More barriers to Pacific NorthWest

GARY PARK

For Petroleum News

Malaysia’s Petronas is now engaging in an arm wrestle with international scientists and the British Columbia government over greenhouse gas emissions from its planned Pacific NorthWest LNG project.

In the latest attempt to derail the mega-scheme, the 90 scientists are pressuring the Canadian government to reject the C$11.4 billion export terminal near Prince Rupert, claiming it would match the GHGs of a large plant in the Alberta oil sands.

“It would be a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere,” said Kristen Zickheld, a professor at Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University. “If you are in a hole, you shouldn’t dig deeper. What you should do is start to get out of the hole ... leaving fossil fuels behind and embarking on a renewable energy trajectory.”

Tim Flannery, chief councillor of Australia’s Climate Commission,, said he is familiar with the “consequences of gas exploitation” in his country. “I know that LNG is the wrong pathway to take, from both an environmental and financial perspective.”

A recommendation on Pacific NorthWest is expected this summer from a Canadian government environmental review panel, leaving the final verdict later this year to the federal cabinet.

A letter from the scientists and climate experts said that approval of the export terminal “would make it virtually impossible for British Columbia to meet its GHG reduction targets and would undermine Canada’s international climate change commitments.”

The consortium has estimated that direct GHG emissions would be 4.9 million metric tons a year of equivalent carbon dioxide, although a draft report by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has put the figure at 5.28 million metric tons for the export terminal and liquefaction plant and 6.5 million to 8.7 million metric tons for upstream emissions from gas extraction, processing and transport on pipelines.

The emissions from the terminal site would increase British Columbia emissions by 8.5 percent and for Canada by 0.75 percent.

A spokesman for Pacific NorthWest said the project would supply the world’s cleanest LNG to buyers in Asia.

“Global appetite for LNG will continue to grow over the coming decades with numerous countries, including the United States, racing to meet that demand,” he said.

“There is a clear choice: Canada can move forward with exporting a significantly cleaner product (than coal) to world markets or let our competitors step into the breach.”

The scientists argued that there “are many locations where LNG consumption would be additional to coal consumption, instead of replacing it. Importantly, GHG emissions from fracking, transport, liquefaction and regasification significantly reduce LNG’s GHG benefits over coal.”

Despite its often-stated goal of counting on LNG to create jobs and generate billions of dollars in revenues, the British Columbia government is expected to release a new climate action plan in June, promising to significantly reduce GHG emissions stemming from LNG operations as part of its bid to gain approval for Pacific NorthWest from the federal government.

Environment Minister Mary Polak said the new strategy could lower overall emissions from Pacific NorthWest by 3.7 million metric tons by reducing methane emissions at the wellhead and promoting the use of electric power to extract natural gas.

Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said the British Columbia climate plan will play a role in the government’s deliberations on the project.

David Keane, president of the B.C. LNG Alliance, representing eight companies that hope to sell Canadian energy in Asia, said Canada can approve LNG applications by lowering GHG emissions in a wide range of sectors, including transportation, homes and the industry’s natural gas operations, with the upstream gas activities eliminating 4 million metric tons in annual GHG savings.

Keane cautioned that, apart from negotiations between the B.C. and Alberta governments, switching to electricity from natural gas to power upstream would require a redesign of facilities that could delay construction by up to four years and possibly add five years to building high-tension power lines.