LNG is not a 'bridge' fuel

Why to oppose Tilbury expansion

1. Climate and Environment; Because methane is a powerful GHG and the industry leaks and vents vast quantities of it along the LNG production path -  mining (via fracking), refining,  transporting, liquefying and storing the product - LNG is a climate black hole which will exacerbate BC’s emissions and cause us to fail miserably in meeting our legislated climate targets (as witnessed by recent BC and Federal announcements of pending failure in that regard). Every tonne of LNG produced results in ~ 3.3 tonnes of  GHG emissions. Fracking is an environmentally and ecologically unacceptable practice wildly out of bounds with our UNDRIP and other commitments to indigenous peoples. 

1. Safety: Tilbury Island is an unsafe location in which to establish a ~3.5 megatonne (per annum) LNG plant.  Located in the midst of a major metropolitan area, on the flight path to/from YVR, in an are of the Lower Mainland most subject to seismic liquefaction, on the river bank immediately opposite the jet fuel storage facility of YVR, requiring fully loaded LNG tankers with 65,000 tonnes of flammable gas to manouvre 21km. up and down the busy, fast-flowing Fraser with 5 single-lane turns and a threaten the safety of many high-rise residential buildings in Richmond, Delta and Steveston , and requiring that LNG tankers perform hazardous turn-arounds in a narrow, busy shipping channel and iffy third-party insurance coverage in the event of a major shipping accident. That combination of safety concerns should immediately rule out out Tilbury as a safe location for this plant; It is seemingly only still active because Canada has few/no safety standards governing LNG plants and vessels;

1. Economics: The World Bank, EIA and other reputable agencies have all predicted “peak LNG“ by later this decade,  In a competitive global market, BC’s single advantage (shorter shipping routes to Asia) is more than offset by higher construction and operating costs, local opposition from settlers and First Nations alike, and wobbly Federal Government support for another fossil fuel industry with a spotty safety record and a proven tendency to offshore any profits, thereby denying local benefits as a redeeming attribute. In the 12 years since the introduction of LNG exports as an economic initiative for BC, the industry has not contributed a penny to provincial coffers.  The well-founded fear among industry critics is that LNG is more likely to result in  stranded assets than local tax or socio-economic benefits. Indeed, Australia’s experience of sharply elevated local prices for gas upon commencement of LNG exports is likely to be repeated in BC. 

1. Subsidies: There are lavish Government subsidies being afforded to LNG plants in BC. Among them are below-cost electricity, 66%-reduced carbon taxes (with output-based pricing), forgiveness of Import duties on fabricated steel components, elimination of PST on purchases, reduced (by 25%) corporate income tax, accelerated capital cost depreciation and hefty government/industry grants and loans to First Nations to encourage them to agree to allow the venture to proceed. This is an industry that is capital - not labour - intensive, unlike the job-rich forestry and mining industries these subsidies were originally designed to assist. .