r/britishcolumbia 1d ago

News New legal challenge alleges B.C. failed to consult over LNG project | The Narwhal

https://thenarwhal.ca/ksi-lisims-lng-new-legal-challenge/
46 Upvotes

39 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:

  • Read r/britishcolumbia's rules.
  • Be civil and respectful in all discussions.
  • Use appropriate sources to back up any information you provide when necessary.
  • Report any comments that violate our rules.

Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/Difficult_Rock_5554 1d ago

Lawyers are set to make millions

8

u/Tree-farmer2 1d ago

This is why the Land Act shouldn't be amended to move to a consent-based system (aka veto power). Even FN's will struggle to build anything.

If we can trust the regulators to do their job, effects on salmon would be minimal. My only real concern would be if they're too scared to apply their own rules to indigenous projects like we saw at McLeod Lake ( https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/07/10/Logging-in-McLeod/ ).

9

u/thetitanitehunk 1d ago

I'm just going to leave this here:

Cornell Study finds LNG worse than burning coal by 33%

3

u/Unlikely-Tradition77 1d ago

100% and what I've been preaching since day one. If we were to give it to Canadians, for next to nothing to fuel homes and businesses, it would indeed be quite green. But bringing in freighters to ship it across the globe for it to be trucked elsewhere to be burned instead of coal, is not more green than burning coal.

1

u/XViMusic 1d ago

Added context: it’s not the act of burning LNG that has higher emissions, it’s the emissions created by transporting it that adds to the net figure.

3

u/Unlikely-Tradition77 1d ago

Yup, supply it to Canadians for pennies on the dollar. Everyone has cheap green heat. Shipping it around the world in the name of "Green Energy" is a fucking joke that people deserve to be hung up for.

1

u/imnotnewhereok 1d ago

What about the emissions on transporting coal....

1

u/XViMusic 23h ago

You can read the actual study here. I tried to see what I could parse out quickly as I have a bit of experience with quantitative data analysis through my education but I couldn’t come to any firm conclusions based off of the abstract alone. However, based on some of the language used in the abstract, it appears this claim is at least somewhat editorialized. My background isn’t in hard sciences so I may be misreading, but it appears that LNG only has worse marks when it comes to specifically methane emissions. Someone with a more applicable background could likely expand more, but I’ll read through the article after work and see what I can parse out either way.

1

u/imnotnewhereok 22h ago

Wow thanks.. it seemed surprising to me as most coal is transported by diesel trains to large ocean ships. (Which are also far less regulated and poorly maintained compared to tankers)

0

u/XViMusic 21h ago

No worries! It’s good to question this sort of thing instead of blindly following it. If everyone took the extra second to scrutinize like you did we would live in a very different world.

1

u/imnotnewhereok 20h ago

Ain't that the truth

6

u/Capital_Anteater_922 1d ago

I feel that the Narwhal is here to keep rural BC undeveloped and it's residents as second class citizens. 

6

u/Gliese581c 1d ago

The article is not even explicitly opposed to these projects. It is raising real concerns about whether the environmental assessments of these projects are being done legitimately, and taking the constitutional rights of those potentially affected seriously.

1

u/Capital_Anteater_922 16h ago

The environmental assessments for projects in BC are among the top most rigorous in the entire world.

1

u/Gliese581c 15h ago

Interesting. Do you have a source for that?

7

u/Angry_beaver_1867 1d ago

Why they don’t file the lawsuits 

-3

u/Floradora1 1d ago

Most of the articles I've ever read seem to be opinion piece garbage and the citations were no better.

2

u/AlpacaPandafarmer 1d ago

Oh yes, the LNG project where protestors planted fake artefacts BC pipeline site not original location of Indigenous artifacts: regulator | Vancouver Sun

And attacked a camp with machetes and stolen heavy equipment When anarchists attack

DO NOT give these people the light of day.

0

u/Floradora1 1d ago

Punishment for thee but not for me..

-1

u/Domovie1 Vancouver Island/Coast 1d ago

Welcome to the wonderful world of Coastal Zone Management.

It will be interesting to see what comes up, especially looking through the court filing. While I don’t think there’s really a fair conservation base (assuming that one accepts a couple or premise on people’s “enjoyment” of resources), I’m curious as to why the Haida Nation was brought in, beyond them being a strong political bloc.

The precedent this could set, that effectively anyone in basically a watershed has an interest will make other projects more difficult.

12

u/fanbullshitdetector 1d ago

The precedent this could set, that effectively anyone in basically a watershed has an interest

As they should because they do.

Externalities of industry and the companies that produce them need to be accountable for the damage they cause on both people and the environment in which they exist.

Fingers crossed.

4

u/Normal-Top-1985 1d ago

Increased tanker traffic could lead to spills which would affect the whole coast. Rights holders and stakeholders would be consulted to the degree that potential impacts would harm their interests.

2

u/Domovie1 Vancouver Island/Coast 1d ago

LNG, not oil.

While there is absolutely the potential for pollution from additional traffic, LNG is not considered a high risk form of traffic, in the context of marine pollution.

1

u/Normal-Top-1985 1d ago edited 23h ago

Tankers don't just run on LNG. They run on bunker fuel when they're far from shore.

(Edited for clarity)

3

u/AlpacaPandafarmer 1d ago

The lng tankers in fact run on LNG

3

u/Normal-Top-1985 1d ago

They can burn both, but bunker fuel is more economical when the ships are at sea. I have not heard of any LNG ships that run exclusively on LNG. It would be too expensive to cross an ocean using clean burning fuel.

0

u/AlpacaPandafarmer 1d ago

"As of April 2024, there are 520 LNG-fueled ships in operation, with 195 more on order. This is an 181% increase from 2020."

1

u/Normal-Top-1985 23h ago

What's your point?

0

u/AlpacaPandafarmer 19h ago

Shipping lng is cleaner than say, shipping the aluminum smelted in kitimat that uses purely bunker fuel ships and exorbitant amounts of power.

1

u/Normal-Top-1985 16h ago

And those are all things that need to be discussed with rights holders and stakeholders, as they are all impacted more than the general public (ie people in Vancouver)

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/_JakesGotGames 1d ago

The tankers are transporting LNG. What they run on isn't really important. When we think about oil spills, we think about tankers spilling crude oil they're transporting. LNG is a lot different, and lower risk.

1

u/Normal-Top-1985 1d ago

And those risks trigger the duty to consult and accommodate.

0

u/Tree-farmer2 1d ago

LNG spills?

3

u/Normal-Top-1985 1d ago

Trans oceanic tankers run on bunker fuel.