Lot 444 becomes a talking point at Council

Monday's public comment opportunity as part of the City Council session, provided for an interesting review of how Prince Rupert Council believes they are handling the issue of potential development of a parcel of land along Tuck inlet.

As we outlined on the blog last month, Part of Lot 444, features a section of land that is adjacent to the City's Watershed and was recently proposed as a potential site for an LNG terminal development.

That prospect became the theme of of discussion as part of the Public Comments portion of the Committee of the Whole session of Monday evening. With Larry Golden, a frequent observer of much of Council's work approaching the microphone to make a few inquiries of council over their plans for
the land in question.

The first being a note that so far in the process, there has been no outline of public meetings and other features of public overview of the proposal.

During the course of his questions of council it seemed that at times, some Council and staff members were approaching Mr. Golden's efforts with something a little less than with enthusiasm.

Though through the course of the discussion, he finally seemed to break through to gain some insight into the process ahead for the proposed development of the parcel of land around Tuck Inlet.

One of the more interesting observations on the theme came from City Manager Robert Long, who provided Mr. Golden with a bit of a backgrounder on the nature of the wholly owned Legacy company that the city will operate regarding the land in question.

Suggesting that the nature of the company's operations could be considered similar to the way that CityWest has been created, something that may or many not provide much in the way of reassurance for some in the community.

Particularly when you consider some of the more recent discussion points from Council when it comes to the City owned tele-communication company and the financial return to the city that it has provided for in recent years.

Councillor Thorkelson observed that she wasn't quite sure what Mr. Golden was trying to get at through his line of questioning.

She then however did offer up some comments on the topic of the proposed project and stated that Council is dealing with that, explaining that there would be a zoning meeting put in place to rezone the land to LNG only.

She also outlined up her thoughts on the nature of the wholly owned company and its role in the process ahead, with money gained from any land sale to be allocated towards public use such community infrastructure such as streets, fixing the dam and such.

She reinforced that the whole process would be thorough and public.

The Mayor also highlighted the city's plan to hold public meetings, and introduction of the rezoning process and the public comment that goes with it.

He also reviewed the intention of the city to hire a third party, who will be tasked with a  review of the proposed project and to do an analysis as to how the development may impact the surrounding water, surrounding land and the air shed

Councillor Ashley outlined her talking points on the theme, advising that while dates have not been set up as of yet, all the stages of the process ahead would be made public and council would be seeking as much public engagement as possible.

Councillor Cunningham provided his take on Mr. Golden's points of concern, a outlining that Council wants this to be totally transparent to the community.

Highlighting how the city owns the land and that the community will have a big say with what the City does with it, adding that it will not be like any other land on the waterfront.

Councillors Garon, Kinney and Carlick-Pearson offered up no thoughts or comments on the nature of Mr. Golden's questions, or on the process ahead for the question of Lot 444 development.

As a whole Council seems to be reacting with a bit of consternation as to why some residents may be more concerned about the process than Council members appear to be.

For the most part there is some basis for such concern, beginning with how the land became available for development.

As we remember, Lot 444 came to be placed within the municipal boundary after Council sought  approval to expand the boundary, outlined at the time as a way to bring the watershed to be within the civic boundary.

At that time and during the process in place to seek comment from the public, no mention of developing the land into an LNG terminal location was declared.

Then there's the nature of that process Council used to secure that approval, using the Alternate Approval Process to seek the comment from the public.

That consultation process is one that both Councillors Ashley and Thorkelson had expressed concerns over in the past. So to use that method to expand the municipal boundary and then to also turn around and announce that the land will be offered out for development certainly raised a few eyes in the community.

Perhaps much of the concern over the city's plans for the Tuck Inlet land parcel stems from the lack of information that the City and Council delivers on issues of this type.

They have been slow to provide any public notices on their plan ahead when it comes to Lot 444 and have not made much of an effort to provide background information on the proposal on the city website. A portal that should be used to much more effect by Council, so as to avoid some of these controversies.

Beyond that, the frequent use of special closed sessions by this Council, (12 so far in 2014) doesn't provide the community with the impression that much information is to be expected from Council in their twice a month public sessions.

And if one goes through the archives of past Council sessions, there's really little in the way of discussion between councillors and staff on issues such as this one that take place in those public sessions.

The fact that a resident had to raise questions in one of the few public opportunities available to discuss issues with Council, should be an indication that the City and Council needs to be more engaged with the community on such issues.

Through their talking points at Monday's public session, Council members seem to be floating the always popular theme of transparency, a very much over used word by politicians.

Mr. Golden's comments weren't particularly critical, more to the point he was simply seeking some basic information on a topic of which little information has been provided.

Considering the tone and content of their commentary and follow up remarks to Mr. Golden's very basic questions, the community no doubt will be looking for Council and the City to provide prompt notification, frequent updates and much more in the way of information on any proposed developments that involve Lot 444.

You can review the full discussion from the Committee of the Whole session through the City's Video Archive page, the conversation starts at 14:30 and continues on until 23:30 .

For further items of note from Prince Rupert City Council see our archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

A share of the LNG Rush? City's newly expanded boundary to include proposed LNG site

With provincial approval in hand on the city's boundary expansion planning of earlier this year, City Council moved quickly to allocate some of that new found City of Prince Rupert property towards industrial development.

The land in question, District Lot 444 was brought inside the City boundary as a way of bringing the city's watershed to within the lines of a map that say City of Prince Rupert.

The process of making that expansion at the time made much comment on the desire to secure the city's supply of drinking water to within its borders, a topic that was highlighted as the City made use of the controversial Alternative Approval Process referendum process.

During that period of time, the city's expansion plans made for relatively little interest or discussion. And during that time, the City never made mention of turning part of that land into an Industrial park of sorts, dedicated it appears to the ambitions of the City to share in the growing lure of the LNG industry.

However, with the land now within the civic boundary, LNG development is now apparently the plan, after City Council revealed some details from a closed session of earlier in the day last Monday.

It was but an eight minute review, one that offered up the blue print of sorts, that would have a portion of that newly expanded boundary to include an industrial zone that would be designed to receive proposals for an LNG terminal facility, with Exxon/Mobil the potential proponent of the Terminal.

As part of the discussion on the proposal, City Manager Robert Long outlined for Council the background on the information that was released from the closed session of Council from May 26th.

You can review the talking points of his full presentation from our City Council Timeline feature, the proposed development of a parcel of land across from Seal Cove for potential LNG development appears at the one hour, eight minute of the timeline.

The main takeaway from his presentation, would be his explanation as to how proposals such as this fit into the "City's economic strategy to find alternative revenue sources and new tax revenues to offset ongoing increases of the operational costs of the city"

Councillor Thorkelson was the only member of council to engage in the short follow up discussion after Mr. Long's presentation, reviewing some items of his information and highlighting the point, that while Exxon/Mobil are best known as Oil companies, in this proposal they would only be proposing an LNG development.

She also  commented on the provision as to how the City would allocate some of any money received from the LNG proponents, towards an environmental officer to watch over air and watershed concerns about that proposal.

All of this newly revealed industrial planning does make for some interesting observations.

In recent months, some Council members have expressed concerns and asked many questions of Pacific Northwest LNG when it comes to their proposed terminal development for Lelu Island. Some of those Council interjections to the debate can be found below:

April 2014
December  2013
May 2013
December 2012

Councillor Thorkelson in particular, has offered up a number of concerns over the environmental impact on salmon stocks and the fishery of the Lelu site. Making known in the past her preference for LNG development to migrate further north of Prince Rupert, a suggestion she first made back in December of 2012.

Since those days of early discussions on the arrival of LNG on the North Coast, Airshed and other environmental concerns have also been of interest to Council when it comes to themes of development for the projects proposed for south of the city, or further north at Grassy Point.

Considering those concerns from the many discussions on LNG around the Council table,  even with potential economic tax benefits from such development, there may be cause for a few raised eyebrows, when it comes to the idea of developing an LNG terminal relatively close to the urban area of the city.

Beyond any issues over the environmental aspects and other concerns that could be raised regarding such a project that would be within sight of the city's east side, there's the prospect of increased traffic through Prince Rupert harbour.

Should the LNG project proposed for an area across from Seal Cove move forward, Prince Rupert residents would eventually see LNG tankers transiting the entire length of the fairly active Prince Rupert harbour.

Travelling from south to north, crossing past the downtown waterfront area and then shifting to the north east towards the proposed site across from Seal Cove and northbound along Tuck Inlet, an area which is also used by the float plane industry in the city. (The route would be reversed upon departure with a full load).

While we imagine that many, if not the majority of those living in the region are hopeful for the LNG boom.  We suspect a good number of residents might be inclined to see the LNG plants and terminal locations, as well as the LNG ships that will be arriving at them, located in regions of the area already earmarked for industrial development.

Locations such as Ridley Island and Lelu Island, or as the other proposals on the drawing board suggest, to the north at Grassy Point.

Considering how much time of late, that Council has had to allocate when it comes to local concerns over the Pinnacle Pellet file. One might imagine the prospect of LNG ships making that transit through the harbour along with a proposed development of an LNG terminal in close proximity to the city's watershed, may soon take up a fair bit of Council's attention should the proposal ever get to a project stage.

The surprise announcement of the City's plans for Lot 444 gives cause to think back to the days of the Alternate Approval Process that brought the watershed lands inside the Municipal Boundary.

One wonders, how if at the time, the City had outlined that industrial development, including an LNG terminal was also part of their plans for that parcel of land, that perhaps the discussion and participation levels at the time of that consultation might have been a bit more robust in the community.

You can review Council's review of the changes planned for Lot 444 from the Video Archive for May 26, Mr. Long's outline and the comments of the Mayor and Councillor Thorkelson take place starting at the one hour, eight minute mark of the video player timeline.

For more items of interest on developments at Prince Rupert City Hall see our Archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

Petronas looks to India for North Coast LNG investment

As the planning for the Pacific Northwest LNG project continues, Petronas, the Malaysian based energy giant is looking for India for further investment into the Lelu Island project.

They recently brought in Japan Petroleum Exploration and Petroleum Brunei as partners over the last year and in recent discussions have begun to woo the Indian Oil Corporation, looking to bring that company in as investor and customer.

A collection of partners that provides a sample of the international flavour and attention that the percolating LNG industry in British Columbia is attracting.

According to a report in the Globe and Mail, Indian Oil is giving consideration to acquiring at least a 10 per cent interest in Pacific Northwest LNG.

It's expected that Petronas will make its final investment decisions regarding Pacific NorthWest LNG
by the end of this year.

The Pacfic Northwest project is one of four that have been announced for the North Coast, with all of them in varying degrees of progress towards final decisions and the possible start of the planning and construction phases.

Further background on the latest of items from Petronas below

Globe and Mail-- Petronas Courts Indian Oil for B. C. LNG investment
Wall Street Journal-- Indian Oil Close to Buying Some Petronas Canadian Assets
FMT News-- Petronas nears deal with Indian Oil Corp
NDTV-- CCEA defers approval to Indian Oil stake purchase in gas assets: report

Our Archive page on Petronas/Pacific Northwest LNG items can be found here.

You can review our full collection of LNG files from our archive page.

 Cross posted from the North Coast Review

Will Natural Gas Extractions become the next flashpoint in the Northwest?

While the Joint Review Panel for the Northern Gateway pipeline winds down it's sessions with three more months of hearings in Prince Rupert, the differing opinions on pipeline development may just be the preamble to the next debate to come.

With the Enbridge pipeline issue far from settled and a report still to be delivered, Environmental advocates are beginning to raise their alarms over the nature of natural gas harvesting practices, concerns which could have an impact on the planned development of LNG terminals in both Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

The issue of concern it seems is the practice of fracking or coalbed methane production, the process now being used by some in  the Natural Gas Industry to extract natural gas and one which can apparently tap into previously unreachable pockets of the resource.

It's those untapped resources that have helped to boost the near Gold rush mindset of late regarding the future of industrial development in both Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

The fracking aspect of the natural gas industry's extraction procedures seems to be the next potential flashpoint between Industrial Development and Environmental Stewardship and with it, perhaps a contentious election issue to come in the May campaign.

Some of those seeking to stop the process of fracking in some locations of BC gathered in Terrace this weekend, in celebration of the the successful campaign to stop development by Shell Canada in the Sacred Headwaters of the Tahltan.

CFTK-- Thaltan Celebrations (video)
CFTK-- Tahltan Celebrate Klappan Victory -- But Warn of other Challenges

At that celebration over the weekend in Terrace, NDP MP Nathan Cullen was joined by Jennifer Rice, the Prince Rupert City Councillor and NDP candidate in the upcoming provincial election, with Ms. Rice active on twitter to offer up some information on the days events.

Mr. Cullen's speech at that session, provides some background into the concerns of those opposed to natural gas developed through that process.
.

 .
With the process of natural gas extraction however still one in development, the work it seems is just beginning to share the concerns over that form of development.

A number of ennvironmental organizations and environmental advocates have banded together to issue an Open letter to BC's Political parties, to engage in debate on the topic and to re-commit to British Columbia's previous Green House Gas reduction commitments.

In a news release providing a preamble to the open letter, Marc Lee, co-director of the Climate Justice Project and one of the organizers of the open letter  suggested that the BC government's Natural Gas Strategy should be called the Dirty Energy Strategy.

Towards that theme, the group provided a video that outlines it's thoughts on the process.
.

.
Of note to those in the Northwest watching carefully the planned devlopement of LNG terminals along the coast, is a passage from that open letter. One which provides a fairly succinct synopsis from those that signed the letter, of the environmental concerns over such developments.

Six years later, climate change has fallen off the public policy radar. BC does not have a plan to meet its 2020 target, and current aspirations to substantially expand fracking and develop liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in Northern BC will place the province’s GHG targets even further out of reach. Emissions from exported gas will also lead to higher emissions in Asia. 

 This is a terrible mistake. The impacts of climate change are now even more evident across the world in the form of extreme weather events, from flooding in some regions to wildfires and drought in others. BC is facing new cost pressures arising from the impact of climate change on private property and public infrastructure, and these come on top of the devastation in our forests wrought by the mountain pine beetle, also linked to warmer temperatures. 

Those two paragraphs (and the video presentation above) would seem to lay down the foundation of a discussion to come.

With residents (and candidates in the May election ahead) of the Northwest once again having to learn much more about the issues and join in on the discussion.

Further background on the process of coalbed methane production and some of the concern over it can be found below

Dogwood Intiative-- Coalbed Methane: Best Practices for British Columbia
Pembina Institute-- Coalbed Methane in British Columbia
B. C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas-- Coalbed Methane
Canadian Society for Unconventional Resources-- Fact sheets

Opinion 250 out of Prince George seems to have been the first of the Northern BC media outlets to offer up coverage on the collective in opposition to Coalbed methane production, their report on the Open Letter can be found below.

Opinion 250-- Concerned Group Calls LNG "Dirty Energy Strategy"

Cross posted from the North Coast Review