Comments Sent to the BC EAO on Tilbury LNG

Phase 2 Expansion Project 

 

Your NameLocationYour Comment
Josefine SinghEdmonton, AlbertaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I want to make sure that all environmental legislation is followed, which still does not seem enough. This Phase 2 of the Tilbury LNG Pipeline is in the wrong place too close to the Fraser River and the Salish Sea. Tanker traffic would be increased, which does not bear well for the sea life, like the orcas etc. The farmland around that area would suffer from the exhaust from the plant dirtying the air and soil. The economic benefits are poor for the surrounding area of Metro Vancouver and Delta/Richmond,The Asian markets are unknown as receivers and the BCIOM predictions are unreal. the safety and security of the plant itself are not guaranteed, any terrorist activity could have detrimental effect due to the volatility of gas easily blowing up.
Earl RichardsVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Google and read, "Plymouth, Washington - LNG Explosion." The employees near the explosion, where knocked off their feet. Employees saw a large ball of fire, as large pieces of metal equipment flew by them. Hundreds had to evacuate their homes.The public felt the explosion up to six miles. What happened in Plymouth, we do not want to happen in Woodfibre/Squamish and in Tilbury.
Anita Den DikkenDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Diana ThompsonSalt Spring Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways.
Gary LeinAbbotsford, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Public benefits.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am totally againsr all aspects of lng tanker project. Example; sinking of B.C. ferry . Sumas mtn. oil spills , pipeline ruptures , train derailments , Exon Valdez, & on &on. It does nothing to benefit the taxpayer but when crap happens the taxpayer pays to clean up mess...Dumb , Stupid idea....
Clara ShandlerVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project poses a huge risk to people, wildlife, and other industries along the Fraser River whereas the projected benefits are very small. The devastation caused by an earthquake at this location would be catastrophic, as would any incidents during the shipping process.

The Fraser River and Delta are highly populated, and an important waterway for marine life. Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage which are entirely unacceptable.

We must make smart decisions to keep our communities and cities safe. The potential economic benefits are minuscule compared with the potential costs. As Canadians, we have the knowledge and the ability to invest in smarter, safer, more economically and environmentally sustainable projects.
Douglas JacksonVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
BC Environmental Assessment Office

Dear Minister,

This project is wrong on so many levels it is an affront to my common sense that it would even be proposed.

The NDP has provided no opportunity for voters to support, or not, your governments zealous, some would say reckless, expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in this province.

Your government is out of touch with the direction voters want to see the British Columbia heading now and in the future.

To continue grasping onto any notion that voters want government(s) to continue further capital investments and expansion in the fossil fuel energy sector is as crazy as the proposed Tilbury LNG project.

There is no future in the past and as your government is stuck in the past
your policies will lead you back to the past as an ineffectual opposition party
sitting in the legislative assembly... just like before.
Cynthia LeeBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Our biggest crisis right now is Climate Change. This project is going in the wrong direction. And is posing direct risks to the health and safety of humans and sea life in the area. Please do not allow it to happen.
Peter MillerWest Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
With climate change now manifestly evident it's time to redirect our resources from fossil fuels to renewable resources.
Brenda McnairCampbell River, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am concerned about the effects of increased industrial activity and tanker traffic on Fraser River salmon & on Southern Resident Killer Whales. What measures will be put in place to minimize these effects?
Bruce BrandhorstPort Moody, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project raises all sorts of concerns as listed in my response above. It should be flatly refused so that no more time and money are wasted by the company and public over it.
No major projects should be approved until the BC Environmental Assessment Process is revised so that the public interest and evidence-based decisions are the paramount concerns. The present process requires the proponent to hire a company having self-described expertise to provide supposedly unbiased evaluation of the risks and benefits. That company is placed in a severe conflict of interest, with the consequence that the assessment reports are often full of errors of commission and omission. There is no opportunity for peer review of the assessment report and the public must scramble to attempt to correct the record. Fortunately, third patty experts sometimes come forward with informed comments based on evidence, but the process seems to assume approval of a project, with the possibility of minor alterations to mitigate identified risks.

Extraction of natural gas in Canada and BC is not presently regulated to insure avoidance of contamination of groundwater, promotion of earthquakes, or release of methane, a potent green-house gas. Liquifaction of the gas is energy intensive. It is simply untrue to claim that LNG provides a significantly reduced carbon footprint than oil or coal.
Export of natural gas should not be permitted until Canada and BC have a real plan for addressing climate change, requiring net carbon neutrality by 2030. If Hydro generated electricity is used to liquify the gas, it should be charged at the rate BC Hydro pays for the run-of-river generation projects (several times higher than production costs from Hydro dams). There is no reason this damaging and dangerous operation should be subsidized by BC taxpayers (the LNG industry is already enjoying huge tax benefits that would be better spent promoting renewable energy projects).
The proposed project is certainly in the wrong place: a major river with lots of industrial and recreational traffic. The flamable gas should never be processed in such a populated area. Surely, the company could find much safer sites. The river also has enormous wild life value (such as endangered salmon and orcas). An accident could have devastating consequences. The operation is likely to be noisy, again making its proposed location inappropriate. There are also legitimate concerns about earthquakes and terrorist actions.
Fortis is a regulated public utility that provides gas to BC consumers. It should not be engaging in this risky business operation, building expensive infrastructure likely to be left stranded, quite possibly resulting in increased charges for domestic customers.
Sylvia ObrigSaskatoon, SaskatchewanPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
For these reasons you must stop using the port in Vancouver for LNG tankers:
You all must be crazy to run tankers right through one of Canada's biggest populated cities!!
WHY?
For all the reasons listed here:
-LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Is a VERY VERY BAD & UNHEALTHY PLAN.
-LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Where is your scientific knowledge? Don't you get it?.
-Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created. YES - many Canadians get it = you want money & profits way before care for people and the planet !!!
-Plant location and safety concerns - are very high right in the middle of the; city of Vancouver!!
- Absolutely FOR SURE THAT The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
- Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic. Our creatures were here first - who are you to dominate & destroy by not following the science?
-Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.... because there are other sources of energy besides fossil fuels for all other markets to transition into!!!
-Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations, SO PAY ATTENTION TO THE RULES!!!! It is your life and mine, and ours as Canadians..... !!! As well as all the other people and creatures you are threatening.
-An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land. Where do you get the right to dominate farm land? and set up polluting and infrastructures that cause health issues to many along their pathways?
-BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed, so why can't your LNG corporation be pro-active and become part ofthe solution instead of adding tothe problems? Please re-evaluate the long term effects of this limited and polluting environmental threat.
-GHCs and other air pollutants - PAY ATTENTION TO THE SCIENCE AND DO THE RIGHT THING!!!
-Noise - SO MUCH THAT WILL AFFECT THOSE LIVING, SLEEPING, BREATHING ALONG THE ROUTE. How would you like to live beside those tankers 24/7/365 ?????!!!!!!
-Seismic risk - AGAIN - PAY ATTENTION TO THE SCIENCE, and DO THE RIGHT THING= STOP LNG !!!!!
-Upstream impacts of fracked gas production = AGAIN --- pay attention to the science AND DO THE RIGHT THING: STOP LNG !!!!!
Lynn DaoustDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Shipping safety.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is not a safe route for LNG tanker exports. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River is a dangerous idea sailing past highly populated areas of Richmond, South Delta, Steveston. The risk of and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant!. The turning radius recommended by SIGTO The Society of International Gas Terminals and Tanker Operations recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ships length (600-900 m)-impossible at Tilbury.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations. The proposed location is in Canada's most important Salmon River opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC's prime earth quake liquification zone . The Society of International Gas Terminals and Tanker Operations strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 kms of populated areas.
As a citizen of Delta I find this proposed LNG proposed location a frightfully bad idea.
Of course we all know why fractured gas has been banned in many parts of the world due to its GHCs and other air pollutants not to mention the loss of precious ground water for drinking. Ill health has also been documented near these fracking wells and flair sights. The economics are poor and the risks are huge for all our relations.
Thank You for reading and for stopping this project in its dangerous tracks.
Helga SovaVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Why does this industry get the go ahead when we have a salmon fishing industry that is failing due to lack of action eg. closing fish farms and on environmental protection eg. the cumulative damage to the river ecosystem with pollution and damage to salmon ecosystems.
The location of this plant also poses further safety concerns with increased river traffic and its proximity to the airport and population areas and Burns Bog.
Time to look at preserving the essentials for life - water and food and clean air.
Short term economics /political gain is not worth it - need to have an environmental assessment process and enforcement that will look at really protecting the environment - that supersedes .
Roz IsaacNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I object to the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project. Its flaws and inadequacies are many, from the overblown economic benefits to the terrible environmental disruptions and on to the risky safety practices.

In addition we have at least two regulatory problems. First, Canada has yet to implement standards that conform to those advocated by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, among others, that would ensure safety (and disqualify Tilbury). Second, BC has a seriously flawed environmental assessment process, captured by industry as it is.

Finally, another huge concern is the future of aquatic life. Orcas are already disappearing because of human-caused disruptions that the tanker traffic associated with Tilbury will exacerbate.

I can't imagine why you are even considering this catastrophe in the making. Please stop it now.
Ann GrantVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I think this is a bad project any way you look at it. LNG is a greenhouse gas like coal and we are in a climate emergency so we certainly shouldn't be increasing use of this gas in any way. The project is uneconomical anyway. It is in a built up area so dangerous. Let's start putting people before profits and 'growing the economy'! We are already destroying north eastern BC with fracking - the people who live there and the wildlife and water resources. When are we going to change our priorities in favour of life!
Kevin WashbrookVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed expansion.
I am concerned about this project for a number of reasons.

First, when upstream and downstream emissions are factored in, I think that LNG production and export will contribute excessively to our emissions of climate harming GHG's. Any benefits to the BC public (royalties from the sale of the methane? a limited number of jobs?) are not worth the environmental costs.

Second, I think that the shipping of LNG by water is severely under-regulated in Canada, and that there is no formal process with which to evaluate the Fraser River, from a safety and security standpoint, as the site for an LNG terminal. Siting standards put forward by international bodies like SIGTTO raise serious red flags about the proposed siting of this terminal on a narrow, winding, heavily trafficked river channel, with dense housing just down stream.

Finally, I don't think the further insult to threatened SR Orca populations that would be inflicted by this proposal are justified.

I ask that this proposal be rejected.

Thank you
Kevin Washbrook
Anne MurrayDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I strongly disagree with the proposal to further expand LNG production by a factor of 15 and more than triple the LNG storage on Tilbury Island in Delta, B.C. This will allow LNG tankers on the lower Fraser River to export up to 3 million tonnes of LNG per year, in contravention of international safety standards. These safety standards must be adopted by Canada and the storage plant should not be permitted in the densely inhabited and ecologically sensitive Fraser River valley.
Dianne VargaNanaimo, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I ask that the following comment be included in your public consultation on the Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion project.

I want you to know that I grew up on the Fraser River. I've swum in it, I once rescued a person from drowning in it, one day it coughed up a huge chunk of amber (petrified tree resin) for me, I caught my very first fish in the Fraser. To tell the truth, I sometimes feel like a fish in how that river has left an imprint on me.

I have serious concerns around the environmental impact of the Tilbury LNG project on Tilbury Island in the delta region of the Fraser. I appeal to you to reject this proposal for the following reasons:

? Far from being a safer 'bridging' fuel, scientists have told us that LNG tracks close to coal in terms of GHG emissions, spelling disaster for the climate. In the midst of a climate crisis when we need to be rapidly winding down our emissions, expanding fossil fuel infrastructure is obviously a foolish thing to do.
? One of the main rationales for approving the Tilbury Expansion is that it?s needed in order to produce fuel for the shipping industry. A January 2020 report from the International Council on Clean Transportation found that the maximum life-cycle GHG benefit of LNG could be a 15 per cent reduction compared with marine gas oil, but that the benefit is achievable only if ships use a high-pressure injection dual fuel (HPDF) engine. However, only 90 of the more than 750 LNG-fueled ships in service or on order use HPDF engines, the same report said, and when upstream emissions are factored in along with crankcase emissions for low-pressure engines, there?s no climate benefit from using LNG.
? Coming back to my discussion of the Fraser and its fish, an expansion of Tilbury LNG and an associated increase of marine traffic would threaten even more of them than are currently at risk. Southern Resident Killer Whales (which I've spotted since moving to Nanaimo) could also be harmed by the increase in traffic linked to the project. This is a time when we know we must protect delicate ecosystems and biodiversity, not chop iconic whales to death.

The risks of this project far outweigh any potential benefits. I call on you to reject the Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion project.
Gayle GavinVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Dear Commissioners,

Re: Application for Phase 2 LNG Expansion Project, Tilsbury

I oppose the approval of this project. There is a host of safety, environmental and economic reasons to decline the proponent?s application. First, it is my submission that Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public interest. In its application, the proponent seeks to serve first its own and foreign interests. While profit and economic gain to Fortis BC may be its raison d?etre, that goal should not be allowed to externalize very significant costs to the people and government of British Columbians, whose interest your Commission serves.

Safety concerns include safety to navigation in the narrow, busy, shallow Fraser River with its inter-tidal hazards that would increase risk to human health and lives, environmental damage and even disaster. Other factors include the issue of seismic risk and upstream impacts of fracked gas production, all within the context of the fact that Canada lacks world-class LNG safety regulations.
Other Environmental issues that cannot be ignored nor ameliorated include LNG production of methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, as well as other GHG?s and other air pollutants. Nor can one ignore the upstream impacts of fracked gas production.
Economic As usual in large project applications, the proponent overstates the economic benefits. Few new long-term jobs are ever created. As British Columbians, it is our responsibility to look at the economic benefit of all, not just Fortis BC, including a few people who might fill any long-term positions created in the operation of this proposed plant.
The proponent asks to build this plant in a highly prized location in which people have settled and have built their economic and personal lives. Should they have to live every day with the nuisance and health and safety degradation that would flow from approving this project? Should farmers, farm works, farm visitors and farm animals be subjected to the destabilizing effect of high capacity transmission lines? Should residents and visitors be subjected to the high noise levels from the plant? And what about the safety issues arising out of seismic risk in this area?
A good number of people live in this area, enjoy their community and have made substantial financial investments into their homes. It is my submission that their existing rights to live without health and other risk, nuisances and economic loss that approval of this project would bring are paramount to the interests of the shareholders and executives of Fortis BC and that this is a very important lens for Commissioners to apply to this application.
It is my submission that the public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports, financially, economically, or environmentally. Local environmental, health and safety risks are, I submit, paramount in your considerations and cannot be justified by the desire of Fortis BC to export to foreign markets. There is no justifiable reason to approve this proposal when balanced against the risks and the degradation to our lives, particularly those who live in the community and would be most affected by approval of this application.
Orcas To me the most injurious and uncompassionate aspect of this proposal concerns how we humans can degrade not only our own habitat but also that of other creatures. As most British Columbians, I am familiar with the beauty and plight of the Orca whales who share these waters and I have to wonder how we as humans can justify added stress to these magnificent, intelligent creatures. What would this Coast be like without the chance to view a pod of Orcas for a few minutes and to know that they will always be there? Please, do not approve a project that is detrimental to their already tenuous existence to the few pods for whom these coastal waters are home.
While I recognize that B.C.?s environmental assessment process has legislated limitations, I believe that in the case, the Commission has ample regulatory reasons to deny the application. I ask you to exercise that authority and deny the proponent?s application.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours truly,
Gayle Gavin

Kristina KieferVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
R: OUR BC TILBURY EXPANSION PROJECT PHASE 2 CONCERNS:

1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River?
Bad idea.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
12. Noise
13. Seismic risk

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECONSIDERATION AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN OF BC

Kristina Kiefer
Victoria BC
Kathie WoodleyCourtenay, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project should not proceed. The minimal and short-sighted economic benefits are dwarfed by dangers posed to the Fraser River and its surrounding communities and to the climate.
Christine WildVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Unsustainable expense and risks to the environment and human life, where clean water and air are a human right for generations to come, must stop.

Sincerely Christine
Grand Mother
Elizabeth DunnVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project is completely wrong and ill-conceived from the start. We are in a climate crisis where we know we have to hugely reduce GHG emissions quickly in order to avoid the worst of climate chaos. LNG emits large quantities of GHG emissions. The Fraser River is an extremely important river for fish, birds, and marine and other wildlife; we should be protecting this important ecosystem. This is a huge safety threat; explosive fires would destroy a highly populated area. The economic benefits are few; coming out of the pandemic we need to be focused on green industry that employs many more people than fossil fuel industries do. We live in an earthquake zone; LNG tankers and storage in an urban area is more than dangerous. We need a proper environmental assessment. There is no justification for this highly unsafe GHG emitting project.
Diana Van EykNelson, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I'm writing to express my concern about Tilbury LNG:

The LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River are hazardous.

Since fracked gas is quickly being phased out, the economic benefits are overstated.

The public should not subsidize the transition to green energy, not fossil fuel exports.

It stresses Salish Sea orcas.

Fortis BC should invest in environmentally friendly energy produced in BC, not foreign markets.

I'm concerned about Canada's lack of world class LNG safety regulations.

An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.

Not to mention GHCs and other air pollutants, noise, seismic risk and upstream impacts.

Please do not go ahead with this project.
Verna StoneVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
In a time of climate emergency/crisis we need to be putting our efforts into getting off the carbon highway to hell. Water is essential to all life on this planet, so why would we put our precious fresh and sea water at risk? Fracked gas has a huge carbon footprint, and when you factor in liquifying that gas the carbon footprint goes higher. When you factor in the infrastructure to extract and transport that gas, the footprint goes even higher. Any social and economic benefits from the project are vastly outweighed by the damage it will cause.
Allison BlaisDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
Antonia MillsPrince George, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am deeply concerned about the prospect of having LNG in the lower mainland in the busy port area as well as the climate disruption effects since fossil fuels would increase the sea level which is unsafe for those living in the surrounding area. We need to meet Canada's commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 89% by 2050 & the LNG Phase 2 Expansion would make this impossible.
Evelyn PinkertonVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am extremely worried about this proposal for multiple reasons, including the huge safety risks, the effect on salmon, climate, killer whales, and the fact that taxpayers should not be subsidizing an energy utility.
Jonnet GarnerVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fracking and shipping are far too risky. Accidents waiting to happen!

The Tilbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project is the wrong choice for our health and planet.
Kathy HeitzmannSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Wendy WulffSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Please be part of the SOLUTION to the world-wide climate change problem by preventing this LNG processing and shipping project !!!!!!! Please!
There are so many compelling reasons to shelve this wasteful, polluting, degrading, dangerous and cost-ineffective project that threatens to wreak environmental havoc on the Fraser River and Strait of Georgia.
So choose whatever reason you like to deny this expansion, but please do it!
We are counting on you to protect our world!
Michael WolfeRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This proposed project should be considered as part of the whole Gateway project which aims to industrialize the Fraser River Estuary during this time of weak environmental assessment processes. There is no way an EA in this region is legit, if this continues. The risk is too great for the worst case scenario to happen, and that would be devastating to human lives and or non-human partners in this ecosystem. We are in this together and we don't need any LNG in the mix.
Yvonne MarcusVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Hello,

I am writing to express my strong disapproval to the Tilbury LNG Expansion project. This project poses enormous threats to the global climate, local environment and health and safety of the people of Metro Vancouver. The purpose of the environmental assessment process should be to ensure projects proceed only if they align with the public interest, not to approve whatever corporations ask for. This project clearly does not meet this criterion.

The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. This project does not even meet U.S. standards, which sensibly prevents LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas.

The Fraser River is no place for tankers. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.

I urge you to not approve this project.
Paul DoyleOliver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
These and other reasons are valid enough to prevent this being anything but a risky unnecessary venture. We should take advantage of the Covid -19 slowdown to make an all out effort to switch to sustainable energy sources now while there is still time to hold climate change to a manageable amount. A project such as this proposal does not fill the bill
Lorna PellyNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am concerned that this is another project using up public money and time, that will take us further away from meeting carbon targets. The climate change emergency is real and urgent. It is so dissappointing to see yet another project on the table that will add to the problem, instead of showing leadership and investing in clean tech. To ignore this appears to be a major flaw in the environmental assessment, which itself is an unfair process with little scentific strategy. I strongly oppose the development of more infrastructure that engages the burning of more fossil fuels. As should all governments and corporates if they cared about their communities.
Ruth WalmsleyBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is unacceptable to proceed with the Fortis? Tilbury expansion given that it is incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.

I am very concerned about the climate disruption effects that this project would contribute to ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms.

The proposed location of the Tilbury LNG Expansion Project is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas.
Helen DavisNew Denver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There are so many negatives to this project I hardly know where to begin. Huge tankers in The Fraser River passing over the Mssey Tunnel, sailing with thousands of tons of inflammable oil by the populated areas of Richmond Delta and Steveston, expansion of the Tilbury plant in complete incompatibility with BC's climate action plan and Canada's international commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. Economic benefits are small and are far outweighed by the environmental impacts of fracking , pipelining and liquifying methane gas into LNG. BC's environmental Assessment process is flawed and skewed towards approval of anything the fossil fuel industry proposes. It's time to consider the long-term outcomes of projects like these and the serious consequences for the health of humans and the planet. I say No to this proposal.
Courtney PowellComox, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
its lng..dirty fossil fuel...simple
Myna Lee JohnstoneSalt Spring Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
As a senior citizen very concerned for the future of this precious area that has already been over used I urge you to stop this project. Every day climate scientists have been warning us. The ocean is in trouble. All life is threatened. We must act now to protect water and land.
Sigrid SingletonLangley, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There isn't a single positive about LNG movement from Tilbury.
1.The Fraser River is too narrow for safe movement of the tankers.
2. LNG production is not compatible with BC;s climate action plan. Fracking is a horrible method of gas extraction
3. Economic benefits are overstated, with few new jobs being created.
4.Plant location is a safety concern to our population, fighting a fire there should there be one
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports!!!
6. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
7. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas.
8. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
Liquefying and storing LNG requires huge amounts of electrical power. An expanded Tilbury plant would need electricity supply from two sub-stations and require building unsightly power lines and pylons across ALR farmlands in Richmond and Delta.
9. The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.

Regards
S. Singleton
Marjorie WoodVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
When it comes to the Tilbury LNG Expansion Project, I must come down on the side of science rather than economics. There are simply too many rampant environmental costs and risks, even by Tilbury's own estimates, to let the plan go ahead. Add on to that the fact that the assessment process itself is biased: it precludes an honest weighing of pros and cons.
Patty ArchibaldNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Too many reasons to say No! The risks of collisions and grounding and release of cargo are too high. The risks of turning 300 meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast flowing river channel at Tilbury is dangerous. LNG is methane which too much release of GHG. The benefits are exaggerated with only a few new jobs created. Plant locate and safety are at risk, we should not be subsidizing fossil fuel exports (the public), Orcas suffer and are already near extinction, it's way much noise pollution. These are just a few of the many many reasons why this is not a safe route for LNG. Please stop before you ruin the planet.
Barbara BergerComox, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Public benefits.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Extremely dangerous, narrow shipping area causing land and marine safety concerns; fracking is an environmental disaster; David Hughes ... says LNG exports will make global warming worse over the next three decades. The govt should not subsidize fossil fuel industry, especially for a foreign market putting BC population and environment at risk. Didn't Horgan say this about the TMX? It is a death warrant to the remaining orca whales & sea life in the Salish Sea. The BC gov't Environmental Assessment is flawed and the fed govt has no ability to clean up a major spill. The air pollution will not help BC meet its net zero targets. This whole project opposes everything economic and environmental.
Nicole BoonNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River is a terrible idea. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and the
economic benefits are overstated with not very many new jobs created. There are safety concerns with the plant location and
the public should not be subsidizing fossil fuel exports that in turn pollute our planet. I am very concerned for the Salish Sea orcas who will be stressed more by the added boat traffic. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations and an expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land, which is bad. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed if it will allow GHCs, other air pollutants, noise, seismic risk, and upstream impacts of fracked gas production, to go through in the province.
Hillary SimandlVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Not only is this a dangerous route for freight of any kind - it increases noise pollution, water pollution, distress for local wildlife - this is an unacceptable choice for LNG. Almost every pipeline and freighter carrying fuel has a history of leaking.

When LNG is released by leaking into the ocean waters, it only increases the already dangerous amount of foreign material in our environment. It will poison the water, which poisons the fish and plants that live there, which poisons us when we eat seafood products, and which poisons larger predators and decreases the diversity of species on our planet.

The route also cuts through marginalized communities. This further decreases their quality of life and health in general - the fuel burned to move the LNG worsens air quality, the establishment of the route destroys wildlife habitats and Indigenous territories.

These are only some of the problems we face today, but left unchecked LNG tanker routes like this will quickly destroy our planet in the near future. Warming the planet with carbon emissions will throw off the balance of Earth's different climates and push many species to extinction, farmland will no longer be fruitful, and humans will starve and burn to death.
Eric DamerBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Climate effects, Economics / consumer pricing impact.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am very uncomfortable with the LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project. The environmental and economic reasons are all out there. We must find a more sustainable way to do business and power our society!
Tara MahoneyVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River?
Bad idea.

Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.

The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.? Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.? It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.
4. Plant location and safety concerns

Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.

LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?

Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.

Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.

The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.

FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?
Laura MarksVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects, Shipping safety, Economics / consumer pricing impact.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Given that methane is about 20 times more destructive a greenhouse gas than CO2, this project would obviate Canada's commitment to the Paris Accords--especially with the weak safety regulations.
Also the job creation is overstated--I prefer the provincial government to create jobs in building and maintaining renewable energy.
Alejandro FridBowen Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is a fossil fuel that amplifies our already-substantial climate crises. We should not be building new fossil fuel infrastructure or expanding such infrastructure. Instead we should be transitioning to a renewable energy economy.

There is a long history of the fossil fuel industry being heavily subsidized. Those perverse subsides should be terminated. This would free up substantial funds to support the transition to renewable energy.
Andrew GarnerVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Very risky safety issue for nearby population - an accident waiting to happen!
Rod InnesPowell River, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
lets not keep destroying the beautiful Fraser every thing about this is wrong, wake up this could end in a disaster.
Victor FernandezVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Any fossil fuel infrastructure expansion goes against Canada's commitment to reduce GHG emissions.
Andrew MurrayNew Westminster, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
BC and Canada cannot meet our climate objectives if we continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure. This project will put an estimated 225,000+ tons of CO2 into our local airspace annually. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recommended all new LNG facilities be required to have Carbon Capture technology. Fortis has no plans to do so. Since most of this gas will be fracked we will now be able to witness the flaring of predominantly methane right here in our own backyard. This also poses a significant health risk to the surrounding population.
Global standards for LNG facilities is 3.5 km. from any significant population, this project does not meet that standard. The safety concerns have not been addressed by Fortis. Large LNG tankers in a narrow river across from a new jet fueling facility I believe is an accident waiting to happen. Fortis should be required to provide an evacuation plan for the surrounding area in the case of a fire or terrorist event. They should also be required to provide proof of full insurance coverage in the event of a major catastrophe.
Fortis should be also required to fund impact studies on Fraser River salmon runs and our resident Orca populations in the Salish Sea.
Recently respected energy analyst David Hughes in his latest study makes the point that Chinese state of the art coal plants with carbon capture emit fewer GHGs than LNG. This dispels the argument that LNG will reduce coal use in Asia.
There is no business case to support this expansion. The world is awash with natural gas due to fracking and horizontal drilling and is selling at record low prices. The jobs versus the environment argument also fails to hold water as only 110 permanent jobs will be created.
Last September I marched down Georgia St. in Vancouver with over 100,000 with mostly young people deeply concerned about their futures due to the climate crisis. In response to turn around and approve this project in a climate emergency would be deeply immoral.
Laura JonesNew Westminster, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is time for governments to be leaders in helping its citizens to use less of everything. We should not be continuing to keep adding more fossil fuels to the environment. Fracked gas is a problem. I am also concerned about marine life in the Salish Sea.
Dorothy NelsonRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is not the choice of sustainable concern, and continues fossil fuel mistakes. Our future looks bleak as this pattern continues. Old school indulgences will not provide a future, nor will it be safe for the present.
Earl RichardsVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The LNG plant has to be shut down in the public interest, because it is in a dangerous location.
Kate VincentVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am opposed to this project for many reasons as indicated above. But, first and foremost is the fact that continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure in 2020 completely ignores the dire global warming threat that we face. The world has a decade or so to lower greenhouse gasses sufficiently to prevent the worst effects of global climate breakdown. This project will contribute to this problem. Public money must not be used to undermine the health and safety of the public. If we do not commit to a fossil fuel-free future now, it will be too late.
Lisa KendallDuncan, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We talk about how we are advanced, intelligent and so know whats best for everything. We are not, everything we do is so destructive and brings wealth to so very few at a great cost to wildlife, the environment and humans. Lower our population and let what we have support our usage.
Carol RennieRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Time and time again, we have objected to this expansion because of the reasons above and more--our own safety and the health of the Fraser River and its denizens. We know that our customers for the LNG are iffy these days at best. What is going on here? Why can common sense not prevail?
Liz NewtonShawnigan Lake, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Shipping safety.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a very accurate description of the Tilbury site.

LNG is classified as an HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?

Moreover, fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. It's only fair to ask if Fortis will be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
Capt. Dick ChudleyVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I HAVE VERY JAUNDICED VIEW OF GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT
OF SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
IT IS ALL ABOUT EXPANSION AND JOBS TO THEM.
WHEREAS GLOBAL WARMING AND HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE PRIORITIES.
Janet MacdonaldVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
GHGs emissions are detrimental to the climate from LNG, gas carrying freighters present a hazard to local marine traffic as well as sea life and the endangered resident orcas, only 72 remain, who use sonar to find the salmon on which they feed. Fracking ought to be stopped and you know why!
Jennifer I SullivanBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Aside from my extraordinary concern about the source of the LNG for this project, I feel the following issues make this project unquestionably unwise for BC to even consider:

1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
12. Noise
13. Seismic risk
14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Peter Van Der VeldenDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Economics / consumer pricing impact.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I have ticked economics and consumer pricing for a specific reason, but really all of the mentioned possibilities are serious issues and raise a number of red flags.
I find it reprehensible that we the consumers will be on the hook for the construction of this project when so little of it will actually be necessary for our needs. This is really an underhanded way of dealing with Fortis clients and typical of the approach that Fortis is using.
Having said that I have serious concerns about what the construction of the jetty and the shipping of LNG from this location means for the Fraser River and the Fraser Estuary. Mixing jet fuel and LNG tankers?? Has the Halifax explosion been forgotten by everyone?
The benefits of LNG compared to the community and environmental costs have made other countries ban the production of the this fossil fuel.
How will we reach our Paris agreement goals when we go ahead with these plans?
We deserve better from our governments and groups like Fortis.
Caroleann LeishmanPowell River, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There are so many reasons to oppose the expansion of this project I don't know where to start. When are we going to start taking seriously the risks that this type of transshipment of fossil fuels entails? We need to phase out of fossil fuels NOW and not just "some" fossil fuels. Carbon in our atmosphere is at extreme levels. Climate emergency declarations have been made around the planet. We have to start here in BC to stand up and oppose these types of projects happening here purely with profit from offshore markets in mind and profit to the fossil fuel industry. The embodied carbon just from the expansion of the transshipment is exponential let alone the amount of carbon that this increase will encompass for decades to come! They say it will replace coal burning which is worse. But guess what?! If no one will send LNG to replace the coal, these countries will end up shifting to solar and wind and other greener forms of renewable power sooner than later! Let's not just continue to be part of the problem for some uninspired, imaginary short-term economic boost. Let's close down the fossil fuel industry in BC due to a real planetary climate emergency and shift all our resources and subsidies to real growth and expansion in the renewable green energy sector. It's almost too late.
Teresa ReynoldsDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Too close to too many people & environmentally sensitive areas
P RobbinsWest Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
NO to this project. The LNG industry is not "clean". It has no place in our climate emergency.
Vicki WilliamsVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Public benefits do not warrant dangers.
Marilyn GagneNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Do not expand the Tilbury LNG project. It is bad for the environment, for humans and for wildlife.

Fracking is dangerous and LNG and its extraction is harmful for the environment. LNG is an energy that is as dirty as coal and oil.

Move forward with investment in non-polluting energy sources. People want action on climate change NOW!!
Kate WalkerVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The expansion of the Tilbury LNG plant is a bad decision for so many reason touching so many of the categories you list above that it is impossible to narrow down the selection to even just one.
The expansion poses a serious risk to human health - the SIGTTO warning not to locate facilities like this close to populated areas should have been enough. Our Fraser River is a precious resource and risking explosions, spills and fires especially in an earthquake zone - does that make sense? No it does not.
Turning 300 meter long tankers carrying 65,000 tonnes of flammable gas in a narrow space - does this make sense? No it does not.
Human health is at risk along the LNG extraction process - exposure to sour gas, poisoned water, increased risk of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and glioblastomas (life expectancy from diagnosis is 2 to 3.5 years and several cases have been diagnosed in our norther gas fields. The life cycle of LNG is not clean energy. It is not even a profitable export for Canada - with few jobs and low revenues. We should be joining other nations and jurisdictions to ban fracking instead of increasing the risk with more wells, more pipelines and more tankers. Time to get serious about our commitment to a sustainable energy future based on common sense. Expanding the Tilbury LNG plant is not the answer we need.
Mike WhiteDenman Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
My concerns include all of the following 14 issues:
1 LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
2 LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
3 Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
4 Plant location and safety concerns
5 The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
6 Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
7 Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
8 Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
9 An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
10 BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
11 GHCs and other air pollutants
12 Noise
13 Seismic risk
14 Upstream impacts of fracked gas production

But the underlying concern is that this proposal flies in the face of climate change science and our basic need to stop using fossil fuels at least until we have the technology to permanently remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere and the oceans.

Thank you for doing the right thing!
Erna RobertsonSalt Spring Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel

Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil.

The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.

BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.

Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.

The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.

The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.

Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
Robert MacdermotSalmon Arm, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Shipping safety.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I chose shipping safety as a concern about this preposterous and insanely irresponsible project only because the survey did not allow me to select all the items on the concern list. If I had to reduce my assessment of this scheme to a single word, that would be 'boondoggle'. LNG has no future, and I believe those involved in the proposal either as investors or political figures, if they have any sense at all, must know that. LNG, especially for export, is over, except as a way for a few to make a quick buck before the project's long term cost ( i.e. economic irrelevance and environmental threat ) becomes too obvious. Such ideas are dot com revisited.
Joanna GrayBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
To whom it may concern at the BC Environmental Assessment Office:

I have serious concerns around the enormous environmental impact of the Tilbury LNG project on not only the local communities, but also on global communities and ecosystems, and urge you to reject this proposal for the following reasons:

-Locally, the risks to the Fraser River or to any of the waterways these tankers would be traversing are massive. These ecosystems, which contain species that are Endangered or that have been recommended for that designation, are already strained from increasing water traffic. Any further disruption in these waterways, from increased noise pollution, collisions with other vessels or groundings, would devastate these ecosystems further, and could potentially ruin them beyond restoration.

-Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. BC loves to present itself to the rest of the world as a destination for experiencing pristine wilderness, but this project, and others like it, will tarnish that image, and the province?s reputation.

-More broadly, LNG is almost as bad for the climate as burning coal. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond but impacting all coastal communities across the globe), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland.

In the midst of a climate crisis when we need to be rapidly winding down our emissions, expanding fossil fuel infrastructure is simply unacceptable. The risks of this project far outweigh any potential benefits. Under no circumstance should this project be able to pass an environmental assessment. Please reject the Tilbury LNG proposal.

Sincerely,
Joanna Gray
Ed And Jan JangSalt Spring Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Global warming Fracking Route Threat to Fraser river Threat to sea life Threat to ocean viability
Cheryl ApplewhaiteVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
In addition to the above , I am very concerned about the environmental impact and BC'S flawed assessment process
Yayuk JoffresVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I have a number of concerns with the Tillbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project:

1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River?
Bad idea.
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.? Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.? It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.
LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?
Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in Oregon.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
Liquefying and storing LNG requires huge amounts of electrical power. An expanded Tilbury plant would need electricity supply from two sub-stations and require building unsightly power lines and pylons across ALR farmlands in Richmond and Delta.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.
12. Noise
Cooling equipment for air-cooled LNG plants (to draw away the heat released in the liquefaction process) require many large, noisy fans and/or large releases of steam emissions. What are the noise and steam vapour characteristics of the proposal?
13. Seismic risk
This facility would be located in the area of the Lower Mainland most at risk during an earthquake. Japanese LNG import facilities, post-Fukishima, are required to sink their storage tanks so their tops are at ground level ? why are Tilbury?s overground and lacking any secondary containment?
14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.
Gili AvrahamiVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
leave fossil fuels behind. we need to move forward in a sustainable direction. Why is it so hard to understand??????
Alexandra` TseRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
As a resident of Richmond, I am in support of the Richmond city council's decision to oppose the expansion of Tilbury LNG plant in Delta. I agree with the statements that this expansion is dangerous so close among residential areas and important wildlife environments. I would like to see these issues addressed before this project moves forward, including addressing environmental stewardship.

Alex
Wendy McleanKamloops, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am concerned about investment in infrastructure that is not future and resiliency-minded, let alone adequately assessed for economic benefit. Allowing development in sensitive waterways for projects without enough long term economic justification is a waste of both natural resources and economic resources. BC has also not adequately assessed the environmental costs of fracking in general; until that is done, we should not be allowing individual projects using this material going ahead.
Nichol ReichardtNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Why are we investing in fuel that won't get us to our IPCC targets... It's time to source energy from cleaner sources. I am concerned about all of the below
1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River?
Bad idea.
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.? Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.? It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.
LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?
Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?

8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in Oregon.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
Liquefying and storing LNG requires huge amounts of electrical power. An expanded Tilbury plant would need electricity supply from two sub-stations and require building unsightly power lines and pylons across ALR farmlands in Richmond and Delta.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.
12. Noise
Cooling equipment for air-cooled LNG plants (to draw away the heat released in the liquefaction process) require many large, noisy fans and/or large releases of steam emissions. What are the noise and steam vapour characteristics of the proposal?
13. Seismic risk
This facility would be located in the area of the Lower Mainland most at risk during an earthquake. Japanese LNG import facilities, post-Fukishima, are required to sink their storage tanks so their tops are at ground level ? why are Tilbury?s overground and lacking any secondary containment?
14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.

Ken CollierMission, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I worked in areas where fracking for oil and gas take place in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Fracking is an industrial activity that should be opposed, not encouraged by enabling sales via LNG processing plants. In all three provinces, I watched fracking and associated pipeline operations defy laws about dealing with First Nations and then damage their lands, air and waters. Protections from provincial regulatory bodies were absent, as subsequent lawsuits going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada have shown. I have jpeg and other pictures of some of this damage, and can report from personal on-site experience why enabling fracking through LNG processing should never be allowed.

I have concerns about other aspects of the Tillbury hearings, but focus on this topic as a practical decision.
Diana RadfordPowell River, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Government should have nothing to do with fossil fuels. I object to my taxes being used for this purpose, especially in an environmentally sensitive area like the Fraser River, and near populated areas like Richmond.

I will never vote for a government that has anything to do with this. Money should be going into sustainable energy not projects like this.
Terrance CarrDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I believe that it is unacceptable for FortisBC to further expand LNG production by a factor of 15 and more than triple LNG storage on Tilbury Island in Delta, B.C.

Ø  locating this world-scale LNG plant in a narrow river channel with tugs, freighters, pleasure boats and seaplanes, opposite a jet fuel storage facility, is asking for trouble
Ø  the siting of the Project and export plans do not meet international LNG safety standards
Ø  the Project has the potential to cause a catastrophic accident
Ø   there should be a combined environmental assessment of both Phase 2 LNG and the export terminal
Ø  the viability of the Project is tenuous due to low gas prices from global oversupply
Ø  Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing LNG Projects and foregoing royalties
Ø  the substitution environmental assessment by B.C.is insufficient as critical federal laws apply
Ø  no scope for the assessment has been provided
Ø  the environmental assessment should include impacts of upstream fracking and infrastructure
Ø  it is unsatisfactory that only promotional information from FortisBC is provided
Ø  a recent study finds exporting LNG to Asia will not reduce global climate emissions
Ø  upstream fracking for the gas supply is destroying agricultural land and habitat for species at risk
Ø  abandoned and unplugged fracking sites are polluted
Ø  there is evidence of substantive effects on human health from chemicals used in fracking
Ø  fracking requires vast quantities of water which is weakly regulated in B.C
Ø  B.C.?s LNG is not cleaner than coal due to methane gas leakage rates
Damien EtchaubardVancouber, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Hi,
I am against FortisBC's disastrous proposal to expand Tilbury LNG on the Fraser River.

Not only will Tilbury LNG increase fracking in northeast BC and worsen climate change, but the regional impacts of Tilbury LNG affect our Howe Sound communities and environment, for example:

- impacts to air quality and human health;
- impacts to adult salmon in the Fraser River;
- impacts to juvenile salmon, which use Howe Sound to transition to salt water;
- impacts to the endangered Southern resident killer whales, which rely on salmon for food (and really don't need MORE tanker traffic in their habitat);

Humanity is at a breaking point and we need to invest in green energy that will last and evolve for future generations. Fracking is not an option for a sustainable future.
Thank you,
Damien
Sandee TranfieldNanaimo, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River?
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created..Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.

LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?

Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in OregonBC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process..
Nick RobinsonSouth Delta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Of most concern to me is the safety factor concerning those who live within 3 kms of the tanker routing, should there be an accidental ?spill?
Bob AlexanderLondon, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It SUCKS!
John PasquaEscondido, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
Ron BolinNanaimo, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The game is not worth the candle for the public which always ends up paying for cost overruns while the petroleum industry takes any profits... We have to stop selling our home to others piece by piece...
Margaret MeggyDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers would further industrialize the Fraser River. This is a very bad idea, with limited advantages for the taxpayer and huge risks for residents.
Richard SwitzerCastlegar, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The federal & provincial governmets must not under any circumstances aprove the LNG STORAGE --TANKER PROPOSAL PERIOD. SEE THE LIST ON THIS PAGE AND YOU WILL FULY UNDERSTAND .
Paul ChristensenPrince George, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
If Fortis is not willing to foot the entire bill for this project the project/expansion should not get built. No more corporate welfare from the province for well established and profitable companies/industries
C GSan Diego, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Jim WrightRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project, including its increased storage, is part of an LNG port. Although the LNG industry has a good safety record, that is because most LNG ports follow the siting standards of the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators. The FortisBC port does not come close.

half a century ago, the local Tilbury LNG plant in what was then a more rural area was okay, but suddenly a two-step expansion is intending to multiply the LNG production from 35,000 to 350,000 tonnes per year, with far greater risk from plant explosion and shipping explosion.

Furthermore, in a JWN article, July 18, 2019, https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2019/7/fortisbc-eyes-expansion-lng-plant/, FortisBC Vice President Doug Stout foresees multiplying the size by ten again, to about 3.5 million tones per year ("three to four million tonnes per year"). That means the risks would be 100 times what they were until recently.

For shipping of LNG on the Fraser, the risks would probably increase by more than a thousand times, since most of production was used locally, not shipped off.

Please take into account the cumulative effects that are occurring and that can be foreseen, in this case on the basis of an intent that FortisBC clearly expressed.
Hannelore PinderVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is really Methane a deadly greenhouse gas which inevitably escapes during extraction and is a deadly reenhouse gas. Exporting through a densly populated area is lunacy and asking for trouble. Our Orcas certainly will come a step closer to extinction, And in general the extraction of LNG is unacceptable since it uses lots of water, which gets polluted during the process, and thus poisonous. Moreover it has caused earthquakes in many locations.
Please do not let this process go ahead
Sincerely, Hannelore Pinder
Nancy IssenmanVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
So many reasons that this expansion is a bad idea but two stand out for me especially:
1.The endangered Orcas use sonar to locate food and each other and more noise equals more stress on their already fragile eco system
2. The economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs will be created and we should be putting money not into a dwindling market for fossil fuels and into sustainable and renewable forms of energy.

I'm sure none of this is news to you, why not be on the right side of so called progress. Do the right thing regarding this expansion
Lisa DoffCoquitlam, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Please do not go through with this. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to care for our Earth and our future generations.
Carla ThiessenVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Public benefits.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Any expansion of LNG is a BAD IDEA!

The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports and
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.

Increased LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River is a dangerous and short sighted venture.

LNG , a methane, is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.

Plant location and safety concerns are worrisome.

Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.

Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations and BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.

An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.

GHCs and other air pollutants are a by-product as well as ... Noise pollution and an absolutely insane Seismic risk!

Upstream, the impacts of fracked gas production are of paramount concern.
Susan HodgesDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production.

Any single one of the above mentioned reasons is enough to cancel it. Unfortunately with the current BCNDP government they are going along with the huge risks that endanger us.

The risk to industry and recreational users on the River. These ships are massive fuel transports that if anything should go wrong will have lethal repercussions far and wide. Int'l standards require more space either side of ship than the river can provide, or development.
This fail could easily be lethal.

The LNG processed water is returned to the river at a higher temperature on a nonstop 24/7 basis. This is going to impact the marine biology in a distinctly negative way.

As the mind numbingly repetitive jobs jobs jobs in every large project has proven, it is a false assertion.


The risk to Salish Sea orcas. More intense shipping is a huge negative.. down to 77 orcas now.
This is a fail.

The cumulative effects of upstream effects of methane are not considered. This is a fail. The USA environmental assessments must consider this. We are worst than the USA.!!!

Again, we fund all the risks for offshore markets to profit. So much for supernatural BC. It is super overburdened BC.

The nonstop assault on the farmlands of the Fraser River delta diminish our food security, as our country invited the world to come live here, we have ever decreasing lands to produce food.

The bottom has fallen out of the LNG market.

There is every reason to cancel this, Approving it risks our climate future, agriculture lands and is like a licence to pollute without controls.
Wm. CacketteVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
A stupid idea !!!!
Lilah WilliamsonBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
Laurie ArmerAbbotsford, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Everything about this is wrong and detrimental to all people, animals, and the environment. Government must remember, that they are the public's staff! Your jobs are temporary only, not a given. WE dictate the future and there is a rising majority that support sustainable energy and the science IS IN re climate change! Claims of the ability to rapidly cleanup in case there is a spill is, in fact, a declaration that there will be spills. This is inevitable. I am sick and tired of the hired help ramming projects down our throats. These fuels and infrastructure, tankers are no longer the status quo! No longer will governments and corporations be misguided in their thinking that they are the new world order. The PEOPLE are the leaders! You are only in your position as long as we see fit.
Carol HeumanAldergrove, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
If it hurts, then don't do it. Protection of the citizens involved is the ONLY priority you have.
Janice WilliamsGibsons, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Noise, Pipeline capacity.

My more detailed comments about this project:
No, PLEASE do NOT do this!
Jared HoweSeattle, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.

Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed..
Celeste RobertsVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am against fossil fuel infrastructure for ALL OF THE ABOVE concerns,
Deborah BledsoeChilliwack, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is absolute insanity. Putting more of our waters at risk for a dying industry to ship it offshore.
Erik MintyPort Coquitlam, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Insurance and liability.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Responsible development of sustainable industry is perfectly acceptable, however this proposed project is neither responsible nor is its industry sustainable from any perspective.

Contemplating acceptance of this project would be a critically irresponsible error in judgment, and severely undermine public trust in the impartiality of the BCEAO. Without impartial government agencies we cannot have responsible development.

The risks are too numerous to mention, and only a small portion of them have been effectively mitigated. While the individual risks may each have a low probability, the combined risks and consequences are too great.

Our regulatory and risk-response infrastructure and capability in BC is still vastly too immature to contemplate such a venture at this time, particularly one that involves a terminal near a major urban center and high-risk transport through an extremely busy and ecologically sensitive marine corridor.

I echo the numerous calls for an immediate moratorium on all LNG terminal projects until ALL of the risks have been properly addressed. This fast-tracking of an industry with highly questionable long-term sustainable value puts people and our environment at risk, with minimal or no benefit.

There is no question that this proposed project should be soundly and immediately rejected.
Judith HammillGibsons, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
To whom it may concern:
I object to the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project. Its flaws and inadequacies are many, from the overblown economic benefits to the terrible environmental disruptions and on to the risky safety practices.

In addition we have at least two regulatory problems. First, Canada has yet to implement standards that conform to those advocated by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, among others, that would ensure safety (and disqualify Tilbury). Second, BC has a seriously flawed environmental assessment process, captured by industry as it is.

Finally, another huge concern is the future of aquatic life. Orcas are already disappearing because of human-caused disruptions that the tanker traffic associated with Tilbury will exacerbate.

I can?t imagine why you are even considering this catastrophe in the making. Please stop it now.
Susan WarrenNelson, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is a limited technology that is not safe in the long or short term for environmental concerns.
Kurtis PetersVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is entirely irresponsible in a time where it is critical to pull out of fossil fuel industries.
Terry ClarkRoberts Creek, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Methane is dangerous greenhouse gas, and our Environmental Assessment process is pathetically inadequate to protect the environment and the people affected by the project and the tankers operating next to populated areas.
Meghan SharirWest Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am concerned about any and all further development of the fossil fuel industry. We should not subsidize fossil fuel exports of any kind, but rather should invest in clean and renewable energy only.
Ed ChessorVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The carbon footprint of all LNG projects is unacceptable. It is about twice as big as natural gas that is not liquefied, and that too needs to be phased out. Tell Fortis to invest in solar panels instead, In the next 5 years the solar panels should be where the LNG would otherwise go.
Elizabeth KeenanToronto, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There are FAR TOO MANY things wrong with this project. It should die ASAP!!
Mr. Rafe SunshineVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
As a citizen of BC I am appalled that your government would sanction this LNG expansion project for the following reasons: LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea due to ever-increasing shipping activities.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that is endangering the palnet's global heating crisis.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created and health of citizenry placed in jeopardy.
Plant location and safety concerns - same as above.
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports, nor should it encourage new sources of fossil fuel exports, but should be advocates of renewable energy technologies like tidal and offshore wind turbines.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic which interferes with their hunting for salmon.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public by the use of biodigestors in using the municipal sewage for truly "natural gas", not exporting "fracked" gas to foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations and one collision could endanger much of the Vancouver waterfront.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land. We are already running out of farmland for our province's food security since the Site C dam will drown much of the agricultural areas in the northeast of BC.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants will adversely affect the health of BC residents
Noise - another factor both for the population of the city and for the orcas hunting of salmon.
Seismic risk - obvious, but what would an insurance company indemnify this project?
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production again adversely affecting the populace's health and exacerbating the Global Heating Crisis. With all this against this expansion project your continuation with this folly - you will no longer find yourselves re-electable in the coming election. Sincerely
Jan FraserNelson, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am very disappointed in B.C's energy and enviornmental policies.
LNG is distructive in so many ways. Tanker traffic, lose of food security land, lose to indigenous peoples, FRACKING poisons our ground water. China gets LNG from Russia. I have voted NDP all my life, and I now have 2nd thoughts. The enviornmental assessment process is so flawed, and the projected financial benefits are out of left field.
Sandra NelkenNelson, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I wish to express my concerns regarding this project. I believe that it would be irresponsible for government to go ahead with this project considering it's impact on climate disruption and marine mammals that are struggeling to survive for the following reasons:

LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Denise GardinerMoberly Lake, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I know that most of your actions are dictated by the likelihood of getting back in power at the next election; and I wish it was not so.
I know that the most caring actions towards the voters will get you back in power - like your handling of the pandemic - and, deep down, I think you know this too.
I am worried that pressure from large moneyed corporations are sometimes getting in the way of the facts and your inborn common sense.
This pandemic has shown us that the earth, our habitat, is in trouble, but with a lessening of earthlings? bad habits we can reverse the damage. I should say: WE are in peril! The earth will still be here after we have self-destructed.
Even the die-hard, devoted ?oil & gas? proponents see LNG as an idea headed for it?s deathbed. Spending more of the tax-payers dollars on a project that would serve other countries and create a negligible amount of jobs per unit of population is ludicrous at best. You have no doubt heard about advice from your friendly airline stewardess: ?If there is a loss in cabin pressure, put your mask on first??. Why not serve the BC public first? It would require a mind switch but get you more popular votes in the long run.
Also, that little voice in the back of your mind that warns you about problems - environmental, noise and traffic in a busy, narrow river passage, air pollutants in a densely populated area - that little voice is there for a reason.
Canada, BC included, lack serious regulation for safe transport of dangerous items. Me thinks the planners have heads in the clouds with feet barely touching the ground and dollar signs floating around in the wrong areas of the brain.
We all need money! But we also need other things just as much: unpolluted air and water, a clean place for people and plants - much needed by the people - to grow and thrive.
If you have read this far, I commend you. You take the ordinary BC citizen?s opinion seriously. Thank you!
I do not live on the coast. My place of birth is New Brunswick. I have been in BC for 46 years. I love it with all my heart. I reside in Moberly Lake, 20 kms South of the damaged Peace River. I can see first-hand what decisions made for money can do to BC and it?s future as a thriving province.
I also follow the daily Covid 19 reports and I see what decisions made for the citizens of BC can do for public sentiment towards elected officials.
Please, in your best interest and ours, follow the road of long-term caring for the people, not the short-term high income for a few, dictated by a 4-year term before another election.
Thank you so very much for caring, in between irrational actions and decisions.

A devoted British Columbian,
Denise Gardiner
Denis AgarVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am very concerned about this plant. It will increase our GHG emissions and further tie our province's economy to a dying industry that will not have economic benefits for much longer.
Christine JohnstonVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I feel the Fraser route is a risk.

BC should be working on alternative energies. And build the jobs there not in past dated projects.

BC's environmental assessment is indeed flawed .

Climate and environment is the key long-term issue of major concern, and we should act accordingly.
Stephen AikenheadToronto, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The days of risking the health of our environment/Biosphere , for greedy profiteers - ARE OVER !!! Stop this nonsense !
Des BeltonNew Aiyansh, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
More huge tankers in the Fraser estuary and Salish Sea, to collide with the increased number which are scheduled to arrive to take on tar sands oil from the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline? Methane won't pollute the water, but it's a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Forget about the marine life, air and water quality. Why would humans be so stupid that they would want to foul their own nest, as in so obviously happening in the lower Fraser Valley? Congested waterways and close proximity to human population make serious consequences such as explosions or spills very likely. Jobs will be minimal; we should not be increasing our carbon footprint while seeking to hide it by exporting fossil fuels. Your assessment process is a sham. True environmental costs are never calculated, from fracked farmland to pipeline habitat destruction to increased shipping traffic effects on marine life.
Wilma FuchsVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The SRKW visit this area of the proposed tanker traffic regularly. It would be very detrimental to have an increase in tanker traffic or increase in large vessel traffic for any marine wildlife, but specifically for the Southern Resident Killer Whales, which are already on the brink of extinction.
Bob PetrusaNew Westminster, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Meredith RodgerOttawa, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
For so many years we have fought for the environment. Always the environment comes last. This means that we, mankind, will die in increasing numbers due to climate change.

In 1974 I first learned of climate change and read all that I could find at that time.

Surely, I thought, we would begin the move to green energy. We would not want to live in a warmer more dangerous world. How wrong I was.

The environment seems to count for nothing. How foolish can we be. Very, it seems.

All the money spent on gas and oil can and should be spent on green energy projects. There is no other way for mankind to survive on planet earth.
James RonbackDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This LNG project must not be located along the Fraser River. The location of this proposed expanded liquefaction and storage facility and related terminal and LNG tanker traffic have very high consequence hazards that violate the guidelines of the International Maritime Organization. It is vulnerable to high impact security/ terrorist threats which expose the LNG storage facilities on shore and LNG tankers along the river to huge catastrophic fires and horrific fuel air explosions with devastating blast waves destroying residential and industrial buildings along the Fraser River. The human death toll and environmental damage cannot be mitigated. The danger zone around the LNG storage facility, related LNG loading terminal and LNG tanker traffic along the Fraser River to the Salish Sea encompasses many residential areas. This is entirely unacceptable.

In addition, in the Salish Sea and Fraser River single propeller tankers are only one failure away from a catastrophic hazard. Currently there are no requirements for LNG and Oil tankers to have independent twin screw propulsion mandated.

An environmental and safety assessment must be expanded to encompass the entire LNG value chain that consists of the following stages:
? Exploration and production of natural gas, where the natural gas is found and produced.
? Liquefaction, where the natural gas is converted into liquid form so that it can be transported in
ships
? Loading/offloading of LNG while the carriers are at the terminals
? Shipping, where the LNG is shipped in special purpose vessels.

Yours safely,

Jim Ronback, System safety Engineer (retired)

Tsawwassen. BC

P.S.The paper below by Jack Devanney provides a strong argument for increasing the dependability and safety of these tankers/ floating bombs by use of redundancy.

Below you will also find the link to my submission advocating independent twin screws to the Tanker Safety Expert Panel, in 2013.

Here are some more references below for your consideration.

"Twin screw offers a thousand fold increase in reliability and a dramatic increase in low speed maneuverability. Twin screw would have prevented many major casualties ... Twin screw would have avoided something like a million tons of oil in the water and well over 100 deaths. ...
Yet twin screw net of private benefits costs little more than single screw. So why aren?t owners flocking to twin screw? The answer is simple. Twin screw costs the owner slightly more than single screw to build and operate. He bears all these costs. He bears almost none of the costs to the world of single screw, for he can easily insure himself out of these costs."
The Argument for Twin Screw Tankers, Jack Devanney
Center for Tankship Excellence, USA, [email protected]
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jack_Devanney/publication/225834294_The_argument_for_twin_screw_tankers/links/5a9f299b0f7e9badd99e7fc8/The-argument-for-twin-screw-tankers.pdf

Safety Shortcomings in Tankers, related Marine Terminals and Tank Farms
Submission to the Tanker Safety Expert Panel
James Ronback, P.Eng, System Safety Engineer (retired), Delta, B.C., June 18, 2013
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/mosprr/Ronback_Jim.pdf

The Tanker Safety Expert Panel?s Phase II report, ?A Review of Canada?s Ship-source Spill Preparedness and Response: Setting the Course for the Future, Phase II ? Requirements for the Arctic and for Hazardous and Noxious Substances Nationally,? is now available on this website.
The Tanker Safety Expert Panel?s Phase I report, ?A Review of Canada?s Ship-source Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime?Setting the Course for the Future,? can be found here. Information on the Government?s response to the Phase I report and its recommendations can be found here.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tankersafetyexpertpanel/menu.htm

LNG Tankers ? Different Types And Dangers Involved
By Bhuvan Jha | In: Types of Ships | Last Updated on October 20, 2019
https://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/lng-tankers-different-types-and-dangers-involved/

"The Bit Viking has twin screw propulsion, with each screw ... running on heavy fuel oil (HFO). The conversion involved changing these to 6-cylinder in-line Wärtsilä 50DF dual-fuel engines that operate on LNG."
Wärtsilä completes conversion of tanker Bit Viking from heavy fuel oil to LNG
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/11/bitviking-20111127.html

"On the latest generation of LNG tankers with two independent propulsion systems for much greater redundancy, RENK single marine gear units reliably transfer the power from the electric motors to the fixed-pitch-propellers."
Customized gear units for LNG carriers
https://www.renk-ag.com/fileadmin/Produkte_und_Service/Produkte/Dokumente/RENK_gear_units_for_LNG_carriers_en.pdf

Accidents on Vessels Transporting Liquid Gases and Responder
Fanch Cabioc'h et al,
Proceedings of the Thirty-second AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response: June 9-11, 2009, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp. 289-300.
https://wwz.cedre.fr/content/download/8275/132182/file/Accidents%20on%20Vessels%20Transporting%20Liquid%20Gases%20and%20Responders

LNG: A Level-Headed Look at the Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy
By Virginia L. Thorndike , 2007
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VvFXBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22twin+screw%22+%22lng+tanker%22&source=bl&ots=lixLjXHwd_&sig=ACfU3U2qtrgz9T-yvtH-tyPpMnbBXQ8Tdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz94uPsrzqAhXCCTQIHedhBa0Q6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22twin%20screw%22%20%22lng%20tanker%22&f=false

Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Bibliography
Part 1 AMOP 1978-2007 and
Part 2 TSOCS 1983-2007 and
Part 3 AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response 2008-2016/
No de cat. : En84-133/2016-PDF, SBN : 978-0-660-04851-2
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/migration/main/amop/f3b23c26-2172-4dd7-bab8-a113030dcc63/amop-tsocs-phyto-bioss-biosolr3-20bibliography-201978-20-202016.pdf

LNG Safety and Security Aspects
December 2012
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-404585-9.00009-X, J.L. Woodward
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289567619_LNG_Safety_and_Security_Aspects

FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT FSA ? Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Carriers Details of the Formal Safety Assessment
http://www.safedor.org/resources/MSC_83-INF-3.pdf
Anastasia KaplinaSquamish, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Economics / consumer pricing impact.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Hello,

I live in Squamish, BC and I'm oppose FortisBC expansion of Tilbury LNG facilities.

The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal.
- The project would employ only 110 people and only when in full operation.
- The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
- Cost of LNG plant construction can negatively affect gas prices for locals for home heating and food cooking, including me.
- Speaking long term, exhausting the lowest cost resources for LNG exports means that more remote, higher cost, resources will have to be used to meet the future needs of Canadians

Additionally to low economic benefits the project has very high impact on environmental and locals.
- Both industry-group SIGTTO and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic.
- Even without any LNG exports, emissions from oil and gas production alone would exceed BC?s 2050 target by 54%, with export it has potential to exceed 227% [1].
- World wide, when account for emissions from the production, processing and transportation, export of LNG to other countries will emit 18% more CO2 over 20 years even if those countries would burn coal otherwise [1].

Please consider all impacts of the project on Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC as a whole.


[1] ? B.C.'s Carbon Conundrum: Why LNG exports doom emissions-reduction targets and compromise Canada's long-term energy security, published by the Corporate Mapping Project and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/bc-carbon-conundrum
John PhillipsLions Bay, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The safety of LNG tankers in built up areas and the route through the islands has not been established.
Annette And Michael Witteman And GarrattVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Fossil fuel subsidies, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Living Directly Affected along the shipping route on Mayne Island and also having a warehouse located along the Fraser River on River road We are gravely concerned about the proposed Phase 2 LNG expansion at Tilbury. There are so many reasons why this project needs to be scrapped that we are astounded it has even reached this point public comment. We will list my deepest concern here
Alison WatersNanaimo, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am completely against LNG Tankers coming down my coast!! There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I AGREE WITH ABOUT THIS PROJECT!! It is wrong on every level and I do NOT WANT TANKERS COMING DOWN THE COAST OR AN EXPANDED LNG TERMINAL !!!!!!!. I live on Vancouver Island - Tourism for our natural world is big business - I do not believe your promises about jobs and safety. I have heard the same rhetoric over and over again all over the world.

I want to transition to a Green Economy. I do not want this project!!!!!

Alison Waters
Betty MassonGibsons, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We don't need it. It's highly toxic and a dangerous undertaking. Put the money into a Green economy ..
Allan CrawshawVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission
lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Jennifer DawesDuncan, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is just another fossil fuel. Enabling expansion of the fossil fuel dependency is a very short-sighted approach. We have to act quickly and decisively to have any hope of averting the onrushing climate crisis, the tipping point after which devastating change is irrevocable.
Moreover, even in the short term, adding LNG processing to the lower reaches of the Fraser River is a terrible pollution risk. Adding more shipping to the noise burden that is destroying the Southern Resident Orcas of the Salish Sea is unconscionable.
In all aspects, this is a high-cost, low-reward endeavour.
Please do not spend public money to encourage this dead-end expansion of LNG. It's time to make a decisive move to a multi-faceted renewable energy solution. For the sake of all our futures, please reconsider.
Peggy LalorVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
My concern should be registered as: All. Climate change. plant location and safety, Everything.
I SaramaGibsons, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This proposal is fundamentally flawed because of many several critical reasons.

Firstly, of local concern, LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.

Secondly, LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and it is completely irresponsible to further add to the climate crisis problem. We must do everything we can to reduce the climate crisis, not advance it further!

Further, the economic benefits are overstated, and few new jobs will be created.

There are severe problems regarding the plant location and safety concerns regarding the tanker route.

The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports!

Salish Sea orcas are already under threat and don?t need the stress of added tanker traffic.

Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.

Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.

An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.

BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.

GHCs and other air pollutants

Noise will be an issue for residents.

Seismic risk is an extremely serious concern, especially since we are due for a potential 9+ magnitude earthquake at any time.

Upstream impacts of fracked gas production, such as toxic chemicals affecting aquifers, and methane escapement, MUST be taken into account.
Fiona OldWhite Rock, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
-Dangerous for Fraser River
-Not good employment prospects
- Taking priority over superior energy choices.
- Unsightly pylons required
Elaine HughesArcherwill, SaskatchewanPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Everything about proceeding with this project is dangerous, irresponsible and wrong!

The risk is too great - just say NO!
Penny OyamaBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There is NO WAY this project will ever proceed, especially in light of climate concerns, environmental risk, and decreasing investment potential!
Franziska NonnenmannToronto, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River
should not be permitted. The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river should never be permitted. Here is why:
The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways.
and the BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed. Furthermore Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion is irresponsible to say the least. There has to be a better way to plan for the future and a brand new approach that involves, not only much stronger environmental laws but also a transparent and public consultation.
Byron BonaNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fortis BC isn?t listening to the ?science-based facts!? The Environment and the planet?s inhabitants, human and otherwise, are being jeopardized by climate change (previously named global warming) and unsustainable and unrestricted economic and resources growth. Corporations are engaging in all forms of devastating activities in our atmosphere (green house and pollutants), water (acidification, deoxygenation, and imbalance in the water cycle), melting ice and permafrost, and the earth (seismicity).

We should be engaging in de-growth and renewable green resources. Unrestricted limits to Corporate profits and gains are sacrificing our future and the future of our children, and the natural ecosystems that sustain us and the planet.

There is no economy in the face of catastrophes such as pandemics, natural disasters, and environmental devastation. Science-based fact shouldn?t be driven by profit.
Jim DrescherNew Germany, Nova ScotiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Nachiko YokotaNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Penny TilbyVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is unwise to locate storage facilities for highly flammable LNG in a heavily populated urban area., not to mention that the facility will be opposite a jet fuel terminal. Any accident here could be catastrophic for Richmond and Delta .
Expanding BC's production and export of LNG is going to lower our chances of meeting BC's commitments to reduce our GHC emissions. The overall impact of fracking for gas , and transporting it makes it no less environmentally damaging than coal and oil. It may burn more cleanly but the emissions resulting from its production, transportation and the later leakage from abandoned wells makes it environmentally highly damaging.
Given that the market for LNG is now very weak we cannot justify this level of environmental damage in the name of the jobs created (very few long term) and the economy.
Toni StanickVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.

LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?

Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and specialised marine emergency fire-boats of which Richmond and Delta have neither. If Fortis relies on the emergency services they must compensate these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities. and not using rate hikes to Fortis customers to foot the bill.


Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston, Then on through the gulf islnda past our capital and along the coast of Vancouver Island. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in Oregon.
Tanya LebarVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Noise.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project should NOT go forward. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas with emissions at least on par with coal and oil. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.

Further, the population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.

Finally,The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
Regine KleinVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
My greatest concern is this projects impact on the land, air, ocean and all living beings. I condemn fracking and its unconsciable impact on the planet and human life, water, air, the industries human rights violations, man camps MMIWM, human trafficking, to transportation of LNG in pipelines, trucks or trains, and its arrival at this facilities proposed expansion only excacerbates all these concerns. The impact of an explosion at the facility or on a tanker would be so devastating it can be compared to a nuclear bomb, enough videos on google for 'gas explosions' to measure the potential impact. NO ALL THE WAY TO THIS PROJECT! Do you have children? Do you care?
Naida HydeVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am against this increase in tanker traffic and the multiple dangers that imposes on marine life, and lives of people who depend on the Fraser for their food, as Indigenous peoples have stated. In fact, all 14 issues concern me. Why do they not concern you?
Cancel this, Please.
Doreen TenerelliVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
NO!! to Tilbury LNG expansion project!
Marie ThoneRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fossil fuel use is an outmoded, toxic technology. We need energy sources that look to the future....if we have a future on this planet at all.
David BoehmGabriola Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
to give a simple answer as to my concerns is ridiculous. The Fraser River estuary and delta are wildlife sanctuaries for fish and fowl alike. All will be compromised by piecemeal developments.This one scares the life out of me.
Martin L'AntonVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Noise, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We are in the middle of a climate crisis, where the VERY OWN SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN SPECIES IS AT STAKE, I struggle to see why we would even remotely consider expanding the very infrastructure and industry that put us in this position in the first place.

Any such act should be considered a crime against humanity as its implications are endangering the survival of human life on earth as well as the survival of most forms of life on this planet.

We have seen countless times these recent years raging fires in BC and all over the globe, making the situation worse and worse every year, extreme climate events, rising sea levels threatening the beauty of the whole Vancouver area. The current estimates indicate a +5 degrees by 2050 (compared to pre-industrial era), and go from +7 to +12 degrees by the end of the century, and these temperature increases come with estimates of 80 to 90% of mankind being wiped out by the end of the century. Which means, whoever is reading this, if you plan on having kids, or already have some, they will die from climate change, not from old age, and you might too, unless we stop this madness and start seriously doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to stop releasing carbon and start capturing it instead.

This is our duty towards younger generations and towards our future selves.
Danial AsadolahiVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Please do not allow this dangerous, climate-disrupting project to go forward. We need to instead be looking into environmentally friendly sources of energy.
Deirdre WhalenRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project is not 'green' as is always cited by Fortis BC. LNG is procured using fracking, which is pumping water at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc. so as to force open existing fissures and extract gas. Using tons and tons of clean water to bring gas to market is in no way 'green.'
The project is unsafe and unhealthy for the people living nearby as well as the salmon and other living things in the Fraser River. There is enough traffic on the Fraser without adding huge LNG tankers that would have to turn around in a congested space. And it would be right across the river from the jet fuel storage facility. The potential for a devastating fireball explosion in the river and kilometres beyond (where I live in the ALR) is too horrible to contemplate.

If that is not enough, there is actually no good economic case for LNG. There is a glut on the worldwide market and it costs more to produce it than it can be sold for. And the Tilbury expansion would produce more pollution than BC could mitigate in order to reach its climate change targets. This is the worst fossil fuel project ever. It does not succeed on safety, health, economic and environmental fronts. Tilbury and the BC government should be gearing down from fossil fuel, not increasing its use.
Roberta OlenickVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I oppose the proposed Tilbury LNG expansion project for numerous reasons.

Key among these are:
Serious safety issues;
Exacerbation of climate change;
Very limited economic benefits.

Safety issues
- LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO).
- The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas.
-Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.

Climate change issues
- Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland and beyond.
-Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.
- Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.

Economic issues
-The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal.
- The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.?
- Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.?
- It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.
- Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
- FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?

In addition, the flawed BC Environmental Assessment Process under which this project is examined does not inspire confidence and needs significant revision. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.

For these and other reasons, the Tilbury expansion must be rejected.
Valerie FullerDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project should never be allowed to proceed in the location proposed because of threats to human life, and environmental degradation.
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic.
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.
Barbara HuismanRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is totally unacceptable to proceed with the proposed LNG facility on Tilsbury Island. It is well documented that the danger to nearby residents is extreme when transporting LNG, without proper safety protocols. However Canada has not adopted the international LNG safety standards (http://www.quoddyloop.com/lngtss/standards.html).

As well, full scale environmental assessment needs to be done to look at effect on marine life.
Ken HamerNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The BC NDP, while not as dishonest and corrupt as the Liberals they displaced, have continued to make deals with Big Oil and Gas while failing utterly to encourage renewable energy projects.
The Tilbury expansion would directly endanger Lower Mainland residents and wildlife physically, fail to significantly benefit British Columbia economically, and help to ensure that Canada can never achieve her goals to fight Climate Change.
Edwin OchmanekVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The evidence is clear that fracked gas for LNG is not a climate friendly option; the methane leaks are enormous, groundwater contamination as well as local air pollution are excessive. The energy needed to compress it for shipping is massive.
Add to this that there is a worldwide glut in LNG and there is absolutely no reason to destroy our farmland which is one of our most precious resources for what would be a flash i the pan short lived terminal.
2020 is a make or break year for the climate - no fossil fuel projects can be allowed to move forward. To consider otherwise is not responsible and indeed would be a betrayal to our children.
Linda LinemanVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Use of Methane, a greenhouse gas.
Route along Fraser River
Dannielle HayesVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It will put residents and wildlife in danger if there is a leak on land and at sea. It will destroy all life. The province would be wiser to invest in sustainable energy sources that Mother Earth has already.
Dannielle HayesVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It will put residents and wildlife in danger if there is a leak on land and at sea. It will destroy all life. The province would be wiser to invest in sustainable energy sources that Mother Earth has already.
Charlie RichmondVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Natural gas is a fossil fuel and is dying. It's a terrible choice to invest in and for the health of the planet. Get out now and cut your losses.
Niall WilliamsCoquitlam, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Concerned about the location of the plant. And especially the exporting of natural resources, that are best left in the ground for future generations of CANADIANS. Also concerned about the eventual huge amounts of "greenhouse gases" that would be generated by the incomplete burning of these fuels. These "projects" should also pay their own way if allowed to continue; Public monies should NEVER be allowed to subsidize these endeavors, their business model must be faulty and flawed if Public monies are used. Niall Williams, Coquitlam, B.C.
Sarah ValentinePemberton, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I believe that BC's environmental assessment process is flawed and relies too much on Big Gas money. Another large concern is that the LNG plants are in narrow inland waterways and too near human populations.
Anna Vanessa HammondVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Public benefits.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Approving this LNG terminal would be absolutely unconscionable. What has happened to the ethics, the primacy of public interest that were such basics for the NDP. Please, please do not approve this project that would become an environmental and financial disaster.
Teresa SankeyVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am very concerned about the safety and long term impacts of this project for the environment, marine wildlife and farmland.
The economic benefits are overstated and come at too high a cost.
Please add your voice in opposing this project.
Don DorofayVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fraser river industrialization is turning it into a toxic mess
Mike WaddinghamBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fossil fuels are ending. LNG is dirty. Industry and gov't have been lying about benefits.
Nicky HdBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Environmental damage. Ocean pollution and disturbing lives under water.

No economic benefits (especially in the future).
Faune JohnsonVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Locating and expanding the Tilbury LNG plant in the path of migrating salmon and near the Salish Sea, where tanker traffic already disturbs marine life, is a dangerous proposition. The BC Environmental Assessment Process has a history of ignoring the safety aspects of projects which threaten sensitive natural habitats. Endangering the wildlife, ecosystem, and people who depend on the environment around the location of an expanded LNG Tilbury plant is not worth the economic "benefits", especially as the jobs created would be limited and the economic future of such a plant is questionable. I realize that change is very uncomfortable, especially for people who have benefited from past endeavours. However, the time to change to more sustainable practices is now. There are opportunities to conserve energy, both through more efficient activities and by improving the efficiency of current technologies. However, the most long-lasting and needed changes require imaginative solutions: in human activity, in devices and machinery which use energy, and in preserving the ecosystems on which we all depend. Jobs exist in research and development, in creating more efficient ways of doing things, in funding people-centred economic activity, in providing better health care and senior care, in creating art of all kinds, in better care for children, in educational endeavours, in building more efficient homes, and in restoring the ecosystems that have already been destroyed by "economic" projects. I look forward to a more optimistic future for our young people
where positive, safe, and sustainable economic activity that preserves the environment becomes the norm.
Leslie StanickSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
1. Supertankers transporting methane gas through the Fraser River? DANGEROUS! An explosion in a highly populated area would be catastrophic.
2. The Fraser River is our salmon river, where salmon return to spawn. Salmon support bear, wolf, eagles, and many other species. They support First Nations communities providing essential food source.
3. Agricultural land along the river is critical for food security in the Lower Mainland.
4. Huge LNG ships plying highly toxic and flammable cargo would devastate the area killing thousands of people if there was an explosion.
5. Economic value is being grossly overstated.
6. The danger of gas escape and explosions are real and devastating. Thousands of people work and live a long the river. LNG is classified as a Hazardous and Noxious substance, cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions? Or from serious earthquake?
7. Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway, opposite a jet-fuel terminal and Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered a complete evacuation of Tilbury Island, requires specialized equipment, foam retardant, fire-boats: which Delta and Richmond don't have.
Even if Fortis compensated these cities for the costs of providing publicly-funded emergency response, the impact to local communities would be devastating.
8. The possibility of terrorist attacks on the LNG facility are terrifying. The impact of an explosion on the Fraser River would be catastrophic.
9.The Public should not be subsidizing fossil fuel exports. It is unacceptable that we taxpayers are funding the foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer -funded subsidies: cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases, and GST and PST taxes.
9. The PUBLIC should not be paying for evacuation, and clean up of foreign fossil fuel companies.
10. BC's environmental assessment process is seriously flawed! BC should be leading the way, but Industry is calling the shots. Proponent paid professionals are in a conflict of interest. There is no way to challenge, via cross-examination. proponent-supplied "science". Instead, decisions are being made on the findings of proponent-supplies "science". This is unacceptable. Open houses in affected communities are poorly advertised. Comment periods too short to reach the populations who will be impacted the most. Not enough time to examine the lengthy, weighty proponent submissions that are thousands of pages long. The process ignores cumulative effects of multiple projects in the the same area. The social and economic disruptions fo the project will cause challenges in local communities. The "benefits" of the project are short term jobs. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.

11. GHC's and other air pollutants will be inordinately high. Fortis estimates annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes of greenhouse gases...the equivalent of adding 60,000 cars to Delta's roads. UNACCEPTABLE!
12. NOISE, and STEAM vapour characteristics of the proposal have not been described. Many large noisy fans and large releases of steam emissions will cause disruption to local communities.
13. THE SEISMIC RISK IS HUGE! The lower mainland is prone to earthquakes; we know that a big one is coming. Japan now has all of their containments below ground. Why are Tilbury's planned tanks above ground? and lacking any secondary containment?
14. Upstream impacts of Fracked Gas: Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.

Any way you look at this project, it is dangerous and must not be permitted to be built. From plant locations, to impacts on the Fraser River, and agricultural land, our fresh water and air, lack of safe containment, lack of emergency response plans, social and economic disruptions....every single point is a point against building this LNG plant, and tanking this dangerous condensed gas on tankers through our Fraser River delta, and through human populations, in narrow inland waterways. There are way too many dangerous challenges to deal with here, the most being the proximity to human populations with highly toxic and flammable LNG. DO NOT ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO PROCEED. TAKING LNG TANKERS THROUGH OUR FRASER RIVER IS A DANGEROUS and INSANE IDEA. CAN THE WHOLE DEAL IMMEDIATELY!


JUST SAY NO! to THE
Barbara CorryVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
From a safety point of view, this location on the Fraser River as a potential shipping port for LNG is crazy! It is a huge accident just waiting to happen!

It is adjacent to (and passes through) a very, very heavily-populated region of Greater Vancouver thus exposing thousands of people to serious danger, first during its pipeline transport, and then subsequently during the off- loading into tankers... and all of this even before the fracked LNG is shipped at all.

And even after loading it onto the mega-carrier ships, it's very presence (and possible waterway contamination from leaks exposes the Fraser river waterway itself to huge pollution problems. Leaked LNG would certainly cause problems for salmon during their annual migration, as well as causing various pollution problems for any other living species of plant or animal sharing that same waterway.

And all this at a time when the world knows that usage of all fossil fuels, must surely end and end soon if we wish to stop climate change from causing irreversible climate damage which in turn will mean the end of life as we know it on the entire planet.

This is not a "maybe". it is a CERTAINTY ... and humanity is up against the wall on this right now.

There is no more "wiggle room"! It is long past time to leave all further deposits of any sort of fossil fuel in the ground, walk away from them, and then convert as quickly as possible to one of the several, (BUT ALL CURRENTLY CHEAPER, than fossil fuels) form of RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Solar, Wind, and geothermal energies are ALL CURRENTLY CHEAPER than fossil fuels, and they will become even more cost-effective as time goes by. as ways to develop and to obtain our energy . Fossil fuels are now "Stranded Resources", and we need to leave them in the ground, and walk away from them, if we hope to leave a livable planet for our children and grandchildren!
Gudrun LeysVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
If this project should go ahead, BC and Canada as a whole will NOT meet our Paris emission targets which we agreed to. Shame on us.
Horgan, you lost my vote by going on with Fracking Gas and the pipe line project through the Wet-su-wetan unceded land.
The whole fracking project endangers the health of the population of Northern BC. We should instead put govt. funds into renewable energy. LNG is a total misadventure for BC.
Frank And Gillian AndersonMerville, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
July 9, 2020

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office ? Public Consultation Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion project:

Hello:

Below are our concerns regarding this proposed project:

LNG is a fossil fuel calculated to produce as many greenhouse gases as burning coal. We are facing a climate change crisis, and despite commitments to reduce our greenhouse gases (GHG), Canada, South Korea and Australia are the G20 countries farthest from achieving targets to cut emissions under the Paris Agreement commitments. Expanding LNG extraction, fracking, production, transport and final destination consumption is not compatible with our international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050, and contradicts B.C.?s Clean BC climate action plan. Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking and methane leakage produces significant upstream impacts like habitat destruction and freshwater pollution, destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells. Why did the Province of B.C. ignore the illegal dams constructed by the LNG industry?

As Real Hearings notes, ?Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.?

Moreover, the notion that LNG as ship fuel will cut emissions is without merit: research shows LNG as a shipping fuel is actually a huge GHG source (https://www.stand.earth/publication/climate-implications-using-lng-marine-fuel).

In the face of declining demand for LNG with overwhelming worldwide production that has created a glut, years of provincial and federal government taxpayer-funded subsidies to the LNG industry, including cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes, have short-changed investment in sustainable, climate-friendly energy production technology. This misuse of taxpayers? money for these subsidies must end.

This project presents a grave danger to the globally important Lower Fraser and Fraser River estuary. Tilbury LNG would threaten numerous endangered or threatened fish runs as well as the critically endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW): the Fraser River is one of the most important rivers in the world for wild salmon, including endangered runs of chinook salmon, a critical food source for the SRKW. The Eulachon (a species that is very important to local Indigenous Peoples), and a population of Steelhead that was recently recommended for an emergency listing under the Species At Risk Act, would also be impacted.

The Southern Resident Killer Whales could be harmed by the increase in tanker and barge traffic linked to the project. This constitutes a violation of the Species at Risk strategy for the recovery of these whales, which lists shipping traffic with its physical disturbance, threat of whale strikes and underwater noise as threats. The route these tankers must take is directly through the Critical Habitat of the endangered SRKW.
The International Maritime Organization has classified LNG as a Hazardous and Noxious substance cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). The potential for a spill or leak as a result of vessel collision or accident raises the risk of violation of the Critical Habitat of the SRKW. Any fire at the plant would result in the dispersion of toxic firefighting chemicals into the river, again a violation of their Critical Habitat: SRKW are already the most toxin-laden marine mammals in the world.

As much as 90% of the original Fraser River estuarine habitat has been lost, and there is no protection in place for most of what remains. This project is one of a series of proposed or approved projects for the Lower Fraser/Fraser estuary, and no government agency is reviewing the cumulative impact of these projects on a habitat already reduced to a fraction of its original size. The required cumulative effects assessment must consider the past habitat loss as well as these proposed and already approved projects.

Canada and B.C. clearly lack meaningful environmental regulations for LNG production. There should not even be a consideration allowed for the siting for a plant allow anywhere near a river, particularly Canada?s most important salmon river, in a critical earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in a busy shipping lane for commercial and recreational vessels. As noted by Real Hearings, ?The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas.?

As Real Hearings notes again, ?Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.?

Moreover, an expanded Tilbury plant would need huge amounts of electricity supply from two sub-stations and require building unsightly power lines and pylons across ALR farmlands in Richmond and Delta.

This plant will cost $3 billion and its economic benefits will be few. 2013 predictions of a BC LNG industry producing $100 billion in revenues to the government and employing 100,000 people have failed dismally to materialize (Real Hearings).

The risks of this project far outweigh any potential benefits. Under no circumstance should this project be able to pass any meaningful environmental assessment. Please reject the Tilbury LNG proposal and upgrade environmental standards for the placing of any industrial facility near water.

Finally, the federal and provincial governments should initiate an immediate moratorium against any more development in the Fraser estuary and the Lower Fraser River until there is a comprehensive plan to protect what remains of the habitat.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Please confirm receipt of our submission. Take care.

Sincerely yours,

Frank and Gillian Anderson

Toby DentVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fracking is not safe and causes more climate change.
Fracking pollutes land, air, water, people, wildlife.
Fracking causes earthquakes. Vancouver is already an earthquake zone.
Both pipelines and tankers cause spills.
This is a bad project from beginning to start and needs to be stopped.
Location, safety, methane, tanker traffic are all hazardous to health and the climate.
Fossil fuel needs to be phased out now. There are no benefits. Life on earth trumps $$$.
What are they thinking? They're not.
Larry ColeroDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
To BC's EAO:

I implore you to reject Fortis' proposal for a massive expansion of the Tilbury LNG terminal near the mouth of the Fraser river. If approved, this project will cause unmitigable and permanent harm in a number of ways. It poses an unreasonably high risk to:

- Irreplaceable ecosystems in the Fraser estuary, due to increased marine traffic carrying highly toxic, volatile and explosive LNG cargo
- The dense population and close proximity of Lower Mainland residents, due to the explosive and volatile nature of compressed LNG, which could easily be disastrous on a gigantic scale, considering the quantities of product planned
- Ancient and sacred First Nations territories, due to a variety of impacts to traditionally revered sites
- Health and well-being of the people (and farmland) of northeast BC, due to an escalating increase in fracking and highly inadequate health monitoring systems
- Our climate here on Earth, due to huge increases in the release of methane caused by fracking.

Regarding climate change, Liquid Natural Gas has been touted as an environmentally beneficial solution based solely on the final consumption stage of its life cycle. Virtually all studies of the environmental impacts of how it is sourced (i.e., fracking, which is how Fortis releases the Natural Gas from underground) come to a dramatically opposite conclusion. Fracking is very clearly one of the world's most harmful industries due to the release of methane, which is tens of times more harmful than carbon dioxide during the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere.

Fracking's impacts on climate change should be enough to deny approval of this short-sighted and deviously-promoted project. In combination with the other impacts I have mentioned above, I don't know how anyone supporting this project will be able to live with their conscience once they know the facts.

Larry Colero
Delta, BC
Es WarwickVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
WE HAVE GOT TO STOP FRACKING AROUND!!! CANADA HAS TO LET GO OF THEIR ADDICTION TO FOSSIL FUELS. WE COULD BE LEADING THE WAY IN RENEWABLES, TIDAL GENERATORS, SOLAR AND WIND GENERATION. PLEASE JUST STOP THIS PROJECT!!!!
Robert BlairSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.

The plant location and safety concerns abound being in the middle of major population districts.

LNG is methane a highly volatile gas having LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River is insanity.

The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
LNG is a powerful greenhouse gas whose economic benefits are greatly overstated, with few new jobs being created.

BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.

This project will create G.H.G. and other air pollutants noise seismic risk as well as upstream impacts of fracked gas production.

An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.

Salish Sea Orcas don?t need the stress of added shipping traffic and noise.

Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.

When this all blows up in our face it will be the taxpayer that will be responsible for the liabilities created, as usual.
Denise DufaultSlocan, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Hi Folks,

This is a stupid idea. Please do not let this proceed. We are trying to bring back the salmon on the Fraser River, for local food security, Native food fish, and to help the starving Orcas survive. What we do not need to allow is 20th century technologies in fossil fuels to proceed, now in the 21st century!

This will help Canada to fail on all its international GHG emissions deadlines, we are going in the wrong direction.
Charles HiltonVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
IT IS TIME TO LEAVE "ALL FOSSIL FUELS IN THE GROUND" - AS THERE IS ONLY ONE "EARTH EARTH PLANET" - "THAT WE ARE ALL CONNECTED TO" - "SO THE CONTINUED USE OF FOSSIL FUELS OF ALL TYPES" - "WHICH ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE" - "THAT EFFECT NOT ONLY US HOMO SAPIENS" - BUT THE "OCEAN EARTH PLANET ITSELF"- "TILBURY LNG PHASE 2 EXPANSION PROJECT" IS ONLY ONE OF THESE SAME FOSSIL FUEL PROJECTS THAT MUST BE "STOPPED NOW".
AS GRETA THUNBERG SAID: "HOW DARE YOU" - CONTINUE TO TAKE FOSSIL FUELS PUTTING FUTURE GENERATIONS CHILDREN'S FUTURE AT RISK.
Ralph ThorntonVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We are now entering an Artic methane release time as the permafrost melts, due to fossil fuel use over the last 100 years. Fracking and transport LNG is worse than burning Coal and has an impact on the water table poisoning our water.
Daphne MarlattVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Why would our provincial Environmental Assessment body approve an environmentally damaging project like this? The economic benefits are hugely outweighed by negative environmental impacts in the long term from the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion.

The Fraser River is not the place for huge gas tankers -- already the annual salmon run is under siege from industrial environmental fallout. And methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas -- we don't need more of it in our atmosphere. Orcas in the Salish Sea are already overstressed by big ship noise. Both B.C. and Canada need more stringent and world-class LNG restrictions. As a grandmother I appeal to you to consider the long-term effects of this project and reject it.
Brenda GuiledSalt Spring Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers are floating bombs, not only a serious physical risk, but targets for terrorist actions. One little missile, easily gotten by a rogue state or organization, could set off a crippling chain of consequences.

Why would we sign up for this, along with further destruction of the biggest salmon-bearing river left in the world? With certain failure to meet CO2 targets, defying the logic of global warming and cooling cycles, as if the LNG industry is separate from it all?

Give your heads a shake. Mother Nature isn't the all-giving, endless teat you think she is. This pandemic is proof. We need to retool the economy, and now is the perfect time. Please don't miss this opportunity to reject plans for LNG tanker bombs to ply one of Earth's most precious waterways.
Eleonora MolnarRoberts Creek, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Celeste VarleyPender Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Promises of lowering Co2 would get even farther away, as LNG is dangerous and polluting.
Sandy McnameeVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I want all my concerns counted, not just the single one classification allowed by this form. For climate....I thought Canada had GHG emmission targets, that should be the end of the discussion, all fossil fuel use must be reduced, period. It is unacceptable to expand LNG given impacts to SO MANY THINGS like climate change, and the endangered South Resident Killer Whales, and the safety of local communties, and risking the health of the largest salmon river in Canada. Plus just the logistics of massive tankers in a narrow river has already been deemed unacceptable by SIGTTO. Who gets to decide that SIGTTO is wrong. Fires and spills are so in line for being expected that the US says no terminals within 3.5 km of populations. Who gets to decide the US is wrong. There are so many valid reasons to scrap this deal. It is time to stop bowing to the fossil fuel industry and get on with more sustainable and renewable energy. The technology is there. Hello Canada, the world is watching and so far we are not pulling our weight. Stop Tilbury LNG.
Ann KujundzicVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Economics / consumer pricing impact.

My more detailed comments about this project:

Robbie NewtonVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Actually, I share all of the concerns. However, in a climate emergency, we should not be building more fossil fuel [GHG] generating projects. The money proposed for this project should/must be redirected to renewal energy sources and technology if needed. LNG investments are going to be stranded investments in the very near future.
If the B.C. Government and the Federal Government were serious about Green BC and about their plans to reverse global climate warming, they would end all fossil fuel [GHG] projects right now. Unfortunately, it would appear that the BC NDP government and the Federal Liberal government are quite hypocritical when it comes to the climate emergency. They say one thing and do the other.
It is a myth that LNG is cleaner than coal. When you take into consideration, the upstream and downstream GHG and other pollutants, LNG is dirtier. As well, I really object to Canada exporting our GHG emissions. All emissions produced from Canadian fossil fuels, at home and abroad should be included in our totals, and then we would really see how much GHG Canada is really contributing to the Climate Emergency.
Heinzn W. NussbaumerVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The world does not need any more fossil fuel projects, we have to act now to fight climate change and embrace renewable energy that is clean and more profitable!
Douglas MasseyDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Why when the rest of the world considers this a safety hazard to the people and the environment we do not?
Herman BakkerVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Public benefits.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The only reason this project exists is because of free taxpayer $.
LNG requires very expensive infrastructure and lots of electricity.
Because it is close to a large urban population, when something goes wrong, it will be a catastrophe.
Carol DayRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The project needs to be downsized due to the detrimental affect on the Environment
Jared JonesDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Ramping up LNG operations in a climate emergency is the wrong way to go, we need to be transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources to hit our climate targets and have any chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius
Leslie SlackDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The Delta estuary is a vital feeding ground for many unique species of animals. The resident orca population is dwindling because of low fish stocks, environmental pollution, and boat strikes. Adding more tanker traffic shipping highly volatile cargo to these waters will only make the situation worse, possibly erasing this species from our waters forever.
The communities of Richmond and Delta have voiced their disapproval of this project. This is where we live, work, and pay taxes. We want to feel secure that our environment is healthy and safe and the thought of this facility operating in such close proximity to us is frightening. It?s time for government to make decisions based on citizens wants and needs instead of corporate greed.
Lorraine SharpsteenVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I believe this project has minimal, if any, benefits for British Columbians and are greatly outweighed by the many risks involved: negative consequences to the environment (climate change), to marine shipping safety in the Fraser River, to the viability of marine animals due to increased contact with large vessels, to mention but a few of my concerns.
David MorrisonSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Time for a new "myth of money" those banks and corporation "To Big To Fail. Must redistribute the Wealth of the planet so that all have enough to thrive. Protect our garden earth. The Kleptocrices ( those who see Chiefly Status and personal wealth at the expense of those they govern) should be abonfoned for a new Paradigm a Trophism or turning away from last practices to a more enlightened enriching society. We are one tribe on one wee planet. Be courageous and we may yet survive. Stay well stay curious. LOVE
Linda NygaardCourtenay, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I share these concerns:
1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
6. Salish Sea orcas will suffer the stress of added boat traffic.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
12. Noise
13. Seismic risk
14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
and
15. The current provincial NDP government?s continuation of the previous Liberal government?s agenda of suppressing innovations for the development of renewable, fossil-free sources to provide cleaner, locally generated electricity. Extremely disappointing.
Isaac BeevorVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is a disaster for nature and the climate emergency.

We cannot keep expanding and building new fossil fuel projects, we are facing a climate emergency! We must move towards sustainablr energy sources rather than fixating on a industry that pollutes and ruins the natural environment.

I hope this project does not receive the go-ahead. Let's invest in clean energy now for a good future tomorrow!
Brian CuttsNelson, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
14 Issues of Concern about the Tilbury LNG's phase 2 expansion project.
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River is a bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production

Stop this harmful project.

Please be of benefit to all.

Thanks
Brian
Brian CuttsNelson, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
14 Issues of Concern about the Tilbury LNG's phase 2 expansion project.
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River is a bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production

Stop this harmful project.

Please be of benefit to all.

Thanks
Brian
Bill WinderVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Green.New.Deal. ...NOW!

LNG is dying, and if it doesn't, we will die.
Moss GenRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is all about the money and the political brownie badge of giving the Christy Clark Liberal gang the big finger.

Will common sense prevail, doubtful because collectively humanity is on a course to destroy our world through over population and development. Politicians are hopelessly useless in understanding this reality.
Phyllis RuthvenDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am in opposition to this project for the following reasons:

It is not environmental:
_The total CO2 emmissions from LNG from extraction to shipping and for use in marine shipping are actually rayed as 70 -80% more than cleaner distilled fuels when life cycle emissions are compared.
_ Full cycle emissions must be considered in environmental review of this project and that does not appear to have been done.
-This proposed expansion and the companion bulk shipping facility are situated in an seismic sensitive zone where massive eathquakes are projected. In addition, the land it is being built on is subject to liquification should we experience an earthquake.
-Liquification of natural gas requires hugh amounts of hydro electric power. This will mean additional high voltage lines being strung to the plant which will probably impact farmland for transmission lines to carry said power.
-As to safety concerns, our fire department is not equipped and trained to handle any fire should it erupt for any reason. Why should we as taxpayers have to pay for training and supplies should there be a problem at the plant.
-Extraction , pipeing ,shipping and burning of natural gas is having a big impact on climate change.Higher levels of Carbon Dioxide from this can double pollin prpduction in plants like ragweed according to a peer reviewed journal Environmental Perspectives. Air pollution works in synergy with pollen to intensify allergy symptoms.(read article July 13, 2020 in Georgia Straight).
-Natural gas prices have dropped dramatically and many shipments overseas are being turned back under "force majeure" by the countries they were destined to ship to. Tankers are floating in the ocean in hopes of being allowed to offload. This is burning fuel tp power ships as well as to keep the super cooled LNG cool so it doesn't blow up. Ticking time bombs floating about our oceans!
- This proposed plant expansion is situated too close to populated areas and would NOT BE ALLOWED in most countries for that readon.
-Our salmon stocks are drastically declining and the Fraser River and estuary must be protected to hopefully bring stocks back up. This plant expansion and the proposed shipping facility will have a big impact on our salmon runs.
- The Fraser is being too industrialized to the detriment of our fish stocks, commercial and sport fishermen. This plant expansion is to feed their proposed tanker shipping facility next door. That facility will have tankers so large that they cannot turn around in the river and the proposed solution is to anchor said tankers to the shore and with a combination of tide and tugs pivot the ship around. This is going to futher impact fishermen getting up and down the river, as well as pleasure craft accessing and using our waterways.
-Noise from the plant may also affect fish stocks in the river in addition to the increased noise from tankers will effect fish and orcas in the straits.
- Taking all these points into consideration we must also consider that the costs of this plant are going to inevitably raise Fortis' s prices to consumers that rely on gas for heating and cooking in the province, to say nothing of the cost of bringing higher costs for our electricity because of the extra demand of this plant. Hydro is already exploring buying power fron California of all places! A state that draws power from it's drying up waterways!
-Our Peace River is being sactificed ,flooding thousands of hectars of some of the best farmland in the country, killing fish stocks, destroying habitate and flora and fauna . Destroying territory where our endangered caribou live and feed as well as destroying native sacred grounds. All to feed the extraction of natural gas wells in the area!
From start to finish, this is a bad idea.
Ying ZhuNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Lng is not a clean fuel, on the contrary it is dirty from upstream fracking and leaking, to energy consumption in transportation, to tankers increasing marine noises and endangering species, to enabling totalitarian regimes profiteering in fuel switch and furthering their human rights violation towards their citizens. BC should stop this lunatic LNG fantasy and invest in real clean energy instead.
Anne KramerNorth Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It should not go forward! I?ve given all the reasons above
Chelsea WebsterVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.

Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.

This facility would be located in the area of the Lower Mainland most at risk during an earthquake. Japanese LNG import facilities, post-Fukishima, are required to sink their storage tanks so their tops are at ground level ? why are Tilbury?s overground and lacking any secondary containment?
Michael AshtonCoquitlam, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, no new jobs created.
The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.? Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.? It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site. How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?
LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). Prone to equipment malfunction and human caused accidents and terrorist actions, how does FortisBC plan to eliminate such risks with this project?
Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added of boat traffic.
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in Oregon.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
Liquefying and storing LNG requires huge amounts of electrical power. An expanded Tilbury plant would need electricity supply from two sub-stations and require building unsightly power lines and pylons across ALR farmlands in Richmond and Delta.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.
12. Noise
Cooling equipment for air-cooled LNG plants (to draw away the heat released in the liquefaction process) require many large, noisy fans and/or large releases of steam emissions. What are the noise and steam vapour
15. Seismic risk
This facility would be located in the area of the Lower Mainland most at risk during an earthquake. Japanese LNG import facilities, post-Fukishima, are required to sink their storage tanks so their tops are at ground level ? why are Tilbury?s overground and lacking any secondary containment?
16. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.
Penny CharleboisRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The economic benefits far outweigh the safety and dangers to the environment, I live within the zone to be killed by an explosion.
Lezlie RussellFort Babine, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Traffic will wipe out salmon and killer whales
Barry MooreEdgewater, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Climate effects, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We must back away from spilling more Carbon into the atmoshpefe
Wendy TaylorBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury

Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.
Michael JeffersonMission, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This proposed Tilbury LNG Project is the WRONG project in the WRONG place at the WRONG time.

BC is on the WRONG path when it comes to energy projects given the ongoing construction of the Site C Dam that is the latest in a series of hydro-Electric mega projects and one that is the most environmentally and culturally destructive and financially unsound energy projects in BC history!
The Tilbury LNG Project is also one of several LNG export projects on the books today and all of these LNG projects have one thing in-common and that they source their respective natural gas supplies via "fracking" which in and of itself causes environmental damage to the air, land and water.
So, in my view, this Tilbury LNG Project is not welcome nor acceptable in the Fraser River estuary or anywhere else in BC.
On the contrary, there is ample opportunity in BC for investors to develop renewable energy projects such as forest industry based cellulose ethanol and turpines production to blend with gasoline and diesel fuel to
produce ultra-low carbon E-85 gasoline and bio-diesel transportation fuels.
It appears to me that there is a once in a billion years blowout sale in fossil-fuels going on today in BC at a time in our history when we as society should be focusing our efforts to produce renewable low-carbon fuels.
This Tilbury LNG Project represents a project that is out of step with our needs and it's location in an urban area along the environmentally sensitive Fraser River Estuary is unacceptable



welcome encourage and support renewable !
Marilynn KingDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There are many reasons why this project should not go ahead. The safety concerns have not been addressed; location on an earthquake-prone island next to a jet fuel storage facility and adjacent to heavily populated and growing areas of Richmond and Delta makes no sense at all. Natural gas is highly flammable and constitutes a hazardous cargo and a greenhouse gas worse than carbon dioxide. The viability of this business is suspect due to an oversupply of product world-wide. The fracking industry has caused earthquakes, damage to farming and residential water supply and human health due to the use of many toxic chemicals, destroyed agricultural land and habitat for many species at risk. The well-being of our orcas and salmon have already been detrimentally impacted enough by ferry, commercial and recreational marine traffic! Why should we destroy our environment and human and wildlife health to serve foreign markets? Any expansion plans would be unconscionable!!

Yours sincerely,
Marilynn King

Dr Janet HeavysideVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Need more public dialogue
Armene BellessDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, FortisBC's conflict of interest.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The citizens of Canada are getting tired of the government putting the desires of companies selling and distributing fossil fuels merely to make money....without considering the safety of the people and wildlife.

Trudeau and other leaders say they care about Climate Change but then keep on pumping and selling oil and natural gas. Conclusion....the leaders DO NOT care about decreasing pollution caused by oil and gas.

The Chinese are finding lots of natural gas in the China Sea and want to become energy independent. That market will gradually close down but will that happen before LNG ruins the Fraser River and its estuary?

We need to lessen the sale of oil and gas and get new leaders who will not be hypocrites.

Armene Belless
Lindz MarshVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Hello,

I?d like to express many concerns about the proposed Tilbury LNG phase 2 expansion, but the primary one is the devastating impacts it will have on the Fraser River and estuary. The Fraser is an important home to salmon, shorebirds and other wildlife. The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.

Please halt this expansion. We must protect this delicate ecosystem.

Best,
Lindz
Jane BarrollVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
What can be wrongwith that, you may ask? Plenty.
First, natural gas ? the vapour form of LNG above minus 1620C- is highly flammable and, in a confined space, explosive. Just like gasoline, except more so. The International Maritime Organization classifies LNG as a hazardous cargo - just below explosives.
Locating a world-scale LNG plant on an earthquake-prone island in a narrow river channel trafficked by tugs, freighters, pleasure boats and seaplanes, opposite a jet fuel storage facility, is asking for trouble.
Floating 50,000-tonne tanker-loads of it past populated areas of Delta and Richmond to get to open ocean amplifies the locational risk. LNG industry association SIGTTO strongly advises against locating LNG plants in narrow inland waterways with significant ferry, commercial and recreational marine traffic. That?s the Lower Fraser.
Twenty miles south, U.S. regulations require a ?Waterway Suitability Assessment? for LNG facilities wanting to locate within 3.5 kilometers of significant human populations (3.5 kilometers is the limit of the hazard zone in case of a tanker cargo breach). This regulation was triggered by the 9/11 attack, as LNG plants near populated areas are considered high-consequence targets.
Next, LNG is an extreme fossil fuel, and we are in climate crisis seeing a warming planet, rising sea levels, food shortages and millions of climate refugees. Adding to B.C.?s fossil-fuel infrastructure would seem a step backward in countering this threat. Natural gas is a powerful greenhouse gas 86 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide. Burning five megatonnes of it would release 14 megatonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere - more than B.C.?s legislated emissions target for 2050.
LNG economics have been deteriorating since 2014. A worldwide supply glut of the commodity caused prices to plummet in Asia and Europe. Making LNG for US $400/tonne and selling it for $100/tonne is not a compelling business case, even for a regulated utility like FortisBC, which is guaranteed an eight per cent return on its capital investments by B.C. taxpayers.
Lastly, LNG plants have tall, smelly flares, need vast power supplies (think power pylons across Delta?s farm fields), use gas fracked in indigenous territories and mostly hire foreign workers and contractors to build and operate these facilities.
LNG proponents and government sometimes cite long lists of laws to suggest that the LNG industry is carefully regulated. That is simply not the case. For example:
Canada does not have a process for pre-screening terminal proposals and the suitability of waterways for LNG tankers, as does the United States;
Canadian maritime security regulations do not provide for moving security exclusion zones around LNG tankers, as required in the United States;
Canada does not have a preparedness and response regime for ship-source incidents involving hazardous substances like LNG;
Canada does not have a regulatory regime for bunkering LNG ?fuelled ships;
Neither Canada nor BC require proponents conduct a gap analysis of regional capability for risk management, or produce a cost sharing plan to ensure security enforcement resources are in place before commissioning;
The BC Oil and Gas commission does not require project proponents to assess risks to LNG tankers, hazards along marine approaches to terminals, or the likelihood and consequences of a deliberate attack on an LNG tanker or facility, and
Governments have not required the LNG industry develop a dedicated response organization, such as the one in place for oil spills.
Without a comprehensive regulatory framework to guide LNG development, export projects are being proposed in areas that put communities and critical infrastructure at risk. This is unacceptable. BC should place an immediate moratorium on LNG export approvals until proper rules are in place to protect the public.
Sincerely,
A voting citizen
John StevensDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
International LNG safety standards indicate that Tilbury is a very unsafe location for LNG.
In order to survive climate change, Canada needs to phase out all fossil fuels ASAP.
The Fraser River is much more valuable as a food source than an industrial area, as food security is more important than our current over consumptive economy.
Elizabeth PeterSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Dangerous to health of the environment, people and living creatures! Farmland and water will be impacted.
Megan AndersenWestham Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Farmland, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Once again big industry is pushing through when international calls for climate action are rising. It is shameful that you would risk this expansion project in a highly risky seismic area. The potential long term risks to farmland is also a concern to me. Stop this project now.
Erinne DrakeGabriola Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Hugely dangerous but not financially viable
Sonja FoggShirley, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
British Columbia?s do not want pipe lines. British Columbia is known for its beautiful nature and wildlife. The risk to wildlife is far to great to support pipeline projects in B.C. The resident orca whales are struggling to survive and are getting smaller each year, any more tankers, spills, traffic in general will to them. British Columbia should invest in clean energy.
Erika Koenig-WorkmanRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Farmland, Noise, Pipeline capacity.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It?s an out right shame that this project is going forward. Based on all concerns listed here, it?s very disappointing that the government is giving it a go ahead. Do we really need to export LNG ? Are the risks and dangers worth it? I?m concerned for those people who live close to this facility, for the heath of the Fraser River and all marine life.
Sheila PrattMaple Ridge, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The 14 points at the end of my comments are all valid comments regarding concerns. But I would like to know how the EAP weighs all the information/ submissions/lobbying activities it receives. Of course the proponents will spend a great deal of time, expert opinion and money to make an attractive proposal. Most members of the general public are busy with their lives and will be unaware of this proposal until the damage is done. Most members of the public do not feel they have the expertise to make a submission, even if they were aware of the opportunity. IF our government feels the environment is a priority, couldn't the government proceed without the theatre of requesting submissions from the public?
Finally, my objections to this project are not only environmental; they are also financial. Everything I've read about the future of the LNG industry has a negative bottom line. As well, the taxpayers will be footing the bill for clean-up. (We already are with the federal funding to create jobs to clean up orphan wells.) I would so much like more transparency surrounding the entire LNG industry; there are too many scientists and economists opposed to proceeding with it.

1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
12. Noise
13. Seismic risk
14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Kristy AndersenAbbotsford, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We need to stop expanding LNG production, we need to be moving to renewal resources that are not increasing the carbon footprint and adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Covid - 19 is teaching us that we have to do damaging the planet, we need to change how and where we invest our money to produce energy.
Michelle BjornsonVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Expansion of the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 project is madness. The Salish Sea and Fraser River Delta are too environmentally important for BC and the Pacific west coast, consequently to put so much marine life at risk for such short-term economic benefits is nothing more than short sighted selfish greed. When will government stop subsidizing fossil fuels? What is the certifiable future economic benefit of LNG? And how about the industry's impact on climate? Is there conflict of interest? The bottom line however is that there are to many safety concerns about this plant's location, so until there's shipping safety in place including strict LNG safety regulations, please do not proceed. In the long run, there are no public benefits to this project, only loss.
Sharon MackinDenman Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Today, on the news, 2 tankers ran into each other. What if on had been carrying LNG?
Oliver LammToronto, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It strikes me that shortsightedness and of course total greed are behind this project. Let me guess, the brainchild of a group of wealthy white men?
It's really incredible the liberties taken by the greedy with zero regard for the future of let's say my 6yr old.
This project is totally unnecessary.
Larry MyersBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Bad location, bad timing, serious threat to wildlife and our fragile environment
William OrrSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
That river is too narrrow and shallow for this terminal. This is setting up for a certain disaster. I chose all concerns topics. The web page doesn't work.
James RankinVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This seems backwards-thinking for a BC NDP government that I had previously assumed was intelligent. And concerned with the environment over profits.
Teri DaweSechelt, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Nightmare
Tara ShushtarianBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It was with such hope and pride that one saw Canada be a passionate leader pioneer and advocate for Climate justice during the Paris Summit. The proverbial Harper years were over. We all Pat the bone. The Euphoria is gone, we have come to the realization no matter which government, provincial or federal ,we have undertaken fossil fuel projects with a vengeance. Promises of a green recovery lie in the dust.
At first we held our nose and accepted the Petronas LNG at Kitimat. Then came Woodfibre in Squamish and now the Tilbury LNG. The science is out there on the colossal environmental impact with fracking, methane gas emissions etc. I would like our illustrous leaders when is the end in sight.
Roberta KingVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, no new jobs created.
The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.? Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.? It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site. How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?
LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). Prone to equipment malfunction and human caused accidents and terrorist actions, how does FortisBC plan to eliminate such risks with this project?
Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
Donna CouturierBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am concerned about the Fraser river
Lendus ChartrandWaterhen, ManitobaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Climate change is not a made up concept. It should not be taken lightly. These projects have zero benefit to the health of our one and only planet. We should not all be put into peril to line the pockets of so few.
Aleeka Frazier-PriggeSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Why is this happening?
During a climate emergency there should be more money invested into green jobs , a greener circular economy, and reusable energy. I want to have a future and I want my children to have a future but how can that happen if projects like this keep happening? We only have until 2030 to change this but projects like this only accelerate the timeline.
Elizabeth PsyllakisVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am concerned about the impact of all shipping in the Straits and inside passage. All of the choices on those listed are a concern.
Susanna Dokkie-McdonaldCrossfield, AlbertaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fossil fuels KILL EVERYTHING. One spill KILLS FOREVER.

Stolen land used for nefarious activities without consequences is the ultimate colonial betrayal. We must invest in sustainable, truly renewable power sources and divest away from fossil fuels in all its forms.
Tara ShorttVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Fossil fuel subsidies, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is a huge step backward in bc governments stated objective to cultivate more green jobs. LNG is a dirty fossil fuel, despite the rhetoric of the BC Liberal Party that touted it. The Greens and NDP need to do better. The federal Liberals need to do better. Please do not approve this Project for the future Canadians who hope for a greener destiny. LNG is a huge step backward in the race to save the earth?s habitability from human caused destruction. We need to do better. We need to ditch fossil fuels entirely if we are going to have a future as a species. We need renewables only. Solar, wind, Hydro, wave, kinetic. Period. green jobs please, not this. Please do not do this for the future British Colombians to hope for a green or destiny.Natural gas is a powerful greenhouse gas 86 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide. Burning five megatonnes of it would release 14 megatonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere - more than B.C.?s legislated emissions target for 2050.
Lead us to do the right thing. Stop this Expansion now.
Rodney KatzVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The shipping of highly explosive LNG through a narrow channel is disaster waiting to happen. Mac Magantique in Quebec is a sample of what could happen !
Rejean PiloteSaguenay, QuebecPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Its a catastroph.
Darlene JewraVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Noise, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It's all been said over and over our voices need to be heard and ACTION taken to address all every REAL concern!
Keith DunnePort Moody, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Public benefits, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is a very short sighted endeavor and is throwing good money after bad.
Sivalla MarcotteSaltspring Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am opposed to the Tilbury LNG expansion. It would have an unacceptable negative impact on marine ecology.
Nick TyzioVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
To whom it may concern
I am speaking out against FortisBC's disastrous proposal to expand Tilbury LNG on the Fraser River.

Not only will Tilbury LNG increase fracking in northeast BC and worsen climate change, but the regional impacts of Tilbury LNG affect our Howe Sound communities and environment, for example:

impacts to air quality and human health;
impacts to adult salmon in the Fraser River;
impacts to juvenile salmon, which use Howe Sound to transition to salt water;
impacts to the endangered Southern resident killer whales, which rely on salmon for food (and really don't need MORE tanker traffic in their habitat);
impacts to every FortisBC customer, who will be on the hook to pay for this Tilbury LNG expansion in their gas rates (if FortisBC gets its way with the BC Utilities Commission).
Ellen ReynoldsVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: FortisBC's conflict of interest.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Don?t do it!
Bill MackieVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Explosive potential
Anne MurrayDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Insurance and liability.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am strongly opposed to this LNG expansion project as I believe it to be highly unsafe for the globally-important wildlife habitats of the Fraser Estuary.
Patrick Mac NamaraSquamish, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
So big for such a busy and not so big a waterway
Christopher BlaberVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Move to renewable resources remove all investments in fossil fuels. Stop ruining our environment and remove danger to the environment.
Paul MagnusRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We need to have a livable future for the next generation.

Stop expanding Fossil Fuels & start transitioning to zero GHG emissions Economy now. Right now.

You've lost the plot folks. Global warming is an existential Emergency & we're basically out of time to act. Do the right thing.

And btw this can be safe for Communities on the Fraser.

Paul
Hisao IchikawaVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
We must protect our environment first before thinking about economical growth. Clean air, water and soil is what we need to stay alive and combat the Corona Virus too. Please stop the project. Thank you,.
Janice MccarthyWhite Rock, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There are far too many concerns surrounding this project to fit into this box.
Suffice it to say that this project is a danger to the citizens and the marine and wildlife of BC.
People and planet over reckless foreign owed corporations!
Kevin AfanasiffSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It should be obvious to anyone with a conscience that tankers on the Fraser River is a bad idea. Please do not allow that.
Shauna MokelkiVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Until the process is truly independent and responds to the voices of Indigenous, youth and environmental leaders moving forward should not proceed.
Sean HerbertBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Public benefits.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The benefits do not offset any environmental concerns. We should take care and think of ourselves first. Contaminated water in some places can light tap water on fire. Not to mention living in a high seismic activity area
Zachary BanwellVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It?s too risky and we are in a climate change crisis. Time to stop ignoring the facts and detrimental effects these projects pose on our country and the world. The Fraser Estuary is a major nursery for the Salmon species that is already in poor populations and needs to be nourished not developed. Again we are in a crisis situation!
Peter BatesVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River are a terrible idea.

Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.)

Please do not allow this project to be built.
Jazzmin CunninghamSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is not the way the future. We need to start investing in energy that is processed in Canada
Nancy HundalVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Harmful fossil fuels are on their way out. We need to look to the future and invest in technologies and jobs that do not further damage our planet.
Justine MurdyVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
There are at least 16 areas of extreme concern related to this project that are ignored at our peril if this expansion project proceeds.
Jasmine PahlVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I think the location is inappropriate and unsafe and I think it?s disingenuous to set climate goals and put our head in the sand on the impact of burning LNG.
Williamt MeyerVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
For many reasons,(protection of the environment and marine wildlife to name only the obvious).

I vote against the expansion.

A safer place must be found to construct such an operation.
Sheila McdonnellCourtenay, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is appalling that this project is under consideration. There is nothing acceptable about LNG exports, from the continued support of fossil fuel extraction, with water contamination and environmental destruction at the wells, along the route and at the plant - to the failing demand for the product offshore. And this particular location, in a major population centre, sensitive habitat, unstable seismic and estuary deposits is too great a risk. Increased shipping in the estuary and Georgia strait will damage endangered marine mammals and the annual salmon runs, already on the brink of collapse. Stop this madness now and protect our future.
William Lytle-McgheePowell River, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Insanity to have LNG tankers in the Fraser River.........more crazy high risk behaviour for $$$.
Robin Del Pino FerriesVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am opposed to the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project for the following reasons:
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050. We are in a climate crisis emergency and it is urgent to stop using fossil fuels immediately. We are already at 400+ over the allowable 350 atmospheric carbon levels and the arctic is on fire right now releasing more. Immediate action is required to halt expansion of fossil fuel projects and transition to sustainable energy options.

Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.
This facility would be located in the area of the Lower Mainland most at risk during an earthquake. Japanese LNG import facilities, post-Fukishima, are required to sink their storage tanks so their tops are at ground level ? why are Tilbury?s overground and lacking any secondary containment?
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods and losing these apex predators creates biodiversity collapse of local coastal habitats and the species that economically benefit citizens.

The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in Oregon.

The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.


Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.

I am opposed to the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 Expansion Project for the above reasons.
Chris RoseQuathiaski Cove, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
As far as I?m concerned the fact that the world atmosphere has reached a pollution index of 416 ppm in June 2020 all fossil fuel mining/export/utilization anywhere in the world should stop if we want to avoid ecocide.
Jane WeltonVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I do not agree with the BC government's promotion of LNG, for domestic use nor for export. LNG has very high greenhouse gas emissions and should be left in the ground. We should go directly to electrification. There is no time to waste or we will go past the climate tipping point. Exporting it is even worse than using it domestically because then the GHG emissions cost is even higher, encompassing not just the emissions in its production and its use but additional emissions in its transportation, not to mention the safety risks involved in the transportation and the disaster that spills will be. FortisBC should live up to its name and serve only BC.
On top of my fundamental disagreement, there are specific additional factors against this particular project. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River are a bad idea and do not meet the standards of many other jurisdictions including the U.S. Canada should clearly have higher standards.
It is proven that production of clean energy results in much more job creation than LNG production does, most importantly permanent jobs.
There is no feasible economic argument for LNG production in BC. Even mainstream economists agree on that. Other jurisdictions have plenty of LNG in more accessible places with infrastructure to produce and transport it already in place. BC cannot compete and should stop trying.
The wasted money in govt subsidies to LNG is appalling. That money could be saving us from climate disaster and instead is pushing us faster toward it.
The added tanker traffic will push the Salish Sea orcas even faster towards extinction. This is not just about erasing a unique and iconic species from the planet. When 1 animal goes extinct, a whole ecosystem goes out of whack with dire consequences for everything in it, including humans.
Covid has shown us that food security matters hugely. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity which means transmission lines across farm land, which means less land actually available for farming right when we have realized the need for more farm land, not less.
Tilbury LNG is in a seismic zone that is due for a big one any time. An earthquake would result in an environmental and human disaster in such a highly populated area--fires, explosions, poisoned air, poisoned water...
BC's Environmental Assessment process needs to consider all GHG emissions associated with any project, including upstream and downstream, in BC and elsewhere in the world. It doesn't matter where the LNG is used. The emissions produced will still affect BC citizens by pushing the planet closer to climate disaster. (Plus of course we should be caring about citizens elsewhere on the planet, not just ourselves.)
Barbara BeamissLangley, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Insurance and liability, Pipeline capacity, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The extraction of LNG involving fracking is not without environmental impact. Use of massive amounts of fresh water, the pumping of harmful chemicals into the ground and the release of methane all contribute to climate change. It?s time FortisBC and the BC government seriously explore and fund wind and solar power in this province. Climate change is a huge issue with British Columbians and will be on voters minds come election time Mr. Horgan.
Susanna Dokkie-McdonaldCrossfield, AlbertaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG is a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are killing our plants ability to support life. Money will never replace the environmental damage. Canada's colonial fingers have gone too far on stolen lands and waters and all that depend on its bountiful, life sustaining, natural resources. The destruction must stop.
Robert WinstonSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Expansion of LNG is going in the opposite direction to which we must urgently go - away from fossil fuels, environmental harm and ultimately threat to a human habitable Earth. Don't be on the side of short term profit for the few versus a world for the Seventh Generation.
Norma GiovanellaSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am especially concerned about the impact this project will have on the Fraser River and the area surrounding the site. The habitat for native plants and animals will be destroyed. The upstream fracking will lead to the destruction of agricultural land and the habitat for species at risk.
beverly fordSurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
LNG safey standards are bit addressed in the location of the narrow, busy Fraser River.
Shipping a hazardous product in a populous area with marine, air and recreational traffic is not a reasonable or prudent decision.
Zachary HambrookVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project is anathema to the economic stimulus BC desperately needs right now. It will be fought. It is a waste of resources, not a management of resources. I live on the Fraser and am disgusted that representatives anywhere in BC would sell out the people for a project with such limited perceived benefits and such enormous risk and impacts. This project must not proceed, it will cost the public, the economy, and our environment far far too much and provide virtually nothing in return. I vow to vote, and campaign against any party in favour of this project, and vote for any party oppose. It sows me who is an honest actor that has my communities safety at heart.

Thank you for your time,

Zachary Hambrook
Cathy FortinPrince George, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This is a hazardous, contentious project. There are so many issues with LNG that I don't even know where to begin so I will just say that we need to look further into the future and realize that LNG is a dying industry. Stop sinking money into a no-win project such as this and start offering more sustainable choices.
Marjory LangWest Vancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
941 Jefferson Ave

In the current climate emergency it is unconscionable to add yet more greenhouse gases to the environment, more especially since the cost of renewables is sinking and the mega-hydro project at Site C will soon open.
Moreover, the safety concerns are significant. Though the chances are low, an accident would have horrific consequences for the community I live it.
Paul WittDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River?
Bad idea.
Tankers and barges loading LNG at the jetty would have to be custom-built to pass over the 11.5m draught limitation of the Massey tunnel. Those 300-meter long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.

2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Fracking, pipelining and liquefying methane gas into LNG results in
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions at least on par with coal and oil. The climate disruption effects of fossil fuels ? sea-level rise (crucial for Delta and Richmond), ocean acidification and increases in floods, wildfires and violent storms ? are hugely concerning to residents of the Lower Mainland. Fortis? Tilbury expansion would be incompatible with BC?s climate action plan (CleanBC) and with Canada?s international commitments to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050.

3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
The social and economic benefits of the project for Delta/Richmond, Metro Vancouver and BC are generally small and are poorly outlined in the proposal. The project would employ only 110 people when in full operation and ?as these positions will be filled by existing employees at the Tilbury LNG Plant, the Project will not create new employment opportunities and therefore not affect labour market balance.? Tilbury LNG?s business purpose is vague ? it suggests that the LNG product could be sold as bunker fuel to unnamed major ports along the West Coast or exported to unknown Asian markets or even sold to ?other potential customers.? It uses the BC Input-Output Model (BCIOM) to analyze and predict project-related effects on direct, as well as indirect employment, labour income and government taxation revenues. That model was discredited after it predicted, in 2013, a BC LNG industry employing 100,000 people, generating $100 billion in LNG revenues to Government and resulting in a ?debt-free BC,? none of which have actually transpired.

4. Plant location and safety concerns
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.

LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?

Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?

5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Successive provincial and Federal Governments have showered the well-heeled, foreign-owned LNG industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies. These include cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.

6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
The population of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Salish Sea is already at near-extinction levels. Adding LNG tanker, tug and barge traffic will only add to the stresses on the remaining orca pods.

7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
FortisBC is a regulated utility whose charges to Customers are based on recovering its expenses for service. Building a 5 megatonne LNG plant will cost in excess of $5 Billion. Will financing for this come out of BC customers? pockets and raise our heating and food preparation costs through the roof (as happened with Australian LNG developments, which tripled gas bills for locals)?

8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
The proposed location is in Canada?s most important salmon river, opposite a storage terminal for flammable jet fuel, in BC?s prime earthquake-liquefaction zone, and in the path of a narrow commercial and recreational shipping lane of freighters, tugs, barges and aircraft. The Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, strongly recommends against locating LNG facilities in such narrow, crowded waterways. Because of such risks, U.S. regulations prevent LNG plants and shipping routes from locating within 3.5 km. of populated areas. In 2016, a fire in nearby Burns bog caused the evacuation of the Tilbury LNG plant. Fighting an LNG fire requires responders equipped with special foam retardant and a well-practiced emergency response plan to evacuate local residents and businesses in the event of a fire. Just such an event happened in 2014 at an LNG plant in Oregon.

9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
Liquefying and storing LNG requires huge amounts of electrical power. An expanded Tilbury plant would need electricity supply from two sub-stations and require building unsightly power lines and pylons across ALR farmlands in Richmond and Delta.

10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
The BC Environmental Assessment Process is seriously flawed and in the pocket of industry. Its starting assumption is that each project proposal will be approved subject to actions that could mitigate the worst of the environmental effects. It provides no means of challenging, via cross-examination, proponent-supplied ?science? , instead relying almost exclusively and unquestioningly on the findings of proponent-paid professionals. ?Open Houses? in affected communities are poorly advertised and provide no opportunity to question proponents. Comment periods are far too short to allow the public time to examine the thousands of pages of boiler-plate proponent submissions. The process largely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple projects in the same area, and, unlike its U.S. counterpart, does not factor the social and economic disruptions the project will cause in local communities. Community and provincial benefits assessments focus almost exclusively on short-term employment, based on an economic model that wildly overestimates the effects of resource-based projects. The ability to assess this risky project will be hampered by the serious flaws in the BC EA process.

11. GHCs and other air pollutants
Fortis estimates the plant?s annual direct emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes go greenhouse gases. That?s equivalent to adding almost 60,000 cars to Delta?s roads.

12. Noise
Cooling equipment for air-cooled LNG plants (to draw away the heat released in the liquefaction process) require many large, noisy fans and/or large releases of steam emissions. What are the noise and steam vapour characteristics of the proposal?

13. Seismic risk
This facility would be located in the area of the Lower Mainland most at risk during an earthquake. Japanese LNG import facilities, post-Fukishima, are required to sink their storage tanks so their tops are at ground level ? why are Tilbury?s overground and lacking any secondary containment?

14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.
Dr. David SadowaySurrey, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise.

My more detailed comments about this project:
[1] The use of the sensitive Fraser River estuary for ongoing development and transportation, particularly for subsidised LNG transfers up and down the river (to the proposed Tilbury LNG Plant) is highly problematic and needs reconsideration or outright cancellation by B.C. and Federal Regulators;

[2] The proposed Tilbury LNG project and shipping provisions also appears to be in breach of the Federal (2019) Fisheries Act (i.e. habitat protection; sonic impacts) and the lack of considerations or diminution of therein by the project proponents and B.C. and Federal reviewers are highly troubling precedents (for salmonoid and other marine/shore species habitats) ;

[3] Ongoing 'process/approvals short-sightedness' from successive provincial, municipal and Metro governments in and around ill considered urban development and infrastructures -- particularly in or adjacent to the sensitive Fraser River --- not only diminishes the environmental quality of the most important river in B.C. (i.e. the Fraser), it also undermines the quality of life for all residents of Metro Vancouver now and into the future. Cumulative impacts and 'moving goalposts' continue to undermine our shared quality of life in B.C.
Kitana NuttallVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River.

My more detailed comments about this project:
1- We should not subsidize fossil fuel export
2- Ocean acidification and increase in floods
3- Locating hazardous and noxious substance LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways is wrong
4- Liquefying and storing LNG requires huge amount of electrical power
5- BC?s environmental assessment process is flawed.
6- Polluting emissions will be over 226,500 tonnes of greenhouse gases.
7- Noisy fans and large releases of steam emissions.
8- Risk during earthquake for lack of secondary containment
9- Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces a significant upstream impact on wildlife
Connie HubbsVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I have many concerns with this project. First of all we all need to recognize that any fossil fuel project at this stage is going in the wrong direction..
Our first priority should be moving away from energy sources that cause climate change.
That being said, there are some particular concerns with this project that make is a particularly bad choice.
My first concern is the location.
Long tankers, with 60,000 tonnes of highly-flammable LNG aboard, would have to sail past highly-populated areas of Richmond, Delta and Steveston. The risks and consequences of collisions, groundings and release of cargo are significant, as are the risks of turning 300-meter long laden tankers around in the narrow, fast-flowing river channel at Tilbury. SIGTTO, the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operations, recommends a turning radius of 2-3 times the ship?s length (600-900m.) ? impossible at Tilbury.
Both industry-group SIGTTO (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) and U.S. DHS Regulations strongly argue against locating LNG plants near human populations and/or in narrow inland waterways with significant aircraft, ferry, freighter and recreational traffic. This is a good description of the Tilbury site.
LNG is classified as a HNS (Hazardous and Noxious substance) cargo rated second only to explosives as a shipping risk by the International Maritime organization (IMO). How does Fortis propose to reduce the risk from accident and terrorist actions?
Fighting a fire at a LNG facility on a waterway (opposite a jet-fuel terminal and near fire-prone Burns Bog, where a fire in 2017 triggered the complete evacuation of Tilbury Island) requires special equipment, such as foam retardant and fire-boats, of which Richmond and Delta have neither. Will Fortis be compensating these cities for the expense of providing publicly-funded emergency response and security capabilities?
As well as the exact location, please consider the potentially dire upstream impacts.
Producing millions of tonnes of methane gas via fracking produces significant upstream impacts like freshwater pollution, methane leakage, etc. Destroying indigenous territories and leaving behind a toxic legacy of leaky, abandoned wells is entirely unacceptable.
The last thing our federal government should be doing is subsidize the fossil fuel industry
We provide cheap electricity, exemption from carbon tax increases on GHG emissions, PST and GST exemptions and zero LNG taxes. Using taxpayer?s money for these subsidies is grossly unfair to citizens struggling to cope with housing, food and transportation cost increases.
Please do not approve this terribly flawed project.

With thanks
Connie Hubbs
Carole TootillNanaimo, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Absolute insanity to risk so much destruction knowing the cost to build, operate, and clean-up is taxpayer subsidized while the Canadian and foreign entities get to walk away and leave us the mess. It is no secret that the industry is in severe decline and in need of public subsidy, is a horrendous polluter, and is trampling on the rights and title of aboriginal peoples. The provincial and federal governments completely lied in their pre-election promises not to subsidize this industry, uphold First Nations rights and reconcile, and care for the environment. Both levels of government have betrayed the citizenry, environment, and future generations. Stop destroying B.C. and the world!
Wendie NelsonBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I strongly urge the BC Environmental Assessment Office to reject FortisBC's request to expand its LNG plant on Tilbury Island. There are so many reasons why their bid goes against the public interest:
- the increase in methane gas associated with LNG extraction gives the lie to BC and Canada's promises to decrease GHGs;
- the health risks for both humans and the environment associated with the fracking process are well documented, and it is the government's duty to ensure no further harm be done;
- the location of the plant is highly inappropriate for the proposed activities: the narrow river, the known seismic dangers, the heavily-populated adjacent communities are all obvious reasons for denying expansion of the plant;
- salmon and orca populations are highly at risk in the waters of BC; this plant heightens all of the dangers to which they are already exposed, including possible toxic spills, increased tanker traffic with its accompanying noise and pollution;
- the Fraser river itself is overused and abused by human activity, and this plant expansion would put its survival even more at risk.

These are just a few of the most germane reasons for the Environmental Assessment office to say no to the Fortis bid. Do the right thing for this province's environment and people.

Wendie Nelson
Ann McIvorPort Alberni, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
It is much too risky to even consider. We should be using our resources locally, not for export, not when it comes to jeopardizing the safety of all. The plant location is way too close to people's homes. We know from experience who foots the bill for the damage and destruction caused by these projects. We don't need it, once again its not for the benefit of the people, it's all about big profits. Don't forget about the process of fracking , which is a very destructive way of extracting natural gas, The process of fracking injects lots of fresh water mixed with hazardous chemicals like benzene ( and who knows what else as they don't have to say..) along with sand into drill sites to break up hard shale formations and release the trapped gas. This also causes methane to escape into the atmosphere, which has a serious impact on our climate. Water..contamination!!that alone should disqualify this project..not to mention, "Wherever the oil and gas industry pumps large volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to ?liberate? natural gas during fracking, earthquakes commonly occur". https://www.policynote.ca/memo-to-northeast-bc/
Please don't pass this!
Marion ShikazeBurnaby, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
This project should not proceed. It adds further congestion to an already overcrowded area, which affects marine life (orcas, salmon), bird life (transit route is thru an IBA and international RAMSAR site). Methane gas released thru production affects all life thru climate change.
I don't understand how the assessment panel can possibly look at the location, assess the risks and benefits, and think that this is a good idea--I conclude that the assessment process is flawed badly, stacked in favour of large corporations and may as well not pretend to be neutral--this pretence angers me.
Kae ElgieWaterloo, OntarioPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife, Farmland.

My more detailed comments about this project:
My main concern is environmental safety and climate impacts -- environmental safety because of the risk of accidents in the busy Fraser River channel, and resulting release of highly flammable liquified natural gas; climate effects because we are increasing our reliance on fossil fuels by choosing to invest in this plant expansion, INSTEAD OF developing safer less impactful alternatives.

I have very much enjoyed visiting BC as a tourist and want there to be beautiful ocean vistas and animals to be there on my next visit.
Patricia BossortDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Environmental Assessment Process, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I cannot believe this project is even being considered.

From the stand point of public safety and potential environmental damage to the river and surrounding area, it is a huge risk. So many good papers have been submitted to you describing the research identifying these risks, I am not going to try to paraphrase for you here. Read them!

Conducting this assessment process during this time of covid isolation restrictions, is irresponsible at best.

The risks to public safety and the environment far outweigh the, as yet unproven, economic benefit Fortis has asserted.

Don't approve this!
Barbara CollierSt. Albert, AlbertaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
8 Farmstead Avenue
St. Albert, Alberta
T8N 1V8

Dear Panel:

As you can see from the above list, I have many concerns about this expansion of the LNG Tilbury Plant. Firstly, I think that your assessment process is flawed as any expansion of a fossil fuel facility should trigger an EIA because of the damage to the environment, marine life and greenhouse gas emissions. That this plant should be allowed to expand and increase traffic in a narrow, busy Fraser River should signal an automatic "no" to this proposal. The Fraser River is a world class salmon fishery and is already enduring an over capacity of river traffic.
The danger of increased ship traffic in the Salish Sea to the resident killer whales has been well documented and should be heeded as a significant environmental risk that should dictate a cancellation of any expansion plans.
Fortis is a national company and should be serving Canadian consumers, not jeopardizing our natural environment to supply overseas markets.
In this time of climate accountability and looking at clean tech infrastructure, the public should be supporting alternate energy projects not subsidizing fossil fuels. No project that increases GHC should be considered.
As with all polluting projects these days, the economic benefits have been overstated with few permanent jobs resulting from this expansion.
I ask that you consider all these points when evaluating the risk to the climate and the environment versus the economic gain to Canada (not Fortis) in this expansion.

Yours sincerely,
Barbara Collier
Larry ColcyPender Island, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Here are 14 re3asons that the Tilbury LNG expansion should not be approved:

LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
Plant location and safety concerns
The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
GHCs and other air pollutants
Noise
Seismic risk
Upstream impacts of fracked gas production

Larry Colcy
Anita Den DikkenDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am very concerned about the location of this project. Canada does not follow the standards for safety of LNG and other hazardous products promulgated by the Society of International Gas Terminal and Tanker Operators. LNG plants should not be located within 3.5 km. of populated areas. Just across the Fraser from Tilbury is an entertainment complex as well as recent condominium developments. Accidental rupture in LNG tanks and the ensuing vapor would flash freeze everything within a 500 metre radius and under certain conditions, fires might result, endangering anyone within the danger zone. Further this plant is in an earthquake zone and no one knows when the next "big one" will strike. Do we really want a potential source of extreme danger added to the human, physical, and economic tolls of a major earthquake?
Why are we playing with people's lives?
The Fortis plant's annual emissions are estimated to be the equivalent of 60,000 automobiles in Delta.
My other concerns related to the upstream fugitive emissons of methane resulting from fracking, and fracking itself which uses vast quantities of water and chemicals. There are potential health impacts and let's not forget, resultant earthquakes in fracking areas.
Lawrence SurgesVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The model for assessing economic benefits failed miserably in 2013, and this project will not increase permanent employment. During a global climate crisis, it proposes producing a greenhouse gas, generating heat as it?s compressed into LNG, and using major amounts of electricity ? a commodity which consumers are asked to conserve.

It will increase ship movements through the range of an endangered population of orcas and a major river for a declining population of salmonoids on which they feed.

The capital cost poses an unacceptable risk for a regulated utility, and the facility is in the heart of an urban centre.

In short, the risk is too high. Greenhouse gasses and climatic effects are global problems, and BC, which prides itself on its beauty, must be part of the solution and protect its natural assets.
Rosemary PogueShawnigan Lake, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am opposed to the Tilbury LNG Phase ll expansion. The Fraser River, a narrow waterway is not a suitable location for this LARGE expansion. There is not room for a big increase in huge tankers navigating the river. It also brings several other safety risks. LNG is a hazardous and noxious substance second only to explosives as a shipping risk. The site is across from a jet fuel terminal and close to the fire prone Burns Bog. Much of the surrounding area contains large communities. The Richmond City Council has voted 8 to 1 against the expansion. LNG terminals can result in explosions - forcing mass evacuations and large fires as occurred at Tilbury in 2017.

Another major and inevitable risk is the Juan De Fuca subduction zone which could slip causing a mega earthquake any time. These mega quakes have occurred up to 600 years apart once, up to 200 years several times with other variations. The last one was about 300 years ago. Canada lacks dependable LNG safety regulations. We are not prepared for a major earthquake or a LNG disaster.

The economic benefits are small, few new jobs, a cost to taxpayers due to LNG subsidies as well as the possibility of increased natural gas for BC residents. Who will be paying for this proposed expansion?

The Fraser River is home to one of BC's largest salmon runs. Major disruption to the river and increased tanker traffic is irresponsible for the local communities and for the web of life in the Salish Sea. We have a responsibility to the Orca population as well as the entire ecosystem.

Scientific analysis is showing that Fracked LNG can result in a greater Global Warming impact than coal. We should not be rushing in to LNG development until we know the true impact.

Please do not approve this expansion and extend the period of comment so communities have more time to understand such a expansion.

Thank you for your kind attention to my submission, Rosemary Pogue
Lois SanfordVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The LNG expansion projects is wrong for many reasons:
1. It contributes to greenhouse gases just as much as oil and gas, increasing climate risks and destabilizing the globe;
2. It will threaten the ecosystem and species health of Fraser River and surrounding waterways;
3. It increases the risk of earthquakes in an already risky area.

We need to stop developing, and stop subsidizing industries that contribute to climate change. Now.
David JonesDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Insurance and liability.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Fortis LNG plant in Tilbury
Expansion Activity as of Summer 2020, and Export Plans
July 16, 2020 David Jones Page 1 of 5
Summary
The Fortis LNG plant on Tilbury Island in the Fraser River for some time now has produced a very small amount of LNG for local use.
This LNG plant now in the midst of an ambitious Expansion plan, to raise the LNG production many times over, together with plans to ship the greatly increased production to faraway markets.
This expansion completely changes the nature of the Tilbury facility, from a useful buffer to balance out local variations in supply and demand, to a massive export facility.
This development raises a number of very serious concerns, in the environmental field as well as safety and commercial fields.
Fortis has proposed to partner with other companies on this project, but the actual corporate bodies involved in this export proposal have changed recently, making it very difficult for the public to discern who is doing what, and most importantly who is responsible ultimately for any disaster that may arise in future.
LNG is a highly flammable and explosive material. At the top of the public?s concern surely must be the ownership of these facilities, as liability for cleanup, disaster repair, etc. can only be implemented if the ownership is clearly identified.
As an illustration of this critical point, refer back to the Lac-Megantic disaster in 2013 when a CPR train, carrying highly flammable oil, derailed, caught fire and ignited a huge blaze, resulting in 47 deaths. This disaster did not rebound financially onto the CPR, as they had no ownership of this particular short section of the railroad; it was actually owned by a small, separate company, (Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway), that was placed into bankruptcy shortly after and thus the liability conveniently could not be traced back to the CPR.
This kind of legal corporate juggling is what we, the public have to avoid in the case at hand. The Lac-Megantic disaster was bad enough, but the Tilbury Island project has the potential to make it pale in comparison. Think Hiroshima. The total explosive power of an LNG ship is actually much bigger than the first atom bomb exploded back in 1945.
Facts on the corporate ownership are in short supply to the public, which continues to change, without any clear public announcements, let alone public permission.
Fortis LNG plant in Tilbury
Expansion Activity as of Summer 2020, and Export Plans
July 16, 2020 David Jones Page 2 of 5
Concerns
This project is actually 2 projects ?.. An LNG plant and a shipping facility, with different owners
I. Corporate Ownership
i) LNG Plant.
This project is apparently owned outright by Fortis BC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortis Inc., a Canadian company, but with wide corporate interests throughout Canada, the US and elsewhere.
Fortis BC is only one of 10 utility companies that Fortis Inc. owns. Fortis Inc. is a very strong utility company, financially, as evidenced by their most recent financial report, 2020 Management Circular:
??. Over a 20-year period, Fortis has delivered an average annualized total return of 14.3%.?
Perhaps noteworthy that half of the Fortis Inc. directors are now based in the USA, the remainder are Canadian.
A bit surprising for a company based in St. Johns, NL, but possibly this reflects the current assets of Fortis Inc., or the nationality of the shareholders?
ii) LNG Marine Terminal, (?the Jetty?)
This is where the main problems begin, or at least where there are questions that need answering:
A few years ago, when this project first came to the public notice, via ?open houses?, etc., we were informed that there were two projects proposed: The expanded LNG Plant by Fortis, and the Marine Shipping Terminal, (the Jetty) , by a company called WesPac Midstream ? Vancouver LLC.
The latter were to be responsible for building the Jetty and the shipment of said LNG on large tanker to various customers.
It was never clear what the relationship between Fortis BC and WesPac Midstream was, if any.
In fact, it was hard to get any detailed information on WesPac Marine Inc.
Some years have passed, and progress on the project was slow; so Phase 1 is still under construction. When complete, that phase will take the production capacity from 60 TPD LNG to 760 TPD LNG. And further storage capacity has also being added, to raise from 28,000 M3 to 74,000 M3. This is all for domestic consumption apparently, so no Jetty is necessary right away.
Fortis LNG plant in Tilbury
Expansion Activity as of Summer 2020, and Export Plans
July 16, 2020 David Jones Page 3 of 5
Phase 2 is much bigger (adding 11,000 TPD extra LNG production, a 15 X increase); but this has not yet begun, as it is dependent on export markets, and hence the need for the Jetty.
Now we are now informed that the Jetty is to be built after all, but owned by a new corporate entity owned jointly by Fortis BC and Seaspan International. No more mention of WesPac Midstream, curiously.
There are major concerns about this Jetty, as it will protrude right into the Fraser River, which is already quite narrow at this point. Therefore the public has a right to know:
- Who is responsible for building the Jetty?
- Where is the Design of the Jetty? Has it been vetted by independent engineers?
- How robust is it? e.g. if a large tanker slams into it due to human error (it happens all the time!), will it survive?
- Who is designing the Jetty, and what sort of liability insurance do they have?
- When the Second Narrows Bridge collapsed in 1958, the blame was ultimately laid on the design engineers (by the Royal Commission of Enquiry).
II SAFETY
i) General considerations
LNG is an explosive substance, highly explosive in fact.
Anybody who uses natural gas in their home knows that; as consumers we are bombarded daily with warnings from Fortis about the dangers of natural gas.
The explosive power contained in a modern LNG tanker can be compared to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. There are differences however; the atomic bomb exploded all at once, in milliseconds or less, so the velocity of the heat and shock wave was enormous.
In contrast, if the worst happened to an LNG tanker, and it caught fire, it couldn?t explode all at once like the bomb, because the reaction requires vast volumes of oxygen that would take seconds or even minutes to arrive at the point of ignition, thus slowing down the explosive force of the outbound gas, by about 1000 X or more.
Liquefied natural gas is explosive too, but the dangers are different.
Ignition is an issue, and evaporation of the liquid is also important, too complex to explore here.
Ignition requires oxygen of course, (i.e. lots of air), and if the methane is 100 % of the atmosphere above the liquid, (as in the LNG tank itself), ignition cannot occur. It?s only when the vapour escapes the tank and starts mixing with air, that ignition can occur.
Fortis LNG plant in Tilbury
Expansion Activity as of Summer 2020, and Export Plans
July 16, 2020 David Jones Page 4 of 5
The lower explosive limit in air, (LEL in industry parlance), is 5% methane, balance air, and the higher explosion limit is 15 % methane, balance air. Outside of these limits the mixture will not ignite. So pure methane cannot ignite, and very dilute methane (< 5% methane) cannot ignite either.
Of course, in the event of a spill, once the (cold) liquid begins to evaporate, and mix with air, the ingredients are all there to form the explosive mixture.
LNG, the liquid, is lighter than water, and in case of a spill on the ocean, it should therefore should float on top of the water, (and then volatilize, leading to possible ignition).
There are complications due to the extreme low temperature of the LNG, (it will freeze any nearby water into ice, temporarily), but this is outside the scope of this submission.
ii) History and current concerns
Suffice to say that LNG can and has exploded in the past.
In fact, one of the very first LNG plants built in 1944 in Cleveland, exploded and burnt, with terrible loss of life. That accident probably accounts for why LNG was not used for many years. It turned out that metallurgical problems were a major reason, and they have since been remedied so the industry gained some confidence in avoiding huge disasters like the Cleveland one, and LNG plants resumed production eventually.
Since then, there have been numerous smaller accidents, and the dangers are now well known.
Accidental explosions are one thing but another concern is terrorists causing an explosion deliberately. Think 9/11.
This is taken very seriously at commercial LNG plants, and in the USA they have very strict rules regarding passage of LNG tankers from the port out to the open ocean. There is an LNG terminal near Boston, Mass., on the Charles River, where LNG is imported and unloaded for use in the Boston area.
The rules regarding other vessels on this river are quite intimidating. Military style ships and guards are employed, and other shipping is prohibited from coming anywhere near the LNG vessel while it is sailing.
iii) International Guidelines
There is an international organization, SIGTTO, which has published rules to guide the shipping of LNG tankers.
These guidelines are voluntary, i.e. nations may or may not adhere to them, according to their laws; the Boston LNG facility apparently doesn?t obey the SIGTTO rules
Fortis LNG plant in Tilbury
Expansion Activity as of Summer 2020, and Export Plans
July 16, 2020 David Jones Page 5 of 5
One of the key rules in SIGGTO is the mandatory space to be given to an LNG tanker while progressing in a navigation channel, (like a river), to or from an LNG terminal. The requirements are so strict as to basically prevent any other commercial vessels from proceeding in that channel at the same time, e.g. 0.5 km upstream or downstream of said tanker.
In the case at hand, it might rule out any commercial traffic from Tilbury through Georgia Strait and out to the Pacific Ocean. The Tilbury plant would be located in a very narrow section of river, and for comparison the tankers would stretch more than halfway across the river at that point
Given that there are about 10,000 vessel sailings per year through Georgia Straight, it is hard to see how this tanker traffic, with the prohibited zone all around each ship, and travelling slowly for safety reasons, could operate at all.
This is a serious strike against the viability of the Tilbury plant
Yvonne BellRichmond, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I live within two miles of the LNG plant and I am very concerned about this proposal. The following are my concerns about the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 expansion:
1. LNG tankers in the narrow, busy Fraser River? Bad idea.
2. LNG is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
3. Economic benefits are overstated, few new jobs created.
4. Plant location and safety concerns
5. The public should not subsidize fossil fuel exports.
6. Salish Sea orcas don?t need the stress of added boat traffic.
7. Fortis BC should focus on serving the BC public, not foreign markets.
8. Canada lacks world class LNG safety regulations.
9. An expanded LNG terminal will need electricity, meaning transmission lines on farm land.
10. BC?s environmental assessment process is seriously flawed.
11. GHCs and other air pollutants
12. Noise
13. Seismic risk
14. Upstream impacts of fracked gas production
Mary TaittDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects, Shipping safety, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Farmland, Environmental Assessment Process, Noise, Seismic risk, Other.

My more detailed comments about this project:
BOUNDARY BAY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
July 16, 2020

The Honourable John Horgan, Premier of B.C., [email protected]
The Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Strategy [email protected]

Cc: The Honourable John Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
[email protected];
Cc: The Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Employment, Workforce
Development and Disability Inclusion [email protected];

BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) Impact Assessment Act Canada (IAAC)
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Re: Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion Project (#80496)
Thank you for the opportunity to give input from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC) on the Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion Project.
We have submitted comments on these projects by Fortis and WesPac on Tilbury Island in Delta over the last five years: to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and to BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO). More recently on 17 May 2019, we wrote to both BCEAO and CEAA on the Federal Environmental Assessment of the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty (Registry #80105).

We have not received any answers to the questions we have raised over the five years.

Process:

Members of the BBCC strongly object to:

1. The dangerous piecemealing of the reviews of these projects on Tilbury Island (Fortis - Phase 1 - the enormous LNG storage tank and huge infrastructure for the liquefaction production of LNG are nearly complete, the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project, and now the Fortis Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion Project).

2. The split accountabilities between the National Energy Board, CEAA now the Impact Assessment Act Canada (IAAC) and BCEAO and the BC Utilities Comm.

3. The moving of the limits on production and storage of the whole project with each project application over the last 7 years of ongoing review processes.

4. The failure of both levels of government to fully assess the ?upstream? and ?downstream? cumulative effects of methane emissions on global warming.

Recommendation 1

BBCC recommends that all the FortisBC Projects from fracking LNG (its cumulative environmental effects e.g. methane leaks, water contamination and earthquake generation), to liquefaction process pollutants, estuary storage, jetty loading, then transport in the Fraser River, through the Salish Sea (including the, Fraser Estuary, Georgia Strait, Boundary Bay, Boundary Pass, Haro Strait and Juan de Fuca Strait) and the end burning of the LNG and its cumulative contribution to global warming must be comprehensively reviewed at the highest level possible in Canada by an Independent Expert Review Panel through the IAAC.


Questions on Past Reviews:

1. Members of the BBCC have not seen any notification for public input into a review process for the Tilbury Phase 1 LNG Expansion Project. (1) When was the Phase 1 review conducted? - and (2) by which level of government?

2. Further, members of the BBCC did not see any notification for public input into the National Energy Board?s decision to grant an export license to WesPac Texas in the first place. (3) When was this held? (4) Was there an opportunity for Public Input?

3. Given that The National Energy Board ?is an independent federal regulator of several parts of Canada's energy industry with the safety of Canadians and protection of the environment as its top priority ??, (5) How can they give approval to such a potentially dangerous project for Canadians living in the Lower Mainland of BC, especially in the communities of Richmond and Delta, without any public assessment of risks (Figure 1)?

4. And if ?protection of the environment? really is such a ?top priority? (6) how can the National Energy Board give approval to a project that could have disasterous consequences for Canada?s most significant environmental areas: including the internationally acclaimed and designated Fraser River Estuary, the Fraser River itself, the Salish Sea home to endangered Orcas etc. without a full environmental review by both levels of government and their International Partner nations in the Salish Sea.
Figure 1. Hazard Zones for LNG Tanker Ships (Courtesy Real Hearings)
KEY: Hazard Zones RED - 500m, DARK BLUE ? 1600m, PALE BLUE - 3,500m

Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion Project
Now we have another piecemeal application by FortisBC Holdings Inc. (FortisBC). It proposes ?to expand its existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility on Tilbury Island to increase the LNG storage capacity of the facility up to 162,000 cubic meters (4.0 petajoules). Through the construction of a storage tank and supporting infrastructure and the addition of liquefaction trains, this expansion would increase the LNG production capacity of the facility by up to 11,000 tonnes per day.? (BCEAO)
The Proponent claims under ?Nature? of the project that this is a ?Modification of Existing?. BBCC asks (1) how can such an enormous expansion (over 50%) and the accompanying infrastructure for liquefaction be considered ?a modification?? (2) Surely this is LNG storage for export from WesPac?s Jetty? All must be reviewed together.
Process:
Again, where is the Environmental Accountability for this project? From the BCEAO site it appears that the provincial EAC status of the project is ?In Progress? with the federal IAAC role listed as ?Coordination?.

BBCC notes that previously, CEAA in Ottawa on July 6, 2015 stated it had decided that a federal environmental assessment is required for the WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). In making it?s decision, the Agency considered the following factors as indicated in section 10 of CEAA 2012: the description of the project provided by the proponent on May 11, 2015; the possibility that the carrying out of the project may cause adverse environmental effects; and, comments received during the comment period.
Then just 4 days later: July 10, 2015 ? CEAA ?commenced an environmental assessment and the Minister of the Environment approved the substitution of the federal environmental assessment process by that of the Government of British Columbia for this project.?

From the statements above from the BCEAO website, it appears that that the decision has already been made for a provincial process before any public comments have been received. (3) Has the level of review been decided?

Members of the BBCC did not know about the ?Virtual Open Houses? in June 2020. This is a poor oversight given our continuing interest in all projects on Tilbury Island in Delta over the years. It also means we have had very limited exposure to the project. Further, a ?Virtual Open House? is a very limited way of informing the public in general.

Recommendation 2

Therefore, BBCC recommends that the public input period on the Phase 2 Project be delayed until a proper Public Open House with the displays and person-to-person questions, answers and discussions can be scheduled.

Environment - Global Warming
BBCC notes that a year ago experts worldwide said that the booming LNG industry could be as bad for the climate as coal and that LNG developments were on a collision course with the Paris Agreement.
1. Canada is warming at 2X the rate of most of the world; so we must be responsible let alone mindful of global initiatives such as the Paris Agreement.
2. We must recognize that over a 20-year period methane is at least 84X worse than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas and 25X worse over 100 years.
3. Methane emissions from natural gas operations in the BC Peace Region alone are 2.5X greater than previously reported by industry and government.
4. Leaks, fugitive and vented emissions of methane upstream and downstream must be measured at all facilities. E.g. a recent study found that BC gas wells are leaking 14,000 cubic meters of methane per day in just four shale gas areas.
5. More than 11,000 inactive fracking wells in BC have yet to be decommissioned and cleaned up and leakage of methane stopped.
6. The fossil fuels burnt to deliver the LNG overseas must be included in the total emissions for the LNG industries.
7. Finally BC must take responsibility for the burning of LNG at point of delivery to accurately calculate the full cumulative contribution of LNG to global warming.
BBCC understands that IAAC assessments now consider climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. IAAC also says its analysis ?should reflect jurisdictional climate change policies and regulations.? (4) What does this mean? Surely it must be the best regulations possible to achieve Paris Agreement targets?
BBCC asks (5) How can this be applied when B.C.?s climate change policy, known as Clean BC, which ?incorporates increased LNG production?? (6) This nonsense surely disqualifies any BC environmental review process? (7) What is the role of the BC Utilities Commission?
But the BBCC has learned that the B.C. government has asked the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change (at the request of FortisBC) that it conduct the entire review of the Tilbury expansion, instead of having it also go through the federal impact assessment process. This is outrageous. It makes a bad joke of BC?s commitment to reducing global warming and if allowed it is a global disgrace to Canada?s commitments to the Paris Agreement.
Recommendation 3
BBCC recommends that a Moratorium be placed on all LNG expansion projects and any new LNG projects at least until the BC Methane Research Goup has completed its studies and released its report on leaks, fugitive and vented emissions of methane.
If and when an environmental assessment of these projects is done it must be at the highest level possible in Canada by a Panel of non-industry experts. A vital part of the assessment will be a cumulative impact assessment of all LNG methane emissions from upstream and downstream processes, storage leaks, transport and the emissions from burning LNG at the location of delivery. Only then will we see how much LNG contributes to global warming.
Environment - Carbon Tax, Subsidies, Royalties
1. BBCC notes that methane emissions are exempt from BC Carbon Tax even though they are a much more potent contributor to global warming than carbon dioxide (see above).
2. Further, LNG Canada has received government subsidies, including carbon tax exemptions of $150M/year.
3. But a recent study has shown that companies drilling and fracking for natural gas in northeast B.C. were being bankrolled by the province to the tune of $703 million last year, a 45% increase over the previous year when companies were handed more than $485 million in credits.
4. BC has no monitoring program in place for the inspection of gas wells that have already been abandoned.
5. There are serious consequences to public health and the environment from wellbore leakage so BC has massive liability now and into the future from orphaned wells that since 2016 have increased by a staggering 770%. Taxpayers should not be paying these costs, monitoring and cleanup must be regulated and cleanup costs covered by a bonding system with industry.
6. The BC government claims that LNG exports are providing ?new resources for health care, schools, child care and other government-supported services.? But the record of government revenue from natural gas production has been the opposite because of a huge decline in royalties (Figure 2). Production has doubled since 2005 but the total royalty revenue is down 84 per cent. E.g. In 2005, royalties paid constituted 21.7 per cent of the sales price, whereas in 2018 royalties constituted just 5 per cent!
Figure 2. Royalty Revenue vers Gas Production. (Data from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers? Statistical Handbook).


Recommendation 4
BBCC recommends a Moratorium on all LNG expansion projects and a moratorium on development of new LNG projects until the BC Government adopts responsible taxation of the LNG industry: a methane tax on global warming emissions, a cleanup bonding system for their methane leaking orphaned wells and much higher royalties for the removal of this resource from BC.
Environment - Earthquake Hazard Risk at Tilbury in Delta

BBCC asks (7) Why is LNG expansion being allowed at this location which is on alluvial deposites beside the Fraser Riverand as such will be at risk of massive liquifaction (darkest area in Figure 2) in the forecasted largest earthquake ever?

Figure 3. This Map is from a study in 2007 of a much smaller earthquake of 7.3 by the University of BC. The dark category (Vlll) will experience liquefaction. The forcasted ?big one? will be more than 9.


BBCC disputes the siting of the massive (over 50%) expansion of FortisBC?s LNG storage by building a second large tank and its building of more liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on the banks of the Fraser River on Tilbury Island, Delta. River estuaries should not be sites used for LNG Ports according to suggestions in a paper: Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (2000). This site on the Fraser River is particularly inappropriate because the Tilbury site is opposite and very close to an approved Aircraft Fuel Port in the relatively narrow Fraser River. Further, the Fraser River has a high level of vessel traffic that will increase even further when all current projects are approved.

The Lower Mainland supports a large human population as well as globally significant habitats for a wide range of wildlife in the Fraser River Estuary. The shipping of LNG is a great risk in this location. The risks of shipping LNG in this area must consider a realistic impact zone (Figure 1 above).

BBCC asks (8) What is the impact of the cumulative increase in ships through the already busy shipping lanes of the Fraser River, Salish Sea and Juan de Fuca Strait? Current ship traffic through Orca Pass between the protected American San Juan Slands and the Canadian Gulf Islands National Park is already having an impact on the endangered Southern Resident Orcas.

Other Issues and Questions

1. Who is WesPac Texas? They appear to be registered in Delaware, USA yet their address is in California, USA. How much experience do they have at jetty building? Their website indicates that thay have never built one. How can Canada allow them build one in the wrong site in the Fraser River?

2. What is the relationship between WesPac and Fortis? Is this a formal partnership?

3. BBCC has just learned that: on June 11, 2020, WesPac Marine Midstream sent a letter to the environmental agencies announcing a change of name and ownership of the LNG marine terminal Project:
- The name of the Project has been changed from WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty to Tilbury Marine Jetty Project; and
- Tilbury Jetty Limited Partnership is replacing WesPac Midstream-Vancouver LLC as the Proponent and
- The new owners of the LNG marine terminal are FortisBC and Seaspan.
BBCC asks: has WesPac pulled out of the whole project of LNG export from Tilbury? One is tempted to ask why and what do they know about the future LNG market that we do not? Who will pay for the Jetty and Phase 2 upgrade now? The two Projects are interdependent and FortisBC now (at the 11th hour of the Jetty environmental assessment) appears to have formal ownership of the proposed jetty. This Jetty Review must be terminated and be reviewed with the Phase 2 Expansion Project.
4. The Proponent for Phase 2 is listed as FortisBC Holdings Inc. Who are they? Fortis Inc. is 10 utility companies in the USA, the Carribean and Canada. How are they covering the cost of all the Tilbury Island projects? Who exactly is accountable in the worst case senarios on Tilbury Island (earth quake, explosion, emissions from liquefaction, etc.)?

5. Regulatory Approval Limits: Who approved the Phase 1 application limits to build the large LNG Train for 0.25Million tonnes/year and a storage tank for 46,000 cubic meters? Fortis is already expanding the liquefaction limit to 0.65M tonnes/year. Was this agreed to in the Phase 1 application limits?
For Phase 2 the regulatory limits for liquefaction are increasing 14X (from 0.25M) or over 5X (from 0.65M) tonnes/year. Meanwhile storage on Tilbury Island is increasing 3.5X to 162,000 cubic meters. Who is regulating these changing limits? How much LNG do FortisBC/Seaspan plan to export? The claim on this month?s gas bill to Delta residents from FortisBC claims the LNG Expansion project is ?to strengthen and improve the resiliency of the energy system that supplies BC homes ??

6. How much power will be required for each scenario? Did it mean that the Site C Dam is needed for this project? These scenarios will mean new powerlines running through Delta farmland. Will there be a need for an expanded natural gas pipeline from NE BC?

7. Which company is accountable for upstream and downstream environmental costs of the fracking process required to extract the natural gas and the cleanup of orphaned wells?

8. Is BC and/or America accountable to legislated target commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases, in this case methane, both for upstream extraction and downstream liquifaction production of LNG let alone leakage, fugitive and vented emissions of methane, export transport and finally burning of the gas in this project?

9. BBCC understands that one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions are produced in the manufacture of each tonne of LNG. What proportion of BC?s legislated target on greenhouse gas emissions will be taken up by this project and other planned projects? How many will be allowed?

10. Who is accountable for the water needs of fracking extraction and LNG processing? How much water will be extracted and where will it come from? Where is the fracking waste water going from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin and the waste water from liquefaction on Tilbury Island in Delta, BC?

11. How are the impurities from the LNG Train being disposed of on Tilbury Island? BBCC understands that before being cooled the methane gas is Pretreated: where dust is removed along with slug (water and condensate) along with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and mercury (Hg). We understand that these pollutants can cause corrosion and freezing problems but how will they disposed of on Tilbury Island?
Then Acid Gas is removed and dehydrated: when Carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed and removed from natural gas with an amine absorber (acid gas removal or AGR) and then water is removed using an adsorbent. The removal of these impure substances prevents ice from forming during the subsequent liquefaction process. How are all these by-products being treated and disposed of on Tilbury Island?
Finally the Heavy Hydrocarbons (C5+) are removed: by fractionation before liquefaction. Natural gas is pre-cooled to about -31°F (-35°C) by propane. How are the hydrocarbons going to be disposed of on Tilbury Island? How much propane is used and is that use accounted for in the greenhouse gas costs of cooling to LNG?
Recommendation 5

BBCC recommends that a Moratorium on the expansion of methane extraction in BC, LNG production and storage on Tilbury Island, and on the building of a jetty into the Fraser River to ship LNG from this site which is far to close to major population centers in the Lower Mainland of BC. Such a siting for these developments on Tilbury Island would not be legal in many countries. We must know how robust is this industry here.

As we suggested above all these projects must be reviewed together at the highest level possible in Canada by an Independent Expert Review Panel through the IAAC.

Figure 4. What a legacy for this precious Blue Planet! Our Children! All Nature!



Yours sincerely,


Mary Taitt
Director, BBCC
Hilary ReidVancouver, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I think the lower Fraser River has got to be one of the worst places imaginable for an expanded LNG facility.
This river is critical habitat for BC's already struggling salmon populations. LNG, being a noxious substance, would present an unacceptable risk to these endangered populations in the event of spills, explosions, fires, tanker collisions, bilge leakage, etc. These catastrophic events would not be a matter of if, but when, given:
- the size of the proposed expansion to the facility and the amount of fuel which would be produced (up to 11,000 tonnes /day)
- the relative narrowness of the Fraser for navigating and turning these enormous vessels.
- the already crowded and heavy industrial use of this waterway by other unyieldy vessels such as tugs pulling log booms or barges.
-the fact that the current Tilbury plant has already experienced at least one fire and explosion (2017).
-the number of salmon and other fish who rely on this channel for juvenile rearing, and for migrating to spawning beds; these iconic species would be at risk of being wiped out in the event of these catastrophes.

A further concern is that the southern Gulf Islands are already becoming a parking lot for freighters and potentially for tankers, which hugely disrespects these islands' and their channels' fragile and critical contribution to marine habitat, including for the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale and Chinook Salmon.
There is already and obviously a serious lack of appropriate berthing facilities in the Fraser River/ Georgia Strait Basin. Therefore, why on earth would the BC or Federal Government even consider approving an expanded LNG facility on the lower Fraser, whose huge increase in LNG tanker traffic would directly exacerbate an already completely untenable situation?
I urge in the strongest possible terms the BC Environmental Assessment Office to categorically turn down this ill-conceived Tilbury Phase 2 Expansion proposal.
Hilary MackeyVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Assumptions that were flawed in 2013 are still flawed. This project will not create any significant long-term employment.

FortisBC is a regulated utility, and capital costs of this project are extremely high. They should not be assumed by domestic consumers of natural gas under any circumstances.

We need only look at inadequate responses to recent oil spills to see that under no circumstances should a facility like this be constructed in the heart of an densely populated region, beside a major river for salmonoids, and increase marine traffic through the habitat of an endangered orca population. Because of its volatility, LNG is among the highest risk commodities for ships to transport.

Compressing natural gas into LNG will require huge amounts of electricity, and BC Hydro has been allowed to reduce the rate that small generators will receive, in favour of importing power from California. Large industries pay preferential rates, and BC should strive to be more energy independent, not more dependent on imports.

Some promote meatless Mondays as a way to reduce the release of methane gas into the atmosphere ? and the proponents want to produce, store, and transport huge quantities of methane gas (labelled LNG). That is highly inappropriate, considering that Canada already falls far short of its climate action targets under the Paris Accord.

This is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the risks are too high for it to be authorized. Just say, "No."
Sharon BellWest Kelowna, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Public benefits, Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Building an LNG export terminal on a busy river I the middle of a populated area is dangerous.
Lawrence SurgesVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, FortisBC's conflict of interest, Economics / consumer pricing impact, Environmental Assessment Process.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The model for assessing economic benefits failed miserably in 2013, and this project will not increase permanent employment. During a global climate crisis, it proposes producing a greenhouse gas, generating heat as it?s compressed into LNG, and using major amounts of electricity ? a commodity which consumers are asked to conserve.

It will increase ship movements through the range of an endangered population of orcas and a major river for a declining population of salmonoids on which they feed.

The capital cost poses an unacceptable risk for a regulated utility, and the facility is in the heart of an urban centre.

In short, the risk is too high. Greenhouse gasses and climatic effects are global problems, and BC, which prides itself on its beauty, must be part of the solution and protect its natural assets.
Rosemary PogueShawnigan Lake, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies.

My more detailed comments about this project:
I am opposed to the Tilbury LNG Phase ll expansion. The Fraser River, a narrow waterway is not a suitable location for this LARGE expansion. There is not room for a big increase in huge tankers navigating the river. It also brings several other safety risks. LNG is a hazardous and noxious substance second only to explosives as a shipping risk. The site is across from a jet fuel terminal and close to the fire prone Burns Bog. Much of the surrounding area contains large communities. The Richmond City Council has voted 8 to 1 against the expansion. LNG terminals can result in explosions - forcing mass evacuations and large fires as occurred at Tilbury in 2017.

Another major and inevitable risk is the Juan De Fuca subduction zone which could slip causing a mega earthquake any time. These mega quakes have occurred up to 600 years apart once, up to 200 years several times with other variations. The last one was about 300 years ago. Canada lacks dependable LNG safety regulations. We are not prepared for a major earthquake or a LNG disaster.

The economic benefits are small, few new jobs, a cost to taxpayers due to LNG subsidies as well as the possibility of increased natural gas for BC residents. Who will be paying for this proposed expansion?

The Fraser River is home to one of BC's largest salmon runs. Major disruption to the river and increased tanker traffic is irresponsible for the local communities and for the web of life in the Salish Sea. We have a responsibility to the Orca population as well as the entire ecosystem.

Scientific analysis is showing that Fracked LNG can result in a greater Global Warming impact than coal. We should not be rushing in to LNG development until we know the true impact.

Please do not approve this expansion and extend the period of comment so communities have more time to understand such a expansion.

Thank you for your kind attention to my submission, Rosemary Pogue
Jared JonesDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Climate effects.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Ramping up LNG operations in a climate emergency is the wrong way to go, we need to be transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources to hit our climate targets and have any chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius
Leslie SlackDelta, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, The risk to the Fraser River, Marine Wildlife.

My more detailed comments about this project:
The Delta estuary is a vital feeding ground for many unique species of animals. The resident orca population is dwindling because of low fish stocks, environmental pollution, and boat strikes. Adding more tanker traffic shipping highly volatile cargo to these waters will only make the situation worse, possibly erasing this species from our waters forever.
The communities of Richmond and Delta have voiced their disapproval of this project. This is where we live, work, and pay taxes. We want to feel secure that our environment is healthy and safe and the thought of this facility operating in such close proximity to us is frightening. It?s time for government to make decisions based on citizens wants and needs instead of corporate greed.
Willow RigsbySquamish, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I do not have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Plant Location and safety concerns, Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations, The risk to the Fraser River, Climate effects, Shipping safety, Marine Wildlife, Fossil fuel subsidies, Seismic risk.

My more detailed comments about this project:
First of all why am I only able to choose one concern. Literally every option offered is a concern. I have little to no confidence FortisBC and the Government of BC are doing the best they can. I believe that much like many other governments here in Canada, there are mandates in place, but nothing holding the governing bodies to account in terms of reaching/adhering to those mandates. The pro's simply do not seem to outweigh the con's of this proposed expansion. There are little to no substantial benefits for locals, there is increased risk and stress on the environment, and this would be taking steps away from carbon emission reduction. BC needs to be more forth coming when arranging environmental assessments (public availability and commentary), look further into the future when citing the benefits(benefits seem to be more short term for locals, and long term for industry). The way that assessments are site by site and do not factor in the activity within a region is undeniably a benefit to industry alone and a detriment to the communities. Overall I have to say this project is missing a lot. Steps seem to be getting skipped in the name of fast production, this project does little to support local and even national economy but asks residents to absorb all the risk. I am disappointed that tax dollars are going towards subsidizing a project that further endangers out collective futures. We can and must do better than this.
Earl RichardsVictoria, British ColumbiaPlease accept my comment about Tilbury LNG's Phase 2 expansion proposal, submitted through lngtankersafety.org via the Real Hearings platform.

I have confidence in BC's Environmental Assessment Process.

I have the following concerns/comments about this proposal: Canada's lack of LNG safety regulations.

My more detailed comments about this project:
Google and watch the following video, "New Video Shows Serious Dangers Posed by LNG Tankers." The LNG ship explosion shown in this video is what we do not want to happen in the Fraser River, in English Bay, in Howe Sound, in the Haro Strait and in the Boundary Pass. Tell Fortis and Woodfibre to move somewhere else.