Ksi Lisims LNG: the ugly truth

Despite overwhelming pushback of more than 500 public written submissions, the BC EAO (BC Environment Assessment Office) has fast-tracked approval for the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG project, promoted by the BC govt as a 'joint venture with the Nisga'a Nation' (but is in fact 100% owned by Texas-based Western LNG).  The Ksi Lisims project would be a floating LNG plant (built in Korea!) situated at the north end of Pearse Island in the Nass River estuary on Nisga’a land.

The plant requires the construction of a massive pipeline - the previously approved (but not-yet built) Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line (PRGT), which was originally intended to supply the Pacific NorthWest LNG project abandoned by Petronas - to transport fracked methane gas from northeastern BC to the terminal for liquefaction before shipment to Asian markets.

Methane, the primary component of fossil gas, emits fugitive emissions that rank as the second-largest contributor to rising global temperatures, following C02.  These emissions occur throughout the entire lifecycle of LNG, from fracking & flaring to the liquefaction process & transportation.

[To give an idea of the EAO's application requirements for large projects, check out this link & gasp in disbelief at the 100+ pages of details & oversights this project had to satisfy for approval:
FRX_DRAFT_Application_Information_Requirements_12Jan2026_PCP.pdf (skepticism allowed - nay, expected!)]

Feedback on the project's EAO includes:  Concerns over greenhouse gas emissions from the project, impacts on the marine environment & Nass River salmon, impacts of increased tanker traffic on whales & other environmental impacts.

As the PRGT pipeline crosses Gitksan Naton territory, the Gitksan Watershed Authorities' submission stands out: “The project application does not seem to have adequately addressed or even characterized the impacts to Gitksan interests & rights. Lacking proper aquatic baseline information for assessment and evaluation is a major concern. [..]  We call on the BC Environmental Assessment Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to take the time to engage with the Gitksan and address Gitksan Watershed Authorities concerns with this proposed project before approving it.”

The Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition wrote, “Approximately 150 annual tanker visits for LNG transport through the proposed facility pose potential risks to whale species in frequented waters."

In its submission, the City of Terrace’s Economic Development office says the LNG Canada development in Kitimat has resulted in increased economic activity for Terrace, but that it has generally been negative for the city, as the increased activity has strained city services without providing any additional revenue.

“The City of Terrace sees its role as a hub as detriment to Terrace and especially the quality of life for its residents,” the office writes in its submission. “Being the hub has allowed for massive inflation in professional and retail services, a strain on municipal infrastructure like roads, refuse disposal, lodgings and housing.

“Some might see this influx as a key economic driver but it has actually been the opposite.."

[EAO info from an article by Nelson Bennett at www.biv.com: 
B.C. environmental review gets earful against Nisga'a's Ksi Lisims LNG - Business in Vancouver]

Gitanyow Nation's input is even more pointedly critical of Ksi Lisims.  Quoted from their website ():  "This callous decision to proceed with the environmental review without adequate consideration of the project's potential impacts on salmon, climate, and Indige3nous sovereignty is a glaring betrayal of trust," said Simogyet Malii/Glen Williams. "British Columbia's refusal to engage meangingfully with our concerns and immediately participate in Gitanyow's Wilp Sustainability Assessment Process is an insult."  (For more info go to  www.gitanyowchiefs.ca)

Dogwood BC's website section on Ksi Lisims is equally scathing, as these articles show: B.C. can have affordable, renewable power – or LNG (with the sub-heading: "Clean energy offers peace, prosperity and political sanity.  Oil companies plan to steal it.") & Epstein, Trump … and Mark Carney’s Ksi Lisims LNG - Dogwood with the sub-heading "Backlash builds as Liberals try to fast-track American-owned gas project"  Their website includes letter-writing opportunities for public input to the BC Govt, eg. PM Carney: no taxpayer subsidies for American billionaires! - Dogwood - from which I include my own (edited) version here - & encourage you to visit & provide your own...

Dear recipient's full name will go here,

Please don’T give my tax $ to American billionaires!

I am appalled that the Wall Street sickos who bankrolled Jeffrey Epstein & Donald Trump are hoping for a special gift :  billions of dollars from Canada’s Liberal govt!!

The Ksi Lisims LNG project would be 100% American-owned & built in Korea, then floated over & hooked up to an American-built pipeline on the B.C. coast.  Since the project’s Texas owner is struggling to find buyers for the gas, or banks willing to loan money for construction, that’s where we come in.

By adding Ksi Lisims to his “fast-track” list, PM Carney hopes to “de-risk” this project with OUR tax dollars, & convince Wall St to invest!  It’s a plan that would steal money from job-creating projects in Canada, jack up our utility bills & increase U.S. control of our energy resources.

I can’t think of a worse use of public money than giving Wall Street billionaires huge subsidies for an American-owned gas terminal in BC!

Please confirm you will be opposing any taxpayer handouts to the Ksi Lisims LNG proposal.  Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Saz Marguerite Chesterman
Vancouver, BC

This page's images are screenshots of others' websites, credited above - any copyrights belong to them. 

FortisBC's TiLBURY 2 LNG expansion project: Official Public commentary

(My public comment on FortisBC's Tilbury 2 LNG expansion)

[Sign handmade by me ©️Saz-C]

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