Citizens Guide to Liquefied Natural Gas in British Columbia

Dogwood Initiative's recently released Citizen's Guide to Liquefied Natural Gas in British Columbia

This Citizen's Guide is designed help people affected by proposed Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) projects understand the potential impacts on their communities, and to help individuals, communities, and First Nations to participate more effectively in the approval process to ensure their interests are protected. In addition, this guide identifies opportunities for the reform of specific laws to more broadly protect the interests of the public in the future.

Over the last few years three separate LNG projects have been proposed in British Columbia: Kitimat LNG, Westpac's cancelled proposal for Prince Rupert, and Westpac's new proposal for Texada Island.

The proximity to U.S. markets, the Province's lax regulatory environment, substantial pipeline capacity connected to southern markets, and advantageous shipping costs have combined to make British Columbia a target for LNG proposals. However, the people living on BC's coast have little familiarity with LNG or the oil and gas industry.

TAN Newsletter Nov 2008

TAN_Newsletter_Nov2008.pdf


WestPac: "Shhh! We might have to try the backdoor."

Full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of LNG are equivalent to coal

Figure 1: Fuel Combustion and Life-Cycle GHG Emissions for Current Power Plants. (click chart to enlarge)

A study published by Carnegie Mellon University compared the greenhouse gas emissions from the full life-cycle of coal, natural gas, liquified natural gas, and synthetic natural gas produced from coal. The chart above summarized the study conclusions. In particular, the full life cycle of LNG, which includes liquefaction, transportation, and regasification, compares with the full life cycle of domestically sourced coal.

You can read the study here:
Jaramillo_ComparativeLCACoalNG.pdf

Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas, LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation
by Paulina Jaramillo, W. Michael Griffin, and H. Scott Matthews
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Tepper School of Business, and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3890
Published in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 41, NO. 17, 2007
http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/09/13/Jaramillo_ComparativeLCACoalNG.pdf

No GHGs or tankers from Texada LNG: Powell River Regional District

The Powell River Regional District, Islands Trust, and most recently the Capital Regional District have joined the former Comox-Strathcona Regional District in a call to the provincial government to ensure that

No greenhouse gases are emitted
from new gas-fired generation plants

The Powell River Regional District, Islands Trust, Capital Regional District and the Comox Valley Regional District have called on the federal government to

Ban LNG tankers in Georgia Strait

• PRRD LNG Resolution

• Alliance To Stop LNG Media Release on PRRD Resolution

• Alliance to Stop LNG Media Release on Islands Trust Resolution

• Alliance To Stop LNG Media Release on CRD Resolution

Sandia Labs: LNG Risk and Safety Report

Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water

Sandia National Laboratories
December 2004

Download report: sandia_lng_1204.pdf

Courtenay Forum - May 2008

TexadaLNG_Courtenay_20080501.pdf
Arthur Caldicott (32 slides, 3.4 mb)

TAN Newsletter - Feb 2008

TAN_Newsletter_Feb2008.pdf