Texada Island residents overwhelmingly oppose natural gas plant

"The known risks that come with the tankers and the LNG project are not acceptable to Texada Islanders," said Childress. "We consider Texada an affordable paradise and want to keep it that way. This project is not wanted, not needed and certainly not green."/

Andrew A. Duffy
Times Colonist
Tuesday, December 18, 2007

A community group organized to fight a proposed $2 billion megaproject on Texada Island says residents of the island are overwhelmingly against establishing a liquefied natural gas terminal and electricity generating facility in their backyard.

Texada Action Now claims to have a petition signed by 84 per cent of the island's adult population telling WestPac LNG Corp. to catch a ferry and leave.

But even without the petition, the project has hit a stumbling block.

Premier Gordon Campbell's establishment of a climate action team with a goal of reducing the province's greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent by 2020 has forced WestPac to put its project on hold.

The company has pushed back the potential in-service date of the project by as much as 18 months to late 2014.

"We have decided to delay filing a project description which would have triggered the environmental assessment process," said WestPac president Stu Leson, with a nod to Campbell's green initiative.

"We will spend the next eight to 12 months just trying to understand what the new regulations will be and what impact it will have on our project, and then design a project that will fit with what the premier is trying to accomplish."

TAN's goal is to kill the project outright.

"With the petition, we wanted to dispel the fiction that Westpac was putting out that there was support for the proposal on Texada Island. We think it shows Texada Islanders don't want this," said Chuck Childress, chair of the TAN board. He added that getting their message out in front of the heavily technical hearing process was essential.

"We want to get the issue out there well ahead of the process and the premier's green plan and the legislation that's coming," he said.

"But from the perspective of climate change and reducing carbon emissions, it's common sense and logic that tells you that you can't reduce emissions by burning more carbon-based fuels."

Westpac's proposal would see the establishment of a terminal for liquefied natural gas and a 600-megawatt electricity generating facility on Texada. Imported gas would come in compressed, liquefied form in tanker ships to the island on a regular basis.

The gas-fired plant would be the largest independent source of electricity in B.C. and could generate enough electricity to power 450,000 homes.

Leson said he is not surprised there's opposition to the project, but said the company is listening, especially as it's in a hurry-up-and-wait mode until the government releases details of its green plan.

"Some of the residents on the island, at least those willing to listen to all the facts before making a decision, have raised some legitimate concerns like the routing of an electrical transmission line. We understand them and so we are now looking at different routings to minimize the impact on them," he said.

According to Childress, TAN's concerns range from emissions, how the project will change the island's makeup to the potential for disaster with tankers carrying liquefied natural gas through the Strait of Georgia.

"The known risks that come with the tankers and the LNG project are not acceptable to Texada Islanders," said Childress. "We consider Texada an affordable paradise and want to keep it that way. This project is not wanted, not needed and certainly not green."

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

Texada Residents Reject Gas Plant

MEDIA RELEASE
TEXADA RESIDENTS REJECT GAS PLANT

For Immediate Release December 17, 2007

TEXADA ISLAND – Texada Island residents have soundly rejected a proposal by Westpac LNG Corporation to build an LNG (liquefied natural gas) unloading facility and Gas fired generation station on the northwest tip of Texada Island. Texada Action Now (TAN), a local community association formed to help combat the proposal, has collected the signatures of 84% of the adult population of Texada Island on a petition opposing the LNG plant. “The known risks that come with the tankers and the LNG project are not acceptable to Texada Islanders”, says TAN Chair Chuck Childress “We consider Texada an affordable paradise and want to keep it that way. This project is not wanted, not needed and certainly not green.”

Westpac is proposing a 1200 megawatt generating station plus an LNG regasification plant. The greenhouse gases emitted by a 1200 megawatt (MW) generating station with 600MW running all the time and 600MW running 50% of the time would be 2.7 million tonnes per year. “An automobile produces about 5.5 tonnes a year, so simple math tells us the Texada generating plant would produce the same greenhouse gases as 490,000 cars. What good is there in trying to get a few thousand cars off the roads by building rapid transit or carpooling if we’re going to allow a plant equal to almost half a million cars to be built just up the Straight” says Childress. TAN director Rob McWilliam adds “This is not just a Texada problem; it’s a problem for the whole Georgia Basin and indeed the whole planet.”

TAN had wanted a referendum held on the issue, but the idea was rejected by the Powell River Regional District which said it based its decision on a legal opinion. “We needed a way to clearly show how Texada felt, the petition was not our first choice”, states petition director Leslie Goresky, “The 84% is not 84% of those that were approached to sign, it is 84% of the overall adult population. If someone wasn’t home we had to put them with the 16%. That means our support is probably much higher.”

The LNG would be shipped to Texada from around the globe by huge 950 ft long tankers. The LNG in the tankers is kept at minus 161 degrees Celsius. “An accident involving one of these tankers could result in an almost unimaginable catastrophe”, adds Childress, noting that the Canadian Government is currently trying to prevent similar tankers from operating in the Bay of Fundy by citing environmental and safety concerns.

“BC is a net exporter of natural gas, and most Texada residents think it is absurd to be considering importing and burning a fossil fuel to generate electricity when the provincial government is setting targets to reduce greenhouse gases. This is going totally in the wrong direction. The locating of heavily polluting industry on any of the Gulf Islands would be criminal” says Childress.

- 30 -

For more information contact:
Chuck Childress, Chair
Texada Action Now (604) 414-3537
www.texadaactionow.org

LNG_Alliance_media_release_kac1.pdf

Groups unite against Texada gas project

MEDIA RELEASE
Community groups unite to fight
Texada gas project

For immediate release December 17, 2008

Nanaimo, BC – Fifteen community groups from around the Strait of Georgia have banded together to fight a proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project on Texada Island. The Westpac LNG Corporation wants to build an LNG plant facility, a gas-fired generation station, as well as a high voltage power transmission power line on the island, all of which will bring increased pollution and risk of spills to the region.

“The known risks that come with this proposed project are too great for both the residents of Texada and the surrounding communities”, says Chuck Childress, from Texada Action Now (TAN). “We want to see this project stopped immediately before irreparable damage is done to our region and our way of life.”

An LNG terminal brings with it many risks including increased tanker traffic and the increased risk of an accident that comes with it; increased security around tankers, due to their volatile content, which would disrupt existing commercial and recreational boating traffic; and a negative impact on tourism. The proposed gas-fired electricity generating plant would also significantly increase BC’s total greenhouse gas emissions, which is counter to the provincial government’s new Energy Plan and would make it more difficult for the province to reach its reduction targets.

“At a time when the provincial government is setting legislated targets to dramatically reduce the province’s greenhouse gas emissions, this project would simply move us in the wrong direction”, says Deborah Conner, Executive Director, Georgia Strait Alliance. “We ask that the province puts a stop to this project and work instead to promote energy alternatives.”

“The harm that the LNG terminal could bring to our region is simply unacceptable”, says longtime Powell River residents Don and Fay Johnson. “We have lived in one of the most unique and beautiful regions in the world for 15 years, and we simply can’t stand by and let this project damage what we love most.”

In addition to their concerns around the LNG terminal and power plant, the groups, who have come together under the banner of the Alliance to Stop LNG, also want an end to all new coastal oil and gas infrastructure in British Columbia. They also support the existing moratorium on tanker traffic in BC’s North Coast and no new tanker traffic in the south.

- 30 -

For more information contact any of the LNG Alliance members:
BC Citizens for Public Power, Melissa Davis, 604-681-5939
Dogwood Initiative, Eric Swanson, 250-370-9930 ext. 27
Georgia Strait Alliance, Deborah Conner, 250-753-3459
Green Party of BC, Don Johnson, 604-485-4297
GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition, Arthur Caldicott, 250-743-5551
Powel River Parks and Wilderness Society, Eagle Walz, 604-483-9565
Sierra Club of Canada, BC Chapter – Malaspina Group, Glenn Parkinson, 604-485-7478
Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, Daniel Bouman, 604-886-8325
Texada Action Now, Chuck Childress, 604-414-3537
West Coast Environmental Law, Greg Gowe, 604-684-7378
Wilderness Committee, Andrea Reimer, 604-719-3920

LNG_Alliance_MediaRelease_17Dec2007.pdf

LNG_Backgrounder_17Dec2007.pdf

WestPac plans headquarters transfer to BC

Company moving office to be closer to engineering and communications teams/

Laura Walz, Editor
Powell River Peak

A company planning to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage terminal on Texada Island is moving its head office to the Lower Mainland and changing senior management.

WestPac LNG president Mark Butler is stepping down. Stu Leson, vice-president of business development, will fill his position.

WestPac LNG, a Calgary-based private company, has proposed a combined LNG import terminal and natural gas-fired electrical generation facility on the north end of Texada Island. Plans for the $2-billion project include two onshore LNG storage tanks, each with a capacity up to 165,000 cubic metres, and an interconnection with the existing Terasen natural gas pipeline from the mainland to Vancouver Island.

Butler told the Peak the company is moving its office to British Columbia to be closer to both the engineering and communications teams. "I have a number of business and personal circumstances here in Calgary and in Red Deer, so I'm going to stay with the project in a consulting capacity and also as a member of the board," he said. "The project team is going to be the same. We're just going to start wearing some different hats."

The move to the West Coast has been discussed for some time, Butler added. "We have always talked corporately that a made-in-BC project needed to live in BC. This was part of a long-term plan change in terms of the geographic locations of the offices."

Leson's background is in oil and gas with Unocal Corporation. From 1989 to 1994, he was manager of natural gas marketing and storage for Unocal Canada, and from 1994 to 2001, he was vice-president of LNG marketing for Unocal Indonesia, stationed in Jakarta. In 2002, he moved to Houston, where his primary responsibility was the analysis of North American LNG receiving terminal projects as potential markets for Asian LNG supply.

Chuck Childress is the chairman of Texada Action Now (TAN), an organization that is opposed to WestPac's proposal. "When we go to the [Powell River] Regional District, they tell us there is no project," he said. "When we go to Victoria, they tell us there is no project. So, if there is no project, why would WestPac be moving from Calgary to Vancouver? To keep an eye on a nonexistent project?"

WestPac has also compiled a 16-page booklet containing questions and answers about its project. Many of the questions were raised at public meetings held on Texada. "The booklet is our effort to create the questions that were asked and to make sure all of the public, not just on Texada Island, are getting the answers to questions that are being asked," Butler said. "The booklet will be posted verbatim onto our website."

Butler said WestPac has sent the booklet to every mailbox on Texada and to first nations, local governments, provincial agencies and any other group or individual who has expressed interest in the project.

The booklet is a record of public commentary and is part of the formal record of public consultation, said Butler. "It will be provided to the ministry of environment and the Environmental Assessment Office when we start to proceed down the road of environmental assessment," he said.

According to an updated timeline on the company's website, it plans to file a project description with the BC Environmental Assessment Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in early 2009. Construction is anticipated to start in winter 2010 or spring 2011 and take three years.

WestPac's website is www.westpaclng.com.

Natural gas supply depleting

It will take time, much money and political will to transition to a way of life less and less dependent on greenhouse gas-producing fuels. Why not start now while society has the wealth of existing supplies of gas and oil to afford the expense of development?/

By Rob Southcott
Powell River Peak

Natural gas is taken for granted, and British Columbians benefit from it greatly through the creation of heat for homes and hot water, and food too. It's the raw material for most fertilizer used in North America. One recent study estimates that without oil and gas, the agricultural-carrying capacity of the earth's population would be two billion people. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), on the other hand, is probably new to most people. But its advent and proposed import signals a turning point in history I feel should not be ignored.

Why import natural gas? The peak of North American domestic reserves has been passed. That means the reserves are half used up. The second half won't last as long as the first and won't be as easy to extract. Increasing demand will exceed decreasing domestic supply. Incidentally, sweet light crude oil reserves that North Americans have become phenomenally dependent on are expected to peak internationally within the next few years, if they haven't already. The peak of international natural gas reserves is expected to be 20 years away. Wasn't it only 25 years ago that the belief was there were centuries of natural gas in the ground?

This means eventual shortages unless consumption changes. As prices have risen, LNG, which is 600 times more compact than natural gas, has become more economical to import, which may allow the extravagant consumption to continue. Or, efforts may begin in earnest to develop sustainable energy sources. It would be good for the next generation if alternative infrastructures were in place before there is a crisis in domestic supply, or crisis due to international competition. There is broad familiarity with competition for oil in the Middle East.

The United States has been an importer since 1971.

Why not start now while society has the wealth of existing supplies of gas and oil to afford the expense of development? It will take time, much money and political will to transition to a way of life less and less dependent on greenhouse gas-producing fuels.

Can Canadians afford to procrastinate? How could Canadians, in all conscience, fail to prepare adequately for inevitable depletion of these non-renewable energy resources that are so profoundly depended upon? This doesn't even take into consideration the effects of greenhouse gases, which hopefully will be survived.

LNG storage, such as the Terasen project on Vancouver Island announced last week, would seem judicious management of a precious resource. Importing it as Westpac proposes, aside from presenting big environmental questions both for transport and burning it for electricity, invites dangerous procrastination. It is important to choose well while choices can be made, and to pressure governments to support and allow only development that assures the future for children.

Rob Southcott recently moved back to Powell River with his wife and son. A paramedic with the BC Ambulance service, Southcott is pleased to be back in his hometown after 30 years away.