Do you support the provincial government’s push to develop B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry?

      Comments Off on Do you support the provincial government’s push to develop B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry?
Do you support the provincial government’s push to develop B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry?

No. I believe nothing that Christy Clark and her band of thugs say. She’s proven she’s a liar and even willing to disobey Supreme Court Orders. She is stealing from the education and healthcare funds to pay into the prosperity funds so that big business can reap the rewards. Her facts are glossed over and are a joke except to those who have some short-lived jobs building all this infrastructure. I support nothing she does or says because she’s proven time and time again that she’s a liar and a bully. Just because you say it with a smile Christy, doesn’t mean we’re all stupid enough to believe you. I wish I could report you and your fraudulent ways. HST etc. Families first – right. Your family and cohorts families first is more like it. BS to you and the rest of your Fiberal bunch. I am not a sheep.

–Tracey Eide, Maple Ridge

No. Far too much evidence fracking is dangerous and harmful to the environment, Until they can prove fracking is safe, BC must be a “fracking free zone”. I am also concerned about LNG tankers in the Douglas Channel along with 100’s of oil tankers. When the collision occurs it may possibly be the largest manmade non nuclear explosion. In the chase for money the government has not thought about the other costs.

–Norm Ryder, Victoria

No I dont support this. The LNG process like the tar sands crude extraction process will consume vast quantities of fresh water which ends up becoming toxic wastewater which has to be stored disposed of or purified. It will not be purified, there is no profit to be made from that, its pure liability. It may be disposed of by dumping it into old mines or it may be stored in tailings ponds like it is at the tar sands site, on the ground, secured by soil berms. In both cases this toxic wastewater will be allowed to seep into the ground eventually contaminating ground water as is happening now in Alberta. It is unforgivable that a government allow this. This threatens underground aquifers, steams and rivers and once in the ground we have no control over this material. If stored in ponds all it takes is one freak storm to wash that material into the surrounding river systems killing every living thing for miles downstream. It must be incumbent on the industry to have an effective plan for purifying this material before creating it but Christy Clark will not require that. Her agenda like Steven Harpers agenda is plunder the land for the resource take the money and run. They dont care about the long term risks or damage they are going to do. Have you heard any of them talk about the toxic wastewater yet? It is a huge part of the equasion but they dont talk about it they have no plan for it. They simply think short term. Sell the resource get the money worry about the mess later. THis is what BC voted for when they elected a majority liberal government led by an inexperienced media personality who has no significant management experience. Good luck BC.It takes more than good ideas to manage a province.

–Les Braden, Vancouver

“To achieve a sustainable balance between economic growth and environmental protection, Christy Clark’s government has taken affirmative action. As BC expands the role played by natural gas, we will eventually see it widely applied, not only to our largest urban areas, it will be realized in many small to medium sized communities, LNG vehicles and cold energy utilization. All the discussions indicate that LNG is strategically important in BC’s future energy infrastructure, and that, is indeed something to be supportive of”

–W. Perry, Victoria

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the production of LNG in BC. On the whole, I support it because of the economic benefits. Keep in mind however, that the economic benefits are offset by the cost of building LNG liquefaction plants (which could reach into the billions due to the high cost of steel), transportation costs (one double-hulled ship necessary for the transportation of LNG is valued at approximately $200,000,000.00 US dollars), and then of course there’s the quality, which isn’t measured until delivery so, that remains a mystery. Environmentally, it’s one of the safest fossil fuels; it burns significantly less CO2 then both petroleum and coal. There have been virtually no accidents related to shipping, though there have been a few site-related incidents. LNG is a high-maintenance form of fuel. There are specifics around storage and liquefaction that need to be considered and neglecting these can lead to serious accidents, explosions. I guess LNG will be beneficial in the long-run, but it’s going to be many years before we see the economic pay-off and that’s where my concern lies. How much time do we have to get our economic affairs in order?

–Ms. Donna Vandekerkhove, Port Moody

Yes, I support it completely. If we are to have hospitals, roads, etc. we need to expand the tax base beyond robbing the wallets of the worker. LNG is clean compare to most fuels and we live in a cold country, we need the heat to live.

–Charles Waggett, Vancouver

Not as defined to date by Government. Maybe if we were better informed of facts, less all the political bafflegab, may agree to a phased in concept, particularly if all environmental concerns have been addressed.

–George F. Evens, Mission

At the current time and for the foreseeable future the only real source of the vast amount of revenue required to fund the economy is from resources, lumber, coal, tar sands oil, natural gas, whatever. Tree huggers & entitled entities pleadings, can’t and won’t be able to fund our growing needs as a nation. Not only do I support a “push,” perhaps a bit of bulldozing would be a great help moving forward!

–Don MacKay, Vancouver

I don’t support fracking in its current form to obtain liquefied natural gas. We all know the reason that companies use it now is because from their standpoint, it’s the cheapest and easiest way. I would need strict laws and severe penalties around the use and abuse of fresh water, disposal of contaminated water, threats to our groundwater, toxic chemicals used, recovery of the chemicals used, increased transportation methods, consideration of esthetics, environmental damage, etc. before I would agree to support it. We don’t have those things at this point, and I don’t see the BC Libs moving to implement those things.

–Cheryl Baron, Maple Ridge

No I don’t. With all the challenges we and especially younger generations will face with increasing environmental challenges we as a province should be leading the push to sustainable and less environmentally destructive energy policies.

–Rob Wynen

Absolutely! These developments, properly carried forward, will deliver economic and personal benefits — well-paying employment opportunities; income to support health, education and social services — for British Columbians and many other Canadians. I personally saw such benefits flow to many in the Prince Rupert area, including the Lax Kwa’alam First Nation, as well as in other regions just from the 2 1/2-year long run up to the 1983 National Energy Board approval for a major LNG project proposed at Grassy Point. Energy prices fell and that project failed, but its potential was enormous and I believe has had lasting beneficial impact on the Lax Kwa’alam.

–James Peacock, Port Moody

Fracking is a poor substitute for a real economic policy.

–E T Millyard, Lillooet

Yes. Energy sources are required, and LNG is relatively clean. And the revenue will come in handy. Opponents seem to offer no alternatives but energy deficits and poverty – solar and wind just won’t cut it.

–Gerald Hunter, Burnaby

Of course. Are we going to stay “hewers of wood and drawers of water” forever, or join the rest of the industrialized world, and market our plentiful resources? B.C. must join the crowd, or be left behind, without the funds to maintain our standard of living. The problem is there are far too many eco freaks who would have us all still living in caves. We must ignore these morons and get on with life.

–Derek Coughtrey, Surrey

NO!! I am NOT in favour of further development of L N G or of a pipeline or of increase ferry fares or of increased MSP premiums or of the government skimming funds from Hydro, ICBC & other Crown corporations to puff up the general revenue AND make a (false) claim of no raised taxes. But it hardly seems to matter what we, the people, think or say….Christy Clark continues with her photo ops. & false presentations….just as wacky as WAC Bennett was way back. Nothing changes…just the names & faces.

The future looks very bleak & scary to me……and don’t get me started with the fracking which is already occurring (secretly & quietly) in an earthquake zone.

–Rachel Cormier, Mission

While I am not against it, I am wanting more information from someone more qualified and not so dependant on it. What worries me is the government is spending like it is a done deal and we are going to regret it. Of course this government won’t be in power when it all comes back to haunt us. They will be enjoying their pensions and placing blame elsewhere.

–Jim Stonehouse

I can’t honestly say they have my support. I have yet to hear of anything but pie in the sky promises and exaggerated claims of all the revenue that will accrue. One thing I am sure of and that’s that we do not need to be selling our natural resources to one customer, i.e. China. When the WAC Bennet Socreds brought in Northeast coal we were told that we had a great deal, much like the Columbia River treaty. The Japanese scuttled (no pun intended) the coal deal and the Americans got the best of the Columbia River treaty. Governments should not be in the business of doing business, leave that to the people who know how.

–Jim Haslett, Chilliwack

Heavens NO ! – what will the left-wing loonies (NDP)and their special interest group friends do when the industry is a huge success and BC’s economy is booming? there would be no reason for them to exist as a political party -what a shame.

–J. R. Turpin, Victoria

I may support this project, but to date, the Liberals’ approach to this new energy sector (to B.C.) is extremely naïve. They’ve already tagged a large 7% tax on future revenue, making competition in this already crowded field of exporters even tougher. Billions of dollars will be needed, approvals required from First Nations, as well as shipping clearances along the coast. It’s another pipe dream that has about a 50/50% chance of going ahead.

–Paul Davey, Vancouver

Nope. We need to pull the pin against that one before the next one blows. If you think a rail car full of oil burns hot, and kills alot of people, then wait until an LNG ship loses its load in the Burrard Inlet. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere near there.

–Daniel Halmo

YES! Why wouldn’t BC-ers?


Although, the suggested prosperity would be a magnificent bonanza to our economy, I am worried and believe there are still too many significant concerns that must be addressed. It certainly seems premature for our government to celebrate the potential benefits when there are so many important questions that need to be answered first. One of the most compelling considerations, especially given the recent deliberations regarding our ground water, is how they intend to supply the enormous quantity of water that is required in the fracking process.

–David Bain, Maple Ridge

Yes! It’s one of few industries that generate money that pays into BC/Canadian economy (besides illegal drugs operations etc). And most oil/gas companies adhere to higher safety regulations and measures and subscribe to greener methods than the non-industry people are led to believe.

And despite the negative media attention the gas industry gets, it is the uninformed and misguided fear-mongering antics and less than honest tactics of some people/groups (and hidden agendas) that create a backwards opposition to a thriving economic landscape resulting in negative economic outcomes and a bleak future.

–Jorge Kelly, Fort Saint John


–Sue Lakes Cook

I do not support the push for LNG with the present technology used Hydraulic fracturing and it’s toxic cocktail of carcinogenic chemicals.It may in the short term make lots of money for BC but the long term ecological damage will be devastating to the water table ,lakes and rivers and not worth the risk for future British Columbians .

–Cheryl Leask, Chilliwack

Nope. It’s foolish in that the market is collapsing and will not revive, it’s irresponsible in that the pollution of land, water and air is destroying us, it’s unethical because it is entirely based on greed.

–Sue Stroud, Saanichton

Why isn’t the government pushing to develop sustainable technologies like Geo-thermal energy rather then more toxic fossil fuels to collapse the global environment? More short term gain, long term pain. Duane Burnett, Sechelt, BC.

–Duane Burnett

Better to get on it while it’s still worth something and use the money earned from it for social development and security as it isn’t going to last forever ……..better still, nationalize it so We earn more out of it and maybe also don’t have to pay over inflated market value for our own use, (that’ll never happen)….after all, most of it comes from publicly owned land and we only get pennies for it from royalties and other off shoot taxtortion otherwise. While the developers still get anyway……we should all be able to…….

–Rob Van De Meeberg, Vancouver.

Of course, LNG will be driving our Economy for decades creating jobs tax revenue. Far better than NDP’s promises to shut down our Industry’s putting us out of work and destroying our Economy.

–Tim Rice, Kitimat

No and I think its ridiculous and short sighted of the provincial government to find it acceptable to completely destroy rivers, lakes and our fresh water supply in order to support this industry.

–Tara Torrell, Port Moody

From what I have heard , presently , 90 % of the jobs will be going to non-b.c. residents . This I am 100 % against. We have thousands of people unemployed in b.c. and our government wants to give this industry jobs to non-b.c.’ers. Take our unemployed , train them in this field and put our people to work 1 st. The come back and ask me this question.

–dave gibney, Richmond

The BC Liberals are so desperate to continue the charade of the “LNG Prosperity Fund” for another election or two, that they will offer the foreign-owned LNG export corporations electricity at the bulk industrial rate – one third of our incremental cost from private power suppliers, thereby creating an ANNUAL $2 BILLION SUBSIDY that will push our publicly owned BC Hydro toward bankruptcy and create an enduring debt for all British Columbians. They will cut taxes and royalties to sweeten the deal; all toward supporting their energy friends of government, while BC domestic prices of both electricity and natural gas will rise for BC residents and small businesses. Just when we most need economical natural gas for home heating with electricity prices heading out of sight, the price of domestic natural gas will increase because of new access to Asian markets. We will never make back the subsidies, and the domestic price inflation on electricity and natural gas will lower the standard of living of the majority of British Columbians not directly involved in the LNG business. We can already see how the BC Liberals have screwed up public power. It’s insane to let them move onto giving away another top native economic resource, natural gas. And all of this goes beyond the environmental issues of fracking pollution, unnecessary worldwide greenhouse gas increases, etc. that will accompany this BC economic boondoggle. Borrowing from a theme of decades ago, Christy Clark seems quite content to see British Columbians threatened with the spectre of “freezing in the dark”.

–Doug Morrison, Garibaldi Highlands

No, and for many reasons. The most important is the unimaginable amounts of water needed for the “fracking” process, that will be rendered toxic forever. Where will all that waste be stored? Underground and forgotten? No! I believe that the industry should be forced to figure out a way to release the N.G differently. Figure it out, the gas ain’t going nowhere fast while still in the ground. Besides, listening to the experts; it’s all a “pipe” dream right now. And a very expensive one with no redeeming qualities.

–Doug Marsden, Vancouver

A conditional yes provided all of the environmental and fiscal safeguards are ensured.

–Balwant Sanghera , Richmond

yes I do and the sooner the better..and I’m also for the pipelines to transport oil..much safer then shipping it by rail..

–Mary Hale, Merritt

How did this even become a question? A steady and balanced development of OUR resources is critical to Canada ‘s socio-economic security and well-being- “git ‘er done!”

–Fred Hawkshaw

Yes. It’ll provide jobs for a huge range of people living in BC. I’m confident that we can protect the environment at the same time we keep the economy growing. The alternative is to continue keeping northern residents on welfare. That is self destructive.

–Gary Mauser, Coqyuitlam

How can you not support it, we need the money it will bring into the province. I am sure that “Victoria” will do it’s damndest to screw the deal up so that get their personnel cut out of it but let’s hope there is enough left over for the rest of us to get some also.

–Bud March, 100 Mile

Supporting the development of B.C.’s liquefied natural gas is not the wave of the future. We need to spend our dollars on renewable energy, preferably solar power which would not add to our carbon footprint.

–Rita Pollock, Coquitlam

I`m against the Tar Sands and Northern Pipeline so I`m not going to be a hypocrite and support the push by our province`s push to develop a liquefied natural gas industry. And for the same reason that we should not be damaging our environment to improve China`s. The math being thrown around by the PR people that liquefied gas from our province would help to reduce China`s dependence on coal just doesn`t add up. Not when a reduction in green-house gases there is offset by just five liquefied gas plants here producing massive amounts in emissions themselves. Andrew Weaver, the lone Green MLA in Victoria, said it best recently about how our own carbon emission targets will have to be thrown out the window for the possibility that emissions in China might go down. `Forget the laws. Forget the rhetoric. The science says it`s impossible. We`ll be throwing away the certainty of our own climate targets for the possibility of theirs.`

–Robert T. Rock

Yes I do agree as it gives jobs locally and IF it is marketed by Canadians locally and overseas.

–Laszlo Novotny, Vancouver

I support any industrial development that makes sense, including pipelines and LNG. While I don’t follow the LNG debate fully, I read enough to have some doubts if there aren’t too many suppliers getting into the game and flood the market. This means of course prices for the gas will go down. However, since BC is not the main supplier of the gas we can only profit from the construction and operation without having any real risk. So yes: I am all for it!

–Eberhard Bergler, Burnaby

NO I don’t ! Premier Christy Clark and laughing gas henchman MLA Rich Coleman are smoking some kind of pipe that place’s them in a dream world ! I venture to say that by the time the next election rolls around and if by chance the Liberals are defeated the 150 year supply of Liberal natural gas will still linger behind the behind of the Liberals as they rush to buy shares of Gas-X ! I believe there will be a world turn over in population as continued fracking – drilling and mining of Mother Earth will eventually create an implosion creating a sink-hole in her belly that will make greedy man wish he indeed had lived on the moon ? A tune that would of suited Jerry lee Louis could of been “There’s a whole lot of Fracking goin on”?

–Tom Isherwood, Olalla

Christie Clark will do what she wants… weather or not any of us support it!

–Madelaine Lawson, Canoe

Absolutely! Northeastern BC is a huge source of tax revenues and jobs for the rest of Canada. Living up here I find that less than half the population are locals. Most of the people living up here are transplanted from elsewhere… including me. As a Nova Scotian so eloquently put it to me one day “They don’t pay us what we’re worth back home”.

–Michael C. Lee, Fort St. John

I do not. Either the government will have to shell out billions of dollars we don’t have, or totally subject themselves to the whims of the petro-industry. Canada has about 3% of the known world gas reserves. Russia has about 28%. We need pipelines, pumping stations, a refinery to liquefy the gas, a sea terminal and a trip across the Pacific Ocean to our market: China. On the other hand Russia is only a pipeline away from that market. Short of selling ourselves out to the Chinese we may be left holding the bag if prospective importers find cheaper gas elsewhere. I suggest we conserve our resources and slowly consume them here in North America. The future is a long time coming and we may need the resources ourselves down the road.

–Cecil Michaels, Powell River

Considering the risk of fracking associated with the processing of liquified natural gas, I would withhold my support for the devellopment of the LNG industry, until the B.C. government demanded considerably higher royalties from the LNG producing companies in question.

–Carl Johnson, Delta

Definitely no. We eventually will be in short supply ourselves so why should be give it away now. Let’s think about the future. Enough giving away our raw resources. Bad enough that we are sending unrefined oil overseas whereas we should be manufacturing finished products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. and employing our own people in our own refineries. Raw logs are being shipped overseas by the boat load whereas we should and could be manufacturing the finished lumber etc and employing our own people instead of supplying overseas sawmills. And the list goes on and on with many of our raw resources.

–Mickey Nazarov, Castlegar

Absolutely NOT! Interesting don’t you think that a Mine owner/operator refused to have an LNG project in his municipality? I read this only a week ago. Where is the water going to come from to do this? Even if they used salt water, the tailings have to be disposed of? WHERE? would that be. Draining a beautiful lake for this in god’s country! Are you crazy? again ABSOLUTELY NOT!

–Carol Nordby, North Vancouver

I’m only in favour of the LNG project if British Columbians see benefits. If this projects creates more jobs and revenue then I don’t see a problem. We have an abundance of natural gas and I hope our government will make smart choices in selling it. I hope the government can finally benefit those that voted them into power.

–Svee Bains, Vancouver

© Copyright (c) The Province