The Economics of Oil Pipelines and Tankers with Robyn Allan


defend our coast 1.jpg

Please circulate widely.

The Economics of Oil Pipelines and Tankers with Robyn Allan

Please join the Institute for the Humanities – SFU, the Environment Committee of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver, ForestEthics Advocacy and BROKE for an important and timely discussion with economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan on the true cost of oil pipelines and tankers in our province.

Robyn Allan will present the economics behind big oil’s energy strategy and what the industry does not what you to know. She will explain why saying “no” to these pipelines is saying “yes” to meaningful economic growth and development for not only BC, but all of Canada.

WHEN: March 27, 2013. Doors open at 6:30 pm – 9pm. Seating is limited.

WHERE: Confederation Community Center, 4585 Albert St. in North Burnaby

More than I wanted to know about oil tankers

Bill Brassington
I suppose I’m like most people when it comes to assessing the risk of shipping oil by tanker.

I want to know as much as I can about it, but it isn’t always easy to find information or, in the case of opinion editorials, a different viewpoint. Notwithstanding, I have learned some truths about oil tankers over the past year or so.

I’ve learned the federal government has infrastructure that is capable of dealing with an oil spill of up to 10,000 tonnes.

I’ve learned that currently about 90 tankers a year are loaded at the Burnaby pipeline terminal and that each carries more than 10 times that amount of oil.

I’ve learned we are woefully unprepared to deal with a major oil spill.

I’ve learned that the term “oil spill clean up” is misleading; at best, a clean up operation will capture about 10 per cent of the oil.

I’ve learned that the distance to and the weather conditions at a spill site are significant factors in terms of response time and cost.

I’ve learned the existing insurance coverage limit for an oil tanker spill is $1.3 billion.

I’ve learned the clean up cost of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill was in excess of $2 billion.

I’ve learned that neither man nor money could repair the damage to the Prince William Sound marine ecosystems.

I’ve learned—after more than 20 years—neither can mother nature.

I’ve learned bitumen is heavier and more toxic than conventional oil and that the longer it is in water, the more likely it will sink. I’ve learned that most spills occur when oil is transferred to or from tankers.

I’ve learned that the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion will pump enough bitumen to fill a tanker a day. I’ve learned that 365 tankers a year increases the risk of an oil spill by a factor of four.

I’ve learned that I’ve learned more about oil tankers than I want to.

Bill Brassington


Six huge tanks of combustible, toxic jet fuel planned for Richmond site

Pete McMartin
Ho hum. Another day, another plan to ship a dangerous commodity through a B.C. port. Environmentalists must be suffering outrage fatigue.

First, it was oil pipelines.

Then, coal expansion.

And now, jet fuel.

And as usual, it involves tankers.

This time it’s on the Fraser River.

A consortium of airlines — the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation — wants to ship offshore jet fuel to a storage terminal it hopes to build in Richmond. It would be just upstream from the George Massey Tunnel.

The jet fuel would then be pumped by underground pipeline to the airport. The 15-kilometre-long pipeline would go through Richmond. In all, it will cost $93 million.

Why do the airlines want this?

At present, Vancouver International Airport gets 60 per cent of its jet fuel from the ARCO refinery at Cherry Point, Wash. – by truck or barge — and the remaining 40 per cent by the Kinder Morgan pipeline from the Chevron refinery in Burnaby.

The consortium claims the ARCO and Chevron sources are outdated and unreliable sources for the future.

Critics say bull, it’s because offshore jet fuel will be cheaper.

Whatever the reason, that offshore fuel will arrive by barge or Panamax tanker, which will then sail up the main channel of the Fraser, dock and off-load into six enormous tanks with a total capacity of 80 million litres. Never before have such tankers carrying such a cargo been up the Fraser.

As much as the airlines assure everyone that the proposal is safe, and that jet fuel is much harder to ignite than gasoline and oil, critics beg to differ. Tank farm fires have occurred in the past, and to spectacular effect, including a fire at the Miami International Airport in 2011. (The Miami airport fire chief said the fire, which was massive, came within minutes of being truly catastrophic when one 700,000-gallon tank was almost breached.)

The immediate neighbours downstream of the tanks will be a public park, a 180-unit condominium development and the Riverport cinema and sports complex. They’re about 400 metres away.

Those tanks will also be just upstream from the Fraser River estuary — that great incubator of salmon, the feeding ground to millions of birds and home to people living on its banks in Richmond and Delta. If there was a spill, or a tanker ran aground, or the tanks caught fire, the estuary will suffer incalculable damage. Environmentally, jet fuel is extremely toxic.

Salmon and birds don’t vote, however. And Richmond has an international airport that needs fuel. And as the jobs-before-environment wits would have it, “Cry me a river.”


Critics of the proposal believe there is a safer alternative. One citizens’ group, VAPOR, or Vancouver Airport Project Opposition Richmond, proposed a pipeline be built from the ARCO refinery directly to YVR. The airline consortium rejected that proposal, however, because of what it said were time and bureaucratic constraints on both sides of the border.

This time, more than just citizens’ groups are critics. Richmond city council’s reaction to the plan has been apoplectic. It has expressed its anger to the provincial Environmental Assessment Office, which is the Ministry of Environment wing that, in tandem with Port Metro Vancouver, is jointly reviewing the proposal.

Richmond council is not only upset with the nuts and bolts of the plan, but with the fact that it has absolutely no say in the matter. Nor did the city’s mood improve when it discovered that safety measures it had suggested were ignored. Council was so angry that earlier this month it demanded a meeting with Environment Minister Terry Lake and Energy Minister Rich Coleman to air its concerns.

Critics of the EAO also include B.C. Auditor General John Doyle, who released a report in July 2011 slamming it for failing to properly assess projects that were potentially harmful to the environment. Doyle criticized the EAO for relying on proponents’ own reports for ensuring compliance and for the obvious conflict of interest therein.

And in 2011, the federal office of Environment Canada wrote the EAO that “the (jet fuel) project would present a new and unacceptable risk” to the estuary and that there was “limited ability” to control a spill. It suggested the EAO and the consortium go back to the drawing board.

They have. The consortium proposed an alternative, less obtrusive pipeline route through Richmond, and the EAO reconsidered the new information.

So what began in 2009 as a 180-day review has yet to see the finish line. The government was to hand down its decision on the proposal Jan. 25, but Lake extended the deadline yet again last week. The new deadline is Feb. 25. Either this is a case of a government exercising extreme caution or of having no idea what it is doing. I’ll emulate the government and reserve judgment.

When the decision does come, critics say it will be made with very limited public input. There were calls for written submissions and a few public information meetings, but speakers were allowed only two minutes apiece and restricted to addressing only technical aspects of the proposal.

A familiar complaint lately. And a familiar scenario.

Depending on what side you fall on, the B.C. coast — all of a sudden, and in alarmingly concentrated sequence — has been either blessed with new industrial developments or beset by them.

And that will be the defining question of this province:

Which view will prevail?
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more:

Plan to pipe jet fuel to YVR delayed several months

METRO VANCOUVER – A controversial proposal to pipe jet fuel to Vancouver International Airport via a Fraser River terminal has been delayed for several months.

Environment Minister Terry Lake says an environmental assessment for the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery is suspended pending further study on the effects of land and marine fuel spills.

He said, in a statement late Monday, that a symposium featuring experts in fuel spill response is being held March 25 to 27 to discuss the best practices for B.C.

After a new preparedness plan is complete, the government will decide whether to grant an environmental certificate for the project.

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie is opposed to the project which will involve fully-loaded tankers travelling on the Fraser River to southeast Richmond.

Under the proposal, jet fuel will be piped 15 kilometres to the airport through a pipeline running diagonally across Richmond.

In an editorial Monday to The Vancouver Sun, Brodie said council has “steadfastly opposed this proposal from the outset” because of the many economic, social and environmental risks to Richmond and surrounding areas.

“Jet fuel will be off-loaded perilously close to environmentally sensitive areas on both sides of the river,” he wrote.

“Despite repeated requests, there has been no satisfactory plan developed to address potential environmental impacts should there be a major spill in these sensitive areas.”

Adrian Pollard, project director for the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation said environmental protection on the Fraser River is a top priority and experts with the corporation have consulted thoroughly with the federal and provincial governments to develop protection and response strategies.

“We understand that before the government makes a decision on our project, it wants to complete work that it began last year on spill response regimes covering land-based spills and marine spills that may impact BC shorelines,” said Pollard.

“We await the conclusion of that work, and are confident that the spill prevention and response measures we are proposing will match the high standards that the government is seeking to implement.”

The province was due to make a decision on whether to grant the environmental assessment certificate by the end of February.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more:

Richmond opposed to airport jet fuel delivery proposal

The Vancouver airport Fuel Delivery Project will involve fully-loaded tankers up to 950 feet in length regularly sailing up the South Arm of the Fraser River to southeast Richmond.

Upon each tanker’s arrival, the jet fuel will be piped to a storage tank one kilometre away. From there, it would travel 15 km to the airport through a pipeline running diagonally across Richmond.

City council has steadfastly opposed this proposal from the outset because of the many economic, social and environmental risks to Richmond and surrounding areas. The province is due to make a decision on whether to grant the environmental assessment certificate by the end of February.

Richmond strongly believes the project is motivated by the airlines’ business desire to fully control the supply of jet fuel rather than any time-sensitive need. Currently, jet fuel is supplied through a pipeline that runs from north Burnaby to Richmond. This source is supplemented by tanker trucks coming from the Cherry Point refinery in northwest Washington.

The proponents acknowledge there is additional, unused delivery capacity in the existing jet fuel line. The applicants’ flight and passenger projections demonstrate that when combined with additional available storage, the projected jet fuel needs of the airlines could be met for decades to come.

Consultants estimate twinning the Burnaby pipeline could meet projected jet fuel consumption needs at least until 2027 at about one-third of the capital cost of the proposal.

Prime habitat for birds is located in Richmond. Jet fuel will be off-loaded perilously close to environmentally sensitive areas on both sides of the river. Despite repeated requests, there has been no satisfactory plan developed to address potential environmental impacts should there be a major spill in these sensitive areas.

Additionally, jet fuel will be unloaded close to residences, businesses, recreation facilities, industries, agricultural operations and within reach from Ste-veston, the largest commercial fishing port in Western Canada. Each could be detrimentally affected in the event of a disaster.

The tank storing up to 80 million litres of jet fuel represents an obvious fire risk at a location far removed from any of the city’s existing fire halls. To provide basic protection, a new fire hall and a water-based firefighting vessel all with specialized equipment and personnel would be required.

The province should not grant the environmental assessment certificate.

Malcolm Brodie Mayor of the City of Richmond
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more:

Heading off the bitumen cliff: Staples trap: Canada’s economic dependence on dirty oil threatens global environment

Mel Watkins

Staples trap: Canada’s economic dependence on dirty oil threatens global environment.

by Mel Watkins

Canada is headed for a bitumen cliff and it risks taking the rest of the world along. That’s the chilling forecast from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Polaris Institute — who also offered options to avert disaster — in the most comprehensive discussion to date on the “Dutch disease”.

Their new report, called The Bitumen Cliff: Lessons and Challenges of Bitumen Mega-Developments for Canada’s Economy in an Age of Climate Change, broadens the definition of Dutch disease, including an impressive array of collateral damage. The Bitumen Cliff report is far and away the best contribution yet to this important debate, which is coming to dominate our politics.

Canadians, Stanford observes, have moved from being hewers of wood and drawers of water to a new and equally even less flattering status — scrapers of tar. The tar sands have now mired us up to our necks in this latest staples trap.

The report’s authors are heavy hitters from Canada’s progressive community — Tony Clarke, of Polaris, former Parkland Institute research director Diana Gibson, the well-known Jim Stanford of CAW, and rising star public policy researcher Brendan Haley from Carleton University. Together, they raise worrisome questions about what can be done to mitigate the consequences of a bitumen boom promoted by oil-friendly governments. They also set out positive alternatives.

Canadians, Stanford observes, have moved from being hewers of wood and drawers of water to a new and equally even less flattering status — scrapers of tar. The tar sands have now mired us up to our necks in this latest staples trap.

Haley, in on-going research on his part, brilliantly links this staples trap — Canada’s historic economic dependence on exporting unrefined raw materials — with the carbon trap, in which the carbon emissions from bitumen overheat the planet and escalate the wild weather, to our detriment and the detriment of the world. He gives new life to the famous staples approach of the economic historian Harold Innis, while making Dutch disease a Canadian-made contribution to global catastrophe.

Each trap feeds the other in a frightening way: the more bitumen we produce the more carbon is emitted; the more carbon is emitted the more, for example, the Arctic warms, and the more bitumen we can drill for. And so on, until we’re all toast.

Each trap feeds the other in a frightening way: the more bitumen we produce the more carbon is emitted; the more carbon is emitted the more, for example, the Arctic warms, and the more bitumen we can drill for. And so on, until we’re all toast.

Most of the debate about Dutch disease has focussed, to this point, on its economic effects on the manufacturing sector and jobs therein. This report shows how much more adverse and widespread the impacts are than the conventional wisdom admits.

What is new is evidence of how the bitumen boom has worsened the distribution of income, feeding inequality — above all, surprisingly, in Alberta itself. The reason, as the report demonstrates, is that corporate profits boom while real wages of workers stagnate.

Of course, bitumen exports create economic benefits, but they are weak and badly distributed. The issue is not just economic growth but the quality of that growth. By that standard, the bitumen boom leaves much to be desired — comparing most unfavourably, for instance, with the wheat boom of a century ago.
In Canada, as in Texas, oil brings out the bully boys who smear and dirty us.

If we allowed for all the costs — above all the contribution to global warming for literally centuries to come — it is possible that there is no net economic growth at all but rather that oxymoron called negative growth.

Innis, the great guru of staples, rightly insisted that each staple left its own distinctive stamp, and not only on the economy but on its politics. Our authors compile an impressive list of all the many ways in which the Harper government has worked to further the interests of the oil companies, not only at the expense of the environment but also by the infringement of Aboriginal rights and to the detriment of freedom of speech and dissent, of democracy itself. In Canada, as in Texas, oil brings out the bully boys who smear and dirty us.

How oil has come to drive Canada’s politics and economy is a home-grown example of Naomi Klein’s disaster capitalism. We’ve seen the future — as weather dominates the news — and it doesn’t work.

With the country caught in the two big traps, present politics merely tighten their grip. That pattern must somehow be broken, for politics of a very different kind is the only way out, the only solution.

We all know what the alternatives are. Track 1, as the report calls it, is proper government regulation of bitumen production. Easier said than done, of course, for the fossil fuel industries will fight us at every step. Track 2, the big challenge, the essential leap, is shifting to green energy.

the long view, which is getting shorter by the day, is that fossil fuels will be phased out anyway because of their terrible and intolerable destructiveness. Meanwhile, oil fracking in the US is making our bitumen uncompetitive, that worst of capitalist fates.

Our authors tell us that the long view, which is getting shorter by the day, is that fossil fuels will be phased out anyway because of their terrible and intolerable destructiveness. Meanwhile, oil fracking in the US is making our bitumen uncompetitive, that worst of capitalist fates.

At some point, like it or not, we’ll be wakened, and kept awake and afraid to go to sleep, by the extremes of the weather, and the end of the bitumen boom with no alternative growth path in mind. We’ll have no choice but to act. Better to start now. Let this report be your guide, your diagnosis and your prescription.
About Mel Watkins

Mel Watkins is Professor Emeritus of Economics and Political Science, University of Toronto. He is Editor Emeritus of This Magazine and a frequent contributor to Peace magazine. He is a memer of Pugwash Canada and former President of Science for Peace. Website:

© Copyright 2013, All rights Reserved.

Questions for Kinder Morgan from David Huntley

Hi Alan:

Here are some questions for Kinder-Morgan as requested

(1) Will you make available some photos of the construction of the original pipeline in Westridge?

(2) Several years ago there was excavation to expose the pipeline on Ridge Drive, presumably to do some maintenance on it. Will you make available some photos of this?

(3) Kinder-Morgan says they do not have a detailed proposal for the pipeline location. Is there any route through Westridge that will not involve expropriation?

(4) Will you be applying to the National Energy Board for the maximum amount of oil the pipeline can transport? Or will you be applying for a lesser amount, and then later ask for an increase (which would not go to an environmental review)?

(5) There are reports that the diluted bitumen (dilbit) is more corrosive on pipelines than regular oil. Is it more corrosive?
Is this correct? If so what are you planning to do about it?

(6) The diluent contains benzene, a carcinogen. When there is a spill we need to know the benzene concentration in the air, immediately, at several locations, and how it changes with time. It is clear that a proper procedure is required for
a) measuring benzene at several locations at the time of a spill and afterwards,
b) informing the residents immediately and adequately (ie the scientific information, not just platitudes)), and
c) requiring evacuation when there is a danger to health.
Do you now take these appropriate measures?
Will you be taking these appropriate measures? Details please.

(7) We need to know the relation between concentration and time of exposure to benzene and the probability of getting cancer in the future. Will you be providing this information, and consequently the probability that during a leak the benzene will cause cancer in those breathing it; no platitudes please we want a proper scientific response.

(8) Will you reveal the other chemicals in the diluent? Since some of us will be breathing them we should have a right to know what they are. Are any of them carcinogens or in other ways toxic? Details please as in the previous two questions.

(9) I live three blocks immediately above the 2007 Westridge spill. Some residents near the spill were evacuated. Those on my street were not even informed of what was happening. Some of them became ill. Some time after the spill, maybe an hour later, although I could smell something, probably mercaptans, I was driven out of my house by the noise of the helicopters. I walked down the hill, the only public way out, to within a block of the spill; nobody stopped me or told me what was happening. It seems I was walking into the danger. Do you have a plan to better inform the nearby residents? If so, what is it?

(10) I am told that the amount of oil recovered after an oil spill is typically 10 %. When you have an oil spill, what percentage of the oil do you collect typically?

(11) There is a practice in this country of corporations, when their projects are finished, leaving a mess for the people of Canada to pay to clean up. What are your plans for the pipelines when they are no longer useful and before the company no longer exists.

other questions:

Kennedy Stewart, our MP, told us on Thursday evening that he had asked the National Energy Board some questions and did not get answers to them. It could be most useful to have these questions in the public domain. We ought to know what it is that the NEB is not willing to tell us or does not know.

Last week, someone on BC Almanac (CBC radio1 at noon weekdays) told us that “every inch” of the present Kinder-Morgan pipeline has been replaced since it was originally built. (I think that someone was either representing Kinder-Morgan or a chamber of commerce.) Is the statement correct? I am skeptical.

David Huntley
Professor Emeritus,
Physics, SFU.

7341 Ridge Dr.,
Burnaby, B.C.
V5A 1B4

Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Groups audience:

NDP leader promises to partner with oilpatch on energy development

Thomas Mulcair seems to have found his sweet spot in his efforts to relate to the Alberta energy patch. The NDP leader had a rocky start when he took over, slamming fracking and blaming the energy sector for causing Dutch disease.

But in Calgary on Tuesday, Mr. Mulcair hit the right notes when he spoke about the need to clarify the rules on foreign investment, particularly by state-owned enterprises like those from China.

The NDP will be a partner with the development of energy resources

The federal NDP leader also said pipelines to carry oil from the West to the East should be a priority because they would build energy security, get higher prices for Canadian oil, and create jobs.

Both positions show greater political maturity for the aspiring prime minister. They will resonate even in the Tory stronghold, where there has been hostility to CNOOC Ltd.’s takeover of Nexen Inc. and where the oil sands industry is desperately looking for new markets following controversies around their top export plans — the Keystone XL project from Alberta to the Gulf Coast and the Northern Gateway project from Alberta to the West Coast.

“The NDP will be a partner with the development of energy resources,” if it forms a government in 2015, Mr. Mulcair told a luncheon organized by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and sponsored by oil sands producer Suncor Energy Inc. and pipeline company Enbridge Inc.

“We will be there with you,” he said, while also inviting the sector to work harder to earn its “social licence” to operate, have meaningful consultations with First Nations, and take its environmental responsibilities more seriously.

Canada’s natural resources ad campaign light on facts, heavy on patriotism
FP Comment: 8 reasons America should welcome Canada’s oil — and Keystone XL

It’s quite a turnaround from the recent past, when Mr. Mulcair pandered to his Quebec base by blaming the Alberta oil sands for boosting the value of the Canadian dollar to the detriment of the manufacturing sector and accused the sector’s main lobby group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, of “pulling a con job” when claiming there are regulations to ensure that shale gas fracking is safe.

But when the foreign investment debate erupted last summer, Mr. Mulcair and his party shifted to the mainstream by seizing on national discomfort with China’s aggressive acquisition spree and asking many of the questions that needed to be asked.

It led to an invitation to the NDP leader to speak in Canada’s energy capital about his views around foreign investment, which happen to be aligned with those of the Calgary Chamber, those of many oil patch thought leaders and of many in the market.

In his speech, Mr. Mulcair said foreign investment rules remain obscure following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approval of the CNOOC/Nexen transaction and of Petronas’s takeover of Progress Energy Resource Corp. last December.

Mr. Mulcair said the Prime Minister failed to explain which foreign takeovers will be allowed in the future and the commitments made by the purchasers may never be made public or even be enforced.

“The Conservative government even ignored Alberta’s request to ensure the CNOOC deal guaranteed that: 50% of management positions are held by Canadians; workforce levels are maintained for at least five years and planned capital spending becomes a priority,” Mr. Mulcair said.

Calling the CNOOC/Nexen transaction “a tragic deal for Canada,” Mr. Mulcair said the implications could get worse once the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement is ratified.

Under the deal, once a Chinese company is established in Canada, it must receive “national treatment” for expansion and operations — meaning it must be treated as if it were a Canadian company, Mr. Mulcair warned.

The agreement also gives CNOOC powerful rights to expand its ownership in Canada’s oil and gas sector as any Canadian company would and provides China with a mechanism to sue the federal government if its rights to expand its oil sands interests are impeded.

The combative Mulcair did resurface in a scrum with reporters, when he called Northern Gateway “the most abject misunderstanding of the importance of protecting the environment that I have ever seen.”

After years of controversy around the project, few in the oil industry will disagree.

From ‘Dumb to Dumber’ — More Oil Spill Risk and Less Coastguard


More Oil Spill Risk and Less Coastguard Means Moving From ‘Dumb to Dumber’

MEDIA CONTACT: Ben West, Tar Sands Campaign Director, ForestEthics Advocacy, 604-710-5340

VANCOUVER — Yesterday, the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was abruptly shut down. Vancouver residents have repeatedly voiced their concerns about this proposal since it was first announced by the Harper Government, but no date for the closure had been announced.

“With Kinder Morgan’s proposal to massively expand exports of diluted bitumen through Vancouver’s already bustling harbour, this is an irresponsible move,” said Ben West, Tar Sands Campaign Director with ForestEthics Advocacy. “It was already really dumb for Prime Minister Harper to consider turning Vancouver’s harbour into an export terminal for dangerous tar sands oil, but to simultaneously close Vancouver’s Coast Guard station is a move from dumb to dumber.”

The Vancouver Coast Guard was called on over 300 times a year to respond to emergencies and has saved hundreds of lives. Kinder Morgan’s proposal would increase traffic from the current 80 tankers a year to over 400 tankers should it be approved. Each one of these tankers would carry three times as much oil as was spilled by the Exxon Valdez.

“When it comes to oil exports, more oil means more risk. It’s not a matter of if there will be an accident, it’s a matter of when and how prepared we will be to protect human health and our precious coast,” said West.

The Vancouver Harbour is currently the only location that tar sands oil is being exported via oil tankers. This practice has already increased from approximately 20 tankers a year to the current level of approximately 80 tankers a year in the time since Kinder Morgan bought the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2005. Before Kinder Morgan bought the pipeline it was primarily used for local oil consumption.

“Accidents happen all the time, that’s why we have a coast guard. The closure of Vancouver’s coast guard station means we will be even less prepared to respond. The station should be reopened immediately and the proposal to bring more tar sands oil spill risk to Vancouver’s harbour should never be allowed to see the light of day,” said West. “Lives are at stake here, we need to be smarter and safer, not dumb and dumber.”

Sven Biggs | c: 778-882-8354

Does Malaysian LNG Mega-Project for BC Coast Need Environmental Assessment?

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is seeking public input on whether or not to hold a federal environmental assessment process for a proposed Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) mega-project on BC’s north coast.

Citizens have until March 11 to let the government know whether the proposal for Prince Rupert – one of half a dozen slated for that community and nearby Kitimat – should undergo a thorough environmental assessment.