Public Comments on Fraser River LNG

Submitted to the BC EAO on the Scoping Process for the EA

First NameLast NameComment, Concern or QuestionCityProvince/State
EmmaWagner

What is the impact on geology and wildlife of BC due to an increase in earthquakes because of fracking?
Also, can increased tanker traffic and it's impact on marine life be considered in the environmental impact assessment since LNG is being mostly pursued for the purpose of export?

Thank you.

City of North VancouverBC
DavidJones

The whole process by which we the public are asked to comment on this stage of Wespac Jetty Project, i.e. The Value Component Selection Document("Document"), is unacceptable.

According to the Preface to the Document, in considering the Project Application which is to be eventually filed by the Proponent (Wespac), the EAO must first approve a proposed list of specific "values" to be studied, referred to as Valued Components, ("VC").

the Document then goes on to structure the acceptability of such VC in the project, by first listing required properties of said VC. They must be:

Relevant, Practical, Measureable, Responsive, Accurate and Predictable

First of all, it's not clear if all of these attributes are required or just one, or some?

Second, who on this Earth has the supernatural wisdom to decide that these attributes are required at all, either in part of in whole? What pompous authority in government has decided what are the standards by which a massive project like this must be judged?

But even worse, what dreadful thinking is behind the structure in this Document? How can important, vitally important issues, that must be considered in the Approval Process be reduced to some meaningless concept like Valued Components?

Has Orwell's '1984' arrived here now in BC?

Are vital issues like dangers of an massive explosion, pollution of the land, destruction of marine habitat, to be reduced to "Valued Components"?

this is a nightmare scenario, that only Orwell could have dreamed up.

at it's heart, in plain English, surely the Document is a scoping document outlining what the Application itself must consider.

I refuse to be drawn into a strait jacket , when considering IF this Document contains the appropriate scope.

Here are my concerns:

1. The Wespac Jetty Project can only be considered in conjunction with the Fortis LNG plant: These are really one and the same project, with two owners.

a) Wespac and Fortis

The Jetty Project is there ONLY to ship out LNG produced by the Fortis Plant, (and nothing else).
b) The (expanded) Fortis plant can only survive if it ships out its product LNG via the Jetty Project. There is no other method of getting it's product to market.

Consequently the Scoping Study MUST include the Fortis plant as part of the project.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, the Jetty Project needs a much bigger Fortis plant to make it worthwhile, i.e. 90 full sized LNG tankers and about the same number of barges. (about 3 Million tonnes LNG per year)

the present expansion of the Fortis plant is not nearly big enough for this, so it has to be expanded several times more to make it big enough to fill all the LNG tankers that the Jetty project is talking about

2. Safety Issues with LNG plants and tankers

The dangers from the shipment of huge amounts of LNG on tankers cannot be underestimated. the explosive power of this material if it is ignited is several times larger than the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Need we say more?

perhaps we do have to say more, because Wespac is perpetrating a huge lie, in saying that LNG is not even flammable let alone explosive. This is complete nonsense. I am an experienced chemist, (Ph.D), with over 50 years experience in industry. I can tell you that LNG is very very dangerous.

The LNG industry group SIGGTO advises that LNG plants should have a 3.5 KM safe zone all around them, and that includes the shipping channel by which the tankers proceed to the open ocean. This is for good reason, LNG Is incredibly dangerous.

The comparatively narrow channel of the South Arm of the Lower Fraser river in around Tilbury Island certainly does not allow such a 'safe' zone. The 90,000 M3 tankers are nearly 1000' long, and of course they have to be turned around at the jetty. This means they will reach over halfway across the river at that point. There are strong tides to consider as well.

According to SIGGTO, LNG tankers must:

a) NOT be passed by any other ship, in proceeding to the ocean, i.e. in either direction
b) not be followed by any other ship within 30 minutes at minimum, longer for PANAMAX ships

these restrictions make it impossible for there to be any other traffic on the river, or in Georgia Strait, or in Juan de Fuca Strait while the LNG tanker is steaming in or out of port. Since it takes about 10 - 12 hours to reach the ocean from Tilbury Island, and there will about 120 ships per year each direction (240 passages per year), plus barges as well, it will basically shut down all other commercial traffic in or out of the Georgia Strait, and of course Puget Sound

this is clearly an untenable situation

3) Gas Industry Upstream

LNG can only be produced if of course there are natural gas wells upstream. It has now become apparent that these natural gas wells are having a devastating effect on the landscape of North Eastern BC (and Alberta). The wells leak enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere along with some compounds which have proven to be very toxic to the residents of the area. So much so that it has become unlivable in many areas. furthermore the fracking process used in many wells introduces pollutants in the ground water and the air.

finally the very industry of gas wells has had devastating effects on the wildlife in the area, witness the sad decline of the woodland caribou, to name just one example.

4) Wildlife Downstream

the impact of 250 - 350 extra vessel transiting Georgia Strait and the Lower Fraser river is bound to be very detrimental to all marine life including the endangered Southern Killer Whales, Humpback Whales, and several other rarer species of whales that inhabit these waters.

The Salmon fishery is critically dependent on the Lower Fraser waters for both juvenile salmon rearing, and the safe passage of the incoming salmon coming up river to spawn. This is a big issue here in BC, nothing is bigger and yet we do very little to protect the salmon in these critical waters. More ships, more noise, more pollution none of this can be anything but harmful

5) Dredging of the River

an enormous amount of the river bottom has to be dredged out to accommodate these huge tankers. This will be be very destructive to the river. A huge hole will be created in the middle of the river, just to accommodate these monstrous ships.

worse, the river will quickly fill in this hole, and it will have to be dredged out again in a few short months, and then again, and again, and again.

the worst result of this is that the life giving sand and silt being deposited at the estuary will now be severely curtailed, and the natural growth of the estuary diminished. Who knows what unintended consequences this will bring?

DeltaBC
ConnieCochrane

Why is the comment deadline always during peak vacation periods or days before the most celebrated holiday when everyone is way to busy to find time to make a comment!! Seems deliberate to me, slanted in favor of big industry. I wanted to create a very powerful and intelligent letter, but unfortunately I have run out of time.
The Environmental Assessment of this LNG export terminal project in Delta needs to be a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks including impacts from an accident, malfunction or terrorist attack on an LNG terminal or tanker. The proposed terminal location should be reviewed for safety and suitability according to existing international standards and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.
We do not need any more fracking destroying our beautiful landscape and polluting our soil, water and air in BC. We need to move away from fossil fuels for the sake of the people and the planet.

SurreyBC
MargKennett

Guidelines from the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operations (SIGTTO) recommend avoiding construction of terminals on narrow inshore routes and near population centres. The Society states that LNG routes need to stay clear of other marine traffic. The Tilbury Island site violates all these guidelines.
An attack on an LNG terminal or tanker would be catastrophic. In the USA, companies are required by the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security to submit a waterway suitability assessment. This is't so in Canada. WesPac states that once LNG is loaded onto tankers, it is no longer their responsibility. If not WesPac's responsibility, whose responsibility is it?

Delta BC
JimWright

EA Office, I have made considerable effort to be able to comment on the draft Valued Components, but time is running out, and the Environmental Assessment process has pretty much defeated me.
For a start, it was just lucky that I learned of the “open house” information meeting in Richmond. As far as I can tell, no one here saw the announcement that was supposedly in the Richmond paper, and a flawed consultation process that meets the letter of the law but not its intent is no use.
The same applies to the Valued Components document. There are no direct links to it on the web or even in the “Open House and Invitation to Comment” PDF.
Even when I managed to track the Valued Components down, I needed to see something that was already thorough in order to be able to suggest refinements. What I actually saw was one bit of the picture, with most of it left out. It's asking way too much to require the public to fill in what is left out. For most of us, in fact, it’s asking the impossible.
As a Richmond resident, what I do know is that I want thorough treatment of all the risks from LNG tankers coming past Richmond, as well as all the effects on the river's/estuary's life in its many forms. I gather from Dr. Eoin Finn that they are huge, especially because of their severity. Now we are aware of the possible devastation, and we’re also aware that the government process is unlikely to address it.
I talked to the WesPac reps at the Richmond open house at length and got some answers but also got more concerned. Somehow they had no idea how much electricity the LNG plant would use, and they couldn’t tell me how many tons of LNG the tankers would carry. Either they didn’t know much or they were covering up, and either way it’s a concern.
I gather that the preferred size of the ships would require a lot more channel dredging after the tunnel is removed and also a lot more dredging in the massive area that is being commandeered in the river as the docking and turn-around location. That should be considered in the EA, not just changed afterward, although I question why that sort of appropriation is allowed at all.
I have gone over the report that Otto Langer has submitted, and I’ve seen Eoin Finn’s presentations online and in person. We less-expert people need you to give full attention to what they are saying and also to what Kevin Washbrook is saying. They represent very many people who agree with them and rely on them to convey the needs expertly — and on the Envorinmental Assessment Office to weight their input accordingly.
What I know for sure is the there should be a vastly larger scope to the Valued Components. Please work with the public’s obvious unofficial representatives to extend the scope. Then involve the public directly in a way that genuinely engages and genuinely heeds.
Thank you!

RichmondBC
MarieBruner

Exporting LNG from Delta will mean more fracking in Northern BC. Fresh water is contaminated by fracking, methane escapes and it has caused earth quakes. LNG tankers running on the Fraser River could be a hazard for humans and wildlife. Exporting and the burning of more fossil fuels will have a huge impact on the climate. This is a bad idea!

DeltaBC
EoghanMoriarty

Dear BC Environmental Assessment Office,

As a resident of Delta, a father of 2 small children and a director of Burns Bog Conservation Society, I consider myself directly affected by this proposal.

The environmental assessment for this project should not be considered even remotely comprehensive without including the following:

1 - an independent site evaluation to the standards of SIGTTO of which Wespac is a member - even a brief glance at their siting standards seems to indicate that the site was chosen before the evaluation
2 - an independent safety evaluation of the entire tanker route through Canadian and US waters to the standards of US Homeland Security about the risks to populations of LNG tanker - their #1 terrorist target threat
3 - upstream impacts of the production of the Liquefied Fracked Gas that this project requires - this includes creation of hazardous waste water, climate change effects from methane and overall oilfield production, wildlife, First Nations' rights, etc
4 - marine transportation impacts on climate and air quality - these ships burn huge amounts of bunker fuel which is a terrible emitter of greenhouse gases as well as other pollutants
5 - end use climate and pollution impacts of this product when it is returned to gas and burned
6 - impacts on climate, air quality, way of life, loss of farmland, etc during the production of power to liquefy the gas
7 - impact of dredging on salinity and damage to farms and food production
8 - cumulative impacts of this proposal when combined with Fraser Surrey Docks, Roberts Bank T1 and T2, the jet fuel terminal - specifically relating to public safety
9 - insurance coverage or lack thereof by the proponent and the LNG industry itself in the event of a catastrophic event
10 - change in property values because of the building of this facility - this was excluded and for no worthwhile reason
11 - impacts on Burns Bog and the air quality of the entire region
12 - where would the power come from to liquefy the gas for this proposal? if it Site C dam or something like it then those impacts need to be included also. The impact of powerlines through Delta on farmland, food production, etc need to be fully integrated into this assessment.
13 - full disclosure of the scale of the expansion being planned by Fortis and the resultant impacts of said expansion - trying to discuss this project as a simple jetty unrelated to the expansion is extremely weak
14 - marine impacts due to warm water being released into the Fraser River as part of the ongoing cooling process - the original facility used an air cooled system but the next 2 expansions do not indicate how this will take place

I remain full committed in my opposition to this clearly unneeded project with extremely significant risks and impacts which are being ignored or "mitigated" away. Considering the clear change that the world is making toward renewable energy, I think it is a foolish waste of resources of all types to even consider building this unneeded facility.

Please hear the concerns of the many people who have published their comments through RealLNGHearings.org about the extremely limited nature of this proposal. Please amend the scope of the EA to include these extremely serious concerns.

Regards,

Eoghan Moriarty
Director, Burns Bog Conservation Society

DeltaBC
HannelorePinder

Just a few days ago it was confirmed that the earthquake in Northern B.C. was caused by fracking, and I am sure you know about Jessica Ernst in Rosebud Alberta, whose drinking water was poisoned, and who has already won a court case against the Alberta government, and whose case against Encana will be before the SupremeCourt of Canada in January. How much more evidence do we need to proof that fracking is unacceptably risky. On top of all that fracked gas still is a fossil fuel and produces CO2 when burned. Let's develope renewables instead;it is high time. Europe is showing us the way.
Sincerely, Hanno Pinder

VancouverBC
BettyZaikow

I believe LNG is a very flawed project. By the time Wespac's project is complete we hopefully will have seen scientific studies on how destructive fracking for LNG is. Please, do not risk destroying farmlands, wetlands and the environment and so not approve this LNG project..

Powell RiverBC
David Ryall

December 21, 2015

Teresa Morris, Project Manager
WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project
BC Environmental Assessment Office
PO BOX 9426 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC
V8W9V1 CANADA

Re: WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project / FortisBC -Tilbury Island LNG expansion project

Dear Teresa Morris,

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the Delta Farmers’ Institute (DFI). We have been established since 1898 and currently represent over 100 members of the farming community in Delta BC. It is our goal to keep the business of agriculture economically viable and sustainable for future generations.

Farming is an important socio-economic asset in Metro Vancouver, generating 25% of BC’s food production on
1.5% of the province’s agricultural land. Delta alone produces over $300 million in farm receipts. We are unique as over 90% of farms are family owned and operated by multi-generational families on large parcels of some of the best soils and climate for agriculture in Canada. Farmers want and need more farmland.

We appreciate the benefits of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and its potential economic spin offs to BC’s economy; however it should not be at the expense of farmland and agriculture businesses. It is with great concern that actively farmed prime agricultural land could be compromised for FortisBC to construct a 230KV over-head electric transmission line from the Tilbury LNG plant to BC Hydro’s substation.

There are many important points that need to be addressed in completing the environmental assessment:

1) The proposed WesPac Tilbury terminal and the FortisBC Tilbury expansion are directly related and should be part
of one environmental assessment application for the EA certificate. A study to evaluate the cumulative impacts of both projects should be part of this process.
2) The South Fraser Perimeter Road project required an Agriculture Impact Assessment to evaluate mitigation and compensation values. The same should be required for this EA certificate.
3) Federal regulations are necessary to protect public safety, health and impacts to the environment on the Fraser River. Increased traffic, potential hazard risks and costs to the environment should be measured and evaluated
as part of the assessment. This includes negative effects associated with climate change.

Fresh water quality from the Fraser River is vital for productive farming. Currently irrigation water is drawn at a river intake in the Tilbury area near 80th Street. DFI with other stakeholders is directing a Fraser River modeling and monitoring study on the effects to salinity from climate change, dredging and changes in sea level. In addition, the change in tidal flows and movement of the salt wedge as a result of these proposed developments (including dredging) also need to be part of the environmental assessment.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We trust your office and the CEAA will conduct a thorough and transparent review and look forward to being informed on the process and outcomes of this environmental assessment.

Sincerely,

David Ryall
President, Delta Farmers' Isntitute

DeltaBC
AdriannaTrowsdale-Deffes

I suppose this is a day late but I urge you to read each and all of our concerns, as we, the citizens you have been elected to represent and protect, do NOT support the decision. Foreign oil companies have no place on Canadian shores. The marshlands and bog surrounding the Fraser river are a fundamental part of Richmond's growing appeal and prosperity, not to mention our local food market and culture. If a spill occurs, who's going to want to walk around scenic burns bog? Take in the sights at our beautiful bird sanctuaries? Have an ice cream at Garry Point and watch the gulls? Oceanfront properties will suffer a loss in value. I encourage you to think critically about the potential and very realistic repercussions we will face as a result of adapting a soon to be out-of-touch stance on energy. Richmond and the GVRD should be seen as a progressive and proud community. Not kowtowing to the US for a buck or two. They have no ties to our waters and land - why should they profit form our inevitable misfortune?

DeltaBC
AngelaMuellers

I oppose LNG tankers shipping LNG on the Fraser River. LNG is a terrible project for British Columbia and the globe. Scientists have proven that the entire life cycle from fracking to the final product is more detrimental to B.C. and the world than coal. Why would we want to cause more pollution to Northern B.C. by constructing more fracking wells? We know that fracking causes earthquakes, methane gas, ground water pollution as well as fresh water wastage. The safety issues have not been adequately addressed. The government does not have sufficient plans or regulations in place. I oppose subsidizing B.C. hydro through increased rates to pay for Industry and I oppose the LNG industry using vast amounts of power. I am also concerned with the impact on aquatic life. As citizens of planet Earth it is our responsibility to use our resources wisely and to minimize our GHG emissions.

BrackendaleBC
HayleighFabrick

This should never be considered a possibility.

InvermereBC
Burke MountainNaturalists

December 21, 2015

From: Elaine Golds, Ph.D. on behalf of
Burke Mountain Naturalists
PO Box 52540 RPO Coquitlam Centre
Coquitlam, BC V3B 7J4

To: BC Environmental Assessment Office

Re: West Pac Midstream LNG “Jetty”

The Burke Mountain Naturalists are a group of approximately 300 members who reside mainly in Coquitlam and surrounding areas of Metro Vancouver. We take a keen interest in nature and support sustainable practices which do not harm the environment. We are alarmed about the proposal from West Pac to construct and operate a large LNG terminal on the Fraser River. Furthermore, we are very concerned not all the impacts associated with this project are currently being considered as part of this environmental assessment (EA).

Grave concerns have been raised by many groups and citizens about the impacts that a massive expansion in the natural gas fracking industry in north-eastern BC is having on the local residents who live there, the wildlife in this area of BC and as well as global impacts on climate change. The West Pac proposal is expected to result in about 1400 more fracked natural gas wells in BC - this is the estimated number of wells that could be required to support this project over a period of about 30 years. Thus, it is very important this EA includes an analysis of all upstream and downstream impacts as well as local impacts on the Fraser River and Salish Sea. Many fracked natural gas wells in north-eastern BC have high levels of associated methane loss to the atmosphere. Allowing this methane to escape clearly has detrimental impacts on the environment and contributes to global warming. Such impacts must be considered as a component of this project. The government of Canada has now indicated their intention to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions significantly over the next few years. What will the impact be with regard to increased emissions if this project is allowed to proceed? Is this project compatible and consistent with national efforts to reduce GHGs?

We are also concerned about local impacts on the Fraser River. The West Pac proposal is estimated to result in about 90 LNG tankers and 34 LNG barges moving in and out of the Fraser River annually. The impacts from these LNG tankers will be immense yet this does not appear to be a component of the EA. For example, we are alarmed by reports that the real reason behind the proposed construction of a new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel under the Fraser River is really about allowing large LNG tankers upstream in the Fraser River. Such impacts must be considered as an inherent part of this EA. Additional LNG tanker traffic will also have impacts on the wildlife in the Salish Sea. For example, how will orcas deal with increased noise from tanker traffic? The impacts from this project will be varied and diverse - all impacts must be considered as part of a comprehensive EA. The lower Fraser River is part of an Important Bird Area as it is a critical component of the Pacific flyway for migratory birds. How will these birds be affected by an increase in industrial activity in the lower Fraser? This is not the only proposed project which will add to marine traffic in the Salish Sea yet there seems to be no mechanism by which the overall impacts of all the proposed industrial activity can be considered. Yet each additional large tanker poses an increased risk in terms of spills and general deleterious impacts on the marine environment.

We are also concerned about dredging in the Fraser River. By nature, the Fraser River is a shallow river which offers good habitat for species such as eulachon and salmon. Deepening the downstream portions of this River by up to 2 meters to accommodate LNG tankers will permanently diminish the value of the riverine habitat for many species of fish. How will these impacts be taken into consideration?

There will also be terrestrial impacts from this proposed project. For example, more transmission lines may be required or another gas pipeline. Will more roads be required? Will such impacts be considered? There is also likely to be impacts on the people who live along the lower Fraser River. It has been reported that these large LNG tankers will pass within 200 meters of their homes. Is this considered to be a safe practice? How close will the West Pac “Jetty” be to residential areas? Does the proposed terminal location meet accepted international standards in terms of safety?

It is also not clear how the natural gas will be compressed for transport by tanker. If this is done by using electricity, what will be the consequences with regard to assuring the population in the lower mainland will continue to have an adequate supply of electricity to meet their needs? Will a major part of the electricity from Site C be used to liquefy the gas? If so, is it reasonable for the people of BC to have to pay an increase in electricity rates to pay for Site C if Site C is mostly used for the benefit of the natural gas industry? If gas is used to liquefy the natural gas to be shipped, what will be the impacts on GHG emissions? Will this project result in an expansion of the nearby Fortis natural gas plant? If so, why are the two proposals not being considered together? How can a large increase in GHG emissions be allowed if we must significantly reduce our GHG emissions over the next few years because of global warming?

In our view, this EA should actually be a joint initiative between the federal and provincial governments. The piecemeal approach to consider only individual projects and not the overall impacts of many industrial projects in total should be abandoned. The terms of reference need to be considerably broadened and all impacts, including upstream and downstream, must be taken into consideration before we can have any confidence that this project can proceed without deleterious environmental and social impacts.

CoquitlamBC
EoinFinn

I have reviewed this proposal based on the “world-leading standards” purportedly espoused by the BC Government. I am opposed to granting approval for this development. My reasons include:

1 Scope: This proposal is for a jetty capable of handling the loading of 3.5 million tonnes of LNG annually. It states “the Project will allow the Proponent to transfer processed LNG from the existing adjacent Tilbury LNG Plant. The storage and processing of LNG are not part of the Project”. The problem with that characterization is that 3.5 million tones per annum is many times larger than the current (Phase 1a) capacity of the neighbouring Tilbury LNG plant proposed as the source of that LNG. As the commensurate expansion at Tilbury would be a highly significant cumulative impact to this proposal, it is quite inadequate and inappropriate to evaluate the Wespac proposal as if the Tilbury expansion were not in the cumulative scope of this project. The two projects are closely related and should therefore be evaluated together.

2 Scope: This proposal contains no analysis of the upstream and downstream climate effects of a project proposing to frack, refine, transport, liquefy, ship and burn 3.5 MTPA of LNG locally and abroad. Canada’s recent international commitments at COP21, BC’s legislated emissions reduction targets and the Federal Government’s stated policy should all require that this test be part of every EA.

3 Scope: The EA proposes to investigate the effects of increasing the levels of shipping in the Lower Fraser. Unfortunately, these are to be limited to impacts only out to Sand Heads. Mindful that Federal responsibility (which this substituted provincial EA process purports to replace) extends out to at least Buoy J in the Strait of Georgia, leaving further traffic and other impacts to a related EA (the proposed Deltaport expansion) is simply an unacceptable and indefensible dereliction of Federal fiduciary responsibility.

4 Security: The proposal calls for “Maintenance of a marine security zone around jetty operations and the Offshore Facilities”. It is unclear in the project description what this means, both in terms of the extent of that zone and the authority of the proponent to enforce a no-go security zone in a public waterway.

5 Marine traffic: The proposal calls for “berthing and loading facilities for LNG carriers up to 90,000 m3 of LNG capacity (up to 90 per annum). These carriers are described as “mid-sized”. However, in the current world LNG fleet, there are only 2 active carriers of this size (in a fleet of 400+ vessels) and both are fully employed elsewhere. When pressed on this point at the Open House, the proponent suggested that new flat-bottomed, wide-beam ships would be specially designed and constructed to serve this site. That information is absent from the project description.

6 Impact of dredging on the Fraser delta: The planned dredging will be massive, will need to be regularly repeated, and will seriously impact the normal siltation patterns in the Fraser estuary. This effect deserves far more extensive evaluation that the Proponent proposes

7 Siting: According to the industry association (Society of Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators -SIGTTO), the river is insufficiently wide at the site to afford a safe turning circle for LNG tankers. These tankers are ~ 300m (1000’) long. SIGTTO guidelines state: “Turning circles should have a minimum diameter of twice the overall length of the largest ship, where current effect is minimal. Where turning circles are located in areas of current, diameters should be increased by the anticipated drift”. By this standard, the proposed turning circle is grossly inadequate and unsafe.

8 Siting: SIGTTO ‘s jetty location guidance specifies that “large ships passing near to a berthed LNG carrier can cause surging or ranging along the jetty, with the consequential risks to the moorings, and this phenomenon should be guarded against. This can occur at jetties located in channels used by large ships and, because of this, these positions are not recommended”. This description is precisely that of the proposed Wespac jetty location.

9 Siting: Locating an LNG shipping facility immediately opposite a jet-fuel unloading and storage facility (the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) Fuel Delivery Project) adds significantly to the public safety concerns and hazard levels in the Lower Fraser. This issue is not adequately addressed in the VC selection.
10 Siting: Locating an LNG shipping facility in Canada’s most important salmon river endangers the health of the fishery upon which many First Nations (and commercial fishermen) depend for their livelihood and way of life. This issue is not adequately addressed in the VC selection.

11 Siting: LNG tankers must pass close by major population centres in Richmond and Delta enroute to/from sea. According to standards (evaluated for the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard by Sandia National Laboratories) enshrined in the U.S.’ criteria (DHS/USCG’s “Waterway Suitability Assessment”) for LNG plant siting, the Tilbury location would not be an acceptable location for siting an LNG facility that required transits of a narrow waterway bordering on significant human populations.

12 VC de-selection- Property Values: The impact on property values along the tanker route to/from the ocean was excluded and should not have been. The statement “Property value effects due to the Project are likely to be either non-existent or very small and in the latter event, they would not be measureable” is highly questionable, given the wealth of verifiable information on this subject from other jurisdictions, and the local work by the Conversations for Responsible Economic Development (CRED) organization.

13 Experience: This proponent has little/no experience building or operating a dangerous LNG facility in a sensitive location. That deficiency should require the highest standard of scrutiny of this application.

I hope you will reject this ill-advised project.

VancouverBC
KarenoHawbolt

As a resident of Richmond who lives and works near the Fraser River, I am 100% opposed to having tankers and an LNG terminal in the Fraser. This is an incredibly biodiverse and important estuary that supports so much wildlife, not to mention Burns Bog and all the orcas and marine life in the Straight of Georgia. We must protect it from high risk invasive industrial development such as tankers, pipelines, storage tanks, dredging, etc.

I am very concerned that the scope of the EA for Wespac's proposed LNG terminal must be very broad to include all the social and environmental impacts of this project and LNG in general, as well as economic implications for adjacent municipal governments, local businesses and agriculture, and residential properties. I believe any EA must evaluate the full climate change impacts of a specific proposal and the entire life-cycle of the industrial activity that it is a part of. This means fracking, transporting, storing, cooling, loading, transporting again, and finally, burning. Plus all the leakage of GHG methane during the process. There is no way BC can claim to be part of a global climate solution if we approve piecemeal projects such as an LNG terminal without considering the big picture implications.

And finally, I can't believe that an LNG terminal is even eligible for consideration in this location, despite health and safety risks. This project absolutely must be assessed against existing international standards for terminal locations, and marine route hazard assessment such as that required by the US Coast Guard. The government has a duty to put the health and safety of people living in the safety hazard zone first and foremost, above the profit of industry.

Please submit this project to the highest scrutiny - I'm sure this will easily reveal that the risks far far far far outweigh the benefits.

RichmondBC
AndreLaporte

Fully agree with the following comment.
The assessment of LNG on the Fraser must address concerns about
• upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
• local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values; and
• downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

VictoriaBC
Harald and HeidiHendess

The EA needs to consider the vulnerability of the Fraser River, of all the people living so close to it and of our
marine environment. Our best farmland is adjacent to the
River and in peril. An accident on the Fraser or in our
sheltered waters would be a catastrophe. Are there any
assessments planned re marine route hazards, new LNG
facilities, new power lines, new pipelines, a new Fraser
River Bridge to accommodate the big tankers? How will the new electricity needed to cool the gas be generated?
Is there a disaster plan? Who will be responsible for any
accidents? Is global warming being considered at all?
This facility should not be built. There are too many
unknowns, and the known facts do not seem to be
considered by Wespac or the BC Government.
Deja vu - the coal shipments from the Surrey Docks.
It is shameful.
hhh

White RockBC
SabraWoodworth

How can Wespac limit its responsibility for assessment of impacts to the mouth of the Fraser River and have NO responsibility for the ocean going vessels it is loading with LNG traveling from the Wespac terminal through the heavily trafficked Salish Sea and Straight of Juan de Fuca on their way to export markets. Is this tanker traffic truly NOT PART OF THE PROJECT? For sure it will add to the cumulative impact of marine traffic on endangered killer whales and other marine life. Wespac says that once the LNG is loaded on to ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility anymore. Wespac doesn’t plan to assess any impacts beyond the mouth of the Fraser River. What an eye-opener it always is merely trying to BELIEVE what one is reading/learning when one looks into the externalities that Corporations plan to HAVE NO PART OF in their development.

The tanker traffic Wespac is proposing to bring to British Columbia's still salmon-healthy Fraser River will NOT exist SOLELY at its TERMINAL. What kind of an EA would that be? Ignore the tanker traffic in the river beyond the terminal? Unrelated to Wespac?

Also, how is it possible that Wespac has not explicitly assessed the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, nor conducted a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard?

How is it possible this proposal seems in so many ways to exist OUTSIDE normal considerations of risk other countries find imperative? Has Canada become a banana republic? Is this still Harper-land with 90% of protections of rivers and waterways legislated OUT OF the Ministry of the Environment's laws? Are we too deep into anything-goes to even see what's going down? BC's request to substitute the BC environmental assessment process for the federal process should NEVER have been approved. BC’s EA is barely to be believed after it rubber-stamped Fish Lake and is basically impotent with Mount Polley. Every-which-way a person looks, government processes are fragmented, compromised, uncoordinated in a way to permit industry to do as it wishes with only nominal appearance of public input or government oversight. Regulatory capture permeates government!

I am making a submission, but at heart (after numerous such submissions), I don’t believe the BC government as presently constituted is sincerely interested in either Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks, or Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change, let alone any environmental impacts.

Government and industry has now received extensive input from a multitude of concerned citizens, a requirement of process, much of it expert testimony – are we all just going through the motions necessary to get to a predetermined “approval”?

North Vancouver BC
AlecScoones

What troubling about this EA process is how the project is not fully approved and yet construction is under way. I agree with Dr. Otto Langer that the project must be assessed fully and holistically before any work is begun. These piecemeal processes seemed guaranteed to work in favour of the proponents and against the public and ecological interests. Please stop and reassess.

SidneyBC
BruceBrandhorst

There should be a full environmental assessment of Wespac's proposed LNG export terminal in Delta. The review should consider a full assessment of route hazards, including the likely need for an LNG pipeline as well as electrical power lines (which should not be allowed). There must be a full consideration of the possibility of catastrophic explosions including plans to mitigate the hazards. The public must have credible assurance that the terminal and shipping companies carry sufficient insurance to cover the costs of a catastrophic event.
The incremental impacts of the increased boat traffic on the congested lower Fraser River including impacts on fisheries must be considered. This is especially important if the project increases the need for dredging of the river, which would certainly have major adverse effects on fisheries (I am a sports fisher who uses the fishery resource, which has been badly managed, especially after devastating changes to the Fisheries Act that must be reversed).
Upstream and downstream effects should be considered. Much of the natural gas supplying this terminal will be produced by "fracking", which often results in substantial leakage of methane, a major green house gas. It also can result in earthquakes and contamination of ground water, while using massive amounts of freshwater and produce toxic water waste. Production of LNG requires huge amounts of energy likely to be provided by BC Hydro using new facilities (e.g, Site C) that will be charged to the public, amounting to a subsidy of the LNG industry. In the era of after the Paris agreement, BC should not be promoting the expansion of a sunset industry that uses massive amounts of energy gases to produce an exported fuel that will burned producing more green house gases. Most fossil carbon fuels in BC and Canada must be left in the ground if Canada is to have any hope of meeting the commitments Canada signed onto. The natural gas that is produced in BC should be for domestic use only, until sustainable, non-carbon energy replacements are developed. It is not acceptable for BC to claim that exporting LNG is not part of its contribution to green house gases. Moreover, even ignoring the destructive consequences for climate change and ocean acidification of burning LNG, the business case for LNG export is weak in the current and predicted future markets, even with the massive subsidies that have been agreed to by the current BC government in violation of the public interest.

Port MoodyBC
SusanJones

1028 51A Street, Delta, B.C. V4M 2X8
[email protected] December 21, 2015

Teresa Morris, Project Assessment Manager
B. C. Environmental Assessment Office
PO Box 9426 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, BC V8W 9V1

Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessment
of the WesPac Tilbury Island LNG Jetty Application

Comments on Valued Components and Public Consultation
The federal and provincial governments have failed the public as this Project should have been rejected at the application stage due to Valued Components:
Safety on the Fraser River
• The US has laws preventing the movement of LNG ships in narrow waterways and close to communities.
• There is a potential for accidents and this should not be permitted in the busy Fraser River with communities living close to the river.
• The hazards of LNG production and transportation do not belong in this location.
• The requirement of buffers around LNG ships inflicts danger on other users of the river.
• The Project contravenes the LNG Terminal Siting Standards as outlined by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO). The plans to transport LNG vessels through the South Arm of the Fraser River breach the protocol of avoiding transit fairways and populated areas. An abbreviated Summary of LNG Terminal Siting Standards:
http://www.quoddyloop.com/lngtss/standards.html
 There is no acceptable probability for a catastrophic LNG release [1];
 LNG ports must be located where LNG vapors from a spill or release cannot affect civilians [2];
 LNG ship berths must be far from the ship transit fairway;
o To prevent collision or allision [3] from other vessels;
o To prevent surging and ranging along the LNG pier and jetty that may cause the berthed ship to break its moorings and/or LNG connection;
o Since all other vessels must be considered an ignition source;
 LNG ports must be located where they do not conflict with other waterway uses [4] — now and into the future. [This requires long-range planning for the entire port area prior to committing to a terminal location];
 Long, narrow inland waterways are to be avoided, due to greater navigation risk;
 Waterways containing navigation hazards are to be avoided as LNG ports;
 LNG ports must not be located on the outside curve in the waterway, since other transiting vessels would at some time during their transits be headed directly at the berthed LNG ship;
1. Human error potential always exists, so it must be taken into consideration when selecting and designing an LNG port.
>> Additional items exist in the standard than are summarized here. Please refer to "Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties

Safety in narrow Shipping Lanes to Pacific Ocean
• The shipping lanes from the Fraser River to the Pacific are narrow and busy. Vessels need to move through the Strait of Georgia, the Gulf Islands, Boundary Pass, Haro Strait, and the Salish Sea to the Pacific Ocean.
• There are potential hazards of a large liquefied natural gas spill during marine transportation
• Explosions in confined spaces, either combustion events or events of rapid phase transition, may have the potential for causing secondary damage that could lead to further spillage of LNG
• The potential hazards of a large LNG spill over water include asphyxiation, cryogenic burns, and cryogenic damage to the ship from the very cold LNG, dispersion, fires, and explosions.
• If LNG spills onto water, it may create:
• large quantities of vapour ¬ sea water rapidly vaporising the liquid gas- which may cause a fire or explosion or a health hazard.
• generate toxic vapours, which can drift, sometimes over a considerable distance.
• dissolve in seawater and cause local pollution
Other Activities on the River
• As LNG ships need a buffer zone, other rivers users will be negatively impacted
• The large LNG vessels will dominate the river negatively impacting small businesses and uses for pleasure.
• People living and working near the Fraser River will be negatively impacted
Air Quality
• Large LNG vessels will impact the Fraser Valley Air shed contravening Metro Vancouver air quality standards and guidelines along with transboundary agreements.
No Social Licence
• The public were excluded from input into the FortisBC Tilbury LNG Plant expansion
• The public has not been informed that the jetty is to facilitate the FortisBC Tilbury LNG plant that will produce 90 times more LNG than the current operation.
• The people along the Fraser River and on the Gulf Island will be affected by proximity to LNG ships and wave impacts
The Valued Components listed above are so important and cannot be effectively protected if the Tilbury LNG Terminal is permitted.
Valued Component Selection Document for Tilbury LNG Jetty (Terminal)
The document is too long and wordy making it too difficult for most of the public to offer comment. The document requires careful study and research for appropriate legal requirements.
An Executive Summary should have been provided for the public highlighting legislative requirements, provincial and federal accountability, assessment boundaries and components. This lack of transparency deliberately discourages meaningful public input.

Valued Components should include specific reference to provincial and federal environmental assessment legislation, policies and guidelines and how the requirements are being met. This environmental assessment is both a provincial and federal assessment combined under new legislation passed in 2012. Thus the laws of procedure are muddied because two very different processes are combined. The law firm, Blakes, published a document, ‘Overview of the Permitting Requirements for LNG Projects in British Columbia’, advising proponents of a strategy to avoid a more comprehensive assessment:

“It may be beneficial for an LNG project to pursue an EA process that concurrently meets the requirements for the federal CEAA and the provincial equivalent, the BCEAA. The key to this strategy is to avoid an EA that encompasses additional associated project components, such as pipeline and/or power, and focus on the provincial EA process as the principal venue in order to take advantage of the regulated timelines in BCEAA and provide for efficient concurrent review at the federal and provincial levels. Management of both federal and provincial EA requirements is critical to the success of this strategy.”
Consequently, it is extremely difficult for the public to participate in a meaningful way when the legal requirements, policies and guidelines are not clear.

The WesPac Valued Components document should include specific information on how the Valued Components will be assessed. If the work is being done by scientists paid by the proponent, then the assessments will be biased and lack credibility. The assessments should include the name of scientists with signatures attached to their work. (as was done in the past)

A Valued Component that is missing is the process whereby mitigation and compensation will be applied. These words are bandied about in environmental assessments without scientific credibility. This document should state specifically how mitigation and compensation can be considered with credible success.

The environmental assessment process is already compromised as two inter-dependent projects are not being cumulatively assessed. The jetty is planned to transport FortisBC Tilbury Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) that is being processed on an adjacent property. As the two projects are inter-dependent, a credible environmental assessment would include valued components that are affected by the overall operations of production and transportation. Also, contrary to due process and without public input, the FortisBC Tilbury LNG plant has already received an expansion permit from the National Energy Board (NEB) without an environmental assessment.
The failure to undertake an environmental assessment for the FortisBC Tilbury LNG plant contravenes legal and ethical due process. As the plant requires transmission lines for electricity, LNG storage and processing natural gas, and a pipeline to the new dock, both a federal and provincial environmental assessment should have been required. The Blakes legal firm document, ‘Overview of the Permitting Requirements for LNG Projects in British Columbia’, points out in the Review Process that an environmental assessment is typical with any LNG Projects so how the provincial and federal governments let this one slip through without any environmental assessment raises serious questions.

The FortisBC Tilbury LNG plant will not be able to transport its product without the new terminal so the public is not offered an opportunity for the project to be rejected. It is classic “cart before the horse” process which contravenes the general principles of environmental assessment as outlined in the Valued Component Guidelines of the BC Environmental Assessment Office: transparency, practical, purposive, inter-disciplinary, participative, efficient, relevant, integrated, credible, and it certainly isn’t rigorous.
As a result of avoiding due process, the scoping of the environmental assessment is flawed in a major way at the outset making this process lip service to the public.
The Valued Component Selection Document fails to give an accurate description of the Project so the valued components cannot possibly be assessed accurately. Page 6 refers to up to 90 LNG vessels and up to 34 barges per year. This is not consistent with the WesPac Tilbury website which claims:
“It is estimated that up to 90 barge calls and up to 122 LNG carrier calls (of various sizes) could occur at the jetty per year.”
Such discrepancies demonstrate disregard of public interest and a huge gap in credibility.
The Scope of the Project fails to include many Valued Components of broader categories of economic, social, heritage and health that will be affected by the Project.
Missing is the most Valued Component of all – the health and survival of the Fraser Delta ecosystems which interact interdependently to support living organisms that have local, national and international significance. The Fraser River ecosystems are unique. Piecemeal projects, such as this jetty, are causing degradation that is leading to the loss of highly valued components – clean air, endangered species at risk, salmon runs, herring, sturgeon, and millions of birds that make this area Canada’s most Important Bird Area (IBA). Canadians have a role in supporting Canada’s most important stopover of the Pacific Flyway, and the largest number of wintering birds of prey in Canada. These Valued Components are ignored in this document and should be included in the cumulative effects.
Many Valued Components are missing due to the limited Scope of this document. The Scope of the Assessment for the movement of vessels is too limited and should include the shipping route through the Strait of Georgia, the Gulf Islands, Boundary Pass, Haro Strait, and the Salish Sea to the Pacific Ocean. A credible assessment cannot proceed without including all Valued Components affected by the Project.
A Valued Component is the current environmental attributes of the location. The terminal site is coded RED in the Fraser River Estuary Management Plan (FREMP) habitat mapping system. This is the highest coding for habitat, meaning it should not be disturbed. This needs to be included.
Page 11 refers to Valued Components and Pathway Components according to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act. Where is the reference to Valued Components of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEEA)? Page 12 is garbled, incomprehensible and appears to indicate that Valued Components are restricted to the Project footprint. This contravenes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which has the stated purpose to protect the components of the environment that are within the legislative authority of Parliament from significant adverse environmental effects caused by a designated project. The Project will affect Valued Components beyond the Project footprint. The Valued Components beyond the Project footprint are protected under legislation and therefore must be included as components of the assessment.
Table 1 on pages 15 and 16 is ineffective giving minimal information which is not user friendly. Valued ecosystem components are much too important, complex and interactive to be documented this way. They should not be listed like items on a driver’s licence test to be ticked off.
The dredging of the berth project does not include impacts to wildlife which will be significant due to a major change in the River. The dredging will create a massive hole in the river changing flow and sedimentation. It will likely cause changes to the shoreline up and down the river from the location. It appears this highly Valued Component is not being considered properly.
Impacts to the salt wedge have not been included.
Movement and deposit of dredgate need to be effectively included.

Page 30: Land and Marine Resource Use should include Conservation and Scientific Importance. It is difficult to ascertain why this is considered not applicable. It is in the public interest that impacts to these resources have conservation and scientific values.

Page 31: Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes should include Conservation and Scientific Importance as well as Other Stakeholder Importance. It is in the public interest that impacts from the Project on current use may impact conservation measures.

Page 33: Human Health should include Conservation and Scientific Importance as there are legal and policy measures based on science to conserve the quality of the Fraser Valley air shed.

Page 34: Amphibians may be affected on the foreshore marsh area and adjacent lands and should be included.

Page 34: the exclusion of effects on property values is incorrect. There are many residential areas along the route of the LNG vessels in the River and in the shipping lanes that pass adjacent to residential areas on the Gulf Islands. Noise, light, pollution and social perceptions will affect property values.

Table 5, pages 50 to 53: It is too difficult to scroll back and forth between the Table and the numerous maps in Appendix A. This is not user friendly and so fails to offer transparency or efficiency of process.
This needs to be presented in a comprehensible way.

Impacts of cumulative increase in shipping on the Fraser River and along shipping routes need to be included with specific calculations. Also future plans should be specifically stated with details of impacts.

Section 5: Preliminary List of Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects
This section indicates assessment of past, present and foreseeable future projects will be assessed for cumulative impacts. This appears to be contradictory to figure 4 which appears to disregard effects outside the Project Footprint.

In the environmental assessment, Valued Components are supposed to address specific attributes within the broader categories of environment, economic, social, heritage, and health that may be potentially impacted by the proposed Project. A limitation of the Project footprint does not make this possible. Isolation of components does not make this possible.

This document, Valued Component Selection Document for Tilbury LNG Jetty, lacks clarity and transparency. It is neither integrated nor inter-disciplinary. It is not well structured. It is not consistent in language and topic. The B.C Environmental Assessment Office should not accept this document as it does not meet the requirements of either the B.C. Assessment Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It fails to address accountability under these acts as well as Species at Risk Act, Fisheries Act, Migratory Bird Act, Canada Marine Act, BC Environment Management Act and other legislation along with many local and transboundary agreements. It fails to recognize decades of studies and scientific information that all point to the need to effectively protect interactive, interdependent habitats of vital ecosystems.

The Fraser River, the estuary, Georgia Strait, the Gulf Islands and the Salish Sea warrant the highest level of environmental protection. This will not happen if this type of project and this type of lip-service to the environmental assessment process is permitted to continue. This project and the associated FortisB.C LNG plant at Tilbury could destroy the fragile ecosystems from the Project site on the Fraser River all the way through the Gulf Islands to the Pacific.

Sincerely,

Susan Jones

DeltaBC
TeresaMorton

LNG Wespak Environmental Assessment
The following aspects are, in my view, important to cover in the Environmental Assessment:
1) The full scale of the overall project needs to be addressed, not just the export terminal. (Specifically, expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and planned changes to the existing natural gas pipeline.)
2) Assess the terminal location against 'USCoast Guard equivalent' standards. Aren't British Columbians entitled to equivalent protection to what is required in the US???
3) Evaluate the risks associated with obtaining the natural gas: fracking processes (including triggering earthquakes) and loss of methane to the atmosphere.
4) View this proposal through a 'Climate Change Lens': notwithstanding sophisticated massaging of the information about LNG, Natural Gas is a FOSSIL FUEL and methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas. We should not be initiating projects that will create more greenhouse gases. We should be phasing out existing fossil fuel projects and initiating renewable energy infrastructure.
Respectfully,
Teresa Morton

New WestminsterBC
SusanAndrews

There are several key impacts missing from the proposal and these are of great concern.
The overarching concern is that to stay within 1.5 degrees of global warming, we have to cease all fossil fuel use. That includes any new infrastructure and projects that continue their use.
LNG - fracked gas is an environmental disaster and not the clean option is touted to be. Methane and its leakage is of grave concern as it is 80 times worse as a greenhouse gas, to say nothing of the destruction of the water table, poisoning of water and seismic disturbance.
Saying yes to the port implies yes to the industry and I strongly oppose both.
We cannot continue to ransome our children's further for the sake of our short-term comfort and profit.

A full environmental impact assessment that takes into account climate change is vital and must be done.

VictoriaBC
BlairFulton

I agree with natural gas development in this province, but it should be done slowly and thoughtfully, particularly given the current low value (and obvious high future value) of this resource. Placing an LNG facility on the Fraser sounds ludicrous, but as an engineer by training (now physician) the least I would request is that an appropriate and full environmental assessment be performed.

VancouverBC
RaynerAndersen

For a government that has just committed to rapid decarbonization - 0% emissions by 2030 if we are to avoid 1. 5°C - a long term (expensive) project like a LNG port is a sunk cost. Methane emissions in the northern hemisphere (us) are the most important factor in Arctic warming.

If we truly want to be a country that leads the fight in saving ourselves, this isn't an option.

Immediate effects such as spills are very possible, and there would be increased sea damage from accidents we've ships.

VictoriaBC
MaryTaitt

BOUNDARY BAY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
Box 1251, Delta, B.C. V4M 3T3
Contact: [email protected]

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project
Teresa Morris
Project Assessment Manager
Environmental Assessment Office
PO Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9V1
Sent to: [email protected]

21 December 2015

RE: WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

Thank you for the opportunity to give comments from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) on the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project.

The Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) was established in 1988 to enhance public awareness of the Fraser River Estuary Ecosystem. We have worked with other conservation groups to obtain protection and recognition for this world class ecosystem including:
• BirdLife International’s Important Bird Area (IBA) designation in 2001 for the Fraser River Estuary: Boundary Bay, Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank; the Estuary is the most significant IBA out of 597 sites in Canada.
• In 2004, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) gave the Estuary its highest designation as a Hemispheric WHSRN Site.
• In 2011, Roberts Bank, the vital central link in this chain of inter-connected and protected estuary habitats, was finally declared a Wildlife Management Area.
• In 2012, the whole lower Fraser River Delta was declared a Ramsar site by the International Convention on Wetlands.
Process
Unfortunately, we will be brief because, yet again, you are asking for public input into a development project in the lead up to Christmas. The BBCC would like to ask:
1. If the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) could rule out December public comment deadlines if you want thorough public input on projects?
2. I have to admit that personally I do not have the patience to wade through all the verbiage of Project Proponent-paid spin-doctors. We must and can do this better. Is there any way the BCEAO can set up rigorous reviews of such project documents by independent, expert, scientists in the related fields before they are released for public review? This will aid the BCEAO process and ensure that a thorough evaluation and assessment of both the potential local and global environmental effects of such a large and controversial project are done.
3. Where is the Environmental Accountability for this whole project? From the BCEAO site: “this proposed project is subject to review under British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act (2002) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012).”
The BBCC has already given input twice to the CEAA process in June 2015 and we have had no feedback. CEAA in Ottawa on July 6, 2015 stated it had decided that a federal environmental assessment is required for the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). In making this determination, the Agency considered the following factors as indicated in section 10 of CEAA 2012:
• the description of the project provided by the proponent on May 11, 2015;
• the possibility that the carrying out of the project may cause adverse environmental effects; and,
• comments received during the comment period.
Then 4 days later: July 10, 2015 – CEAA “commenced an environmental assessment and the Minister of the Environment approved the substitution of the federal environmental assessment process by that of the Government of British Columbia for this project.”

How is this possible? Given their statement above on July 6, 2015? What were the public comments? How is this possible given the environmental issues affected by the transport of LNG ships through the federal jurisdiction of the shipping lanes in the Coast Salish Sea?

What does this mean? “Substitution is a new tool enabled by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Under substitution, where both federal and provincial environmental assessments are required, there can be a single review process (the provincial one) and two decisions (federal and provincial).” Does the province have the expertise to do this over federal jurisdictions?

BBCC recommends that the full extent of the complete Fortis/WesPac Project (from fracking to liquefaction, estuary storage, loading and then transport in the Fraser River and through the Coast Salish Sea and Juan de Fuca Strait) must be reviewed at the highest level possible in Canada by an Independent Expert Review Panel through CEAA. Accidents in the LNG Industry must be included. E.g. see attached Table from the internet up to 2008.
Scope

The stated intention for seeking public comments “is to ensure that all potential effects – environmental, economic, social, heritage and health – that might result from the proposed Project are identified for consideration as part of the assessment process”.

1. Members of the BBCC did not see any notification for public input into the National Energy Board’s decision to grant an export license to WesPac Texas.

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

3. Given that The National Energy Board “is an independent federal regulator of several parts of Canada's energy industry with the safety of Canadians and protection of the environment as its top priority …”, how can they give approval to such a potentially dangerous project for Canadians living in the Lower Mainland of BC without any public assessment of risks?

And if “protection of the environment” really is such a “top priority” how can approval be given to a project that could have disasterous consequences for Canada’s most significant habitats: including the Fraser River Estuary (see above), the Fraser River itself (greatest salmon river in the world), the receiving waters of the Coast Salish Sea home to endangered Orcas etc.) without a full environmental review by both levels of government first? Members of the BBCC want to know if CEAA can overturn this decision by the National Energy Board?

Other Issues and Questions

1. BBCC members cannot see any application by Fortis/WesPac for the building of the LNG Project to support export of LNG from Tilbury Island in Delta BC. On the BCEAO website there are six LNG “energy” projects listed but Fortis/WesPac is not one of them. We note that other proposed LNG export projects in BC have had to apply for all parts of their projects at once.

2. We cannot find any record of a federal CEAA environmental review of any application by Fortis/WesPac Texas for the building of the LNG Project to support export of LNG from Tilbury Island in Delta BC .

3. How has WesPac Texas been allowed to apply for just the “Marine” Jetty? Piecemealing of such a controversial and multifaceted project from LNG acquisition by fracking to ship transport through the globally significant Fraser River Estuary ecosystem with all the global warming implications is outrageous. BBCC recommends this incomplete application must be rejected.

4. Earthquake Hazard Risk at Tilbury in Delta: Why is expansion being allowed at his location which is on alluvial deposites and as such will be at risk of massive liquifaction in the forecasted largest earthquake ever?

This Map on the internet is from a study in 2007 of a much smaller earthquake of 7.3 by the University of BC. The dark category (Vlll) will experience liquefaction. The focasted “big one” will be more than 9.

5. LNG Port Siting: River estuaries should not be sites used for LNG Ports according to suggestions in a paper: Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (2000). Especially the Fraser River because in addition the Tilbury site is opposite and far too close to an approved Aircraft Fuel Port in the relatively narrow Fraser River. Further, the Fraser River has a high level of vessel traffic that will increase even further when the approved Coal Port upstream of Tilbury is operational.
6. The Lower Mainland supports a large human population as well globally significant habitats for a wide range of wildlife in the Fraser River Estuary. The shipping of LNG is a great risk in this location. The risks of shipping of LNG in this area must consider a realistic impact zone: Real LNG Hearings.org have produced such a map showing the extent of the zone.

7. What is the impact of the cumulative increase in ships through the already busy shipping lanes of the Fraser River, Salish Sea and Juan de Fuca Strait? Current ship traffic through Orca Pass between the protected American San Juan and Canadian Gulf Islands National Park is already having an impact on the endangered Southern Resident Orcas.

8. A thorough review of Canada’s accountability to global warming through natural gas extraction by fracking and export of this gas and its later burning, as well as transport by ships fueled by carbon products.

9. Are the LNG ships dependent on removal of the George Massey tunnel? If so are Fortis/WesPac going to pay for the replacement bridge over the Fraser River?

10. Who is WesPac Texas? They appear to be registered in Delaware, USA yet their address is in California, USA. How much experience do they have at jetty building? Their website indicates that thay have never built one. How can Canada allow them build one in the wrong site (SIGGTO above) in the Fraser River?

11. What is the relationship between WesPac and Fortis? Is this a formal partnership?

12. How much LNG does Fortis Plan to export? WestPac said in its application to the NEB for an LNG export licence, further expansion at the Fortis facility will be required to supply the Wespac Terminal. Which Plan is this proposed project based on Fortis 1a? or Fortis 1b? or WestPac Lisence? or Fortis Potential Growth?

13. How much power will be required for each scenario? Will it mean that the Site C Dam is needed for this project? These scenarios will mean new powerlines running through Delta farmland and possibly even an expanded natural gas pipeline from northeast BC.

14. Regulatory Approval: Which company has applied to build the huge liquifaction and storage capacity required for each scenario in Tilbury in Delta? Who has made the applications for each expansion? Who is already building the large storage tank at this moment on Tilbury? How did they get permission?

15. Which company is accountable upstream for all the environmental costs of the fracking process required to extract the natural gas? Is BC and/or America accountable to leglislated target commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases both upstream and downstream for this extraction, liquifaction, export and finally burning of the gas in this project? For example BC’s commitment is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1/3rd of the 2007 level by 2020? BBCC understands that one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions are produced in the manufacture of each tonne of LNG. What proportion of BC’s leglislated target on greenhouse gas emissions will be taken up by this project and other the planned projects? How many will be allowed?

16. Who is accountable for the water needs of fracking extraction and LNG processing? How much water will be extracted and where will it come from? Where is the fracking waste water going from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin and the waste water from liquefaction on Tilbury Island in Delta, BC?

17. Who is accountable for the environmental devestation left by fracking? Example:

Members of BBCC read with great concern the quote from the former Federal Minister of Industry, James Moore, about another BC LNG project: “Of course the Environmental Assessment is still ongoing but we want to get to yes”.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Taitt
Director, BBCC
Attachment: History of Accidents in the LNG Industry.

NB. Attachment? would not attach, sending separately
February 2008 History of accidents in the LNG industry

Ladner, DeltaBC
BobCampbell

I believe Wespac location is a very poor one for an LNG terminal. As a professional engineer, an environmentalist and a boater who moors near the proposed location, I cannot think of a more dangerous location for such a terminal. The amount of marine traffic on the Fraser at this point in the rive is amazing. The concentration of population around this terminal, and the proximity to the jet fuel storage facility create the possibility of a catastrophic accident that would kill tens of thousands of residents. My understanding of international standards for the location of these terminals suggests that this terminal would not be allowed in most jurisdictions.

SurreyBC
JudiLeger

This piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

DeltaBC
ConstanceMore

Given the catastrophic nature of ongoing fossil fuel use and development, including that of natural gas in any form, it is imperative that the broadest possible assessment be used to consider if an exception should be made for this project to proceed. The default decision should be to deny such destructive projects.

VictoriaBC
LarryColero

It appears Wespac is pretending to have conducted a reasonable assessment of potential harm, when in fact they have limited that assessment to a very narrow range of criteria. Cumulative effects are omitted. Upstream impacts that this project enables are omitted. Power sources and distribution impacts are omitted. The need for capability to respond to a variety of disaster scenarios is minimized.

Without a full environmental assessment, they know the National Energy Board (in it’s current state) is as lenient as can be, and that their real challenge is to convince the media and the public that there’s no need to be concerned. At some point, I am open to being convinced of that. In fact, they have actually made some good points about the benefits of vessels switching from marine diesel to LNG power. However, the devil is in the details and it’s their omissions I worry about.

Why can’t they just be forthright and tell the whole story? Admit that there are downsides to every project. Be clear on whether or not they applied SIGTTO siting standards. Say something about the cumulative impact in combination with other developments along the river. An assessment done is isolation of other known factors is of little value in making a sound decision on whether or not Wespac’s propositions should be accepted.

DeltaBC
SamMarino

re: Environmental Assessment of Fraser River LNG

I would like to see an assessment of upstream methane leaks, and the impact on BC's climate reduction goals.

Thank you.
Sam Marino
Victoria

VictoriaBC
ShirleyMcBride

This type of industry has no place in a ugly populated area. There is no need to ship natural gas to a Metro area, and mess up fertile farmland to get this going. The entire LNG initiative is based on false premises and it is not the cash bonanza that govt. would have us believe.

VictoriaBC
DeborahNohr

Fortunately, more and more citizens are taking the time to learn about the negative and potentially catastrophic consequences of this LNG project....please for our children and grandchildren's sake undertake a very thorough EA...including 1) Westpac / Fortis massive development in Delta, 2) calculate the accurate costs of accidents, deliberate acts 3) impact on properties along the way 4) acknowledge the environmental costs of drilling and fracking...methane leaks 5) impact of increased vessel traffic on sea life
Listening to Christy Clark ( CBC ) blow her own dishonest horn / rhetoric about being an example of a green economy at the Climate Summit was disgusting...the scientists' analysis of her comments concurred!

VictoriaBC
SusanneJackson

It is time our province, country and world moves away from out dated technology and sources of energy such as fracking and liquified natural gas. Our world is in a crisis situation and the greenhouse gas emissions the production and.burning of natural gas creates is only making the crisis worse. We need to stop making it worse! The huge amount of water required in the fracking process, the increase in earthquakes, the contamination of aquifers are costs we shouldn't and don't have to bear. Instead of devoting resources on this unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly energy source we need to be developing sustainable energy that is also much less damaging to our world as quickly as possible. No more LNG terminals, no more fracking!

BurnabyBC
NigelTearle

Why we even have to fight our government for an assesment on OUR environment baffles me.

mission BC
MarianHargrove

A full environmental assessment must be done before this project should be considered. The environmental implications are far from clear.
-what further expansion in this farmland area would be necessary e.g. power lines, additional pipeline?
- does it meet international standards?
-what are the hazards associated with the marine route
- upstream effects of more fracking will contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions (methane)
-the Fraser is a major salmon run river and what will be the added water pollution threat from increasing traffic?

Salt Spring islandBC
annmcivor

There are many reasons to reject Wespac’s proposal for an LNG export terminal in Delta.
First of all, It makes NO SENSE to destroy fertile land and continue to import food which will continue to increase in price while water is becoming scarce in places like California.
Fracking is known to cause earthquakes, and has. It also destroys huge amounts of fresh water. Clean water is obviously much more important than exporting LNG.
There are many very real dangers to life and property from additional transport of these dangerous materials..LNG ships are volatile due to the extreme cold required to contain the gas.This project would result in LNG carriers being added to the already increasing mix of other shipping. Accidents will happen and could easily be catastrophic due to the nature of liquefied natural gas.
The price of LNG is down, and there are way better sources of it in other parts of the world, like Russia..so bad economic idea which could cost us dearly.
We know how much damage fracking does, destroys water, causes earthquakes, is incredibly volotile, energy intensive, will place a lot of stress on marine wildlife and contribute to health and environmental problems in the area.
Localizing our economies is more important now than ever.
There needs to be a proper environmental assessment done by an independent valid organization, so that the Government is aware of all the implications of this project.

port alberniBC
KateVincent

I am opposed to the continued development of LNG facilities in B.C. This is not a sustainable industry and poses great risks both to the environment and to citizens.

We must begin to cut our greenhouse gases now. I want to see my tax dollars being spent on clean, renewable energy infrastructure.

VancouverBC
VictorGuerin

When a project such as the proposed LNG terminal on the Fraser River comes forth every potential impact must be considered from the location of the extraction and the extraction process itself along with its potentialities through the transportation of the material to its processing and shipping point to the potential for incidents once aboard ships and on its way to export destinations. Claiming absolvement from responsibility anywhere along the line is unacceptable.

Vancouver BC
JanisHoffmann

Christy's LNG Fracking Project is another example of her unwillingness to listen to what the people of BC want. Christy doesn't give a damn about the citizens of BC

Victoria BC
BrianCoote

Given the Climate Change meetings recently concluded in Paris, I feel it is time that BC gets with the program for clean, renewable energy production. LNG is not the "Trillion Dollar" solution to our economic woes, as Premier Clark says it is. Instead, BC should be investing in Green technologies and renewable energy. Rather than providing huge multi-national corporations with tax incentives in exchange for their destruction of our environment, how about instead providing subsidies for British Columbians to adopt clean energy and transportation solutions. Why not subsidize Electric Vehicle purchases more heavily and provide more HOV style lanes for EVs? How about instead of giving Petronas and other foreign companies breaks, we give homeowners breaks for installing solar and energy efficiencies on their homes? We don't need farm land to be destroyed and waterways to be dammed to export energy to Asia. We need to foster a nascient clean-tech industry that could potentially employ far more people than LNG, in rewarding jobs that will create an everlasting legacy for the next generation (my children) to build upon. By exporting our clean technology, we can help the Asian nations seeking to purchase our LNG also to develop a permanent, low carbon solution to their energy needs in the future. By pursuing LNG development, we risk our environment - tanker traffic in BC threatens our coastline, and our marine mammals.

I hope that the Government will finally listen to their electorate on the LNG matter (just as the did in their infinite wisdom following the transit plebiscite) and put a halt to this madness.

Sincerely,

Brian Coote
Sofi Hindmarch
Alexa Coote (age 10)
James Coote (age 9)

LangleyBC
ChristineElliott

BC needs to spend money on renewable energy and stop putting money into fossil fuels.

SquamishBC
SusanneLawson

LNG is a huge waste of taxpayers money, B.C. needs to keep up with the world in alternative energies and be a leader in wind, solar and other non destructive, non fracking energy sources. The province needs to initiate lower energy use programs with incentives for cutting back, installing solar roofs and LED lighting and having house transitional programs to help people eliminate their addiction and dependency on oil, gas and hydro. Germany, Finland, Denmark, and many other countries are leaders in eliminating fossil fuel and outdated destructive energy sources, even Alberta and Ontario as well as the prairie provinces are installing big solar arrays to put energy back into the system. The LNG plans are now outdated and a burden for taxpayers and even the government as these plans become dinosaurs in a world moving ahead. Time to dump them and start new incentives and sustainable thinking. For All Our Relations, Susanne Lawson

TofinoBC
douglasfugge

upstream impacts- fracking is contaminating groundwater
waste wells, deep injection waste wells are not safe or morally ethical
spend the money on transit.

squamishBC
ShirleyMcBride

This type of industry has no place in a ugly populated area. There is no need to ship natural gas to a Metro area, and mess up fertile farmland to get this going. The entire LNG initiative is based on false premises and it is not the cash bonanza that govt. would have us believe.

VictoriaBC
CharlesHilton

Time to STOP this fracking/drilling/pipelines madness - Leave it in the ground - Time for Sustainable GREEN Development - Saving our OCEAN/EARTH PLANET for our children's children;s future.

Victoria B.C.BC
ThomasHackney

The Environmental Assessment of the Wespac Fraser River LNG project should include an assessment of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the natural gas fuel that would be produced and transported and eventually burned at the end point. The assessment of these emissions should include assessment of their contribution to global climate change, as well as local air pollution effects.

VictoriaBC
SilvaineZimmermann

LNG and the associated fracking is not an environmentally friendly solution to global warming; it is the opposite. Invest that money in truly sustainable non-carbon based energy technology instead.

Bowen IslandBC
KimiHendess

I have grave concerns about the possibility of an LNG terminal in the Fraser River and demand that the EA review all the health impacts on the Fraser and its ecology, as well as the health of the people who would be impacted along the route and of those who live upstream in areas being fracked to supply increased levels of natural gas.

I have learned that I live and farm in an extreme hazard zone and face unacceptable risks in the event of a leak. These dangers absolutely must be evaluated and the EA must include a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to what is required by the US Coast Guard and a terminal location assessment according to existing international standards.
Anything less is complete negligence on the part of the BC Government.

Furthermore, evaluation of Wespac's proposal must include all the potential broader implications that its approval would involve - expansion of existing Fortis BC facilities and pipelines, power lines through farmland, property value impacts, how its power needs will be met, transportation and marine infrastructure impacts and costs, and a full-cost accounting of the increased carbon emissions caused by LNG extraction and transportation.
We must evaluate this project against our international commitments to reduce carbon emissions and shift to an ecologically sound energy economy.

RichmondBC
KathleenWhipp

Re: Proposed Environmental Assessment of the Fraser River LNG

The long term proposals of Wespac and Fortis for Tillbury in Delta should be assessed in their entirety, as the maximum capacity is huge. The safety risks covered by international standards are not proposed to be assessed, as they likely preclude this proposal from ever being considered!

The climate change treaty we have signed in Paris now necessitates that the entire life cycle of this gas be calculated. Studies by Horwath et al at Cornell University on climate effects of fracked gas (April 2011 in the journal Climate Change) look at how fracking leads to 30% more methane emissions than conventional gas. Methane is much more harmful to global warming than carbon, and fugitive emissions happen throughout the process. Also 10% of the gas is used to condense for liquification. Overall
LNG appears to effect climate at least as severely as coal.

We have no guidelines for safety for LNG transport and should adopt those used by the US Coast Guard. If we do, this proposal will be deemed unsafe for all the people working and living within a 7 mile diameter, not to mention those along the shipping route. Accidents have already happened with the transport of LNG and the impacts are disasterous! Increased tanker traffic at the minimum will impact the wildlife all along the route in the Salish Sea.

DeltaBC
DeannaJacobs

I am shocked to see LNG get this far. Say no and close the file if possible. There is nothing but lies. If it comes to an Environmental Assessment, everything must be assessed as all land, water, air and the people will be impacted in extremely dangerous ways.
All involved with doing these studies should also be assessed. There is no one that can be trusted when it comes to LNG. The rich get richer with the paper dollar and the poorer get poorer from the devastating loss of Mother Earth....no food.

TsawwassenBC
JimMorrison

The fact that such a project on this site is even considered displays a complete lack of government regulation as the appropriate location of an LNG facility. (1) Allowing an LNG plan in the midst of a populated metropolitan area is absurd. Safety is a major issue.....and no exceptions. (2)One also must look at the location of such an industrial facility on the Fraser River estuary which has a RAMSAR designation. How strange that our society can not see beyond its immediate economic needs and instead uphold a seven generation perspective of stewardship of the natural values entrusted to us. (3)It is time to consider the full extent of the LNG contribution to carbon emissions in our earthly air shed. When adding the upstream and downstream emissions, LNG production is about equivalent to coal production and burning. Given the agreement reached in Paris, we must find better ways to reduce emissions and take responsibility for our poor choices. Now is the time. 1.5 Degree increase is the target, not above!!

DeltaBC
LynneMackenzie

We need an open, independent comprehensive environmental risk assessment covering all aspects of of the proposal, including a marine route hazard assessment, conducted according to international standards. All immediate changes and long term changes to the environment need to be made clear as well as potential hazards to land and marine life. The comprehensive report must then be made public and citizens of BC given the opportunity to decide if the project is to go ahead.

DeltaBC
AdrienneBurk

The Fortis BC's Delta LNG facility provides BC and the current provincial and federal government a clear case for meaningfully and substantively addressing the hopeful but woefully unspecific directions set in Paris. We need to show that we DO understand the details of energy projects - both, in this case, upstream and downstream impacts. What should be included in the environmental assessment of this project are the effects of increased regional impacts (included increased drilling, fracking, and methane leaks), the massive expansion of the footprint of the facility within Delta, the significant potential hazards to people and property (whether through accident or deliberate acts) of such a facility, the need to use existing international standards for suitability of locating this project, and a thorough and responsible articulation of a marine route hazard assessment, not only within the waters of the Fraser River, but beyond into the Salish Sea. The words of Paris mean nothing if we do not look hard at the projects we have under consideration now, and our timeline must be beyond election cycles and trade deals. Do the right thing, the honourable thing, the thing that will make BC a credible broker in discussing leadership on addressing climate change; demand a thorough, rigourous, and thoughtful EA for this project.

VancouverBC
KennethDresen

We know from the recent report authored by University of Victoria hydrogeologist Tom Gleeson that just six per cent of the groundwater around the world is replenished and renewed within a human lifetime of fifty years, which makes groundwater, mostly, a non-renewable resource.
Hydraulic fracturing, or “Fracking” for LNG, may contaminate valuable groundwater for much longer periods, for perpetuity. There is ample evidence already regarding the impracticality, the environmental, and the health dangers of Industrial Fracking.
The plans to engage in mega-construction to ship "LNG" (there is nothing natural about this industry) on the Fraser River, which is commonly regarded as the most productive salmon river in the world, is absolute folly. This "key habitat" and "exceptionally important" bird area supports continentally, and globally significant populations of waterfowl and other migratory species. To designate this river system and estuary for the shipping of toxic fuel is absolute lunacy.
In 2015 we saw how woefully unprepared all levels of government were to manage even the smallest of spills in the Vancouver region. Canada at large is unprepared and inadequately competent to deal with industrial fallout of any kind, which is the reason for the previous federal government's ipso facto removal of water protection from historic law.
Important civic infrastructure is being altered and replaced at extraordinary public expense to pave the way for a project that will not only do little for its unwilling population, but may in fact be extremely detrimental both to the ecosystems and to the human population of British Columbia for time to come.
In an era of historic reconciliation between all levels of government and First Nations peoples, we have an added duty to carefully consider the effects of this proposed project on adjacent lands and waters. There are First Nations peoples who have rejected this proposal outright, and many others who have yet to be consulted.
It is inconceivable to me how a project of this type could proceed in a province and country renowned for its wildlife and nature in a time when we are knowingly degrading the entire planet through our dependence on fossil fuels.
Why are we even thinking of destroying our province in order to ship this poison to a country already crippled by industrial pollution; when we have already committed Internationally to combat Climate Change?
Please consider, not just the dangerous absurdity of this project alone, but also its entirely destructive path from source, to destination.

VancouverBC
Penelope Fletcher

It is with great sadness I see the plans for an LNG terminal on the Fraser River- It doesn't take much foresight to see that ' British Columbia ' will make more money preserving its wilderness and all that encompasses rather than destroying it - so if it is money that is the reason behind even considering running LNG tankers down the river - than for goodness sake get out your pencils and calculators and do the figures. Secondly the recent Paris climate talks and the representation of the frontline communities bearing witness to the deathly environmental impact of lng, fracking, etc - on their communities - and should make it clear that the extraction of this sort of energy resource is now over. A whole eco system is in the balance. Keep it in the ground.

ParisFrance
Johnter Borg

The assessment of LNG on the Fraser must address concerns about...
- The proposed location for this project is unacceptable. Using the Fraser River for fuel handling and transport is a non-starter. Almost any other location would be an improvement. Existing industrial land in Burrard Inlet or in Washington State are much more appropriate alternatives. Have SIGTTO standards been applied to terminal site selection? The Fraser River approach is long, winding and narrow, with two way vessel traffic and limited clearance availability.
- A proper cumulative impact analysis is needed. Reference to ‘cumulative effects’ as described in this proposal is deficient. Instead of being given a brush off cumulative impacts must be well documented and understood for current and future decision making. The proposed project and connected activities must not be separated into several different components to be reviewed in isolation. Cumulative effects are integrated and holistic and impacts to the Fraser River and its communities must be treated as such in order to describe the Fraser River’s capacity to absorb more impacts.
Dredging is damaging to habitat and fish and natural systems will be impacted by an increased and ongoing river dredging program associated with this project. The proposed removal of the George Massey tunnel is necessitated by and directly connected to the siting of the proposed LNG terminal in Delta, the proposed jet fuel terminal in Richmond, the proposed coal terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks, as well as the other heavy industrial activities facilitated by deeper draft vessels. A complete picture of all of these coordinated projects (jetty, dock, terminal, shipping activities, storage facility, pipelines, etc.) must be included when describing the cumulative impacts from dredging will affect all future George Massey Tunnel scenarios.

Benthic biological communities are particularly affected, as are tidal marshes that depend on sediment as a medium for vegetation, dyke stability and the outer estuary banks are also prone to erosion impacts from a declining river sediment budget. Cumulative impacts include the loss of useful shallow water habitats to deeper water habitat. A contributor to activities that necessitate the removal of the George Massey tunnel and increases to the annual dredging of the river by another 1m, 2m, or more on an ongoing basis. Noise, light, wave action, waste water and spills are also of concern.

- Consultation needs to be expanded well upstream of the Lower Fraser River in order to properly address impacts to commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries throughout the province. Communities throughout the Fraser River watershed are impacted by development in the Lower Fraser River Estuary and are not limited to the tidal reaches of the river. First Nations also derive livelihood and cultural identity from the annual runs of salmon up and down the entire length of the Fraser River across the province. These salmon runs pre-date all other river activities and their protection is guaranteed. The Fraser River Estuary is truly significant to their interests in that it acts as a nursery for over a billion juvenile salmon that migrate through the estuary each year.

- This proposal does not acknowledge the well known historical, cultural, and environmental values that contribute to Fraser River’s place as an internationally significant ecosystem. The collective knowledge and understanding of the Fraser River is extensive and well documented. The Fraser River estuary is home to wetlands of international significance (RAMSAR), Burns Bog, Sturgeon Bank, South Arm Islands, Alaksen wildlife refuge, these ecosystems are threatened by and at risk from increased industrial activity and impacts associated with this proposed project.

The Fraser River Estuary is an incredibly biologically productive and sensitive ecosystem and correspondingly the environmental assessment review of this project will require significant ecological expertise and extensive provincial and local knowledge demonstrating an integrated understanding of ecological impacts.

The entire Fraser River Estuary supports important fish populations (salmon, white sturgeon, eulachon, herring, and more) that are highly valued by aboriginal, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Inland terrestrial species and the forests they depend on have an intimate relationship with the seasonal nutrient pulse that accompanies the return of all five Pacific salmon species. This environmental assessment review should demonstrate how the project responds to the recommendations made in the Cohen Commission - State of Salmon Stock in BC report.

The downstream impacts of increased marine vessel traffic on the foreshore, the estuary, and marine life in the Salish Sea is also a concern. The increase in river traffic and the risk of accidents in the river system and the greater estuary (Salish Sea) should be considered within this environmental assessment. Including the endangered southern resident orca killer whales and the food web they depend on.

- Our climate is in crisis and the project proposal is lacking a scientifically-rigorous “climate test” during the environmental assessment process. And that is unacceptable. This is necessary to ensure that B.C. can achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and not contribute to increasing global emissions levels. Consideration of upstream (well drilling, fracking and methane leaks, water demands) and downstream impacts (fuel burned at the destination), consideration of clean energy alternatives, and withholding approval for projects that would significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions is a priority. It is well known that fracked gas is a contributor to green house gas emissions (CO2, methane releases). This was obvious even before this month’s Paris Agreement which will be legally binding and includes Canada’s support for a long term temperature goal of no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature. This means the world has accepted that most known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground. And to do so BC will need to keep up with leading jurisdictions that are committed to a 40% emissions reduction by 2030 compared to 1990. This energy project is not happening in a vacuum and the government needs to answer the basic question: How will constructing this project contribute to reductions in Canada’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions? Is it really wise to build expensive fossil fuel infrastructure that will be obsolete in the near future?

- There is a real and perceived fire and explosion possibility along the proposed tanker route. A hazard footprint needs to be developed and fully communicated to the community for their confidence and security. BC does not currently have much in the way of an LNG industry; however this is not an excuse for ignoring internationally recognized best practices and lessons learned. The importance of siting a gas facility in a safe and environmentally responsible location should not be overlooked.

Risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker have not been articulated and are not well understood by the public and local communities. The footprint of the potential blast zones is not addressed. Transiting large ships up a heavily trafficked, narrow and winding river, and adjacent to urban populations that have not been properly informed about the inherent risk of explosion and fire is reckless. These concerns will impact the public’s ability to continue the enjoyment of river and shore based recreational and commercial activities.

- This process does not have the appearance of a “rigorous thorough scientific assessment”, but instead that of a rubber stamp to fulfill already arrived upon decisions by the current provincial government. The public is left without confidence in the system.

It is almost as if this process is consciously working against the public’s interest in regards to safety, the environment, and common sense. The process appears hedged against any real accountability and designed to deflect people’s legitimate concerns in favour of a decision that has already been made. The Provincial Government appears unable to produce an even basic level of accountability, transparency, and professionalism in this environmental assessment review. The watered down process for reviewing this proposed project attempts to create a false impression to the public of some and does not resemble responsible scientific rigour and oversight.

The Federal Government must step up its participation in the form of a joint panel review. The current piecemeal Provincial process is deficient and ignores responsibilities to the public interest and protection of the environment.

John ter Borg -
M. Land and Water Systems

RichmondBC
IreneWright

Development of LNG and selling it present a multitude of problems'
First, the production and eventual burning of LNG increase our contribution to climate change. The production includes fracking that allows for escaping methane. The building of new transportation for LNG also involves the burning of hydrocarbons. Fertile farmland is endangered with increased power line and natural gas pipeines.kkkk
Secondly, the further expansion of FortisBC's Delta LNG facility will further decrease the small amount of agricultural land in BC.
Thirdly, the shipping of LNG in tankers endangers the coastline and the creatures that live in and near the ocean.

Salt Spring IslandBC
jamie and Lee Schiff

Wespac's plan does not include MANY safety risks and concomitant factors of their expansion. This Environmental Assessment needs to include ALL relevant risks, their necessary and absolutely thorough mitigation, at current international standards. The location and its suitability for a terminal as well as running LNG tankers through a waterfront and its impact on property values is another example of missing analysis.

What about the possibility of a terrorist atack? On the terminal or the tankers? What is their proposed disaster response? This could be castastrophic, and yet, there is no mention of this scenario.

The regional impacts of having the Fraser River being used as a thoroughfare necessitates exploring the impacts of more natural gas wells being drilled in northeastern BC and the impact of methane escaping because of the fracking. What about the energy required to condense and transport the LNG. Where is this energy coming from and does it involve more dams like Site C?

Wespac's responsibility for the LNG does not end as soon as it's loaded. The whales are impacted from increased vessel traffic and the climate is damaged by the burning of more fossil fuels...

Clearly, not enough thought has been given to this project and its attendant tentacles of association.

Friday HarborWA
RameshRanjan

I am concerned with the industrialization of the south Fraser River. I am also concerned about the release of more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by the drilling of more NG wells in Northeast BC as well as more fracking and more methane escaping.

RichmondBC
JohnPrentice

I think we have to consult the First Nations whose territory you plan to build this.???? Has any consideration been given to the OTHER VALUES of the land and River ecology.?

I am against LNG as this industry is highly polluting, removes water from the Hydrological cycle.

The used water is pumped back into wells and forgotten about until an earthquake hits then all environmental hell breaks loose.

As this highly toxic enters the ground water and aquifers and our wildlife is in jeopardy as well as people from drinking this water.

White RockBC
ErenaLall

It seems from reading just a bit of the information available on this project that there are a lot of environmental issues that still need to be addressed. Yes we need development and it is important for the economy. However if it destroys fish habitat, which is also vital to the economy, as well as farm land which is vital to the economy, as well as fracking which uses water which is vital to the economy then it would seem that there are a lot of other issues to be addressed.

Thank you
Erena Lall

VancouverBC
JoTurner

This projiect should be evaluated in a much more comprehensive manner, taking into account the potential impacts on farmland in Delat, Richmond property values, and much more. Also more globally the horrendous results on the environment due to fracking absolutely must be considered.... Please make certain that a truly comprehensive evaluation is done prior to any action. Also, scientists and world leaders around the world recently agreed that we MUST move away from fossil fuel usage. Why is BC moving toward expanding energy sources that are killing our planet???? All the money in the world won't buy clean air, water and soil for future generations. They deserve much better.....

VancouverBC
KenAshley

This is a bad idea from an environmental perspective. The cumulative effects of LGN extraction, transmission, compression and export need to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment process. The Fraser River is too narrow and shallow to accommodate increased LNG tanker traffic, in addition to the projected increase in general intermodal ship/barge short-haul cargo traffic in the lower Fraser River. A major LNG tanker accident in this confined area, so close to a dense metropolitan area, would be catastrophic.

Noth VancouverBC
DeniseBogle

To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing with serious concerns regarding the projects being proposed by Wespac Midstream. The projects will have a huge effects both up and down stream of the Fraser River. I, a concerned citizen would request that a full Environmental Assessment transpire. The Fraser River is a extremely important salmon bearing river, one of the largest in the world. There are already a number of industries having a negative impact on this important resource of salmon, both to human consumption and the balance on the delicate eco-systems that exist. My concerns are based on the fact that in NEB environment assessments, the cumulative effects of the combined projects is NOT taken into account. I KNOW for a certainty that LNG facilities built in this area will change the health of all creatures that inhabit that part of our province and all the humans that live in the Lower Mainland. We are talking about extremely serious and catastrophic effects of bringing this so close to inhabited areas. With the recent agreement in Paris, we as a society that claims to be a global citizen, cannot continue as business as usual. We have to stop and consider some big questions and be honest about the effects our individual decisions will have on future generations, if we are to have any future generations. Fracking is dangerous to our water and our air. We must as a global citizen change the world by approving sustainable earth friendly solutions to our energy needs. There are plenty, it takes initiative and strong will to make those changes. I continue to have faith that we (humans) will be able to make those changes. I am a strong advocate for Orca whales, we now have 84 in the 3 Salish Sea pods, we have just welcomed 8 new calves this last year. A huge accomplishment considering that for the last 3 we had zero births. Those whales rely on salmon for their survival. We cannot let the precious gifts we enjoy living on the West Coast by industries that only care about their bottom line. When the most vulnerable are at risk, we are all at risk. We must speak for those that have no voice. PLEASE speak up for us, we do have a voice, I am using mine in writing this to you, PLEASE listen to it. Sincerely, Shirley Samples

AbbotsfordBC
JaemeGrosvenor

This whole LNG project (s) are NOT a sustainable or clean form of energy , will damage aquifers with thousands of toxic chemicals and the LNG ships are explosive time bombs that could cause a major catastrophe Please ensure these projects are subjected to rigorous environmental assesments for all possible damage

VancouverBC
BrockReid

Do not do this to us! Just to line your pockets! There is nothing in it for the citizens , and NO thought for the future!

BurnabyBC
DonHarrison

I have spent the better part of 70 years working on the Fraser River, have seen a few stupid proposals put forward and never completed but this one has to be the worst. LNG is dangerous as hell and if something goes wrong and there is an explosion it would wipe out everything for a great distance.

LadysmithBC
ShirleySamples

To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing with serious concerns regarding the projects being proposed by Wespac Midstream. The projects will have a huge effects both up and down stream of the Fraser River. I, a concerned citizen would request that a full Environmental Assessment be done. The Fraser River is a extremely important salmon bearing river, one of the largest in the world. There are already a number of industries having a negative impact on this important resource of salmon, both to human consumption and the balance on the delicate eco-systems that exist. My concerns are based on the fact that in NEB environment assessments, the cumulative effects of the combined projects is NOT taken into account. I KNOW for a certainty that LNG facilities built in this area will change the health of all creatures that inhabit that part of our province and all the humans that live in the Lower Mainland. We are talking about extremely serious and catastrophic effects of bringing this so close to inhabited areas. With the recent agreement in Paris, we as a society that claims to be a global citizen, cannot continue as business as usual. We have to stop and consider some big questions and be honest about the effects our individual decisions will have on future generations, if we are to have any future generations. Fracking is dangerous to our water and our air. We must as a global citizen change the world by approving sustainable earth friendly solutions to our energy needs. There are plenty, it takes initiative and strong will to make those changes. I continue to have faith that we (humans) will be able to make those changes. I am a strong advocate for Orca whales, we now have 84 in the 3 Salish Sea pods, we have just welcomed 8 new calves this last year. A huge accomplishment considering that for the last 3 we had zero births. Those whales rely on salmon for their survival. We cannot let the precious gifts we enjoy living on the West Coast by industries that only care about their bottom line. When the most vulnerable are at risk, we are all at risk. We must speak for those that have no voice. PLEASE speak up for us, we do have a voice, I am using mine in writing this to you, PLEASE listen to it. Sincerely, Shirley Samples

VancouverBC
markdalton

It has come to my attention that the environmental assessment proposed by Wespac Midstream for their new LNG terminal on the Fraser River is sorely lacking in scope. This is not unexpected as this is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse scenario. Therefore it is essential that the conditions for the environmental assessment be established by an independent body to determine the impacts on marine life, the environment, and the safety, health, and quality of life of people along the full length of the Fraser River where ships will travel to access this terminal, including the area of land on both sides of the river which could be impacted by an accident with one of these fuel-laden ships.
Thank you.

sureyBC
LynnPerrin

I live in Abbotsford B.C. and am a "directly affected" person re the Trans Mountain expansion proposal. This pipeline was a Fortis natural gas pipeline at one time. Currently it is transporting toxic diluted bitumen for export. "Directly affected" residents and First Nations all along the ROW were never consulted in regard to changes in products that this pipeline would transport. In fact, we were never even advised that toxic diluted bitumen which as significant health and safety impacts was going under school yards, farmland and watercourses. There has been speculation that Trans Mountain will alter its routing and it will be in the same vicinity as this LNG proposal. In addition, in 2005 the NEB ruled that SEII could not proceed due to emissions from natural gas power plant would have unacceptable impacts upon the airshed of the Fraser Valley. Thirdly, the Cohen Commission is going to be applied to fisheries by the federal government. This project is in direct contravention to what Cohen has recommended in order to protect sockeye salmon who travel to and from their spawning areas via the Fraser River. Finally, the upstream and downstream impacts of LNG extraction and use are contrary to the commitments made by both the government of B.C. and Canada in the Paris COP21 agreement.

AbbotsfordBC
BrendaBroughton

Tremendous concern for all the reasons related to LNG Supertanker shipping in Howe Sound, which include 1. Safety,with pre-existing commerce and population that is 'at-risk', 2. Rogue Waves, putting boating, and people on shore side 'at-risk', 3. Foreshore Erosion, which places buildings and people 'at-risk' and 4. Reduction of Air Quality.

Lions BayBC
ChrisCook

It is patently irresponsible to risk one of the world's most vibrant surviving salmon runs for further industrialization of British Columbia. This is especially egregious considering the proposed project is to support the extremely environmentally destructive practice of "fracking". The fact so-called "LNG" markets are fragile, and have no immediate way of redeeming the kind of money for the province the government has claimed, and the industry is retrograde in terms of climate warming due to the production and burning of fossil fuels, is just more reason this initiative should be stopped.

VictoriaBC
NoahQuastel

1. The BC Environmental Assessment process has come under heavy scrutiny and needs to be changed.
2. For this project there is a need to consider the project in terms of its wider impacts in the LNG commodity chain. That includes potential expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, any new or expanded natural gas pipelines, new wells or fracking operations in North Eastern BC as well as vessel traffic through the Salish Sea.
3. Cumulative impacts need to be considered for the Fraser River and surrounding farmlands.
4. Climate change is a massive issue. This represents new fossil fuel infrastructure right when world opinion is moving towards understanding the repercussions of new investment. The EA needs to consider the social, economic and political implications of creating new hard assets and the ways these contribute to path dependency, momentum and sunk costs for a fossil system that ultimately needs to be dismantled.

VancouverBC
DanaWilcox

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

OlympiaWA
DeenaGuffei

Please include these points in the environmental assessment of the proposed LNG export terminal in Delta:
• upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
• local impacts: new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values
• downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

Canada needs to shift gears and launch a project of this scale in the clean energy sector. Protecting our ecosystem is important for animals, people and tourism (an industry with a longer lifespan)

Again please seriously consider these points. Thank you for your time.

VancouverBC
MattBlackman

LNG is an expensive fuel that makes no sense given current and future economic and environmental realities. It produces more than 3 tons of green house gas emissions for every ton of LNG produced from well-head to customer use, suffers from high fugitive methane leaks at the well-heads and in pipeline transmission and contaminates valuable non-renewable ground-water supplies in the areas of fracked wells. BC LNG is no longer economical and will saddle jurisdictions short-sighted enough to continue pursuing a new LNG industry with massive dismantling and clean up charges.

This project is highly ill advised.

SquamishBC
myna lee johnstone

This project reminds me of a battered woman syndrome.
The Fraser River Estuary and area is already overly stressed.
Do not do more battering.

The project is not at all in line with the agreements reached in the Paris COP21 2015 accord.

Saltspring IslandBC
ElizaOlson

I am writing regarding the WesPac proposal to put a Jetty (wharf) in the Fraser River at the Tilbury Island site of the FortisBC LNG plant.

I am concerned with being faced with the prospect of either being "Freeze-dried or French fried" depending on where I might be in the event of an explosion of either the FortisBC LNG plant or one of the LNG tankers plying up and down the mouth of the Fraser River.

The Fraser River is the largest salmon-bearing river in the world. These salmon along with other fish including herring and the endangered sturgeon. These sturgeon have survived for millions of years. But I doubt they could survive an LNG blast that may be equal to 50 atomic bombs.

What I am really concerned about is not what is in WesPac's reports, it is what is "not in WesPac's|" proposal.

I don't pretend to be an expert on LNG. In fact, thanks to a presentation by FortisBC, it is only recently that I have become interested. What I have discovered alarms me.

No.1 This proposal does not conform to the guidelisne from the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO). The route is too narrow and too close to nearby populations centres. In addition, there is other marine traffic going continuously up and down the Fraser River.

No. 2 There seems to be no one responsible or in control of the LNG tankers once they leave the WesPac dock. WesPac states it is no longer responsible once these tankers are loaded and leave the dock at their Jetty (wharf).

No. 3 There appears to be little or no evaluation of indirect impacts of this project. This includes the fracking needed to extract methane from the ground. Methane I understand is anywhere from 20 to 60 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

No. 4 Fracking wells only produce up to 3 years. Then they are capped and often methane continues to escape for years to come.

No. 5 cost of producing LNG. From the economic studies I have seen it costs more to produce LNG than we can sell it for. This does not make economic sense to me.

No. 6 British Columbia and Canada are supposed to reduce greenhouse gases. Producing LNG for export does not make climate change or economic sense.

No. 7 As dirty as coal is, I understand when you take into consideration ALL the upstream and downstream factors LNG is not cleaner.

I urge you to look at all the upstream and downstream impacts of this proposal. Analyzing this proposal will not give the best environmental outcomes if done in isolation. This means that the fracking, its implications along with where the energy will come from to produce the LNG plus the potential impacts on the Fraser River, its wildlife, the people living along the River and on out to the Salish Sea.

To change the name to the Salish Sea in honour of the original people and then ignore their welfare or that of the land and water and the First Nations philosophy of looking at everything from the perspective of how it will impact the seventh generation of the future, makes a mockery of this action.

Further, the Corporation of Delta, Metro Vancouver, the BC Government and the Federal Government signed a declaration the Ramsar protocol to protect and use the Fraser River Delta in a responsible way. The Fraser River Delta Ramsar site includes Burns Bog, Alaksen, the South Arm Marshes plus other sites.

Supporting this proposal, in my view does not honour or support the spirit of the Ramsar protocol to protect wetlands of international importance.

It is time that the EAO take into account the spirit of the Ramsar Convention of Wetlands of International Importance be taken into account whenever a proposal comes forward that will impact Ramsar sites.

I urge you to turn this proposal down and recommend that FortisBC, WesPac and its parent company be encouraged to develop alternate energy means that are more environmentally friendly.

Sincerely,

Eliza Olson

DeltaBC
MelissaWaddell

I am whole-heartedly against the expansion proposed for FortisBC's Delta LNG facility. My first concerns are shared with many environmentalists: that the local, regional, and extended climactic impacts have not been thoroughly or impartially assessed, that this project is in danger of being pushed through for short term economic gain and long term catastrophe.

Moreover, since the Paris Climate talks closed, Canada is once again amonst the nations committing to real and achievable action on climate change. The goal is to be off fossil fuels entirely by 2050. That is 35 years away. That is nothing. Do not invest money in expanding infrastructure for an industry that must be obsolete within 35 years IF THE HUMAN RACE IS TO SURVIVE. Seriously. That would be an insane investment to make, even if accidents, methane leaks, and the by-products of drilling and fracking were miraculously never to occur.

BC has a clear decision to make: are we going to be part of the future, or part of the past? If we are to move forward, we need investment in green energy, not the squeezing out of the last of humanity's fossil fuel usage. To move forward with LNG infrastructure and export would be a stain on BC's coastline, history, and future.

VancouverBC
MairiWelman

We should be focusing on developing renewable energy sources not fossil fuel.

North VancouverBC
V.Fisher-Sitaras

Please do not turn a blind eye to the unconscionable behaviour of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our beautiful British Columbia. An environmental assessment cannot ignore the following concerns as they relate to the future of LNG shipping on British Columbia’s beautiful west coast:

There absolutely must be due diligence done in regards to an LNG environmental assessment, and not a simple sweeping under the carpet of all concerns of safety for the human, plant and animal inhabitants of the areas in question.

The very act of creating LNG, touted as being “clean” energy, is very misleading. It’s only clean until you do anything with it. The loading of this commodity is extremely dangerous, involving an enormous amount of power, translating to enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and fugitive methane being released into our environment. This will translate into British Columbia far overreaching our own legislated standards of emissions, even as the whole world is trying to slow climate change. In turn, rather than being a rising star in the future of our planet, British Columbia will be a big black dirty smudge.

The process of water-cooling the LNG to condense it for shipment is SO damaging, it is banned in many first world countries. The use of dangerous biocides being flushed into our coastal waters will cause irreparable damage to the oceanic food chain from the bottom up. This has no place in the Fraser River estuary or the Howe Sound, or anywhere on the planet, for that matter.

Wespac takes no responsibility once the LNG is loaded and they continue to ignore questions of impact rather than address them. These shipping vessels would be subject to very treacherous manoeuvring in the Fraser River, through channels far too narrow in several spots en route. Any shipping plans in this country should at least meet existing international standards and marine route hazard assessments such as the US Coast Guard has in place. Consideration should be given to the certainty of a disastrous outcome should there be an incident - there are far too many people living along the proposed shipping route; the narrow artery will only raise the risk of such incidents.

There needs to be included an assessment on killer whales and juvenile salmon habitat from the fresh water of the Fraser River to the open salt water of the ocean. Even without a major incident, the traffic alone would damage important eel grass and other important habitat. In what ways will such traffic impact the food chain and survival of these species?

What if there were to be a terrorist attack? An unforeseen accident? Mechanical breakdown? Human error? We live in a seismic zone; when the projected earth quake does come, the catastrophic outcome will be compounded. As the earth shifts and people struggle to find safety, they will be frozen to death, or burnt to death depending where they are within reach of the leaking LNG gases spreading out across the water to the nearby populated shores.

In the wake of an incident, who will pay for any clean up, however unsatisfactory and impossible?

And there is the issue of fracking for LNG in a seismic zone in the first place. Where is the wisdom in that?

What about all the other existing river traffic that will no longer be able to operate due to the behemoth freighters taking up the waterway?

Dredging the Fraser River to make room for the freighters to manoeuvre is a bad plan. The river is a living, moving entity; it’s shape is informed by the natural flow... it will need to be re-dredged often as the sediment naturally builds up with the flow of the river. The flora and fauna that depend on the natural river bed will suffer constant, repeated damage. And still, even with the dredging, this proposed site simply does not provide the margins of safety required; too much life, human and otherwise, depends on the river and the ocean to risk all for the sake of a dangerous and futile business plan.

British Columbia’s path to prosperity? Really? With the glut of LNG coming onto the market right now, particularly from Russia, with a large, direct pipeline to Asia, there is certainly no need from a business standpoint for British Columbia to take this enormous risk. It simply does not make fiscal sense; the price of LNG is going down and will continue to do so. This sector only amounts to 2% of BC’s economy. The only sustainable energy of the future is renewable energy – let’s get THERE first instead of trying to compete in a flooded fossil fuel market. Let’s lead the way to a healthier planet.

Many thanks for your attention to this matter
V. Fisher-Sitaras

SurreyBC
FindlayCraig

Leaving out the potentially phenomenal level of environmental impact of the proposed LNG tanker facility and shipping, it is a folly to undertake expansion of hydrocarbon resources. Abundant scientific studies have shown that continued growth in extraction of fossil fuels is incompatible with the lowering of CO2 emissions required to minimise the impact of a changing climate. Beyond the immediate construction phase, this plan offers no long term benefit for British Columbia; resources would be better spent developing an economy that is less reliant on global energy markets, and does not contribute to atmospheric damage.

RichmondBC
David Dorrington

This is a bad idea, as is any concept of developing LNG in the Province of BC. Not only is it economically ridiculous to be developing a new fossil fuel infrastructure after Paris 2015, (LNG prices will continue to drop in the long term) it is also dangerous to the residents of BC because of the safety and environmental concerns associated with frakking. Frakking is not safe. It uses too much water. It damages aquifers and peoples wells. It requires Site C which is the most stupid expensive and damaging project this Province has ever undertaken. In the future we will be needing clean water and more farmland rather than LNG which we won't even use because it will be exported at rock bottom prices. If you want to see the future then look at what has happened to the people in in California with frakking around the spanish american areas and while you are there check out the loss of farmland which we will need to compensate for by farming more of the Peace. All in all this is a stupid idea promoted by immoral and greddy people.

RichmondBC
nadeanetrowse

LNG is just another way to prolong and extend the problem of global warming. It is also making unfortunate demands on the environment by 'requiring' the infrastructure that is bad for the foreshore of the Fraser River. It is the driver of the new bridge project which might help traffic a wee bit but completely messes up the river itself, its banks, its ecosystems, and all the farmland surrounding the approaches to the bridge that will have to be expropriated. It will contribute to urban sprawl in Delta/Ladner etc.
There are NO long term good things to be hoped for from this.
Please! let's agree to stop this madness which might benefit a few people short term (faint possibility) and wreck so much short and long term!

Richmond BC
DulcyWilson

I want a full environmental assessment of the proposal to build an LNG terminal on the Fraser River to ship liquid FRACKED gas to Asia. Fracked gas is not clean environmentally as Christie Clark claims. I am very concerned with tankers in our waters. Also the gas prices in Asia have dropped so low as not to make LNG financially viable. And all benefits from taxes have been given away by Ms. Clark to keep a corrupt company in BC, letting it rape and pillage our province.

Salt Spring IslandBC
GregFerguson

I am completely apposed to the construction of an LNG export terminal or other facility on the lower Fraser River. I think LNG is not a sustainable industry and fuel for the future of our planet given the rapid rate of climate change and the impacts the whole life cycle of this fuel has on our environment (e.g., fracking).Thus, this proposed project is not suitable to promoting a healthy future for the planet and future generations. This proposed project is completely against Canada's and BC's commitment to lowering greenhouse gasses as part of the recent climate agreement in Paris. It also further threatens the health of the Fraser River and many sensitive and important species (fisheries, birds, mammals) and habitats. There are many more beneficial and sustainable solutions to meeting the planets energy needs while also growing our economy and protecting our environment (e.g., energy conservation, renewable energy, sustainable transportation, smart growth, local agriculture). I ask you to not support this project as it puts BC on a greater path towards an unsustainable future for all.

Port MoodyBC
PaulBiedermann

I was not very informed about the proposed LNG terminal until I received the glossy brochure from Wespac Midstream. That brochure was so full of obviously misleading content that it raised the red flag and made me take notice. Why would anyone make so much effort to mislead the public unless there was something very bad to hide? The one comment that really resonates with me is the statement that LNG is not explosive. While technically this statement is true, I am unable to think of ANY liquid fuel that IS explosive! I dare the proponents of this plan to place massive LNG storage tanks in populated areas to demonstrate the safety of LNG by doing a little experiment and posting it on YouTube. I dare you to spill just 1 cupful of LNG onto the ground and light it with a match. Please invite all the politicians and those from the regulatory bodies that think it is OK to put such a plant in a populated area to assist with this demonstration. If you are very lucky, you will have succeeded in proving your point and I get to eat crow. However, if things go as I expect, then you all get the well-deserved Darwin Award and the world gets to laugh at your stupidity. Seriously though, this is no laughing matter and past experience has shown that accidents can and do happen. It is ludicrous to even suggest such facilities be anywhere near populated areas. Do the moral thing and forbid such a dangerous facility from being located in populated areas. Politicians and regulatory agencies are supposed to protect the public from danger; not put people in harm's way! Please, do your homework and put an end to this madness.

DeltaBC
MichaelSawyer

I see this as exactly the kind of project we should be moving away from. Additional marine traffic on the Fraser and out to the Pacific Ocean concerns me. The energy implications to process liquid LNG, and the burning of additional LNG, will contribute to climate change.

VancouverBC
PamelaBromley

We all benefit from clean air, clean water, clean soil, nutritious food sources. Any government members at any level have no business being in government if they #1 approve/authorize companies and activities that cause any degree of damage to the environment, #2 allow such activities to continue and do little, if anything, to hold themselves and these owners and companies responsible to address/stop/clean up the damage, garbage and toxic conditions caused by these activities, #3 require them and themselves to be responsible to support the health care of all people and animals affected by injury/disease/illness/disability due to the toxic and other harmful effects of such companies/industries. and #4 any government members at any level are not our leaders and representatives if they have or currently consider allowing or encouraging foreign (that includes the USA) ownership or any degree of control over Canadian resources or companies (including hydro power, water, communications, information development and "storage").

VancouverBC
JonHealey

I support Otto Langer's brief. This project needs a full environmental assessment looking at comulative effects on the river including incremental effects of dock and dredge.
Thank you
Jon Healey

Salt Spring IslandBC
CharlyCaproff

Beyond the immense environmental impacts of the LNG industry, it will reap minimal economic benefits for BC. The combination of tanking oil prices, the movement towards more sustainable energy resources and the fact that BC is a marginal player in the LNG game make it pretty obvious that this is a short-sighted, UNPROFITABLE gamble on the well-being of BC's economy, environment and future generations. I'm amazed that we're still pursuing this sinking ship.

Maple RidgeBC
JeanGelwicks

Please do a thorough environmental assessment of the proposal to build an LNG terminal on the Fraser River to ship liquid FRACKED gas to Asia. If you have not already, do read the book Slick Water by Andrew Nikiforuk to learn the horrible truth about fracking. Jean

Salt SpringBC
Brigitterichters

I am very concerned about the safety of locating an LNG plant in Tilbury and
on the Fraser River. Its much too close to large population centers and will
pollute the Fraser River even further. There should be an independent
environmental assessment done on the proposal. This proposal would not
be allowed in the U.S. Also, a jet fuel facility is planned in the vicinity.

deltaBC
sarafralin

Please consider traditional salmon spawning areas, local subsistence fisheries, local recreational water use, and please plan with climate change and increased sea levels in mind. A plan without accounting for climate change is no plan at all.

VancouverBC
JenniferThoss

A much more comprehensive environmental assessment of the LNG expansion on the Fraser River should be done by an independent body, one not controlled by the provincial government, nor funded by the LNG industry. The assessment should take into account all impacts of the proposal from the fracking, trucking, piping, shipping and dredging etc... The Fraser River is already under stress and the fishing runs are not stable. Being on a boat on the Fraser is already chaotic; there is a lot of existing river traffic. I believe LNG to be too risky in this environment.

There needs to be unbiased oversight on this project.

DeltaBC
PamelaLockhart

1.Following the acceptance of new policies on climate change in Paris this month,there should be no doubt that this project should not go ahead.LNG is not carbon neutral and will contribute in many ways to climate change.
2. There will be loss of farmland which in future would be crucial.
3. There is the possibility of accidents,and malfunction and even terrorism in view of recent mention of Vancouver by ISIS as a site for attacks, along with Geneva.
4. An increase of fracking releases greenhouse gases ,will need more burning of fossil fuels and production of electricity for the process by burning of more fuels.Also there is evidence of earthquakes caused by the fracking process and the disturbance of fresh water tables as well by contamination.
5.The entire wildlife of the BC coast is in jeopardy with increased tanker traffic.
6. The proposed new bridge to replace the existing Massey tunnel is expressly needed for the height of the vessels to carry the LNG .This will result in more emissions as vehicles sit idling in Richmond,and Vancouver,and Surrey when they cannot proceed beyond this massive bridge.The money to be spent for this bridge could be spent on light rapid transit instead and there would be less impact on the environment in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley ,which has increasing air pollution from vehicular emissions.
For these many reasons this project should not go ahead.

SurreyBC
PeterHammond

Do not put a fuel terminal on this sensitive land.

VictoriaBC
BrentHeard

I attended an open house on this proposed project, and I left with more questions than answers.
This process, in my opinion is a sham, as it focuses only on the Jetty and loading facility. The environmental assessment focus and scope are too narrow and do not take into consideration all aspects of the LNG stream.
There is no discussion on the cumulative effects to the environment and wildlife that are occurring due to drilling and fracking for Natural gas.
There is no discussion regarding the new liquefaction plant that will need to be built to liquefy the gas from Fortis.
There is no discussion on where the massive amounts of power required to run the plant will come from.
There is no discussion on the effects the burning of the gas will have on the health of the planet.
There is limited information on the safety plan should there be a leak or catastrophic failure at the facility or with a loaded vessel.
I am not entirely opposed to this project, but based on the limited information available, and the narrow focus of the Environmental review, I cannot support this project.
as presented.
Regards; Brent Heard

DeltaBC
THEODORACarroll

For a myriad of reasons an LNG (a.k.a. LFG - liquified Fracked Gas) facility should NOT be allowed on the Fraser River. Having just received the notification on December 21st I do not have time to go into the considerable detail that my extensive research over the past years would necessitate. So below are my brief comments:
Natural (FRACKED) gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG/LFG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG/LFG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural/FRACKED gas pipeline.

None of the above is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. Wespac, FortisBC and the BC government should understand by this time - and in this day and age of CLIMATE CHANGE - that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects is wrong and short-sighted.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or terrorist attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate destruction — and a clear disaster response plan. To date this does NOT exist. WHY NOT? Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion. Again, this is short-sighted.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard. Why is a lesser standard being allowed here in BC?

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG/LFG tankers down the Fraser River, within 200m of waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong. This is not and would not be allowed in other countries. Why in BC? This is wrong and unconscionable as the potential for disastrous consequences are enormous.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG/LFG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. Basically there is nothing "natural" about"fracked" gas and its component part of methane. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural (fracked) gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be. Why is Wespac being allowed to ignore and avoid these issues that are of considerable concern to the inhabitants of the area, BC inhabitants who would suffer the consequences?

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG/LFG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. THAT is unconscionable irresponsibility, ignorance and arrogance. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales, and all other marine life? How will that affect British Columbians, many of whom rely upon that marine life for their livelihoods? How will Wespac at a minimum monitor the actions of foreign vessels? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Given the Canadian Government's commitment to remedying climate change, lowering emissions and its overall footprint globally, as well as at home, isn't the Wespac position contradictory and counterproductive? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

Overall Wespace (along with Fortis) have neglected to delve into and answer some very key iissues pertaining to the proposed LNG/LFG terminal on the FRaser Riever. The EA should ensure that all key issues are carefully and properly investigated and assessed, especially in light of Canada's climate change initiatives at Paris. We are in 2015, not 1985, and times and conditions have changed, necessitating a very, very careful evaluation of projects that can harm our environment, our atmosphere, our marine and other non-marine biodiversity, our human health, and our overall social and ecological conditions.
If ALL the costs far outweigh the so-called benefits, not just financial, then the project should not be allowed to proceed.

SquamishBC
JaneArmstrong

I am confused - if the historic Paris Agreement was just created, where we have agreed to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels and instead seek and create renewable forms of energy, they WHY ARE WE CONSIDERING INVESTING IN HARMFUL FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE when we have agreed to work together to make this reliance obsolete?

I do not understand why we would allow massive irreversible degrading development over our precious farmland; allow devaluation of neighbourhoods; allow increase in risk of accidents that could have catastrophic consequences to areas far beyond the actual site; (just to name a few negatives). What are the positives? Westpac profits, FortisBC profits, some jobs are created. There are other sustainable healthy ways that we can be investing in that will provide jobs for people and boost our economy.

New WestminsterBC
PeterLamb

A full environmental assessment must be undertaken for this LNG export terminal that includes:
1. The upstream impact from drilling and hydrofracking for natural gas supplies, well documented by Andrew Nikiforik in his new boojk "Slick |Water". The devastating contamination of essential groundwater sources and intrusive imapctson neighbourhoods alone should warrant rejection of any proposed new LNG plants.
2. The significant increase in Green House Gas emissions, including additional methane leakages, which fly in the face of proposed emission reductions now being seriously considered by Canada. BC should be prepared to change its position on LNG plants in order to remain a "leader" in climate action that it proclaims.
All the efforts being promoted and implemented at the local level will be largely offset by the proposed development of such LNG projects.. Contrary to provincial government claims, LNG is not clean energy as clearly demonstrated by Marc Lee in the CCPA-BC LNG Reality Check.
3.Finally, the proposed major increase in tanker traffic in the Salish Sea will have a huge impact on marine ecology in the area, an area that includes the Islands Trust and its provincially-legislated"preserve and protect" mandate.
4. There are alternatives to increased fossil-fuel energy sources and it is time for the BC Government to provide tangible support for renewable energy sources. This impact on the necessary growth in alternative sources of energy is a factor that should also be considered in a full environmental assessment of this LNG facility.

Salt Spring IslandBC
CLAIREROLF

After the Summit on Climate change we need to change gears quickly.
We should phase out extraction, transport and use of fossil fuels.
I am concerned about fracking, water use, escaping methane and, in general, the burning of natural gas anywhere in the world. What an ugly mess we are making of the Frazer.
There are huge safety issues for people and wildlife.
Good government takes care of the most vulnerable (not the greedy for gain)

SquamishBC
TeresaPhillips

The development of LNG and subsequent increase in fracking is a very wrong direction for this province to go. Putting any of this near populated areas is inviting disaster and shows complete disregard for what the people of this province value the most, our natural environment. LNG industry not only threatens the environment on SO MANY levels but it also threatens the health and lives of the people living near it. Even if the dollar value was good, it is not worth the trade off, but the price of LNG has plummeted so there is no cost benefits to the people of BC to make this worthwhile.

ComoxBC
RosemaryPartridge

We have just taken a huge step forward in Canada toward a more sustainable world because of the Paris meetings and because we finally have a federal government that supports a sustainable environment.

This proposal is a blatant disregard of all that hard work and promise.

Saltspring islandBC
TracyQuinsey

I am deeply concerned about the catastrophic consequences that will occur if the LNG export facility is built. There has not been a comprehensive independent risk assessment. I am against the LNG industry and in 2015 it is time to put our support behind renewable energies and invest our dollars in the alternatives, of wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean thermal energy conversion. Global climate change is threatening all of us and we must make every effort to cut our green house gas emissions. Please stop this madness. Just think what B.C. could achieve if all the energy dollars went to subsidize the renewables instead of LNG. Thank you.

Maple RidgeBC
FrankMitchell

Please reject this proposal.
My concerns are:
--encouraging more gas production contradicts the imperative that we reduce production of green house gases (which occur during the production process and ultimate use)
--the very real dangers to life and property from additional transport of these dangerous materials. I live on the waterfront, and this project would result in LNG carriers being added to the already increasing mix of other shipping on my front door. Shipping accidents have happened in the past, and will occur in the future. An exploding LNG carrier could be catastrophic, and there is absolutely no justification for adding this risk to our lives.

Metchosin (Victoria)BC
MakenaRose

I am very concerned abou Fortis BC's proposed LNG project.

I do not believe that a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks has been done, or that a clear disaster response plan has been formed in Wespac's proposal. I also believe that the full extent of the development that would be needed to support such a project has not been properly examined, nor have the potential impacts of this project, both local and global.

The Salish Sea is a valuable and diverse ecosystem, and plays a vital role in keeping our coastal community stable. The earth as a whole provides everything we need to survive. I believe that the proposed LNG project would result in considerable damage to the systems which sustain us, and any environmental assessment should take all of these potential impacts into account.

I am requesting a full assessment be done in the interests and safety of all citizens in BC, as this project would directly affect every aspect of each of our lives.

VancouverBC
DouglasLaird

Cooling for LNG is energy intensive. The plans to deal with the cooling water and the subsequent warming would place a risk of an aquatic thermal barrier to the surrounding ocean waters, which would place a stress on the marine environment. LNG ships are volatile due to the extreme cold required to contain the gas, however the tankers are registered offshore to avoid "world class spill containment" offered as a assurance. NEB is a sham as it has no real connection to the industry that would result in fixing these problems.

VictoriaBC
LeonaRothney

The Fraser River is not the place for huge oil tankers. There are many tugs with log booms on the river which could be a disaster waiting to happen with the mix of oil tankers. If there was an oil spill in the river this would be a huge catastrophe and how could it possibly be cleaned up? There are many people living residential areas all along the Fraser River and this will have a huge negative impact. The river is also a salmon habitat.

If fracking were to take place this could cause earthquakes. Do not destroy more natural habitat due to fracking and building dams for natural gas. Save our land and protect our water.

We don't need more ocean going vessels carrying dangerous cargo up and down the west coast. The west coast waterways are extremely dangerous. Endangered sea life such as whales need to be protected..

VancouverBC
AnthonyPopov

I am 19 years old! I want to ensure my kids and grandchildren can enjoy the banks of the fraser river! This is a step back on how to preserve the environment for future generations

surreyBC
ErikaSimms

As a resident of Richmond BC who lives in the Hazard zone of the proposed Fraser River LNG tanker route, I am very concerned for the safety of my family and my community. I would like to see a proper environmental assessment done by an independent organization, so that Wespac, Fortis and the Government are aware of all the implications of this project.
It is not enough to say that the impact of the plant only affects a few people. If an LNG boat were to have a small leak or to not negotiate the river properly it could be devastating for all surrounding the communities, including many businesses and farms that grow food. Also,there are many environmentally sensitive areas such as Sturgeon Bank and Roberts Bank at the mouth of the river which is only one part of the river.
Once again, I am asking that a proper environment assessment (by an independent organization) takes place before considering moving forward with this and other LNG projects.

RichmondBC
LauraBrakke

Please, please consider the effects of this project on one of the biggest remaining Sockeye Salmon runs in the World.

You need to study the effects of these transiting barges and ships on the fish as they compete for space and clean water to journey to spawning grounds, and the young salmon as they venture out to their journey to the Pacific Ocean. These large ships propellers can chew up salmon, they disturb the ground sediment, the ships dump water out of various holds and wash down pumps. The ships can bring invasive species in ballast water, on hulls, and in other cargo.

The effects of a potential spill can not be mitigated, cleaned up, or prevented entirely. This study must look at the costs to keep and maintain equipment and crews that can be readily available 24/7. This cost must be paid by the Company proposing this disaster waiting to happen.

This study must look at the benefits and risks, and who in the end reaps the profits and who will bear the burden when the environment of this River is forever degraded.

This study can not just limit the vision to in river effects on fish and other Marine wildlife, you must look at the whole transit lanes. The Salish sea is home to numerous living things, just to name a few: Orca, Golden Eye, Bufflehead, Blue Heron, Herring, Ground fish... the list is too numerous for me to list, that is for the team devising this study.

How will the increased shipping effect migration patterns, temperature of waters, and numbers of specific species. Therefore, this study must include a baseline monitoring study of all species that call the area from terminal to destination home, and thus depend on clean cool waters unaltered by destructive Human activity.

Thank you for including these items in the future study.

BellinghamWA
SusanHooper

These impacts need to be covered in the environmental assessment:
1) Impact of fracking to supply the LNG terminal on climate change and BC's ability to meet carbon reduction goals
2) Impact of fracking to supply the LNG terminal on our water and food supply
3) Impact of fracking to local communities and the environment
4) Sustainability - will future generations benefit from this or just be left to clean up the mess?
5) Economic feasibility - there is a worldwide surplus of natural gas. Will the economic benefits to the citizens of BC justify the mass investment of tax dollars for subsidies and infrastructure costs?

New WestminsterBC
DianeCorbett

The proponent needs to develop a comprehensive assessment of public safety risks at the proposed site of the plant and along the entire tanker route, applying existing international standards.

The proponent must present a comprehensive disaster response plan, for the site and for the length of the tanker route along the Fraser River.

The proponent must assess project impacts on property values along the entire tanker route.

The proponent must clearly identify social and health impacts along the tanker route and in the vicinity of the proposed site of operations.

The proponent must clearly lay out the total environmental impacts of the liquified fracked gas operations from well-head to consumer. This would include impacts on water resources. This should also include a description of how this proposed project supports BC climate action initiatives and international agreements around climate change (Dec 2015).

The proponent should clearly identify potential impacts of the proposal on agricultural land and farm operations in Delta.

The proponent should fully describe how the project would be of benefit to the public in economic, social and environmental terms.

A federal Environmental Assessment should also be conducted in light of the current BC government's ego being wedded to the development of the LNG industry, as demonstrated in its green light approval of the EA for the Woodfibre LNG proposal in Howe Sound in spite of huge public concern and opposition (as noted in the hundreds of public submissions on the EA) and opposition by all surrounding municipal and regional governments along the tanker route.

GibsonsBC
TimMatheson

Looking to places in the world who have been engaged with fracking and LNG it seems reasonable to ask if the industry has a place Anywhere. We are transitioning away from fossil fuels and should not invest in them further. Let's stop Before we ruin our environment instead of after. The Fraser River may not be pristine wilderness but it does support life and we could improve its health rather than writing it off.

VancouverBC
JanicePhelan

With all the obvious real concerns about climate change, BC is an embarassment to the world with it's support and expansion of fracking for LNG, poluting the environment with methane, damaging the future of our children, destroying our own beautiful and fragile environment.
I am ashamed that this may go forward. Ashamed at the Clark government for promoting LNG and not renewable energy.
Disgusted would describe it better.
Asia has the responsibility of evolving it's own renewable energy sources and getting itself off coal and oil, to pretend we are "helping" is a lie.
It's all about the money at the expense of the environment.

Garibaldi HighlandsBC
EdidePencier

The fracking in this sensitive area is so fraught with danger that it is unbelievable that it would even be considered. The tankers and pipelines are going to be ecological disaster worse than the Exxon Valdez and without the excuse that we didn't know. We do know. Without an honest environment impact study this volatile project, which doesn't bring enough benefit to outweigh the costs and not go forward

SurreyBC
DoranJurca

There are many reasons why we should be concerned about this. Not only can it affect us in the short term but along with it can come some very serious long term issues, most of which are irreversible. The thing that concerns me the most today is the environment and why no one is doing anything to look out for it. We have habitat loss on a major scale, poisoning of waters and mass losses of species. These are only a few of the reasons why this is important to me.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

A local high school student.

North VancouverBC
LarrySmallwood

The Climate Change wake-up-bell is sounding loud and clear. It's time to apply the brakes to carbon-based fuels no matter how addicted we are to their use...the threat to our environment is imminent. Stop.

GibsonsBC
BarbaraWayte

With regards to the Pais talks on Change Change, we as a province need to
do an unbiased study on all effects of LNG. From fracking to shipping.
The Environment should be the most important questions on any study.

DeltaBC
GrahamMulligan

upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values; and
downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

SurreyBC
rayMcAuley

Having worked on the river for a short period of time I am astounded at having huge LNG tankers running the river. There is already mass traffic on a daily basis in and out of the multiple docks and businesses located all alone the river banks. Then there are the recreational users which seem to increase each year as the surrounding municipalities grow in density. There are public walks and trails all along the banks also. To place a terminal in the midst of this is lunacy in my humble opinion. It will only take on accident to create untold suffering for the whole region, no matter how safe the stake holders say it is. We have seen in other industrial accidents that the powers that be have said they have safety at the forefront of any thing being done, until it happens then the people are left to clean up the mess. NO thankyou . I dont know for sure but I am under the impression that these LNG Tankers are not to be operated with areas that are heavily populated according to international shipping rules.

SurreyBC
Mr. RafeSunshine

LNG when burnt in other countries directly contributes to GHG emissions which is against the Canadian goal of GHG emission reductions to prevent global warming. Without this consideration by the Environmental Assessment of fracking and its adverse effects on groundwater by its chemical contamination, methane releases at the wellheads and earthquakes associated with the fracking process as well as the devastation of any LNG tanker blowing up in the surrounding urban areas, the LNG industry is the contributor of global climate change and NOT the solution. Only sustainable alternative energy technologies developed in BC can prevent the rise in CO2 emissions of BC's goals in GHG reductions.

VictoriaBC
JimMaher

The time for fossil fuel investment has passed. Be true leaders that our grandchildren can look back on with honour and respect, as opposed to leaders that sold their futire literally up the river for profit and greed.

EdmontonAB
RachelForbes

I believe the EA should accept submissions from all interested parties and consider in its recommendation the following:
* Aboriginal rights and title to both the land and fresh and salt water areas impacted;
* cumulative impacts of current and proposed industrial and commercial development in the lower Fraser Valley and throughout the Salish Sea and Georgia Strait;
* upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
* local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and small cumulative leaks from the pipeline and ships; and
* downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

VancouverBC
LoriUselman

I am concerned about methane gas, and the greenhouse effect as well as other toxins released into the air and water causing cancer and other illnesses. Increased vessel traffic effecting whales and other wild life. Fracking can also effect drinking water and use up massive amounts of energy. We are supposed to be moving away from fossil fuels!! This is not going to make us rich, only LNG! We have so much more to lose and they don't care if we get sick or destroy our environment in the process. It's all about money!!! Tourism brings in more money!! We don't need them!

surreyBC
JanWade

This plan is a bad one in every sense of the word....

VancouverBC
DavidPerk

As a citizen of the United States I respectfully request that your Environmental Assessment include an analysis of the impacts of LNG export shipping on the natural environment, endangered species, tribal fisheries and maritime traffic in the waters of the Salish Sea, including the Haro Strait and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

As I hope you are aware, there are numerous proposals for coal and oil export facilities on the coast of Washington State, some of which have the potential to dramatically increase the quantity and frequency of large transport vessels.

Given the risk to the environment and maritime safety this increase in vessel traffic represents, I expect your assessment to quantify all potential vessel traffic, model their interactions and outline potential mitigations, including vessel quotas and restrictions on the number, frequency and timing of vessel traffic. I also expect impacts to tribal fisheries and endangered species such as the resident orca population to be enumerated, and potential mitigations outlined.

The Salish Sea is a priceless natural resource already under stress from human use. I hope you will agree with me that as stewards of this environment for future generations it is incumbent upon us to act responsibly and with great care for its preservation.

SeattleWA
KOLLYHILL DAVIE

In my humble opinion, I think that some of the considerations should include: the effect on the health of the Fraser River with respect to the salmon. B.C. and the Federal governments have spent much money and many hours cleaning up the foreshore of the Fraser River and it seems incredulous that our present B.C. government wants to turn back the clock and undo all that work to favour one interest group...one industry! We need a good, healthy wild salmon run...keep the Fraser clean!
The next consideration is the damage to our earth caused by the fracking process to extract the gas. Over and over it is shown to cause earthquakes. Thirdly, I believe the salinity of the Fraser River will alter when the Massey Tunnel is removed in favour of, what I believe is another foolish project, the very high bridge that needs to built to accommodate the LNG tankers, thus causing possible irrigation problems for farmers in Delta.
There may not have been an accident yet, but that is not assurance that it cannot happen.

DELTABC
LorellGingrich

To Whom it may concern,

I was born in the Vancouver General Hospital, and apart from living in Alberta for about 12 years, I have lived in the Lower Mainland my whole life. If there is one thing that BC has in abundance, it is beautiful water - a delicate resource that continues to be in jeopardy with industrial projects.
This LNG project threatens not only the water systems in BC, but also the very air we breathe. To say that jobs will be created is so deceitful, especially when one considers that foreign workers are slated to be on this project and the amount of damage that will result could perhaps be what the "jobs" will be about - 100s of volunteer jobs to clean up the mess left behind.
It's taken me too long to realize that corporations never create jobs, but rather, they destroy communities and existing businesses. Fracking is a disastrous idea. It takes clean water and contaminates it - in gigantic amounts.
Please, please, please - stop believing the lies coming from these corporate hustlers. This is an insane project.
Solar and wind power are the way we have to go. Fossil fuel is not. I realize that I enjoy a good quality of life as a result of oil and gas, but the time has come to transition to something that doesn't contaminate water and destroy land.
Stop this project! And - stop killing wolves. It is these gas wells that are killing off the caribou, not wolves, and ultimately these poisonous projects will kill off all of us.

CoquitlamBC
BrunoVernier

in light of the COP21 accord and concomitant carbon decreasing commitments,
of the massive shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy which has begun,
of the now-demonstrably green-washed arguments in favour of LNG,
of the decreasing economic viability of fracking,
of the significant risk of catastrophe (terrorist or environmental) of an LNG port,
of the will of the majority to invest in proper renewable energy projects and jobs,
of the many unhappy side-effects on local estuary life,
of the planned parallel projects' (site C, Massey Bridge) nasty effects on the ALR,
of the huge cost to the taxpayer and ongoing large subsidies to the polluters,
please count me opposed to this project.

RichmondBC
Glen Andersen

I live adjacent to the Fraser River and thus have a good sense of the scope of daily shipping traffic upriver to ports in Richmond, New Westminster and Surrey. So far, none of it is especially offensive. THis new proposal changes all that. The proposal to ship Liquid Natural Gas from beyond the current Massey Tunnel is crazy. And all proponents for the project, if it should be considered at all eligible to reach the point of a review phase by a gov't environmental assessment team should be thoroughly, collectively and equally responsible for any risks, as a group, ie, that each is responsible to the others. At a time when we really need to stabilize the available fertile growing land and ensure the future health of our migrating fresh water fish, this proposal is not suited to this location. No amount of risk insurance or legal wrangling on the part of any of the proponents is worth it. If we suddenly, for whatever reason (natural or human caused) had to provide the majority of our food only from local sources, this project would compromise that. Right now its possible (though not thoroughly maximized). After this project goes ahead, that potential is seriously hindered.
Why is the provincial government working on the side of big multinational petro-chemical industries to make these proejcts happen, without adequate PUBLIC consultation, when it should be representing the interests of the health and safety of its citizens? The profits and job creation potential stemming from the LNG industry are of little impact to the average person in BC, not even from a government tax revenue perspective, yet the public is effectively shouldering all the actual risk. LNG is not the panacea to the deepening energy crisis, or provincial budgets. New sustainable forms of energy are. Big corporations can walk away, fold, go bankrupt, defend themselves in court against environmental claims while an environmental disaster kills habitat and soil, elect new CEO's and they are not people. None of the legal recourses that governments or Corporations take can bring back our health, soil and salmon. The salmon are not even ours to be casual about. They are their own entity and were here long before us. We were dependent on them, not the other way around. It is in our interest as a society to keep that relationship intact, compromised as it presently is.

The number one and two concerns I have (and there are many more), in no particular order, are:
-The jeopardizing of Fraser River Salmon runs, which number several species at different times of the year, in both directions -a reliable food source for milleniia into the future and not ours to mess with.
-The loss of and potential damage to local farmland caused by
A) potential leakage, EMF radiation from hydro lines affecting food quality and human and animal (ecosystem) health
B) usurpment of farmland for building unnecessary bridges & dockland

RichmondBC
susanhodges

Where is the natural gas going to come from to be cooled and condensed? How is it going to arrive in Delta? By tanker or pipieline or truck? Is there room to store it at Fortis BC's current LNG facility? Will they need a huge expansion? What about light pollution on a 24x7 operation with impacts on our migratory birds that traverse over 20 countries, to which we have a signed Intl Migratory Bird Agreement? I suspect there is much more development than is being whispered by Wespac that it is imperative to be considered. As in our big brother next door, the USA, their EA must consider the entire impact and cumulative effects, ours need to be just as rigorous. Otherwise it is a watered down piecemeal approach which is misleading, manipulative and deceitful in the extreme.
Is the location viable? From my understanding of current international standards, for example the Society for International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators, SIGTTO, there has been no thought to any of these guidelines. For example: “Short approach channels are preferable to long inshore routes which carry more numerous hazards.”
The long narrow winding route along the Fraser is the opposite of what is in the guideline.
“Essential design for a safe jetty: find a location suitably distant from centres of population.”
Well, the population nearby Silver City on the Richmond side of the Fraser River at the townhouse complex being only 200m away, also the workers at Tilbury Island, the Industrial Park near River Road and recreational users at Deas Island Park have all been disappeared without due consideration.
“Traffic separation schemes should be established in approach routes covering many miles.”
The current navigation channel of the Fraser River , allows for 2-way vessel traffic. It is only 500 m wide. LNG tanker exclusion zones adopted by the USCG call for 500 m clearance around LNG tankers in all directions. Many different boats, vessels use the Fraser river. From recreational to working tugs and large freighters it is a busy and at times congested body of water. There is not enough room if following the guidelines for an LNG tanker on this part of the Fraser.
It appears that not a single guideline has been considered for the site location. It violates, population distance, the marine route and marine waterway. Do we not have to first have a safe and isolated location. Apparently not with this proposal.
Then there is the question of safety. Any accident or intentional malfunction such as a terrorist act would endanger thousands of lives. This needs its own independent EA with a Disaster response plan. The piecemeal approach on the EA proposed by WESPAC does not do justice to the complete risk and impact.
Given the extreme navigation, tight and congested waterway, extremely poor location the proposal needs to be rejected.
However the further impacts of possibly 2,000 wells to be drilled in BC, with the associated Fracking and escaped greenhouse gas of methane in processing are highly cumulative and need to be accounted for.
The immense need for electricity, equivalent to a Site C Dam, although the location is next door to Fortis, how will that be handled?
The impacts of the use of 17,000 MT of water per hour, every hour, of every day, throughout the life of the plant, only to be discharged at TEN degrees warmer back into the river are not accounted for. We do not have the billions of litres of water for waste that this will cause. The EA needs all of these to be in there.
Then there is the question of loading on to the huge tankers. It has been widely stated once the LNG is on the tankers, then the responsibility is removed from Wespac. Well, just as the oil spill in the summer of this year, 2015 into Vancouver Harbour we will be chasing down roque companies to extract payment.
The WHALES: Billions of litres of heated water, huge tankers, noise, leaves no room for whales. I fear their existence will be for a very limited time.
The amount of LNG Wespac wants to produce demands a huge expansion of Fortis site next door. Altso the impacts on birds and wildlife of huge power lines and the impacts on farmland.
Just not even one month after COP21 and all countries in agreement, although much work to be done, it is premature to even be contemplating a project on such a massively huge scale with impacts that have not even been considered in the EA. It is like taking out a loan without considering the interest to be incurred. Or robbing our future of its natural resources.
It is reckless, irresponsible, piecemeal, manipulative and must be immediately rectified.

deltaBC
JoanneEriksson

Not only is it totally untrue that there has never been an accident with LNG, but it is unacceptable to have this facility in such a populated area. And, as I understand it, the company's disaster response plan is inadequate. Also, LNG is touted as being low carbon, when in actual fact, release of methane, a much more potent gas than carbon dioxide, is underestimated. That does not take into account the tremendous amounts of electricity to cool and condense the gas. Will that electricity be obtained by burning more natural gas or by building more dams like the Site C dam? Given that a direct causal link between fracking and earthquakes has been established, would this be a good idea to have yet another dam in a fracking region? All in all, this proposal has not adequately addressed what should be major environmental concerns.

Campbell RiverBC
Leanne Currie

No to LNG. No to freighters up the Fraser river. No to decisions made without studies on environmental impact or regard for farming. I do not support the provincial governments railroading tactics.

Richmond BC
JohnFoster

Hello,
Questions:
What would be the electric power demand for the proposed LNG plant?
How would it be provided for?
Does the plan include a gas fired electrical generation plant on site?
Where are the current electric supply lines to the site and what are their capacity?
What are the alternative routes for new electric lines to the area, and what is the current land use for these routes?
What is the current maximum capacity of the natural gas pipeline to the site?
What would be the maximum capacity of the plant at it's largest fully built-out option (last phase)?
What would be the minimum capacity of the plant being considered (first phase)?

What are the potential impacts of a terrorist attack on the plant to the surrounding communities, and surrounding environment?
What are the potential impacts to the surrounding communities and environment of a tanker refrigeration failure or spill while docked?
What is the detailed disaster response plan?
What size is the evacuation area in the event of spill or terrorist attacks?
What would be the impact of the large increase of shipping traffic on local property values?
What total estimated increase in atmospheric methane release would be attributable to the increased fracking to supply this plant?
What would the impact be of the increased shipping traffic on marine life?
What would the total annual tonnage of CO2 created by burning the LNG produced at the plant?

VancouverBC
JohnAdams

LNG is already a dying industry. Let's not waste taxpayer's dollars and, more importantly, the health and safety of the Fraser and all of its inhabitants (human and animal) on a fading pipedream of the Clark government. It's unsafe and unsound -- there are much better ways of moving BC into a new energy future.

North VancouverBC
EDWARD JUSTINLEE

To approve a FRASER River LNG project would be akin to approving the setup of a Made In BC EXXON VALDIZ Disaster.

VANCOUVERBC
LynneWheeler

I am deeply concerned about LNG on the Fraser River. This is a huge salmon Spawning rive and an accident on this river could be catastrophic to salmon populations. I am also concerned about public safety. A terrorist attack could kill thousands if the gas exploded. Where will the electricity for this project come from? The people of BC will already be burdened by the cost of the Site C dam. Water is a precious resource that the BC government seems oblivious to. Billions of litres of water will be used in the fracking process with a high potential for aquifers to be contaminated. Farmland is another vital resource and farmland will be destroyed if this project is allowed to proceed. Another critical element to consider is climate change. The fracking process causes tons of methane gas to be burned. Methane gas is 20 times more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2. In a world ith an uncertain future facing our children, we should be doing everything we can to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We are nature. Please do not approve this terrible project.

Fanny BayBC
HilaryKnight

Nothing about this proposal makes environmental or fiscal sense. It's time for BC to drag itself out of fifties Socred mega-project mentality and find ways to live within our environmental means. Time to grow up, folks.

Victoria, British ColumbiaBC
MarinaSzijarto

The Fraser River is our heritage and and our legacy to future generations - not only for future children, but also for all the diversity of plants, wildlife, birds and fish that the Fraser river is 'home' to.
The idea of having large tankers with toxic substances using this river is not only insane on every level but is morally bankrupt for all the people who make their living from the Fraser, the farmers who's water and land would be possibly contaminated and of course for the natural habitat. It is a food security issue as well as safety issue for Richmond and Delta inhabitants.
Once we loose a landscape and ecorange such as this, it is gone...no matter what ideas we are told re the 'clean up' for the inevitable spill that will one day happen. I urge you to please not let this happen - our fragile ecosystem needs all the help we can give it...not backwards thinking like shipping hazardous liquids on an important local resource - the mighty Fraser River.

Richmond BC
BeverleyMcKeen

What kind of research into the effects of Electro Magnetic Fields will be part of the environmental assessment criteria?

What is the response plan in the event of human error, malfunction, accident or disaster, natural or otherwise at the LNG terminal or on a tanker?

Has the provincial government studied the long term impacts of hydraulic fracturing, drilling or leakage of methane and the deleterious effects on humans, animals and vegetation? Does the province see the economic value as superior to the risks involved?

DuncanBC
AndreaLee

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. This piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or terrorist attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate destruction — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, within 200m of waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: orca whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered orca whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

RichmondBC
Kathleen Somerville

The Environmental assessment for Wespac Midstream to build an LNG export terminal in Delta, British Columbia must be thorough , it must take into consideration the face that Fracking has now been proven to cause earthquakes and pollutes water tables, Our air and water are too valuable to put at risk.

The potential for accidents is too great to have LNG tankers on the Fraser River, within 200m of waterfront residential developments in Richmond.

The impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea will negatively affect endangered killer whales.

The climate impact of exporting and burning more fossil fuels can not be overlooked.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

New WestminsterBC
Lynter Borg

LNG shipping on the south arm of the Fraser River should not be allowed. Highly volatile cargo passing within a river system bounded by human habitation is too risky for human life when also considering the compounding effects for potential catastrophic accidents especially with two other highly dangerous cargos also being proposed to be shipped down river (thermal coal and aviation fuel). These three new proposals for the South Fraser should not be considered in isolation of each other nor first to the post. One commodity should not be approved in isolation of the whole dynamics of all three proposals on the river system. Agriculture, fisheries, forestry, recreation are all valid competing interests and their interests must also be quantified in the whole analysis. Side bank erosion and degradation of this very narrow waterway for super large tankers is most worrisome when the amount of tanker traffic is multiplied threefold with these three different resource proposals. More science is needed to describe the effects these changes to river use will have on the health of the many salmon runs that use the south arm of the Fraser River as their highway home. They are surfacing and fished at the surface gillnet line level. Shipping noise, tanker traffic, wave actions, continual dredging are not compatible with the annual migration. The Americans have a bilateral treaty sharing the fisheries and this degradation of the fish pathway to spawning can have a very expensive impact on the economics administrated by the International Pacific Salmon Commission and how much the Americans may be owed for previously saving and restoring the returning salmon. The farmers also need to study the effects dredging will have on the quality of the river water for their irrigation needs and the detrimental potential that could exist for increases to salinity. The public needs to see the whole picture...to see the long range planning proposed by the Port and also for vehicle transportation routes linking the whole lower mainland port infrastructure. (including the main Vancouver Port in Burrard Inlet, the Delta Port at Tilbury, the LNG and coal facilities at Tilbury and Roberts Bank). Dealing with the effects of the exponential industrialization growth proposed for of the south Fraser River is too important to not consider the interrelationship of all parts not just this proposal for a LNG distribution hub. What is the master plan? The economics and world prices do not support this proposal. The Climate change initiatives signed globally do not support this proposal and the people residing in the Lower Mainland do not support an international port developing in an urban setting on a narrow river artery. Lastly the depth. breathe, and length of dredging required has not been defined, measured, or disclosed. Where and how is this continual dredging material going to be environmentally disposed? And it will need continual dredging from the mouth at the lighthouse right up to Gravesend. Please stop, study and disclose before moving forward. The south arm of the Fraser River is too narrow to support this vision of LNG, thermal coal and aviation fuel tankers arriving, turning around. and departing without error.

RichmondBC
CherylCameron

I am extremely concerned that the scope of the evaluation of this project does not include upstream and downstream climate effects. Our federal government has just committed to ambitious climate targets - we can not be looking at energy-intensive projects like this without evaluating the total emissions: from the fracking fields right though to the end use of the reconstituted natural gas. Enabling profit taking by a few corporate entities in the short-term, in the absence of a holistic evaluation of the entire operation, and indeed the entire proposed LNG industry in B.C. is shortsighted and misguided. The air, land and water at risk does not belong to those corporate entities - it belongs to the people who reside in the affected areas, and putting it at risk is not acceptable. This project does not have, and will never have, social license because the risks to marine life, to air quality, to human safety, and the inherent exacerbation of climate change - are unacceptable.

West VancouverBC
tamikosuzuki

My concern is that exporting LNG will mean more fracking in northeastern BC. This means more methane escaping which is much more of a greenhouse gas than C02. It also means using enormous amounts of water and irreversibly poisoning it rendering it useless for people, agriculture and wildlife.
Water and climate change. How can these two things not be taken into consideration in an EA?

vancouverBC
JasonBenson

Yeah, we'll match the goals set in Paris this month... Juuuuust after this one last thing

VancouBC
DonnaWalker

I have many concerns about LNG on the Fraser River.
My most worrisome concern is that good crop growing farmland would be turned into pipelines and power lines, how is this good for ALL people in our province?
It is short sighted and will be destructive in the long run - big money for a few people, environmental damage for all of us.
We already know that fracking destroys land. We know that earthquakes and toxic water are created by this procedure.
This must stop! This government speaks for corporate power
only. They need to put these issues clearly on the table so everyone knows what is at stake.

White RockBC
WilliamWinder

Since the Paris climate conference, no one can legitimately argue that there is any economic justification for LNG development. As well, there is clearly a moral imperative to put a moratorium on fossil fuel development.

Studies are beginning to show that the LNG industry is incredibly destructive to our environment. Just as clearly, LNG is a mirage for economic development: the same mirage that gave us the catastrophic tar sands development. The fact that BC has learned nothing from Alberta's ghastly economic and environmental record is a sad statement on our present leadership. Why would BC repeat the Albertan catastrophe when the worldwide trend away from fossil fuels is so evident?

Do not sacrifice BC's environment, which continues to offer sustainable jobs, simply because a morally contemptible lobby of fossil fuel companies are undermining public debate and public accountability. These companies will be forced to pay a price for polluting our land and water. They will go bankrupt, and with them anyone who supports them.

VancouverBC
LucasWallace

A Word About Fracked Gas in British Columbia

The expansion of the fracked gas economy in British Columbia is concerning for many reasons. Simplest is the fact that burning methane as a fuel source is only adding to the already destructive process that is climate change. Expanding another fossil fuel industry is honestly the very last thing that any government or group of people should be considering. That's the big picture, ya know fracking+burning gas = emissions = climate change. Our federal government just publicly committed to lowering our national emissions to meet a 1.5 degree maximum global temperature increase. That cannot be accomplished while expanding fracking and LNG exports in BC.

Honestly, the rest of the things that I'm going to talk about shouldn't actually even matter given the total emissions produced through fracking and LNG consumption. A couple huge things that also need to be considered in the EA for the Wepac project on the Fraser river --

1. Creating an export facility on the Fraser river would contribute to increased fracking and drilling in NorthEast British Columbia - emissions from leaks in the fracking process are enormous and should be considered partially the responsibility of Wespac and their facility. Harsh lists of chemicals, poisoning ground water. Evacuation plans for schools in case of a blowout. When we propose an export facility like Wespac we are at the same time condoning the fracking process and its impacts. There must be a lens of interconnectedness when assessing the environmental impacts of a project like this. You cannot just focus on localized Fraser River impacts - every scale of impacts must be considered, from micro to global.

2. Tanker noise. I am 22 years old and have spent my entire life within 5 kilometres of the coastline. What makes this place paradise is all the wildlife. Eagles, bears, salmon. We are wealthy in nature. Most special to me are the Orca whales. Our home pod of whales almost went extinct but then everyone got together and decided that the whales were important and we took steps to help them. Now the population is growing: It's still quite small but there are new calves every couple months. Putting an export facility and running super tankers in and out of the Salish Sea would have a destructive effect on the whales as they rely heavily on sound to communicate and navigate. The deafening noise of a tanker makes it impossible for the whales to hunt or communicate. The issue of tanker noise and whales populations must be considered in Wespac's EA.

Now I'm all for peace and for fighting with words
But if you ain't gonna listen then you're gonna get burned
I am a non violent anti-petroleum man
in my non violent anti petroleum band
If you care to join in we'll sing it louder than most
you stay outta my rivers get the hell off my coast

Cause I ain't goin' nowhere

Now I've told you once and i'll tell you again
Sooner or later this is all gonna end
With you packing up your things, leaving this town
And all that'll be left will be your little holes in the ground
And I'll fill em' in it's the least I could do
Thinking I'll plant a couple cedars maybe a spruce or two

Cause I ain't goin nowhere

Now I've had enough of your inconsiderate ways
Your twisted words and all the slithery things that you say
So come down from your castle way up in the sky
Put your feet in the dirt and lets look eye to eye
If you don't I'll build a ladder of all the people I've met
Come up and teach y'all a lesson you won't ever forget

I ain't going nowhere

Vancouver BC
Dorrance`Woodward

I do not support development of an LNG liquefaction plant in the Fraser River delta. The reasons are listed below:
1) this is a salmon river: it needs to be fixed and cleaned not threatened with more pollution, shipping traffic and more
2) LNG does not work out to be a better fuel source re GHG when the whole extraction process is included.
3) these projects are no longer economic, given the glut on the world market, and japan's return to nuclear power
4)the extraction and shipping phases threaten ecosystems and community health in the NE BC and on the coast, and this is not being acknowledged or managed properly.
5) we, as BC citizens will not be getting a good deal economically, and will be left with longterm debt and loss of biodiversity, damaged communities and parasitical transnational companies taking us to court if we resist their damaging practices within out environment.

BASICALLY IT'S NOT WORTH IT ON ANY LEVEL: in the short term or the long term: environmentally, economically, concerning risks to our safety, and negative impacts on community in NE BC,

Denman IslandBC
BernadetteKeenan

Please consider the impact on the Fraser River and do a cumulative environmental assessment taking into account the existing South Fraser Freeway as well as the development it has generated.

Salmon are suffering and with this expanded LNG facility, possibly the Kinder Morgan pipeline, plus the South Fraser Freeway and ensuing development, the impact on the ecosystem maybe too much for the salmon.

Also consider the following:

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or terrorist attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate destruction — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, within 200m of waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

SurreyBC
suewheeler

I am concerned about several areas of impact of the proposed development of an LNG facility in Delta:
1. Primarily, resultant increase in greenhouse gases and climate change which expanded use of natural gas will produce. We need to be serious about the Paris COP21 commitments, which means halting increased use of fossil fuels!
2. The effects of drilling and fracking on the areas where the gas would be produced.
3. The effects on Fraser Valley farmland of further industrial development-- some of the richest agricultural land in BC, and so close to urban areas that need the food.
4. The effects on marine life systems of increased ship traffic.

lasqueti islandBC
JoelUlmer

Get the frack out

LundBC
StephanieBraig

Aquatic Environmental Impact
The proposed LNG project is surrounded by riparian areas within the South Fraser River. The use of sea water for cooling will emit biocides and higher water temperatures, which results in a negative impact to the aquatic environment.
Any spill of LNG will immediately cause major intertidal destruction, due to the close proximity of the proposed plant. In the event of spill, large areas of habitat would be lost. As well as potentially causing majour environmental destruction, a spill would also be a huge danger to the surrounding communities.
The Fraser River is home to 2 billion juvenile salmon that utilize the estuary, along with many migrating birds that depend on these migration routes. The large LNG tankers that would have to navigate through these sensitive areas would impact fish from propeller noise and from the large drafts, which are beyond the capacity of the Fraser River.

Increase in Global GHG Emissions
The LNG project goes against BC's 33% emissions reduction target. In addition, the export of the LNG would also contribute to global increase of emissions, since some countries, such as Japan would also replace emission free nuclear energy.

VancouverBC
AislingChapman

I do not believe in developing any LNG pipelines or facilities in British Columbia, it is time for clean, renewable, sustainable energy development and solutions.

Port MoodyBC
Marion Smith

I am concerned about the impact of this project on the Fraser River, fish populations, adjacent farmland, and local residents. In addition, the replacement of the Massey Tunnel appears to be driven by the needs of large ships, not by the needs of commuters and/or truck transport in the region. It is an over-the-top expenditure that should be put to a vote by the taxpayers. The fact that the current provincial government has been caught triple-deleting emails in order to cover up their activities adds to the lack of confidence one has in the legitimacy of these proposals.

Richmond BC
KennyHall

The risks and impacts of an LNG terminal on our health, environment, and economy are so serious and damming, that I can't imagine we'll let this thing get built. It's a crime that they get built anywhere in the world, but they do. I learned that many of us live and work in the "definitely would die" zone if a passing tanker leaked LNG - anyone within 3.5km of a leak is in a high risk health and safety hazard zone, ranging from instant death to unknown impacts on property values (no exaggeration). Locating an LNG terminal in the Fraser River (a populated area and a high traffic sensitive marine habitat) would be disallowed according to international LNG siting guidelines that the BC government is ignoring. Furthermore, the business case for LNG exports is so weak, it almost guarantees failure. So this is a no-brainer.

RichmondBC
gordhomer

no lngin bc

furry creekBC
DukeMetchosin

Please reconsider this proposed project

VictoriaBC
JamesPawley

Read the COP212 Paris tea leaves. By the time these wells are dug, and th pipe laid, there will be no market for the gas.

Keep it in the ground!

Or answer to the Climate.

Prof.James Pawley

SecheltBC
TonyHoar

I agree that the concerns raised, 1 to 4, should be covered by the EA

mill bayBC
DeniseMcEwen

Plan on using alternative fuel sources. That's all. Think it through!

GibsonsBC
karenheaps

I am concerned about the upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values; and
downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

VancouverBC
LeoLevasseur

I am concerned about the upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project. I have heard of previous tracking projects that have been discovered to be responsible for earth tremors in the area. Considering we live in an area where they have been telling us "the big one" is coming, I am concerned about anything that might hasten that to happen.

BurnabyBC
DonaldAdams

Increased risk of earthquakes from fracking, toxins in the water table, increased greenhouse gas (methane)...NOT ACCEPTABLE!

VancouvetBC
MiyakoSawada

I don't trust the BC government to really look after the best interest of the people. Too many unresolved risks environmentally which the government is trying to ignore. There are other energy alternatives we should be considering seriously.

SurreyBC
RaeCarlson

Without going into a long preamble on this issue which I feel is unnecessary, would it not make more sense to pursue environmentally friendly renewable sources of energy. It is that simple. Jobs will be generated equally. Thank you. A voter..........

GabriolaBC
RaajChatterjee

To the BCEAO,

My name is Raaj Chatterjee, a Surrey resident and student at SFU. I am concerned about the Environmental Assessment of the Wespac LNG proposal. I believe that the EA should be tough and extensive. Firstly, it should consider the big picture, and this mean all the upstream environmental costs associated with the LNG terminal. This includes the environmental damage done by fracking, transporting the gas to Metro Vancouver, and methane that escapes. We must also consider operational costs which include high power usage in liquefying the gas. There is the safety issue of potential failure and ignition which must be mitigated. The project must analyze impact on property values nearby as well. Finally, impacts on local ecology and killer whales by increased tanker traffic must be extensively analyzed. The effects on climate change that methane leakage and emissions from burning natural gas have must also be considered before moving ahead with this project in any way.

SurreyBC
SandraCurrie

There is no reconciliation without justice. If the First Nations people are telling you that this is threatening their health and well being, then we better listen. Listen to the people who have lived here in harmony with nature for thousands of years. It is our greed, ignorance and duplicity that is causing untold damage to the environment. Think of the next seven generations like many of them do. Otherwise, you are perpetuating our shameful history.

VancouverBC
AlirezaKamyabi

As a fellow Vancouverite, I enjoy and take pride in the city's development and do my part to open the way for a better city to emerge. However, the proposed LNG Terminal in Delta, BC is not one of such developments. It's prospects are not great. It has serious environmental implications, short and long term, that far outweigh the benefits. The upstream and downstream regional impacts are very serious and suitable solutions have not been offered, and most likely won't be offered. We have to be doing our part to tackle climate change not mitigate its catastrophic effects. Therefore, I'd like to see a government mandate where the development does not go through until the EA includes a proper and thorough assessment of the increased drilling and fracking that takes place upstream and their devastating outcome on the province's green energy policy.

North VancouverBC
MARGARET HASHMI

Just not a good idea. Please, stop this!

You are doing fracking, and I thought you were smart in Canada.

BELLINGHAMWA
SharleneHarrison-Hinds

I am concerned about all the impacts -- local, provincial and national -- of our province's and our country's thirst for energy income. All activities, planning and execution and naturally, review, needs to be done by and only by people and organizations with clean hands and no profit motive from approving or moving projects forward. I lived in Texas and saw how the money convinced people to allow fracking in an urban neighborhood because of the Barnett Shale. Fracking is noisy, dirty, disruptive, destructive and dangerous. We are so blessed in BC, with beautiful, pristine waterways, abundant forests and wildlife -- why do we want to jeopardize ecosystems that have existed for thousands of years? To export LNG to foreign shores so that the countries that buy it from 'us' can take away more jobs from Canadians and sell us back cheaply made merchandise, that is produced under slave labour conditions? ENOUGH of prostituting our land, our water and our wildlife for the almighty dollar. We must leave generations that follow a healthy place to live and raise families == not a wasteland caused by greed and stupidity. Only clean hands should make these decisions, with pure and clean data and information from untainted sources that do not profit from the input or the decision.

HopeBC
ROBERT SDCHOWN

Greetings: Sunday, December 20, 2015
It seems to me that from 2015 onwards LNG production and export hardly does anything to reduce carbon emission on our fragile planet.
It is really difficult to even imagine the continued harm we will be doing to earth.
Money should be spent on hastening alternatives, not creating more of the same.

VANCOUVERBC
TimYzerman

Will the BCEAO consider impacts of upstream greenhouse gas (GHG )emissions of escaping methane, impacts of new pipelines feeding the plant, impacts to farmland in Delta, water use impacts both in the cooling process and upstream fracking? Will downstream GHG impacts of burning the gas be considered?

SurreyBC
YvonneFarry

I won't belabour the reasons why I think it is not a project in our best interests as the reasons are clearly outlined by a person who is obviously knowledgable about the LNG projects..from impact to marine life ...let alone potential impact to human in case of mentioned" possible risks"
I feel there is too much perceived pressure from companies with all to gain..not enough safeguards in place.

SidneyBC
FrankMartens

What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels?

SummerlandBC
ToryRussell

There is only one climate. Humans need to change their impacts on the climate. We need to consider the climate in all our energy decisions.

LNG is a dirty fossil fuel, when full life cycle, from extraction to exhaust, is considered. LNG is not easy to handle - it's complicated to store and transport this fuel, and it all requires alot of energy.

Climate change requires we reduce our dependence on these carbon intensive fuels, moving more LNG through the Fraser River does the opposite.

COP21 requires us to take responsibility, and do our part. The full carbon footprint of LNG should be part of the environmental assessment prior to any permitting the building of more export capacity.

Farmland that can grow food should not be sacrificed for a fuel that does not make economic or environmental sense.

WhitehorseYK
DorothyField

I am opposed to LNG in general. Fracking has been proven to be the cause of recent seismic events. We haven't had a really big one yet, but we will. The process of fracking will add greatly to our carbon and methane emissions, just at a time when we need to curb them. The market isn't there. We've already missed the boat. The cost of building the Site C dam is quoted as 9 billion but it will end up in the double digits. This is money we should be putting into new green technology, not old dam technology which is not green. Site C and the LNG industry are in contravention of Treaty 8. First Nations in the NE and around Vancouver oppose these plans. The federal government has promised a new era of real nation to nation negotiation. This plan ignores that.

As for this specific proposal, I fear for the health and safety of endangered killer whales.

We must seriously do our part in addressing climate change and in reducing our carbon footprint. This proposal does neither.

VictoriaBC
GloriaBeshara

I would ask members of this government to consider how they would like to be remembered in history. On this path, they will be judged as short-sighted and narcissistic, pushing through LNG to help their friends gain money and power regardless of the immediate and long-term environmental, economic and health costs. But would a narcissist care about any of that? Will Christy Clark care? This route is thoughtless, unethical, and based on faulty understanding of its long-term implications. They will NOT be remembered as leaders who brought sustainable, innovative, profitable energy online. Change course and be real leaders, not leeches.

Lindell BeachBC
PamelaLee

The Fraser River Estuary is an internationally recognized RAMSAR site which, by international law, protects the nesting and resting places for the 5 million birds of the Pacific Flyway. Canada is one of 20 countries on the Flyway, which stretches from the Arctic to Patagonia. Some birds, such as the Arctic Tern, rest in only 4 places in the world. Delta is one of them. Unlike other countries, BC has not put aside land as sanctuary for these birds. The US, for example, has done so: San Francisco has put aside 30,000 acres, and Alaska, 300,000 acres. Delta? Zero. The LNG proposal is a clear threat to their survival. This is a concern of international scope and legal concern, and various societies and governments of the Western Hemisphere are being apprised of such a proposed activity in a RAMSAR area. The EAO must include the Pacific Flyway in the assessment. Inclusion of, or failure to include, the RAMSAR protocols will be reported.

DeltaBC
PatrickKennedy

I believe these areas should be included in the Environmental Assessment . Salmon habitat , climate impacts , tanker traffic and its effect on tourism and island livelihoods , off-gassing of methane if LNG is burned on site for liquefaction , cross-province pipeline expansion, and, oh yeah, the fracking expansion this will allow.

Salt Spring Island BC
ScottJeffery

Demanding a full environmental of upstream and downstream impacts.

Also full risk analysis of LNG export facility and transport in a residential area along the Fraser River. What are the minimum setbacks from the transport corridor?

NelsonBC
Michael Marcoux

It's outrageous that we are even considering fracking when we know that it will pollute our water and air at a time when we should be developing alternative clean green energy. Why are we wasting our efforts on environment destroying outmoded energy sources?

Vancouver BC
BarbaraWard

We the citizens of Vancouver demand that a responsible comprehensive feasibility study be conducted independent of any party who stands to profit from Wespac's proposed development. We are tired of corporate greed winning out again and again....over the welfare of the environment and every one who living close by who would be the most adversely impacted. It is time we rearrange our priorities following all the gestures towards responsible green energy developments agreed upon in Paris. We need government officials to start standing up for the public's best interest, not the share holders!.....and restore our faith in our government's and law officials pledge
to "serve and protect" the public's best interest; the ones who pay their salaries; not the corporate shareholders best interest!

Vancouver BC
PaulCraik

The Canadian and BC Environmental Assessments for Wespac Midstream's proposed Tilbury Island LNG terminal in Delta should include the following:

1) Upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project as well as the building of new dams such as Site C to provide electricity to cool and condense natural gas for export. Wespac's EA outline does not address this.

2) Local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values;

3) Downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when the LNG is burned at destination.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

VancouverBC
LynnWilbur

We must leave most of the remainder of fossil fuels in the ground and support a transition to renewables now, now not later.

SquamishBC
DavidChesney

To have a facility like this on the Fraser River is sheer madness. Is that clear enough?

White Rock, BC
GeraldineSchlichter

The EA needs a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks and a clear disaster plan that the public knows about. I am opposed to fracking as a method to extract fossil fuels.

SurreyBC
D.Johnson

I do not want to see any more Fracking, let alone Tankers travelling the Fraser. We are destroying our environment at a very rapid rate as it is, and this would only compound this problem. Thank You! D. Johnson.

VancouverBC
ScottFlavelle

I am NOT in favour of:
- the placement of new pipelines running through the pristine wilderness area of BC as planned.
- the fracking required to fill the pipelines, which damages the environment and creates earthquakes in NE BC
- the LNG tankers plying the waters in close proximity to residential housing and busy waterways, due to potential catastrophe.

I do not believe that these subsidized energy investments are in the best interests of the general population of BC, nor for the economy, as it is another boom and bust industry.

WhistlerBC
KathleenMurray

I am concerned as the generators will heat the water and this will affect marine life.

Fracking should just never be allowed..period!

SurreyBC
julihobart

What we really need to see is companies like Fortis taking action in supporting sustainable energy projects such as wind, solar and water as many European countries have done (and these countries have said NO to any LNG fracking and development. due to the damage and danger of the product) .

DeltaBC
LarrySharp

Increasing LNG exports will mean more methane escaping, which translates into higher GHG emissions at a time when Canada has pledged to cut said emissions. Additional tanker traffic means more collisions between whales and tankers. Expanded LNG facilities and gas pipelines will mean more farmland destroyed. For all these reasons I oppose the construction of an LNG export terminal in Delta.
Larry Sharp
Vancouver

VancouverBC
JackieLarkin

Please ensure a strong environmental assessment!. It's 2015 after all.
The world is changing, we need to change. Protect the soil, the beautiful rich waters of this coast. Stop fracking! Everywhere!

VictoriaBC
cg

The assessment of LNG on the Fraser must address concerns about

upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values; and
downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

san diegoCA
PamelaBlake

We shouldn't need to assess the environmental impact of an LNG export terminal on the Fraser River. Why? Because there shouldn't be any LNG products to export in the first place!! Stop this fracking madness!!!

KamloopsBC
johnpoirier

I like many others are very concerned about the proposed terminal.
The negative impacts are absolutely unacceptable to those living in the region, but also to the future generation that will call British Columbia their home.
This is an ill conceived risky endeavour, for a energy source that is not needed and will never produce the economic benifits that have been promised.
The risks far out way the benefits and our government would be both negligent and immoral to allow the project to go forward.

RichmondBC
HeatherYoung

I'm not an expert on this but from what I have read it doesn't take an expert to realize we DO NOT WANT LNG on the Fraser! Please, please do the right thing and protect this beautiful city, province, country, planet that we are privileged to call home. It's really very simple.

VancouverBC
AshleyTombu

It's absurd to pretend that we can carry on as we have been doing. We new to invest in green technology to sustain the environment for future generations. No thank you, LNG.

New WestBC
Joanne Van Snellenberg

I am alarmed to hear that no regulations are in place to protect the Tilbury site from an LNG site. The Fraser River at that point does not support the turnaround of large ships. Exporting LNG from Delta will require more drilling, more fracturing, etc. in northern B.C. All hands point to the future of renewable resources - that is where our energy should be directed.
LNG is bad for our children's future.

DeltaBC
DebbieMaloway

This project will take us backward. We need to be looking at the future of our planet and that means getting away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Renewable energy projects should be the only ones that we are considering. Economic growth is pointless if we are destroying our environment.

SurreyBC
LaurenceGough

I have signed a form letter but, as a lifelong resident of Vancouver, and as a father and grandfather, all of the above considerations are of great concern to me.

VancouverBC
RobertaOlenick

I support VTACC's call for a thorough Environmental Assessment of the proposed Fraser River LNG terminal, one that will fill many gaps from the EA as currently proposed.

Please be sure to include full examination of the factors listed at VTACC's website here: http://reallnghearings.org/valued_components_review_details/

VancouverBC
peternix

I am a retired environmental scientist that quit a consulting job with the Alberta oil sands consortium when I realized that we must face out fossil fuels to protect our children's future.

Especially after the Paris climate conference, it is unacceptable to expand the infrastructure for fossil fuels, including natural gas. It is not true that gas is a good transition fuell to a non carbon society. LNG terminals will have high carbon footprints especially considering recent evidence of large-scale fugitive emissions from drilling and distributing gas.

Right now, energy from solar panels is cheaper the natural gas in Colorado. So we don't need the gas for economic reasons and we certainly can't afford it if we are to have a sustainable society.

Renewable energy, like solar, will provide more jobs for Canadians.

Peter Nix
Cowichan Carbon Buster

duncanBC
NADENEMORTON

as clark is determined to destroy british columbia with this money losing deal, my suggestion is halt this whole process. the value to our province is our agriculture, our fisheries and our tourism. there is no market for this ridiculous project.

victoriaBC
eddy & janJang

Is this a suitable site considering that the Frazer is an important salmon bearing river.Inevitably a plant here would encourage more fracking in the north and this we do not want

saltspring IslBC
ShaunaHughes

First of all, why would you want to as a business, with the price of LNG being so low??? Secondly, this polluting of all of our environment, that includes you!!! has got to stop. Do you want your grandchildren to breathe & live in this pollution?
Is this the kind of legacy you want to leave behind? How do you sleep at night, knowing that you are ultimately going to be responsible for so many illnesses, etc?

Salt Spring Island BC
SharonSullivan

My concern is the LNG Plant in Delta and Burns Bog on how it will affect our natural habitat of birds and other wild life. What worries me the most is the conversion of natural gas to liquefied gas - the whole process in an area which is populated by wild life and humans. The gas that is generated from this conversion will pollute our environment. If there was a catastrophe the cost of wild life and humans would be devastating. You cannot put a price of lives for the sake of the mighty dollar.
Also once the liquefied gas is loaded onto vessel what regulations are in place and safety measures as the vessel travel down the water of our beautiful British Columbia. All said and done, in my view the cost of a disaster will never be repaired and this will definitely affect the climate change and our magnificent Province.

SurreyBC
ChristineJohnston

Fraser River LNG projects must be included in any environmental assessment. Wespac and the BC government surely realize that any plans certainly impact the farmland and waters nearby.

Any accident of any sort could create a major catastrophy and requires a comprehensive analysis.

LNG tankers are a danger to all who depend on the river. Local residential developments would be impact as well as water quality .

Fracking and methane are other major risks to all those living nearby. WE want not more Dam C plans, thank you,

And we beside the ocean are concerned about it too and the health of the Strait we love and all the wild life dependent on that.

The world has voted against more fossil fuels as have grand children who want to live in a healthy BC. We need to think long-term and of the future, not short-term and out of date technology.

VictoriaBC
LaurieArmer

I vehemently oppose this on all levels. The negative impacts on the animals, environment and people far outweigh the desire of profits and fame (politicians) for a very select minority! Sustainable energy technology is ALREADY available and in use. ANY promises of safety are hollow and we the public are aware of these rampant lies from those with the most to gain. I do not see any benefits in any of these archaic projects other than vile profits for the greedy! Those shills in government (and there are so many) believe they are transparent but they are deadly wrong! We, the public, know full well what their end game is, and it is NOT for the greater good but in fact for the good of those that will profit. Follow the money and it always proves this to be the fact.

AbbotsfordBC
Erskine. D . W.Phillips

Please leave our waters clean and free. our next generation need it, I demand it.

Duncan BCBC
ChrisRose

I'm opposed to any LNG/LFF plant development and any export of any fossil fuels and/or increase use of these materials here in Canada or elsewhere in the world. The money for thus investments should be spent on clean energy development/production

Quadra IslandBC
PaulChristensen

Having work for a short time in the gas fields of northern BC I have learned that some of this "natural gas"is very toxic after being splashed with some of this stuff.Is this company willing to release ALL possible substances in the product their possible effects on human,animal,avian and marine life.Reports of the earthquake[4.6]was triggered by fracking in northern BC.What are the measures being taken to mitigate release from ruptured liens/tanks should a large quake take place on the fault line that runs through the lower mainland

Prince GeorgeBC
AngelaVerbrugge

The assessment of LNG on the Fraser should address concerns about:

* upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
*local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values; and
* downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and climate impacts when when the LNG is burned at destination.

Thank you for giving a thorough and careful evaluation of the situation!
Angela

VancouverBC
MikeGildersleeve

Re. WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

I am writing the BC EAO to express my concerns about this project.
First off I want to say that due to the many significant environmental impacts evident from wellhead to waterline, this project needs to be subjected to a full and rigorous federal Canadian environmental assessment process.
This review must not focus only on LNG terminal, but on impacts associated from upstream development including all impacts of extraction,processing , and transmission of natural gas required to supply this project. This whole review must also be totally transparent to the public. This entire project must be completely assessed and not done in a piecemeal fashion....in other words if there is to be a Phase 2&3, we must have these impacts included in our assessment.
I have become awRe that in the US there are much more rigorous safety standards and regulations for transporting LNG, for example having a 3500 meter clearance from residential developments, but apparently no such regulations exist in Canada. Clearly for this project there are residences within just 200 meters of tanker.
I am concerned about the impacts LNG vessels would have on other marine traffic in lauding marine mammals.
I am concerned that Wes Pak has said that once a vessel is loaded and leaves there facility, that they are no longer responsible, so then who in act would be responsible should there be an accident.
I am concerned that the draft assessment does not include any site selection criteria or evaluation process. The location being next to Fotis facility violates international guidelines.
I am concerned that if this project approved, it would mean a major expansion of neighbouring Fortis BC liquefaction facility.
I have serious concerns about the many obvious navigational hazards
That will certainly be there in navigating in and out of the Fraser River and out into the Salish Sea.
I have also heard that these LNG tankers are high up on list as a target for terrorists.
I am concerned that over the proposed 30 year time frame for project that an additional 1410 new drilled wells may be required plus the many billions of gallons of fresh water used in the extraction and production of this gas. There is already very limited research on these very serious issues. We are also hearing about the significant impacts on the landscapes and biodiversity in the gas field which has meant significant losses is caribou in the area as well.
There are also the obvious and even more pressing issue of climate change and our need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and for us as a province and a Nation to fulfill our commitments recently made in Paris Climate Conference to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As I am learning GHG emissions from the production transportation and burning of LNG is on a par or worse than production of crude oil.
I respectfully ask that you give serious consideration to my many concerns and appreciate the opportunity to share the with you.
Sincerely,
Mike Gildersleeve
Mission, BC

MissionBC
DanCoulter

In a time when the new p.m. Is proposing to restore public confidence in regulatory process, the application for Lng plant in Delta works in the opposite direction.I believe that excluding upstream and downstream impacts in the EA renders it a joke. While most of the rest of the world is urgently looking to move away from fossil fuel,they are promoting and investing.This is madness,and if there was anything like a transparent, comprehensive ,fact - based study , I have no doubt that the same conclusion would be reached. Polluted groundwater from fracking, enormous amounts of methane gas escape during production , enormous energy consumption to produce and transport lng and then the burningto produce more carbon in the atmosphere is worse than criminal,it is insanity.I see that Site C , ( paid for by the public )is part of this insidious plan to create wealth for a few , paid for by the many and future generations, harming land ,air and water. First nations ,unceded lands and treaty rights must be recognised and honoured in any meaningful process. I know many people that are paying attentio now and they will not be ignored or fooled!

ChilliwackBC
SueMaxwell

For all LNG proposals, the full scope of impacts need to be included in the EA process (GHG upstream and downstream, drilling and fracking impacts, methane leaks, cumulative impacts of multiple projects, risk of malfunction/accident/sabotage, shipping impacts. To deny that these impacts exist is a recipe for poor decision making and lack of social license due to lack of trust in the EA system. Please also ensure that the hearings/process is open to all people, not handpicked citizens and groups as was the case for the Kinder-Morgan process.

Also, as this will take a significant amount of staff time and resources (public staff -provincially, municipally) as well as using up land, a look at the opportunity cost of pursuing this project as opposed to one that is more forward-thinking (in a time where the world is planning on phasing out fossil fuels and adding taxes to carbon-based fuels and where the business cases for LNG is weak at best) would make sense. Let us not pursue expensive ventures that are going to turn into white elephants and require even more subsidies than they already get as well as creating jobs that are going to disappear.

WhistlerBC
janet J.slobin

I'm against the proposal for a LNG terminal to send tankers down the fraser River, especially close to residential development in Richmond. The entire process sounds too complicated to be safe--expansion of FortisBC's Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland and maybe, a new natural gas line. The impact from an accident, malfunction or terrorist attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic.

Has all this been taken into consideration? Not to mention more drilling, fracking and methane leaks. I don't see where these hazards are addressed. Then there is the effect of more vessel traffic in the Salish Sea which would endanger killer whales. All of these reasons are why I am against the proposed terminal.

We need a comprehensive hazard assessment.

PortlandOR
Burke ElizabethAustin

Five years ago after attending my daughter wedding here in BC I fell in love with the Lower Mainland after desending down from the Cocahaulas and over to Gibson's on the Sunshine coast. This was God's Country so we moved here.
Over the past 4 years I have somewhat appalled at the environmental destruction that is allowed and imposed upon this beautiful province by the Energy Industry. Since 2012 many Richmond residents have had to endure noxious odours coming from Harvest Fraser Richmond Organics, formerly Harvest Power. They have been spewing out 245.28 tonnes of VOCs and they are only permitted to emit 22.9 tonnes, and they are operating without an environmental assessment under permit with MetroVan. I have asked the Minister to review this project and make it reviewable project. Why are permits issued if they are not practiced?
Wespac E.A. seems flawed in many areas, first being site selection. Their selection is too close too homes, where is the "hazourd zone" what if there is an accident, what will be the impacts? The Fraser river is too narrow to accomodate such big vessels makes to more probable that an accident could occur.
Any person that has taken the time to learn about the fracking process knows that fracturing the earth causes earthquakes to occur. To reach the goals that Wespac envisions 1384 new wells will have to be drilled. Why is the BC Government putting it's residents at risk of death and destruction?
Building dams to generate electricity to power LNG while forfieting the Peace River basin is environmental degragation.
The BC emission reduction plan calls for emissions of Co2 to be no more than 45 million tonnes by 2020, if LNG continues to expand we will be producing 87 million tonnes, breaking our own law which in light of the talks between the leaders of the world on climate change in Paris, this is shameful.
I urge the decision makers to examine this project further, to take human and environmental impacts into account before approvals are granted, we the people will hold you responsible.
Thank you for allowing me to comment

RichmondBC
SheilaMcDonnell

As a citizen and voter, I expect a FULL environmental assessment of proposals such as the Wespac LNG plant. By that I mean an assessment that looks at all impacts, upstream and downstream of the project. The impacts of the sourcing of gas and the construction of the pipeline as well as the increased tanker traffic must be considered as inherently relevant to the . assessment process. The full spectrum of the project stands to have significant impacts and risks of catastrophic environmental destruction along the route and through its use. ALL of these must be considered and the proponent MUST make clear plans and commit resources to robust prevention, response and future mitigation costs, as determined by a reputable arms length third party. The environment, the public and future generations should not bear the costs and destruction implicit in the company's business plan.
Further to comprehensive consideration of the project itself, the environmental assessment should consider the cumulative impacts of this project alongside other proposals in the same areas. Increased traffic to the LNG is compounded by proposals for shipping and coal export. The pipeline, roads and plant will add to loss of valuable delta farm land. By considering one project at a time- we stand to lose the Delta as a whole. Wells, pipelines and roads in the north will open areas for additional development pressure resulting in loss of key habitat and pressure on endangered species and ecosystems. And the increased tanker traffic from this plant must be an brings enormous risk to an already vulnerable and congested environmentally sensitive and heavily populated area. Finally, the project stands to add to the gears of climate change that put the site itself at risk from rising sea levels. What does the proponent intend to do to offset the effects of its operations in this area?

CourtenayBC
MichaelCoates

LNG is an energy intense form of Natural Gas created for shipping purposes. Natural Gas is a fossil fuel that produces CO2 when burned to produce energy. Sorry if this simple definition offends anyone. It just seems to be ignored in the discussion to the point that people seem to think Natural Gas is a solution to the use of oil or coal. It may be less polluting but that's not saying much when compared to it's cousins oil and coal, it is still a very large contributor to climate change. Betting the future on LNG is a foolish pursuit for a government that is claiming to be in favor of eliminating green house gasses. The damage to the water tables in the drilling fields, the inevitable methane leaks and the damage to the environment from the pipe lines are all counter productive to a green economy. The potential for a disastrous impact on the Fraser river and the Fraser river ecosystem let alone the Fraser river salmon and sturgeon is far to great to justify any LNG or similar development on the Fraser river. Stop this simpleton policy of basing our future on gas extraction for LNG. The gas prices will be far to low for the foreseeable future to make it economically feasible. Other country's are far ahead of us and Russia which has massive reserves north of China, is able to build pipe lines right to China without liquefying their gas. If you think you can liquefy and ship gas for less your dreaming. But alas that is what this is all about isn't it? A dream to seduce the citizens of BC and their votes with no chance of the substantive payoff for anyone but the corporations involved. Already the tax on gas at the wellhead is so low it won't even pay for the government administration necessary to collect the tax. All this for the privilege of being stuck with the clean up if anything goes wrong and you can be absolutely confident it will.

VancouverBC
PrestonDenny

Move on to something that does not damage the environment for energy. The era of fossil fuel is over!

ComoxBC
Dr. LyndellLevitt

Having read and investigated the Westpac proposal for a dock facility and future LNG export facility in Delta, I am very concerned at the lack of adequate environmental assessments to include upstream, local, and downstream affects of such a facility. In addition, the affects of the current & planned expansion of the Fortis BC Delta LNG facility also does not appear to have been adequately investigated. River hydrology and fishery studies are needed to determine the impact on the salmon & other species inhabiting the Fraser River from the proposed increased freighter traffic and proposed deep dredging of the Fraser River to accommodate LNG vessels. Hazardous risks from siting an LNG export facility in relatively close proximity to residential areas in Richmond should also be of paramount importance. Overall, I believe this project has been fast-tracked by the BC Liberal government without adequate assessments for all potential problems and further public input and scientific feasibility studies with emphasis on all environmental impacts, including upstream, local, and downstream effects must be completed in an open manner to best service the citizens of BC.

SurreyBC
PaulaWilliams

I have read the material and like many others, I am greatly concerned with the LNG proposal at Tilbury. As I can see from the other published comments, there are many valid issues raised which should all be covered in the EA. But what stands out for me the most is the fact that this development (and transport), if approved, is to be located near a populated area. This alone should be a deal breaker as we know that human error exists but in this case, human error could be catastrophic. Public safety should be number one, and knowing that a simple mistake could kill thousands of people (or more), it should be reason enough to say this isn't worth it and does not make sense for the area. LNG might be considered by some to be the golden ticket, but it seems to me that going forward would simply be irresponsible to those who chose to live near by, not ever dreaming that such a proposal would even be possible for the area they call home. I trust that this will be included in the EA, but I think that if we look at this from a common sense perspective, this type of facility should not be allowed in the region. Period.

SurreyBC
DougJohnston

I am very much opposed to fracking and development of the whole LNG industry in our province. Shipping this product up the Fraser or anywhere is a disaster waiting to happen.
The whole concept is dangerous to our environment. It exacerbates climate change and as everyone but the current government seems to know, it is not an economically viable plan.

NanaimoBC
DarrellShibley

We do not need to keep developing more dirty and toxic fuel sources and supply lines.
Our Province, our country and our world needs and deserves to move into clean, green and sustainable energy.

Maple RidgeBC
SethKlein

The new federal government has said that climate change considerations should be made part of the EA process, and this proposal for an LNG facility on the Fraser River is a clear opportunity for this promise to be made real.

In the wake of the new climate agreement in Paris, and given our new international commitment to keep global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees over pre-industrial levels, it makes no sense to invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure of this sort.

New LNG plants and the gas fracking required to fuel them have the potential to constitute Canada’s next largest “carbon bomb” (after the Alberta oil sands). In November 2013, the Globe and Mail reported on an internal provincial government memo obtained via Freedom of Information, which highlights the havoc LNG can have on our GHG emission targets (the piece can be found here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/lng-threatens-provinces-greenhouse-gas-goals-internal-notes-warn/article15405912/?ts=131112224858&ord=1#dashboard/follows/ ). To highlight one paragraph: "A cabinet document prepared for Environment Minister Mary Polak in June calculates the LNG sector could increase emissions by 16 per cent at a minimum, and as much as 'a doubling of B.C.’s total emissions, depending on the number of plants and the technology and energy options chosen,' the document states. 'At the high end of that range, B.C.’s natural gas sector emissions would be comparable to those from Alberta’s oil sands.'”

Simply put, BC’s LNG aspirations are incompatible with any realistic notion of Canada meeting is obligations to keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.

Premier Clark has insists a BC LNG industry would be "doing the world a favour," by helping Asia move off coal. But the claim does not hold. The GHG emissions associated with fracked gas production have been found to be equivalent to coal (for more disputing this claim, see here: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/clear-look-bc-lng). The simple truth is that natural (fracked) gas no longer has a viable role to play in transitioning us to a zero-GHG economy; time is now of the essence, and we must leap-frog directly to zero-GHG energy sources.

VancouverBC
RussCollins

Leave it in the ground. Burning fossil fuels must end a.s.a.p.

LumbyBC
KellyMcConnell

It's very simple. We want clean air and water. Building an LNG export terminal on the Fraser for the benefit (ie profit) of an American corporation hell-bent on maximizing their profit at any cost (to us at least) is anathema to that desire.

Even if one discounts the deleterious effects of the large increase in tanker traffic that would degrade our environment due to the proposed LNG terminal the increase in drilling, fracking, and uncaptured methane will harm OUR land and waters, for THEIR profits.

WE should not be expected to bear the environmental cost of THEIR reckless pursuit of ever higher profit.

Pender IslandBC
MichaelGary

This project is in violation of the Paris Agreement of 190 nations.

WoodlandWA
MarionJolicoeur

"Natural Gas" is still sourced from fossil fuel as far as I know....we need to be pouring resources into the development of .other sources of energy.

Roberts CreekBC
Maryawoeppel

I truly believe that we can find an alternative fuel source that will not destroy our nature. there already are alternatives available. use them.

LangleyBC
TimothyTakaro

I am a physician scientist studying health impacts of climate change. This large fossil fuel infrastructure project is not longer viable economically nor from a health standpoint following our new agreements in COP 21 this month in Paris. The EA must include all human and ecological health impacts of the project. For perspective this project should be compared to a renewable energy project in terms of longterm future economic and greenhouse gas impacts. The UN's International Panel on Climate Change is quite clear that in order to meet our commitments to future generations that they inherit a livable world we must stop building large new fossil fuel infrastruture and wean ourselves off of this 'addiction'.

New WestminsterBC
AlanJames

Global heating from greenhouse gases - Carbon dioxide from combustion and methane release from the fracking process - is a real and present danger. Why is BC flying in the face of science and pushing such rapacious fossil fuel extraction?

BURNABYBC
JaneCamfield

The four points laid out here could be the basis of a real review. Let only qualified scientists carry out the work. Absolutely NO industry-related reviewers allowed!

VancouverBC
ElwoodThomas

No facility needed as there is not going to be any LNG industry in B.C.

CoquitlamBC
TonyDurke

With climate change a reality, the Fraser River sockeye in peril and a government that promotes regressive, carbon intensive industries, I need to ask why you support this investment in a technology that feeds the fires of climate change?
It feels unrealistic.
I hope you know how much your decisions impact future generations.

New Westminster BC
SkyeRichards

I think that we are now long overdue to look critically about the choices that we are making about how to manage our energy requirements. We are shortsightedly still relying on and even building more infrastructure on what will be a collapsed source for our common good. This world has got to make the shift away from fossil fuels and not sell it to make a financial gain at the cost of our health and the health of the ecosystem that supports us.
The major concerns locally are of course, the threats to the health of the aquatic ecosystem, the building of land based transport and its impacts on the farming industry, the danger in the instability of the fuel, to name a few. This planet is actually very small and most all of the perceived boundaries we have devised are simply a human construct that has very little observance to how the environmental systems actually function. It doesn't matter where the damage originates because air and water flow, even though of course the effects will be diluted farther away from the origin. However, cumulatively these effects will have grave impacts on all of us. Our reliance on fossil fuel is poisoning the air that we all need to breath, and I don't want to look at this time in history marked by our human stupidity. We need to be brave and turn the page to a future plan the governing agencies and policy makers use insight and intuition about what going down that road would actually mean for the population. We need to safely maintain what infrastructure exists, but we need to fund our future thoughtfully and place intelligence before profits.
Yours most sincerely.

VancouverBC
PriscillaJudd

I am concerned about wild salmon habitat.
What will happen to salmon if there is a spill. How will you clean up a spill?
I an concerned about possible explosions - what is your emergency plan if you had a large explosion ?

LumbyBC
JimErkiletian

While natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel and may have a place in transition to renewables, there are two ways to make it uneconomic, frack it and freeze it. These expensive and wasteful processes make natural gas more expensive and the carbon escaping to the atmosphere makes the greenhouse gas component worse than burning coal or oil. And there is the extreme danger to our cities and homes from even a minor accident. Best option: leave it in the ground. There are renewable energy sources that will provide much more healthy and sustainable energy for future generations, especially as we will save the trillions of dollars in subsidies governments give to oil, gas and coal companies.

NanaimoBC
LaurieParkinson

The world watched and listened in early December to the global cimate talks in Paris. Even my 91 year old stepmother who wonders about global warming was quite aware of the talks. 196 countries including Canada promised to work hard to keep global temps at 2 degrees above pre-industrial times, and to try hard to keep temps at 1.5 above. How then can we continue to plan for massive release of ghg from LNG (fracking, pipline, cooling, shipping, burning overseas)? What about our children and grandchildren? Does money now matter more than they do?

Things you may not know:
Did you know there is significant loss of methane (a powerful ghg) at many places along the path between fracking and eventual burning overseas? For example, the LNG in a tanker isn't actively cooled during the trip to Asia. So it gradually warms back into methane, and something has to be done with the methane (called boil-off). An LNG tanker may vent a lot of boil-off as it travels across the ocean. Depends on how new a tanker it is. Old ones will. A smaller number of newer ones will have equipment to either burn the methane (with diesel or bunker fuel) or recool it back into LNG.

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

Wespac says once the LNG is loaded into the ocean going vessels, it's not their responsibility. What about the endangered killer whales near the mouth of the Fraser River? Even Woodfibre LNG has a plan in their EA about being good to killer whales. Killer whales are documented to be at the mouth of the Fraser. I am amazed they aren't being considered in the EA.

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

Once the LNG is loaded onto a tanker, the LNG is owned by the overseas buyer. With Woodfibre LNG the tankers are leased, and I assume the same would happen for Westpac. Westpac says once the LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels, it's not their responsibility.

If you look at the Fraser River and all the communities who live 3,500m from that River, you can see a great deal of population would be at risk from LNG shipping in the Fraser (info from Sandia National Labs studies, via US Congress). Its very surprising to me that this proposal would be considered.

Who would be responsible if there was an LNG disaster? Does anyone know? What insurance would be bought? By who?

North VancouverBC
KrystalLockert

As a part time south delta resident currently studying fisheries science VIU. I am incredibly considered about what LNG development and increased dredging will mean for the Fraser River Salmon Habitat. Not to mention the lower fraser estuary as well.

In general I do not support the upstream and downstream impacts of Fracking and LNG in this province.

This is supernatural BC. If I wanted to see a province that cares more about resource extraction then the environment I would be living in Alberta.

LadysmithBC
LaurieParkinson

If a lot of LNG was shipped down the Fraser River, it would have to be cooled in a liquefaction plant, so far with no EA. If that plant had an old fashioned cooling system like Woodfibre LNG has proposed (kills lots of fish, hopefully the Feds won't allow it at WF), this will put the salmon in the Fraser River at risk. These salmon are of interest to the Liberal Federal Government, which is going to follow the advice in the Cohen Commission. A more modern fish friendly cooling system (all that the US allows in new industrial facilities now) would be much more expensive for the Tilbury expansion.

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

The more LNG is shipped from BC, the more fracking will be done in NE BC.

More fracking will lead to more contaminated ground water and earthquakes in that area; the BC Oil and Gas Commission recently has said a 4+ earthquake in NE BC was due to fracking.

Fracking accidentally releases a lot of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas.

A great deal of electricity will be needed to cool the natural gas to be shipped out - will that electricity be produced by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C?

After the Paris Climate Conference, we need to change gears and think about greenhouse gas production.

None of the above issues are addressed in Westpac's EA. They should be.

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

The public risk from an LNG terminal 200m from waterfront residential developments (when Sandia National Labs advises no population 3,500m from a shipping lane) is clearly risky, and will reduce property values. However Wespac says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. Would you like to own a house there?

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

I would like this EA to follow existing international standards.

SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Siting Standards) says the waterway an LNG terminal sits on should be 600-900m wide, for the tanker to turn in. The Fraser River is only 500m wide. The LNG tankers can't turn around! Why would we have an LNG terminal here? A waterway suitability study needs to be done, as is required in the US for LNG terminal proposals.

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

It's very odd that shipping of a lot of LNG down the Fraser Fiver is being proposed before the associated liquefaction terminal expansion is being talked about. It's the cart before the horse. How can the public know have any confidence in what is coming their way? Will the public be told: Well A has been planned for so you have to ok B?

North VancouverBC
LaurieParkinson

After 9/11 the US Congress was concerned enough about LNG tankers as terrorist targets that they hired Sandia National Labs to investigate the worst case scenario from a large uncontained LNG spill. They found results could be catastrophic, and Sandia designated hazard zones around an LNG shipping lane. A simplified version is: for safety, the public should be 3,500m (2.2 miles) away from LNG shipping. Populated areas are very close to the Fraser River. Given the Sandia Reports, I am not sure why anyone would consider putting an LNG terminal there.

A route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Cost Guard needs to be done for this proposed project.

The EA needs a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks and a clear disaster plan that the public knows about. Wespac's proposed EA only considers accidents and malfunctions - in a piecemeal fashion. This is not honest to the public.

North VancouverBC
SueLloyd

In addition to the concerns of safety and pollution of the Fraser River, it is important to understand the dramatically changing international market for LNG. Many other countries such as Australia that is much closer to the Asian market has already built operational LNG plants. The global price of LNG has plummeted. Is this expansion too little and too late? Are those considerable risks really worth the sacrifice of our environment?

DeltaBC
LaurieParkinson

Westpac's EA needs to contain the whole project (hyrdo lines, new natural gas pipeline?), so the public knows what to expect and can respond with knowledge. This proposal is even worse than Woodfibre LNG's. Woodfibre was allowed to divide it's proposal into an EA for the terminal and an EA for the pipeline, but at least they were up front about both from the start.....except the Hydro upgrade once again wasn't part of the EA.

A piece meal approache leads to distrust from the public. The new Federal Liberal government is working to restore public trust in the EA system.

North VancouverBC
JacquelineSteffen

I am extremely concerned that an LNG facility is being proposed and tankers to run down the Fraser River within 200 m of waterfront residential areas in Richmond.

It is extremely alarming that a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks has not been done and that a clear disaster response plan has not been formed. Westpac states that once LNG is loaded onto ocean vessels it is no longer their responsibility!!?? Then who's responsibility is it??

Nothing has been said about what the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea will have on endangered killer whales and other sea animals.

Exporting LNG clearly indicates that drilling for more natural gas wells will increase in our province, resulting in more methane escaping into our atmosphere as well as enormous amounts of water resources being used.
Will this also mean building news dams as well?

I am requesting a full assessment be done in the interests and safety of all citizens in BC.

CoquitlamBC
CathyFortin

I am very concerned about the effects of fracking on the earth's mantle as it seems that this fracturing of the shale is causing earthquakes.

I am also concerned about the water quality deteriorating as fracking fluids are introduced to the water supply. The air quality is going to deteriorate also as methane escapes into the atmosphere.

It would be better to put money into renewable resources rather than continue to extract fossil fuels. Won't you please think about it?

Prince GeorgeBC
DeniseLep

LNG is far too difficult to extract, and is a danger to our Province. Fracking alone is extremely dangerous, I have watched documentaries where fracking has caused entire fields of produce to wilt and die, has killed chickens and made other animals very ill. The well water is undrinkable and cannot be used for any purposes ie: coking, brewing coffee, washing etc. It is far too dangerous.
There are far too many risks to human life, farmland and what if ( God Forbid) we are attacked. In this day and age nothing is for certain.The TFN have refused to have it on their land - very sensible, I applaud them.

DeltaBC
DianneBurditt

Season's Greetings: Have you really considered the environmental impact regarding this project? I live in Ladner and we DO NOT want power lines going across Delta farmlands, nor do we need more vessel traffic in urban communities and critical killer whale and salmon habitat.

There has to be a better way...................

Sincerely,
Dianne Burditt

Delta (Ladner)BC
Richardter Borg

This plant should NOT be built on the Fraser River.
It will impact farmland that we are desperately trying to preserve.
It is a potential hazard to populated areas that will be passed by by freighters on their way to sea.
Development pressures to dredge or widen the river will change it's natural state, affecting the salt wedge for agriculture to draw water for irrigation and threatening the integrity of our dykes.
There will be smells affecting our citizens.
This is an industry that is going in the wrong direction for weaning ourselves from fossil fuels
We must resist the quick fix in developing this resource, for which markets are weak and environmental destruction is certain and long term

RichmondBC
DonnaThomson

I have enormous concerns regarding the proposed building of an LNG export terminal in Delta. I have seen the results of an explosion or a much smaller quantity of LNG than that which would be carried by the proposed tankers. As I live along the Fraser River, I know I would die if a leak should occur. in the shipping for handling of the LNG. I feel that the shipment of LNG should not take place, and definitely should not be taking place near any populated area. In addition, I feel that the practice of fracking is risky and even more so in an mountainous area. We keep being told how much cleaner LNG is than coal however, so much CO2 is emitted at the extraction site that LNG is as dirty as coal if not worse. I an strongly opposed to a) fracking as a method to extract fossil fuels and b) to the transportation of LNG along a populated area or an area that carries a lot of boat traffic. Clearly, a lot more studies need to be conducted and examined before this project is approved - if ever.

RichmondBC
JeanMilne

The BC Environmental Assessment of the proposed Wespac terminal must in my opinion encompass not only the local environmental & safety risks to land, residents, air quality, waterway and marine life in its immediate vicinity, but also consider in detail the environmental consequences of producing, liquifying and shipping the finished product. Of particular concern are the geological consequences of drilling for more natural gas wells and the vast volumes of fresh water which become permanently polluted following fracking.
The greater good and the need to reduce greenhouse gases needs to be taken into consideration in this assessment.

VancouverBC
GrantRice

Environmental assessments of all fossil fuel projects should take into account the upstream and downstream affects. The assessment of this proposal should account for the upstream environmental costs of fracking (water pollution and escaped methane gas), the transportation and compression of natural gas, and the impacts of pipeline and LNG plant construction. The downstream affects must account for disruption of aquatic life in the Fraser River and the Salish Sea. Finally, the eventual combustion of LNG must be factored into the equation. Approval of this project will be a significant setback to Canada's commitment at the Paris Climate Conference.

SurreyBC
TERRYDRINKWATER

NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!! KILL ALL THE SALMON RUNS COMPLETELY OFF FROM DREGING, KILL ALL THE SEA LIONS AND SEALS THAT ACCUMALATE ON THE LONG JETTY IN MAY> OPEN SEASON ON FISHNETS IN THE SUMMER MONTHS WHEN THE SEASON OPENS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING> KILL ALL THE BIRD AND WILDLIFE FROM TANKER POLLUTION< LETS SINK A FEW SPORT FISHING BOATS WILL AT IT> AND BEST OF ALL LETS BLOW UP STEVESTON HARBOR , WE DONT NEED IT ANYWAY > IT DOESN`T NEED THE TOURISTS AND WHALE WATCHERS.!! AND BEST OF ALL I HAVE BEEN PAYING TAXES FOR DYKE UPKEEP FOR 30 YEARS IN RICHMOND ALL TO HAVE IT BROKEN BY THE NET OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT > IM MOVING OUT!

RICHMONDBC
patmorin

It is amazing that placement of the LNG facilities does not conform to standards practiced by other 1st rate operators. The Tilbury proposal squarely places the public safety and marine interest at risk. Its standards for placement are 3rd world. Like the run-of the-river projects and the site 'C' dam, the taxpayer will have to dig deeper into their pockets to subsidize these commercial ventures.The private sector, various authorities like the Airport and PORTS authority and the gov't continues to display an increasing disdain for the public while continuing to be enamored by ever bigger more expensive environmentally negative projects.

richmondBC
RobertKaye

Key Concerns to be covered in the Environmental assessment for the WesPac & Fortis BC LNG Facility in Delta BC

A comprehensive environmental assessment (EA) for the massive expansion at the Fortis BC’s LNG Delta facility needs to be done before the project is started.
The current piecemeal approach to assessing impacts of this project isn’t good enough.

The EA needs a standalone assessment of all safety risks including the risk of deliberate destruction (terrorist attack) and a clear disaster response. WesPac’s piecemeal proposal falls short as it only includes accidents and malfunctions.

Existing international standards have been ignored in the EA regarding the suitability of the proposed location as has a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Further, WesPac wants to run the LNG Tankers down the Fraser River, within 200m of waterfront residential development in Richmond.

There is extreme hazard of combustion and thermal damage from pool fire if evaporating LNG is ignited, cryogenic burns and structural damage from exposure to supercooled LNG, and asphyxiation hazard for those exposed to expanding LNG vapor plume.

Whether we’re LNG supporters or not, we probably all agree that major projects like this need careful review. However in this case public notification has been negligible, the comment period is absurdly short, and fundamentally important questions — like whether it makes any sense to build a LNG terminal on a narrow, heavily trafficked river — haven’t even been asked.

Other issues not addressed in WesPac’s EA are that there will be more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking and more escaping of the powerful greenhouse gas, methane into the environment during the process. Enormous amounts of electricity will be required to cool and condense the natural gas for export. Will that electricity come from burning yet more natural gas or by building new dams like Site C?

In addition, WesPac says that once the LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not there responsibility. What is the cumulative impact on the Salish Sea or the endangered Killer Whales that inhabit it? What about the global climate impact of burning yet more fossil fuel?

A federal government EA needs to be conducted as I believe the BC provincial government has a bias in favour of this and other projects reguarding the development of LNG in this province.

RichmondBC
NormanGodfrey

Anyone that says LNG is clean and safe is an idiot!! Fracking for starters, screws up our water table and causes earth quakes. Processing LNG for shipment is a huge user of power when supplies are at a premium already. More pipelines, more ships = prosperity at an un acceptable cost to the planets environment. All in all its a BAD idea and really in the end only benefits the rich owners of the project. Cristy Clark does NOT represent my views or values in this matter. Please STOP before its too late for us ALL. I hope this letter doesn't fall on deaf (and greedy) ears....sincerely NAG.

surreyBC
bonnieHubert

As a long time resident of Delta, I have many concerns about the possible expansion at FortisBC's Delta LNG facility. This province needs to include the impact of a development that will require new power lines over our beautiful farmland in an EA assessment I am also very concerned with risks that only a stand alone EA assessment of safety risks can provide. With increased vessel traffic how are we going to protect our killer whales? It is imperative that we assess the impact of LNG tankers running down the Fraser River within 200m of waterfront residential developments. Finally, what about the impact of increased fracking and increased greenhouse gas emissions? This province is moving in the wrong direction. We need to embrace wind and solar energies and move away from fossil fuels.

DeltaBC
JoanJochim

We need to get on board with the goals set at the Paris climate talks.There are a huge number of jobs possible in renewable energy and we should be developing these industries rather than continuing on with the same polluting and destructive projects of the past. I am very concerned about the effects of fracking: introducing chemicals deep into the ground which have already affected the wells of ranchers in Alberta, the increase in methane (a GHG) which escapes into our atmosphere during this process and earthquakes resulting from the activity, so I do not wish to see any increase in fracking to supply Wespac. Our killer whale population is already endangered and increased tanker traffic would very likely negatively affect them even further. It's madness to add to the destruction of our natural world and ultimately, to ourselves as a species, especially when we have alternatives.

QuesnelBC
LavonneGarnett

We, the citizens of B.C., need to take into account the larger picture of LNG production. Already, FN tell us that their north land has been punctured with fracking wells and laced with roads that cut through what was their natural wilderness. Fracking, with its attendant waste and contamination of water, in areas that are becoming earthquake prone, creates the risk of leakage. Furthermore, LNG plants require large amounts of power, which is intended to be drawn from Site "C" dam, which is proposed to flood land, valuable to First Nations, present and future farmers, and wildlife. Surely, we can live in harmony with nature, and find less destructive ways to live on this planet. Countries are gradually weaning themselves off fossil fuels and developing alternatives. This is where we must put our efforts, starting now. No more destructive economies! It's time to change directions for us and our grandchildren, so that they have a chance to live in a healthy world, if indeed that will be possible!

NanaimoBC
RobHollins

The Paris Climate Conference has just agreed to try to limit global warming to 11.5 degrees C.
Premier Clark was there beaming and agreeing.

Now what in hell is Premier Clark doing when she proposes a 10 lane 3 km long $ 3.3 BILLION bridge to accommodate more vehicle traffic, expansion of the coal export terminal, and a new LNG export terminal?

Please, please, Premier Clark, connect the thoughts and do the right thing for our children.

.

SurreyBC
BillEadie

B.C.' Auditor General has said there is a lack of data to assess the risks (of hydraulic fracturing) to aquifers. There is a lack of transparency over the effects of hydraulic fracturing which is going to be the main source for B.C. s LNG. In the U.S there are over 1000 cases of groundwater contamination from fracking. Water use and the chemicals used are a hazard. What, 800 olympic pools of well per fracking.Green house gas emissions indications are, that it is equal to oil maybe higher in the life cycle of Fracked gas.Abandoning environmental stewardship for misguided expections for public wealth is no way to expand our economy.

NanaimoBC
LeonaKustra

Canada's commitment at COP21 is fossil free by 2050, so why are we building new fossil fuel infrastructure at great risk to global climate change (methane has 21 times more warming potential than CO2) and local concerns for orcas and salmon? Electricity demands for this project could mean more methane into the atmosphere if this project needs Site C (and the flooding/rotting that will occur with it). The environmental assessment needs to consider the aforementioned and the health and safety of citizens in the area in the event of an accident/malfunction/sabotage, as well as how this affects Canada's forthcoming IPCC emission targets. With higher carbon taxes on the horizon and the short life span of this project (2050 is only 35 years away), is the risk worth the short term profit? FortisBC and Wespac should be investing in wind, solar, geothermal, biofuel, offshore wind/wave/tidal energy for the sake of their shareholders and our children!
It is absolutely the responsibility of Wespac to environmentally assess the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on killer whales and the effects and required offsets of leaked methane from well to final destination.
Why should we sacrifice the future of our children by allowing a weak environmental assessment process to give short term profits to an industry that contributes to climate disaster? A 7 meter sea level rise would wipe out this facility and yet this activity is contributing to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. These types of realities need to be in a comprehensive environmental assessment, at least consider and state the long term climate risks so the public knows that profits are prioritized over the future of their children knowingly.

SurreyBC
carolday

The LNG project is proposed for the wrong place due to safety reasons. A LNG plant can be as powerful as a atom bomb and locating this near cities make no sense. The Fraser river is the most important Salmon run in the world and risking it for no good reason is a monumental mistake.

RichmondBC
GrahamKnell

As a Citizen of this Province, I am tired of being lied to by large Corporations that will say and not say all to promote their ends in our communities - these Corporate "Heads" don't even live in our communities, but are willing to place our communities into carrying all the fall-out and by products of their ill gained profits that is not spent in our communities but else-where - while the planet dies another death.

North VancouverBC
yvettebotfield

All impacts of an LNG development need to be assessed before any project goes ahead and I think, given the risks that the money would be better spent on other clean energy projects. I am concerned about fracking- we are already experiencing earthquakes from current fracking. I am also concerned about increased tanker traffic on the Fraser River and the effect on property values and the catastrophic effect of a tanker accident or deliberate attack.. I am very concerned about the climate effect of burning more fossil fuels and the methane gas that will escape during processing.

CoquitlamBC
MarwaFakhry

While economic growth is an important part of continuous development, the pilfering of natural resources is not. If we continue to disregard the environment and all that exists now, we will not be in a position to enjoy our present day resources in the future.

RichmondBC
G.Thompson

Liquid natural gas (LNG) is volatile when it vaporizes from a crack, weak valve or other leak; it quickly creates a cloud of burning gas which destroys everything in its path. A crack, weak valve or other leak occur when there is a change in the LNG transmission pipe or tank, caused by accidentally meeting another object. It ignites immediately with oxygen in the air and any spark. An LNG explosion on the Fraser River would potentially destroy broad areas of Delta and Richmond, its properties and citizens. Please Google LNG explosions to witness LNG explosions worldwide in developed and developing countries. Please read a basic physical chemistry text to understand how LNG interacts with oxygen.
There are environmental disadvantages to 1) hydraulic fracturing, 2) to fauna of the Fraser River from shipping, and 3) to burning LNG, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but there is a high potential for disaster with the transport of LNG along the too-narrow Fraser River. Transport ships may accidentally meet debris, or other vessels, or simply slow suddenly, causing stress on LNG containers which may leak and explode, resulting in deaths and destruction.
Where are the initiatives and capital from investors to develop alternate fuel industries? Did we save the environment in Paris in 2015, to give license to unwise foreign and national companies to destroy the environment in 2016?
Thank you for considering alternative sources of profit and revenue, instead of this unwise LNG transport.

DeltaBC
wendywulff

As a citizen of British Columbia, i believe that there are many concerns that need to be addressed in an environmental assessment of this LNG proposal.
-The safety of the delivery and transport systems (risk of human error and acts of terrorism would be disastrous)
- The issue of fracking to extract the natural gas has been proven to cause earthquakes in other parts of BC. This is most definitely NOT what we want to
see happen in an area that is already earthquake-prone.
- Electricity needs for the project must come from renewable systems, not dams or burning fossil fuels.
- The consequences of increased tanker traffic in the Strait of Georgia would need to be addressed - for pollution and sea-life impact. A route hazard assessment is needed.
- the environment impact of the drilling, construction, conveyancing and burning of these LNG fossil fuels on our entire planet must have especially careful and thorough assessments.
- the loss of farmland and wetlands in Delta needs to be considered mightily - there is no more fertile local farmland anywhere in the lower mainland!

I am opposed to the development of an LNG facility on the west coast of BC.
I believe it will have permanently destructive effects on the land, the people, and the natural world that it would be affected.
This is 2015 -as our Prime Minister has said - not the time to be drilling, fracking, and processing a volatile, dangerous gas for export to other countries.
sincerely
Wendy Wulff

SurreyBC
LaurelBrant

NO, NO, NO!!! Our environment is our most precious commodity/resource - protect it! Keep fossil fuel in the ground. Do not build Site C dam - get smarter and figure out new ways of producing energy!! PLEASE

Maple RidgeBC
Shirley Ireland

Environmental Assessment Office
I have three main concerns with regards to the Environmental Assessment for Wespac's proposed export facility in Delta.

Canada has just committed, along with the rest of the world, to new limits to global warming. Any environmental assessment of a fossil fuel project will of necessity include an assessment of the total tonnage of CO2 emissions generated from the source of the fuel through to and including the burning of it. We must know how this project fits in with British Columbia's and Canada's obligations to reduce CO2 emissions and how it fits in with the receiving Country's obligations. A piecemeal environmental assessment is not acceptable as there is no part or "piece" of our environment that exists in isolation.

I was told at Wespac's open house that LNG was not flammable and that there were no safety risks identified. They have lost all credibility. They need to have an independent, credible third party conduct an assessment of their proposed site with reference to existing international standards. They need an independent and credible third party route hazard assessment from the terminal, down the river, and through our inland waters and out to sea. They claim not to be responsible for safety after the ships leave their proposed dock. Safety on the Fraser and in our inland waters must be proven before their terminal is approved. Who will be providing the security services needed for ships arriving and leaving from the facility and at what cost.

Wespac needs to include an assessment of the downstream effects of the dredging and tanker traffic on the salmon, the estuary, birds, commercial fisheries , land values and recreation on the river. Again, they state that they are not responsible after the ships leave their facility. If downstream effects are significant, the proposal should not be approved.

DeltaBC
MurrayBrown

This proposed facility is too dangerous and too close to the Vancouver Metro region. There is also too much risk to the environment at this location.

AgassizBC
TedHuisman

1. There needs to be a more comprehensive study of the accumulative impact to flaura, fauna, and people of all projects planned for the Fraser River; not just the LNG project.
2. The extraction of natural gas using the fracking process is extremely damaging to the environment; the extraction should include the immediate cleaning of the water used in the process so that storage ponds will not accumulate excessive amounts of contaminated water.

RichmondBC
GillianCroft

I am concerned about fracking causing earthquakes and the impact of vehicles on the Salish sea. Govt research has shown geothermal energy is viable in BC and we should go in this direction instead.

VictoriaBC
ericakohn

I am concerned about the Environmental Assessment of the LNG terminal in Delta. My greatest concerns are:
1. the safety risks along the pipeline, and in our waterways, and that there is a clear and costed disaster response plan, as well as clear roles and responsibilities should an accident, malfunction or deliberate disruption happen in Delta or our waterways;
2. that this port will require an expansion of fracking in NE BC;
3. that this project is not inline with Canada's commitment to reduce greenhoue gasses, or our commitment to preventing a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees.

I think there is a growing mistrust in EA's in BC and their abiltiy to be balanced and fair and take into account the concerns of the people of BC over buisness expansion at all costs. I hope this will be a fair, broad and transparent EA process.

Thank you,
Erica Kohn

VancouverBC
DennisRankin

In simplest terms, I have to pose a question.
What will we think of the project 20 or so years after it goes forward?
Will we regret the environmental impact?
Will the cost benefit fall short of claims?
Or will we wish that it had not proceeded to become another notch in the degradation of the planet or even just our little corner of it?
Hindsight is 20/20 primarily because we choose to ignore the shadows on the wall as it were.
We continuously learn of the impact of previous actions and decisions where wildlife habitats have been lost, waters polluted and land irrevocably lost.
Surely we can't simply ignore these discoveries and rely on scientific breakthroughs to restore the environment.

SurreyBC
AllanDanks

Remember that the extraction of the gas from the ground is not environmentally friendly; fracking is very harmful to underground water sources.

Denman IslandBC
C.A.Lewis

Messing with our limited farmland? with our major source of salmon on the Fraser and beyond? with our shorelines where animals/fish/birds grow to maturity and flourish? with the Georgia and Juan DeFuca Straits' and the various sea mammals/fish? Are you kidding?? This is totally NUTS!!

This is NOT going to reduce our climate methane issues, nor will it in any way assist Canada in seriously developing sustainable energy sources for the future!

I'm totally disgusted with this plan - short-sighted to make $$$$ for Wespac, probably some additional $$ in politicians' pockets (lobbying, doncha know), and some short-term jobs in a dirty industry.

VancouverBC
TerryPlottel

Carbon Tax what a joke! Sending all the MLAs staff and Christy Clark to Paris What a waste of tax payers dollars. Shipping coal to 3rd world country's through residential areas. The BC government should not have been in Paris. Bunch of Hypocrites to say the least!!! Your Killing our environment, get with it gas isn't going anywhere but down, forward thinker's would be thinking ahead not behind!

DeltaBC
DebraMcBride

I strongly object to this project as this is a time when a complete halt is necessary on the use of fossil fuels and the means to get them.

NO TO LNG
________________________________________________________
Here is a summary of concerns missing from the EA proposal:
1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.
_______________________________________________________
Alternative energy sources have been available for decades and must be mass produced and distributed

Please
NO LNG

Sincerely
Deb

SquamishBC
UrsulaKernig

Environmental Assessment Office of British Columbia:
It seems to me that the Fraser River LNG assessment is a rather piecemeal assessment process.
A valuable assessment needs to include 1. Local impacts, including accidents, deliberate acts and the effects on property values. 2. Upstream Regional impacts, such as the effects of drilling and fracking for natural gas and methane leaks on the environment.
What are the sources of energy necessary for drilling, fracking and liquefaction of natural gas and their effects on the environment? 3. Downstream Regional impacts: how are killer whales and other sea creatures affected by the increased tanker traffic? What are the impacts on climate here and in the countries LNG is exported to?
With best regards
Ursula Kernig

Surrey BC
HelenKettle

I am concerned about the impact on the salmon, as I understand a large amount of water would be removed from the river every day and returned to the river at a higher temperature. Also I'm sure the proposed jetty would also impact the fish as will the increased tanker traffic up and down the river. Safety issues for the public are also a concern in the event of accidents. I am also concerned about the building of a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel to accommodate these tankers. A bridge will not solve traffic congestion, just move it closer to Vancouver. The huge amount of public money to build this bridge would be better spent on improving transit options to make it a viable option for commuters who live South of the Fraser. This project will also require large amounts of electricity and transmission routes and there are obvious impacts to expanding hydro capacity. This issue has come to the public's notice very recently and I'm wondering if there is sufficient time to get public input.

DeltaBC
MichaelBates

Any environmental assessments (EA)pertaining to the extraction, manipulation and movement of carbon based substance must be extremely prudent and comprehensive given Canada's signature to the COP 21 agreement in Paris. It's the BC and Canadian government who must dictate the scope of the EA, not the company that would benefit from the extraction of natural gas. The EA must cover all the impacts and risks to the region, ocean while shipping and the environmental impacts of drilling and extraction. Consequences to air, wildlife on land and in the sea must be assessed. There is not time to procrastinate nor undermine Canada's commitment to move to 100% clean fuel by 2050. Where the environment is concerned it's later than we think.

TorontoON
RomiMattu

I stongly oppose the expansion of the Delta LNG facility as I am very concerned about the impact it could have on my community, health and poperty value. The EA is too narrow and needs to be expanded to the neighbouring communities.
In addition, with the increased concern for acts of terror, I believe there needs to be some consideration for a response plan. There are too many unanswered questions about the residual effects of this expansion, including the need to produce more electricity. We need fo focus on alternate measures instead of using the harmful techniques from our past.
We need to remember we are all connected. We depend on the earth and the earth depends on us. We need a more detailed comprehensive EA before moving forward. I do not believe there has been full, fair and frank disclosure of the facts.
We deserve and demand better.

North DeltaBC
GrantBrown

I am opposed to development of an LNG terminal in Delta. The potential effects of such a dangerous facility on the value of homes, the danger of such a facility near to such a densely populated area, and the fact that further investment in fossil fuels is not what the lower mainland needs right now. Low prices globally, combined with an oversupply globally mean that his is a poor investment anyway. Methane slip from LNG powered vehicles combined with the release of gas during production and transportation, earthquakes and groundwater contamination during fraking, make the idea of LNG as a clean fuel preposterous. Please stop this project before it starts.

SurreyBC
EvelynWeatherhead

I am very concerned about the location of this project being so close to a heavily populated area as well as the rivers & farmlands. It is very poor judgement of the B.C. government decision to put the population & environment at such risk . .How is this not as much of a risk as the Gateway project that was refused by the U.S. government? Tswassen First Nation have refused the LNG project on their land and I would hope that we could expect the same decision as Delta & Richmond residents. STOP SUBJECTING US TO SUCH THREATS & DECISIONS!!!

DeltaBC
flaviapellizzari

NO DAMN FRACKING

centre wellingtonON
KennethWestdorp

It would seem rather hipocritical that the same BC Liberal government that is so invested in promoting LNG projects be in charge of conducting the environmental assessment. If this were a movie I would expect a hero to arrive at the last minute to save the day, but this is reality and if people don't stand up for environmental protection then we only have ourselves to blame.

SurreyBC
PeterThomson

The Westpac proposed EA is inadequate. A proper environmental assessment must include wider impacts like power lines and new pipelines. It must also an exhaustive safety risk assessment as well as a assessment of upstream impacts like increased fracking , methane escapement and the electricity demand of such a plant. Will it be hydro powered? Or will natural gas power it pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and certainly some local airspeed pollution?

LangleyBC
LeslieStanick

TO consider removing the tunnel and building a huge bridge across the Fraser without adequate research and review is opening up our lower mainland to huge expense, increased pollution of water, and agricultural land, seepage of salt water into farm land and upstream, into spawning areas.

The time to do a comprehensive, detailed environmental and financial impact review is critical to the safety of our communities, waterways, air quality, and land. We need the review done NOW! not when it is already too late. We have a lot to lose if we don't do a complete assessment now. How will the dredging affect water salinity? How far will the pilons need to be placed to stabilize a bridge of this size? what will it cost in over-runs if a detailed plan is not done before starting the bridge? On top of salt water, there are the dangers of earthquakes, increased air pollution in the increase in single driver cars and trucks. Why not build rapid transit to the border and WhiteRock instead?

Fracking is polluting our important pristine drinking water supplies. Fracking must be banned for the health of our water, soil, air, food supply and the rights of First Nations communities who are having fracking wells set up on their land. We must stop supporting infrastructure that continues to raise greenhouse gas emissions. The BC government wants the bridge to facilitate LNG revenues, without looking at the impact to Climate Change. This is a very dangerous mistake. Cut driving to the border by installing rapid trains to White Rock and the border, prevent emissions by NOT shipping LNG through our rivers. Stop processing LNG.
It is irresponsible and criminal to build this bridge for LNG ports without a complete and detailed review of all aspect of environmental, local, food source and transportation impacts. We should be thinking forward, and creating affordable rapid transit to the border, and cutting all LNG projects. We must protect our wildlife, birds, whales, salmon and other wildlife that depend on the Fraser, and for all of us...the impact of LNG on our planet is unacceptable and adds to the ever rising temperatures around our planet. SAY NO TO THE BRIDGE! It supports fracking profits, methane leaks, danger to our communities, devastation in the event of an earthquake. A detailed and comprehensive review must be undertaken before any papers of signed. I vote NO for the bridge.

RIchmondBC
SueKelsey

Fracking causes earth quakes

CherryvilleBC
KarenWonders

The Fraser River is one of the most important salmon rivers in the world and should be preserved as a global natural heritage site. The current rush to industrialize the Fraser River is being done for private profit, for an American company, to serve foreign countries. There is no motivation to preserve the River for its biological diversity, only greed to make a profit. This is not what Canadians want. The Environmental Assessment process is a sham for industry as is the National Energy Board. The public must be consulted with a lengthy and thorough hearing to gain information about what is at stake. All LNG expansion plans must be considered together.

No site selection criteria or evaluation process has taken place. The location violates international guidelines. The Fraser River is not suitable for LNG traffic and the Vancouver Port Authority ought to be exposed as a rampant out of control pro industry lobbying body that does not serve the public need or safely or long term sustainability of the region.

Furthermore producing natural gas for liquefaction results in millions of tonnes of climate pollution and is not acceptable in this new age of climate change regulations.

VictoriaBC
AnitaDEN DIKKEN

I have a number of concerns about the proposed WESPAC project
First and foremost of these is the safety factor. SIGTTO (The Society of International Gas Tankers and Terminal Operators) has established a number of safety criteria which need to be met within any proposal to ship LNG. Terminals and jetties must be away from populated areas. Other vessels on the waterway must not pose a risk of collision with LNG tankers. SIGTTO has established a danger zone of up to 3500 meters in each direction; this is a hazard zone of 3.5 km. on either side of tanker traffic. The Fraser River waterway is simply put, not wide enough to support this requirement. Although WESPAC is not a full fledged member of SIGTTO, members of the public, residents and others working within this danger zone deserve to have safety issues and potential dangers addressed. Mishaps involving LNG have happened before and all possible measures to avoid future accidents here must be taken.

Secondly, there is the impact upon the environment. Fracking requires the use of huge amounts of water. Where will this come from? The fracking process involves the release of greenhouse gases, and inadequate capping of wells means escaping methane. As well, huge amounts of electricity will be required to cool natural gas to a liquid state at -160C. This kind of electricity would come from where? Site C? Let's not forget that Site C itself will destroy important farmland. These kinds of environmental impacts must be part of any environmental assessment to be carried out.

Thirdly, there are regional and international impacts. Increased vessel traffic will negatively impact the populations of endangered species such as killer whales. Increased export and use of more fossil fuels will negatively impact the climate of this planet.

And, why is there no consideration of the potential negative impact upon property values of the residential condos and townhouses situated across the river in Riverport? For that matter, the presence of the theatre and entertainment complex needs to be factored in.

The environmental impact assessment must be comprehensive in that all development on and close to the Fraser River waterway must be considered. This includes increased capacity for Fortis storage, and, yes, even the potential construction of a new bridge to link Delta to Richmond.

Finally and most importantly, why is the BCEAO conducting the environmental assessment of a project which has provincial implications; i.e. the increased export of liquified natural gas? This is certainly a potential conflict of interest and needs to be addressed.

DELTABC
CandaceWilliams

Giant LNG vessels do not belong on the Fraser River. Serious disruption to salmon, endangered sturgeon, and eulachon will result from increased marine traffic.

BC should not be supporting the further destruction to sensitive ecosystems and First Nations traditional territories in Northern BC caused by hydraulic fracturing.

As the world continues to transition to sustainable energy options, desire for LNG will drop off. BC should be forward-looking and have a vision for the long term economic development of the province that does not rely on environmental destruction.

Duncan BC
MonikaMarcovici

I have huge concerns about the LNG on the Fraser .. The EA must include assessment of necessary development, potential accidents, deliberate acts, Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks, and Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change.
Who's responsibility are all of these important matters? Will Wespac take them on?
Regards,
Monika Marcovici

VancouverBC
thomasMackenzie

Why must there be the terminal in the Fraser River Delta???

why not place it away from the mouth of the Fraser River???
It could be farther off shore, say extend the Iona Jetty, and away from hindering the mouth of the Fraser with the fishing fleet not being disturbed.

DeltaBC
JenniferJaehrling

This action impacts too many areas and issues to even be considered. I say just forget about it, no LNG on the Fraser and all that comes with it.

DeltaBC
PatriciaDouglas

This is one of the most evil and wreckless provincial governments Thanks to all her voters and Those Too Lazy to Vote and thus Voted For Her!

SurreyBC
Corinne`Smith

We should be moving toward sustainable energy sources, not one that requires fracking, drilling, and more huge tankers in the Salish Sea. Profits in the LNG industry should not be at the expense of Delta's farmland and businesses. And with more frequent droughts, why are we wasting precious water on fracking? Finally, there is more than enough tanker traffic in the Salish Sea already. Please don't make a bad situation worse.

SurreyBC
KimDenman

I am concerned about yet another mega fossil fuel project being proposed for Delta. First a coal terminal with no public consultation and now an LNG facility? The Fraser River and Burns Bog could both be impacted by the LNG facility, as well as our farmland.
The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.
Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.
Please assure that a full arms-length, public assessment will take place.
Sincerely,
Kim Denman

DeltaBC
EricDoherty MCIP

Regarding the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Valued Component Selection Document

I believe that the Environmental Assessment must include the following in order to meet the letter and spirit of federal and provincial environmental assessment:

1) A joint assessment process for the Fortis BC and Wespac proposals.

Rather than allowing these projects to be presented to the public for review in a piecemeal fashion, the BC EAO should require the proponents to put forward a single application that encompasses the entire export project.

2) Upstream and downstream climate pollution assessment.

Millions of tonnes of CO2e carbon pollution would be released during the drilling, processing and transport of the gas to the FortisBC facility for liquefaction before handing on to Wespac. Currently, Wespac gives no indication it plans to assess any of these impacts in its review, even though they would directly result from the project going forward. These impacts, including the scale of methane leakage in BC should be part of the assessment.

Potential market jurisdictions for LNG, such as Hawaii, are considering conservation and renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal instead of fossil fuels. LNG from this facility should be compared to renewable energy and advanced energy conservation measures.

LNG has a carbon footprint roughly the same as coal, and according to some studies is more dangerous than coal due to the potential for methane releases to push the global temperature past a ‘tipping point’ beyond which positive feedbacks would lead to catastrophic warming. The BC EAO should require a full assessment of downstream and end use climate impacts from this project.

3) Safety

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

Apparently, Wespac does not intend to address the possibility of deliberate acts of destruction at all, as required by LNG proponents in the United States. This omission is not acceptable given the present geo-political situation.

The BC EAO should demand that Wespac develop a coherent overall assessment of safety risks and a comprehensive set of security measures to avoid those risks, at both the terminal location and along the marine route. The EA should include an evaluation of terminal location according to internationally recognized Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) siting standards.

The BC EAO should also require that Wespac explicitly evaluate impacts on property values in their environmental assessment, particularly given the real and perceived risk of catastrophic tanker fire and / or explosion.

4) Cumulative climate and other environmental effects

This is only one of many proposed LNG projects in BC. The cumulative effects of these multiple proposals must be considered particularly with regard to BC and Canada meeting existing and future climate commitments and legislated GHG pollution limits. The recent federal commitment to strive to keep warming below 1.5c must obviously be part of this. The other cumulative effects of expanding fracking in BC and Alberta should also be assessed.

VancouverBC
RoelofSchootman

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.
None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.
Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.
Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.
Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.
Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.
Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

DeltaBC
BrendenMacDonald

I am concerned about the feasibility of LNG in a post COP21 future. It is understood by 99% of climate scientists that we must basically assure full stop on fossil fuel development. There are better industries to invest in and no better industry to deescalate than fossil fuels.

How does any LNG plan truly benefit more than a few shareholders?

SurreyBC
RobHollins

The BC Gov'ts LNG proposal that places many bulk terminals up the Fraser, has so many thorny problems that it must be reconsidered.
1. Fracking produces earthquakes, uses much valuable water and pollutes ground water.
2. LNG production has the GHG Villain, Methane, adding to our global warming.
3. More ship traffic in the confined Salish Sea is a bad idea. Up the Fraser, a major salmon route, Is even worse.
4. Adding more height (and length) to the bridge replacing the Massey Tunnel is a needless expense to the bridge users. And the answer to traffic congestion is not more roads, but MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT OPTIONS.
5. Putting major dangerous industrial plants close to huge urban populations is reckless. Putting these plants on agricultural land is CRIMINAL.

SurreyBC
DerekMcLauchlan

I am concerned that the scope of the terms of reference of the Environmental Assessment ("EA") proposal is too narrow. It should be expanded to include the following additional issues:

1. Offshore impact on marine mammals;
2. Potential impact on riparian areas in the event of either:
(a) accident; or
(b) malicious act;
3. Impact of construction of power transmission facilities to provide the power required to convert natural gas to LNG;
4. Impact of pipelines to connect the LNG facility to upstream and downstream connections;
5. Impact of increased carbon emissions from the energy generation to convert gas to LNG; and
6. Impact of increased exploration and exploitation of natural gas deposits driven by the increased demand facilitated by this LNG export facility.

RichmondBC
janicemclean

delta is already the dumping ground for refuse in the burnes bog which is our biggest air filter.... no more in our back yard. enough is enough, show some respect for the environment!!!!!!!

tsawwassenBC
TraceyBrillon

I reject all LNG projects in Canada, and any expansion would be detrimental to our ground water.

There is absolutely no justification to continue fracking and destroying our environment for the sake of GREED!

These corporations do not reflect the current concerns for our "ONE WORLD"!

FRACKING IS A SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING PROCESS! STOP!

SurreyBC
PennyCharlebois

No LNG on the Fraser or anywhere else.

RichmondBC
DaveMunday

I feel that any project that is going to increase or even uphold the ongoing practice of fracking is something that need to be stopped. Fracking is causing our ground water to disappear into the depths of the earth where contaminants and distance from the surface are going to put an end to its usefulness, and therein cause our other surface water resources to become severely impacted and compromised.

SurreyBC
RonaldHyatt

Respect for the Earth and for Humanity and for the future lives of our children should be first in our minds. All fossil fuel developers have in their small minds is profit at any price.

Thetis IslandBC
MariannePhillips

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export It's just too dangerous and fracking should be stopped altogether.
There will also be an impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea and on endangered species, killer whales, salmon herring all kinds of wildlife. What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels It is time the BC government put their time and money behind producing a green economy.

New WestminsterBC
LiseScollie

Not enough environmental assessment done. Not enough First Nations allowed to comment on what happens on THEIR land. Not enough consulting with the citizens of BC.

Hagensborg BC
P & EHoluboff

LNG is not only a sunset fossil fuel, but also is not economically viable. In the end, tax payers would end up subsidizing the port.
LNG is also a big polluter. Fracking, compression, and transportation of LNG release huge amounts of hot house gases.
Most of the world is moving away from fossil fuels because of the damage they inflict.
Also a port on the Fraser River would greatly damage the river and surrounding area.
This port must not be allowed.

LangleyBC
TerrySlack

The U.B.C. Westwater work on lower river mainstem and outer banks are some of the best scientific habitat studies ever done ! The Westwater Estuarine Management " Prospectus for Tilbury Slough" by Dorcey, Hall. Levy and Yesaki is also a study that should be included in the Fortis B. C. , L. N. G. expansion review ! This was a Federal Government , Westwater Tilbury Island Slough Study , located near the present "Fortis B. C. L. N. G. plant and other industrial businesses located on Tilbury Island !

For many years now Fisheries and Oceans Canada has had title to lands in Tilbury Slough and there for should be very interested in the possible expansion of the Fortis B. C. L. N. G. Plant and the effects it might have on the Federal Government "Restored "Estuarine Salmonid Habitat" in theTilbury Slough area !

Terry Slack "Retired Commercial Fraser River Salmon Fisher"

VancouverBC
MaximilianKniewasser

Dear BC EAO,

Teresa Morris
Project Assessment Manager
Environmental Assessment Office
PO Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 9V1
Dear Mrs. Morris:
Re: WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Valued Components to be included in the environmental assessment for the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project (the “Project”). We request that you subject the Project to a robust environmental assessment that includes:
• Explicit consideration of the upstream impacts associated with the Project;
• Explicit consideration of how the Project is compatible with Canada’s support for keeping global temperature increases below 1.5 C;
• Explicit consideration of the how the Project is compatible with the recently submitted Climate Leadership Team recommendations.
The inclusion of upstream environmental impacts associated with the extraction, processing and transmission of the natural gas needed to supply the Project makes sense because the liquefaction process is only feasible if all of the other components of the supply chain are in place. Pembina’s B.C.
LNG and shale gas scenario-planning tool (recently developed with modelling support from Navius Research) demonstrates that the majority of impacts associated with the Project are from upstream development.1 These would be excluded if the review only focuses on the LNG terminal for the Project.
For example, an additional 1410 wells may need to be drilled in northeast B.C. to produce the natural gas needed to supply the Project over a 30-year life span. Those wells could require 22.5 billion litres of freshwater for hydraulic fracturing. And the cumulative wellhead-to-waterline greenhouse gas emissions from the Project over 30 years could total 48 million tonnes of CO2e — 68% of which could come from upstream sources. In 2030, the Project’s annual greenhouse gas emissions could total 1.5 million tonnes CO2e.2
Canada’s support at the recent Paris climate conference for limiting climate change to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels is relevant to the Project. To achieve such a world, global demand for all fossil fuels, including natural gas, must drop. Modelling has shown that to limit temperature increases to 2 C, the
global demand for natural gas must peak around 2030, and drop below current levels by mid-century.3 Limiting temperature increases to 1.5 C will further decrease the demand for natural gas. This will have implications for the viability of new investments in long-lived natural gas infrastructure. We encourage the government to apply an evidence-based approach to assessing how the Project is compatible with Canada’s stated goal of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 C.

The environmental assessment should also consider how the Project addresses the recently released recommendations from the Climate Leadership Team (CLT), including increased electrification of natural gas processes and improved methane management.4 The government asked the CLT to provide recommendations for the next phase of the Climate Action Plan that allow B.C. to achieve its legislated climate targets. If the Project does not adequately satisfy the recommendations, the Project may not be compatible with B.C.’s official climate goals.
In this context, we believe that the public interest is best served by having the Project undergo a robust environmental assessment that includes the above-described components.

Yours sincerely,

Maximilian Kniewasser
Analyst | Pembina Institute
Suite 610, 55 Water Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1A1
www.pembina.org

1 The tool is available at: http://www.pembina.org/pub/BCShaleTool. The environmental impacts will depend on assumptions such as the source of the natural gas and the strength of environmental policy. The assumptions used
to produce the estimates in this letter are: LNG demand is determined by the WesPac LNG project coming online in 2020; non-LNG shale gas development is constant at 2014 levels; the 2030 source of gas is 15% Conventional,
65% Montney, and 20% Horn River Basin; and current environmental policies.
2 Our analysis just considers wellhead-to-waterline impacts. We leave it to other groups to comment on the need for downstream assessment.
3 Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, LNG and Climate Change: The Global Context (2014). http://www.pembina.org/pub/lng-and-climate-change-the-global-context
4 Climate Leadership Team, Recommendations to Government (2015).
http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2015/11/CLT-recommendations-to-government_Final.pdf

Please see our detailed submission from the Pembina Institute:
http://reallnghearings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/BCEAO-Tilbury-Jetty-Pembina-Comment-Dec161.pdf

VancouverBC
ReneeRodin

As a mother and grandmother I'm concerned for all our children and their future. No amount of profit will be able to repair the irrevocable damage done by LNG. I hope our current provincial government has the integrity to reverse its position on promoting this environmental hazard.

VancouverBC
PhilHarrison

The concerns I have on this project are too many to articulate. The one I wish to focus on is the impact that this project will have on the next generation. The world is coming to grips with the reality of climate change, and need for change in he way we live our lives. The need to transition away from fossil fuel is imperative, and the very last thing we should be investing in is more infrastructure to export more fossil fuel, and export more climate changing CO2. Our province likes to present itself as taking to task the most important issue of our lives. I see very little being done.

We seem to be living in a paradigm where the only solution to improve our economy is extractive industries. There are more jobs in renewable, solar, wind, etc, with minimal environmental impact.

This assessment can not ignore the upstream, and downstream impacts that this particular project will have on BC environment, and on climate change.

thank you for hearing my concerns

Phil Harrison

SurreyBC
MicheleBecker

I am opposed to more industrial development on the Fraser River which diminishes the availability of agricultural land and which may have adverse effects on the state of the river. We need to grow more of our own food rather than relying on produce from the California.

RichmondBC
BarbaraHuisman

I am opposed to the proposed LNG export facility in Delta, as there does not seem to have been a comprehensive study of the cumulative environmental effects of the various industrial projects that are trying to be established in the Fraser Estuary. We need to understand the big picture before forging ahead with projects such as this, and endangering a world-class estuary. Let us do the proper studies so we are sure we are not endangering the precious ecosystem that feeds us all.

RichmondBC
DebraBereti

This LNG idea is a disaster waiting to happen. Prior to the disaster it is a polluting antiquated method of energy. Money needs to be invested into renewable energies not polluting dangerous energy. Wake up people and start thinking renewable such as solar, wind and harnessing tides.

MissionBC
TinaWinterlik

NO Sacrifice Zone!! No Fracking! No LNG!! No Oil! No Pipelines!

Ever since we’ve had the oil industry enter, we’ve had these jobs that were created, but there were 11,000 jobs created and over 10,000 people that came into our state. And we’ve had violence against women increase by 168 percent, particularly in the area of rape. We have 14-, 15- and 16-year-old girls that are willingly going into man camps and selling themselves."

"We call them that because there are literally thousands of men living in these hovels. They’re like FEMA trailers or RV parks or wherever they can find space, that used to be a wheat field or a sunflower field, is now an oil-fracking operation. And so we’ve seen an increase greatly of crime and violence, drug abuse. I have buried two young girls, my friends, this last year, who got addicted to the heroin, because we now have organized crime.

As far as the environmental toxins, we won’t even feel the effects for 20 years. And I’m so worried that at this COP21 my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter won’t have a say, but she will be experiencing the worst impacts. And it just doesn’t make any sense to me that this is the 21st COP and we are considered sacrifice zones in my community."

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/11/we_are_sacrifice_zones_native_leader

Vancouver BC
EgonFrank

We live less than a half a kilometer from the proposed shipping lane, and I object to having to live in fear of an accident on the Fraser River. Putting a LNG plant near residential areas is totally asinine. And from comments made by Wespac, it appears that they really don't give a damn to what happens once the LNG is loaded onto tankers - whether tanker traffic impacts human life or animal life around and in the Salish Sea.

RichmondBC
MonicaHoffmann

My opinion is that we need to seriously think outside the tiny box we have our heads in, when it comes to our energy demands. I have paddled the Peace River in opposition to the proposed Site C dam, I have protested on numerous other occasions in protest of our waste first approach to the lands and waters that nourish us. We have new generations of humans who will inherit our selfish and wasteful past and get to shoulder the burden. When asked, what will we say? I have a three year old nephew and a nearly two year old niece and I am appalled to think of what I must explain to them when they realize what past generations have done to their future. We have the ability and intelligence to change the way we do business, the way we live our lives, and the future we plan to give to our child and their children and the children after them. But we cannot keep expecting some future generation to make the change. It is up to us, for we do not need to keep feeding a broken energy system. We already know how to clean up our act, we have had information on electric cars since the 1970's, if not before then. Money cannot buy me water and land to drink and eat from. It comes down to greed. Do we really think this world is for the person staring back in the mirror? I think we need to look deeper into our own eyes. I'm making changes. It's not easy, in fact, it's often inconvenient and hard, but I like the eyes staring back at me in the mirror. And I believe that the path I've put myself on allows me to explain to my nephew and niece that I'm trying to live in harmony with the mother Earth that supports our very lives. It cannot be that the best solution we have is a life on Mars. We are brighter than that.

VancouverBC
DavidMivasair

I am concerned about the following. the Environmental Assessment should address these issues thoroughly and clearly:

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

Wespac, FortisBC and the government must address the impacts in a comprehensive way, looking at all the impacts of the project.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

VancouverBC
SusannaDokkie-McDonald

http://www.desmog.ca/2015/12/15/coal-or-climate-vancouver-approves-giant-coal-export-facility-eve-new-climate-deal
First this coal port (could be more), now another LNG port (also are more).
How many more fossil fuel projects are attempting to make it to the west coast, damaging Canadian environments and ecosystems with no consultation with property owners, businesses or other affected parties, let alone First Nations justifiable objections? One of these projects is one too many! If oil (and other fossil fuel) companies would put as much time, energy and monies into renewable energy, we would be able to actually make a positive step towards recovery. Site C and other hydro electric dams are antiquated. This particular dam has been turned down twice before so why resurrect it in the face of drought conditions which effect our food supply? This dam was conceived back in the 1950's making it an antiquated idea whose time it long past. It would infringe on Treaty #8's last natural ability to practice a way of life. With two dams already in place, (WAC Bennett dam is damaged as has been reported on in 2012 but hidden from the Site C inquires with a claim that the two dams will not fail) this dam would flood spiritual sites, burial grounds, traditional medicines, disturb an already vulnerable ecosystem, flood historical sites, cause ungulates to disappear as a way of life for locals. The hunting is way down already and the fish are poisoned and not edible, especially for pregnant women. Too much methyl mercury, Flooded vegetation creates methane gases adding to GHGs, not reducing. To add to potpourri why this is colossal mistake would be the flooding of and BC best farmland ever! First and second place in a canola yield contest, not only measured by the acre but by the protein content. This was not only for all of BC but included all of Alberta yields as well. Why would anyone want to flood farmland that can produce enough food, every year, to feed 1,000,000 people???? With all this wonderful fresh food production comes jobs both in the fields and on the roads and out in the stores, etc. These are permanent jobs for as long as people eat.
The Site C dam is a vanity project, boosted as the biggest infrastructure project for Christy Clark, who is a Conservative before a Liberal. The dam is to be paid for by the tax payers and rate payers for BC Hydro. It is not needed for people as was first tooted. BC Hydro has admitted that this dam dam is to supply cheap power for LNG, Christy Clark's pet project. LNG is Fracking. Fracking is pumping poison water, our drinking water, into the veins of our home, our country, our planet. This poison is unpredictable and has cause 4.4 and 4.6 earthquakes just north of the proposed site for this ostentatious, outdated Site C dam. As I said, this dam was turned down twice before. The environmental laws, rules and regulations need to reflect a protective nature, not the exploitative stance it is now poised in. The laws should not hinder, but protect our increasingly damaged environment. We need the trees to clean our air. Stop Site C today. The ultimate decision for this dam is still in the BC courts but BC Hydro has and continues to do much damage, clear cutting, removing eagles nest, commandeering farm land and homes, buying up everything in Hudson Hope and not building to reduce property values and has interfered with the livelihood of locals living in the flood zone by promoting an unapproved project, since the 1950's, reducing any chance of gaining a bank loan for fear of loosing everything should the dam actually happen. This is a travesty happening as you read this letter. Stop the last section of the Peace River Valley from being forever lost and never recoverable, Never ever. Save the Peace. Save the farmland, Honor the Treaty. Honor the COP 21 agreement to lower GHGs.

CrossfieldAB
CarolynJerome

A people assessment of the impact of any and all development along the Frser Fiver / Salish Sea should consider the environmental impact on communities firstly.

History has shown us citizens that evrything is presented in a rose coloured glasses...and the disasters are paid for out of our taxes.

Any and all development of LNG plants must be thoroughly assessed and meet the standards set out by each and every community.My community, I am sue, would say THE RISK IS TOO GREAT. Develop something else.

Galiano IslandBC
PeterTebbutt

The EA for this project should not take a limited, piecemeal view of this proposal tailored to a few key points as the proponents would prefer. Rather, the EA should include the impacts of increased fracking in NE BC, the off gassing of methane, potential for more *proven( seismic disturbance created by fracking, the impacts on residential and farm lands of pipeline and transmission line routing expansion, the effect on property values along the Fraser River, tanker safety and routing as well as the impacts on marine life in the river system as well as in the Salish Sea.
As the Paris climate negotiation shows, the time is now and the agreement insufficient to the task at hand. This proposal, and many others like it should not go ahead. I have a moral obligation to alter the way I live and stand peaceiully for the necessary changes we as a society have to make. My question to you is, what are you going to do?

Powell RiverBC
Aragorn Klockars

re: Environmental Assessment for LNG production and shipping by FortisBC and Wespac Midstream
To whom it concerns,
As a citizen of BC I strenuously object to allowing production and transport of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) any place along the Fraser River and associated inlets Likewise, I call for a stand-alone comprehensive environmental assessment (EA) considering all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. The EA should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.
Canada has just signed on to the landmark COP agreement which officially obliges Canada to significantly reduce fossil fuel use to meet significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This project is in contradiction to that intent.
There are other factors that make LNG dubious product. The cycle of obtaining this product through fracking has a long chain of complicated, laborious, and costly procedures with harmful and destructive effects to people, land, and air. (Recent research has even shown a direct correlation between fracking and earthquakes in the interior of BC.) The energy required to produce and use LNG is certainly not cost effective.
Those are some of my concerns with the product; the transportation is another matter. Increased tanker traffic in the Salish Sea is unacceptable for its impact on our naturals systems, including migration of salmon and orcas. Ignoring the inevitable pollution and accidents is short-sighted and speaks more to greed than good will. The destruction of first national lands along the “Fraser Inlet” for construction of facilities (approval has been obtained though coercion) would be unconscionable.
The export of LNG encourages fossil fuel burning in other jurisdictions, particularly Asia, and is contrary to our survival as a species. For these reasons and more I, as a vocal member of the electorate, in all good conscience cannot allow this to stand.
Sincerely yours,
Aragorn Klockars

NanaimoBC
OttoLanger

WESPAC TILBURY ISLAND LNG JETTY APPLICATI

RichmondBC
AndrewMurray

I have many concerns about exporting LNG from this location. Is it wise to locate an LNG plant in a densely urbanized environment? Wespac Midstream has said it is not responsible once the ship leave it's jetty. Who is? What would the impact be from a catastrophic event such as fire or terrorist attack? What kind of liability insurance will Fortis and Wespac Midstream be required to carry?
What additional infrastructure will be needed to make this project work? Will there need to be additional power lines and where will they go? Will a new additional pipeline be required?
Will this project result in an increase in fracking in NE B.C.? Does the scope of the EA include all GHGs from wellhead to the burning of this gas overseas. How will this project impact this provinces and Canada's commitments to meet our climate change targets?
What kind of cooling process will Fortis be using? Will it mean millions of gallons of chlorinated and desalinated water being pumped back into the Fraser. If so what is the effect on the fishery and wildlife?
How many permanent jobs will this project create?
Why am I being asked to pay for a new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel so larger LNG ships can reach this location?

New WestminsterBC
KimDarwin

If the BC Liberals continue to put all our eggs in the LNG basket, there is no way we can meet our GHG reduction targets. The promised profitability math didn't add up when they first announced their plans. Given the worlds oversupply of LNG and the concessions (tax breaks, etc.) the BC Liberals have made to entice LNG companies to B.C., it is even less profitable. Time to admit they were wrong. We missed the LNG boat. Than God!

SecheltBC
RobPettigrew

Dear Sirs,

There is nothing positive to say regarding this project - LNG extraction is wrong at the well head, wrong in the pipe, wrong in the proposed location to liquefy and ship, wrong in the tanker, and wrong in the pocketbook. Perhaps most importantly it is wrong in it's timing. Canada just agreed to reduce it's carbon footprint in partnership with other nations, in a last ditch attempt to keep global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.

LNG will have a very negative environmental impact in all stages of development. It will have a very negative impact on the safety of all residents in the Fraser River corridor exposed to the processing and shipping of this product. It will have a very negative impact on all residential property values adjacent to your proposed processing, loading and shipping corridor.

Why would Wespac Midstream propose to process, load and ship this product on the banks of the Fraser River? This makes no sense. The Fraser River has so many more valuable attributes than being an industrial transportation conduit. This is the most critical salmon spawning habitat in the province and country. The Fraser River estuary provides globally significant habitat for numerous species of migrating birds. It also provides critically important habitat for other marine species such as sturgeon as well as numerous terrestrial species that depend on the Fraser's abundant riparian habitat for their survival. A lot of work has gone into cleaning up the Fraser to insure it's ongoing importance as marine and riparian habitat. This proposed LNG project is in many ways, a step backwards.

This proposed project is a project of the past. We need to invest in clean energy alternatives now. I expect that this proposed project, if it does go ahead, will have a very short lifespan as Canada is now seriously committed to reducing it's carbon output. We cannot offload responsibility for carbon output on downstream users. LNG production and processing must be accounted for on our national carbon ledger.

Thanks you for considering my opinions.

Regards,

Rob Pettigrew
Ladner, BC

LadnerBC
Jeffgraham

There are many critical, life changing issues to address. Please think about the people who will be affected, the beautiful planet we are busy destroying, and stop focusing on the money to be made. Greed is ramping up and we are all racing madly towards our demise. What kind of a maniac approves fracking ? Who are these people ? Snap out of it. Do you have children or grand children ?

SurreyBC
Donald Gordon

The narrow scope of the existing environmental assessment clearly provides a bias in favour of the project proponents. If this narrow scope is allowed to stand, then the environmental assessment has very little merit or credibility.

The BCEAO must develop and require a credible scope of assessment. Without one, their reviews will be regarded as meaningless and opposition will clearly increase against this project and others.

VancouverBC
EwanQuirk

Public Comments
Does LNG on the Fraser make sense?Important questions haven’t been asked
Project OverviewBigger than Woodfibre …
Proposed EA of Fraser River LNGWhat’s Missing?
Massey TunnelWhat’s the link?
Contact/About UsVTACC | RH

LNG on the Fraser: what should be in the EA?
This is our chance to make sure key concerns are covered in the environmental assessment of this project.

Wespac Midstream, the US company that wants to build an LNG export terminal in Delta, has delivered a report to the BC government outlining what it wants to cover in its environmental assessment (EA) of the project. The government now wants to hear from you: what impacts need to be considered in the EA? The deadline for comments is December 21 2015 – use the form at right to send your comments today.
Summary of concerns missing from the EA proposal

Details can be found here.

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA

Richmond BC
DeirdreWhalen

LNG is a crime against the environment; NO LNG!

RichmondBC
AlChiang

Noise and fuel pollution will increase on the Fraser due to marine seaway congestion, foghorns and ship fuel.
Local fisheries and tourism will be impacted by large LNG tanker traffic.

How will the health of citizens living bybthe waterfront be affected, mentally and physically?

How is it not Wespac's responsibility when their ships are loaded and sailing with LNG? They must be held accountable for their cargo in case of spills and harm to the local environment
Fracking contributes to climate change, how will LNG exporters and frackers deal safely with this?

RichmondBC
LushaZ

To all concerned citizens and conscientious politicians -

I just found out about the plans to build a LNG export terminal just upriver of the Massey tunnel, on the inner turn of the river where sediment flows deposit on "Delta" every year. That is the place Westpac is planning to dredge the river (dig a large hole for its dock and tankers). I have concerns about this proposed site, which seems economically and ecologically unsound. It is in the middle of the largest urban area on the West Coast, right next to traffic infrastructure and key corridors. Quite frankly, who is willing to assume the risk and liability for any accidents? It is also right next to the aptly named Burns Bog, a rich wetland for biodiversity but also for stored carbon, which will readily catch fire.

I am also quite alarmed that as a citizen who keeps her eyes out and ears open, last night was the first time I heard about this proposal. Has consultation been widely conducted, with ample time for input and necessary reconsideration? Such a project would not only directly affect waterfront property owners, industrial and commercial businesses, but residents within noise, air and water travel distance, as well as those of us that travel close to the area every day. I am not interested in disruptions to the Massey Tunnel because we need to rebuild it at a deeper depth for tankers to be able to travel through. Until I am reassured about the safety and stability of proposed traffic, I do not want them above me as I drive through the tunnel in case of any horrific accidents.

The LNG industry itself is economically questionable, and ecologically unsound. In the Lower Mainland, where our thriving film, tourism, and real estate industries - to name just a few - depend upon our beautiful mountains and waters, any proposal deserves very close scrutiny.

South SurreyBC
IanMacKenzie

Even though many issues connected to LNG exports from B.C. have not been addressed by the Wespac Midstream report to our provincial government as to what they would like to include in their environmental assessment there is one issue which is the herd of elephants in the room, and that is THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF EXPORTING AND BURNING YET MORE FOSSIL FUELS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!
Considering the difficulty of reaching the emissions reduction limits promised by our federal government in the recent Paris agreement why are we not planning to leapfrog over the increase in use of natural gas straight into investing every last extra public and private dollar into the development of renewable energy industries? It seems to me that the B.C. government's stated economic objective of an LNG industry is a mistake of gigantic importance for our provincial economy. Pouring public money into the Site C project in order to develop energy to run an LNG industry is foolish. It will strand our economic future on the same shoals where oil is being stranded, in addition to playing tug-of-war with the federal attempt to LOWER our country's emissions. Certainly if B.C. drills and fracks for more natural gas and ships it anywhere in the world the GHG it will release will be Canada's continuing contribution to disastrous climate change! Do we seriously believe that we can play King Canute and keep the seas from rising over the lands of our human neighbors by producing LNG to burn?
As we speak there are credible estimates that place LNG in one of the top categories of fossil fuels in terms of releasing GHG.
I'm appalled at the short-sightedness of our provincial leader!

KamloopsBC
terryslack

The important juvenile salmon habitat losses in the South arm of the Fraser River , from a accidental in river L. N. G. spill will effect the areas noted in the following scientific studies !
Westwater Research Center "Juvenile salmon utilization of tidal channels of the Fraser River Estuary by Levy , Northcote and Birch " Technical Report No 23
Westwater Research Center "The Distribution and abundance of Juvenile Salmon in Marsh Habitats of the Fraser River Estuary by Levy and Northcote" technical report No 25

"Health of the Fraser River Aquatic Ecosystems Vol. #1 Canada DOE FRAP i998 "Sediment Transport Patterns in the Lower Fraser River and Fraser Delta by McLaren " GeoSea Consulting Canada Limited " and Taina Tuominen "Aquatic and Atmospheric Sciences Division of Environment Canada , Vancouver B. C.

D. O.E. "Health of the fraser River Foreshore Ecosystems Past and Present , Benthic Community Production and Seabird Utilization" by Harrison , Yin , Ross ,Arvai ,Gordon, Bendell-Young, Thomas, Elner, Sewell and Shepherd "

Dredge Management " Guidelines " Fraser River Estuary Management Program 2000 Report "

I would request that the B.C. E. A.O. review all these scientific Reports and comment on each report as it relates to L. N. G. loading and transport on the Lower Fraser River ! Terry Slack

vancouverBC
CareyDitmars

The scope of the assessment must include the effect of LNG plants which are likely to follow the jetty construction. The federal government has committed Canada to prevent a rise in temperature above 1.5 degrees -- this is incompatible with jetty construction. LNG production fumes could harm farmland. LNG accidents could kill people.

RichmondBC
NickRobinson

Having just come back from the COP 21 talks in Paris, Christie Clark is displaying the height of Hypocrisy by even considering a NEW Fossil Fuel Development of ANY sort -
Let alone one with so MANY faults such as this one -
Such as the increased danger to residents along the Fraser River, and hence the devaluation of property values to say the least.
There are so many more faults deserving of consideration that this project should NEVER BE CONSIDERED!!

DeltaBC
Carrie Saxifrage

1.The Fraser River LNG EA must include all climate impacts, in particular the fugitive emissions from fracking. Methane is 105 times more potent than CO2 over a 20 year time frame and more than 33 times more potent overall. LNG projects cannot be allowed to go forward until there is consensus on their actual and total climate impacts. This should include emissions from closed well heads, liquification, and transport. It's a fool's claim that, because natural gas has the least emissions at point of burning, it is a climate safe alternative. This claim can come only if the Fraser River LNG EA compiles data regarding all climate impacts and that data supports the claim.

2. This project is not confined to LNG shipment. Cumulative impacts of the project must be considered: new power lines, pipelines, liquifacation facilities, farmland impacts, electricity sources, community safety, route hazard assessment during transport, depression of property values and more.

3. The climate impacts at point of burning of the LNG should also be included in the climate assessment portion of the EA.

The time is over in which we can gloss over climate and environmental impacts without taking an honest look at a project's externalized costs. The Fraser River LNG project should not go forward without a thorough and accurate assessment of the project's impacts on others - from local farmers to the consequences of its emissions in the atmosphere. Wespac proposes an EA that falls far short of an honest and complete look at the impacts of an LNG facility on the Fraser River.

Mansons LandingBC
PamShaw

The writing is on the wall. Fossil fuels and the infrastructure that supports them are part of the past. We are better served - environmentally and economically (have you seen the price of LNG lately?) - by investing in projects to develop and deliver alternative energy sources. Wind and solar projects are already well underway on this continent and BC needs to get on that track. Catering to the oil and gas industry is just that, catering to an industry that puts profit ahead of threats to the earth. Governments worry about economic instability when they let go of the old ways, but look at Alberta. They're going to pull through. Governments need to factor in the instability that results from disregarding what the physical earth is telling us. People are listening to the earth and they will not stop listening. The people will not tolerate a government that worships corporatism.

DeltaBC
Hans & MargoElfert

We have recently become aware of a bizarre project to put a huge LNG plant and terminal many miles up the Fraser river. We live, on the river, about 3km from the site.

Aside from the dubious economics of selling something for $6 that costs $12 to produce, there are many other hair-raising problems with this ludicrous proposal. It flies in the face of all rules and guidelines for LNG terminals established by SIGTTOW (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators). The ships that are ultimately intended to load there can barely squeeze their way up the river to the terminal and will be able to do so only by dint of continuous and massive dredging. This dredging alone may lead to huge environmental consequences for the whole river and all the other users of the river and its many branches and tributaries.

In the US an installation like this one would be absolutely prohibited. We cannot simply ignore that.

It seems to us that a thorough assessment of all upstream and downstream impacts of this outrageous project needs to be undertaken.

The proponents are organizing and shepherding the approvals and permitting in such a conniving and underhanded manner that that should also raise considerable alarm bells.

Yours truly,
Margo and Hans Elfert

RichmondBC
JenniferMacArthur

It is very important that any risk assessment done about LNG traffic and processing be broad based. Wespac's plan must include consideration assessment of all safety risks, deliberate attack and response plan. It must also consider the potential effect of this project on property values along the routes travelled. It must include the effects of tracking. It must also include consideration of any natural habitat or wild life.

This is not the time to allow narrow views on the way we fuel our planet. Use broad based assessments that respect what we have now and how to better there future.

SurreyBC
RobinDel Pino Ferries

I would like to see the following concerns addressed in the EA, regarding the Westpac + Fortis LNG export terminal development in Delta.

I am opposed to any development in Delta that allows upstream regional impacts, such as: drilling, fracking, methane leaks, catastrophic tanker or terminal leaks and agricultural land destruction. Habitat destruction for wildlife and migrating birds is also a concern.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels?

Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

Finally, exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

Thank you

VancouverBC
ShannonJohnson

Please educate yourselves on the very serious environmental, climate, change and property consequences before you proceed any further down this road. The location you are considering on the Fraser River is not viable. Logistically it is very foolish. Educate yourselves on other successful plants of a similar nature and notice where they HAVEN'T been built; in populated areas, in narrow, shallow river channels, in a high use waterway, in an ecologically sensitive area, and near a proposed jet fuel storage location or so close to residences where it will decrease their property values. The potential, no, the guarantee for environmental destruction both upstream and downstream destruction, the very real risk of human and property destruction should anything go wrong with the tankers or the facility itself, the logistically foolish location of the facility, all of these risks greatly outweigh the potential but very few benefits to having this thing in the proposed location. Add to that the impending glut of lng in the market in the near future, the high cost of getting it to market and the decreasing value of the product, not to mention the guaranteed huge increase in carbon dioxide released into the environment and you have what amounts to at least an international embarrassment, and at worst a disaster. You must consider everything from the damage to the river banks caused by the wake of the tankers, to the cost/benefit of the project. For the infinitesimal gains that might occur, there are guaranteed tragedies that cannot be undone. Please educate yourselves on the standards and regulations adhered to by the US regarding these types of facilities. They have rules in place that, if used here, would eliminate the Fraser River as a feasible location for this project.
Please, educate yourselves because as of right now, you don't have a clue. This can be an opportunity to do something intelligent and well thought out, acknowledging that this is not a good idea, or it could be a shining example of how stupid and short sighted this industry and provincial government is. Please be smart and take into consideration that you are being fed a lot of disinformation and outright lies by the proponents whose only goal is to profit by any means necessary. The proponent is not concerned with anything that we are concerned with. You have to be the group that protects the many from the profit -driven motivations of the few. Please differentiate between reality and fantasy.
Who has the most to gain here? And who has the most to lose?

DeltaBC
EleanorCoffey

The project should be abandoned, and instead the BC Liberals need to read and listen to the concerns cited especially the environmental impact. We are, finally, going to see the end of oil tankers on our coast - thank you, Justin Trudeau. But, again, the B.C. Liberals have an agenda that tries to overreach and ignore the people it will effect.

VancouverBC
cedricchan

Tankers are heavy polluters as they burn on heavy fuel oil, air pollution impact to the lower mainland is of critical concern.

burnabyBC
Troy GermaineTaylor

Please, no foreign investment in these kinds of projects. We require the best in quality control to ensure no accidents occur and we need to ensure that our water ways are protected before anything begins. This feels rushed. Consult with the public first before you make such lasting commitments.

VancouverBC
Ronald SOsborne

The Whole issue of LNG which involves massive expansion of Fracking and therefore the whole province of BC... is Much too important to be dealt with by polititions and industry..it MUST be opened to public debate across BC and completely open as to the benefits verses the negative factors including water resources pollution

LadysmithBC
DavidKidd

Sir/Madam:
I am against the processing of LNG in the peri-urban Fraser River area. as well of the inherent danges of such an industry, wee need to consider transport issues. Add LNG to the proposed Kinder Morgan transport of dirty oil, the oil traffic from Alaska in to a Washington State port and existing traffic and we have a grossly overloaded and dangerous port and shipping lanes.

In North East BC Fracking is a serious problem. It takes huge quantities of water in areas of limited water, Fracked gas wells loose production quite rapidly so new wells must be continuously drilled, it leaves serious waste water problems, and there is evidence of leakage of methane gas a powerful greenhouse gas.

I view of the climate agreement reached in Paris and scientific evidence of evidence global warming we should not be rapidly expanding fossil fuel industries (or coal export industries)

Lake CowichanBC
RodgerHamilton

This project will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. This piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects is not reasonable; the effects will be cumulative and the assessment must look at the entire project impacts to be credible.

The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. An assessment of the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline; In light of the December 2015 world agreement to limit warming to 2 C, the impact on our shared climate of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels absolutely must be assessed and the results of this assessment have to be shared with British Columbians. It is obvious that all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA to maintain any degree of credibility.

Williams LakeBC
Sheila Pratt

I remember seeing ads for the Northern Gateway Pipeline that featured maps of the Douglas Channel - and there were no islands! Thus it is that I am somewhat suspicious of applicants’ proposals by proponents; it is understandable that they make the most positive presentation possible, but I must ask the Environmental Assessment Office to be sure that ALL relevant information, both positive and negative, be considered:

-Please take into account the “big picture”. What will this proposed development mean to farmland in Delta? If it doesn’t affect it today, will there be a time in the future, when cooling and condensation of the product is required, so further expansion will be needed? Is the possible need for further expansion clearly explained in the application to the EAO?

-Does the proposal include plans not only for accidents and malfunctions, but also for a deliberate attack on and LNG terminal or tanker. In these days of San Bernardino and Paris, it is something to consider! The results of such an accident, malfunction or attack could be CATASTROPHIC! Has Wespac explicitly assessed the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to current international standards and have they conducted a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard? What will happen to property values in the affected areas? Even in our over-priced housing market, the “big picture” requires this consideration.

-The natural gas will be coming from wells drilled in NE BC, which means more fracking and, of course, escaping methane. How will escaping methane affect our ability to adhere to the COP21 agreement? Earthquakes are often created by fracking; will the EAO be considering this? Cooling and condensing the gas for export will take a tremendous amount of energy. Will that power be generated by yet more natural gas or by building Site C, the building of which will create tremendous environmental and cultural destruction at a huge financial cost to British Columbians?

-Wespac claims that the LNG they load onto ocean going vessels will then no longer be their responsibility. But the EAO must consider the possible effects of increased vessel traffic in BC waters. The EAO must also consider burning even more fossil fuels to export LNG.

The EAO, IF IT IS DOING ITS JOB, must consider ALL issues, not only those that are presented by the proponents!

Maple RidgeBC
KarenMay

I am concerned that further expansion of the LNG industry flies in the face of our Canadian committments to reduce carbon emissions and protect against increased global warming. I believe there should be a moratorium on all LNG expansion and transportation until our new national plan is in place.
Failing a complete moratorium, there must be much more stringent and realistic assessment of the real costs of LNG operations to the environment, to other species, to property values and to safety risks.

Van andaBC
PeterHolcomb

I am especially concerned with the fracking that is necessary for gas production and the vast amount of powerful greenhouse emissions leaked into the atmosphere.

BellinghamWA
UrsulaEasterbrook

The Big Picture: NOT a piecemeal approach!
Wespac and Fortis are proposing a massive development in Delta: Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. In order to fill the required amounts to be shipped, further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, massive new power lines over fertile farmland, and a new or expanded natural gas wells and pipeline will be required.

1. It’s time that the governments (both Provincial and Federal) produce Big Picture Legislation to deal with new projects. None of the above issues are mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. Wespac and FortisBC’s piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. a) Local Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker would be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate terrorist attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in limited fashion. Not to mention that there is NOT a trained Emergency Response Team anywhere near here for an event like that.
2. b) As part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard
2. c) Wespac needs to run LNG tankers up and down the Fraser River, past the waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong and also causes a dangerous system, since the Jet fuel tanks will be right across from the LNG loading pier.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: the increase in required natural fracked gas will mean more drilling, fracking, and methane leaks of the capped wells = a powerful greenhouse gas. It will take an enormous amounts of water and of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be – they are part of the picture!

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA. The Fraser Delta is the home of one of the largest Salmon runs on the West Coast (at least) and they must be preserved, otherwise we loose not only many jobs, and the Interior First Nations loose their livelihood – they rely on Salmon.
On top of all that, now that we are committed to only 1.5 increase in CO2, this whole system – fracking, LNG production and transport, use of energy, etc, would make our emissions hit the stratosphere. So what would we gain?

And I think with these comments, I've just scratched the surface!

DeltaBC
JesseO'Leary

Fossil Fuels are on their way out. To dedicate time, energy and money to create infrastructure that will be obsolete within the decade is insane and backwards thinking. We need to create infrastructure that will be beneficial for the coming century. I am strongly apposed to all LNG projects.

BurnabyBC
EvelynPinkerton

I am strongly opposed to this proposal for several reasons. Aside from the simple fact that we should be moving away from fossil fuels, the development would impact farmlands when these are getting increasingly scarce; it would impose risks of several kinds which are not being assessed in the EA process, impacting both property values and the desirability of living in the area.

VancouverBC
PatriciaMcClung

I am writing in the hope of you hearing my voice. I am a 60 year old North Vancouver resident. I have grave concern about my children and grandchildren's future because of the B.C. Liberal government's greed and disrespect for me and my fellow citizens. Fracking is the outrageous rape of our common mother. Abuse of her sustaining nourishment and fundamental support through the poisoning of our life giving water and fracturing our earth. Stop this insanity. Our only choice for a healthy future is to keep it in the ground! I implore you to divest from fossil fuels and only fund sustainable energy alternatives.

North VancouverBC
Greg J.Edwards

BC EAO

Re: Wespac & Fortis proposal(s) to export LNG from Tsawwassen First Nation and Delta with no regard for public safety nor our future energy needs

I'm completely opposed to such a volatile cargo being handled and shipped from Tsawwassen's shore for all of the obvious and not so obvious concerns about public safety.

As well, the BC government's plan to ship out our supply of energy as quickly as possible to foreign markets strikes me as very short sited in view of the glutted markets for LNG and coal and in view of the fact that Canada's population is projected to climb to 100 million by the end of this century. As a more populous nation we'll need all of the energy that we can get, so why are our political leaders so eager to let corporations stampede us into selling it off as quickly as possible to over supplied markets at low prices rather than husband it for our future use?

Greg J. Edwards
5078 Walker Avenue
Delta, BC
V4M 1A7 604-948-5149

TsawwassenBC
Kay and JohnJohnson

Currently, we have experienced several severe windstorms all along the Fraser River in the Lower Mainland. This has been increasing in severity over the last decade and we don't imagine it will stop anytime soon. These storms will pose a huge threat to tankers carrying gas that could destroy our neighbourhoods and kill our ocean if it escapes during a storm. There are too many risks for this project to be suitable in this location. Please do not approve tis application.

New WestminsterBC
DianeManuel

Dear Sir or Madame,

Lets get rid of more LNG gas and starting switching over to solar in every home financed by the government. A better use of the Site C Dam 9 billion dollars
Today's Solar Panels and battery technology has become equal or better value, people just need to see that its getting popular to jump on board.

Sincerely,
Diane Manuel

CourtenayBC
KateGordanier-Smith

Comments Regarding What Should Be Included In B.C.'s Environmental Assessment of Wespac Midstream's Proposed LNG Export Terminal in Delta

K Gordanier-Smith
Burnaby, B.C.

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

Our Fraser River estuary, where WesPac Midstream's LNG proposed export terminal would be situated, is a fragile environment important for wild life of all varieties. We need an unbiased assessment of the cumulative impacts of yet another major "re-industrialization" project on the Fraser estuary.

First, I am opposed to this environmental assessment being performed only by the province, which I believe is biased in favour of LNG. Our new federal government promises to undo the damage to Canada's environmental laws and assessments and these future federal changes must be reflected in any environmental review of this project.

Second, any environmental assessment must also reflect what impacts this project might have on the 75 recommendations to Government from the October 2012 Cohen Commission's Final Report "The Uncertain Future of the Fraser River Sockeye", which the Trudeau government has promised to implement. The 2011 draft report suggested that B.C.'s current programs and management initiatives in the Strait of Georgia and the lower Fraser River "used to examine and understand the quantitative parameters of habitats, potential losses and gains, habitat quality types and the dynamics of habitat productivity" don't appear to be "sufficient for keeping track of the current and future status of habitats used by sockeye…" In other words we're not doing a good enough job of understanding and regulating the estuary environment as it is.

Third, the BC EAO should require the proponents – Wespac and Fortis – to put forward a single application that encompasses the entire export project rather than doing piecemeal assessments. For example, Wespac proposes to export much more LNG than FortisBC can currently produce at its Tilbury Island LNG liquefaction plant, possibly requiring a major expansion at the FortisBC site and new high voltage power lines through Delta farmland.

Fourth, a single Wespc/Fortis EA must include investigation into the cumulative environmental impacts of adding this new LNG project to the multiple industrial projects already proposed or approved for the Fraser estuary including the DeltaPort Container Terminal 2 for a 3-berth facility at Roberts Bank, with the depth to accommodate 18,000-container ships; a jet fuel terminal enabling 70-120 tankers and barges loaded with volatile jet fuel to travel up-river; the pending removal of the Massey Tunnel, the only obstacle currently standing between the middle reaches of one of our world's richest salmon rivers and full-bore industrialization; and the Fraser Surrey Docks full-fledged coal port across from New Westminster Quay with its tall vessel loader to load four million metric tonnes of U.S. thermal coal directly onto oceangoing vessels, setting another 80 oceangoing ships annually into the already busy waters of the Fraser River mouth. What are the cumulative impacts of all these industrial projects on humans and other animals? Research published last year in the journal PLOS Computational Biology established an important link between environmental pollution, male babies in utero, genetics and autism, and the Autism Society of B.C. reports that already in B.C. 1 in 68 children are diagnosed with autism. Our Fraser River fishery is already struggling and was closed this past August from the Fraser's mouth to north of Hope, due in part to climate change and record-high water temperatures. A 2015 study by Dr. Jeffrey Short, research chemist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, reports that the “Salish Sea, and especially Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River estuary, is one of the most ecologically important coastal marine habitats along the entire Pacific coast of North America,” with more than one million sea- and shorebirds relying on the Salish Sea and Fraser River for habitat, food, and shelter. In terms of numbers, our delta's migratory waterfowl exceed criteria for international significance by 30-fold. Near this proposed LNG terminal is the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary, an ecological site of international importance. How will increased LNG traffic affect the estuary and migratory birds? In the heavily congested Salish Sea and Straight of Juan de Fuca, how will adding new LNG tankers amongst the many other proposed ocean-going vessels impact endangered killer whales?

Fifth, a full assessment of downstream and end use climate impacts from this project must be included. Canada has just signed on to the UN Paris global climate agreement to further cut emissions and limit temperatures from rising 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Once this LNG is exported and burned, it will make climate change worse.

Finally, a rigorous EA must also address the following:
• Cumulative upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project, especially as B.C. is already projected to miss its legislated carbon emissions target. This project involves issues with possible ground water pollution and over-use of water for fracking, earthquakes, and the fact that the impact of methane on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. As well, an enormous amount of electricity will be needed to cool and condense this proposed natural gas for export. Where will that electricity come from? Will it be generated by burning more natural gas, adding to climate change, or by building new dams like Site C, which are pulled from the independent scrutiny of our BC Utilities Commission?
• A comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. For example, one U.S. consulting report, in arriving at their worst-case scenario, assumed terrorists could succeed in rupturing multiple tanks in an LNG carrier.
• Assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards. Were the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operator's siting guidelines considered in selecting this location? It doesn't appear so. For example, the SIGTTO guidelines say short approach channels are preferable while the Fraser River approach is long, winding and narrow; the site should be suitably distant from population centres whereas a riverside condo development lies less than 2 km from the terminal site; we should have a good river traffic separation scheme in place whereas the Fraser River deep sea navigation channel is only 500 m wide, allows two way traffic, and is populated by tugs pulling barges, pleasure craft, fishing boats, and the new 70-120 tankers and barges annually loaded with volatile jet fuel - a recipe for disaster.
• Incorporate a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard, looking at marine impacts out to international waters.

BurnabyBC
LauraJones

As more and more concerns are made about the impact of human activity on our planet, more and more details need to be included in any development for energy expansion. I am concerned that not enough attention is being paid on helping people limit their energy consumption rather than continuing to exploit areas for new energy projects.

New WestminsterBC
EyalLebel

its time to get out of LNG, the Pris convention just decided on moving into clean energy,
its coming,
lets go there now, clean energy only,
no more LNG

VancouverBC
LaraineMichalson

I am opposed to any LNG transporting on the Fraser River. It will cause pollution, and damage to our delicate eco-system, upon which we rely for food and quality of life.

VancouverBC
ChrisBanner

I am quite confident that Wespac can build a safe terminal, but it is myopic to permit its construction without any consideration of the `upstream' and `downstream' impacts on the environment and on society, the ramifications of could be catastrophic.

Shawnigan LakeBC
LisaSlakov

I am very worried about Wespac's submission for what should be considered in the EA for its proposed LNG export terminal in Delta. The Wespac submission fails to take into consideration the expansion of FortisBC's Delta LNG facility that would be required to provide for the new export terminal. There will be other infrastructure required as well, including new power lines in precious farmland areas and possible expansion of pipelines. It is imperative that all EA's consider the whole picture for proper assessment and not just little vignettes in order to make projects appear more palatable.

There are many other issues that should be comprehensively covered in this EA and that are not adequately addressed. These include issues such as: a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks and a clear disaster response plan referencing existing international standards; upstream issues with more natural gas wells drilled resulting in more fracking and more escaping methane; downstream regional impacts of increased ocean going vessels on endangered killer whales and other species in and around our waters; the impact of exporting and burning these fossil fuels.

The world has recognized the need to move urgently away from fossil fuel use for the planet's survival- every EA must consider this from every angle and, as a "have" country and province, we should be leading on this path.

Very sincerely,
Lisa Slakov

VancouverBC
JoelHagen

WesPac Midstream, in collaboration with Fortis, plans a new jetty in Delta for loading LNG onto ships bound for what they call "regional and offshore markets." They have outlined in their draft E.A what they plan to cover, and I find the scope of the E.A. too narrow.

It primarily covers the jetty, and the nearby stretch of river, as if this will be the only impact of the project. I'm reminded of the NEB reviews of pipeline projects that do not cover the emissions that will come from burning the products carried in pipelines.

This EA should cover the source of the natural gas needed for liquefaction (including where it will be drilled / fracked, how much energy will be needed for drilling, and what the methane and CO2 emissions of the drilling and transport will be); it should cover the expansion of Fortis' LNG facility near the jetty, as well as added electricity lines and -- possibly -- pipelines through Delta; it should cover the climate change consequences of burning this natural gas; and finally, it should also have extra sections on the suitability of this site around safety issues in adjacent waterways, both sections of the river beyond the proximity of the jetty (where an accident would be catastrophic), and in the Straight of Georgia, which is an important area for marine mammals, especially killer whales.

Lake LouiseAB
DavidHendrickson

1) How are you assessing the cumulative impact of transmission lines and a natural gas pipeline over farmland that will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, then cooled and condensed, before it gets exported as LNG? Won't this also require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility?This is not assessed in the Wespac EA plan.

2) What are the downstream regional impacts such as increased vessel traffic related to orcas and climate change? These issues are not addressed by the EA.

I'd appreciate a written response outlining how the EA will address these concerns.

Thank you.

VancouverBC
MikeHoyer

Let's not be hasty in this. Let cooler head prevail. Let's look at the science involved, the practicality, the "real" benefits for Canadians, the impacts that could adversely affect us and the future generations. I leave that to the community, the scientists, the politicians and the First Nations people affected.

New WestminsterBC
StephenRees

The recently signed COP21 agreement makes it abundantly clear that Canada now has to change its approach to greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The Premier of BC actually attended the Paris conference and laid claim to the tile of a Climate Leader. She still believes that LNG exports will reduce global GHG emissions since, she claimed, the "cleaner" fuel will replaced coal in electricity generating stations.

However, not only is LNG production excluded from the EA, it is also becoming clear that fracking is releasing far more methane into the atmosphere than previously admitted. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is already being removed from fracked gas in BC but is currently being vented as there is no business case for carbon capture and storage - which is not only technically feasible in BC gas extraction and processing but also relatively inexpensive compared to other CCS projects.

It is completely irresponsible to exclude these impacts from the EA of this proposal.

VancouverBC
MichaelLanier

These concerns MUST be addressed:
. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

- Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

DeltaBC
Ian Robertson

Wepac's NEB licence is for 3,640 BCF of natural gas, to be exported at this jetty of perhaps to USA via road. If ALL of Fortis expansion were to take place (Phase 1, 1A, 1B) via the Jetty it would still only amount to 1/4 of Wespac's licence. Clearly there needs to limits on the amount to be exported at this point and limits of the type, size and frequency of ships taking the LNG.
There needs to be relevant Federal regulations about LNG transport in Canadian waters. In the absence of federal regulations, I would ask that relevant US Coast Guard Regulations be used as an interim measure. .

Delta,BC
Phyllis Ruthven

Concerns re Wespac Midstream on Fraser River

1.Safety:

What are the prescribed safety distances for this installation and for proximity to shore and populated areas and other potential ignition problems of this installation and shipping (eg. The airport fuel tanks on the north side in Richmond, the proposed Surrey Coal dock transfer shipments, etc)?

My understanding is that the recommended separation distance form other activities is 800 meters or 2624.67 feet or nearly 1/2 a mile.

Also in event of a spill what measures are in place to keep the gas out of sewers?

What training and equipment are you offering and or paying to have our firefighters have equipment to fight a spill or fire in the event of an accident?

I understand that in some US cities, partly due to anti terrorist measures, that all river traffic and traffic on bridges is shut down for 30 minutes before and after a tanker transits. What impact will this have on the new bridge or our current tunnel traffic and or recreational and commercial traffic on river?

Despite claims that this is an extremely safe means of transport and LNG does not ignite on release in event of accidental leak, my understanding is that in immediate area of release everything freezes. Then, the warming gas expands into a cloud which contains little or no oxygen, meaning everything in the cloud would asphyxiate, including humans, birds, insects etc. Given that this is a Ramsite designated area where millions of birds migrate and come to feed such an event would be catastrophic and possibly cause extinction of species. Also since this gas cloud spreads 5 times faster over water than land, the speed to warn and evacuate people is limited.

2.Environment:

You maintain that LNG is going to decrease emissions since LNG is a cleaner burning fuel. This does not take into account the Facking used to obtain this gas. Since most of natural gas pockets are drained, fracking is being used to extract the remaining pockets from shale beds. This involves tremendous amounts of finite water resources such as lakes, rivers and underground aquifers. This is having a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife in those areas and economic loss for guiding and hunting in those areas. Drained aquifers is resulting in populations in those areas not having potable water and having to buy drinking water. Also it is impacting the ability to water crops and livestock as water levels in lakes and rivers have been impacted immensely.

Add to the above, the pollution of water, land and aquifers by the chemicals used in the fracking process and the off gassing of these and the methane released from the release of the gases themselves.

Next comes the energy used to cool the LNG to a gaseous form for transport. It requires a tremendous amount of energy, to cool it using electricity and or LNG itself.

DeltaBC
DouglasJohnson

How can we continue with this? Horrible environmental and human risk, along with an oversaturated LNC gas market. No profit and all problems is no way to do go thru life.

Who will answer for the damage to our waterways and fisheries?

We are being steered down a path that has massive consequences and as far as I can see not one Corporation is on the hook for the mess.

Please make the right decision. Lets turn our sights to renewables and help start a legacy in BC that we can look back on without regret.

LadnerBC
JamesKneesch

I agree the EA needs a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks, a clear disaster response plan. Explicitly Westpac needs to assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards and conduct a marine route hazard assessment. What will be the impacts upstream from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying Natural Gas to the project? How will the immense amounts of power required to operate the facility be generated - Burning LNG , Site C, etc? What are the local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of Fortis BC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker and effects of the project on residential property values? What will the downstream impacts be of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea and GHG emissions when the LNG is burned? How does this project relate to the TFN LNG proposed project? Clear answers are required before a project of this magnitude and consequences can proceed.
James Kneesch

TsawwassenBC
Greg J. Edwards

Mayor Jackson & Council
Municipality of Delta

Chief Bryce Baird
Tsawwassen First Nation

Re: LNG industry is lying to Delta & TFN . . .

Mayor & Council; Chief Bryce Baird:

Why is the Wespac and Fortis plan to build LNG facilities in Delta and Tsawwassen First Nation being taken seriously?

The United States--which is much more experienced and competent in this field than our provincial and federal governments--would never allow it?

An LNG tanker has a small crew. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security realizes that a few nutters armed with box cutters could take one over. And once taken over, its volatility would make it extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to get back: shelling it would cause an explosion larger than Hiroshima; gun fire would cause sparks, and sparks would cause a massive explosion larger than Hiroshima . . .

Accidents happen. Concern for basic public safety would kill the Wespac and Fortis scheme in the States before it got beyond a daydream. But, apparently, the Wespac and Fortis coalition assumes that we're asleep up here. People are being told that there has never been an accident involving LNG. If the LNG industry tries the same line on you, I hope you'll pull out Eoin Finn's list of LNG accidents. It's a long one.

Economically, more supply of LNG doesn't make sense. The international market is glutted. The price is quite low, lower than B.C. production costs. Fracking has made LNG producers of most nations. Reality is indeed stranger--and a great deal more intriguing--than fiction.

Ecologically? In short, the Wespac and Fortis plan would make a sterile dump of the Fraser . . .

Chief Bryce Williams and Mayor Jackson & Council, please invite Jim Ronback, Eoin Finn, Kevin Washbrook or others of their integrity and expertise for further advice on this issue.

We can't trust the LNG industry and its public relations employees to look after our interests and welfare.

Yours truly,

Greg J. Edwards
5078 Walker Avenue
Delta, BC
V4M 1A7
604-948-5149

DeltaBC
BruceCuthbert

I've just been to an information session in Ladner about the proposed LNG facility at Tilbury Island. I am not opposed to the LNG industry in general, but the Tilbury proposal must be subject to a truly independent environmental assessment which considers safety and environmental risk factors:
- a hazard zone that includes residential areas
- environmental aspects such as recreational and commercial fishing
- sensitive wildlife habitat
- prime farm land
- the Fraser River ecosystem
- impacts of dredging
I live within the 3.5 km hazard area of the Tilbury project marine route and within the 3.5 km hazard area of the proposed facility at TFN lands (double the risk).
I implore government at all levels to enforce an assessment meeting existing international standards to ensure a sustainable existence for our community.

LadnerBC
RichardJames

I attended an excellent presentation by Eoin Finn in my community this evening[Ladner].It is truly shocking that our provincial government could be con tempting such a shortsighted energy and economic policy-on both counts this makes absolutely no sense! Please take heed and pay attention to the many informed scientists who have no industry or financial involvement.This proposal is an environmental nightmare,LNG is a fossil fuel and by definition not "clean"!
Please respect the ecology of the Fraser River-no LNG tankers,LNG storage facilities,coal ships or coal ports thank you very much!
Richard James [community physician]

DeltaBC
SeanMoriarty

How will this impact our salmon and natural resources

Mount PearlNL
SeanMoriarty

I oppose all frac gas usage, it is bad for the environment and must be stopped.

Mount PearlNL
SusannaKaljur

Massive development in Delta
Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. I want Wespac, FortisBC and the government to know that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

Canada was an active and vocal country in COP21 we agreed to keeping global temperature under 1.5 degree centigrade. This will be impossible if fracking, LNG = methane is expanded as is proposed.

Courtenay BC
sandymcnamee

The impact on the Salish Sea and especially endangered resident Killer Whales must be investigated in relation to the increased vessel traffic.
What about the impact of exporting and burning fossil fuel at a time when the eyes of the world are looking at taking action against climate change. We cannot ignore the promises Canada has made in Paris.
Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

There needs to be a complete disaster response plan that addresses all safety risks.

There needs to be a marine route hazard assessment.

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline. This must be addressed

white rockBC
Jason Lewko

I am greatly concerned about the risk of accidental release of LNG and or explosion. The disaster of the Cleveland LNG explosion is an example of what could happen here. This is an extremely dangerous product and should not be stored or shipped anywhere near populated areas.

Pollution from idling ships is another huge concern and this should not be allowed to happen in our airshed.

Impacts to the Killer Whale population is too risky and is another reason to disallow this project.

The carbon footprint of LNG is too high to make LNG any kind of alternative fuel, especially when better alternatives are available.

DeltaBC
Dianne McPherson

I am completely against any company building an LNG export terminal on the Freaser River due to a great many environmental concerns. Thank you.

SurreyBC
FrancesDietz

I know this is Business, but it really baffles me, how LNG is even permitted to be in proposal any more for further development. In this day-and-age of climate change concerns and knowledge of fossil-fuel contaminations, why is this commodity even being considered as a viable source of energy, when it IS NOT??

VancouverBC
WayneGoin

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

MontroseCO
Jennifer ISullivan

Dear Sir or Madam,

Regarding the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Wespac LNG export terminal in Delta, I ask that you consider the following facts:

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EP.

I request that you include these considerations in your Environmental Assessment.

Thank you,

Jennifer I Sullivan

BurnabyBC
jamie and LeeSchiff

Where do I begin?

Wespac has left out some crucial concerns in their EA plan. Like the need to expand FortisBC's LNG facility and possibly an expanded or new pipeline.
An assessment needs to consider EVERYTHING relevant regarding it's impact and this is a piecemeal approach.

Secondly, in the real world, terrorism/human error/ and malfunction on an LNG terminal or tanker would be CATASTROPHIC. Safety risks are not adequately addressed nor is a disaster response plan clearly laid out.

Additionally, where is the assessment of the suitability of this location based upon current international standards? Where is the route hazard assessment like the US Coast Guard requires?

There are upstream impacts like release of methane with more drilling for natural gas wells and electricity usage to cool and condense NG for export. Or are they going to build new dams as the case for Site C?
Wespac has addressed NONE OF THESE ISSUES.

Finally, what is the impact of increased vessel traffic on whales, and the global impact of burning more fossil fuels because we are allowing export. Again, not addressed.

This lack of transparency and inadequate review mandates more scrutiny. No one behaves this way unless they are trying to get something over on us.

Friday HarborWA
ElsieDean

The environmental assessment on shipping LNG down Fraser River and iinto the Salish Sea must be comprehensive including bringing fracked into Delta, massive development in Delta, including effect on farmland, the effect on the environment and effect all other activity in the region.
It needs an study of all accidents that could occur and an adequate disaster response plan. Consideration of the extra traffic if approval is given to shipping coal down Fraser.
Above all consider the added carbon dioxide and methane effect on environment , clean water resources loss of, fertile land by expanding fracking. All must be added up and weighted against the benefits of this proposal.

BurnabyBC
JaredHowe

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

SeattleWA
Raymond JamesBradbury

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

west vancouverBC
CaroleAnnLeishman

Let's start creating more comprehensive environmental impact assessments to truly reflect all the impacts of especially fossil fuel projects identifying and calculating the impacts of upstream and downstream impacts as well as the direct impacts in the area.

Powell RiverBC
JohnWood

I am fully supportive of the Wespac / FortisBC LNG export terminal proposal. RealLNGHearings.org (RLH) states "Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic" - such an inflammatory statement can also be made about deliberate attacks on electric power substations, downtown high-rises, vehicle tunnels, major hospitals and many other facilities The EA process will draw a fair balance between the needs of the community to protect the overall environment, and the obvious desire of (paid?) lobby organizations to blockade any and all projects.

RLH states that it is "clearly wrong" to not assess project impacts on property values - this is patently self-serving and a red herring. Those who choose to live on the waterfront do so at least partly because it is wonderful to watch the liveliness of the river - from recreation to commerce, and everything in between - I know, having lived on the Fraser River waterfront for almost 7 years.

RLH continues to use inflammatory language and unsupported statements in support of their position - "exporting LNG ... will mean more natural gas well drilled in NE BC" {unsubstantiated}; "will take an ENORMOUS (my emphasis) amount of electricity" and questions how that electricity will be generated. Such a question is not within the purview of the developer.

I believe the EA process as outlined by statutory regulation will suffice for this project - if not, the proper way is to get the regulations changed, not to engage in a social media smear campaign against a legitimate project proponent.

Qualicum BeachBC
Fiona OldOld

Dear BC EAO,
Re: Wespac LNG terminal proposal
Given that there are huge large numbers of people moving to Metro in the next few years this assessment would need to cover a lot of points in order for it to ensure benefits for the community and not harm.
1 Is there a comprehensive response plan in place in the event of any kind of disaster...natural or man made?
2 How can drilling of wells not go against our new Paris Accord for climate change?
3 All impacts on air quality, water quality and wildlife upon which we depend must be measured.
Thank you,
Fiona Old
928 Stevens Street,
White Rock, BC V4B 494

White RockBC
MaryManous

I urge that the scope of the environmental assessment include the impacts of the potential shipping from the proposed terminal through the Straits of Juan de Fuca as well as the impacts on global warming and acidification from the carbon emissions that will be created. This impacts go far beyond the local terminal site area. Full impacts should be considered when assessment the costs and impacts to the environmental and public health and safety.

Thank you.

SeattleWA
raymondwall

I changed my political beliefs that I have held for forty years because I believe Mr Trudeau will evaluate the projects involving energy/environment with an eye to our international commitments and these current plans need to be scrapped and re-drawn with the new mind-set as outlined in Paris.

New WestminsterBritish Columbia
Billie Lynn McConnell

Westpac Midstream needs to be more open and transparent as to what exactly they are proposing with the LNG project on the Delta Fraser River.
The harm to our environment is a grave issue and LNG is far worse to Global Warming that Coal.
The impact of a accident,malfunction and deliberate attack on LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic.
What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales.
Once the LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels Westpac says its not their responsibility.

DeltaBC
LeslieSlack

I reside next to the Fraser River and am extremely worried about the implications this development will have on the safety of my family and our property value. What kind of disaster response plan would be in place in case of accidental malfunction, leakage,explosion, or deliberate attack? Proper assessments must be done on how this proposal will affect the environment and the animals that live in it, from the caribou and wolf populations in north eastern BC to the sturgeon, oolichan, salmon, shorebirds and orca that depend on the Fraser River for survival.

DeltaBC
HisaoIchikawa

We must keep fossil fuel under ground and develop renewable energy in order to save our planet. We must not get blinded by dollar sign and ignore the dire situation all the world is facing. We must not think quick profit, but think about our future, our children and their children. They will not have any other planet to immigrate to!

VancouverBC
Douglas GeorgeMassey

Why has there not been a LNG Safety Zone Study to insure the safety of others near the LNG facility or the route of the LNG Carriers as was done for Atlantic Canada and the U.S.A.
With the threat of terrorism in the world today what protective measures do you propose for the land facility and the LNG carriers?
If the George Massey Tunnel was to be removed and the Fraser River deepened, would you engage larger capacity LNG Carriers? If so, how large could they be?
Will you be be responsible for the costs of dredging to facilitate the terminal and the maintenance thereafter?

DeltaBC
RobertBlair

All of these things must be fully considered and acted on.

* upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;
* local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values;
* downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and GHG emissions when the LNG is burned.

SurreyBC
ElizabethMacdonald

My concerns are as follows
The proposed Wespac LNG facility will have significant impact on existing farmland as it installs power lines and/or pipelines to transport Natural gas to Metro Vancouver for processing. Prime farmland is being lost at an alarming rate together with the increasing demand to industrialize ALR land due to proposed mega projects in the area, e.g. PMV Terminal 2 ,Surrey Fraser Docks coal facility. The cumulative effects on the Delta area should be condsidered.
No clear disaster response plan, or adequate infrastructure to alleviate environmental damage from accident or sabotage has been proposed by WesPac. All safety risks should be considered according to existing international standards. Is WesPac adhering to SIGTTO standards for its' site selection?
The waterway route should be subjected to the highest scrutiny in view of the surrounding residential development, and the requirements of the US Homeland Security Departmant and US Coastguard for a 3.5 Km hazard zone.
No consideration seems to have been given to property values that may be adversely affected by this LNG proposal.
WesPac has accepted no responsibility for its product once it has been loaded onto the shipping tankers. The Salish sea and the interactive Eco system associated with this important area will be at enormous risk from accidental collisions or spills. Threatened Orcas and other marine life dependent on this sensitive area, need to be considered within the environmental assessment.
Franking for Natural Gas is a huge concern throughout BC. The vast amounts of electricity and water needed for this process raises all sorts of concerns and alarms. Methane gas is released, and the rock strata is destabilized giving rise to possible earthquake activity according to recent studies.
Is WesPac taking responsibility for any of these concerns? It does not appear to be the case according to their current EA mandate.
I would respectfully ask for greater oversight in the environmental impact that this LNG proposal will have on this, and the wider community.
Sincerely, Liz Macdonald

DeltaBC
RobinChakravarti

Here is a great deal missing from the Wespac EA proposal. including items such as the impacts of more fracking and escape of methane, usage of electricity for compression/cooling, impact of higher marine traffic, risk to Richmond residents, responsibility fro tanker accidents, adequate insurance coverage, etc. etc. etc.

THESE MUST ALL BE STUDIED IN A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED MANNER AND NOT JUST SPILLED OUT PIECEMEAL. Please ensure that you carry out your responsibilities to the voters of BC in a complete and thorough manner.

vancouverBC
CourtenayAgecoutay

My main concerns are the very likely event of spills and leaks and how that impacts the environment, the disruption of the natural lands, disrupting natural formations, plates, habitats, clearing of trees and disrupting the animal's natural habitats, the harmful pollutants that cause environmental damage. All of BC is on unneeded First Nations land which was never surrendered. The first people's of BC have not been contacted, or made aware and not offered a vote or say in this development.

New westminsterBC
AnnetteAntone

Swat Kwi in Snaw (my name is) Sut'lut I am Indigenous from this UNCEDED SOIL B.C. I say stop destroying the sacred. What is being conserved for our present and future generations. After the fish and trees and source of all life is GONE then you'll realize that you can't eat or drink $$$. Usiyam ( thank you).

North VancouverBC
IngoOevermann

Dear Ministers, MP's, MLA's, Mayors, and People:
The air pollution events in Beijing this week highlight the reasons
for COP 21, and how essential it is for our societies to curtail the further expansion and reliance on fossil fuels. Approval of this
project will do nothing to limit global warming to 1.5 C, nor
respect human rights or the rights of indigenous people.
We know that our most valuable, essential resources are clean air, water and agricultural soils and our children's welfare.
We can create far more sustainable jobs, security, real wealth and investments by energy conservation, and embracing clean
alternative energy - solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal and
wind power. We can't breath, drink or eat methane, and the short term profits will not create the long-term sustainable future
we desperately need. Half of the world's people would give their
eye-teeth to be able to live in our beautiful province and country,
and half of those also know that their worlds will become dead,
uninhabitable, unproductive or submerged unless we deal firmly
with the challenge of climate change.
Last but not least, the Fraser River is the longest free flowing and most productive salmon river in B.C., and possibly on earth.
It is much too valuable to take any chance on any increased
industrial and environmental degradation. I encourage you to
have the integrity to make the right decision for our children.
Sincerely, Ingo Oevermann, Smithers, B.C.

SmithersBC
James Ronback

6 December, 2015
To: Editor , Chief Bryce Williams , Honourable Carla Qualtrough , Vicki Huntington MLA , Doug Stout , Mayor Lois Jackson , Honourable Mary Polak , Enviroinfo [NCR] , Catherine McKenna Minister of Environment and Climate Change , Honourable Marc Garneau - Minister of Transport , Honourable Justin Trudeau
CC: Mayor and Councillors of Delta

Subject: Safety and Security of hazardous LNG transportation and processing near residential areas

Re: “LNG can’t contaminate water or soil” by Doug Stout, VP Market Development, FortisBC, 4 December.

Doug Stout in his letter to the Editor conveniently ignores the safety and security aspects of the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) via super tankers and the storage and refrigeration facilities and the huge amount of energy from the Site C dam (13, 14) required to convert methane (natural gas) to a liquid after it is delivered via a pipeline.
Living close to this proposed LNG facility will be more hazardous than living next to a nuclear power station (22).
One only needs to google the following string of key words (without quotes) “safety security hazard transport LNG” to find ominous reports on the multiple hazards of processing and transporting LNG. The amount of energy stored in these facilities and tankers is enormous. It’s equivalent to several Hiroshima atomic bombs. The most serious hazard it a fuel vapour air explosion (1) that can be devastating. Although this may be a rare high consequence and possibly a terrorist event (21), Tsawwassen First Nation community could be wiped off the map and its mall and thousands of homes would be destroyed by the powerful blast wave and intense heat radiation (14).
Most tankers have only a single engine which is a single point of failure that can result in loss of propulsion and steering leaving the ship floundering as a dangerous hazard to navigation (9). The worldwide tanker fleet of 10,000+ is experiencing at least two full losses of power or steering per day, and probably more than ten. If this fleet were twin screw, properly implemented, this number would be cut by a factor of one thousand (10, 11).
Between 1944 and 2006 there were 52 major incidents (5, 6) in which 177 people died (6). I invite your readers to view the YouTube presentation by Eoin Finn on the “Impacts on Howe Sound from the LNG Industry.”(8). If the Algerian gas plant that was attacked by militants in 2013 had exploded in 2013, “it would have killed and destroyed anything within 5 kilometers or further.”. (12).
The provincial and federal governments do not have any guidelines or regulations for locating hazardous industries away from residential areas. Without this type of guidance (2, 4) the Fraser River Delta is becoming another clogged Amsterdam like industrial harbor impacting all the nearby residents and its fragile environment (20).
LNG terminals can pose significant risks and impacts to coastal regions and communities. It is critical that provincial governments, local agencies and public stakeholders participate and inform themselves in every step of the LNG port licensing process (7). The Tsawwassen First Nation’s LNG project will be subject mainly to federal environmental review process which may be delegated to Port Metro Vancouver and harmonized with the BC Environmental Assessment Office. This is like the fox (PMV) guarding the hen house. LNG projects must be approved by many federal and provincial agencies, thus, there are many opportunities for public input. An informed public will foster equally informed decision making (18).
Our safety and security (3) are much too important to be left to corporations and politicians alone. We have a right to be properly informed and adequately consulted with respect to all the hazards and cumulative risks of this proposed project (15) before an informed decision can be made.
The Tsawwassen First Nation must protect their ancestral lands for their grandchildren instead of embarking on such hazardous projects near their homes. Some risks to public safety cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. (16, 17)
Yours safely,

Jim Ronback, B.A.Sc.
System Safety Engineer (retired)
1530 Kirkwood Road,
Tsawwassen, BC, V4L 1G1
604 948 1589

References:
1) BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) Demonstration - How it Happens Training Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU
2) Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water SANDIA REPORT, SAND2004-6258, December 2004 http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p408/d39016/1431636036655_nqp0VJNhPCWh3DJCkhWMs6Vc4tQshQPxg2VT3ksKfsp7h4y2nJL1!-14610924!1431620922688.pdf
3) LNG Safety and Security
Center for Energy Economics, November 2006
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_LNG_Safety_and_Security.pdf

4) 4.2 PUBLIC SAFETY: HAZARDS AND RISK ANALYSIS
http://citizensagainstlng.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cabrillo-Port-Rev-Draft-EIR_4.2_Hazard-and-Risk-Analysis_2006.pdf

5) CABRILLO PORT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS DEEPWATER PORT FINAL EIS/EIR, March 2007
http://cdm16254.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p178601ccp2/id/906

6) Cabrillo Port EIR,
Appendix C3 C3-1 Chronological List of LNG Accidents, C3-2 Marine Safety and Security Requirements, C3-3 Design and Safety Standards Applicable to Natural Gas Projects
http://citizensagainstlng.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cabrillo-Port-EIR-Appendix-C3_List-of-LNG-Accidents.pdf

7) States Can Affect Federal Deepwater Port LNG Licensing Decisions:
A Case Study Involving the Deepwater Port Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act,
Linda Krop, 10-Oct-2011
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=gguelj

8) Eoin Finn speaks about Impacts on Howe Sound from the LNG Industry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2eGgISPsZo

9) “Worldwide we are experiencing over 5000 total loss of power casualties per year.”
2008 Tanker Loss of Power Casualties, Jack Devanney,
www.c4tx.org

10) The current large (over 10,000 tonne deadweight) worldwide tanker fleet is experiencing at least two full losses of power or steering per day, and probably more than ten. If this fleet were twin screw, properly implemented, this number would be cut by a factor of one thousand.” [The Argument for Twin Screw Tankers, Jack Devanney, Center for Tankship Excellence, USA, [email protected] , September 20-21, 2007
http://www.martrans.org:8093/symposium/papers/Track%20A/A11%20devanney.pdf].

11) "Twin Screw and more power redundancy would additionally help to drastically improve low speed maneuverability and the pilot's ability to correct a mistake" p. 118
Second International Workshop on Risk-Based Approaches in the Maritime Industry, 5-8 May 2008
http://www.safedor.org/resources/SAFEDOR-P-2009-02-19_Workshop_Risk_Based_Approaches-rev-1.pdf
http://www.safedor.org/resources/SAFEDOR-P-2009-04-27_Final-Conference-Proceedings-rev-1.pdf

12) At least 37 hostages killed in Algeria gas plant standoff, prime minister says.
By Amir Ahmed, CNN, January 23, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/world/africa/algeria-hostage-crisis/

13) Is the Site C dam’s electricity destined for LNG Industry?
Volume: 32 Issue: 4, 2014
By Judith Lavoie Writer, DeSmog Canada
http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/site-c-dam%E2%80%99s-electricity-destined-lng-industry#sthash.9bRfrQCT.dpuf

14) LNG and Site C aligned for perfect storm
By Keith Baldrey, Global News, July 31, 2015
http://globalnews.ca/news/2142803/baldrey-lng-and-site-c-aligned-for-perfect-storm/

15) Tsawwassen First Nation LNG
Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, Lower Mainland
Accessed: 6 Dec 2015
http://www.cosbc.ca/index.php/about-shipping/new-projects/itemlist/category/21-lower-mainland

16) Acceptable Risk
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap10.pdf

17) Risk Acceptance Criteria or "How Safe Is Safe Enough"
http://www.questconsult.com/resources/papers/pdf/paper48.pdf

18) LNG on the Fraser: what should be in the EA?
http://reallnghearings.org/

19) LNG Dangers and Possible Disasters
http://www.quoddyloop.com/savepassamaquoddybay/documents/newspaper_inserts/insert-7.pdf
http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/

20) Canaport pleads guilty to killing 7,500 birds that flew into burning flare at gas facility
November 5, 2015
http://globalnews.ca/news/2321062/canaport-pleads-guilty-to-killing-7500-birds-that-flew-into-burning-flare-at-gas-facility/

21) Are natural gas ships “boat bombs” for terror?
2/16/2004
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4276348/ns/us_news-security/t/are-natural-gas-ships-boat-bombs-terror/#.VmTtXnarSM8

22) Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
August 2015
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors/

DeltaBC
StuartEvans

Fortis is replacing a large section of their natural gas pipeline right now - is that being done in preparation for the LNG processing facility? If so, it is certainly presumptuous.
Expansion of fracking in BC is a bad thing and anything that contributes to it is a very bad idea. For each ADDITIONAL load such as an LNG facility, the production should be researched and rationalized. Just because BC has natural gas, doesn't mean we should have to put up with the dangers associated with it only to export it.
The replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a bridge was approved with large vessels being a significant part of the rationale. I understand the BC Gov't wants to sell LNG to increase income for the Gov't, but the new bridge will be a toll bridge. If the bridge is being built to enable large LNG tankers to sail up the Fraser River, then the LNG industry should be paying for the bridge, not Metro Vancouver commuters.

DeltaBC
ChrisArmstrong

This proposal by U.S. WESPAC MIDSTREAM represents willful ignorance beyond comprehension. Let's see you build your "TICKING BOMB" export terminal in Washington State, NOT IN BC thank you!

LADNERBC
TorSvanoe

What could possibly go wrong with building LNG ship loading facilities
in the Fraser River? Well...

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/marine/2012/m12w0207/images/m12w0207-photo-04.jpg

DeltaBC
sheilarogers

Building an LNG export terminal on the Fraser River makes no sense at all to me.
Most importantly, there are many concerns that have not been addressed in the Environmental Assessment report delivered to the BC government by Wespac Midstream, the company responsible for this terminal.
These are my questions, none of which has been addressed so far in these hearings:
when the natural gas is cooled and condensed by FortisBC will that call for massive development in Delta?
what are the local impacts from accidents and deliberate acts?
what will happen to property values for people living along the Fraser River?
what will be the upstream regional impacts from drilling, fracking and methane leaks?
what will be the downstream regional impacts, especially upon orcas?
what will be the climate impact of exporting and burning more fossil fuels?

VancouverBC
RobertBlair

The assessment of LNG needs to satisfy safety concerns including direct attacks and must provide a clear and workable disaster response.
Destruction of prime farmland in Richmond to accomodate power lines and pipelines needs to be considered and mitigated.
Where will the electricity to power these projects come from and what effects on the environment will they have.
There must be a complete and workable plan to meet our greenhouse gases targets while planning for such a carbon heavy project as this.
Who will be responsible for any and all accidents and damage once the LNG is loaded and ready to ship and exactly how, when, and who, will all this be paid for.
All of these things need to be dealt with prior to any shovels in the ground.

SurreyBC
MarilynWeland

I am concerned about the short and long-term effects of this project, from beginning to end. Name an area, and I have concerns! Fraser River Delta land is extremely susceptible to damage from earthquake, and from rising water levels. Time to put our time and brain power into renewable energy sources.

DuncanBC
LouiseTaylor

Wespac Midstream's proposed LNG export terminal in Delta flies in the face of climate change, food security, safety and the health of our ecosystems and marine life.

The BC EAO should review:

1) how this proposed project will negatively impact farm land in Delta and hence our food security;

2) how this proposed project will exacerbate climate change, including through increased GHG emissions, methane escaping and the transportation of LNG; pollute BC groundwater and destroy wildlife habitat due to increased fracking and will harm marine life, including endangered orcas in the Salish Sea;

3) the safety risks associated with such a proposed project, including the risk of deliberate attacks and whether the company has a comprehensive disaster response plan.

4) whether the proposed project's location is in accordance with existing international standards.

I have little faith that the EAO process will be thorough or unbiased but nevertheless want to exercise my democratic right in this "consultation process"

I oppose this project and all the proposed LNG projects in BC given that they will exacerbate climate change.

KasloBC
DavidWaterhouse

There should be no LNG industry. Fracking is an integral component of LNG. It is a known polluter of air, water and soil. If we care about our environment, if we care about what we leave for future generations we will not allow LNG!

VictoriaBC
Billie McConnell

The liquid natural gas projects are not open and transparent to the pupil as to the the impact to the environment. Liquid natural gas is far worse than thermal coal such as the powerful greenhouse gazes that it produces. What about the impact on property value.
There is so many unanswered questions that need to be answered and potential major problems that need to be addressed.

North DeltaBC
RAYEAGLE

There appears to be no appreciation on the part of either Port Metro Vancouver or the shippers of the multiple products that will pass through the Strait of Georgia if they are all given the go-ahead. It will create an extremely volatile situation within the Strait, which has a strong potential for a collision, especially with the addition of an LNG facility. It is fair to ask, why is this U.S. owned company wanting to build in B.C.? It suggests they are not welcome in local U.S. ports, similar to the refusal by U.S. ports to accommodate bulk coal export facilities, to which will now be added another one with the approval of PMV (even as the climate summit is taking place in Paris!).
As well as the movement of tankers from Woodfibre – if approved, the Fraser Surrey coal port has been given a provisional go-ahead to barge coal to a holding facility on Texada Island and this, together with the expected increase in west-bound tanker traffic from the Kinder Morgan facility will mean them exiting from English Bay and crossing the path of the north-bound loaded coal barges, that will then return empty by the same route. Subsequently coal carrying ships from Texada will head south to converge on the same route as the Kinder Morgan tankers as well as those from Woodfibre , all heading towards the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
If all these routes are permitted, when added to existing traffic such as B.C. Ferry routes, the long established grain-ship trade and the summer cruise ships it will create a concentration of shipping in the lower Strait of Georgia not seen before. There will I’m sure be a risk assessment, but there is no absolute fail-safe as has been proved so many times with marine accidents, and if a collision occurs it will be catastrophic.
In short, I think the proposed LNG facility should be turned down and Westpac Midstream told to try harder to get a facility in the U.S. I am sure there is an argument for a benefit to the local economy but it is a classic example of 'lets make money at any price, and to Hell with environmental concerns'!! Are the Paris talks just more hot air? Ray Eagle
THE NEANDERTHAL-THINKING EXECUTIVES AT PORT METRO VANCOUVER NEED TO WAKE UP TO THE REALITIES OF THIS GRIM SCENARIO. IN ONE ILL-THOUGHT DECISION THEY HAVE MADE A FARCE OF COP21!

WEST VANCOUVERBC
SamMacTavish

The Fraser River Delta is an internationally significant stopover sight for migratory birds. Its rich mudflats are particularly important for migrating shorebirds, some of which migrate from the Tundra to South America.

Please consider the long term affects that these new boats would have on endangered Orcas pods in Southern B.C. and Northern Washington.

The risk is already too great and it would be outrageous if a proper review process wasn't considered.

Sam

VancouverBC
RosemaryCornell

I am writing to contest the terms of the Environmental Assessment for the expansion of an LNG terminal in Delta, B.C, as they do not include crucial upstream and downstream impacts that are climate destabilizing. It is unconscionable that any major industrial project in 2015 could proceed without an analysis of impact on climate.
(1) The project is linked to increased fracking in northeast BC, a region already over-industrialized. The accounting of methane escape during the drilling and transport has not been rigorously measured and must be if we are to determine its contribution to the provincial emissions, mandated by law to decline to 33% below 2007 levels by 2020. The source of the additional power for liquification of the gas has also not been spelled out, adding to the accounting deficiencies. The methane leaks and power needs potentially eliminate any perceived benefit of LNG to climate.
(2) The project is linked to increased burning of the exported fossil fuel and the production of greenhouse gases. Whether it is burned here or “over there” is immaterial to the atmosphere, a globally shared resource. The federal government of Canada just pledged its support for climate action to prevent the Earth from warming more than 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels. Will this project help or hinder the attainment of this goal? This question must be considered, with input from many experts.
(3) Last but not least, the impact of the project on the health of the Salish Sea ecosystem must not be ignored. We are blessed to live in and care for this incredibly beautiful sea, so rich with life, including an endangered clan of Orcas. The impact of increased tanker traffic is not a trivial item to brush aside. The assessment process requires input from the top marine ecologists and from the tourist industry.

VancouverBC
MelissaBaker

I agree the EA needs a comprehensive assessment of all safety risks, including risk of a deliberate attack and a clear disaster response plan. Explicitly Westpac needs to assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards and conduct a marine route hazard assessment. What will be the impacts upstream from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying Natural Gas to the project? What are the local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of Fortis BC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker and effects of the project on residential property values? What will the downstream impacts be of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea and GHG emissions when the LNG is burned? Clear answers are required before a project of this magnitude and consequences can be given the green light.
Sincerely,
KM Baker

VancouverBC
JayDubeta

Dear BC EAO

Here, the following is a summary of my concerns shared by many others currently missing from the EA proposal. I feel it critically important that the EA addresses these issues thoroughly before proceeding with any plans to build LNG expansion projects in Delta BC, or elsewhere for that matter - the same sort of due diligence should be mandatory when considering building any and all LNG and other potentially risky oil & gas projects that pose potential threats and could cause significant damage and harm if not handled properly with the utmost care and attention being prioritized to adequate safety measures, and those who will be directly affected.

Since my time is limited right now, I'm using the summary of concerns outlined in the http://reallnghearings.org/ petition to represent my very real concerns. They are as follows:

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

Thank you, and I hope you will make every effort to see that these concerns are properly and fully addressed before moving forward with any further plans for LNG projects. Personally, I think we should looking to meet our energy needs using hydro, wind and solar technologies as much as possible moving ahead into the future, since climate change and projected global warming pose the greatest threats to my future, to yours, and to our childrens' futures.

Please, do the right thing. A concerned and engaged citizen,

Jay D.

VancouverBC
NigelPieloth

Climate Change, it is here now and must be addressed now. LNG is NOT an answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; indeed, it produces more greenhouse gasses and contributes to climate change. Fracking causes pollution - it pollutes our waterways, the landscape, our drinking water - these cannot be denied. LNG is a money grab as ever by the fossil fuel industry, an industry that has run its course and must go, and politicians looking for a quick "fix".
Green energy is now a viable and sustainable option for our energy needs. Green energy is the better option for our health and the health of this planet.
We must go Green.

VictoriaBC
HannaDaber

Assess my ass - scrap the whole crazy plan! How about calculating the benefits of not fracking in BC? How about exporting beer, apples, cheeze, hemp cloth, anything sustainable rather than fracked gas? Environmental assesments are a joke, there is no accptable level of risk when the only possible benefit is to make rich people richer while messing up the environment for the rest of us, and for generations to come!

VancouverBC
KateVincent

It is essential that any environmental assessment consider all the impacts of a new LNG terminal on the Fraser River. This project puts our communities, our ecosystems and our climate at risk.

Further, the whole idea of continuing to pursue further development of the LNG industry in B.C. is folly and out of step with the commitments that Canada is currently making in Paris.

Any environmental assessment must take into consideration the effect that accessing the gas, liquifying it, and burning it will have on the rate of climate change. It's time to stop pretending that these thing don't matter.

VancouverBC
KimKasasian

We urgently need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada’s environmental responsibility to future generations of Canadians and to the rest of the world must take priority over all other concerns. Fracking has been scientifically proven to be particularly damaging to the environment at all stages of extraction and transport. We do not have the time to further increase GHG emissions through extraction and use of a methane releasing form of energy. We should be shifting investment to renewable energy infrastructure and using only existing fossil fuel infrastructure to bridge that transition.

Bowen IslandBC
Josephine Fletcher

I love the book "The Fraser" by Bruce Hutchinson published 1950. This gives the most beautiful account of the Fraser, it's history and it's interconnectedness with all the river arteries of British Columbia and Washington State. We are intrinsically linked with the forests , land , mountains , river and surrounding sea. There lies the beauty of the beautiful tapestry we have be given to be stewards of not pillagers of resources for profiteers.
We need now to find different energy producers .Not fossil fuels and natural gas. We need to not put more emissions out in the atmosphere. We need clean clear waters as a priority for the natural wild salmon and sturgeon. We ned to keep the waters pure for drinking . We do not use any waterways for mining waste i.e. tailing ponds.

Salt Spring IslandBC
laurence gill

I am against compressing and exporting LNG in such a built up area. Up north where there are few people ok but here where there are 2 million people in a very short distance I think this is foolhardy. Not if but when there is an accident it could be catastrophic. There is always an accident eventually. Maybe big maybe small but why take the chance. Again the US won't allow it so why should we.

surreyBC
debbiedearmin

No LNG on the fraser river. There are families living on the water. Families of swans eagles ducks seals, humming birds. Birds tht fly up from Alaska tht come back every year and raise their babies. It is a real paradise and needs to be protected.
Thank you

Debbie

deltaBC
JohnPrentice

I am against the destruction of N.E. Bc from the extraction and mining of shale oil gas from fracking. The water they remove from the hydrological cycle is contaminated and left in the old wells they have finished with. Therefore a environmental disaster in the making.

Also i think these point below have not been addressed correctly and the whole process is being fast tracked through Government Environmental assessment office because it is corrupted.

Points that have not been Addressed.!!!

*Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane.

*Releasing of Methane, A powerful greenhouse gas – during processing.

* It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Therefore it is not SUSTAINABLE ! and will have a large footprint.

* Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas,? or by building new dams like Site C?

None of these issues above are being addressed in Wespac’s EA outline.

White Rock BC
P.Caraher

We need to make sure that all potential impacts generated by this project are considered. The assessment must address concerns such as:

- upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project.

- local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values.

- downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and GHG emissions when the LNG is burned.

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.

None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.

2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values

Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.

Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Finally, Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. This is clearly wrong.

3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks

Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.

4. Downstream Regional Impacts: killer whales and climate change

Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.

VancouverBC
AndrewKeir

The location of a plant to liquify natural gas and transfer it to vessels to be transported overseas in an area such as Delta is foolhardy.The risk of catastrophic damage in the event of accident or, unfortunately, terrorism is too great. If such facilities must be built then they should be constructed in more remote areas. Certainly, I would never consider buying a home in an area close to such a facility. Perhaps those who promote such facilities should bring their families to live there to demonstrate their confidence in the safety of their proposal.
I am opposed to LNG proposals in general believing them to be as "dirty" at the end of the day as burning coal, to say nothing about issues relating to the water used in its extraction and damage to aquifers that others rely on.

Thetis IslandBC
SueKelsey

Stay away from our precious farm land. Too many accidents already, and pollution from your careless actions that will affect innocent children for the next generation

CherryvilleBC
JohnRoussel

Concern over the overall impact to the environment which includes the use of large tankers within the Fraser River. All information pertaining to this project should be made public and be fully transparent.

VictoriaBC
DebraBereti

Pushing forward with antiquated energies is a ocean/River/earth ruining concept. We need to transition to renewable green energies. Floating bombs using our waterways is not something I am ok with. Given the way Mount Polley mess was dealt with I have zero confidence in the Christy Clark government to be able to deal effectively with a LNG disaster.
It's a fools game.

MissionBC
LisaT

Do what is right. Do a full evaluation!

Maple RidgeBC
dansavage

How is the NG being extracted from the ground? At what cost to other resources? Is the extraction process sustainable? IS these a need to ship LNG to Asia?

My concern is that exporting gas is not necessary, is has negative environmental, social and economic consequences.

NelsonBC
JimErkiletian

Allowing LNG storage or shipment through the Salish Sea or on the Fraser River is dangerous, uneconomic and unnecessary for at least three reasons. I am qualified and willing to make a presentation to that effect.

NanaimoBC
jeremywilliams

Considering the catastrophic consequences both in human lives as well as environmental impacts, this LNG proposals requires EXTREME precautionary consideration. A FULL FEDERAL assessment is needed.

powell riverBC
CarolynHerbert

With International talks going on in Paris right now, it is apparent that LNG will not conform to Canada's plan to lower carbon and methane emissions in our country. Besides taking water out of the water cycle and polluting it in the fracking process, a major concern during drought, the market for LNG is not a viable way for British Columbia to raise income. Therefore to put any export facilities in an area of our fragile coast like the Fraser River/Delta would be dangerous to shipping in an already busy area. The amount of energy required to liquify the gas (fracked, not natural) would put a strain on the energy supply of the greater Vancouver region. Until new renewable energy sources are found closer to the frack sites up north it would not be reasonable to do such processing in the Vancouver area. And since creating energy with the proposed Site C dam would also release methane and create more pollution in the building of the dam, it is not a viable source of energy. Furthermore, by international agreement, it is time to stop the extraction and use of fossil fuels altogether, as well as the burning of them, so shipping to another country will not stop climate change. It is false economy to enable other countries to continue to pollute our shared atmosphere so this business of creating LNG is dangerous and should not be enabled by the Environmental Assessment. As we share a border with our Southern neighbours in the Salish Sea, this proposal must take into consideration their opinion of this proposal. My conclusion is that this project should not be approved because the premise of LNG for export does not meet with International climate change goals.

Nepean (formerly lived in Saanich)ON
G. BarryStewart

I am in favour of LNG: but for domestic use only — not for export, especially not at the currently depressed price. There is very little revenue from natural gas extraction currently. We should not be underwriting infrastructure that has little or no return for the public good.

LNG should benefit the citizens of BC, for use in ferries, trains and trucking. This would entail a much smaller LNG facility, with little or no need to load it onto ships.

Domestic-use LNG would also mean a lot less demand on our hydro power, so there would be no need for Site C.

Chilliwack BC
DougHopwood

The EA for LNG export from Delta must consider the impact of the whole proposal on Delta and the GVRD, including noise, transport, local air pollution, land use, pipelines, shipping accidents, etc. as well as the impacts of exploration, extraction and fracking and the CO2 emissions from burning the LNG.

Qualicum BeachBC
LynnMaxted

I am most concerned about the safety of LNG tankers and plants. I believe the panel must be informed of every possible accident. If there is any possibility of lost of life or limb all the public within range must be informed. Then it is up to them if they want LNG in their area.
My next concern is our environment, climate change, and future generations. The panel must address all of these issues from the ground fracking, transportation, use, to waste at every step to the end. Everybody is entitled to a say on this, especially the scientists around the world.
Please avoid the use of the word mitigation. Do what is best for the planet not the pocketbook. Remember we cannot eat, drink, or breath money!

Fanny BayBC
BrianMcKinlay

My company and its employees require a clean Fraser river and healthy salmon and sturgeon stocks. We all need this. We don't need toxic lng plants and fracking.
NO NO NO to any of these projects. They threaten our very existence. It's no wonder children today hate you fossil fuel greedy people so much.

VancouverBC
ZachBerman

We need to build a sustainable future. Not create a world full of problems for future generations to inherit.

RichmondBC
RandalHadland

Wespac is actively trying to minimize their responsibilities in order to maximize profit. While this is accepted by some as a appropriate behaviour for a realistic corporate strategy. It isn't an acceptable method of evaluation for society as a whole. Every impact, whether upstream, downstream or sideways has to be examined with respect to the cost to environmental, financial, and social values that already exist and might continue to exist in the absence of the project.

Dawson CreekBC
ROZISAAC

Given that Wespac’s proposal for the EA only covers accidents and malfunctions, a comprehensive assessment of ALL safety risks (and in this day and age that includes risk of sabotage) Is required; as is an effective disaster response plan.

And as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.

Very concerning too is the concommitent increase in fracking in North East BC which should be banned, not increased.

Thank you for your consideration.

NORTH VANCOUVERBC
Jim Whitworth

Yes, I agree the current government will punch through this project regardless of the multiple impacts on the physical environment. If they cared about the physical environment they wouldn't be fracking. If they cared about the physical environment they wouldn't be proposing this ridculous downstream project on the Fraser river that is currently under so much stress. This public hearing is just so much lipstick on a pig designed to sedate the gullible. The destruction will continue until the next election and maybe later than that. Thank you to those who are participating in this consulation; remember to leave your niceness curbside and speak truth to the swell folks who are running the province, into the garbage can.

UclueletBC
DeniseAbegg

I live in one of the areas impacted (Richmond) and I am absolutely horrified at the thought of jeopardizing our estuaries and waterways.

We live in a time where action towards sustability and green energy is desperately needed. This is a giant step backwards that will leave lasting negative impacts.

Richmond BC
DebWilde

I was born and raised here - over 50 years now. We have come to the realization over time, as happens with many processes and commodities, that fracking and the transport of dangerous materials involves risk..risk that impacts communities and people. That perhaps don't make ideas environmentally or community "sound". At so those who would be impacted need to be heard BEFORE, not afterward.

I am unwilling to absorb that risk. The Fraser River in Richmond is home to species that would be destroyed in the event of a disaster that likely would result in a passing of the buck. The narrow channels, fishing and leisure activity in the river and other things make Richmond a rather unsuitable for ongoing and increased large vessel traffic. It is a ticking time bomb and we do not want this activity here.

Whales, seals, salmon, herons, eagles....we have a right to enjoy these and a duty to protect them. The farmland and fishing industry here are what Steveston/Richmond were formed and based upon. It is an intrusion to allow this sensitive habitat and farmland to be used in ways that don't support their original use.

I am saddened that our voices are slowly being stifled. This is so vitally important to me...and my senior father who has been here since the 30's. We have contributed to these communities for decades and pride ourselves on how special they are. Please don't allow for them to be exploited for a use that people here want no part of.

My father and mother battled cancer over the past decade....we lost Mom. These sorts of potential developments have my father reeling as he knows the environmental impact this could have.

Fracking contributes to earthquakes. Spills and mishaps destroy sensitive habitat. Greenhouse gases are creating dangerous situations as they change the climate and threaten our very health and well being.

This makes no sense. Money means nothing if people die and suffer. Sounds dramatic, and is.

LNG has no place on the Fraser. The people do not want it and our voices will be heard.

RichmondBC
DianneVarga

I said in an earlier comment in this public consultation process that we need a federal environmental assessment (EA) of this project rather than provincial. The BC government has staked its life on LNG exports and can scarcely be seen as a disinterested party.

The federal assessment must include examination of the terminal itself as well as the projected inbound and outbound transit of LNG tankers from the terminal to Canada’s territorial sea limit. The assessment must address concerns such as upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project, and downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and GHG emissions when the LNG is burned.

The EA must also consider local impacts, such as new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values.

KelownaBC
ShamDhari

There should not be any LNG transport facilities built on the Fraser River as it is too close to populated area.

richmondBC
CherieDelainey

I have grave concerns with "fracking"- the large amount of water it takes to crack the shale, the chemical "cocktail" used in fracking will remain a secret because it is a "trade" secret so does not have to be disclosed to the public, the huge amounts of electricity required to condense the gas for export. The irreversible damage to our environment. These are just a few of the concerns I have. This is just more corporate greed subsidized by taxpayers.

Maple RidgeBC
marcelleroy

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/massive-gas-leak-imperils-people--environment-580032067650

http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/03/james-hansen-fracking/

Need i say more!!! We do not need more Fracked Gas!

salt spring islandBC
LianneSmithaniuk

"Environmental impact" indicates that there will be a price to pay long term, (literally), by the citizens of BC if we give approval to this corporation to build an LNG plant on the Fraser River.
As citizens we must be honest and realistic about whether we can afford (literally, and figuratively), to let this project move forward.
NOT doing this in the 100 years previous, for all large scale projects has landed us dangerously close to melting the ice caps, flooding high population areas of the world. And causing droughts of unprecedented magnitude. We no longer have the excuse of ignorance to continue to make disastrous decisions.
Please consider ALL the ramifications suggested by VTACC in your review.
Thank you.

NanaimoBC
GregVezina

There us a great deal of research and data that proves it is much safer and efficient and less costly to turn natural gas into ammonia for transporting energy by pipeline.


Ammonia has significant environmental and safety advantages. Fire and explosion risk is low. The risk of spills is serious, but less so than petroleum spills. The release of ammonia into the environment is naturally remediated within a relatively short time. While short-term consequences are serious, there is no long-term environmental damage from an ammonia spill.


Ammonia is immune to accidental ignition. The transportation of ammonia in pipelines is advantageous compared to electric transmission over high-voltage lines; there is reduced environmental and view-shed impact, higher transmission efficiency, and potentially higher overall system efficiency.


It is also more efficient and less costly than natural gas and hydrogen transmission because ammonia pipelines can operate at lower pressure and less energy is needed to run pumps and compressors. Ammonia transport

by sea is superior to CNG or LNG for bringing stranded natural gas to market.


Using ammonia for electric power generation enables zero-carbon emissions at the generating plants. Carbon capture would be shifted from the generating plant to the gas or coal fields that are the source for the ammonia, where it can be integrated more efficiently.


The Dual Fuel Strategy: An energy Transition plan, by CalPoly Tech prof. William Ahlgren, is part of a very detailed three part submission made to the California Energy Commission in, William Ahlgren Comments: Plan to completely decarbonize the electric power sector, which contains the Prologue and:


1. W. L. Ahlgren, “The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan.” Proceedings of the IEEE 100, 3001-3052 (2012).


2. W. L. Ahlgren, “Fuel Power Density.” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 134, 054504 (2012).


3. W. L. Ahlgren, “Planning for Hundred-fold Increase in Global Ammonia Production.” Ammonia Plant Safety and Related Facilities, Vol. 54, pp. 81-90 (American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2013).


I did not attache the 6.458 Gigabyte pdf of the complete submission with the Prologue and three reports, but it can be downloaded here:


http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-04/TN204490_20150504T125450_William_Ahlgren_comment_to_AB1257_Natural_Gas_Act_Report.pdf


Thank you for your help.


Greg Vezina

Chairman and CEO

C.A.E.C-Canadian Alternative Energy Corp.

Hydrofuel®TM Inc.

Web: http://nh3fuel.com

Email: [email protected]


Vancouver BC
marcelleroy

Fracking for LNG is totally incompatible with the goals of reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the effects of Global Warming.

Escaping Methane from drilling and wells is 20 to 80 times more harmful than CO2. This need to be thoroughly assessed as well as the impact of burning and extracting more fossil fuels!

Fracking is NOT environmentally friendly! Look at the cattle and wild life dying near those wells and illnesses that humans develop from living near them, not to mention the poisoning of people's water wells and surrounding streams and rivers. Why has LNG ever been approved at all?? A process that uses the most toxic and persistent chemicals known to man. Now that the USA is completely toxified you want more of Canada! We don't need more LNG. We don't need more fracking. The toxicity of this project needs to be fully disclosed and evaluated.

Where will the electricity come from to condense this LNG?

From the controversial Site C Dam? The one that is being challenged in the courts as being against the Rights of First Nations?the will of the local farmers and 90% of BC residents? The issue of Natives' Rights and social license needs to be addressed.

What of the impact of increased vessel traffic down the Fraser River and the Salish Sea on marine life, namely killer whales and wild salmon? What effect would this proposal also have on property values along the proposed route? What effects on income from tourism?

Please do an in depth evaluation of the potential hazards along this route. How suitable would the proposed location of that terminal be?


salt spring islandBC
RubyAttfield

concerns -climate change,destruction of the Fraser river if there is an exposion etc., moreLNG developement such as pipelines etc.etc.etc. We, the people refuse to sold out by the Christie Clark government and her cohorts to fund her LNG pipedream!


Campbell RiverBC
TerrySlack

Having been commercially fishing for Fraser River salmon for over 65 years near the proposed site with local First Nation friends, I wanted to point out two areas of the Fraser River and estuary that must be carefully considered for impacts from the project.


First, Canoe Pass is a relatively shallow river reach that contains that some of the finest undisturbed Juvenile Salmon and White Sturgeon Habitat in the lower Fraser River Estuary!


Second, South Sturgeon Bank and a place called "The Box" are shallow juvenile salmon holding zones classified as F. R. E. M. P. Red Coded Juvenile Habitat Zone along with Canoe Pass!


The fish and fish habitat map included in Wespac's Valued Components document does not include Sturgeon Bank and Canoe Pass is cut off at Westham Island.


Terry Slack

"Commercial Fraser River Salmon Fisher"


VancouverBC
PaulMagnus

0 How safe is it to have LNG tankers plying the Fraser right next to communities. In the USA regulations would not permit LNG resources at such a site because of proximity to communities. Why are we even considering the expansion of this terminal?


1 How is the additional gas getting to the terminal?


2 Is the complete life cycle of the GHG of the product included in the assessment? ie Forest cut down; feral Methane emissions from b4 wellhead to final product burning and lifecycle of well; GHG of LNG used in ships fuel; the actual burning of product at end point;


3 Will public be able to see and comment on the GHG analysis and EA report before permit granted?


4 Will BC end up with stranded Tax dollar investments n energy infrastructure such as SiteC etc as #climate mitigation tightens up in future to meet net 0 GHG emissions world wide? This money may be bet spent on #climate mitigation and adaption.


5 Why is there not an over all environmental assessment process to consider all the current Fossil Fuel projects and infrastructure (especially and others eg Transport) in the Straight of Georgia, the Fraser and the Lower Mainland. And for #climate across BC?


6 Does the BC EAO have a #climate change mission statement and why not?


We all need to stand up to tackle global warming because of the nature of the problem. That means agents in BC EAO must be prepared to push back on the lobbying pressure of profit driven corporations and corrupt political bias.


Your recommendations must be base on Evidence Based Decisions and sound science. In terms of #climate much of this is already plain and BC LNG does not look like a sound way forward.


Lets get that down in the report and procedure so we can move forward more efficiently in tackling #climate.


Thank you RealLNGHearings.org for this amazing democratic tool.

Canada is back.


Paul Magnus


RichmondBC
BerniceKamano

Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.


None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.


Use the form at top right to send your comments to the BC EAO on Wespac’s proposed review. Go here for more detail on potential impacts that should be in the EA.


VictoriaBC
KarlMaier

The environmental assessment process should consider ALL the environmental consequences of the proposal, including upstream and downstream impacts.


That includes the environmental (ie., pollution, health and safety) impacts of:

- related pipeline and power transmission projects

- drilling, fracking, and methane leaks from production

- emissions due to accidents and 'emergency' events (seen "Syriana"?)

- tanker traffic and climate change from the combustion of CH4.


Failure to include these impacts would be like considering a major housing construction permit without including the impact on water, sewer, power, traffic, and other municipal services needs. Who else could consider these combined impacts as a whole?


New WestminsterBC
StevenFaraher-Amidon

Dear BC EAO.

Several issues of importance need to be included in a proper assessment of the LNG proposal.

1)Full disclosure of the changes required for this proposal must be published in the public record, such as the expansion of Fortis's Delta LNG facility.

2) A full comprehensive assessment of all safety risks much be included as well as disaster response plans.

3)International standards need to be be employed in the assessment, as well as a marine hazard assessment.

4)The Impact on property values must be included as citizens have a right to know such financial implications.

5)The implications of upstream regional drilling and creation of gas wells and increased fracking needs to be part of this assessment. Wespac has not included this in the EA outline.

5)Responsibility of actions affecting the public underpins the credibility of our society, both government and private. Wespac is not willing to accept responsibility of the impact of increased vessel traffic on the Salish Sea. This is untenable and must be part of a comprehensive assessment.


Credibility of any action with the potential of such impact on the public is fundamental. Without government credibility the public trust implicit in a functioning democracy is compromised.I look forward to the inclusion of these fundamentally important impact considerations in your assessment.


ComoxBC
NicSlater

The main channel for the Fraser river from Steveston to the Alex Fraser Bridge has been changed over the decades in order to allow marine traffic a more direct route thru this river delta area. The current main shipping route has been straightened to run along the south shore of the City of Richmond and in order to bring in larger ships, the channel now has to be deepened significantly to accommodate larger ships, which can only be done by replacing the Massey Tunnel with a bridge.


These changes to the main channel have changed the biology of the river delta so that there is very little flow of fresh water thru the adjoining channels any longer and those channels now have significantly increased salt water flowing upstream when the tide is ebbing. This occurrence was once only common in the fall season when river volume was at it's lowest. Due to the extreme depth the main channel has been dredged, salt water has been allowed to consistently thru the year displace fresh water and alter the delta's ecosystem. As well, the farmland in the delta is less able to draw water for irrigation from this area of the river and salinity is becoming a problem in the best agricultural area in Canada.


If a proper cost analysis of replacing the Massey Tunnel (4 lanes) with a bridge (10 lanes) were to be done, it is clear the loss of farmland and bio diversity, along with the tax payers burden of paying for an unnecessarily larger crossing would be shown to be an economically poor choice.


The current choke point on Hwy 99 is the Massey Tunnel, which all experts in public transit agree could be overcome with a light rail transit system from White Rock to Vancouver for 1/3 the cost of a new 10 lane bridge. Quite clearly a new bridge would only continue the subsidization by tax payers of the shipping industry via municipal road access for road damaging container trucks that could be largely replaced with more appropriate rail systems. Further, a larger bridge will only add to Vancouver and the lower mainland's traffic congestion. New transit should take full priority before any tax dollars are spent on shipping industry pipe dreams that have limited local benefits.


DeltaBC
RobMcDermot

The extraction of natural gas pollutes our ground water and the burning of natural gas contributes to Greenhouse Gases. For these two reasons, this is a totally wrong way to bolster the Provincial economy and a completely incorrect solution to reducing anyone's dependency on fossil fuels.


VictoriaBC
BarbaraDempster

My concern is that large projects of this sort are being looked at in isolation. I am not opposed to LNG as a way to transition away from fossil fuels, but if this project goes ahead the tanker traffic through the Haro Strait will inevitably increase.

If the Kinder Morgan expansion goes ahead, there will already be an increase in the number of tankers every day through the strait, some carrying dilutant and others carrying Dilbit. Add LNG tankers and the risk of an accident increases proportionally.

As a resident of Salt Spring Island I am very aware of the hazards of wind, weather and tide on the waters of the Salish Sea. An accident in these waters will contaminate the Gulf Islands and the San Juans for the rest of our lifetime.

I truly believe that the Province needs to look at the mega projects in a more global context understanding that although each small element of large projects may indeed meet environmental standards, when large projects are combined the numbers change and the risk assessment is greater.

These projects are driven by the need to make money for corporations. Although some jobs are created in the development of the mega project, the RISKS of the projects are borne by the population, in our case very personally by the inhabitants of the islands. We will derive none of the reward and yet bear all of the risk.

Although LNG carriers pose a far smaller risk than oil tankers as the LNG would evaporate in the event of an accident, the risk of a collision with a tanker carrying bitumen will increase. The Province has to look at both projects, or indeed, all mega projects together to decide what is acceptable. Decisions should be made with a unified understanding of the environmental risks of combined projects on a provincial basis, and downstream on a global basis.

The one thing we can be utterly sure of is that at some point there will be an accident in our waters, and that human error will be the cause. All the safeguards in the world will not prevent this.


Salt Spring IslandBC
MariaGifford

Fossil Fuels and Nuclear as well have already been proven to pollute this Earth aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand very Small Planet-The fumes and plumes of both are killing Life here. Divest and apply Renewable Energy NOW- It's time..


East MillinocketMaine
JoanRuss

I am very concerned how this will impact our remaining farmland in Delta and out into the valley. Also how the increased traffic on the waters off B.C. will be harmful to our whales, and if there are any accidents with all the tankers going into and out of our harbor.


RichmondBC
SerbanVasilescu

With each project involving transiting huge quantities of dirty natural resources (cool, LNG) across the areas South of Fraser River delta, the growing population in these communities is getting more and more concerned regarding the catastrophic long term effects that might be produced by a major accident around these activities. While the risks we are exposed to grow exponentially with each project of this nature, the benefits for the local populations are becoming more and more questionable.

Before going forward with such a project, please consider attentively the cumulative environmental impacts and risks that may affect the population in the area as a whole.


DeltaBC
RLarson

LNG requires Fracking, dangerous to water.


Victoria BC
MazellKolvyn

Dear Sirs and Madames,

This project seems to have "appeared" with the presence of a sign indicating when construction would start. I am most concerned that all factors have in fact been given their due diligence.

Some of my concerns are outlined here (courtesy of VTACC):

- upstream impacts from well drilling, fracking and methane leaks generated by supplying natural gas to the project;

- local impacts, like new power lines over farm land to serve expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility that would supply the proposed terminal, risks to Richmond and Delta from deliberate acts of destruction of the facility or an LNG tanker, and effects of the project on residential property values;

- downstream impacts of increased vessel traffic on marine life in the Salish Sea, and GHG emissions when the LNG is burned.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mazell Kolvyn


SurreyBC
RobertMcCroskey

The entirety of what you propose will soon be under water (faster than predicted) by rising sea levels. yet the proponents of industrial development keep trying to build a "glorified version of the past" by sinking infrastructure funds into projects which will have NO USE in our future, and are basically anti-Life. If you REALLY WERE concerned about "impacts to the environment, NONE of these fossil fuel projects would EVER BE considered, let alone built, and the proponents and constructors would BE IN JAIL.


SurreyBC
ISarama

The mining, rail transport, marine shipment and finally, burning of hundreds of millions of tonnes of thermal coal in China, via transit through B.C. is a complete abuse of any sense of adult responsibility for future generations of humans and our other fellow species on this planet. There are clear and demonstrable viable alternatives, and this extraction and burning of fossil fuels must be curtailed and stopped if we are to have any hope of alleviating mass suffering and extinctions in the future.


The wise and sensible thing to do would be to immediately disallow the permits to export more coal.


GibsonsBC
JudithMacDermot

not completed correctly


VancouverBC
janicegibbons

my concern is for the stop of the rapid destruction of Delta as we know it. Mainly I am worried for the impact to the area regarding the wildlfe, birds, my health your health the oceans health. We have to stop this, that is all there is to it.


ladnerBC
Judy Lea

Hello.


In order for a PROPER environmental assessment of the Fraser River LNG project, many things should and must be considered as part of the overall impact this will have on the lives of those directly concerned, on the environmental impacts (and there will be many) and the overall effect this will have on climate change. As has been said over and over, by too many people, including world-renowned scientists and world leaders, CLIMATE CHANGE CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED!


Even without considering the impact that will occur as a result of the INCREASE IN greenhouse gases from the expansion of LNG production, transportation and use, I believe it is absolutely essential that we take a look at:

1. fracking operations that have occurred anywhere in the world and the negative impact they may have had on drinking water supply ( CRITICAL) and increased earthquake activities in these areas. Perhaps evidence of this is still 'anecdotal' but has occurred far too frequently to be mere 'coincidence'. These things MUST be taken into consideration. Water is life. There is no amount of money worth losing our most precious resource for! A 'thriving economy' is an oxymoron on a planet that cannot sustain human life .


2. We must take into consideration the further expansion that will be required at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility in order to accomodate the new LNG development, if it were to occur, plus new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline!


3. Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.


Also since Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, the impact on property values along the route must be taken into consideration.


4. Assessment must be taken of the impact of more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane during processing. Where will the enormous amount of electricity required to cool and condense that natural gas for export come from? Will it be generated by burning MORE natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? We need to consider ALL of these factors, not just the ones that the LNG industry and government would LIKE us to consider!


5. Apparently, once the gas is placed on ocean going vessels for transport, Wepac will no longer be responsible for any problems that may occur with leaking or spills or any other damage to beautiful and fragile ecology of the Salish Sea. Who WILL be responsible? It seems abundantly clear to me that anyone who may profit from the production and transportation of this questionable resource should be the ones to PAY for and FIX any damages that are incurred in the process! (IF the damages CAN be repaired, that is).


In conclusion, it is long past time that our province begin to concentrate almost all of our financial resources on developing NON-POLLUTING, NON-GREENHOUSE GAS PRODUCING energies and technologies for our own use and for exporting. Putting time, money and human resources into this industry is COMPLETELY the WRONG direction to be going now. There is NO more time to waste. The time for the turnaround is NOW.


Thank you.


Sincerely,


Judy P. Lea


BurnabyBC
mei linyeoell

ALL the experts who are NOT associated with the O&G industry are quite clear that Fracking is climate change suicide and that LNG export is environmentally perilous. What is it about continuing down this path that makes sense to you? This is not a legacy any sane politician would want to leave to future generations.


1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta


Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.


None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.


2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values


Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.


Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.


langleyBC
franciskremler

Why is there no mention in the proposal of a possible expansion at FortisBC's Delta LNG facility, new power lines or , possibly a new or expanded natural gas pipeline?

Also why is there no responsibility being taken by Wespac for the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales?

These items should be considered in the Environmental Assessment of the project.


victoriaBC
RobieLiscomb

There should be a full, complete and thorough environmental assessment including upstream (fracking) midstream (safety risks to the densely populated area around the processing and loading facility) and downstream (GHGs released in transport and burning of LNG). And the latter downstream analysis should not just be LNG versus the dirtiest alternative (e.g. coal) but should be based on comparison of LNG with other, less-polluting or clean energy sources.


VictoriaBC
AnnGrant

1. The Big Picture: Wespac + Fortis = massive development in Delta


Natural gas will need to be shipped to Metro Vancouver, cooled and condensed by FortisBC before it is exported as LNG by Wespac. That will require further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility, new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline.


None of this is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the EA. It’s time to tell Wespac, FortisBC and the government that this piecemeal approach to assessing the impacts of big projects isn’t good enough.


2. Local Impacts: accidents and deliberate acts, property values


Impacts from an accident, malfunction or deliberate attack on an LNG terminal or tanker could be catastrophic. The EA needs a stand alone, comprehensive assessment of all safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan. Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, and does that in a piecemeal fashion.


Further, as part of the EA, Wespac should explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.


Wespac wants to run LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond, but says there is no need to assess project impacts on property values. Wrong.


3. Upstream Regional Impacts: drilling, fracking, methane leaks


Exporting LNG down the Fraser will mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – during processing. It will take an enormous amount of electricity to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.


4. Downstream Regional Impacts: orca whales and climate change


Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered orca whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.


VancouverBC
LindaRoth

1. WESPAC'S PROPOSED LNG EXPORT FACILITY ON THE FRASER RIVER must come under the most intense scrutiny. We will not have a second chance to get this right......hindsight will be too late. Studies have been done on the devastation an accident would cause in major U.S. ports.....has one been done here?


1) First.....the suitability of the location has to be thoroughly assessed....on the basis of International Siting Standards....Foreigners should not be able to come to Canada and do things that would never be allowed in their homeland.....Frankly, we need to smarten up....


2) What about an assessment of the potential hazards on the route? Has a Waterway Suitability Assessment been done? Do we have any standards comparable to the U.S. Coast Guard, or do we just hope nothing bad happens? An assessment at least as thorough as was done for the Woodfibre LNG proposal near Squamish is certainly in order here.....


3) All possible catastrophes must be considered.....ie the worst case scenario....not just accidents, but also terrorism.....this is not far-fetched in today's political environment.....I can't think of anything short of an atomic bomb that would cause as much damage....


2. THE OBVIOUS REQUIRED EXPANSION OF FORTIS BC'S DELTA LNG FACILITY must be addressed in conjunction with any consideration of Wespac's proposed LNG export facility on the Fraser river:


1) Safety and Environmental concerns of an expanded Power Supply need to be scrutinized. If the source of the power is burning natural gas, how will that impact climate change? Or will more farmland be flooded to build another Site C dam....further reducing our ability to feed ourselves?


2) Safety and Environmental concerns of an expanded natural gas pipeline....


3) Safety and Environmental concerns of increasing the supply of natural gas.....harmful effects of Fracking, depletion of our Fresh water supplies, releasing more Methane in to the atmosphere....


3. WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS AN ACCIDENT AT SEA? How will the increased marine traffic impact the Salish Sea and the Strait of Juan De Fuca?

Endangered species and other marine life? Property values?


4. BC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE NEEDS TO DO ITS JOB


1) For the people, not for Wespac, and not for the BC Government.....


2) If the BC EAO does not conduct a full and thorough investigation of all issues related to the WESPAC LNG PROPOSAL; including all upstream and all downstream impacts, then the CEAA should rescind its SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT and conduct a full FEDERAL REVIEW.....


Salt Spring IslandBC
LorenzoGirotto

Need to stop the relying on fossil fuels that will do nothing but poison our environment. Time to switch to geothermal, solar, wind and tidal power generation. We need to get rid of our current Neo Liberal government...they are showing little innovation or leadership when it comes to renewalable energy and are proving to be as corrupt and incompetent as the Harper government.


Maple RidgeBC
HisaoIchikawa

We are at the critical moment in our history. Our Mother Earth is sick from long abuse and we must protect her in order to survive here. Open coal mines destroy lands, coal transport and shipment pollute air and water, and coal burning pollutes air in the countries which buy them. We must develop renewable clean energy and also encourage other countries to do the same instead of sending coals and polluting their countries. Why should we accept the dirty coals Americans don't want to ship from their ports? Hisao


VancouverBC
MelClifton

LNG is not "Natural Gas" it's. Fracked Gas .... Not a cleaner Energy as we've been led to believe through propaganda . Science World is s prime example iof "Big Energy's " influence on children .... Shame!

#,JustSayNoToLNG


SurreyBC
ShannonReid

my concerns are many. The impact on farmland ,possible new pipeline, the impact on marine life, the regulating of LNG tankers and safety concerns. I believe the location of the possible new terminal needs to be evaluated. More fracking in the Northeast of BC is a concern. All impacts on climate must be considered also.


SurreyBC
WandaMundy

What protocols for disaster response are included in the Business Case ?!? And do they address all possible disaster scenarios (accident, malfunction, deliberate attack) ?!? WHO will be responsible and accountable (both financially and providing resources, etc.) for any disaster response - and within what sort of timeline ?!? What about disasters that are a direct result of the wells and fracking activities - such a earthquake ?!?


It is now KNOWN that fracking and drilling are causing earthquakes in regions that have never before been beset by them. A level of culpability must be acknowledged right at the outset. There are agriculture, dairy and beef/meat industries that will be negatively impacted. Simply compensating them for their losses isn't good enough. They must STILL be allowed to carry on THEIR activities - AS USUAL - without fear of contamination of their water source, clean soil, etc.


From start to finish of the ENTIRE process - disaster response protocols must be comprehensive, and it must be admitted and acknowledged that any disaster is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of BOTH corporations' activities (Wespac and FortisBC) - from the moment the first drill-bit hits the dirt in NE BC. Liability cannot be dodged in a flurry of legal teams' double-speak - that will require MOUNTAINS of litigation - and INSANE amounts of time designed to stall any public outcry, or Scientific response in time to be meaningful.


MissionBC
KatieThomas

Salmon, salmon, and salmon. No more tankers. No more fraking for LNG.


VancouverBC
AlejandroFrid

We urgently need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and methane (a major component of LNG) is a powerful greenhouse gas. Therefore, building new infrastructure for LNG export is the absolute opposite of sustainability and inconsistent with Canada's (and the world's) goals to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. We should be shifting investment to renewable energy infrastructure and using only existing fossil fuel infrastructure to bridge that transition.


Bowen IslandBC
WendyJones

Besides all the concerns over methane leaks, fracking, spills, no insurance from the ground to the ship and onwards, I am too concerned about my grandchildren's future to allow this project to go through....PERIOD!


We have messed up the world enough. Please take your blinders off and think about your own children and grandchildren.


Alternative, clean energies are where it's at, and will produce MORE permanent and full time jobs than the LNG or oil industries. Site C Damn is a waste of our tax paying dollars.


Thank you, and In Spirit


VancouverBC
DonBarthel

Putting an LNG terminal, with the explosive power of a small nuclear device, in the middle of a large population centre is irresponsible.


VancouverBC
ElsieDean

The BC Government nor the Federal Government have the right to transform the Lower Mainland of BC into a fossil fuel storage and export centre as they do not have the consent of the majority of people living here. Our economy and environment would be better served by investing in infrastructure and create more jobs from creating an alternate energy industry. Stop the present drive to bring more dangerous, polluting fossil fuels into this populated region.


BurnabyBC
BillDarnell

We should not build a LNG plant in Vancouver. The issues that must be included are fracking, the underground "clear cutting" of north eastern BC. Smashing the geological structure to extract gas that is not going to be needed or cannot be accommodated in the atmosphere is irresponsible to life on the planet. Burning the gas will accelerate the warming of the planet and destabilizing the climate. 80% of the world's fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. There is not need for new exporting facilities.


VernonBC
AgnesWatts

I am tired of feeling like the gullible country cousin of the United States. They have guidelines and laws in place to oversee such a project as the one being proposed here. When their laws prevent such a project, their industries come to Canada, where no such protections exist, and our naive, unsophisticated governments fall for the "bamboozling" corporations' smooth proposals. Country cousins indeed!

We need to start at the beginning. Should we be taking natural gas out of the ground at all? It is a fossil fuel. That is not the direction in which Canada should be heading. Should we be allowing "fracking" as a means of extraction of this outdated fuel? Fracking has HUGE environmental and financial costs, which we simply cannot afford.

If we decide that we must use LNG, is this the best way to get it from our ground to overseas markets? Is this the best use of the Fraser River basin and its much-needed, valuable resources? Should we be allowing the transport of fossil fuels like coal and LNG through the fragile, enclosed Salish Sea, which is already stressed with pollution of many forms, from many sources?

These are just some of the many questions not being considered and addressed in the current environmental assessment. We need to look at the whole picture, over the long term. Until we do that, thoroughly and completely, we should not be allowing any more development and alteration to the proposed sites. Our current provincial government is literally selling us down the river. We cannot allow that to continue.


Vancouver & S.Pender IslandBC
WilliamSchuss

Keep the natural gas which is extracted by fracking deep in the ground where nature stored it until a non polluting method is developed for it's use. Site C dam is mainly required to transport and refrigerate and pump said gas. The Fraser river must be dredged to allow massive ships to transport the fuel and the Massy Tunnel is to be removed to allow this shipping to take place. The flooding of farmland for site C, dredging the Fraser, removal of the tunnel, building a high clearance bridge so the ships can pass under all dumped onto the B.C taxpayers. What we need is wind solar and tidal generation. No more coal shipments and stop global climate change. It's not too late to be responsible.


SurreyBC
Douglas GeorgeMassey

1. In order for the ships to dock at your facility will there be a need to dredge and maintain the Lower Fraser River at that location and who will pay for it?

2. Have you determined what affect this will have on the overall hydrology and ecosystem of the Lower Fraser River?

3. Why are you asking for public opinion on the jetty when the export license has already been issued the LNG tanks are already built?.

4. Did you do a hazard zone assessment to determine the safety of the people in the nearby communities? If not, why not? .

5. Why are you even considering this jertty location when you know what the results would be if there would be a terrorist action that would cause the LNG to explode?


DeltaBC
ChristineTetreault

This area has been inundated with projects over the past years and there is far too much development already in an environmentally sensitive area. There should be no further development and subsequent deterioration until a thorough and unbiased environmental assessment is completed.


DeltaBC
Lisa M

Please make sure all the potential impacts are thoroughly reviewed, in particular the impacts on climate change and potential for environmental devastation.


VancouverBC
RichardO'Neill

A complete and detailed E A is essential for this project. The assessment of the cumulative impacts of all industrialization in this area must be included.

The effect of the cumulative impacts on Climate Change must be included.

The effect on fish, marine mammals, and birds must also be included.


It is time for all governments to take their responsibilities for environmental protection seriously. The cumulative effects of Industrial development in B.C. will be borne by future generations, who have the right to a healthy environment.


Roberts CreekBC
DavidWhitmore

Large energy corporations are always in a big push to sell off their reserves of oil and natural gas NOW, money today and devil take the future generations. Future generations who might be glad that there is natural gas for heat and possibly cars too, and oil not just for gas, but also plastics too.


But no, sell it all now to the Chinese or anybody and damn the environmental consequences. The cash strapped BC government is being led along by the nose in hopes for a miracle windfall from this dangerous export business; but they will find little compensation for their backing of this plan after the energy giants and shipping companies fudge the numbers at tax time.


The gas is in the ground and not going anywhere, and WE will need it in the future.


VancouverBC
michaelkrisinger

These fossil fuel expansion proposals need more public commentary. I am appalled at the thought of such expansion occurring right here in Vancouver with little to zero consultation with the public. These projects are not in the best interests of Canadians. Undoubtedly, they have the ability to make a few individuals wealth in the short term but everyone in Canada as well as the rest of the world will suffer from this development in the long term. Burning of LNG, as well as the other fossil fuels, is hastening the onset of dangerous climate change that will greatly amplify human suffering worldwide if not held in check. All carbon based energy projects must be phased out immediately. Your proposed projects do the contrary. By allowing the expansion of LBG shipping, more LNG will be extracted that will inevitably be burnt - adding to the already dangerously high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels currently found in our atmosphere. One does not have to be a climate scientist or even a scientist to link these simple processes requiring elementary school arithmetic. The consequences of current elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have already been well documented ad nauseam. They are grim and will only get exponentially worse if projects like LNG on the Fraser as proposed are passed. Lets move towards the future with a clear heads and make decisions that move us away from a path of negative and devastating consequences.


vancouverBC
RobynJacob

Hello

Firstly, I would like to express my concern for the expansion of the LNG industry, as it is definitely not in the best interest of our province, and especially for future generations. The amount of water and electricity needed in the industrial process and also the use of energy to cool the product for export is wasteful and not economically sound.


We need to use international standards and route hazard assessments to think about how the Fraser Surrey Docks will affect the marine environment around it. Our marine environment is currently in a crisis, and expansion projects like these do nothing to alleviate that.


We need to look at all the factors involved, including the affect into the future, and the chain of industrial processes that will be affected by this expansion. Is it worth it? No.


VancouverBC
RobinDel Pino Ferries

I am Opposed to Liquid Natural Gas operations on the Fraser River and elsewhere in BC. NO LNG. Protect existing habitats and ecosystems by preventing LNG activities entirely.


VancouverBC
TobyDent

An LNG terminal on the Fraser River with gas coming through Vancouver before it's shipped out on many tankers leaves the whole population on High Alert. Why would anyone agree to this nightmare???

Christy Clark advocates for LNG profits over the safety of people and the environment while keeping the whole process more or less secret. For shame.

Justin Trudeau needs to look at what's happening regarding this fraudulent misleading application and make sure this doesn't happen.


VancouverBC
RuthWalmsley

I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed LNG export terminal on the Fraser River. Further expansion at FortisBC’s Delta LNG facility would require new power lines over fertile farmland, and possibly even a new or expanded natural gas pipeline, none of which is mentioned in Wespac’s plan for the Environmental Assessment (EA).


Wespac’s proposal for the EA only considers accidents and malfunctions, without mention of other safety risks — including risk of deliberate attack — and a clear disaster response plan.


Wespac should also explicitly assess the suitability of the proposed terminal location according to existing international standards, and conduct a marine route hazard assessment equivalent to those required by the US Coast Guard.


Wespac also should be required to assess project impacts on property values, due to running LNG tankers down the Fraser River, past waterfront residential developments in Richmond.


I am concerned about the enormous amount of electricity it would take to cool and condense that natural gas for export. Will that electricity be generated by burning yet more natural gas, or by building new dams like Site C?

Will it mean more natural gas wells drilled in NE BC, more fracking, and more escaping methane? None of these issues are addressed in Wespac’s EA outline. They should be.


Finally, Wespac says that once LNG is loaded onto ocean going vessels it’s not their responsibility. What about the impact of increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea on endangered killer whales? What about the climate impact of exporting and burning yet more fossil fuels? Prior to approval, all impacts that would be generated by the project must be addressed in the EA.


We deserve a comprehensive assessment process which takes into account all of these potential impacts.


BurnabyBC
GeorgePayerle

I am concerned about all the factors listed here in the column to the left, but fundamentally I am concerned that this review will be as much a dog and pony show as the Enbridge hearings in which I participated lo these many years ago. I believe the whole fracking business should be abandoned.


Roberts CreekBC
TracieStewart

If climate change talks are to be addressing a 2%reduction in order for countries like Africa and some of the Islands to survive then why are we even considering ruining more of the environment for dirty fuel projects. The Salmon runs are already at risk. Why are we letting a project such as this further jeopardize the species. There is no way possible that the LNG project will not impact the immediate environment for the worse.


AbbotsfordBC
JenniferCondie

I am not in favor of any development without a comprehensive environmental assessment. The transport of natural gas via the Fraser River through Delta is a huge concern both environmentally, and with regard to property value. Fracking is a huge concern, in its effect on water supply. Further, natural gas development contributes to climate change.


I will be watching this process carefully, and next election will put my financial and active engagement behind candidates that give these concerns the weight they deserve.


SurreyBC
DavidHam

Hello

I live on a small island in the Salish Sea. I am very worried about the impact of increased vessel traffic. I have a great fear of the devastation that an exploding LNG tanker would cause. I know that it has not happened yet, but there is always a possibility of one happening. I find it to be not right that Wespac takes no responsibility once a LNG tanker is loaded

Fracking is very harmful for the environment in many ways especially since Site C dam is being built to supply power for that industry.

The effects of burning fossil fuels are becoming more noticeable so it is very irresponsible to bring more fossil fuels available instead of looking for and using alternatives. I can not support and I am in fact against LNG exports.

Thank you

David Ham, Lasqueti Is. BC


Lasqueti Is.BC
CeliaBrauer

The Fraser River has been under siege since settlement in the Lower Mainland. This area used to be one of the richest ecosystem on earth. The First Nations here were sedentary because there was so much food on the beaches, in the water and the forests. Today the Fraser and its flora an fauna is a shadow of its former self. Will we further degrade this? It seems so - with our relentless push to industrialize the world and rob the birthright of future generations and other species. It's time to turn this around today. Fossil fuels are poison. They need to be kept in the ground. No more development on the Fraser - ever. It's time to bring some biodiversity back. We can do it. Let's start now.


VancouverBC
DavidWaterhouse

Fracking is an integral component of the LNG Industry. Fracking has been scientifically proven to be a polluter of air, soil and water. We have one planet, one environment. There should be no place for LNG.


VictoriaBC
JohnHill

I'm very concerned that there be a comprehensive EA done of the Wespac LNG proposal. Most importantly, the huge upstream costs of the fracking needed to produce this gas, and the substantial GHG emissions from methane leakage must be included. Secondarily, but still very importantly, the downstream risks to the endangered killer whales and the further emission of GHG in the ocean transport of the LNG must be considered, along with the costs of explosion risk on nearby urban areas, and damage to farmlands of increased transmission lines to power the LNG plant itself.


VancouverBC
GabrielMindel

The current EA completely fails to address the real impacts of this project on communities and regions upstream and downstream. The reality is that this project does not exist in a void but in a larger context of cause and effect. Wespac's marine terminal is part of major intensification of LNG production, shipping and usage, all of which of unique but wholly related impacts. The exctraction of LNG is dangerous, requires immense amounts of energy, wastes local resources, produces greenhouse gas, and risks permanently altering the ecological balance in the areas surrounding it. That's all assuming that there are now accidents. The transmission of LNG generates very serious dangers in the case of an accident or act of sabotage and the current EA does not address this fully. Finally it is dishonest and dangerous for this EA to ignore the consequences of producing and shipping LNG - namely that it is a product that if consumed will directly contribute to catastrophic climate change. Ignoring this in an EA is like a fuse maker saying that its work has nothing to do with bomb-making.


VancouverBC
JaneCamfield

Your list of what is left out of the EA suggests an environmental assessment has already been done. My question is when do all the "assessments", "processes", "appeals" stop? The four-part list indicates that concerns have already been raised by informed parties. Presumably, the informed parties could provide details of their concerns. In my opinion,taxpayers' money and time is being wasted by the current practices. Canada needs to read what credible scientists know about the risks; after that, we need to legislate immediate banishment of fossil fuel purveyors. Let that "process" be the new normal!


VancouverBC
Kerri-JoStewart

Are we really going to get a "real" environmental assessment?


And why do I keep getting phone calls to support this project? They say it is the best environmental option and not to support it goes against what is best.


Railway AveBC
NeilHumphrey

1. LNG plants and storages would not be located at this location if in the USA as the project is in a city and a populated area. Homeland Security would not allow a facility that could explode to be built where is could have the potential to harm the public.


2. Metro Port invests very limited in local infrastructure. Roads in Metro Van are overused and gridlocked by trucks moving in and out of the ports areas. If the Feds want ports here they need to pay for the transportation needed for the ports and to stop getting in the way of the public.


Also, the ports safety net is cheap too as was the case in the tiny oil spill in English Bay. How would the port cope with a fire or explosion in the South Fraser. A spill would be almost uncontrollable as the river moves too fast.


3. Biggest problem with any project in BC is getting BC First Nations consent. Out of 110 treaties, the BC Government has completed only 10. Because of this, projects are open to having the taxpayers spend tons of money in the courts to decide on whether BCFN rights and titles to their traditional territories is being upheld. In most cases recently, BCFN has to go to court as there are no treaties and the government's uses no risk assessment and bullying to get their way. BCFN are the best and first environmental stewards of BC and should be respect for that.


4.. As with most environmental assessments the assessments deal with the project and not the door the project opens for other environmental issues. The increase of 150 vessels up the South Fraser is crazy due to the importance of the salmon runs. It's not only the discharge of fluids and solids from the vessels but also, flaking paint, vessel wake and the heat of the vessels power plants that impact river.


Other case in point is the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel for a bridge is a track that opens that South Fraser to some of the largest bulk and tanker vessels in the world. Hence a huge port on both sides of the river which is why there are perimeter roads on both sides now. What next besides LNG? Thermal coal? The kinder Morgan pipeline is right bye the Port Mann bridge too so what if they don't refine and just ship bitumen?


5. Bottomline line is you let a business build a new port and everything else that needs a port will use the same waterways. It opens up for abuse of up and downstream areas which then impact the in and outflows of a river and every thing that exists around it.


SurreyBC
KarenWhiteside

There is too much proposed development in a relatively small geographical area that is already congested with shipping traffic in ecological sensitive areas. No further development should be approved until all existing development and it's related shipping and their respective pollution footprints are cataloged in a central data base, pollution ceilings are determined and whether any further development can be accommodated. Without taking a holistic approach, human health, food sustainability and security, protected endangered species are all place at an unacceptable risk. We must admit that our environment is finite and it is our life support system and act according in a sustainable manner.

Additionally, any LNG and resource extraction initiatives existing and proposed must be managed down to a carbon neutral status, otherwise we will pay the price in medical and food security costs and are contradictory to our climate change stance in general.

Respectfully.


ChilliwackBC