Besides Tilbury LNG's significant cumulative effects and fundamental flaws - including Project splitting, Failure to address GHG targets, Methane emissions 86X deadlier than C02, Lack of data on Economic viability, Marine shipping impacts incl. likely extinction of southern resident killer whales and salmon populations, Impacts on Indigenous rights and title - my chief concerns address your govt's baseless hopes that future LNG sales will justify BC's expanded natural gas production - along with the assertion (echoed by PM Justin Trudeau) that BC produces “the world’s cleanest natural gas.”
* * *
The fiction of BC producing clean fossil fuel originated with Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals - a claim as dishonest as Clark's promise that LNG would reward the province with one trillion dollars in a “BC Prosperity fund.” I.E. irrefutably FALSE.
National Geographic examined “the cleanest liquefied natural gas in the world” and concluded it was a hypothetical notion repeatedly promised by political leaders to build public support for the fossil fuel, as quoted here:
"There’s no such thing as 'clean natural gas.' It’s a fossil fuel, and it releases climate-disrupting greenhouse gases all the way up and down the chain of production, from the wellhead to the burners on your stovetop or in your furnace.
"This is especially true for LNG. In order to ship it, energy companies must first chill the gas to -160°C (-256°F) in giant coastal plants that are essentially industrial-size freezers. The process consumes vast quantities of energy. After it’s shipped across the sea, companies then return the LNG to its gaseous state before shipping it off to customers.
"Because of these extra steps, LNG carries a whopper of an energy and carbon footprint compared to unadulterated natural gas." [End National Geographic quote]
* * *
Both natural gas producers and transportation companies conceal the true climate impact of LNG. The New York Times reported that shipping produces as much C02 as all of America’s coal plants combined. The newspaper explained why regulation of shipping emissions by the powerful International Maritime Organization (IMO) is so ineffective:
"The I.M.O. is a regulatory body that is run in concert with the industry it regulates. Shipbuilders, oil companies, miners, chemical manufacturers and others with huge financial stakes in commercial shipping are among the delegates appointed by many member nations. They sometimes even speak on behalf of governments…
"Next week, the organization is scheduled to enact its first greenhouse gas rules since Paris — regulations that do not cut emissions, have no enforcement mechanism and leave key details shrouded in secrecy…
"Although some suggest LNG powered ships could moderate transportation harm, the International Council on Clean Transportation determined there is no climate benefit from tankers burning LNG, regardless of ship engine technology." [End New York Times quote]
* * *
The Natural Resources Defense Council states:
"Historically, gas has been considered a 'bridge fuel' — cleaner and with lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal or oil — and a potential tool to help address climate change.
"However, LNG is neither clean nor particularly low in emissions. In addition, the massive investments in new infrastructure to support this industry, including pipelines, liquefaction facilities, export terminals, and tankers, lock in fossil fuel dependence, making the transition to actual low-carbon and no-carbon energy even more difficult.
"Our analysis shows that using LNG to replace other, dirtier fossil fuels, is not an effective strategy to reduce climate-warming emissions..." [End NRDC quote]
* * *
It is clear therefore that FortisBC is intent on inflicting a dirty polluting megaproject on hapless Lower Mainland residents, which will inevitably cause major health problems and bring deadly risks - especially to the thousands living near Tilbury 2's proposed plant amidst a densely populated, traffic-congested area. The perspective of this risky industrial outfit, from the p.o v. of those living in immediate and surrounding areas, has barely been addressed in FortisBC's application. It's as if the inevitable increased dangers and pollution - along with bad health, lower property values and reduced quality of life - do not matter to FortisBC. And that is unacceptable.
In addition, the EAO has taken steps to ignore clear evidence of project splitting, and has accepted unsubstantiated and misleading representations made by FortisBC about the supposed benefits - climate-related and otherwise - of the Tilbury 2 project. For further relevant information about this project's impacts, please refer to the following article from the In-sights blog by a long-time BC citizen:
in-sights.ca/economic-interests-rank-higher-than-human-life
I implore you to carefully consider the overwhelming effects and deadly risks of this LNG expansion project on BC's future - particularly as located in the midst of an already-congested high-density urban area. Even without the risks of a catastrophic accident or failure, and before production is up and running, the effects of its construction alone would be deleterious in the extreme.
Accordingly, please do the right thing and reject FortisBC's Tilbury 2 project application.
Thank you very much.
SaRah (SaZ) ChesTeRman
