EDITOR,
I attended the Boom or Bust LNG Legacy presentation on April 8. After reading the program description, I did not expect an entirely neutral discussion, but I was looking forward to project specifics for the Woodfibre proposal. Over the course of the presentation I was interested, amused, exasperated and at times disappointed.
I appreciated the first two speakers, who provided some useful information about LNG and offered some very interesting solutions to reduce impacts if the project goes ahead. I was perplexed by the “economist” who started out decrying Christy Clark’s propaganda machine, referencing her promise of ponies for all British Columbians (I have read almost everything she has said and I must have missed the ponies), and then went on to begin almost every sentence with “I think.” I was more interested in hearing what he actually knew, which I don’t think was very much. My exasperation came when this “economist” responded with a resounding “yes” to a question from the audience about whether we needed to mount a Clayoquot-style global activist campaign circa 1993 to prevent the project.
Sadly, I think a few important questions were not asked and a few that were, may not have been sufficiently answered. When an audience member asked how we can ensure Squamish does not become the next Fort McMurray, I will suggest we start by considering that unlike Fort Mac, we are not sitting on 167.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Or when questioned about using the pipeline supplying Woodfibre to eventually be used to transport bitumen, I would agree with the panellist that it is physically possible, but add that it would eliminate the natural gas supply for the entire southwestern B.C. including Vancouver Island, so unlikely. Or when it was implied that we are faced with choosing between a tourism economy or an industrial economy, I might suggest they are not mutually exclusive and that tourism and the Woodfibre could co-exist.
What I did get from the presentation is that there are some very important questions yet to be answered, and that these answers would be useful before arriving at a foregone conclusion that this proposal will turn Squamish into an equivalent of the North Dakota gas fields. For instance, how many real full-time, permanent jobs can we expect? What potential or likely sources of water or air pollution might there be? What is the likely municipal tax revenue that could result from this development to offset our annual 12 per cent property tax increase? Can the proponents commit to use of electricity over natural gas to meet their energy needs at the site, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions up to 33 per cent and pollution 90 per cent, as was suggested?
I will continue to look for these answers before I reach any conclusion, but I probably won’t be asking the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives to help with any more research.
John Hawkings
Squamish
