41:04
JohnClarkeBurnabyBC

Hello;

I am writing on behalf of my Wife Carol, my two daughters, and my five beautiful and innocent grand daughters.

I am desperate for this government and the CEAA to take responsibility for the trust that has recently been placed in them to act on behalf of those who are feeling so disenfranchised in recent years. The trust that we have given rests with YOU to ensure that solid science is used to reduce green house gas emissions and give us some hope that there will be a tolerable future on this planet.

I am appalled that we have been duped by "big oil" companies, and as a well educated and informed senior in this once globally respected country, I challenge you to make the obvious correct decision to reject the further development of LNG in Canada.

The methane gas already leaking from a very concerning percentage of "capped" fracked wells should be far more than enough to point out the irreversible damage that is already projected into the future.

Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gasses. You must consider both the up stream and down stream harm.

Please STOP THIS TRAVESTY NOW!!!!!!!

Respectfully submitted,

John Clarke

2016-03-11 18:28:13
EvelynWedleyDeltaBC

The entire LNG project, from the flooding of a beautiful and vibrant valley, to fracking which is causing earthquakes, to piping the LNG to the Delta River Estuary, through Burns Bog (a Ramsar designated (protected) site, to building a huge LNG plan in Tilbury, to building an unnecessary huge bridge at mega dollars, so huge ships can disturb the Fraser River and all its inhabitants and users, is a ludicrous and dangerous project that threatens the environment of BC.
I cannot fathom how this could be even considered. Who will benefit? I urge the Federal Government to reject this project from beginning to end. Save our people, our plants and animals, our rivers, not to mention the effects on climate change. STOP THIS PROJECT

2016-03-11 18:29:12
VickiWarnerSecheltBC

No, we have a responsibility to forthcoming generations to keep the environment safe. We need to cope without harming their lives, even if it is deemed inconvenient by those who think of nothing but money. Money can't bring back damage to the environment, exacerbating climate change.

2016-03-11 18:31:08
EricBillsHalfmoon BayB.C.

I am writing to express my disapproval of the Pacific Northwest Prince Rupert LNG operation under consideration for a license. First off, though, I am happy to see that the CEAA considered upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the draft environmental assessment. We must consider the impact every project has on global warming. I am, however, unclear on exactly what sources of methane leakage they include in they evaluation. We also need to include the unavoidable methane leakage in the calculation of whether this project does more harm than good. Thus we need the CEAA to estimate the downstream emission from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG proposed.

Thank you.

Eric Bills

2016-03-11 18:52:47
StuartSmithVancouverBC

I do not believe that approving this project is the right thing to do. Every new investment in carbon based energy will only make it more entrenched and more difficult to reverse at a later date. I appreciate your consideration of the upstream GHG emissions and I believe we owe our future generations a sustainable planet and this does not include LNG.

2016-03-11 18:57:20
GetaldGiguerePembertonBritish Columbia

Hi...I am dead against this whole LNG shell game...I don't have time to get into technical details .Its simple.We will endanger the environment and our health for big corporations bent on getting the almighty dollar.Its time governments started standing up for what is right. It is your job to protect our waters..the air that we breath ..it is our right to have these things protected forever...you want to stay in government then be what you can be...protect your people and reject these LNG proposals...they are deeply flawed..ty

2016-03-11 18:58:24
PaulMagnusRichmondBritish Columbia

Fri 11th Mar 2016

CC Hon. Catherine McKenna, Environment Canada

Dear CEAA,

Canada has signed on to the Climate Paris agreement of an emissions goal to keep man-made global warming to 1.5C and no more than 2C. It is not clear to me how this translates to an over all emissions budget for Canada and the deadlines in which this must be met. For Canada to fulfill its obligation to tackling and keeping warming to the minimum, it is essential that this budget be formulated as soon as possible to ensure that ALL projects going forward can be assessed to meet our obligation (and help save planet).

Taking a precautionary principle considering the existential risk involved with Climate Change, it would be prudent that a preliminary conservative figure be put in place initially to ensure that we are within the 2C goal. It seems that from current literature a 1.5C goal translates to roughly an emissions budget in the region of zero net GHG emissions by around 2040. Can you clarify what this figure should be. I would certainly like to see your agency come up with a working figure to apply to this project and to be used on ALL projects which have a GHG impact going forward.

Some comment on the specifics of Lelu LNG:

Siting
It seems that placing this plant/terminal right in the mouth of the Skeena River Estuary is reckless. It has unique salmon habitat and any industry in this area will disrupt the ecology. Salmon is already under threat in the PNW due to fish farms, warming waters, unpredictable seasons and precipitation. This is an negative and incremental impact which dictates that this is the wrong site and wrong export resource to place here. This has been backed up by independent science. Your own report indicates marine life will be affected to a great extent. We are already seeing Orca populations under critical stress.

links
Science from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Simon Fraser University, the Skeena Fisheries Commission etc suggests PNW LNG should not go ahead:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Opinion+Faulty+science+muddies+waters+plan+Lelu+Island/11591311/story.html?__lsa=29ba-1a05

Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/doc1341a/p2_e.cfm

Northern Resident Killer Whales of British Columbia: Population Status:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/343923.pdf

Up, down and mid stream GHG emissions
Taking into account upstream GHG emissions is essential in assessing the validity of any project. So should midstream and downstream volumes. We have an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that the global temperature of the planet remains within 2C, preferably 1.5C. It surely is reckless to ship resources we initially own to others to burn when Canada is aware that these reserves can not/should not be burnt. This brings to mind the analogy of a drug dealer. Climate leaders or anyone concerned about global warming can not in all ernest ignore the downstream emissions. It is obvious that if they are considered then the planetary budget to hit net 0 GHG by 2040/50 can/will not be met. Do not shirk our responsibility here. If you were an inuit or northern Canadian town which has/will be cut off from land delivery by ice highways melting how would you feel about including downstream emissions in limiting warming? Include these emissions and in doing so do not permit this project.

In any case, I would like to point out also that your estimates for the upstream emissions seem to be under estimated. Even in your case the emissions do not seem to meet a 1.5C Climate target of net zero by 2040 much less Canada’s and BC 30% reduction by 2030. For this reason it should be rejected. We have to meet our target. You seem to have selected a very low methane leakage (below 0.5% and a methane GHG equivalent (GHGE) over 100yrs of around 25. This is incomplete. The US EPA’s latest figures are an overall US leakage of 3-4% and a GHGE of 34. I would also argue that the GHGE should be over the much more severe 20 year period which is 86! The reason being that the latest science indicate that we might breach the 1.5C warming by 2020 and the 2C by 2030! This is shocking and only goes to show that we have to use analysis which includes the impacts now and over the next 40 years (GHG warming lag is apparently 15-30 yrs). We are actually in an emergency and should be implementing policy dictated by the urgency of the situation. Do not permit this project.

links
UK Met Office prediction 2009:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/09/28/204719/uk-met-office-catastrophic-climate-change-could-happen-with-50-years/

Australian researchers global tracker monitoring energy use per person:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study

Proposed Pacific NW LNG single-handedly exceed BC's entire legislated 2050 carbon budget:
http://www.saxifrages.org/eco/show90h0s/BC_climate_promises_vs_Pacific_NW_LNG_pollution

Burning imported BC LNG in China produces 27% more GHG emission - Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2015/05/CCPA-BC-Clear-Look-LNG-final_0_0.pdf

Climate Impacts of Methane Losses from Modern Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems: (3.8% methane losses from U.S. NG supply chain)
http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/data/SS_Methane_Nov2015Final.pdf

So as you can see we don’t even have to discuss midstream leakages and emissions even though they are probably equivalent to upstream values. Each of the upstream or downstream figures on their own dictate that this project should not be permitted.

Conclusion
You have to immediately formulate an overall GHG budget for Canada to ensure we can accurately analyze ALL projects going forward to ensure that they fit our 1.5C global warming goal. You must include all streams, up/down/mid, in your analysis. You must, otherwise we are just kidding ourselves.

Considering the climate impacts dictates that you should not permit the project. Include local and first nation’s concerns and the decision is straightforward. Please do the right thing, reject the project.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Magnus

2016-03-11 19:35:49
Petervan der VeldenDeltaBC

Seriously:

This project will not get us out of our ghg doghouse.

Do NOT let our economic leanings take away what little quality of life we have!

2016-03-11 19:50:09
FionaHarrisonVancouverBC

Please reconsider and stop further development of the PACIFIC NORTHWEST LNG PROJECT due to the high risk of f irreversible harm to the climate.

Thank you.

Sincerely
F Harrison

2016-03-11 20:23:32
JudySchmidt Vancouver BC

DearCEAA,

We need IMMEDIATELY to stop development of projects with short term economic gains and disastrous irreversible environmental effects like the 6-9M tones of CO2e per year by the PNW LNG in prince Rupert.
CREATE ALTERNATIVES for our descendants!
Grand mother of eleven little children

2016-03-11 20:26:50
JudySchmidt Vancouver BC

DearCEAA,

We need IMMEDIATELY to stop development of projects with short term economic gains and disastrous irreversible environmental effects like the 6-9M tones of CO2e per year by the PNW LNG in prince Rupert.
CREATE ALTERNATIVES for our descendants!
Grand mother of eleven little children

2016-03-11 20:26:52
DieterKirsteVancouverBritish Columbia

Please note,
The Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions…

2016-03-11 20:48:59
WayneGoinMontroseCO

The CEAA must reject the LNG/Fraser project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
You need to clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage you include, and justify the leakage rate in the estimate of upstream emissions. Estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas need to be calculated in a provable scientific manner.
Please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in the emission calculations. The most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane needs to be part of the analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA.

2016-03-11 20:58:57
PinaViolaSurreyBritish Columbia

Natural gas is not so natural and is not so clean. LNG produces lot of emissions, especially methane, 34 times stronger than CO2. Emissions are upstream and downstream.
The extraction process, hydraulic fracturing, is a dirty process that pollutes water. NO to LNG. We can do better and develop clean energy, solar, wind and geothermic.
Consequences on the climate, and on the water are not acceptable.

2016-03-11 21:16:19
TimTakaroNew WestminsterBC

The IPCC is very clear in the AR5 report. We cannot afford to build new fossil fuel infrastructure if the climate impacts to future generations are considered in the cost.

2016-03-11 21:18:26
JimSteitzGatlinburgTN

The PNW export project would constitute an ecological disaster at every step in the life-cycle of the gas, from its drilling, through transport, to combustion in their intended foreign power plants. This project frustrates the maintenance of a planet that can sustain human life, serve no other valid purpose, and must therefore be rejected. The Canadian government cannot rationally direct other state and private entities to curtail their global warming pollution, while CEAA simultaneously assents to LNG export terminals that will swamp any such initiatives.

I direct your attention to the recent measurement that atmospheric carbon dioxide has reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, and that 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have occurred in this century. We are rapidly crossing thresholds of no recourse, and will ordain an indefinite increase in carbon by locking in long-term gas projects such as this. Our survival over the coming centuries depends upon converting rapidly to a lower-carbon economy with extreme speed, over the next few decades, to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. This mathematically requires that the large majority of domestic shale gas remain securely underground. If these goals are to have any meaningful policy expression, then CEAA cannot approve such an LNG export project.

2016-03-11 21:21:28
HeidiTrinkleMontereyCA

To whom it concerns:
We call on the CEAA to reject the Pacific Northwest LNG project especially as the CEAA itself has come to the conclusion this project will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
Please provide the exact sources of methane leakage included to justify the leakage rate used in the CEAA's estimate upstream emissions. Also include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.
Could you also clarify the global warming potential GWP factor for methane used in their emission calculations. Using the most recently updated 20 GWP for methane in their analysis of near term impacts are vital.
It is great that the CEAA has considered the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA. Please take the analysis one step further by estimating the downstream emissions from the export, regasification and combustion of LNG. The damage done to our climate does not end when the LNG leaves our continent.

Sincerely,
Heidi and Scott Trinkle

2016-03-11 22:00:38
Bruce Edwards MissionBC

Your courage in conducting a real review and telling the truth about the impact of LNG on our fragile planetary ecosystem is much appreciated.

The "elephant in the room" is that fossil fuels are a dinosaur industry (Please pardon the pun! ), so investment in LNG will result in stranded assets as well as poisoning our aquifers and drinking water which are becoming the most valuable things on the planet next only to clean air that we can breath.

Note that the stock prices for coal ompanies are plummeting. LNG stock will soon follow. It's price is already low.

Please therefore prevent this stupid destructive project for the sake of its potential investors, as well as for ordinary people on the planet.

Instead, please encourage the proponents and investors to develop geothermal power plants. Canada has developed this proven technology and exported it to many countries but it has never been used in Canada. When I was working in Indonesia 30 years ago I saw a extremely impressive geothermal electrical generating station. How about promoting it to replace fossil fuels? It can create many jobs, using existing drilling technology and many unemployed oil patch workers and hungry corporations without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

It can economically replace diesel gensets in remote communities.

Respectfully submitted,

2016-03-11 22:01:09
Bruce Edwards MissionBC

Your courage in conducting a real review and telling the truth about the impact of LNG on our fragile planetary ecosystem is much appreciated.

The "elephant in the room" is that fossil fuels are a dinosaur industry (Please pardon the pun! ), so investment in LNG will result in stranded assets as well as poisoning our aquifers and drinking water which are becoming the most valuable things on the planet next only to clean air that we can breath.

Note that the stock prices for coal ompanies are plummeting. LNG stock will soon follow. It's price is already low.

Please therefore prevent this stupid destructive project for the sake of its potential investors, as well as for ordinary people on the planet.

Instead, please encourage the proponents and investors to develop geothermal power plants. Canada has developed this proven technology and exported it to many countries but it has never been used in Canada. When I was working in Indonesia 30 years ago I saw a extremely impressive geothermal electrical generating station. How about promoting it to replace fossil fuels? It can create many jobs, using existing drilling technology and many unemployed oil patch workers and hungry corporations without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

It can economically replace diesel gensets in remote communities.

Respectfully submitted,

2016-03-11 22:01:13
JulieAlavaVancouverBC

I urge the CEAA to reject the Pacific Northwest LNG. To approve such a project which, the CEAA has concluded will cause irreversible to the climate, would be utterly irresponsible (not to mention making a sham of the new federal government's commitment to climate action). The CEAA is to be commended for addressing the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW in the draft assessment. The agency should also consider the downstream emissions of the project. I further urge the CEAA to clarify the exact sources of methane leakage, and to estimate methane leakage due to tracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

2016-03-11 22:13:26
HelenShilladayChilliwack 

I am hugely concerned about the fact that this project will prevent climate change prevention targets from being met.
In light of the very real, current and future devastating impacts of climate change on sea levels, weather and agriculture, it is simply unconscionable to allow a project that has been judged to contribute significantly to this problem to go ahead. The upstream emissions assessment of this project alone are disturbing, but even this does not fully assess the extent of the environmental impact of this LNG production.
The current Canadian government was elected on a powerful mandate to respect indigenous people's rights, put people before big business, respect our magnificent natural heritage and re-establish the reputation of Canada as a responsible member of the international community.
This LNG project - polluting, destructive and unnecessary as it is, is a test case for the resolve and integrity of Canada's stated commitment to protect the environment.
I ask that this project be rejected, along with all others like it that may be proposed in future.

2016-03-11 22:14:20
D LynnChapmanRoberts CreekBC

I urge you to reject the Pacific Northwest LNG Project on the grounds of its predictable and unjustifiable climate change harms. To approve this project would be profoundly immoral and is out of keeping with the climate change imperatives of our new government.

2016-03-11 22:17:59
DeneanneQuammeRichmondBC

I call on CEAA to reject LNG exports. The damage does not stop when it leaves our country.

2016-03-11 22:52:31
SusanJonesDeltaB.C.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Project
Reference number: 80032
It is alarming to see that during the Harper era and today, CEAA has allowed Project Proponents to submit substandard environmental assessments that fail to provide credible science with good data. CEAA doesn’t even demand complete literature research with references.
CEAA has permitted superficial mitigation and compensation plans that fail to make up for the loss of vital habitats. They have permitted long-winded reports that are confusing and misleading. The public has been expected to wade through hundreds of pages of verbiage with little substance and faulty modeling. CEAA has permitted Project Proponents to write unsubstantiated summaries that state, “With mitigation and compensation, there will be no residual adverse environmental effects.”
The Environmental Assessment Report on the Pacific Northwest LNG Project is no different with the exception of the section on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Due to a high level of public concern about this Project, along with potentially devastating impacts to exceptional habitats that are essential to the health of the Skeena River Estuary, CEAA should have demanded a Review Panel Environmental Assessment.
The environmental assessment of the Pacific Northwest LNG Project is a list of speculative comments based on scientifically flawed information. Due to incomplete, inadequate and flawed information, interested public has been forced to commission a study which reveals potential negative impacts to vital estuarine habitats of sand, mudflats and eelgrass that support a variety of marine species including juvenile salmonids and oolichan. Why isn’t CEAA demanding this information?
This Environmental Assessment is unclear and full of flawed information. Lip-service is paid to the irreversible, adverse cumulative environmental impacts which have not been properly identified and then, there it is, the rubber stamp, standard statement of the Harper era:
“Yet CEAA then concludes “The Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish and fish habitat, including marine plants, taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures.”
There is a list of expected impacts which are dismissed with promises of mitigation measures that are supposed to appear at some later date. These feeble promises lack science, credibility and substance.
This Environmental Assessment Report does not meet the declared standards of CEAA’s new bosses in Ottawa who promised real change:
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf
“…Stephen Harper’s changes to the Fisheries Act, and his elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, have weakened environmental protections. We will review these changes, restore lost protections, and incorporate more modern safeguards…

…We will immediately review Canada’s environmental assessment processes and introduce new, fair processes that will… ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest;…

…We will also do more to protect Canada’s endangered species. We will respond more quickly to the advice and requests of scientists, and will complete robust species-at-risk recovery plans…

…To protect these valuable natural resources, we will deliver more robust and credible environmental assessments for all projects that could impact our freshwater and oceans

We will use scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change, when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.”

…We will immediately review Canada’s environmental assessment processes and introduce new, fair processes that will… ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest;…

CEAA should have applied these principles to this environmental assessment as estuaries make up only 2.5% of the total coastline habitat in B.C. and the Skeena Estuary is third largest with a watershed draining more than 54,000 km2 in B.C. northwest. It deserves the highest level of protection.

While CEAA has failed to provide the public with an acceptable environmental assessment of vital habitats that will be impacted by this Project, the Agency has provided information to satisfy the current federal government’s stated goal of combating greenhouse gases. The usual rubber stamp comment of “not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” has been put on the back burner. In a rare statement, CEAA’s concludes there will be:

“significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions after taking into consideration the implementation of best achievable technology and management practices and compliance with the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.”

It is disappointing that only the section on Greenhouse Gases is given serious consideration by CEAA.

This Project should be denied approval based on irreversible, irreplaceable effects on the critical habitats of the Skeena Estuary as well as the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

2016-03-11 22:55:06
VFisher-SitarasSouth SurreyBC

I appreciate that the Environmental Assessment has considered the upstream effects of the LNG project in Prince Rupert. Even at this stage, the numbers speak for themselves. I want to live in a province that is part of the solution, not a major contributor of adverse environmental effects and the acceleration of climate change.

More factors to clarify are the method of measurement and actual sources of methane leakage, including those leakages from the processing and transport and from the actual fracking of the LNG. And what is the global warming potential of these emissions? Being so dangerously close to the climate tipping points, the analysis of near term impacts are crucial.

While these upstream effects of the PNW LNG project are important, the effects on the climate don’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores. The downstream emissions from regasification, and combustion of the liquefied natural gas must also be taken into consideration.

A great deal of money is clearly being spent on shiny advertising to convince British Columbians that we should be happy to be leaders in the fossil fuel industry. These ads are reminiscent of the cigarette ads of old; a last ditch effort of a few to make an enormous amount of money before the entire planet becomes a blackened cancer-ridden lung. Unfortunately there are no ads showing the truth behind the rhetoric of BCLNG, but the future isn’t as bright and shiny as their adverts would have us believe. One needs only look towards our neighbours in Alberta to see what fossil fuels have done for their province. Their short term high financial yields have caused irreparable long term damage to their land and people.

Based on the draft EA on Pacific Northwest LNG, and several other factors, I would ask that the CEAA reject this project. Instead of spending billions of dollars on extricating and trafficking in fossil fuels, lets spend our efforts creating clean power sources for the planet. Let British Columbia be part of the solution. Please put the importance of protecting our beautiful province, and our beautiful planet, ahead of industrial interests.

Many thanks for your attention,
V Fisher-Sitaras

2016-03-11 23:17:24
DavidJonesDeltaB.C.

1. Climate Change

Greenhouse gas emissions from this project originate in two distinct areas:
- Direct emissions from the LNG facility at Lelu Island, estimated by the Proponent at 5.28 Million tons per year of CO2e.
- Upstream emissions are difficult to determine exactly as much of this is leakage from the natural gas wells and surrounding equipment. It is estimated to be in the range 6.5 – 8.7 Million tons per year CO2e, so an average for this range is 7.6 Million tons per year CO2e
Total GHG emissions for the whole project by my calculation are about 13 Million tons per year CO2e.
You can infer from government comments in the assessment that current GHG emissions for whole of the Province of BC are about 62 Million tons per year CO2e
So this Project alone would increase GHG by about 20%, a staggeringly large increase.
(And supposedly there will be several more LNG plants built in BC, so it is not hard to imagine total GHG emissions from BC doubling due to this development.
The whole LNG industry was supposed to be ‘clean’, with ‘green’ electricity used for the massive liquefaction plant, i.e. compressors. Clearly this isn’t going to happen; instead some of the natural gas will be used as fuel for the compressors, producing CO2 of course. Detailed analysis of GHG emissions from the whole project, upstream and downstream, shows that there is little if any improvement over burning coal to produce electricity, (as in Alberta or elsewhere).
Coal mining, which is concentrated into a relatively small area, is actually less damaging to the environment, compared to drilling thousands of gas wells, destroying thousands of square miles of habitat in the process. Parts of Northeastern BC and neighboring Alberta are already wastelands from the rapacious natural gas industry, and we shouldn’t make it worse.
Therefore from an overall Ecological and Climate Change point of view, the project should not be approved.

2. Ecological concerns regarding the Lelu Island site…. fisheries

The Skeena River is the 2nd most important salmon river in B.C. This massive LNG Project will be situated in the worst possible place, right in the Estuary of this wonderful productive river.

Flora Bank is especially valuable to the estuary due to its extensive eel grass beds, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recognized the importance of this area many years ago, and has successfully protected it in the main, against large industrial intrusions like the current Project.

Based on early scientific data and initial collections of fish in the Flora Banks area, DFO in the early 1970s opposed any development on that very bank that PNW LNG proposes to install a large trestle structure for LNG transfers and has determined that it will have no impact. This conclusion is based on very little new scientific data provided by the proponent and is in opposition to all scientific and anecdotal information collected between 1970 and 2016 i.e. over the past 46 years.
The proposed trestle will likely accumulate debris and/or sand on the downstream side, which is very dangerous for juvenile salmon, (encourages predators).
The Skeena Estuary is still relatively undamaged; but we have a terrifying example in front of us, where it might go in a few years if this Project is allowed to proceed: The Fraser River estuary is now almost unrecognizable compared to the wonderful ecosystem that existed before a myriad of industrial ventures chipped away at it, for about a century.
The Canary in the Coal mine in the case may be the Cutthroat Trout, once the most prevalent native trout in BC, and now a protected species, rarely seen by most fishermen. Cutthroat live in and around estuaries, but are now largely absent from the Fraser estuary.

Do not let the Skeena Estuary be destroyed like the Fraser..

2016-03-11 23:25:22
HelenGlavinaBurnabyB.C.

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in your draft Environmental Assessment of the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG plant in Prince Rupert.
Now, what about the lasting damage to our atmosphere from emissions from the export, regassification, and combustion of the LNG? (Not to mention our imperilled groundwater sources from the extraction process!)
The CEAA must reject this project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
We owe our children and grandchildren a sustainable future.
LNG provides short term benefits and potentially huge profits to only an infinitesimal minority, while the rest of us will be paying the price for generations. It's past time we started taking care of this ravaged planet. It's the only home we've got!

2016-03-11 23:29:05
HelenGlavinaBurnabyB.C.

Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in your draft Environmental Assessment of the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG plant in Prince Rupert.
Now, what about the lasting damage to our atmosphere from emissions from the export, regassification, and combustion of the LNG? (Not to mention our imperilled groundwater sources from the extraction process!)
The CEAA must reject this project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate.
We owe our children and grandchildren a sustainable future.
LNG provides short term benefits and potentially huge profits to only an infinitesimal minority, while the rest of us will be paying the price for generations. It's past time we started taking care of this ravaged planet. It's the only home we've got!

2016-03-11 23:29:07
JenniferLarsenRichmondBC

Project nullifies promises to lessen and lower destructive impacts of climate change. Just not possible to go ahead with both.

2016-03-11 23:52:39
KimiHendessRichmondBC

I am absolutely opposed to LNG extraction by fracking, and its export. I am appalled by the proposal to put an LNG terminal at Lelu Island, where it will put the Skeena River watershed, the salmon habitat, and the entire ecosystem at risk (and likewise the proposed terminal at Tilbury in the Fraser River, which would be equally disastrous). Given the GHG emissions that the CEAA has determined will be created by the project, it would be inexplicable to allow such a project to proceed. Add to this the methane leakage and downstream GHG emissions that will result from the transport and use of the LNG, how can Canada possibly take seriously any climate commitments if we engage in this kind of climate change-inducing activity?
Please include full-lifecycle downstream emissions and the updated 20-year GWP factor in your evaluation of this project and any LNG project.
And please respect the rights of the indigenous communities whose members and leaders have expressed opposition for PNW LNG.
I could conceive of LNG terminals going ahead under the Harper government, because he simply had no regard for environmental, community, or First Nations values. But under a new Liberal government, with a new accountable cabinet, I expect decisions and policies that are in the best interests of all Canadians, and the environment that we need to protect. This means no LNG, no development of Lelu Island, no industrialization of the Fraser River, and no project that continues to cause GHG emissions and resulting environmental damage.

2016-03-11 23:56:03
KarenoHawboltRichmondBC

I am opposed to the LNG proposal on Lelu Island and demand that you stop all projects that cause GHG emissions and damage salmon habitat in the Skeena watershed and the Fraser River estuary.

2016-03-11 23:58:54
MarinaSzijartoRichmondBC

As a concerned citizen I urge you (CEAA) to reject this project, given your conclusion that it will cause irreversible harm to the climate - it is vital for not only us as Canadians but also as global citizens.
Thank you for considering the upstream GHG emissions from the PNW project in the Draft EA. Please take your analysis one step further — estimate the downstream emissions from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG. The damage done to our climate doesn’t stop when the LNG leaves our shores.
Also can you please clarify the global warming potential (GWP) factor for methane used in their emission calculations. Ask them to use the most recently updated 20 year GWP for methane in their analysis. We are dangerously close to climate tipping points now and analysis of near term impacts are crucial.
In addition can you also clarify exactly what sources of methane leakage they include and to justify the leakage rate they use in their estimate of upstream emissions. Ask them to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas.

2016-03-12 00:03:27
GlenAndersenRichmondBC

HTIs permit should absolutely be denied. Not Pristine BC wilderness and certainly not First Nations should be effectively underwriting their own future sustainability with projects whose primary beneficiaries are Big Oil and the few. This is more than the 99% vs the global industrial elite, There is another too-huge-to-count percentile called mother earth, our home, who simply cannot afford to be sacrificed for a few petrobucks managed by petro-buccaneers from malaysia,

2016-03-12 00:05:28
michaelJeffersonMissionBC

Delta-Port Container Terminal, Delta, BC:
1. Stop the current Delta-Port Road Rail Improvement Project-
(DPRRIP) that is an expensive and redundant transportation infrastructure- project that is sponsored by the Federal Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, Port Metro Vancouver and operated by Global- Container Terminals Inc.

2. This DPRRIP construction project is currently underway and when complete it will render the Delta-Port Terminal "un-competative" in the global- container business due to the fact that the terminal suffers from severe heavy equipment traffic-congestion/conflict between the (diesel-fuel) dock vehicles and equipment and (diesel-fuel) street-trucks that lowers productivity. Also, the dock asphalt surface is beat and worn out and in my opinion, the Delta-Port operations management is incompotent in the extreme.

3. The proponents are building a "high carbon emmitting, high unit-cost and low-productivity operation that will fail miserably to meet it's container "through-put" targets. When the world finally agrees on a carbon tax or cap and trade system to reduce carbon emmissions, the Delta-Port terminal operator will be forced to go to the money markets to buy carbon credits to stay in business which will drive up their unit-costs rendering this operation "un-competative" and the shippers will go elsewhere.

Alternative Solution:
1. Adopt a "Federal Express" style "Hub and Spoke" model of container- handling and eliminate all Street-Trucks from the Port-Metro Vancouver container terminals.

2.Expand the rail operations at all Port-Metro Vancouver container terminals.

3. Build truck-rail inter/multi-modal container terminals at strategic locations throughout the lower mainland and BC Interior where the street-trucks make short hauls to and from these inter-modal yards for local distribution and all import/export tide-water container traffic is tranported by rail.

Bio-Fuels:
Establish a "Bio-fuels" industry in Canada and divert our municipal solid- waste from the landfills and convert it into transportation fuels such as bio-diesel, ethanols, fuel for thermal industrial-power: saturated and super-heated steam, heat, electricity and feedstocks for value-added manufacturing.

These are a few of my observations and suggestions of ways to reduce costs and carbon emissions as well as preserving existing jobs and creating new ones.
Thank-You:
Michael: Jefferson.

2016-03-12 04:30:23
Lynter BorgRichmondBC

I recommend my government reject this project as it is unsupportable based on science, climate change impacts, the social and cultural values of the people, native and non-native, of the Pacific coast region. No national interest can be greater than the preservation of a province of people and their sense of place. Make the tough decisions now.
We are racing to supply a resource better served by others way ahead of us on this path. Our global wisdom and leadership is to place a generational moratorium (25 years) to better evaluate the correct path to take on this game changing environmental decision. Leave it all in the ground and revisit when modern technologies for energy providers catches up with the wishes of the people. Change our focus and efforts to innovative global warming solutions.

2016-03-12 06:13:01
StevenFaraher-AmidonComoxBritish Columbia

I urge the CEAA to reject the project, a project which cause irreversible harm to the climate. Upstream GHG emissions are critical considerations, as your agency has identified.. I urge you to also include methane leakage estimates re global warming potential impacts in the emission calculations.
Global tipping point issues are dangerously close, as has been determined by well over 90% of scientists surveyed, we have no more precious time to waste
on this ,the issue of our time.
Finally, please calculate downstream emissions, re the usage, export, and combustion of the LNG .You have provided prescient analysis in your considerations, now carry through to conclusions which must be dealt with.
Thank you for leadership on this.

2016-03-12 14:07:40
KGordanier-SmithBurnabyB.C.

I do not understand my B.C. government's insistence on pursuing this project. Even the business-savvy CEO of Canadian Pacific Railway says fossil fuels are "probably dead"; that new investments in traditional energy sources will dry up because of environmental hurdles. Investing in this dangerously reckless project will strand our tax dollars in massive infrastructure that will quickly become obsolete as the world rushes to invest in sustainable energy to avert climate disaster.

I am very grateful to this agency for including upstream emissions in its assessment and now ask what sources of methane leakage they are including and how was this estimate reached? We need to include estimates of methane leakage from fracking, production, processing and transport of natural gas. What global warming potential factor for methane was used in their report? It's urgent that we use the most up-to-date GWP for methane in all analyses.

Last April Conservative Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq wrote to Mary Polak that Environment Canada’s latest greenhouse gas projections for B.C., which is already struggling to meet its LEGISLATED 2020 goal of reducing emissions to 33 per cent below 2007 levels, projected instead an increase in emissions of 11 per cent by 2020 from 2005 levels. Factoring in upstream GHG emissions from the PacificNorthWest LNG project, the CEAA concludes this project will cause irreversible harm to the climate; IRREVERSIBLE harm to life on Earth! I disagree with my B.C. government breaking its own laws in pursuing this project. We must develop sustainable energy sources using a precautionary approach and include in environmental analyses the DOWNSTREAM emissions that will come if this project proceeds - from the export, regassification and combustion of the LNG once it leaves B.C. Climate change knows no boundaries.

Last year the Oklahoma government reported on-line that their seismologists documented a positive correlation between fracking wastewater disposal and triggered seismic activity, with the Oklahoma Geological Survey determining that the majority of recent earthquakes in central and north-central Oklahoma were very likely triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal wells. Has the potential harm from fracking wastewater disposal been incorporated into the CEAA analysis?

As well, the United States Environmental Protection Agency concluded in a 500-page draft report that hydraulic fracturing technology has polluted ground and surface water in cases ranging from Alberta to Pennsylvania, citing the 25% of 36 northeastern Pennsylvanian water wells that have been contaminated by fracking. Has the CEAA analysis included the potential for drinking water contamination with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals?

I fear for the actual safety of the structures that might be built by this consortium. PNW LNG is majority-owned by Petronas, a Malaysia state-owned corporation, like one of our Crown corporations in B.C. A 732-page Malaysian internal audit presented to senior managers in 2013 uncovered major problems on Petronas oil and gas platforms, some of which were so serious they could lead to catastrophic events if not fixed immediately. Some issues went back decades. Petronas' leadership culture has a lackadaisical attitude towards safety and maintenance. B.C. should not go into business with a foreign crown corporation whose business leaders condone dangerous oversight practices and whose political leaders are being investigated for serious graft.

Instead of facilitating an antiquated search for fossil fuels that disallow us from meeting our provincially-legislated emissions target, we need to invest in Canadian entrepreneurs that are leading the way in sustainable jobs including:

*UBC's 4 projects to sequence genes of fast-growing trees, like poplars, that can be planted and harvested in quick cycles, leaving old growth forests alone to capture carbon, purify water, protect fish habitat and provide the habitat necessary for biodiversity
*Burnaby's General Fusion that is developing fusion power based on magnetized target fusion
*Calgary-based Carbon Engineering's carbon-capture pilot project in Squamish, a $9-million plant that will capture almost a ton of CO2 each day, equivalent to taking 100 cars off the road annually, sucking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with the goal of turning it into fuel
*Burnaby-based Ballard Power Systems, hydrogen fuel cell specialists that in June last year signed a deal to provide fuel cells and tech solutions to 33 fuel cell-powered buses in 2 Chinese cities, and recently provided fuel-cell technology for buses deployed by Belgian manufacturer Van Hool
*wind farms such as the private-power firm Pattern Energy Group LP's $400-million Meikle wind energy project near Tumbler Ridge
*Calgary-based Borealis Geopower's 2 proposed B.C. geothermal power plants Canoe Reach near Valemount and Lakelse Lake near Terrace. Alison Thompson, Chair and Co-Founder of Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, has said that investors world-wide look to Canada for geothermal investment opportunities but so far there has been little movement.
*Let's turn the best agricultural land in northern BC, with the only class one soil north of Quesnel (to be flooded by the proposed controversial Site C dam) into a world-class centre for hothouse cultivation. Climate change is making agricultural land and food security a top priority.
*Invest in grid-scale solar power plants projects like the SunMine joint venture between Kimberly B.C., landowner Teck and the non-profit renewable energy firm EcoSmart

I believe there are job creation projects in B.C. we can invest in that serve to protect our lives, our health, the diversity of species and the health of the environment which sustains everything. Pacific Northwest LNG in Prince Rupert focuses on an old, dangerous, short-sighted paradigm of fossil fuel-related job-creation that ultimately destroys long term prosperity. I look to B.C. leadership and the CEAA for long term assessment and planning, not in terms of thirty years - but hundreds and thousands of years.

And finally I must stress that Lax Kw'alaams Hereditary Chief Donald Wesley says Lelu Island is his First Nation's traditional territory and their rights and title have not been looked at, nor were they consulted about this project until Petronas came to their village and offered them a billion dollars, which they rejected.

I feel this is an environmentally dangerous and obsessively reckless project that must be rejected.

Thank you.

2016-03-12 15:01:18
DianneMcPhersonSurreuB. C.

I do not agree with LNG exports because I believe that they cause significant environmental effects.
Thank you.

2016-03-12 21:28:15
ALISONGILLISCOURTENAYBC

Skeena watershed too fragile to support this.
Bad plan.
Please do not allow construction.
Many thanks,
Alison Gillis

2016-03-13 00:51:07
FenellaJacquetBowen IslandBritish Columbia

I am calling on the CEAA to reject this project, given the well-known contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation (groundwater contamination etc) from LNG projects around the globe. We have other alternatives, it's time to stop flogging a dead horse and invest in truly sustainable energy (which in turn creates long-term, real jobs).

2016-03-13 09:51:46
Donald and PatriciaCurrieVancouverB.C.

The extent of GHG emissions and the long time frame they will occur makes this a terrible development to approve. I urge the CEAA to reject the application. Lets focus on renewable , clean energy.
Donald and Patricia Currie

2016-03-14 09:58:54
Donald and PatriciaCurrieVancouverB.C.

The extent of GHG emissions and the long time frame they will occur makes this a terrible development to approve. I urge the CEAA to reject the application. Lets focus on renewable , clean energy.
Donald and Patricia Currie

2016-03-14 09:58:56
Donald and PatriciaCurrieVancouverB.C.

The extent of GHG emissions and the long time frame they will occur makes this a terrible development to approve. I urge the CEAA to reject the application. Lets focus on renewable , clean energy.
Donald and Patricia Currie

2016-03-14 09:58:59
Donald and PatriciaCurrieVancouverB.C.

The extent of GHG emissions and the long time frame they will occur makes this a terrible development to approve. I urge the CEAA to reject the application. Lets focus on renewable , clean energy.
Donald and Patricia Currie

2016-03-14 09:58:59
GaryPayneDeltaBC

Please take the upstream CO2 emissions into account. All aspects of this must be evaluated.

2016-03-25 07:59:28