Comments On LNG Security And Safety To Candidates In The BC 2017 Election

Comments sent to provincial election candidates through this campaign are shown below. All comments are also copied to the sender’s MP and to federal transport minister Marc Garneau.

Responses received from BC election candidates:

Delta North

Delta South

 

You can sort the comments by key word, provincial riding, or federal MP using the search box.

First NameLast NameType your message here:Provincial Riding
ElliotFunt

Please make LNG Woodfibre an election issue! This plant needs to be stoped as it will ruin Howe Sound! I will not vote for anyone that supports LNG Woodfibre!


Vancouver-West End
SashaHartwick

Howe sound is an awfull place for an lng terminal. Too close to community's and will affect the returning wildlife.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
BrianBull

Transportation regulations in populated areas are inadequate to protect your constituents.


We are not adequately prepared for emergencies on the West Coast.


Regulations concerning LNG Tankers is well below International standards. Canada and BC need to correct this before any LNG or pipelines receive final approvals.


Please support your constituents more aggressively on this matter.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
ISarama

This is a dangerous, reckless plan. Each of these tankers holds enough fuel to equal the energy in seventy Hiroshima sized atomic bombs.


Additionally, the source of the LNG is being produced through fracking, which is proven to poison groundwater aquifers with numerous carcinogenic materials.


Most dangerous of all, is the problem of methane escapement at the drilling site, from associated groundwater sources, and during processing and piping. Methane is a green house gas that is eighty-six times more potent than C02.


There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is clean about LNG.


As if all that were not bad enough, we are virtually giving away the resource, through various subsidies and tax schemes, and will be left with nothing but the toxic legacy. How stupid is that?


Stop this nonsense now!


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
KellyBarryVancouver-Point Grey
Gillian and RudolfDarling Kovanic

Our family is part of the 94% of the public living in Howe Sound that submitted our letters speaking out strongly against Woodfibre LNG in the 2015/2016 environmental review process regarding this project. In fact this project received the largest submission of letters from the public in the history of Canada for an evironmental review process. However our voices have been completely ignored and our democratic rights have been completely trampled in this totally unfair and illegal review process. There is absolutely no public license for this project in Howe Sound. Locating an LNG manufacture and export plant violates international shipping laws for the movement of LNG (our home is located in HAZARD ZONE #1) and endangers our rebounding marine environment that 10 years ago was the most polluted industrial marine site in North America.

$ 47,000 of our tax payers money has been spent cleaning up Howe Sound which has now rebounded with food fish -- herring and anchovies, returning species of salmon that have not been seen in almost 50 years plus returning sea mammal populations like humpback whales, gray whales, false killer whales, orcas and hundreds of Pacific White sided Dolphins. We the residents of Howe Sound have NOT given our consent to locate this project in our local waters. The only acceptable candidate in the upcoming May election is the individual (and their party) who speaks out against this ill-conceived and totally unacceptable project that endangers our home and treasured natural marine environment.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
HeatherWoodall

We strongly oppose LNG tanker traffic in a major recreational area. The sound, the Salish Sea, should become s park or a world heritage site. It's beauty is world class and and will have far more value as a tourist venue. The waters of the sound are becoming healthier as evidenced br the the return of herring, whales and dolphins. Please do everything possible to protect our beautiful Howe Sound.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
JeanneTaylor

Good Morning,

I hope as an influential official that you will take into consideration the dangers that face Howe Sound if LNG continues toward becoming a reality. Not just the environmental concerns, but also the risk put to those who live in the communities that the LNG tanker will pass. I live on Bowen Island and find it highly disturbing that the LNG tanker will put an entire grade school at risk if an accident happens. I ask that you fully examine the proposal and the under - estimated risks reported by the backers of the project, that would directly effect the lives of people and the environment of Howe Sound.

Jeanne Taylor


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
NorahMoorhead

There is not consideration given to safety concerns of

populations close to proposed tanker routes and the development of Woodfibre LNG plant makes no economic sense and is behind the times. Wind, solar and tidal energy sources are clean and becoming cheaper to produce by the day.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
JohnFrench

I support the export of LNG from BC. The LNG shipping industry has an excellent track record and the safety measure taken by industry are world-class.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
LizJohnston

We as a community don't want tankers on our coastline. We as a country don't believe the oil industry is our future. We want renewable resources, wind power, solar power and electric cars and ferries and sustainability. Look at leaders in this industry, use this as your guide. Don't you ever wonder why Tesla's doing so good? Please recognize how precious our coastline is and how small it is and come to the decision that tankers is not our future.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
DianeCorbett

I echo the concerns brought forward by My Sea to Sky regarding the proposed Woodfibre LNG project in Howe Sound. BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until a comprehensive regulatory framework is put in place (CURRENTLY NONEXISTENT) to PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM SAFETY AND SECURITY RISKS POSED BY UNSAFE SITING OF LNG TERMINALS AND MOVEMENT OF LNG TANKERS ON OUR COAST!


1. BC and Ottawa must develop a waterway assessment process for LNG tanker traffic that explicitly considers security risks from deliberate attack;

2. Proponents must conduct a gap analysis of regional security resources and develop a cost sharing plan for risk management and enforcement;

3. BC and Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime, similar to that in place for oil spills;

4. BC must require that the LNG industry develop adequate insurance liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

5. BC must demand that Ottawa commit to moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

6. BC must demand that Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers before they begin operations in our coastal waters;

7. The BC Oil and Gas commission must explicitly consider risks created by the movement of LNG tankers when it considers LNG terminal applications.

8. British Columbians should expect the same level of protection from risk as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG safety and security hazards!


Specific concerns and questions about this project include:


1. Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.


2. An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill


3. Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills


4. The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters.


5. How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced?


6. How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


Anyone who has been following the process regarding this application is well aware of the local and regional government and public opposition to this proposal (the latter as revealed in the public submissions on the scoping phase and the environmental assessment report, and at public open house events), as well as the faulty processes that led to the approval of this project.


THIS PROJECT HAS NO PLACE IN HOWE SOUND!


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
LesleyMcquarrieVancouver-False Creek
MelyssaHudson

Time and time again it is clear that this project will serve nothing more than to fill the pockets of foreign corporations while our current government does it's best to give proponents the freest ride ever.

Little to no tax imposed for the life span of these projects, to rubber stamping of permits that blatantly ignore the health and safety of marine ecosystems, communities close by and the greater need for reductions in ghg's from BC and Canada.


Not only is the Liberal government selling off resources for uber cheap but the market of lng continues to crash and will likely be unprofitable for decades.


This is irresponsibility at it's finest and a poor show for leadership going all in on the worst business plan around. They are locking British Columbians into a poor economic deal that will see absolutely zero profit to fund government programs as promised. Moving money around to the Prosperity Fund doesn't change the stark reality that the LNG export industry is a deal dead in the water.


Shame on the BC Liberals for selling off this province's wealth to the lowest bidder.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
MaureenBodie

The only protection I want is NO LNG expansion projects. That is the only safe protection. Will your political party agree to that?


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
GillianDarling Kovanic

I live in Hazard Zone # 1 in the proposed tanker route from Woodfibre LNG. We have spoken out loudly and firmly against situating such a project in a narrow fijord that does not meet the international safety standards for shipping LNG by tanker. Our voices have been completely ignored by our politicians for whom we voted to represent our concerns and wishes. Research has confirmed that in the event of a spill, liquid natural gas on water forms a vapour cloud that rolls out over hundred of metres. The slightest spark can ignite such a vapour cloud and everything is its path would be completely incinerated/radiated. And all of Bowen Island's safety responses (fire station and ambulance) are also located within Hazard Zone #1. Potentially such an accident not only involves populations living within the hazard zone but also any one of the BC Ferries that ply these waters dozens of times a day. Such a plan is sheer madness. Our treasured Howe Sound that we, the taxpayers of British Columbia spent 47 million dollars over the last decade repairing the damage from a previous industrial site in the Sound has now recovered. Our marine environment is in the class of a World Heritage Site. Please see that saner heads prevail and disallow this dangerous and unacceptable project.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
DorothyYada

Please do not allow increased tanker traffic along our beautiful B.C. coast. The risk is too great.


Vancouver-False Creek
gordhomer

the shipping of LNG in these closed waters is a crap shoot. Please review the US and European regs and force compliance here not two tugs and a prayer.


All of the communities on the sound are at risk inside the inclusion zone


Thusly why would we do it?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
dr. wendystephenson

While I hope no LNG projects get approved for BC, as we must use our resources to establish alternative sources pf sustainable energy, I do expect any discussions of LNG development should focus on safety concerns and not just on leaks but on deliberate attacks on tankers. At the very least we need stronger control regulations that they have in the united states. Please address this issue at every opportunity in any discussions and media events you have during this current political campaign.


Vancouver-West End
EdwinOchmanek

To my local candidates;


I am writing to you to express my concern and ask where you stand on the proposed Woodfibre LNG installation near Squamish.


As you are no doubt aware, such installations have been deemed a security risk in the U.S. and so are not located - or transported through - populated centres. Currently there is no plan in place to protect citizens from the security risks associated with this project.


An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean.

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill.


Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill.


Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills.


The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


Even if the security concerns could be addressed, what about the environmental concerns? We will not be able to meet our carbon reduction targets if we move ahead with fossil fuel development. The already stressed resident orca population will have to contend with yet more noise and disruption. Outside of a short term profit - mainly for foreign corporations - what does this development bring to British Columbians, and where do you stand on it?


Thank you.


Vancouver-Point Grey
CinciCsere

Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill

Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills

The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
JanePower

James, your party claims to be committed to capitalism. So why are you committed, in relation to LNG and Site C, to buying high and selling low? Oh, I know -- you can do it because it's not you, but us, who will have to make up the difference.


Presumably, though, you, just like the rest of us, will have to live with the messes your party is creating as you make ugly what was beautiful, make a desert and call it a jobs program, make unsafe the waters and the surrounding lands and neighbours that today are still secure.


Please step up and take a courageous stand against destroying the environment and, yes, the economy of our wonderful province.


David and Amanda, I know I can count on both you and your parties to put a stop to the present government's crazed hunt for votes-through-temporary-jobs and for corporate political contributions that is threatening the futures of us all.


Vancouver-Point Grey
JoanneCanow

I am very concerned about safety and environmental issues surrounding the development of any LNG project and recommend further science based assessments around, safety, climate change impact, and environmental impact - begore any further implementation of projects.


Vancouver-False Creek
AngelaMellor

This project and pipeline do not fit with our values and the future we want in sea to sky . The risk is not worth it - How on earth can the government plan to increase the population density and yet allow something as dangerous as this plant and tankers to be built right beside Canada's outdoor capital ??? 107 million of taxpayers $$ to clean up industrial pollution in Howe Sound - now we have iconic Orcas coming into the sound for the first time in decades - tankers that are twice the size as a BC ferry and the inevitable industrial pollution and invasive species that will come with the tankers and the plant will not mix with the Orcas - this is a pivotal decision with a 40 year timeline - this re industrialization is not the future most people want.

LNG is a nightmare for the Howe Sound - We want nature based tourism that includes local indigenous people , tradesperson jobs that add value to our lumber like teaching youth the skills to mill wood and make prefab modular homes for low income seniors and other groups that need assistance. Jobs retrofitting our homes with better insulation that will pay a living wage. Jeopardizing our safety , our clean land and precious fresh water in BC for this political stunt is a massive mistake - we can break free of fossil fuels - building this dangerous plant in a rapidly expanding area where people come from all over the world to marvel at nature unspoiled is plain crazy and stupidly shortsighted.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
MikeBothma

Please make a stand and do the right thing. We do not need nor want LNG plants. Global warming is real and urgent; renewable alternatives are fast becoming a preferred alternative and. None of us chose to live here in order to live in an industrial wasteland.


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
MartineWakefield

I am against LNG tankers navigating on the BC coast for the following reasons:

Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.


How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


This is an election issue for me.


Sincerely,


Vancouver-Point Grey
JChurcher

Dear Candidates, MP, and Minister of Transport,


I am deeply concerned about Woodfibre LNG.


I urge you to pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all safety and security issues related are addressed.

BC has few protections and regulations to ensure our coast is not threatened by an LNG related spill.

The recent spill in Burrard inlet was small, fortunately, as the response was slow and paltry. This incident provided opportune insight into the serious lack in response capabilities.


In addition to establishing explicit resources and regulations for managing the risk associated to LNG traffic, governments must acknowledge and address risks posed by deliberate attacks on tankers (in a world plagued by terrorists).


Costs should be carried by beneficiaries of the industry (governments, companies). And companies must have adequate, valid insurance in place in order to operate in our waters (and on our lands).


I question the wisdom of sullying our precious, cherished environment with this industry, but if it is going to happen we MUST have safety addressed including defensive and proactive regulations (security exclusion zones, insurance, funds for disaster preparedness).


I will be watching your attention to this and other issues and will vote accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Sincerely,


Vancouver-Fairview
FrancesDietz

I'm very concerned about LNG projects and their risks to the health of Life. No matter what is said about the use of natural gas as a clean-burning fuel, it still is a fossil fuel! The 'fracking' practice to get at this resource to begin with, is devastating.


As well, the risks surrounding tanker traffic off the west coast is becoming insane.


Coal, oil, LNG are not the commodities I want to see leaving this beautiful area of BC. It is so embarrassing and backward to do so in this day-and-age when we now know about the harm of these 'products'.


We are so rich in resources here and we can do so much better!,


Vancouver-Fairview
DanieleHalle

Please keep Canada clean, we are in How sound the last remaining spotless place, it will be destroyed if you allow this LNG to take place, and it will happen, it did everywhere else, do not let $$$$ kill this haven on hearth TY Daniele Halle Squamish BC


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
hisaoichikawa

Before we think about making money from extracting natural resources and harming our environment, please think about long term happiness for the many generations to come and all the other living beings. Protect Howe Sound from destruction!


Vancouver-Fairview
DoreenGregson

Protect Howe Sound...The Salish Sea. BAN TANKERS and stop industrialization in/near this unique and precious fjord! We owe it to future generations, especially now that it is beginning to recover from past pollution. Ban all tanker traffic in Howe Sound!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
JanineBrossard

March 2015 (comments sent to BCEAO during the Woodfibre LNG assessment period)


I live on Bowen Island with my husband and two daughters aged 8 and 14. My eight year old attends Bowen Island Community School and my teenager takes the ferry to Rockridge High School in West Vancouver. I have concerns for the safety of my children while in school and on the ferry should there be an accidental or intentional breach of an LNG tanker when it passes between Snug Cove and Horseshoe Bay.

I contacted Woodfibre LNG via their Facebook page on 25 February 2015 with my concerns and have included the conversation below for your information:

Question 1 to Woodfibre:

“My grade 3 daughter goes to Bowen Island Community School. This school appears to be within one of the hazard zones as indicated in the Sandia Risk Analysis Report for an LNG Spill on Water. Please could you let me know whether Woodfibre LNG will be supplying this school with emergency equipment as recommended in these reports. I am particularly interested in knowing about safe shelters and breathing apparatus/gas masks for the children, teachers and support staff. Many thanks.”

Response from Woodfibre:

“Thank you for your question. At Woodfibre LNG, safety is our number one priority, on land and on the water. We can tell you that LNG carriers are among the most modern ships in operation, and they have carried LNG safely around the world for 50 years. There has never been a recorded incident involving a loss of containment of an LNG carrier at sea. LNG carriers will arrive at the Woodfibre site three to four times per month. They will access the site using existing commercial shipping lanes, will be accompanied by at least three tugboats, will travel at about 8 to 10 knots, and will be piloted by two BC Coast Pilots who know our coast best. As for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories, “Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water,” the author of that study, Mike Hightower, was recently interviewed in a video posted to The Province website, where he provided assurances about the safety of LNG. “What we found out is the LNG shipping industry is a very, very safe industry,” Hightower said in that interview. “They have some of the best crews, they’ve had very few accidents, and have never had an accident that caused a spill.”

If you are interested, that video can be found here:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Higher+Ground+Floating+Disaster+tankers+reality+risk/10761973/story.html

Question 2 to Woodfibre:

“Thanks for your response. In the above video Mike Hightower mentions that a vapour cloud could travel up to 2 miles before being ignited. That is where my concern is. Bowen Island Community School would potentially be within this range. Would this vapour cloud have displaced oxygen in the air before being ignited? Do the children, teachers and support staff need to be prepared for this as recommended in the report? Will they need breathing apparatus? I do understand the risk is low but the consequence is high and I know BC Govt. have assured us that we will have world class safety.”

As of 22 March 2015 I have had no response to question 2.

I have contacted the principal of Bowen Island Community School along with West Vancouver School District Trustees to find out if they have been approached by Woodfibre LNG regarding emergency preparedness/response plans and have been informed that they have not.

At the January 2015 Bowen Island Open House hosted by Woodfibre LNG and BC Environmental Assessment Office I asked Woodfibre’s Risk Analysis Expert if they did indeed consider the “Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water” as their ‘industry bible’ as indicated in the above Resource Works video. The answer was that they do.

In the “Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water” report they have a number of recommendations to follow in order to have the highest standards of public safety and I have included some of these below:

1. …provides a systematic method for considering the potential of a breach event, assessing the expected LNG dispersion and potential consequences, and identifying prevention and mitigation strategies to reduce risks for site-specific conditions. Major categories that need to be included are:

?

- Identification of hole size, location, and ignition conditions,

?

- Inclusion of site specific conditions - wind, topography, waves, currents, structural interactions,

?

- Fuel spill and spread assumptions, and

?

- Gas dispersion assumptions with wind conditions, terrain, and obstacle considerations


Analyses that do not include these categories will not be able to identify accurately the risks and hazards to public safety and property


2. Coordination among all port security stakeholders is essential. Incident management and emergency response measures should be carefully evaluated to ensure adequate resources (i.e., firefighting, salvage, etc.) are available for consequence and risk mitigation.


3. When impact to public safety is high/medium:

Prevention –

1, Early off-shore interdiction,

2, Ship inspection ,

3, Control of ship, tug and other vessel escorts,

4, Vessel movement control zones (safety/security zones)

5, One-way traffic,

6, LNG offloading system security interlocks


Mitigation –

1, Harbor pilots,

2, Ship and terminal safety and security upgrades,

3, Expanded emergency response and fire fighting to address fires, vapor clouds, and damaged vessels

4. As noted in Sections 4 and 5 and Appendices C and D, a vapor cloud from an LNG spill could extend to 2,500 m, if an ignition source is not available. The potential thermal hazards within a vapor cloud could be high. Because vapor cloud dispersion is highly influenced by atmospheric conditions, hazards from this type of event will be very site-specific.

5. Multiple breach and cascading LNG cargo tank damage scenarios were analyzed, as discussed in Sections 4 and 5. While possible under certain conditions, they are likely to involve no more than two to three cargo tanks at any one time. These conditions will not greatly change the hazard ranges noted in General Conclusion Number 1, but will increase expected fire duration


6. The potential damage from spills to critical infrastructure elements such as bridges, tunnels, industrial/commercial centers, LNG unloading terminals and platforms, harbors, or populated areas can be significant in high hazard zones.


7. Risk identification and risk management processes should be conducted in cooperation with appropriate stakeholders, including public safety officials and elected public officials. Considerations should include site-specific conditions, available intelligence, threat assessments, safety and security operations, and available resources. This approach should be performance-based and include identification of hazards and risks, protection required for public safety and property, and risk prevention and mitigation strategies.


8. Risk management strategies for LNG operations that occur in this zone should focus on vapor dispersion and fire hazards. The strategies should include incident management and emergency response measures that ensure areas of refuge (enclosed areas, buildings) are available, the development of community warning procedures, and education programs to ensure that communities are aware of precautionary measures.


In reading Woodfibre’s Emergency Response Plan it appears:

- they have not taken an ‘intentional breach’ into account.

- their worst case scenario only appears to only have one of the five tanks release its cargo

- they will not be implementing a ‘security/exclusion zone’ around the tanker

- they have not taken Bowen Island emergency evacuation, vapour cloud protection or fire-fighting equipment and personnel into account.


As a mother I am deeply concerned that Woodfibre will not be following the State of the Art World Class Safety Measures as I was under the impression that the British Columbia Government was assuring us that we would have first class safety. As we are all aware Canada is, unfortunately, not immune to terrorist activity. I am concerned that by not having the full preventative safety measures in place we are actually at a higher risk of an intentional breach or an accidental collision or grounding.


If we are to have world class safety for our children I expect at least the following as recommended by the LNG shipping industry experts:

- A site specific study for an LNG Spill on water close to Snug Cove, Bowen Island.

- An emergency response plan for Bowen Island Community School that includes safe shelters and appropriate life saving equipment on hand for elementary students, teachers and support staff for both the potential vapour cloud and vapour cloud ignition.

- Training for teachers, support staff and children on what to do regarding a vapour cloud e.g. how to use appropriate breathing apparatus.

- Adequate fire fighting equipment/personnel provided to Bowen Island.

- Determination of a safe off-island evacuation route and boat ramp on the West Side of Bowen Island.

- Exclusion zones around the tanker e.g. 2 miles ahead and 1 mile on either side

- One way marine traffic as the LNG tanker passes through Howe Sound


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
dbray

tankers are NOT worth the risk


Vancouver-Point Grey
CarolPetroski

Howe Sound is one of the most spectacular marine areas in Canada, that is central to a large city. It's one of the areas that makes the Lower Mainland so special.


There's a lot of information available re the Woodfibre LNG plant. I could list them all, but it truly is pointless. The BC Government, and the Federal Government really need to STOP looking for 'easy' ways to support the economy. Leave the LNG in the ground.


The environmental and societal risk associated with this project is to great to allow this project to go forward under ANY circumstances...


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
Dr. HughFreeman

I already know Sturdy's position. He is in favour. I don't know how he was paid but the party received a lot of money from LNG for their support.


I believe that the Provincial NDP did too.


Our Liberal rep in Ottawa did not stand up for her constituents.


I understand that Dana Taylor has indicated he is against LNG in Howe Sound. But I don't know if he plans to do anything about it.


It is very disappointing.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
NicolaValentine

Dear Candidate: I am opposed to the LNG project and will be voting accordingly. My objections are several and listed below, not in any order.

1. The LNG is past its "best before" date. The world has moved past it and the countries we would be shipping it to are moving onto renewables.

2. The price is rock-bottom and will only go lower as the world moves along to other sources of energy. There is no business model.

3. Making LNG requires fracking. Fracking requires electricity leading to projects such as Site C with its own environmental concerns. Fracking produces byproducts such as methane that are dangerous to human health.

4. Howe sound that is just regenerating from damage done with mining in the past will be impacted. Waste water may hotter than its natural state and if so, will damage life. Howe sound is and has further potential for tourism and green space for the Lower Mainland.

5. Danger from run aground ships as well as explosion would impact thousands of humans damage to the environment.

6 Pipeline construction from the Peace Region, through to Squamish will produce enormous physical damage and require energy (gasoline and diesel).


I will be watching your responses as we get closer to the election. This is a hot topic in the Sea to Sky Region.

Respectfully, Nicola Valentine, Whistler


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
TheodoraCarroll

Right now I disgusted with all of you - Liberal, Lib-Con, NDP and Green - for blindly supporting LNG/LFG generally and Wood Fibre LNG/LFG in particular, given the dangers to which you are subjecting local residents (including children) in the Howe Sound Corridor, the larger constituency, and British Columbians overall, not to mention wildlife (air, sea, and land) and the environment. You should be adopting and adhering to the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE but in every respect you appear to ignoring and negating it. That is the height of irresponsibility You are forging ahead with this dangerous project just because you believe it will produce untold riches for BC's economy, but you have not factored in the real costs when (NOT IF) an accident occurs. You have ignored international/SIGGTO standards for tankers, even though other countries, including the USA have adopted them. You have failed to address and asses the real security risks that surround LFG, and their tankers. You have not demanded that security exclusion zones around LFG/LNG be moved. Your response and preparedness system is weak and insufficient, and in insufficient numbers for this difficult terrain. You have aligned yourself with proponents and "entrepreneurs" who care nothing about this magnificent area, its people or its wildlife, except to fill their own pockets. You have aligned yourself with people who have reputations for destroying the environment and for failing to set up strong regulations to prevent catastrophes that affect communities and their lives, and the surrounding ecosystems on which they rely for their economic living and even lives..

Some will say "pause" plans for this LNG/LFG project, BUT it should be STOPPED altogether as it is the wrong project for the wrong place at the wrong time. It would be wonderful if one of you had the gumption to speak up against it, but I seriously doubt any one of you will because you do not believe in the Precautionary Principle; you have not assessed all the real costs to people and their health, wildlife - much of which is recovering from past abuses, and overall environment; you apparently have not read the many in-depth analyses of why this project is the wrong one and type for this area; and you will do whatever your particular party tells you to do or say.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
RozIsaac

I live within an LNG hazard zone. What measures would you take to ensure my safety? Please do not trot out a prepared party line with all the usual vagueness. A detailed plan would be good. Thank you.


North Vancouver-Lonsdale
DorothyMeiklejohn

This LNG proposal makes NO sense on any level.

A. There is no market.

B. How does shipping LNG from Alberta down to this Fiord then through this narrow channel crossing The Trans Canada Marine Highway whilst killing off the now rebounding ecosystem and sea life from the previous toxic pool ( I know I grew up Here ) then taking it all the way back up the coast to take it across to Asia. Not rational at all. Look forward to

encouraging new technology and building a stronger tech Industry base.

Why go back to the Industrial Revolution.

C. Any other place on earth would make this a NATIONAL PARK or UNESCO.

Lets not be tarred with the same brush as the new guy south of the border.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
TomDavis

Nobody in their right mind would approve the LNG project at the former Woodfibre property.


Even if the risks are minimal of a catastrophic event, any risk to the communities along the planned shipping route or the traveling public on the Sea to Sky highway is unacceptable.


Add in the dangers of terrorist action or major earthquake and the risk becomes even greater.


Politicians need a reality check. I will not vote for any candidate who supports LNG in Howe Sound.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
VincentLang

Say no to LNG if you want my vote


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
GailWilen

We live in a very special place where the natural beauty attracts people from all over the world and where the marine ecosystem is so important for a local food source. You must pay attention to this issue!


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
LucaMalaguti

Hello,


as an engineer and Vancouver citizen I find the safety measures behind the Woodfibre LNG project to be entirely inadequate. The tanker traffic and distance from homes does not provide enough of a safety margin for both human and wildlife safety, as well as environmental well-being.


What is being done to address these issues and risks?We cannot afford any spills/accidents, so why is this irrational project continuing?


Thank you,


Vancouver-Point Grey
RobKnight

If one of these LNG tankers explodes I will never vote for any of you again since I live in the 1600m hazard zone (near Snug Cove) but then again a lot other folks won't be voting for any of you either. With any luck you will be hard at work looking after the interests of your constituents in Victoria or Ottawa. You will also be burdened buy unbearable guilt because you did nothing to stop these absurdly stupid and irresponsible proposals.

Think about the Halifax Explosion of 1917!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
ChristinaHalldorson

I was halfway through filling out this form. When this happened. Had to abandon the form and start over.

Just saw a great big humpback whale come up not 100 ft from my house. Very exciting. It was while I was filling in a form to all our candidates to not allow tankers in the Howe Sound. I'm not usually oriented this way. This time, I am thinking that I just had the support of a whale. Beautiful moment.

I don't know how any candidate can consciously subject their constituents to the hazard of LNG carrying tankers. 2 others witnessed this whale.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
CindyF.

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

Specific concerns and questions to raise about Woodfibre:


Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill

Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills

The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
UrszulaLipsztajn

Hello Sea to Sky candidates,


I'm writing as a concerned citizen of Squamish, regarding Woodfibre LNG.


Howe Sound is an amazing fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. it is a special space for indigenous peoples, us 'locals' and tourists. Having recently shed its past industrial era, this ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and humpback whales. I feel the Woodfibre’s LNG plant would negatively impact and reverse this recovery.


An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean. Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill. This town I don't feel is equipped to handle a spill, and even if it were, the impact would be devastating.


Another concern I have is the company behind Woodfibre, Singapore-based RGE. Reputable news sources have found factual evidence of inhumane, unethical and environmentally unsafe actions on the part of this company. Why is BC looking to do such risky business with this company?


Thank you for taking the time to listen. I am eager to hear your thoughts on this as I prepare to vote in the coming days.


Warmly,


Urszula Lipsztajn


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
WilliamWissler

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill

Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills

The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
DonaldGoyette

What are you doing to stop cooking the planet? Develop renewable energy. Be part of the solution and on the right side of history. Stop LNG.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
BrendaBroughton

I am fundamentally opposed to Woodfibre LNG :


1. Serious concerns about LNG Supertanker shipping safety in the too narrow Howe Sound;


2. Increased GHG emissions


3. Harm to sea life


4. Egregious BC government net financial Annual subsidy to Woodfibre LNG, which will include hundreds of thousands of dollars to Woodfibre LNG net, plus a direct electricity cost BC government subsidy likely worth millions of dollars annually.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
PatriciaMcClung

LNG Is a time bomb and a water polluting land poisoning boondoggle and it is not Good for anyone but the criminal offshore funders who pad Christie Clark and the Liberals wallets!!!!

no LNG no LNG no no no no no


North Vancouver-Lonsdale
SusanRule

Stop LNG, increased tanker traffic & fracking

Please , BC #1 resource is Oceans !

We value our sealife .


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
DaleSankey

I am writing to express my concern about the LNG Woodfibre site. You will find some of my concerns outlined below. My question is how will you stand for your consistent so to stop this right now?

Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill

Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills

The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?

I look forward to your timely response. Thank you

Dale Sankey


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
DianeCorbett

The time is NOW for the implementation of safety regulations to protect the public from the threat of compressed gas filled supertankers in Howe Sound and other areas impacted by the LNG frenzy of the governments of BC & Canada.


An LNG terminal in Howe Sound would put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean. Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill.


It appears that the federal government, in particular, is dragging its feet on this file. How could the federal cabinet actually approve of LNG liquefaction plant and tanker projects without having any regulations in place governing public safety? I regard this as extremely irresponsible.


Please insist that world class safety regulations regarding the transport of LNG and the siting of LNG terminals be implemented NOW.


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
SarahMarceau

Please don't ruin our Eco system for money as a healthy ocean is worth more than a few bucks


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
JenniferPeat

Howe Sound is magical, and relatively clean.the swimming, marine life and the aliveness are second to none. I implore you to keep these waters tanker free. Nothing is worth the risk of upsetting the balance that has slowly come back to the Sound.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
KathrynTaylor

English Bay, Stanley Park, Point Grey, Kitsilano, False Creek and the West End already felt the effects of the Malathasa spill which was NOT a tanker. This was a small spill which had a response time that was frankly disgraceful. As part of the Oiled Wildlife Response team and a resident 2 blocks from English Bay Beach this was appalling. Now we want more actual tankers in here? There is too little in risk management spill preparedness and response regime. The very same day the Malathasa spill there were people swimming in the beaches in contaminated water. Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound and Kinder Morgan should be stopped.

People that come to Vancouver do NOT come here to see pipelines and tanker. As a marine naturalist and part of the Pacific Whale Watching Association I know first hand that our endangered Southern Resident Whales are already struggling to find food, trying to use echolocation to find their main food source the threatened Chinook Salmon. With only 74 individuals left we will lose them if the LNG and Kinder Morgan happen. If that occurs how many tourism dollars will be lost. Whales if treated with respect and protected will continue to give back economically forever. I don't want to lose my job because their is nothing to see in our waters except tankers. Oil will run out eventually whales and other wildlife will not if we help.

The Howe Sound Ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, more orca sightings and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

This is an important time. This is the time when your granchildren will look back years from now and either disparage your decisions or laud a forward thinker for thinking of a future that is not only their own.


Vancouver-West End
VanessaSenecal

Howe Sound is an ecosystem in recovery, a treasure for locals and a draw for tourists. Woodfibre LNG would reverse this recovery, putting the marine ecosystem at great risk.


Howe Sound is an overly narrow and unsafe location for LNG tankers to pass through.


I urge you to reject the proposed Woodfibre LNG project!


I will be casting my vote in the upcoming provincial election for a candidate who agrees that this proposed project is not the right future for Howe Sound.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
DavidOkell

My wife and I along with our children live on Bowen Island.

It is totally unacceptable to put residents on Bowen Island at risk of incineration due to Canada having NO regulations regarding LNG tankers operating in proximity to residential areas . This would not be allowed in the USA and many other countries as well.

Not to mention methane from franking operations for LNG gas that is becoming difficult to sell anyway. This government has little concern for the safety of its citizens in its zeal for fossil fuels .


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
J.LLemmon

Dear Madam/Sir:

I would prefer that the Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound did not go ahead, and that instead attention & funds were put toward infinite solar & wind power. In the sad event of Woodfibre LNG going ahead, without question we need strong, and stronger, regulations that cover inherent risks of such an operation, all of which you are familiar with: the "My Sea to Sky" campaign lays these issues out very clearly.


Please be practical and visionary - a wonderful combination!


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
BronwenFordyce

Hi there,


After reading the City of Vancouver's cleanest city materials and seeing their materials, and in general, I am greatly disappointed by the Provincial and Federal government being persuaded by the oil and gas companies to pursue LNG and pipelines. This is like investing in coal or something else well known to harm the environment.


The only energy investment should be in CLEAN renewable energy. There is no reason we cannot be a fully or mostly electric city, province and country. Change is made when change is made. It's time. It's far past time.


Please oppose LNG tankers through Howe Sound and Vancouver with everything you have.


Howe Sound is just finally recovering from prior industrial impacts and we are seeing incredible pods of whales and dolphins as evidence of its health.


Aside from the environment, peoples' lives are at risk. Would you want an atomic bomb parked outside your home or driven back and forth daily? LNG is highly explosive. Incredibly dangerous.


There is absolutely no logical explanation for this. It's obvious that the decision makers have been bought in some known and unknown ways as it, as said, truly defies logic and the progress we all want to see toward health and environmental protection.


The number of jobs created could be exponentially higher and better paid if the same or a lesser financial investment went into CLEAN renewable energy.


Why? Because it's 2017.


Vancouver-Point Grey
MichaelDaigle-beliveau

Please don't let Kinder Morgan pipeline destroy our water!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
SandraLevickas

I will not vote for anyone who supports LNG.

Howe Sound is a treasure that should be saved for Locals and Tourists to enjoy. The Sea to Sky Gondola is a great example of responsible development that creates jobs for the Locals.

This fuel is going to be sold to China, so they can made more junk to pollute the planet?

I vote NO.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
GabeLancaster

No to LNG!!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
MinaKavia

As a mother of a daughter with compromised lungs I chose to live with fresh air . Bringing the LNG here will mean that I can no longer live here

Please do not uproot so many residents for greed.

Stand up for the right thing , make the Howe sound a world heritage site and protect it

It is the most amazing part of the world and needs to be protected and this should be your mission .

Please leave a great legacy based on protection of the land and sea.

I trust you to do this


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
ToshaCopeland

Please keep our waters clean and clear for my children and yours!!!!!!

Thank you!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
LouisePrevost

Why were the laws changed to allow tankers in the Howe Sound, when there was already a law in place for no tankers allowed in our Sound because they are too large and it is not safe passage. But no! We just change the laws to accommodate the big corporations, and that is not what the people want! And then they ask us to obey the laws that they change on a whim.. Sick of not being heard. We need to vote for the EARTH, it for everyone, even the greedy...


Louise Prevost

Brackendale


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
RichardTremblay

There is not enough room for the tankers based on international standards don't be foolish

Besides that there is little or nothing to be gained for the BC people

Just say no


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
KarrenSmith

Ensure strongest regulations protecting air, land, sea; eiiminating risk posed by unsafe terminal siting and prior to any tanker movements from LNG in Howe Sound, where I live. Or anywhere on the West Coast.

With moral fibre and creativity, rise above the colonialist mentality that characterized the past industrial era.


No tankers. Full stop.


Vancouver-Fairview
SandraSkinberg

Please stop Woodfibre LNG and the tankers!


I am concerned with the sea life in the sound, the safety of local vessels and the possibility of leaks and explosions.


In addition, as we are directly across from Woodfibre, we will have air pollution, light pollution and the sight of the plant and tankers marring our vantage of the sound.


Our new gondola will also have a ruined view! How will the tourists enjoy that?


We are fast becoming known for our outdoor recreations and tourism. Wood fibre LNG would not fit our community!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
HilaryPink

Please take responsibility for our future, and start prohibiting actions that pollute and or jeapordize the safety of our air, food and water.


Without that, we will never survive as a species, and no other political issue consequently matters.


Act for the health of the planet, not the all mighty dollar.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
EvaGersbach

Dear Government Representative,

I am writing to you express my concerns over the proposed expansion of LNG industry in BC and in the Lower Mainland.

There is so much at risk that is precious and valuable in its natural state: our environment.


I am asking you to consider the following points:

1) BC residents deserve the same protection as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

2) BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

3) Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

4) BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

5) BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

6) The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

7) BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations fur bunkering LNG tankers;

8) BC should pause palns for LNG exports for proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are satisfactorily addressed.


Being an avid sailor in our local waters, I am also very concerned about the safety of the proposed Woodfibre plant:

1) Part of BC's Salish Sea, Howe SOund is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900 m mountains rising steeply from the sea. It is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre's LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

2) An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating often turbulent waters on their path to the open ocean.

3) Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600m of moving tankers - inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill.

4) Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk of both - LNG spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills.

5) The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters.

6) How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessels?


In my humble opinion these are major issues and risks that need to be addressed and properly assessed prior to Woodfirbre LNG plant being even built.


Canada must start taking responsibility for resource extraction and advance into the 21st century from the "Wild West" era.


Too much is at stake!


Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your reply.


Sincerely,


Eva Gersbach,

Vancouver, BC


Vancouver-Point Grey
BronwenEvans

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.Part of BC’s Salish Sea, Howe Sound is a spectacular fjord stretching from West Vancouver to Squamish. Bordered by 1,900m mountains rising steeply from the sea, it is a treasured recreational area for locals and tourists alike. Having shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.

An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean

Schools, fire stations, ferry terminals and residences in the Sound will be within 1600 metres of moving tankers — inside the hazard zone of a major LNG spill

Anchoring and bunkering hazardous-cargo LNG tankers in English Bay puts area residents at risk – of LNG-spill firestorms and Marathassa-like bunker oil spills

The tanker route down the Sound crosses the paths of three busy ferry routes, log boom tows and a myriad of recreational boaters

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers be enforced? How will area marinas and public beaches cope with the wakes of these large vessel?


Vancouver-Fairview
JanetFulton

Keep Howe Sound Clean....NO NO No to LNG


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
ChristopherHenderson

Please stop this. If you are going to do things do them the right way for the right things. We shouldn't be threatening our environment with just to make a buck!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
AndrewBlair

I don't want any LNG tankers in Howe Sound! It would endanger me personally as a resident and wind sport enthusiast. Also, all the whales are back and it would drive them out. An accident would be catastrophic and I don't want a single tanker in the sound.


Lastly, why on earth would we continue to support a fossil fuel industry when climate change is already causing extreme weather, mass extinction... ?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
TitaniaMichniewicz

I am not happy about my government blatantly ignoring the regulations that other countries have put in place to ensure the safety of shipping LNG... my family and I live in the Woodfibre blast and spill zone - we have no interest in becoming a safety/environmental statistic after the nasty fact.


There are so many reasons why LNG is bad idea for those of us who live in the area and for the residents of BC in general. The liberal government under Christie Clark has been too generous with Sukanto Tanoto and his foreign corporation. Is he really the kind of person we want to do business with? His human rights and environmental records are appalling.


In addition, this area is important as a treasured recreational area for both locals and visitors, who travel from around the world to experience so much natural beauty close to a major urban center. This part of the world needs to be protected and cherished. No doubt the economic benefits of tourism to the area will far exceed the any benefit from an industry that causes so many problems, from increased methane release (further exacerbating global warming) to potential spillage and its issues, to polluting a waterway that is finally seeing a return of incredible species like dolphins, orcas and humpback whales.


We need to intentionally choose the future we want for BC, and take steps to create it NOW. BC will see no benefit from the Woodfibre LNG plant. This project needs to be cancelled.


Now you know my perspective, what is yours?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
DanieleHalle

Stop this stupidity, How Sound just recovered from a catastrophic killing field from Woodfiber, from years ago, protect this beautiful place, is Canada not worth it


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
JaniceClarfieldVancouver-Point Grey
KatherineBaker

I was born and raised in Squamish! I've seen the destruction that Woodfibre has caused, and also seen what the Britannia Mine has done to our beautiful ecosystem. We don't want LNG here in Squamish, please find other resources that wont be so destructive to our ecosystem!


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
AnjaliSingh

Please help us have a tanker ban. Hawaii does it why can't we?This coast is beautiful we must protect it. You can barely swim in the water around vancouver during the summer because of gross bacteria in the water. We must do more to protect this coast and all its wildlife


Vancouver-West End
BetteChadwick

It is my opinion that Site C is the worst infrastructure project ever conceived in modern British Columbia.

This enormous investment in a dated technology will set British Columbia back into the dark ages of innovation.

We should be thinking of clean, sustainable energy for the future.

Not some big White Elephant that will burden tax payers for years.

Clean energy using wind, geo thermal, solar and wave power could put us on the map worldwide, put our young innovators to work and provide jobs for the future.

This project is so short sighted and it is criminal that the Christy Clark government is trying to push it to the point of no return.

Perhaps those 2000 workers now employed destroying north Eastern BC can be hired to put it back together.

Nothing is impossible.

Stop this project now and if neccessary send it to the BCUC for an assessment.


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
KarenFunt

Our safety in Howe Sound is paramount! We live directly on Howe Sound and expect all candidates and government representatives to protect us from LNG explosions. Woodfibre must NOT be approved. I will never vote for anyone or any party that supports it.


Dr. Karen L. Funt


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
GlenStein

What I'm still trying to understand, why any candidate, or party for that matter, would even bring fossils fuels as an option is to an area we refer to as "The Recreation Capital of B.C.". Nice new Gondola, steady flow to Whistler and beyond already driving Squamish's economy way, way up. Housing can't keep up with the demand for families looking for affordable housing. Yet, all this LNG isn't for B.C. or Canada's benefit, or it's citizens in any way, shape or form. I can see the Woodfibre LNG proposed site from our front patio with binoculars. Can I build a Nuclear Reactor within binocular range of all your houses? Or do I pull a Corporate/Government scheme, and just bulldoze my plans through and build reactors on your front lawns anyway, no matter what you or your children say. Now, at stupid low prices for LNG, and a flooded market at this time, why would any of you even consider chunking up pieces of B.C. all over, and frack earthquake potential causing effects, to ship this product to the Asians? Did we B.C.er's all go to their polluted countries and chip in on their filth..no, I don't think we did. So while the U.S., and Australia are flooding the market, and soon everyone will start running low on supply. Then don't you think would be the time to dig up our reserves, use them in Canada first, then ship them at much higher prices as export to countries running out of LNG options. We'll all be electric before any of you even get to spark a match at an LNG Facility the way this ball bounces.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
CarlaThiessen

Dear Mr. Eby,


I'm very concerned about the plans for LNG on our coast.

An LNG terminal in Howe Sound will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels on their path to open ocean. Howe Sound has shed its past industrial era, its ecosystem is currently rebounding with the return of salmon, dolphins, Orcas and, lately, humpback whales. Woodfibre’s LNG plant would reverse this recovery.


BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all issues surrounding it are addressed.


Sincerely,

Carla Thiessen


Vancouver-Point Grey
LouiseTaylor

I oppose LNG because it exacerbates climate change, pollutes water and causes earthquakes.


In addition, the utter disregard for public safety in terms of location of proposed LNG plants and transportation in densely populated areas with adequate regulations is reckless to say the least. Governments are responsible for public safety and both Ottawa and BC are ignoring public safety risks.


All LNG projects should be canned in the face of climate change and the utter disregard Ottawa and BC have shown for public safety, which is the governments' mandate. Shame on you.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
Lauren AshleyEden

Please ensure British Colombians have the same protection and regulations as the US for LNG risk. Please ensure our natural capital is protected and our water resources are not abused.

Thank you

Lauren Ashley Eden

206-2255 Cypress Street


Vancouver-Fairview
LizBell

Howe Sound needs to be protected as it finally seeing ocean life return to it after years of clean up.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
JackieBradley

I will be living in an LNG Tanker Hazard Zone One. If Transport Canada were to follow the LNG Industry recommendations for safety they would require Woodfibre LNG to build areas of refuge for Bowen Islanders. These are buildings that can be reached by all people within a few minutes . They will be designed to protect people from -162 degree celsius methane vapour cloud, displacement of oxygen and the fiery blast back to the tanker. I expect these 'shelters' will be very expensive for both Woodfibre LNG to purchase the land and the materials and construction. We would need many of them. Additionally, the recommended exclusion zones around the LNG Tankers would certainly interfere with ferries and other marine craft along with the recommended one way traffic in Howe Sound as the LNG Tanker passes through.


How can we even consider developing LNG in a populated area like Howe Sound when these are suggested industry standards?


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
EllenMacintosh

Hello. Howe sound is not the place for massive LNG tankers to transit. You all know the reasons why: the reversal of the recovery of this spectacular eco system, the conflict with ferries and recreational boater traffic, the schools, businesses and residences at risk inside the blast zone, the wakes of these immense vessels, the extermination of the remaining orca population to name a few. The BC government has heard from over 1000 locals in opposition to this initiative. Money shouts for now, but where are your values? Come on people, just say NO.bif you represent the locals...the people who actually live here with their families...then say NO.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
ClaraGeorge

Please protect Howe Sound from any LNG tanker traffic.

One accident and one of the most beautiful and important natural landscapes in BC could be harmed irreparably.


No amount of money is worth that.


As a parent; I have spent a lifetime telling my children that accidents happen - that's why they are accidents. They are not planned and they are not preventable.


Stop tanker traffic now.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
WilmaPretorius

I live on Bowen Island and am dismayed at your lack of care and support for a safety vetting process regarding the transport and storage of LNG in Howe sound and around the island that thousands like me and my family call home. Politicians serve their constituants, and I hope you will consider how your decisions affect us and hear our collective voice. The potential harm stemming from LNG tankers around our homes and families, and your disrespect for considering us as constituents is a serious issue that deserves to be heard and carefully considered.


West Vancouver-Sea to Sky
BETTEChadwick

We do not have proper regulations to ensure the safety of vessels carrying dangerous commodities in Howe Sound and Salish sea. These areas are the jewel of BC. What will your party do to ensure we are al protected?


Powell River-Sunshine Coast
ScottAlexander

Yes to lng. Yes to site c. Yes to road to Powell river. Yes to new Richmond bridge. Yes to pipelines


Vancouver-False Creek
HilaryStrang

I am very concerned that increased tanker traffic do even more wave and sound damage throughout the Salish Sea. Now, I see how close LNG tankers might come to the shore in the Saanich Inlet, the peninsula and southern islands, and learn of the consequences of catastrophic accidents i am further appalled. And to top it of, there are no Canadian regulations! Please stand up for a properly regulated industry. Better yet, demand this industry be shut down.


Esquimalt-Metchosin
BruceElkin

Stop the dangerous LNG juggernaut. Please don't drink Christie and Justin's kool-aid and get behind this nonsense. There's very little long-term benefit to BC, Victoria and Saanich and grave danger.


Victoria-Beacon Hill
PamelaBall

To Candidates Adam Olsen, Gary Holman, Stephen Roberts and MP, Elizabeth May,


Please carefully consider the undeniable risks of Environmental Degradation, Safety and Real Estate devaluation, to name a few, of the proposed LNG plant by Steelhead in Saanich Inlet.


We must protect and be stewards for the future of our province and peoples and the proposal must not be allowed.


The many many concerned citizens of our amazing home will look to you for leadership and support to ensure the ongoing reality of '' Super Natural B.C.''


Thank you for your attention to this matter of utmost importance.


Yours Very Sincerely,

Pamela Ball


Saanich North and the Islands
darcytaylor

•British Columbians should expect the same level of protection from risk as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG safety and security hazards

•Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.

•Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.


the saanich inlet is a pristine fjord that has no room for large tankers.


Saanich South
ColleenMacknak-Edwards

More needs to be done and publicly shared before any more progress on LNG takes place. I fear for the environment.


Saanich North and the Islands
CatherineWallace

Do you support the proposed LNG industry? Do you think we should be expanding fossil fuel infrastructure?


Why?


Cowichan Valley
ElizabethComartin

Please fight for no LNG in the Saanich Inlet!!!!

Thankyou


Saanich North and the Islands
KurtSalchert

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As a former naval captain, former manager of safety and security for the Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region, and now as a maritime safety and security consultant, I have serious reservations about LNG tanker traffic in the Salish Sea, and in particular, the ill-conceived Steelhead LNG initiative for Saanich Inlet. Here's the "problem" as I see it:

In an inter-connected, inter-dependent and rapidly changing globalized world, our decision-makers SHOULD put a premium on understanding the Salish Sea operating environment and making well-informed and well-reasoned decisions before external action and reaction (often generated by ill-informed noise of lobbyists and special interests) change the decision-making risk calculus and narrative around the safety of LNG pipelines, terminals and shipping.…UNFORTUNATELY, too often important decisions are often made on the basis of scanty, ambiguous, and erroneous information, untested assumptions, and of course political bias... a situation which is exacerbated by the fact that politicians and bureaucrats exist and interact in a policy arena that demands quantification, which includes the acceptance and prioritization of bad data over no data, and favours simple and visible metrics (delivered through a couple pages on a briefing note or a couple of glossy power point slides) that can be highly misleading. As a MINIMUM, decisions related to LNG projects SHOULD be based on the analysis of robust quantitative data using the following 6 considerations:

1. Vessel Conditions - the quality of vessels and their crews that operate in the Salish Sea

2. Traffic Conditions - the number and type of vessels that the Salish Sea and their interactions

3. Navigational Conditions - the environmental conditions that vessels must deal with in the Salish Sea relating to wind, tides, currents, and weather

4. Waterway Conditions - the physical properties of the ports and waterways of the Salish Sea that affect how easy it is to maneuver a vessel

5. Immediate Consequences - the immediate impacts of a waterway casualty; people can be injured or killed, petroleum and hazardous materials can be spilled and require response

resources, and the marine transportation system can be disrupted etc.

6. Subsequent Consequences - the subsequent effects of waterway casualties that are felt hours, days, months, and even years afterwards, such as shore-side facility shut-downs, loss of

employment, destruction of fishing areas, decrease or extinction of species, degradation of subsistence living uses, and contamination of water supplies.

I am happy to share my personal and professional perspective and advice on any of the issues above.

Yours truly,

Kurt Salchert, PMP, Captain(RCN Ret'd.)


Saanich North and the Islands
MarMartinez de Saavedra Alvarez

Hello, thanks for reading this letter.

All available research indicates beyond a shadow of doubt that the proposed LNG operation in the Saanich Inlet is simply insane (all proposals in BC so far are so).

The Society of International Gas Tanker & Terminal Operators (SIGTTO the LNG industry association) criteria state that "LNG plants should not locate in narrow inland waterways with significant commercial, recreational and ferry traffic."

Worked done by Sandia Laboratories corroborates arguments against this

http://slideplayer.com/slide/8502783/

U.S. Dept. of Energy/ Sandia National Labs Research Report on LNG Security & Safety, July, 2008 and 2009

http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/NARUC_Committee_July22_08.pdf

http://www.safetybeforelng.ie/safetyresearch/sandialngpoolfiretestsonwater2009.pdf


Allowing this type of industry to take over will be irresponsible politically, as per your duty to safeguard people's well being. It is not sensible economically, and it will take us far away from our Paris' promise to reduce emissions:

"[these projects] make it virtually impossible for BC to meet its GHG [greenhouse gas] emission reduction targets, and would undermine Canada’s international climate change commitments"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/more-than-90-scientists-dispute-lng-projects-emissions-estimates/article30200244/


And we cannot forget the upstream of the process, with the irrefutable and devastating impacts of fracking.


Let's bring Canada into the 21st century, with industries we can safely embrace and be proud of. Let's be the country and leader we can be. Not only we can do this; it is our duty to do so.

Thanks

Mar


Saanich North and the Islands
WendyLopez

Just the idea of this proposal is a frightening and ignorant disgrace.

Let's hope someone with intelligence and actual integrity gets elected here!


Saanich North and the Islands
petergrossman

We do not want LNG on the Coast period. We are the citizens of BC Canada. Thanks for listening.


Oak Bay-Gordon Head
BonnieMillsCowichan Valley
KathleenSmith

I have questions/concerns regarding the proposed Steelhead LNG project for Saanich Inlet.


When the venting index in the Cowichan Valley is rated as "Poor", as it very often is, residents are advised that we should not even use our wood stoves because of the negative impact on air quality. How can an LNG facility function in an area with such poor air circulation without impacting the pollution levels of the immediate area in a way that the health of the residents is negatively affected? Will the plant not place an enormous burden on the local airshed? Being that it is a fuel-fired plant, I am very concerned about the increases we will see in the hospitalization rate for respiratory diseases, such as asthma and COPD, not to mention lung cancer.


Could you please address my concerns?


The link below will bring you to an article entitled: Association between Residential Proximity to Fuel-Fired Power Plants and Hospitalization Rate for Respiratory Diseases


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385425/


In my opinion, in addition to posing a tremendous risk to our environment and the safety of the population in the immediate area of this plant, this project has the potential to place an untold burden on our medical system, as well. This is not a case of NIMBY. This is a case of Not In ANYONE'S Back Yard! If you don't believe me, just ask yourself this: Would I want MY child to be breathing in the pollutants that are being discharged from that plant? I know that your answer would be "No" and that should also be your vote when it comes to this proposed project.


Thank you for taking the time to read this.


Regards,


Kathleen Smith


Cowichan Valley
WilliamAppleby

Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic. An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes. Private and public schools, villages, including 4 first nations, densely populated shore lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic. Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages. World re-known fragile spot prawn, salmon & herring spawning grounds could easily be wiped out with just one tanker spill. Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point. 6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satelite channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: how endangered species such as resident orca will be protected? Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to other marine and shore life.


Yours Truly, William Appleby & Dr. Barbara Kelly


8338 West Saanich Rd. V8M1S5


Saanich North and the Islands
SusanGreen

Hello,

As a resident of Deep Cove, I am very concerned about the Steelhead Malahat LNG proposal in Saanich Inlet. If this processing plant is built, we can expect a huge amount of tanker traffic through this beautiful quiet inlet, posing extreme danger to marine life, ferry routes and even the temperature of the inlet water. The underwater noise alone from these tankers is a huge risk to our already endangered resident orca population. If one of these floating bombs explodes there will be enormous loss of human life and property as well. This project provides NO advantages to local residents. The only people who will benefit are shareholders from foreign companies, who have no connection with this special part of the world. No one around here is impressed with promises of temporary jobs in construction or on-site servicing. Our riding does not need this plant and does not want this plant. I also think the wishes of the four local First Nations should be respected on this matter - they do not want this project either. Saanich Inlet is the wrong place for industrial activities. What is your position on Steelhead Malahat LNG? I would like to know so that I can decide how to cast my vote.

S. Green


Saanich North and the Islands
marcelleroy

BC needs a comprehensive regulatory framework and strongly enforced regulations to protect the public from risks posed by unsafe siting of LNG terminals which are prone to human error accidents and are also like an invitation for foreign hostile attacks.


An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities both human and marine (orcas) the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire or explosion will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

British Columbians expect in the very least the same level of protection from risks as in the US, where strong regulations exist to mitigate LNG safety & security hazards.

We need not even be having this interaction if Canada & BC were serious about achieving their GHG targets. Why continue in the LNG lane when we know it's going the wrong way economically & environmentally. Will your party "park" these approved & proposed LNG projects until all the factors are considered as to how they affect people, air, water and our comittments to reduce GHG?


Saanich North and the Islands
JohnGarrett

Saanich Inlet is too valuable and too vulnerable ecologically to bring in a natural gas pipeline, with its disruption of the seabed, and a series of LNG tankers, with their underwater noise, impact on other marine traffic and potential for catastrophic consequences from an accident. There would be negative impacts on the quality of life for everyone on the Saanich peninsula through to Duncan. What are the capabilities for responding to an accident, either with the ships or with the pipeline. How long would it take to mount a response to a fire or explosion? When will BC have regulations as well developed as those in Washington state and the US? No project should go ahead without a regulatory framework comparable to that of other countries.


Saanich North and the Islands
CraigModdle

This needs to be an election issue. This needs everyone's attention. The lack of regulations regarding the transportation of LNG in Canadian waters is insane. And the idea of a floating LNG processing site in the Saanich Inlet is ludicrous. Increasing the amount of harmful traffic through the Salish Sea will only lead to disaster.

Please speak up and help stop this lunacy!


Esquimalt-Metchosin
VerenaTunnicliffe

As a marine scientist, I have worked in SoG and Saanich Inlet waters for 35 years. We are stewards of a truly unique ocean ecosystem. Noise, waves, physical presence, spill risks present major hazards.


Do you know the marine industry that generates the highest revenue for BC? It is marine toursim - are tankers compatible with that?


I ask you to consider carefully the cost-benefit of tanker traffic in these waters. I ask you to consider if you can support expansion of fossil fuel exploitation when we all know the consequences.


Saanich North and the Islands
BarbaraPedrick

Carol, LMG terrifies me. It is so explosive. I hope you're againstbthis. And if not, why?


Victoria-Beacon Hill
Deborah MDickson

I am very uncomfortable and with the increased numbers of vessels allowed to traverse our sensitive inner coastal waters that put all life forms at high risk.

I demand you take action to protect the marine environment before we are past the point of no return and we are left with a Dead Sea and the extinction of our marine inhabitants, most notably the Salmon and Orcas.

The lack of responsibility and foresight of the part of our elected representatives is a criminal and puts us all at risk. Tourists will not be flocking to see Super Natural BC.

THERE US NO PLANET B.


Oak Bay-Gordon Head
MonicaPetrie

For the sake of the people and marine life in and around the Salish Sea, there should be no more industrialization of our waters. The current level of tanker traffic is risky enough, and we have seen that spill/leak response is slow and inadequate.

Regards, Monica Petrie


Saanich North and the Islands
Delmar & JanieLucas

We are very much opposed to the LNG going into Saanich inlet. We will see it from our home...what an eye sore that will be & it will devalue the price of our home. The volume of tankers will reduce the quality of life & safety in our protected bay. We can't imagine what it will do to the marine life as LNG is building the gas line. There are so many things that are wrong with this project being built here.


Saanich North and the Islands
SQuinn

The purported “global race” to get LNG to the Asian and European markets is creating hysteria (insanity?) within the BC Government. (Maybe the federal government too?) Why, if we wish to protect our investments, the interests of our communities, and our environment, would we consider pushing into the market so quickly that we don’t put into place similar laws and regulations for LNG tankers that other countries (the US specifically) have instituted? Haste makes waste! Everybody’s mother or a teacher (or both) told them that, didn’t they? And, along the line, we each learned that lesson all by our lonesome, didn’t we?


Personally, I’m astounded at the whole thought process that appears to be driving the LNG industry in BC - on so many levels. I’ve lived on the west coast of BC my entire life and I love my home. I can’t fathom why anyone would consider putting a place as spectacular as this into jeopardy. The land, the ocean, the marine life – they are our responsibility to protect and preserve. No matter how stringent the laws, no matter how closely the regulations are followed there will be MASSIVE amounts of destruction!! (The installation of the pipeline, incessant tanker traffic, processing plant operations, etc.) Is it worth it??? For US as BC residents, I mean. (It will be worth it for someone because they will walk away with a bucket load of money and leave their mess behind.) The “benefits” of the LNG industry cannot possibly outweigh the actual "costs", never mind the potential ones. As a province we can do better for our environment, our families and communities, and for ourselves!


I vote no LNG shipping and export facilities on the BC coast.


Cowichan Valley
LesleyFraser

Please reverse the decision to allow an LNG plant in the Saanich Inlet. The inlet is too small, too special and too sacred to allow industry to destroy it. Let's keep it safe for our children to enjoy in years to come. Thank you.

Lesley


Cowichan Valley
KerstinGreiner

I am strongly apposed to the LNG that is being considered for the Saanich inlet. The Saanich inlet is a unique and a ecological treasure here on Vancouver island. I believe it is too much of a risk for the coast, and would be detrimental to the resident orcas that are already struggling. The noise from the tankers will cause further struggles for all marine life.

Thank you


Victoria-Beacon Hill
RicForest

Aside from the safety and polution risks, the noise from liquifaction and power generation along with the light pollution in a quiet residential area is absurd. Steelhead has stated they will comply with industrial noise guidelines but those guidelines do not take into account noise over water and will run all night. In a 2016 public meeting, Steelhead suggested the noise level is not that high but an LNG plant produces between 110 and 150 decibels. This will likely be compounded by a go-gen power plant as their is not enough power on the island.


Steelhead also said the "boil off" will occur at sea but it is also required just prior to loading so another pollution and hazard are introduced.


Lastly, where are these ships going to moor while waiting for loading, spewing their heavy oil (sulphur emissions) exhaust from their generators (24 hrs/day) while at anchor.


All of this is a temporary solution until they can get the cash flow to build at Sarita.


SEE BELOW FOR THE LOADING CYCLE

A typical cargo cycle starts with the tanks in a "gas free" condition, meaning the tanks are full of air, which allows maintenance on the tank and pumps. Cargo cannot be loaded directly into the tank, as the presence of oxygen would create an explosive atmospheric condition within the tank, and the rapid temperature change caused by loading LNG at ?162 °C (?260 °F) could damage the tanks.


First, the tank must be 'inerted' to eliminate the risk of explosion. An inert gas plant burns diesel in air to produce a mixture of gases (typically less than 5% O2 and about 13 % CO2 plus N2). This is blown into the tanks until the oxygen level is below 4%.


Next, the vessel goes into port to "gas-up" and "cool-down", as one still cannot load directly into the tank: The CO2 will freeze and damage the pumps and the cold shock could damage the tank's pump column.


Liquid LNG is brought onto the vessel and taken along the spray line to the main vaporiser, which boils off the liquid into gas. This is then warmed up to roughly 20 °C (68 °F) in the gas heaters and then blown into the tanks to displace the "inert gas". This continues until all the CO2 is removed from the tanks. Initially, the IG (inert gas) is vented to atmosphere. Once the hydrocarbon content reaches 5% (lower flammability range of methane) the inert gas is redirected to shore via a pipeline and manifold connection by the HD (high duty) compressors. The shore terminal then burns this vapour to avoid the dangers of having large amounts of hydrocarbons around which may explode.


Now the vessel is gassed up and warm. The tanks are still at ambient temperature and are full of methane.


The next stage is cool-down. Liquid LNG is sprayed into the tanks via spray heads, which vaporises and starts to cool the tank. The excess gas is again blown ashore to be re-liquified or burned at a flare stack. Once the tanks reach about ?140 °C (?220 °F) the tanks are ready to load bulk.


Bulk loading starts and liquid LNG is pumped from the storage tanks ashore into the vessel tanks. Displaced gas is blown ashore by the HD compressors. Loading continues until typically 98.5% full is reached (to allow for thermal expansion/contraction of cargo).


The vessel can now proceed to the discharge port.


Saanich North and the Islands
CarolGartrelll

To the hundreds of residents of Willis Point (Do you candidates know where this is?) our concern is of MAJOR importance for all the reasons listed on this website, but especially the protection of the Saanich Inlet. This is an internationally recognized marine ecosystem that will not withstand the proposed LNG production plant and its related transportation requirements.


Our neighbors have recently discovered a new oyster bed just developing! The starfish are coming back! Seals and sea lions are seen regularly and we delight when the humpback and orcas visit us. We have a kind of giant octopus that is found no where else on earth! A new kind of sea grass has been observed this year. And a sponge was accidentally caught in a prawn trap last week.


Are you willing to sacrifice this special environment?

This animal and plant life is only possible in healthy water with no noise disruptions, temperature variances, and heavy tanker traffic.


Don't let this go!


Saanich South
ClareThomas

I am writing to ask you to consider the risks inherent in proposed LNG exports from BC. All proposed and approved projects must be put on hold until a comprehensive regulatory framework is put in place to protect the public form safety and security risks posed by unsafe siting of LNG terminals and movement of LNG tankers on our coast.


Currently there is no process in place to deal with LNG spills, or the security risk posed by having LNG tankers moving through our waters. This puts us in direct opposition to the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG safety and security issues.


In particular I wish to bring you attention to the proposed Steelhead Malahat project in Saanich Inlet. Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.


An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.


Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.


Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.

Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.


6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: How endangered species such as resident orca will be protected?


Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.


It is inconceivable to me how the government of British Columbia, which touts BC as a place of natural beauty, could even consider such a project in such an environmentally sensitive area.


Victoria-Swan Lake
DaveBury

My wife and I are deeply concerned about this proposed site in Saanich Inlet as are most residents in the area. No one wants to see tanker traffic in this pristine area . Never mind the hazards to environment and marine life it would also cause . Thanks to the bloody Liberal Government who are selling us out. Christy Clarke and her kronies don't care about our environment it's all about selling off our resources. We must take a stand and fight this before it's too late .


Saanich North and the Islands
DorothyOrr

Bad idea too close for comfort, earthquake predicted zone, who needs more risk factors, wrong kind of energy, not "green energy"


Saanich North and the Islands
LaurenScott

As a parent and citizen of BC I am extremely concerned about the LNG tanker traffic in our waters. Please please stand up to to the lng industry and ensure that all safety and environmental checks and balances are performed before allowing the project to move ahead. Now is the time to change history and shift our priorities from capitalism to sustainable living.


Victoria-Swan Lake
SherryKirkvold

I am very concerned about proposed increased vessel traffic in the Salish Sea and in particular the impact of that traffic and its associated noise on Southern Resident Killer Whales which are recognized as an endangered species.


I am of course opposed to the Kinder Morgan twinning, and now learning about more traffic from proposed LNG facilities. We should be avoiding fracked gas and moving away from fossil fuels.


Our Gulf Islands are a world-class area for marine recreation and we should do our utmost to protect both the environment and the economies associated with marine jobs such as those in tourism and fishing.


We must also consider the safety of the people who live and work in the areas where these terminals are proposed along with the associated vessel traffic. Weather, mechanical failure, and human errors can all cause catastrophic conditions.


Please ensure our coastal environment remains safe and secure.


Victoria-Beacon Hill
DanMcIntyre

Etensive research has been done. If we aren't going to support the development and useage of our own products we are supporting the economy of other countries. This project and others will have a trickle down effect in the economy all over this great province. The economy that is currently far to fragile. Forestry out products should be developed here and sold after completion.


Our LNG should be developed and used here and surpluses sold to other countries for a boost to Provincial infrastructure through the pofits generated.


If you're against this.....you're against B.C. prospering and having a strong economy.


Cowichan Valley
AdamO'Meara

Please consider the leads of other countries who are moving away from fossil fuels. It is only a matter of time before the world shifts to renewable sources of energy. Let's get on board NOW!


Victoria-Swan Lake
AgnesWatts

I am terrified at the idea of tankers carrying LNG sailing past my island home on a daily basis, in all weather conditions. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. There is no adequate preparation for an accident or an attack anywhere along the route of this dangerous cargo. Neither the governments, nor the industry are even remotely ready to deal with this disaster in the making. All further plans should be halted until such time as provisions, both physical and financial, are in place.


Saanich North and the Islands
PeterLamb

I endorse the campaign to suspend any further government support for the tsunami of major LNG project in BC and hope you will agree to the following steps that have been proposed:

•British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

•BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

•Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

•BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

•BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime, to be funded by the LNG proponents;

•The LNG industry must have adequate liability insurance coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

•BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.


In my view, BC should immediately impose a moratorium on any current or proposed new plans for LNG plants in the province until all of these issues are addressed.


I particularly strongly object to the irresponsible proposal to locate the Steelhead Malahat LNG project in the Saanich inlet. Frankly, it is unbelievable that this project has not been stopped at the first stage of development. It will disrupt a built-up residential zone and discourage visitors to the region, all for private gain and export customers.

•Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord which will be vulnerable to major industrialization and large tanker traffic.

•An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass, including parts of Salt Spring Island where I live, while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

•Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

•Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages. Will tanker traffic have priority over ferry traffic?

•Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.

•tankers will daily pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, disturbing endangered species such as resident orca will must be protected?

•Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.


Saanich North and the Islands
AnnKujundzic

Dear Candidate,

I would urge you to consider security risks for LNG development. This is extremely important before we begin LNG projects.

We cannot have more spills in our coastal regions, that is paramount.

Global warming is the most serious concern in the future of or lives.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ann Kujundzic


Saanich South
RosemaryPartridge

This proposal is horrifying, and the route map brings home just how devastating it would be - and not only in terms of accident, but simply the industrialization of areas of immense beauty and fragility.


Please do not support this monstrosity!


Saanich North and the Islands
MikeChin

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC MUST pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

There isn't even an economically viable market for LNG, our cost of production & delivery will be higher than the price it can bear!!!

Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.

An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.

Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.

6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: How endangered species such as resident orca will be protected?

Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.

SAY NO!!!! to LNG in BC coastal waters.


Saanich North and the Islands
Y.t.Savoie

The LNG safety & security risks deserve more careful scrutiny than what has been given.

I don't need to repeat the key points..specific issues again as these are well known to us by now

i would appreciate being assured that our repressantatives would make that an election issue

(It would be interesting to see it on the ballots!)

Thank you


Saanich North and the Islands
KatherineMaas

I am a mother and a grandmother concerned about the safety of LNG projects, both inland and on our coast. Earthquakes, salmon habitat destruction, environmental protection, and the risks of moving LNG tankers along our coast, security, spill responsiveness are all among my concerns.


British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

Specific concerns and questions to raise about this project:


Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.

An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.

Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.

6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: How endangered species such as resident orca will be protected?

Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.


Victoria-Beacon Hill
HeleneHarrison

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

Specific concerns and questions to raise about this project:


Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.

An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.

Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.

6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: How endangered species such as resident orca will be protected?

Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.

NO LNG IN SAANICH INLET


Langford-Juan de Fuca
SusanPaynter

I am concerned that the LNG issue continues to be on the agenda, what stand will you take on the LNG tankers that may ply our coast. Also of concern are the bunkers or storage facilities that are being talked about, near where people live, a disaster waiting to happen. Please comment, Susan Paynter


Saanich North and the Islands
GwennGuthrie

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks!

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

Saanich Inlet is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.

An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.

Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.

6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: How endangered species such as resident orca will be protected?

Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.


Esquimalt-Metchosin
david fboehm

Saanich Inlet is unique.The only fjord on the East side of Vancouver Island, it is relatively undisturbed by industry and is the site of our Oceanographic Research Institute. Appallingly bad policy to site a major LNG facility here...


Nanaimo-North Cowichan
HilaryKnight

Dear Dr. Weaver,


I know that, as the leader of the Greens, you stand against inappropriate development and shipment of LNG, so I can only urge you to do everything possible to prevent the inevitable spill or fire catastrophe AND continued reliance on fossil fuels.


The policies of Clark and the so-called BC "Liberals" are short-sighted and stupid. They're Socred re-treads stuck in the fifties.

It seems they will never learn, so we must get rid of them.


Dear Mr. Casavant,


See comments re so-called BC "Liberals" and their intransigent stupidity.


Dear Ms. Dutton,


Ditto, and please go away. We don't need any more dinosaurs and their associated fossil fuels.


Oak Bay-Gordon Head
MartinHykin

PLEASE fight to put a stop to the willy-nilly trip down the drain of more fossil fuel development. We may need what we use now for a while longer but it is an unwanted dependency and especially with LNG, we are doing more damage via fracking than any benefit we might receive. Thank you. This pertains to Steelhead Malahat, to Fraser River LNG port and any others,


Thank You


Martin Hykin

Victoria


Victoria-Beacon Hill
MarilynWeland

I am a lifelong resident of the Cowichan Valley, writing to you to express my extreme concern about proposed LNG development. In my opinion this is a lose-lose-lose proposition, from the contamination of underground freshwater reserves from fracking to the risk of explosion and environmental damage in the handling and transport to the atmospheric degradation from the burning of the fossil fuel.

I have spoken to several members of the Malahat Band who are not in favour of the project in the Saanich Inlet and feel there is no place for them to have their concerns aired.

Big money talks big. I hope you will listen to the people who live here so they can also have their say.


Cowichan Valley
HannahMitchell

As a resident in your riding, I want to know that you are taking into consideration the serious hazards associated with the proposed Steelhead Malahat LNG project in Saanich Inlet. When it comes to projects such as this, British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the U.S., where strong regulations screen against LNG risks. Furthermore:

BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.


Saanich Inlet is a bad place for an LNG terminal. It is an internationally recognized, ecologically unique fjord. It is unlikely to withstand industrialization and large tanker traffic.

An LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet will put at risk all communities the LNG tankers will pass while navigating narrow channels en route to open ocean shipping lanes.

Private and public schools, villages, including 4 First Nations, densely populated shore-lines, farms and Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal and Victoria International Airport all will be within the 3.5 KM hazard zone. An LNG fire will be devastating; one near the terminal and/or airport will be catastrophic.

Tankers will cross the busiest BC ferry routes and pass through fishing areas while navigating small, inter-island passages.

Tankers will turn into Haro Strait shipping lanes at the most hazardous northern point.

6-10 times a week, tankers will pass through Satellite Channel Marine Sanctuary, raising the question: How will endangered species such as resident orca be protected?

Tanker induced wave and sound patterns will be highly disruptive to marine and shore life.


To put it bluntly, there should not be an LNG terminal in Saanich Inlet. It's as simple as that. I call on you to speak out and defend residents of southern Vancouver Island against this potentially devastating project!


Oak Bay-Gordon Head
TomBaker

Along Dallas Road, we see container ships every day. With LNG tankers, we'll be seeing those too. So far, the safety provisions for BC's LNG schemes have not included the same safety provisions as elsewhere, e.g. moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers. The fact that even one international safety standard is not part of our LNG plans means that the plans are unripe, and should be set aside until the pros and cons have really been studied. So far, it's been an idealogical mission.


Tankers don't belong in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Consider a spill along Dallas Road, or in the even more ecologically sensitive Tod Inlet. Or throughout the Gulf Islands. And if we pollute the San Juan Islands, BC taxpayers will be paying and paying and paying.


So far, Alberta has little to show for it's decades of oil wealth. Companies and individuals richer, province of Alberta poorer. Why is BC following in these utterly foolish footsteps?


Victoria-Beacon Hill
GordBroughton

Say no to LNG Please


Cowichan Valley
RafeSunshine

Fracked gas that is being piped from northeast BC and from Washington state is an irresponsible and dangerous means of acquiring export cash to increase GHG emissions in the world. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price of our shortsighted greed for an ever-warming planet that climate change is already worsening drought/ famine/ wildfires/ civil unrest/ increasingly stronger hurricanes/ tornadoes/ sea level rise/ flooding and torrential downpours. The warming Earth will melt glaciers that our hydroelectric dams depend on for our present clean electricity. There are NO WINNERS when we exploit fossil fuels and invest our childrens' futures in petrochemical infrastructure when we should be exploring sustainable alternative energy technologies here in BC rather than exploiting destructive L(fracked)G.


Victoria-Beacon Hill
DouglasPage

I'm concerned about the potential risks from LNG exports, especially from Saanich Inlet. I hope you will pledge to ensure that there are no LNG exports from approved or proposed projects in BC until regulations are put in place to protect the public from risks posed by unsafe terminal siting and tankers movements on our coast.


Oak Bay-Gordon Head
SusanAndrews

LNG puts communities around the Saanich peninsula at great risk. It will destroy ancient salmon breeding grounds that are the source of salmon for much of BC.

It is NOT clean as Methane leakage is lethal for the environment. 80 times worse than CO2. To say nothing of fracking in an earthquake zone. NO JOBS are worth that, especially when renewables are proven to provide 8xtimes the jobs of oil and gas.

We should be moving AWAY from fossil fuels not building new infrastructure or BC will become a backwater with places like Bangladesh and Morocco way ahead on renewable energy.

LNG's price is falling as more and more deposits are found globally.

Where do you stand on this issue?


Esquimalt-Metchosin
PeggyMcCann

No LNG period. And look what the damage will be to communities around the Salish Sea. And Sannich Inlet is too unique to withstand this type of assault.


There is too much potential damage and you will be destroying the beauty of where we and all the sea animals live.

NO to LNG!!!


Oak Bay-Gordon Head
BobSmith

I fully support LNG development on the North Coast. We're a strategically located shipping port that the entire country relies on for trade and the economy. Many of the concerns raised have been overblown or are factually incorrect. Pnw lng took part in a rigorous 36 month environmental review process to ensure that salmon habitat would not be harmed. Don't let groups like Skeena Eild fool you into believing that the EA process is flawed... it isn't. It just didn't have their desired result so they won't accept it.


While we're taking about Skeena Wild, check out Greg Knox' Facebook page and seek how many trips to Hawaii he's taken in the past 18 months. Wouldn't it be nice if others on the North Coast ciukd have that lifestyle? Opposing development is lucrative. Job, jobs, jobs!!


North Coast
CarolRennie

Does no one take responsibility for anything any more? Does big business trump safety for us and for our progeny? How much energy do we really need? Shouldn't we be trying to use less not more? There are already more people on this earth than we have the resources for. We should be looking for environmental preservation, not rape!


Yours truly,


Carol Rennie


Richmond-Steveston
RobertTomyk

Please explain what your party and you in particular will do to assure their are safe and proper rules in place for the transportation of LNG to the almost completed Delta LNG Plant.

Christy Clark's Liberal party has forged ahead with promoting Delta LNG as well as in the rest of the province without concern for proper safety measures being enacted and endangering BC life's and their property.


Delta North
TomMajor

Why was an LNG terminal placed on the Fraser River in the middle of the city?

•British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks! •BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

•Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

•BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

•BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

•The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

•BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.


•BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.


Delta North
paulMagnus

Just wondering how close any of you live to the path of the proposed LNG route along the river.


And also if you take Global Warming seriously then you should not allow BC LNG to be developed.


Climate change is an emergency and GHG levels need to fall ASAP.


With this in mind, I would just like to point out that Rhode Island coastal planners are now using a SLR figure or 9-12ft. Something very relevant to Richmond and Delta.


Please do the right thing,

Paul Magnus


Richmond-Steveston
CarolDay

Please stop the construction of the LNG plant on the Fraser river near Richmond, this is too close to habited areas and puts human life at risk.

Cities around the world no longer allow LNG plants near cities and where one has been constructed previously they require strict security and the closure of bridges when tankers are arrive, these precautions are necessary do to the extreme danger .


Richmond-Queensborough
TomChilds

Dear candidates ,


I would like statements from all candidates in this riding with regard to safety and security of the proposed LNG facility at Tillbury Island. I happen to live in the "kabob zone" in East Richmond. In other words, should there be an accident involving a fully loaded LNG tanker while at dock, I could be cooked in the event of an explosion, and likewise, hundreds of my neighbors would be cooked too. This government proposal would not be in the best interest of the common good of communities affected in the event of a serious accident. I would like to see the precautionary principles exercised by any government continuing with these industrial offshoot undertakings, a result of dangerous extractive fossil fuel industries. The proposed LNG facility also puts the entire fragile lower Fraser River estuary ecosystem in peril.


Sincerely,

Tom Childs, registered voter


Richmond-Queensborough
JudyGreen

Plans for an LNG terminal on the Fraser River are steadily moving forward, but the safety and security risks these plans pose for our communities are largely being ignored. The BC election gives us a chance to make this an issue.


Richmond South Centre
AnnelieseSchultz

To My Richmond South Centre Candidates:


I and my family are very concerned about the risks of LNG. We would appreciate knowing your answers to these concerns and questions:


A jet fuel terminal on the Fraser River would be within the high risk hazard zone for LNG tanker traffic — an LNG fire nearby would be catastrophic. A good idea?

Residential buildings downstream would be within 200 metres of moving tankers — inside the highest risk hazard zone. How can this even be considered?

In other cities, major bridges are shut down when LNG tankers pass by — what is BC’s security plan if a new bridge replaces the Massey Tunnel?

How on earth could moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers work on the busy Fraser River?


Many thanks for your serious consideration of these extremely important issues.


Sincerely,


Richmond South Centre
LynnDaoust

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the United States, where strong regulations screen against LNG Risks!

Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management:

BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers:

BC And Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime

The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports fro proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.

A jet fuel terminal on the Fraser River will be within the high risk hazard zone for LNG tanker traffic-an LNG fire nearby would be catastrophic.

residential buildings downstream will be within 200 metres of moving tankers-inside the highest risk hazard zone.

in other cities, major bridges are shut down when LNG tankers pass by-What is BC's security plan when a new bridge replaces the George Massey Tunnel?

How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers work on the busy Fraser River?


Delta South
GaryNix

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US where strong regularions screen against LNG risks. The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization.


A jet fuel terminal on the Fraser River will be within the high risk hazard zone for LNG tanker traffic, an LNG fire nearby would be catastrophic! Residential buildings downstream will be within 200 metres of moving tankers -- inside the highest risk hazard zone. In other cities, major bridges are shut down when LNG tankers pass by -- what is BC's security plan if a new bridge replaces the Massey Tunnel? These issues should be addressed before LNG tankers are permitted to use the Fraser River.


Richmond-Queensborough
MarianPastore

Dear Candidates,

Have you considered the risks faced by Delta Residents from the possibility of LNG Tanker spillage. We could be exposed both from the north and the west should there be an escape of gases. Are you putting pressure on Ottawa and the BC government to be spill prepared and to have regulations in place before LNG tanker traffic takes place. I urge you all to make plans to address this serious gap that puts us all at risk.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

Marian Pastore


Delta South
TerranceCarr

British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks.

BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime.

BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.

In other cities, major bridges are shut down when LNG tankers pass by.

BC should pause plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until these issues are addressed.

I am opposed to the proposed Massey Tunnel replacement bridge; the first priority should be rapid transit (extend Canada Line from Richmond to Tsawwassen ferry and White Rock/South Surrey). Twinning the tunnel is a better option than building a bridge.


Delta South
DavidHendrickson

Dear Candidates,


Shouldn't British Columbians deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks?


I am concerned that my family will be in the "crispy zone" if an accident were to ever occur.


I am interested in your stance regarding:

- Jet fuel terminal on the Fraser River will be within the high risk hazard zone for LNG tanker traffic — an LNG fire nearby would be BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

- BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

- residential buildings downstream will be within 200 metres of moving tankers — inside the highest risk hazard zone.


In other cities, major bridges are shut down when LNG tankers pass by — what is BC’s security plan when a new bridge replaces the Massey Tunnel?


How will moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers work on the busy Fraser River?


I am interested in your written response before I vote in the election.


Richmond-Queensborough
GrahamRobertson

I am contacting you to express my thoughts concerning the plan to ship Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through BC waters.


Specifically, I am worried that plans for the safe transport, loading and unloading of LNG poses unacceptable risks to British Columbians.


We deserve the same protections as in the US, where strong regulations screen against LNG risks.


- BC & Ottawa must explicitly consider security risks from deliberate attack on tankers when assessing LNG projects;

- Proponents must prepare a gap analysis of local security resources and a cost sharing plan for risk management;

- BC must demand Ottawa require moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers;

- BC & Ottawa must develop an LNG spill preparedness and response regime;

- The LNG industry must have adequate liability coverage and a self-funded incident response organization;

- BC must demand Ottawa develop regulations for bunkering LNG tankers.


I urge the governments of British Columbia and Canada to suspend plans for LNG exports from proposed and approved projects until all of these issues are addressed.


Sincerely,

Graham Robertson

Delta, BC


Delta North
RosemaryHaddleton

Michael Wolfe

Richmond-Queensborough


Green Party of British Columbia


I don't know a lot about LNG Tanker Safety, only what knowledge I have gathered from TV News or Newspapers, but I do not believe that those in charge of such a major project as LNG have enough knowledge, skills, concerns or the were with all to provide for the safety, or outcome of communities that will be effected by this project should or when there will be a problem small or large.


There has not been enough consideration and thought put into the rules, regulations, preparedness for response, or the examining of the security risks. From what I hear and have read the LNG industry is only looking towards their own profits and outcome that will best serve themselves.


We know we live our lives waiting for the "Big One" the earthquake that will changes our lives, with that thought always in the back ground how can we say that jet fuel terminals on the Fraser River and LNG tanker traffic are a good mix for our habitat, our future and our children's future.


More intelligent people need to be involved in these decisions, people who actually do care about the environment, do care about the future of BC not just "there bottom line".


Sincerely

Rosemary Haddleton


Richmond-Queensborough
PhyllisRuthven

The Wespac LNG is of great concern to Delta South residents , as we a re in or on the edge of impact zone should an accident occur.

There does not seem to have been a proper analysis of safety concerns involved in this biuld.

The health impacts of air pollutants by release of gasses and that of tanker traffic do not seem to have been given due recognition either.

Our Federal government needs to step up regulations in this regard as well and it behoves our provincial and local representatives to push them to take steps to improve safety and environmental regulations in this reguard.


Delta South
MargaretMeggy

Please advise your stance, and your party's stance, for:

1. the LNG terminal for Tilbury Island

2. Roberts Bank expansion plans

3. paving over of farmland, including farmland outside Tsawwassen First Nation, for Roberts Bank expansion


Sincerely


Delta South
ColeBarry

Beautiful British Columbia MUST be protected. We know from experience that a disaster on our coastline will ruin B.C. FOREVER.


New Westminster
JimWright

There are very few safety precautions and NO security precautions for the Tilbury LNG plant, with its planned 9,000% expansion. Combining that with a high bridge for the massive LNG carriers to pass under, and the potential is literally devastating.


As Councillor Harold Steves points out, no one throws a bomb from a tunnel. A small bombs with customized design, simply released from the bridge, would turn the low-incidence risk of LNG carriers into devastation of the bridge, river and the commercial and residential ares within the swath.


And yes, the LNG expansion may be a mistake, but the 9,000% mistake is not a mistake. The current Tilbury plant has been innocuous, but the new plant ("expanded plant") is to be 90 times as large, which is 9,000%, almost all of it expansion.


Richmond-Queensborough
phyllisRuthven

LNG transport down the Fraser and through the Straits is a danger to our community. The security risks of transporting so close to metroploitan area has not been taken into considerstion.

In the States when tankers traverse the rivers , roads and bridges in the area are shut down to deter risk of the effects should an accident or terrorist caused explosion. That means our ferries and car and truck traffic would grind to a halt for at least an hour when tankers make their way diwn river and out. That, or you are putting thousands of people in eminant risk with every shipment.

Full training and equipment must be provided for police and firemen should such a situation develop. And not something like the phantom world class oil spill clean up we currently have.

My home is on the edge of the danger zone, is the government promising to fully cover and compensate me in the event of an accident.

Health concerns are high on my list too. I am pretty certain my COPD will not be exempt from VOCs etc from manufacture and transport , let alone the effects of a disaster.

I have children and grandchildren living in this area too and fear for their safety.

What provisions are in place in the event of the eventuall

Earthquake in this area? What mitigation has been put in place for that eventuality?


There are other considerstion to re our salmon and other wildlife that need addressing.


Delta South
JoshuaStrange

Stop LNG on the inside passage


Delta North