Texada wants say on plant

Pat Parsley
Gillies Bay
Powell River Peak
23-Aug-2007

Bravo to Chuck Childress's letter to the editor ["Texada needs a say on plant," August 8]. I, too, am a Texada Island resident who was shocked to hear of the recent announcement regarding the LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant. No one I know on Texada was consulted and if someone was consulted, they should share their information with the rest of the community.

I have numerous concerns regarding the safety of such a facility, not to mention the effect a heavy volume of tanker traffic will have on the ecology of the Strait of Georgia. I am certain that residents of Hornby, Denman and Vancouver islands will have much to say about the view they would have when looking across the strait at the facility.

The promise of 80 jobs is not impressive considering that the jobs will not necessarily be given to local residents. Even if they were, is WestPac LNG Corporation promising long-term employment?

WestPac's statement that Texada Island is already an industrial island worries me the most. Does this mean that Texada is up for grabs for large corporations?

I would really be interested to know who provided the positive feedback regarding this proposal, as I have yet to hear from anyone on our island who was consulted. Please speak up whoever you are and share with your fellow residents. I agree with Childress regarding his suggestion for a referendum. Let us have all the facts and allow us to have a voice in decisions being made about our island and our lifestyle.

©The Powell River Peak 2007

Liquid Natural Gas for Texada

Ray Grigg
Shades of Green
Campbell River Courier-Islander
August 21, 2007

An educated and discerning senior citizen, who is bright enough to quickly do a couple of cryptic crossword puzzles before sitting down for afternoon tea, said recently, “The best strategy is to oppose everything.” Before she is dismissed as a cynic, her strategy warrants some careful consideration.

Evidence is accumulating from a large number of scientists and a broad range of notable thinkers that our socio-economic system is not viable in its present form. We ravish the land and seas for raw materials; we frenetically manufacture mountains of consumer goods, much of which gets dumped as waste; we burn so much carbon based fuels that we threaten to incinerate the planet; we pollute the biosphere with all manner of chemical concoctions; and our population is skyrocketing — by mid-century about 9 billion of us will be dreaming of plentiful food, big houses, luxury cars and international travel.

If this is a bluntly accurate assessment of our current state of affairs, then a strategy of opposing everything begins to look more helpful than cynical. Indeed, such a wholesale opposition to the thrust of our civilization would seem to be a practical response to a pervasively materialistic value system that increasingly seems dysfunctional and unsustainable. Someone has to register objection to this possibly suicidal plunge of progress.

The proposal for a $2 billion liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal and gas-fired electrical station at Kiddie Point on Texada Island is a perfect example of things going wrong. WestPac LNG Corporation, a business with money to invest, sees an opportunity for profit. America’s insatiable demand for energy needs servicing. And here is a handy island with deep water access, with nearby electrical and gas lines offering connections to a hungry buying market. All the components are here to further promote an unsustainable system that seems to be luring us toward our demise.

The habitual thinking that drives the unsustainable system makes its usual self serving arguments: 75 permanent jobs for an economically depressed community, electrical independence for BC, an opportunity to offset carbon dioxide emissions, the safe operation of such plants, the worry-free transit of 36 LNG tankers per year through the Strait of Georgia. These are all presented as demonstrable benefits to the public and to our way of life, with no environmental risks. At no cost and only with benefits, the economic opportunities are too good to be missed. Until we start asking questions.

Who makes the profits? Are the 75 jobs worth the other costs? Do we want to further industrialize the Strait of Georgia by adding Kiddie Point to Roberts Bank, several cities and six other pulp mill ports? How can importing LNG from Russia, Asia or the Middle East create electrical independence for BC? Why is it necessary to produce up to 3.8 million tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Texada to justify offsetting it elsewhere? If such terminals are so safe, why is Boston harbour closed down for the arrival of LNG tankers? Why do some regulatory authorities require a two mile exclusionary zone for LNG tankers? Is the crowded and confined Strait of Georgia the appropriate place for LNG tankers carrying the explosive equivalent of small nuclear bombs? Would ferries and cruise ships have to be cleared from shipping lanes when these tankers arrive? Will such tankers pass through Seymour Narrows? Are LNG sites targets for terrorist attacks? Does BC want to become an indispensable partner in the transfer of crucial energy to the growing desperation of America’s national insecurity interests? Would this linkage eventually rob us of our political autonomy? Is it already doing so?

Our economic system has an exorable logic and a momentum of its own. Making, distributing and consuming more of everything is good. Development is praiseworthy. Progress is beneficial. More production makes more people happy. To live is to consume. The planet is here for our use. Things only have value with reference to our needs. Nothing but ourselves has intrinsic worth. Erich Fromm, the famous psychologist and philosopher, noted that as long as we believe it is more important “to have” than “to be”, we will continue down the dark tunnel of consumerism until we discover that the light at the end is not the sun but the train.

It’s this pending head-on collision that is beginning to worry people, to cause the growing uneasiness that continual industrial expansion eventually becomes self destructive. Climatologists are predicting catastrophe if we don’t dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Ocean ecologists are worried about the collapse of global fish stocks. Toxicologists are worried about rising levels of pollutants. Biologists are worried about massive species extinction. Almost everybody is worried about almost everything these days.

And we want to blithely carry on as if it’s “business” as usual? We want to build an LNG terminal on Texada Island because the old logic of a fatally-flawed system can’t compute consequences beyond the irresistible opportunity for corporate profits?

T.S. Eliot, one of the most scholarly and significant poets of the 20th century, observed that, “Human beings cannot bear much reality.” Well, we are being told in a rising crescendo of alarms that we are fast creating a reality that we will find very disagreeable. To avoid this looming threat, we must renovate our expectations, our behaviour, our values and our economic system. We need another way of evaluating our worth, of finding prosperity and of measuring success.

We can begin by resisting temptations such as a $2 billion LNG terminal on Texada Island. We can quit assuming that every opportunity to make money is a good idea. We can prohibit LNG tankers in the Strait of Georgia. We can stop accommodating energy-wasting policies — in Canada, the United States and elsewhere.

The first thing we can do is oppose everything. Then we can encourage a new paradigm by embracing all those measures that will get us to a sustainable future.

LNG facility losing idea

Stephen McIntyre

Langley, BC
Powell River Peak
15-Aug-2007

This liquefied natural gas terminal plus burning facility megaproject, controversial and dangerous by all accounts, is looking for an island home ["Texada target of LNG plan." August 1]. I'd like to see them try foisting this on feisty Salt Spring Island.

Texada residents will hear all about new jobs and win-win, but little about pollution, physical risk and environmental degradation. Why here? Because limited-economy communities offer less political resistance, the perfect dumping grounds for urban garbage and projects like this.

As for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and buying carbon credits while burning all that gas, I have to reject the concept.

Let's say I live in Anytown, where I poop on the street and chuck my garbage in the drinking stream. However, I pay good money to someone else who does not poop in the street and in this way, I achieve poop-neutral status. Hello?

©The Powell River Peak 2007

Texada needs a say on plant

Chuck Childress

Sanderson Road
Texada Island
Powell River Peak
09-Aug-2007

Imagine the surprise of most Texadans to learn via the tube that Texada [Island] was being rewarded with a $2 billion liquefied natural gas plant and gas-fired generating facility at Coho Point ["Texada target of LNG plan," August 1]. It was also a bit of a surprise to learn that there was overwhelming support in the community.

What?

I must have missed something. I checked out the window and, yes, I was still home on Texada. Surely my call display and answering machine must have been out of order when they called to ask my opinion.

I checked with a dozen or so other residents and discovered that I was not alone. Something smells a bit like the stuff they put in the propane.

Seasoned Texada Islanders are used to mega-proposals and their undelivered promises.

First, we had the Cheekeye-Dunsmuir power line, which let a few local loggers cut a few trees, but mainly used imported labour and left not one permanent job. Then came Genstar and its promise of a swimming pool and a few jobs if we let Greater Vancouver replace its low-tech garbage dump with a new and better dump on Texada. Texada didn't fall for that one.

Then came the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, with more promises of prosperity, employment and natural gas. Again, a few token locals cut trees and operated machinery. However, there's not one permanent job and no gas for Texada. We have seen the slick tricksters and hired guns with their open houses and managed public consultation. No thanks, not this time.

All Texada Islanders must have a say in the plant's location and even if it should be allowed on Texada at all. Texada has a tradition of holding a referendum when faced with a major issue. We have had votes on pesticide use, ferry schedules and land acquisition. Anything less than a referendum on this issue is unacceptable.

The run up to the referendum will flush out the facts, provide the most information and stimulate maximum debate.

The vote itself will give an equal voice to one and all, and at the end of the day, Texadans will decide Texada's future--which is how it should be--and what democracy is all about.

And to all Texadans I say: Be vigilant, for those who will try to deny us a referendum don't have Texada's interests at heart and may have already sold part of their souls behind closed doors.

LNG tankers through the Islands?

Patrick Brown
Island Tides

Two companies are competing to be the first to establish a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal on the BC coast. They are Kitimat LNG and Westpac Terminals, both based in Calgary. Over the past two weeks, both have announced plans to build combined-cycle, gas-fired, electricity generating plants in conjunction with the proposed terminals.

The Kitimat terminal proposal has received environmental approvals from both the provincial and federal governments. The Westpac proposal, originally planned for Ridley Island near Prince Rupert, has been moved to Kiddie Point, at the north tip of Texada Island in the Strait of Georgia. WestPac has announced that they have now leased 46.5 hectares of land there, and that they plan to construct a marine jetty and LNG handling facility for deepsea LNG tankers, LNG storage facilities, a 600MW gas-fired generating plant, and connections to both the BC Transmission 500kv electrical line to Vancouver Island, and the Terasen natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Both of these lines run across Texada Island.

WestPac is ‘in the early stages’ of applying for government approvals, and does not appear to have reached any agreements with either BC Hydro (to purchase the electrical power produced), BC Transmission Corp (to transport the power), or Terasen (to buy and transport natural gas from Texada).

WestPac claims that the importing of LNG by tanker provides a new way for BC to become energy self-sufficient, and that the provision of large on-demand ‘firm’ power supports BC Hydro’s green power strategy by making it possible to utilize wind and run-of-river power sources, which may not generate power when it is most needed. (However, BC’s extensive hydroelectric generating capacity is already employed as a ‘balancing’ resource, since its generators can be turned on and off as required.)

Said WestPac Director and former Attorney- General Geoff Plant: ‘We hope the BC Government will agree that we will offer new and flexible energy options for the province by allowing power generation using natural gas that can be imported economically.’

WestPac also claims that the use of a natural gas-powered generating plant on Texada Island would enable BC Hydro to decommission the Burrard Thermal generating plant, thus improving air quality in the Fraser Valley airshed. Government policy requires that all new generating plants produce zero net greenhouse gas emissions, and that existing plants reach this target by 2016. It is not clear how WestPac would reach this ‘zero net’ standard, but the purchase of ‘carbon credits’ might be the answer. At $15 per tonne, the cost of such credits has been estimated at some $23 million per year, a small price for the possible electricity sales of $300 million.

WestPac also claims that the company could make LNG available for vehicles in neighbouring communities. But there is, at the moment, no LNG fuelling infrastructure or vehicles in BC, and LNG has not been successfully marketed as an alternative fuel anywhere in North America; it has only been used by a few utility companies for their own service vehicles.

Importing LNG to North America

Both Kitimat and Westpac are looking ahead with their proposals, and the power generation idea may be a means of ensuring some early cash flow to attract investors. (Much the same strategy has been used by ‘run-of-river’ power generation companies in BC, whose initial investments in water licenses, environmental approvals, and proposals have resulted in contracts with BC Hydro that they can then ‘take to the bank’ to finance construction.)

Both companies have previously indicated that they are looking at the US market as a destination for the imported gas, and either BC facility would be major trans-shipment point for the continent.

Background

There is a gradual decline in gas production from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, the major historical source of natural gas for both Canada and the US. Gas prices, over the past few years have been volatile but generally rising, often responding unpredictably to supplies, gas in storage, and winter weather. Gas is also being used for electricity generation across the continent. Market prices are affected by active speculation in gas futures.

In addition, future North American gas sources may well be completely spoken for by the energy needs associated with Alberta’s tar sands oil extraction processes. This may lead to future shortages in North America, and higher prices. As a result, there are over fifty new LNG unloading/gasification facilities proposed around North America. These new facilities have met with significant opposition from environmental groups and those concerned that they may become terrorist targets.

Safety

It should be pointed out that LNG shipping around the world has an excellent fifty-year safety record. There are currently in operation more than 150 deep-sea LNG tankers. LNG is a liquid at -162ºC, and is carried in insulated double-hulled vessels. Natural gas, being lighter than air, does not accumulate if it escapes, but the gas (not the liquid) is flammable at a critical gas/air ratio, and potentially explosive in a confined space. This leads to a situation with a very low probability of accident and a long-term tradition of safe handling, but severe consequences if something goes wrong: a difficult danger to judge.

As a result of these concerns, virtually all proposals for LNG facilities on the west coast of the US have been delayed; the only one that appears to be going ahead is in Mexico. The only other proposal on the west coast with the necessary approvals is the Kitimat LNG scheme.

Thus the WestPac proposal for Texada Island, besides being well located to connect to Terasen’s existing gas line, is seen as suitable as a processing and trans-shipment point to the US, particularly to Cherry Point, Washington. This would mean that, in addition to deep-sea LNG tankers entering the Strait of Georgia, there could also be smaller CNG tankers or barges exiting BC’s inside waters. These would not pose any particular danger, but would require careful routing and scheduling.

Shipping From Around The World

The LNG could come from many locations around the Pacific Ocean: Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, South America; also the middle east. WestPac expects that some 36 deep-sea LNG tankers per year would visit the Texada Island facility. These ships, which have a capacity of up to 165,000 cubic metres of LNG (multiply by 600 to determine for the amount of natural gas) would be an estimated 1,000ft long, 150ft wide, and would draw 37ft of water when loaded; a loaded tonnage of 120,000. Ships would need pilots and accompanying tugs.

Shipping Route

Tankers are capable of traveling at 19 knots, but would travel much more slowly once in inside waters. The tankers’ route would be through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, around Victoria, up Haro Strait and through the Gulf Islands, through Boundary Pass, past Saturna, Mayne, Galiano, Valdes, and Gabriola Islands (crossing a number of busy ferry routes), past the navy torpedo range off Nanoose, Hornby Island, Lasqueti Island, and on to dock at Kiddie Point, within sight of Savary Island. As an example of the impact on shipping, current US Coast Guard regulations require that LNG tankers be surrounded by a ‘safety and security zone’ where no other vessels are allowed. This zone is two miles ahead of the vessel, one mile behind, and 500–1000 yards on either side.

The Victoria Times-Colonist has called for public hearings. Says WestPac president Mark Butler: ‘We will actively consult the community and are committed to treat any concerns with thoughtful regard and consideration.’

Union opposed to LNG plant

Texada terminal 'too dangerous, too expensive, too dirty'

Ashley Ford
The Province
Friday, August 03, 2007

CREDIT: Ric Ernst file photo - The Province Texada Island is LNG's proposed site for a 600-megawatt gas-fired power plant.

A proposed LNG plant for Texada Island is already generating "gas" of a different nature with opponents venting against the development. The harshest criticism is coming from the union representing workers at B.C. Hydro.

The Canadian Office and Professional employees Union Local 378 described the $2-billion project yesterday as "too dangerous, too expensive and too dirty."

"Just one week after a pipeline rupture in Burnaby sent a geyser of oil spewing into the air and gushing into Burrard Inlet, how could anyone look British Columbians in the eye and tell them that is a good idea for a fragile ecosystem like the Strait of Georgia," said union vice-president Gwenne Farrell.

Earlier this week, Calgary-based WestPac LNG said it wants to build the terminal and a 600-megawatt, gas-fired power plant at the northern tip of the island.

It says it would create about 80 full-time jobs and the liquid natural gas would be shipped in from Asia and the Middle East.

Farrell, who is also a senior financial analyst at Hydro, said "this region is one of B.C.'s treasures and home to a variety of whales, dolphins, eagles, otters, deer and what remains of our wild salmon. Why would anyone want to risk spoiling this for a constant flotilla of dodgy supertankers in Georgia Strait?"

Farrell is also scornful of the provincial government and asks why Victoria would allow such a "potentially catastrophic project" to proceed?

"The answer is simple: WestPac and the B.C. government are not seeking to serve B.C.'s energy needs at all. Instead, they are trying to make a windfall profit by selling this dangerous, dirty energy to the U.S., environmental consequences be damned," she says.

Farrell may only be the tip of growing opposition.,

The NDP also weighed into the fray, with NDP MLAs Shane Simpson and Gary Coons questioning the project.

"Such a terminal means that there will be more tankers in the Strait of Georgia, which throws the current moratorium on tanker traffic in B.C. coastal waters into question," said Simpson, the party's environmental critic.

"There is very strong evidence that the Campbell Liberals are in favour of more tankers in B.C. waters. It is time that [Premier] Gordon Campbell comes clean and share his plans for the Georgia Strait and our coastal ecosystem with British Columbians," they said.

WestPac president Mark Butler has said placing the facility on Texada Island makes sense because it can tap into an existing natural-gas pipeline and transmission lines.

He said LNG ships are safe, noting there have been 33,000 sailings since the vessels were first launched 40 years ago without a single accident.

LNG may be controversial but it is growing in importance as a fuel source for an energy- hungry continent.

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that regulates interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil and reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals, lists 29 approved LNG projects in Canada, U.S. and Mexico with another 16 waiting.

In Canada approved terminals include Kitimat, St. John, N.B. and Riviere-du-Loup in Quebec.

aford@png.canwest

Existing and proposed North American liquid natural-gas terminals

As of July 24, 2007

CONSTRUCTED

A Everett, MA: 1.035 Bcfd

B Cove Point, MD: 1.0 Bcfd

C Elba Island, GA: 1.2 Bcfd

D Lake Charles, LA: 2.1 Bcfd

E Gulf of Mexico:0.5 Bcfd

APPROVED

1 Hackberry, LA: 1.8 Bcfd

2 Bahamas: 0.84 Bcfd

3* Bahamas: 0.83 Bcfd

4* Freeport, TX: 1.5 Bcfd

5 Sabine, LA: 2.6 Bcfd

6 Corpus Christi, TX: 2.6 Bcfd

7 Corpus Christi, TX: 1.1 Bcfd

8 Fall River, MA:0.8 Bcfd

9 Sabine, TX: 2.0 Bcfd

10 Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd

11** Logan Township, NJ: 1.2 Bcfd

12 Port Arthur, TX:3.0 Bcfd

13 Cove Point, MD: 0.8 Bcfd

14 Cameron, LA: 3.3 Bcfd

15 Sabine, LA: 1.4 Bcfd

16 Freeport, TX: 2.5 Bcfd

17 Hackberry, LA: 0.85 Bcfd

18 Pascagoula, MS:1.5 Bcfd

19 Pascagoula, MS:1.3 Bcfd

APPROVED offshore

20 Port Pelican:1.6 Bcfd

21 Offshore Louisiana: 1.0 Bcfd

22 Offshore Boston:0.4 Bcfd

23 Offshore Boston:0.8 Bcfd

CANADIAN APPROVED TERMINALS

24 St. John, NB: 1.0 Bcfd

25 Kitimat, BC:1.0 Bcfd

26 Rivi re-du-Loup, QC:0.5 Bcfd

MEXICAN APPROVED TERMINALS

27 Altamira, Tamulipas: 0.7 Bcfd

28 Baja California, MX: 1.0 Bcfd

29 Baja California, MX: 1.5 Bcfd

PROPOSED

30 Long Beach, CA:0.7 Bcfd,

31 LI Sound, NY: 1.0 Bcfd

32 Bradwood, OR:1.0 Bcfd

33 Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd

34 Pleasant Point, ME: 2.0 Bcfd

35 Robbinston, ME: 0.5 Bcfd

36 Elba Island, GA:0.9 Bcfd

37 Baltimore, MD: 1.5 Bcfd

38 Coos Bay, OR: 1.0 Bcfd

39 Astoria, OR: 1.5 Bcfd

PROPOSED offshore

40 Offshore California: 1.5 Bcfd

41 Offshore California:1.4 Bcfd

42 Gulf of Mexico:1.4 Bcfd

43 Offshore Florida: 1.9 Bcfd

44 Offshore California:1.2 Bcfd

45 Offshore Florida:1.2 Bcfd

*U.S. pipeline approved; LNG terminal pending in Bahamas

** Construction suspended

Bcfd: billions of cubic feet per day

© The Vancouver Province 2007

CBC with Dan Devita & Arthur Caldicott

On August 2, 2007, CBC's On the Island interviewed Dan Devita, a Texada Island hotel owner and realtor, and Arthur Caldicott, of the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition, about the Westpac LNG Texada proposal.

Listen to or download the interview here:
CBC_DanDevita%26ArthurCaldicott_LNGTexada_20070802.mp3

Warning to those with only dial-up access to the internet (which includes many Texada Island residents): this is a large file at 4.5 mb, and will clog up your phone line for quite some time. Sorry.

The recorded interview ends rather abruptly. Sorry about that, too.

Texada target of LNG plan

Joyce Carlson
Peak Publisher
Powell River Peak

08/02/2007

WestPac to supply natural gas to provincial markets and electrical power that will connect to the existing BC Hydro power grid

A $2 billion combined liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas-fired generation facility is being proposed for Texada Island.

WestPac LNG Corporation announced its plans Tuesday.

The company has acquired a long-term 46.5-hectare lease at Kiddie Point, located at the north end of Texada, next to an industrial area that has a deepwater berth for vessels.

In-depth analysis of the terminal and power generation facility will be undertaken through detailed environmental assessment and regulatory reviews.

WestPac chief operating office Mark Butler told the Peak yesterday the company representatives are "very much" looking forward to getting to know people during the regulatory process ahead. "We invite them to participate."

Powell River Regional District Area D (Texada Island) director Dave Murphy described the project as "so big, it's almost scary."

Murphy said when he was first introduced to WestPac's plans last year, they were focused on Prince Rupert, with Texada considered part of the secondary development, along with other areas. It was a different scenario from what was presented on Monday when company representatives travelled to Texada meet with him, island improvement area representatives and local businesses.

Asked why the change in focus from Prince Rupert to Texada Island, Butler explained there were two reasons-increasing infrastructure costs and proximity to existing pipelines.

Two 15-storey tanks would have had to be constructed at Prince Rupert using nickel steel. At an operating temperature of -160°C, steel becomes very brittle and the addition of nickel gives it needed elasticity. With the price of nickel doubling in the last 24 months, infrastructure costs more than doubled for the north-coast community.

"Our board of directors was looking at building three tanks [including one on Texada] and two jetties. They started asking if consolidation and elimination of duplication could happen if there was only one location, instead of two."

While the depth of the Prince Rupert port was a benefit, it was not close to a pipeline, Butler explained. Texada not only has proximity to a pipeline, the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line is only 18 kilometres from the proposed plant site and is closer to the primary market for WestPac.

A major benefit of a new LNG plant, Butler said, is that it will allow BC Hydro to decommission its Burrard Thermal power generator. "It operates at 32-per-cent efficiency and with its aging equipment rated for a capacity of 900 megawatts, it can only produce 250-300 megawatts.

"It's so inefficient, it's the most expensive power in BC," Butler added. "It's belching out significant amounts of greenhouse gases and nitrous oxide."

Butler noted that BC Hydro has been trying to close the generator for more than seven years but has not been able to find an alternative.

Burrard is required at peak demand times, and without that power, "inefficient as it may be, there would be brownouts."

New turbine technology that his company will use provides up to 70-per-cent efficiency and scrubbers take care of the nitrous oxide.

"We'll create an enabling opportunity for BC Hydro by having clean-burning, gas- fired generation on Texada Island and provide power directly into Cheekye."

Murphy wants to know "what's in it for Texada? [Island] residents still have a bad taste in their mouths" regarding Terasen Gas. They had expected to have access to natural gas when the pipeline across the island was proposed. "They never did get it."

WestPac will have to satisfy provincial and federal government regulatory bodies as well as the community of Texada, Murphy said. "It will be an uphill battle, not an easy thing."

He added that he had not heard much from islanders about the project, but expected more response following Tuesday's announcement. Open houses and perhaps a public hearing will likely be held to get feedback, Murphy said. "They need to get the facts out, looking at the safety of LNG; the visual impact of the plant. Instead of cruise ships passing by, there will be LNG freighters, and there will be towers to move power from the site."

On the other hand, Murphy said consideration needs to be given to the potential for jobs, both during the construction phase and after, that would be "a boon to the community. Our youth are looking for opportunity and jobs. We'll see how it unfolds. If the company gets all its cards in place and gets approval from Texada, so be it."

WestPac's proposal will provide "real direct benefits, growth and jobs, to the people of Texada Island and Powell River," said Butler.

Co-owner of the Texada Island Inn, Dan Devita, said he thinks the project is great. "There's a two-year process to go through to see if it's feasible and if the people of Texada accept it. We live on an industrial island and this is a unique opportunity for Texada and the district."

Devita added, "We're down to 53 kids in our school. Our population is static and we will continue to lose services if that continues."

Scott Randolph, Powell River Regional Economic Development Society manager, has been working closely with the company since November. He said he has found them to be "very sensitive to concerns and issues," and expects them to continue to be. "WestPac is a very credible organization that wants to ensure they get things done right.

"At the end of the day," said Randolph, "this is a huge development for the community if it moves forward, a major development in our region of up to two billion dollars."

He added that, "we have to be cautious as there are lots of steps to go through yet."

Tla'Amin (Sliammon) Chief Councillor Walter Paul was out of town and not available for comment prior to press time.



Timeline for proposed LNG facility

Summer 2007

WestPac begins consultation with community and First Nations.

Fall 2007

WestPac files project description with BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

EAO to confirm the scope of the environmental assessment through a technical working group of provincial, federal, local government and First Nations representatives.

Fall 2008

WestPac to file a final environmental assessment.

Fall 2009

Environmental process to be completed.

Provincial and federal regulators make their decisions regarding the project.

Construction planned to start. Estimated completion in three years.

2013

Terminal and facility come into service.

©The Powell River Peak 2007