Woodfibre LNG’s “Hey Neighbour” ad attempts to lull us into false complacency and downplays the unacceptable safety risks inherent in locating an LNG terminal there.
The vast majority of the world’s 140 or so LNG terminals are located at substantial distances from human habitation out of a scientifically founded abundance of caution. To assuage public concern over the proximity of the Woodfibre site, the ad lists five LNG terminals within three kilometres of residential areas. Let’s look at them.
Norway’s Hammerfest terminal is located on Norway’s extremely remote north coast with open ocean access.
The Everett terminal in Boston is the U.S.’s oldest at some 40 years and would never be built today under current U.S. regulations.
Barcelona’s Spanish and Sodeshi’s Japanese terminals both have open ocean access.
The Tilbury Island terminal in Delta is small and not capable of loading huge LNG tankers. It is sited on an inside curve of the Fraser River, which substantially limits collision risks from other ships.
Woodfibre is located on the outside curve of a long and relatively narrow navigation channel, increasing ship collision risks. Loaded LNG tankers must transit past substantial human populations, which fall within internationally recognized hazard zones.
In the event of an accident resulting in an LNG spill over water, a combustible gas vapour cloud could form, which would be heavier than air, according to a report from Sandia Laboratories in the U.S. Trapped by a fiord such as Howe Sound, breezes could carry the gas cloud for kilometres until it encounters a source of ignition: a chimney, a beach fire or a mere cigarette, according to the Sandia research, which also indicates that once ignited, the resultant fireball would generate enormous heat, possibly incinerating people, buildings and forests.
I believe U.S. regulations would prohibit locating an LNG terminal at a site such as Woodfibre due to legitimate safety concerns. Should British Columbians accept less?
Jef Keighley
Halfmoon Bay
