Latest news with #PRGT
Hamilton Spectator
29-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
BC LNG project divides Indigenous nations, risks financial and environmental harm
A long-delayed and controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and export terminal in northern British Columbia is now officially back on track and promoted as a new opportunity for Indigenous economic development. However, a report released last week warns that the risks — to land, community and even investors — are far greater than the promised benefits. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline and Ksi Lisims LNG terminal are poised to export up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, much of it destined for Asian markets. The pipeline's route cuts through Gitxsan and Tsimshian territories, but many hereditary leaders and community members remain opposed. Janna Wale, who is a Gitxsan community member and co-author of the new Yellowhead Institute report said the dominant narrative portraying LNG projects as straightforward economic opportunities overlooks significant realities. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Wale said. Financial risk stands out as a core issue for Indigenous communities being drawn into the project as equity investors, joint venture partners or through procurement contracts. Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, said these communities also bear the greatest risks if things go wrong. Few long-term shipper contracts have been signed, forcing the project to depend on the volatile spot LNG market, where global competition is fierce and prices are unpredictable. The report highlights that Japan and South Korea — key prospective markets for BC LNG exports — are already experiencing surpluses. 'Given the glut in the LNG market, where is this going to be sold, to which market and how is it going to get there? Those answers are not yet clear and so that presents a risk to those in it, and then those that are impacted by it,' King said. Emily Lowan, who co-authored the financial risk analysis for the report, said typically, 80 per cent of a project's funding comes from loans and 20 per cent from direct investment. With this setup, sharing the equity portion equally between two parties (Western LNG and the Nisga'a Nation) means each party must directly invest 10 per cent. 'Equity owners are paid after lenders, which means they are financially vulnerable if a project defaults or does not result in projected returns,' Lowan said. While Ottawa's $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program is seen as proof that the government wants Indigenous communities to have a real share in these projects will offer some financial cushion, Lowan said the program does not cover lost revenue if profits fall short or shield nations if a commercial partner collapses. Lowan said at the time the report was written, no loan guarantee programs protected the full corporate debt exposure. With project costs for the PRGT soaring and on track to reach $30 billion as outlined in the report, a hypothetical $3 billion equity stake for the Nisga'a Nation would absorb nearly 30 per cent of Canada's Indigenous loan guarantee fund. If costs overrun — as seen in previous megaprojects — lenders may demand more equity or refuse additional financing, potentially triggering defaults, she said. The report highlights how the floating LNG terminals and associated infrastructure will threaten marine ecosystems through dredging that destroys coral reefs and oyster beds, underwater noise pollution and shipping operations that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. 'It really is a watershed of impacts. When you start to impact one part of that system, the rest of the ecosystem will be impacted as well. These cascading effects are especially concerning as climate change stresses these environments,' Wale said. The pipeline crosses two of British Columbia's largest salmon-producing river systems, requiring clear-cutting through major waterways and drilling beneath critical spawning habitats. Wale warned the pipeline will bisect important salmon runs, huckleberry patches and moose habitat critical to Indigenous food security and cultural practices. Despite this, the pipeline's approval relies on a permit granted in 2014. In June, British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office ruled construction was 'substantially started,' allowing developers to move forward without a new review. This permit bypasses contemporary environmental standards, even as climate impacts worsen — raising concerns among conflicting Indigenous voices. Socially, resource hub towns such as Terrace are expected to face higher housing and food costs and overwhelmed health services. 'There will be 1,200 people in a man camp just a kilometer away … our health care system here is hanging on by its threads, and we're going to be bringing in over 1,000 workers into a tiny community,' said Gina Mowatt, a Gitxsan member. The influx of transient workers in 'man-camps' also raises worries about increased risks of sexual violence toward Indigenous women, a pattern linked to such developments. Beyond these risks, the report details uncertainty linked to BC's shifting LNG policy. The 2024 commitment to 'net-zero ready' LNG projects by 2030 still allows ongoing fossil gas use if electricity isn't yet available, meaning emissions will persist and put additional strain on local environments. While the Nisga'a Nation has actively invested in and supported the project, many hereditary leaders and community members of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian nations oppose it, asserting they never gave free, prior and informed consent. King warned that this dynamic revives a colonial 'divide and develop' tactic that pits Indigenous Nations against one another. 'There are plenty of opportunities for First Nations to negotiate with BC or Ontario or Canada, but fewer opportunities for nations to negotiate and undertake this type of diplomacy amongst themselves and I think that's by design,' he said. 'I don't think Canada wants nations to be working together. I think they want them to be divided.' He said the governments and corporations cultivate division by labeling communities that support resource development as 'the good Indians' while portraying resisting groups as 'the bad Indians.' This 'cleavage that's created and cast,' King said, mainly benefits external actors and undermines Indigenous governance, long-standing diplomatic relations and collective power. He said the approval process itself risks deepening these divisions by advancing consultation and consent with only select Indigenous groups, while excluding others is further fracturing Indigenous unity. Mowatt frames the conflict as a struggle between Indigenous communities and external actors, rather than a dispute within Indigenous nations. '[Instead] the war is against PRGT; the war is against these massive international corporations that are coming into our territory, every intention to destroy our lives here,' Mowatt said. As the project moves forward amid fractured consent and complex risks, the social and environmental stakes continue to weigh on the communities whose lives and lands intersect with the pipeline's path. 'We need the whole picture … it's about the legacy left for future generations, and who actually gets to decide what that legacy will be,' Wale said. Sonal Gupta / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
28-07-2025
- Business
- National Observer
BC LNG project divides Indigenous nations, risks financial and environmental harm
A long-delayed and controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and export terminal in northern British Columbia is now officially back on track and promoted as a new opportunity for Indigenous economic development. However, a report released last week warns that the risks — to land, community and even investors — are far greater than the promised benefits. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline and Ksi Lisims LNG terminal are poised to export up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, much of it destined for Asian markets. The pipeline's route cuts through Gitxsan and Tsimshian territories, but many hereditary leaders and community members remain opposed. Janna Wale, who is a Gitxsan community member and co-author of the new Yellowhead Institute report said the dominant narrative portraying LNG projects as straightforward economic opportunities overlooks significant realities. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Wale said. Financial risks Financial risk stands out as a core issue for Indigenous communities being drawn into the project as equity investors, joint venture partners or through procurement contracts. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Janna Wale said. Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, said these communities also bear the greatest risks if things go wrong. Few long-term shipper contracts have been signed, forcing the project to depend on the volatile spot LNG market, where global competition is fierce and prices are unpredictable. The report highlights that Japan and South Korea — key prospective markets for BC LNG exports — are already experiencing surpluses. 'Given the glut in the LNG market, where is this going to be sold, to which market and how is it going to get there? Those answers are not yet clear and so that presents a risk to those in it, and then those that are impacted by it,' King said. Emily Lowan, who co-authored the financial risk analysis for the report, said 80 per cent of PRGT's funding comes from loans and 20 per cent from direct investment. With this setup, sharing the equity portion equally between two parties (Western LNG and the Nisga'a Nation) means each holds a 10 per cent ownership stake in the whole project. 'Equity owners are paid after lenders, which means they are financially vulnerable if a project defaults or does not result in projected returns,' Lowan said. While Ottawa's $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program is seen as proof that the government wants Indigenous communities to have a real share in these projects will offer some financial cushion, Lowan said the program does not cover lost revenue if profits fall short or shield nations if a commercial partner collapses. Lowan said at the time the report was written, no loan guarantee programs protected the full corporate debt exposure. The Nisga'a Nation's $3 billion equity stake would absorb nearly 30 per cent of Canada's Indigenous loan guarantee fund. If costs overrun — as seen in previous megaprojects — lenders may demand more equity or refuse additional financing, potentially triggering defaults, she said. Environmental and social concerns The report highlights how the floating LNG terminals and associated infrastructure will threaten marine ecosystems through dredging that destroys coral reefs and oyster beds, underwater noise pollution and shipping operations that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. 'It really is a watershed of impacts. When you start to impact one part of that system, the rest of the ecosystem will be impacted as well. These cascading effects are especially concerning as climate change stresses these environments,' Wale said. The pipeline crosses two of British Columbia's largest salmon-producing river systems, requiring clear-cutting through major waterways and drilling beneath critical spawning habitats. Wale warned the pipeline will bisect important salmon runs, huckleberry patches and moose habitat critical to Indigenous food security and cultural practices. Despite this, the pipeline's approval relies on a permit granted in 2014. In June, British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office ruled construction was 'substantially started,' allowing developers to move forward without a new review. This permit bypasses contemporary environmental standards, even as climate impacts worsen — raising concerns among conflicting Indigenous voices. Socially, resource hub towns such as Terrace are expected to face higher housing and food costs and overwhelmed health services. 'There will be 1,200 people in a man camp just a kilometer away … our health care system here is hanging on by its threads, and we're going to be bringing in over 1,000 workers into a tiny community,' said Gina Mowatt, a Gitxsan member. The influx of transient workers in 'man-camps' also raises worries about increased risks of sexual violence toward Indigenous women, a pattern linked to such developments. Beyond these risks, the report details uncertainty linked to BC's shifting LNG policy. The 2024 commitment to 'net-zero ready' LNG projects by 2030 still allows ongoing fossil gas use if electricity isn't yet available, meaning emissions will persist and put additional strain on local environments. Rifts between Indigenous nations While the Nisga'a Nation has actively invested in and supported the project, many hereditary leaders and community members of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian nations oppose it, asserting they never gave free, prior and informed consent. King warned that this dynamic revives a colonial 'divide and develop' tactic that pits Indigenous Nations against one another. 'There are plenty of opportunities for First Nations to negotiate with BC or Ontario or Canada, but fewer opportunities for nations to negotiate and undertake this type of diplomacy amongst themselves and I think that's by design,' he said. 'I don't think Canada wants nations to be working together. I think they want them to be divided.' He said the governments and corporations cultivate division by labeling communities that support resource development as 'the good Indians' while portraying resisting groups as 'the bad Indians.' This 'cleavage that's created and cast,' King said, mainly benefits external actors and undermines Indigenous governance, long-standing diplomatic relations and collective power. He said the approval process itself risks deepening these divisions by advancing consultation and consent with only select Indigenous groups, while excluding others is further fracturing Indigenous unity. Mowatt frames the conflict as a struggle between Indigenous communities and external actors, rather than a dispute within Indigenous nations. '[Instead] the war is against PRGT; the war is against these massive international corporations that are coming into our territory, every intention to destroy our lives here,' Mowatt said. As the project moves forward amid fractured consent and complex risks, the social and environmental stakes continue to weigh on the communities whose lives and lands intersect with the pipeline's path. 'We need the whole picture … it's about the legacy left for future generations, and who actually gets to decide what that legacy will be,' Wale said.
Vancouver Sun
06-06-2025
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
Pro-gas, anti-oil: B.C.'s NDP has monetary and environmental reasons for backing LNG
VICTORIA — The week ended with encouraging pipeline news from the B.C. government, as opposed to how the week started. The province's environmental assessment office announced approval on Thursday for continued construction of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline, half-owned by the Nisga'a nation which plans a floating LNG export terminal on the coast. 'This is an important step — not just for PRGT, but for the Nisga'a Nation's vision of self-determination and long-term prosperity,' said Eva Clayton, elected president of the Nisga'a Lisims government. 'For too long, Indigenous Nations have watched resource development happen around us, instead of with us.' Stay on top of the latest real estate news and home design trends. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Westcoast Homes will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Contrast the NDP greenlighting of the Nisga'a-backed natural gas project with its reaction to the proposal, touted earlier in the week, for a pipeline to transport Alberta oil through B.C. to tidewater at Prince Rupert or Kitimat. 'That idea doesn't make sense to us,' said Energy Minister Adrian Dix, echoing similar comments from Deputy Premier Niki Sharma and Premier David Eby. A natural gas pipeline makes far more sense to the New Democrats because, for starters, the financial returns would be greater for the provincial treasury. B.C. has little oil to develop or export but vast reserves of natural gas. The New Democrats also promote natural gas as a 'transition fuel,' to help wean customers off reliance on oil and coal as energy sources. Plus, as former NDP Premier John Horgan used to say, natural gas pipelines are preferable over the oil variety, because when a line ruptures, natural gas vents into the atmosphere while oil inundates the landscape. The Eby government telegraphed support for the Nisga'a natural gas project in the runup to last month's critical vote on Bills 14 and 15. Most major Indigenous leaders in the province asked the government to hold off passage on the legislation that gave the cabinet sweeping powers to fast-track approval of energy (Bill 14) and infrastructure (Bill 15) projects. But on the day the New Democrats used their legislative majority to push through the bills, the premier's office circulated a letter of endorsement for those laws from Nisga'a president Clayton. The letter was intended to underscore a point made by a senior NDP staffer when asked why the NDP's own Indigenous MLAs were voting for the legislation: 'The Indigenous community is not a monolith.' Still, the news was barely out Thursday regarding environmental approval for the PRGT natural gas project, when opponents announced that the fight was not over. 'A reckless decision that prioritizes profits for foreign billionaires over Indigenous rights, environmental protection and community well-being,' said the news release from the Green party. Which is the kind of rhetoric one might have heard from David Eby in his previous incarnation as an NDP activist. Today, it is more likely to feed the exasperation Eby expressed in the legislature last week when interim Green leader Jeremy Valeriote accused him of failing to consult and cooperate on policy and legislation. 'For Pete's sake, we just issued a report together,' replied Eby, referring to the update from the New Democrats and Greens on their cooperation agreement. 'The executive summary says 'the cooperation and responsible government accord between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus reflects a shared commitment to working collaboratively on issues that matter to people.'' Valeriote's effort to have it both ways recalls former leader Andrew Weaver, who threatened to 'bring down' the John Horgan NDP government for providing tax and regulatory incentives to secure the LNG Canada project. Horgan enacted the incentives with the support of the then Liberal Opposition. Eby has the votes to proceed without opposition support, as he demonstrated last week on Bills 14 and 15. The 900-kilometre PRGT line runs in part through the territory of the Gitanyow people, whose hereditary chiefs oppose the project. 'This isn't the end of the story,' said Gitanyow Chief Watakhayetsxw, also known as Deborah Good, who took part in a blockade that stopped construction on the line last year. 'We'll continue to fight to protect our territory with all actions needed, in the courts and on the ground.' Also weighing in was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who seldom misses an opportunity to blast the NDP government despite the fact his wife, Joan, is an NDP MLA. 'This is not a government that believes in reconciliation, and it could trigger a long, hot summer,' he said in a statement. The Prince Rupert pipeline and the LNG project are both subject to legal challenges. The LNG terminal also needs environmental approval. But it should be recalled that there was also ferocious opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline, now serving the LNG Canada terminal in Kitimat. Construction was blocked and, in one instance, sabotaged. The legislature itself was blockaded for a time. Still, the line was completed, the gas is already being delivered to the terminal site, and LNG shipments are imminent. Energy Minister Adrian Dix is planning to visit the project later this month. Perhaps Eby will join him in taking credit for a project that would not have happened without NDP support. vpalmer@
Hamilton Spectator
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Prince Rupert gas pipeline cleared to keep environmental permit indefinitely
Prince Rupert gas pipeline cleared to keep environmental permit indefinitely The Prince Rupert gas pipeline project is 'substantially started' and will keep its valid environmental certificate for the life of the pipeline, the BC Environmental Assessment Office has ruled. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline is jointly owned by the Nisga'a Nation and Western LNG, but other First Nations and environmentalists say the decision favours corporate interests over climate commitments and Indigenous rights. Tara Marsden, sustainability director for the Gitanyow hereditary chiefs, said the decision was not unexpected, but still 'damaging and daunting.' She said the province frequently bends or breaks its own laws and regulations to accommodate PRGT, undermining the integrity of the environmental review process. 'This is absolutely not in the interests of Gitanyow and many other nations who have expressed concern,' Marsden said. 'It's going to be a significant reversal of the climate policy of this government.' The BC government has legislated targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But according to critics, pursuing additional LNG and pipeline projects will undercut any progress made by adding significant new emissions that were not considered in the province's climate plans. Marsden said the government is acting without responsibility, forcing First Nations to fight in court because it doesn't respect consultation, Indigenous rights, UNDRIP or true consent — and the decision was politically and economically driven, not based on policy, law or sound science. 'This government can now do whatever it pleases with no accountability,' Marsden said. 'First Nations are left to fight for these things on the ground and in the courts.' She said the report by the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) — the agency tasked with technical review — was 'very slim,' noting that Gitanyow's own submission was likely twice as long. Janelle Lapointe, senior advisor at the David Suzuki Foundation and member of Stellat'en First Nation, said the approval casts significant doubt on the province's willingness to meet its climate targets, respect Indigenous rights and title, and even follow its own policy on determining whether a project has had a 'substantial start.' The keyword — substantial start — is critical because under BC's Environmental Assessment Act, a project's environmental certificate will expire unless enough real, physical work has been completed on the ground before a set deadline — in this case, November 25, 2024. According to the EAO report , the PRGT pipeline was considered 'substantially started' because the company cleared 42 km of pipeline route, built nine permanent bridges, upgraded or built 47 km of access roads, and set up work areas before the deadline. The company also spent about $584 million on the project since 2013. The concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions and incomplete permits were not part of the decision and was mainly based on the physical work completed on the ground. 'If PRGT was really a good project, it wouldn't need a decade-old permit, quiet approvals, and a government bending the rules to push it through,' Lapointe said. She said since the original environmental assessment certificate was issued in 2014, lands, waterways, and ecology have only become more vulnerable due to continued extraction, corporate greed, and the accelerating effects of climate change. Lapointe said the project will cross hundreds of fish-bearing streams and rivers in a watershed that her community depends on. The government is again refusing to ensure the project won't harm their ecosystems, especially salmon — a key species important to their culture and vital to the local economy, she said. 'The province has failed to address the concerns of the Indigenous nations asserting their rights to protect our territory. It sets a very dangerous precedent,' Lapointe said. She pointed out that newly passed Bill 15 and the PRGT approval highlight a troubling trend — the provincial government is making it easier for corporations to move projects forward, while making it difficult for Indigenous nations to exercise their rights and oppose developments that threaten their territories. 'Are they going to allow outdated permits from 2014 to be treated as more legitimate than the rights of sovereign nations? I am left wondering, why is our province bending over backwards to hand over critical energy infrastructure to American billionaires?' Lapointe said. Christina Smethurst, communications head at Dogwood BC, a Victoria-based non-profit, non-partisan citizen action group, said while the EAO issued the approval, there has been no clear public statement or ownership from elected government officials about the decision, with significant environmental, Indigenous rights and economic implications. 'The BC NDP have abandoned any semblance of caring about climate change,' Smethurst said. 'Where is the government on this? Who of our elected officials will take responsibility for making this decision?' Marsden said Gitanyow is preparing legal and other actions, and the fight to protect their lands will continue. Lapointe said they would follow Gitanyow's lead in the ongoing opposition to the pipeline. Marsden also challenged the narrative that this project would help Canada's energy independence. 'This isn't about getting out from under the thumb of Americans. It's actually about enriching people who are in Trump's inner circle,' Marsden said. Sonal Gupta / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Calgary Herald
06-06-2025
- Business
- Calgary Herald
Pipeline planned to supply LNG project receives green light from B.C. regulator
Article content British Columbia has once again green-lit the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline, reaffirming an approval first issued under the former Christy Clark government for the line that will supply a major new liquefied natural gas export terminal proposed on the province's northern coast. Article content The decision by the head of B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) on Thursday means that PRGT's environmental assessment certificate will remain in effect for the life of the project, clearing a major regulatory hurdle for the 12-million-tonne-per-year (Mtpa) Ksi Lisims LNG project. Article content Article content Article content 'This is an important step, not just for PRGT, but for the Nisga'a Nation's vision of self-determination and long-term prosperity,' Eva Clayton, president of Nisga'a Lisims Government, which co-owns PRGT and Ksi Lisims with Houston-based Western LNG LLC, said in a statement. Article content Article content The floating LNG terminal proposed for Pearse Island, north of Prince Rupert, B.C., still awaits key environmental sign-offs from provincial and federal officials, but Thursday's decision confirms that the 750-kilometre pipeline intended to supply feed gas to the liquefaction facility can go ahead. Article content PRGT, which would transport around two billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of natural gas from northeastern B.C. to the West Coast, had initially been granted its certificate in 2014 when TC Energy Corp. advanced the project to supply the Petronas-backed Pacific NorthWest LNG project. Article content Article content But Petroliam Nasional Bhd. — the legal name of Malaysia's state-owned Petronas — cancelled Pacific NorthWest LNG in 2017 amid economic and regulatory headwinds, leaving PRGT to languish until Western LNG and the Nisga'a Nation bought the project in 2024, amending and shortening the proposed route to supply Ksi Lisims LNG. Article content Article content The long delay put the pipeline at risk of losing its environmental certificate since, under provincial rules, each certificate comes with a deadline by which a project must be substantially started and PRGT's was contingent upon a November 2024 start date. Article content But in his decision released Thursday, Alex MacLennan, head of the EAO, pointed to the clearing of 42 kilometres of the pipeline's right-of-way and the construction of permanent features identified in the project's plans, including nine bridges, 47 kilometres of roads and a lodge.
