Squamish Small Group Meeting June 16, 2014, 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Executive Suites Hotel & Resort Squamish, BC. Judy Kirk, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.

Transcription

1 PURPOSE FACILITATOR PRESENTER ATTENDEES PROJECT TEAM ATTENDEES Notes from a Small Group Meeting for the Woodfibre LNG Engagement held on June 16, 2014 at the. Judy Kirk, Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd. Byng Giraud, Woodfibre LNG Doug Race, Councillor, District of Squamish Barry Singer Bernard Agg Christina Hejduk Craig McConnell Daniella Smith Doug Hinton Hans Schaer Ian McIver Ingrid Wray Kati Palethorpe Michael Balmowski Mohammad Afsar Peter Gordon Rebecca Aldous (Media Squamish Chief) Spencer MacGillivray Stefan Hejduk Teresa Rowley Theja Balmowski Tom Bruusgaard Tracey Saxby Wendy Winter AG Gelotti, Woodfibre LNG Byng Giraud, Woodfibre LNG Alex Brigden, Woodfibre LNG Jennifer Siddon, Woodfibre LNG Marian Ngo, Woodfibre LNG Gord Addison, Woodfibre LNG Jonathan Turner, Hemmera Lara Taylor, Hemmera David Bennett, FortisBC Doris Huey, BC Hydro Sean Maloney, BC Hydro Page 1 of 24

2 AGENDA 1. Welcome and Review Agenda 2. Q&A 3. Closing Remarks KEY THEMES Some participants requested that a commitment be made to local Squamish and Metro Vancouver residents to guarantee job opportunities to members of the communities Some participants expressed that even though air emissions could be significantly reduced by the selection of electrical drive for the liquefaction plant they are still concerned about air emissions from the Project Some participants expressed concern about the risk of an LNG spill and/or explosion to occur on either a LNG carrier or at the on land facility Some participants expressed concern about underwater noise associated with the Project s operations and its potential to negatively impact marine mammals Some participants expressed support for the choice of electric drive to power the liquefaction facility DISCUSSION The record notes that the meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. (Abbreviations will be used and mean Q: Question, A: Answer, C: Comment) Welcome and Agenda Judy Kirk opened the meeting and round table introductions of the Woodfibre Project Team and participants were undertaken. Discussion C: Byng Giraud: I will walk you through the guide. First I will start with the cover, for those of you who have been at these sessions before it is a very similar looking booklet, but there are a lot of differences as well. Just on the cover is the most current rendering. We had a slightly different rendering back in February but this is the current rendering. Page 2 is an outline of what we are doing here and an outline of when all of the meetings are so if you have an opportunity to attend additional ones that is the schedule. There are two open houses and four small group meetings in this round of consultation. Q: Kati Palethorpe: Quick question, what is the rationale behind having the small group meetings during the middle of the day from 1 until 3 o clock when basically no one is available? It is hard for people to get time off and to get babysitters. A: Judy Kirk: Actually let me answer that, Kati. We have had no one complain about the timing and what we try to do and it is not these guys choosing the times, it is us is pick different times of Page 2 of 24

3 the day, different days of the week as well as different communities to make sure that people who work shift-work can attend. C: Kati Palethorpe: It is just that all of the small group meetings are from 1-3pm. C: Judy Kirk: But you can see the rest of meetings are at different times and different days. C: Kati Palethorpe: Thank you. C: Byng Giraud: This is the second round of consultation, so there are the six meetings. We had similar meetings back in February. Just so you are aware of the process, we haven t filed an Environmental Assessment (EA) Application yet, we are months away from that. There are still a couple of consultation sessions that are a part of that. This is one step along that process. We did community consultation back in February, similar meeting styles and locations and that is part of the reason why we have made some adjustments. We had 349 people attend those meetings, 84 people submitted the forms from the discussion guides and we had 142 additional submissions. We took what we received into consideration. You should also know that this is separate and not part of the formal Environmental Assessment process; the government runs that process, and they have public consultation meetings throughout their process. Right now they are looking at the Terms of Reference that should be in the EA application and then there will actually be another consultation period once we have actually filed our EA application. They are taking care of that, Judy perhaps you could speak to that because you are quite an expert in the EA application process. Have I missed any piece on that? C: Judy Kirk: No, except that I think the important thing is to allow the EA people to speak for their process. The proponent for this Project does not speak for it and that is why we put the website for both the BC EAO and the federal CEA Agency on the page. I recommend that any of you who are interested to please go to those websites and understand when the public comment periods occur and what will be included in those. And it looks as those Tracey has a hand out. C: Tracey Saxby: I have a hand out outlining the Environmental Assessment process, how it works and how you can engage with them. C: Judy Kirk: Thank you. C: Byng Giraud: Okay so this is our process, and why do we have our own process? We want to supplement what the government is doing to get input, and we think that input in valuable and it has helped us make some changes to the project so far. That takes us to the next page, page 4. So, what is the project? A simple summary, if you want more details, various details are located on the project website It is a pipeline from FortisBC, a power line from BC Hydro, an existing deep water port, it is in an industrial zoned private property piece of land within the municipality of Squamish and is zoned industrial for commercial and employment use within the official Community Plan. The numbered items below is a summary of what we intend to build. We have a place where we will treat the gas. The gas that you receive at your home right now versus the gas that we will use is no different, it is the same gas. For example, the smell that is in the gas that you receive at home, that is an artificial additive, and we have to remove that before we can liquefy it. We have this pretreatment facility to remove those sorts of things. We have a liquefaction plant which is what takes the gas and makes it cold. To make it cold you have to cool it to -162 degrees Celsius, which means that we shrink the volume of the gas to 600 times less, which means that we can transport it. There is a deep water jetty, a storage system the ships there on Page 3 of 24

4 the image are our storage system a marine terminal to load and offload the LNG and any other supporting infrastructure such as substations, administration buildings and sewage treatment facility. So we had some consultation back in February, we had a number of meetings here in Squamish and elsewhere and we have made some changes, and these are the most significant changes: One of the things we heard was that people were concerned with air quality in the region. People had read about the large LNG facilities up in the north and some air quality issues with them and they looked at our project and said we are concerned that if you burn gas to power this facility there will be significant air quality issues. So we took that and have chosen to run on electric power, to plug in to the BC Hydro grid. We have made the decision to do this and this decision with reduce the impact on the airshed and GHGs. The second thing we did was we moved the liquefaction facility. The facility was initially supposed to be floating and we wanted to make it a floating facility because we wanted to build it in a way that we could test it before we actually had it up and running, so to have it tested in the shipyards where it was being built. There was a lot of concern with that and any sort of noise that might come with that, concern about how it would impact local jobs, and concern about taxation. The taxation issue we didn t think was an issue but people still did raise it. Our engineers went back and decided that it wasn t a huge additional cost for us to move this facility on to land, and it still gets some of the advantages we wanted from being built in a ship yard. Hearing that, and all things being equal, we moved it on shore. So actually the liquefaction facility that was previously going to be on water is now on shore. After we decided to go electric, we are going to have significant power consumption which forces us to move to a cooling system. There are two methods, air cooling and water cooling. The power requirements of both an electric drive facility and air cooling are significant, almost prohibitively significant, so we chose water cooling as cooling method. Q: Tracey Saxby: How can you say that you are going to go with electric power when BC Hydro is still doing the systems impact study? It hasn t been finalized or confirmed yet if it is even feasible. A: Byng Giraud: It is not so much the feasibility, we know it can be done, it is a question of how and Alex can speak to that. A: Alex Brigden: We have completed one partial system impact study for 140 megawatts and we are also in the process of undertaking additional studies with BC Hydro. Now is the right time for us to make the decision on electric power or gas turbines for our main refrigerant and compressor. We know that from our normal operations the power that can be confirmed to be supplied by BC Hydro is sufficient. We are now studying what the peak loads would be, so times when certain things would be operating at the same time and we are studying what those amounts would be. If we can get sufficient power during these times all we will have to do is adjust the output amount slightly at that point. We do know that under normal operational circumstances, we can run on the power that we can receive. Page 4 of 24

5 C: Doris Huey: Alex was correct, we did do a partial systems impact study and it was confirmed that BC Hydro can supply 140 megawatts, and we are currently doing additional impact studies to see what can be provided for their additional peak loads. Q: Wendy Winter: I am not very knowledgeable with the process, so will the water be a closed system or will it go back into the sound and warm it up? A: Byng Giraud: To answer that question, the water is pulled out of the sound, and put back in. Q: Wendy Winter: So will it impact the temperature of the water? A: Byng Giraud: There will be a minor impact on the temperature of the water. The BC regulations say, and Jonathan here from Hemmera can speak to this, that you have to be within one degree variation of whatever the water temperature is within 100 metres of the site. We have a test unit that has been supplied by our environmental consultants that has been down there measuring the situation so that we can look at the water dispersion. A: Alex Brigden: So the first thing about the water cooling I want to make clear is what is called a tempered water cooling system, so it means that the water that we take from Howe Sound goes through a heat exchanger and that exchanges with an independent water system which then exchanges heat with our plant. So there is no direct contact between the water from Howe Sound and any industrial activities in the plant. The temperature difference will be a maximum of 10 degrees between the inlet and the outlet. What we have designed it what is called a diffuser system which will take 24 diffuser ports arranged over about 110 metres in a pipe and that lets the water out in to Howe Sound. Within 8 to 10 metres of each of those ports the temperature difference is less than 1 degree. Q: Kati Palethorpe: Also to the water cooling, how much water will be taken out and where exactly? The area around the Woodfibre site is where there is Herring spawning and a lot of marine activity. Where, how often and how much is being taken out? A: Alex Brigden: The inlet will be at a depth of more than 25 metres, the outlet with also be the same depth. The flow rate is about 17,000 cubic metres per hour and it is continuous. Q: Tracey Saxby: The location, you didn t actually specify, so sure it is 25 metres below the surface water, but where exactly will it be located? A: Alex Brigden: The final location we are still studying and we are working with our environmental consultants to determine the exact location. We are taking into account any advice we get from the environmental consultants. Q: Tracey Saxby: And that was just a clarification Kati s question. My question is, what exactly do you mean by a land based liquefaction natural gas facility? What is it composed of? I want a little clarification on this diagram because if I look at number 3, 4 and 5 I can t see the jetty, it looks like you have two ships moored to each other. A: Byng Giraud: So yes, this is the complete facility. It is a little difficult to see the jetty behind them, but this is the storage. These two vessels are storage. C: Alex Brigden: So just to answer your question, if you look at the arrangement of the site, items 1 and 2 are the liquefaction facility and the pretreatment facility, items 3, 4, and 5 are the way to get liquefied gas to the storage unit, the storage unit is contained within a ship-shape floating storage container, item 6 is utilities spaces such as control rooms. Q: Tracey Saxby: So there isn t even a tanker pulled up to the site in this image? These two things that look like ships are actually the storage facility? Page 5 of 24

6 A: Alex Brigden: Correct. Q: Kati Palethorpe: How big is the storage capacity, because I figured one was the boat and one was the storage, so now that I see two, how big is the storage capacity for the boats? A: Alex Brigden: The storage capacity is 250,000 cubic metres of LNG. C: Judy Kirk: Okay Byng, I am going to ask you to move along. I believe we were on page 6. C: Byng Giraud: Okay so a few other things have taken place since February. Mostly everybody knows that we are buying the site from Western Forest Products. Part of the purchase cost is part of the remediation of the site which is ongoing. It explains there in some details the remediation that is taking place. So once they get a Certificate of Compliance from the Ministry of Environment saying that the site has been remediated to an industrial standard, once that has taken place, than we will take full control of the site. Below that we have construction and operating jobs. Something that came up very much last time and we were still quite preliminary was how many jobs and what kind of jobs. There is still some detail to be worked out, but by some of our configuration changes and by moving things on land, we have expanded our construction jobs from 300 persons per year to 500 jobs per year for two years. In terms of operational jobs we are still saying about 100 operational full time staff, we think that is quite a conservative number but we are using that right now. So these are some of the jobs, some are more specialized as you can see but some of them are also very easily filled with local labour. The last thing is, we came last time in February and we had received approval of our export license, there were still some formalities that had to take place, the cabinet had to go and take a look at the export license and that was approved and has now been finalized. So those are the six big changes that have happened, there have been other minor things which we will discuss. Q: Mohammad Afsar: Did you say 400 jobs during operation? A: Byng Giraud: 500 for construction, 100 for operation. Q: Mohammad Afsar: I am personally as a resident of Squamish very excited about this project. I am happy that environmental concerns are being addressed, but at this point in time, what is the municipal taxes and what is the benefit to the community? Although I appreciate that you are saying it will be part of the process and that information would be forthcoming, but at this point in time is there an equivalent project already in some municipality in the province that would give us some idea what the municipal taxes might be? A: Byng Giraud: I don t think there is. The LNG industry and these types of facilities are new to British Columbia and there are all different taxation regimes. We have entered into discussion with the District of Squamish about how we can determine those numbers. They require us to provide our construction costs, which Alex s team is still working on, and once we provide our construction costs they will take them to the BC Assessment Authority, which will make an assessment based on those costs. Then the city will apply a mill rate and will come up with a number. That is what I understand from talking with staff and people from the District of Squamish. That process may take a bit longer than you or I may want it to, but I don t think we will be an unsubstantial tax payer. Q: Mohammad Afsar: I have a lot of municipal experience so my question was, is there an existing LNG project anywhere in a municipal environment that we can make an estimate as to how much taxes you will pay? Page 6 of 24

7 A: Judy Kirk: Yes and Byng says he doesn t think there is. Doug, do you have a comment or any knowledge about this? A: Doug Race: Taxes are a function of a mill rate and the assessment, so you might go to Delta or the one Fortis just opened and get an assessment value and some idea of how they have been assessed, but the mill rate is specific to the jurisdiction and the municipality. Right now the mill rate in Squamish, we just looked at it because we look at them every year as part of the budget process and a heavy industry mill rate right now in Squamish is 27.5, which means that for every $1 million of assessed value there is $27,500 taxes paid. So for $100 million it is $2.75 million taxes paid. That is just the municipal amount as well. It is a guess as to what the mill rate for this Project would be right now, nobody can really say. We are trying to go through a process, municipal taxes are a function of the mill rate which is a percentage of the assessed value which is set by the BC Assessment Authority for the province, which we have no control over that. Q: Judy Kirk: So Doug, is it fair to say that this proponent may end up paying millions of dollar in taxes? A: Doug Race: Absolutely. It is a $1.7 billion project, if 1/17 th of that value landed on that site that is $100 million in assessment that is $2.75 million in taxes at today s rates. C: Tracey Saxby: That is not what it is assessed at though, that is how much it is going to cost to build the facility, not what it will be assessed at by the BC Assessment Authority. C: Doug Race: I understand that, what I am saying is that if 1/17 th of the cost to build it was assessed on the site, then the taxes would be $2.75 million. C: Tracey Saxby: But then there is also the question of whether that is going to include the facilities that are located on the water as well. C: Doug Race: No, we got that information and it makes no difference to municipal taxation whether it is on the water or on the land, we tax marinas and water lots right now. C: Judy Kirk: Tracey I am going to let this go because no one knows here, but in order of magnitude it is millions and millions, but we will just have to let the process play out. Q: Mohammad Afsar: Just a related question in terms of process, this site has previously had industrial use on it, I assume that the site is industrial zoned, if there was no environmental process requirement, the proponent could have come to the municipality to request a building permit? And the municipality would have no reason to refuse. We are going through this process of public consultation, and I am behind it, because there is a requirement under the environmental assessment process to do that, otherwise there will be no requirement for rezoning of the site, am I right? If the zoning is in place, industry can go there, all we are try to do in terms of public process is to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed properly and that affordable mitigation processes are put in place to minimize the environmental impact. A: Byng Giraud: That is my understanding. C: Judy Kirk: There was something you said in your question that I am going to have to correct. The public comment periods associated with the environmental assessment process are required. The consultation you are sitting in now is over and above that, it is not a requirement. It is over and above that. This proponent decided to do that to make sure that people knew about the key elements of the project and that they could find out about certain aspects about the project such as air quality. Any other questions before I come back to Tracey? Page 7 of 24

8 Q: Tracey Saxby: Can you please break down the numbers of the operations jobs, so how many people will be in document management, how many environmental engineers? A: Byng Giraud: Yeah so as I have said we have estimates from consultants but we do not know specifics or the breakdown of numbers. These are all things that we need, we know we will need about 100 people working in shifts. Q: Ingrid Wray: Are they likely to be jobs that locals from BC could fill or? A: Byng Giraud: Most of these jobs can be filled from the local area. Q: Wendy Winter: Where is the facility being built, and will that impact local jobs? A: Byng Giraud: Most of these facilities are built in modular form in ship yards in Germany or Korea, which are the most known. The construction will take place in those ship yards. There isn t really the capability in North America for the construction of the facilities. That being said, moving the facility on to land we believe 500 construction jobs each year for two years. C: Alex Brigden: Previously we were looking at building a floating facility in an appropriate construction facility in the Far East; now we will bring them in in a modular form. We haven t decided on the size of those models but for the same reasons, they will be built in single specialized yards in the Far East where we can control the testing and safety of the construction. The increase that we see in the number of construction workers needed on site is related to the amount of labour that will be required to assemble the facility from the modules. We see that the local skillsets for construction are available in BC already and that they meet the requirements for this additional on shore work. Q: Tracey Saxby: So just to clarify, there will be 500 jobs that will be happening in Squamish during construction of the Project, you said that they can be filled by people living in BC living here at this time, but don t all of those people already have jobs? A: Alex Brigden: We will use local contractors to undertake the work, and local contractors will always have an ongoing workload and they take up new contracts as they are put on the market. The workers will come from local contractors and we are forward planning to engage with local contractors to ensure they can take on the work scope. Q: Tracey Saxby: So there is actually the capacity within Squamish to do all of this, all of the construction? C: Judy Kirk: No, I don t think that is what he is saying. Please correct that Alex, that isn t what I heard. A: Alex Brigden: No, I didn t say there is the capacity within Squamish. Q: Tracey Saxby: Well you keep saying local, so please define what local means to you. A: Alex Brigden: We are looking at Whistler, Squamish and the lower mainland. C: Byng Giraud: Let me just jump in here. If we build a facility here in BC, there will be challenges for the LNG industry across the province partially because of the location of the construction of these facilities. We will face less of a challenge. Not to say that there won t be a challenge, but we are looking at 500 people for 2 years which is substantially less with essentially a pool of 2 million people within 56 to 80 kilometres. Now will they all be from Squamish? Absolutely not. There are people working in Squamish now at the terminals who aren t from there and vice versa with Squamish people in other communities nearby. Our intent is to hire as much local as possible and we think we can meet those objectives better than the projects up north. So when we say local it is not within city limits necessarily. C: Judy Kirk: But the point is, anyone in this corridor will have an opportunity. Page 8 of 24

9 C: Byng Giraud: I am not going to do job fairs in Fort St. John, I am going to do job fairs and contracting fairs here. Q: Kati Palethorpe: So is that than a given that there will be no temporary foreign workers on this project? A: Byng Giraud: You are trying to get me to say certain things. When we commission this facility there will be some highly specialized jobs, but as I have said the majority about 70% of the jobs we believe right now can be filled locally. Alex can speak more to this but for the commissioning of the facility there will have to be some very highly specialized skills that will have to be here. A: Alex Brigden: So similar to what Byng said, during the commissioning, startup and early operations we need to have highly specialized skills. If those skills are not available here, we do have to bring them from outside. It is fair to say that we would like to bring back home Canadians if we can, but if we can t find the right people with the right skills to safely start up the plant we have to bring in the right people from outside. Q: Ingrid Wray: Isn t Christy Clark sending school children in buses to BCIT to actually promote new technology? That is a long term process so does that not tell us that in fact the skills are not actually available here because we have to train people up? A: Judy Kirk: I just want to make sure for the record, there have been a couple of questions asked here and one in particular about temporary foreign workers. There is a program in Canada and Ingrid you may be referring to it, where a proponent like this would have to apply for temporary foreign workers and there has been a lot of news with respect to abuse of that program in the fast food industry. What I hear this proponent saying is that they don t have any big plans to be using the temporary foreign workers program. Quite the opposite, that they are looking at the British Columbian Canadian workforce first, but that they may during startup and commissioning, I heard you say, you will need some specialized engineers. To be fair here, we shouldn t scare people about some influx of temporary foreign workers because that is not what I hear this proponent saying. Q: Kati Palethorpe: No, but we also need to make sure that we are not making false promises and that at some point they will decide they can t fill those jobs and will need to look in that direction. We need to keep the balance that there is a possibility. A: Byng Giraud: These are some of the jobs we expect so this is why we have put together this list. Environmental engineers, yes there are some of these in British Columbia. Warehouse supervisors, of course I can hire these out of British Columbia, probably won t have to go outside of city limits. We believe the majority of these jobs during operation will be filled local. And they will all become local because we will need those people to stay. In terms of construction, most of those jobs will be through contractors who will bring in those guys. Because I have access to the big construction firms in Vancouver, I don t feel that we will face the same pressure that a mine in northeast BC or a facility in northwest BC will face. I have access to the big construction firms in this area with lots of employees who don t want to go to Fort St. John, who want to stay closer to Vancouver. C: Doug Race: I am not advocating for one side or the other for this, but we just took a tour of some of Fortis s facilities, and they just built an LNG facility on Vancouver Island and we asked them where they got their workforce from and they said all but one person from within BC. It is not rocket science, but apparently it needs steamfitters which is a relatively common training level and then there is on the job training. Q: Kati Palethorpe: And that is an export facility? A: Doug Race: No, it is a local facility that I think services fleets. Page 9 of 24

10 A: David Bennett: So we have liquefaction there and a storage tank. Similar but not exactly the same, it is used mostly for peek shavings. Q: Kati Palethorpe: And is it size wise comparable? A: David Bennett: It is not exactly the same, the tank would be about 1/3 the size of the tanks that will be here. The liquefaction is same idea but a different process. C: Peter Gordon: I am here as a citizen of Squamish. I believe in a balanced approach to everything, and I am rather hopeful that this project will move forward but am also a person who believes in holding their feet to the fire to make sure they do the things they are saying. What is bothering me is that I keep hearing picky things and I d like for those things to be noted and put on the record but that rather we be allowed to go forward with our conversation this afternoon and deal with the bigger issues. Q: Judy Kirk: What are some of the bigger issues that you would like to deal with? A: Peter Gordon: Well I just want to make sure moving forward that the issues with the environment are addressed. C: Judy Kirk: Okay great, then I suggest that we go to page 10 & 11. It doesn t mean we can t come back to some of the other questions but let s talk a little bit about the environment. C: Byng Giraud: We have an FAQ in this section, but just quickly on the bottom of the page looking at public input, February we have done, we are doing a current round now and there will be an environmental assessment comment period, with ongoing community consultation in the future. These are the main topics we are currently seeking community/stakeholder input on here on page 11, Air Quality, Climate and Greenhouse Gases. We will have an effect on air quality from construction and operations, we will have an impact and we don t want to hide from that. There are some of the mitigation things we are doing and are proposing to do. People have issues about air quality, climate and greenhouse gas emissions, are there sufficient things being done, are there more things that can be done? Any thoughts about those things. I think one of the most significant mitigations we have done so far in response to public input is the switch from gas fire to electricity. We can do simple things on site such as idle time restrictions, transportation to and from site can be maximized by all workers coming in on our vessels, and what we can do about parking and giving people the ability to bike to the facility as well as our emergency shutdown mechanisms. These are just some of the things we are proposing and we are interested in hearing your comments on these. Q: Tracey Saxby: I appreciate that you have been listening to the community, and that you have decided to go with hydro power and that that means a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Can you clarify exactly what the 20% of emissions will be? I would like numbers here. A: Alex Brigden: I can clarify what the difference will be from going from gas turbine drive for the main refrigerant and compressors to electric drive. Not all of the equipment has been selected yet, but the difference for gas turbine would have been 450,000 tonnes of CO 2 and electric is 80,000 tonnes of CO 2. And I d like to point out one thing, most of the CO 2 content that is seen from an electric drive, is actually directly removed CO 2 that is already in the feed gas that comes to our facility. The main difference is in a gas turbine is that you create CO 2 from the combustion process. Page 10 of 24

11 The main source of CO 2 for our process is removed CO 2 from the feed gas which cannot be liquefied. Q: Tracey Saxby: And the nitrogen oxides? A: Alex Brigden: The difference would be around 310 tonnes with gas turbine to 10 tonnes with electric drive per year. Q: Tracey Saxby: Is the CO 2 per year as well? A: Alex Brigden: Yes. Q: Tracey Saxby: And SO x? A: Alex Brigden: SO x would be about 17 tonnes per year. Q: Doug Race: Is there a way to relate that back to something that we know, so maybe an equivalent of x number of buses travelling up the highway? A: Alex Brigden: 80,000 tonnes of CO 2 is about 2% of the emissions of the average coal fire powered plant. Q: Judy Kirk: That still doesn t help. What Doug is asking for, is how many buses would that be? A: Byng Giraud: There are programs online you can plug those numbers in to, but I am not sure we have those comparisons. Q: Teresa Rowley: I am interested in flaring and the amount and length of time you will be flaring and how will it be run? A: Byng Giraud: Let me take you back to the cover, just above the vessel it is a little hard to see, that is the flare facility right there. The big tower there is the flare facility. We have two reasons to flare, so one is to turn the facility on, and during commissioning to have it up and running but after that it is only for maintenance and emergencies. A: Alex Brigden: The plant is designed to be continuously running for above 97 per cent of the time. Q: Judy Kirk: So how often, in other words what Teresa is trying to get at is how often would maintenance flaring be required? A: Alex Brigden: Of the 97 per cent, the 3 per cent remaining doesn t always lead to a flaring event because we can close in the pressurized gases and not have to go to flare. We only flare when we depressurize the whole system and we have to release some gas that is pressurized in the system so that we can take the system down to atmospheric pressure. Of that remaining 3 per cent, I don t have a number today exactly how often we will have to depressurize. Q: Teresa Rowley: As a resident of Squamish I d like to know that information. I would also want to know when or how the flaring will be run and what the particulate matter in the air coming out of the smoke stacks is. A: Alex Brigden: When we flare the gas we would have already removed the un-liquefiable components so the sulphur, CO 2, mercury, so what is coming out is trace components and methane and ethane. The important thing is that the flaring of the gas is actually purer gas than the gas that you would burn on your stove. It comes from the same pipeline, except that we have already removed some of the components which cannot be liquefied. Q: Judy Kirk: Will the answers to the questions posed here be included in the environmental application? In other words, will there be more detailed answers in the environmental application? A: Alex Brigden: Yes. Q: Teresa Rowley: I didn t get an answer to the question of how the flare will be run. Will it by hydropowered? How will it be powered? Page 11 of 24

12 C: Judy Kirk: I think you did but go ahead Alex. C: Alex Brigden: The flare has a small pilot light as a safety feature so any time we release gas it has to be ignited. Q: Teresa Rowley: So it is natural gas powered? A: Alex Brigden: Yes. The flare is just from the pressure of the natural gas. Q: Teresa Rowley: Included in the environmental assessment will they be looking at localized wind patterns? A: Alex Brigden: Yes. Q: Hans Schaer: I have heard that the ship tanks have to be cooled down for loading and that this process takes compressed gas or liquid natural gas, which of I am not sure. This is basically what you would call washing down the walls type of thing and it has to be pumped out, and apparently during that process there is flaring that has to be done. Would you let me know on that? A: Alex Brigden: The ships come in, and in general they will come in with what is called heel which is a small amount of LNG already in each tank which keeps the tank cool. There isn t a significant cooling down process. In any case, during the loading of the LNG carrier there is generated what is called flash gas and boil off gas. In our facility it is designed so that those gases are returned to our liquefaction plant and re-liquefied. There is no emission or flaring of the gas during the loading of an LNG carrier. Q: Tracey Saxby: I just have a question about the wind studies because in the winter there is not a lot of wind and we ve got a very narrow sound, so have you done studies on how the air pollution, even though it is 80 per cent less, will build up in the sound and affect visibility? A: Jonathan Turner: I would say that there are integrated climate studies that include wind as one element. The studies will be monitored at both an emergency flaring scenario and at a regular operational scenario. We will looking at different times of the year and different conditions. Q: Judy Kirk: And those results will be available as part of the environmental assessment? A: Jonathan Turner: Yes. Q: Wendy Winter: So you made it clear that there will be particulates, but I am not sure if there will be any odor associated with the processes of the plant? Will there be any odor? A: Alex Brigden: One of the components of the gas that we receive which is the same as the gas you receive in your house that cannot be liquefied is actually that odorant which we remove. So there is no odors associated with the plant. Q: Kati Palethorpe: When you say you remove all of these things like mercury how are they disposed of after? A: Alex Brigden: The mercury is a special case and is disposed of in a different way. It is removed from site and is taken by a licensed disposal facility. Q: Kati Palethorpe: By boat or? A: Alex Brigden: We have no road access so it will be put into containers which are licenced and taken by boat. For the other components that we remove they will be used in our hot oil boiler so will be fired or incinerated on site which forms part of the emissions which I previously discussed. Page 12 of 24

13 C: Byng Giraud: Noise is one of the issues we like to hear about, you can see some of our mitigation measure below on page 12. There is not a lot of text here because by choosing the cooling mechanism and power generation that we have, there isn t generally a lot of noise associated with these methods, but it is a concern and people have raised it. So please provide your comments on that. Jon you may want to discuss what sort of baseline studies have taken place and what type of monitoring of this is planned. C: Jonathan Turner: We have set up baseline stations to measure ambient noise, the process also looks at weather conditions to appropriately characterize what the baseline noise is in different conditions, and specifically during quiet conditions. Then we will be looking at as part of the process potential noise that could be generated and through modeling looking at what the impacts could be on existing conditions. Q: Kati Palethorpe: Does that include underwater? A: Jonathan Turner: Yes. Q: Kate Palethorpe: So you have hydrophones in place? And how long? A: Jonathan Turner: I don t know the specifics for that but I do know that we have hydrophones attached to our underwater instruments. That information will be provided in our environmental assessment application. C: Byng Giraud: We have a number of consultants working on this project, Golder, Hemmera, and some others so we will have that information. Q: Judy Kirk: So will all of those results be available in the environmental assessment? A: Jonathan Turner: Yes. We started our marine studies last spring and they are ongoing through this summer so we will have baseline information for water noise. Q: Tracey Saxby: And what do you mean by last spring? Do you mean spring 2014 or 2013? A: Jonathan Turner: I mean spring C: Byng Giraud: Let s talk about light. There will be light at the site and there are things we can do. This has become a big issue in populated areas around the world. There are things you can do and we have listed them here. We don t need a ton of lighting typically for normal operations of the facility. There will be additional lighting when the ships do come in. The mitigation measures are listed here and you can comment on those. C: Alex Brigden: What I would like to say is that the LNG facility itself, which is located north of Mill Creek, is not a permanently manned facility. It is a facility which people such as our operators or maintenance people will go to when they have some work to do. So the control of the lighting will facilitate when those people have to go there in the night time. We can control and minimize when there is nobody in the plant because they don t need to be there. Q: Tracey Saxby: Isn t it a 24 hour facility? Won t there be people there around the clock? A: Alex Brigden: Yes, that is correct Tracey, but we do not need to have operators on the plant 24 hours a day. They are on site, they are controlling in a sophisticated control room but it is part of our operational philosophy that we don t have people inside the plant all the time. They go there to take readings, make sure the plant is running properly and then go back to the south side of the creek. Q: Kati Palethorpe: When I look at the picture here, can you point out where the lighting sources are? I am sure if it is on water it needs to be highly lit for there to not be an accident or anything. Where are the other sources of light? Page 13 of 24

14 C: Judy Kirk: So for the record, Kati was pointing to the storage. A: Alex Brigden: Also pointing to the storage, we have spot lights which come from the front of the buildings and they point forward, we have some spot lights which are set up at the front of the vessel and they point up, and there are spot lights which are located in the area where offloading will be. Not all of these lights need to be on all the time. They are directional and we choose when the lights will go on. There are also other lights which are along the walk ways that are smaller directional lamps for safety purposes. Q: Kati Palethorpe: But they usually are quite heavily lit in order to follow safety standards right? A: A.G. Gelotti: You may be thinking of a refinery and the way that they there lights are set up. Q: Judy Kirk: It sounds like this is not highly lit? A: Alex Brigden: There are times when you have more lighting because you are offloading. When you are offloading onto an LNG vessel then the lighting requirements will be higher and that is for safety purposes. There are other times which they will be lower. We will have a control system for the lighting on our plant and we will use the lowest level of lighting where it is still safe to operate. So if somebody is in an area and it does not need to be lit, the lights will be off. Q: Peter Gordon: Sometimes light issues are not apparent until you are operational. So I would simply be looking for a commitment from Woodfibre that once you are operational and are listening to feedback that you are willing to change and alter the system as needed. A: A.G. Gelotti: That sounds like a reasonable request. Q: Peter Gordon: Is that something you will make a record of? A: Byng Giraud: We have met with many of the larger stakeholders, such as the gondola and the mining museum who will have clear views of the plant, they will probably have further comment once we are operational. Q: Peter Gordon: I have heard the gondola folks are concerned about the landscaping of the facility so I see you have a section on that here and that is good. Q: Judy Kirk: I just want to make sure the record is straight here, I think what I heard, and gentlemen correct me if I am wrong, Peter asked: would you commit to a review of lighting, he didn t say would you change it based on any and all complaints? Would you review it? C: Peter Gordon: I guess it is my experience sometimes that once you get operational, even though your design says something, things are different. A: Byng Giraud: We are very close to Westshore Terminals, in their case they went through a process, there are new technologies coming out all of the time and they did significant changes to the lighting. It was not perfect to everybody s satisfaction but they did do it and I think that is reasonable for us to do. C: A.G. Gelotti: Plus the fact that it is now on shore and on land does give us the opportunity to use vegetation to shield some of the facility Q: Tracey Saxby: You ve mentioned that you ve met with stakeholders such as the Britannia Mine Museum that will be affected, what about the residents of Britannia, have you met with them? Why are they not included in the working group? A: Byng Giraud: We did meet with them in February. Q: Ingrid Wray: You excluded us from Lions Bay as well in the stakeholder meetings, as well as West Vancouver, do you not think that they are stakeholders? Page 14 of 24

15 A: Byng Giraud: We have adjusted some of our community meetings. We went to West Vancouver in February and we didn t have a very big attendance there. C: Tracey Saxby: So I was referring to the working group which is what is set up by the environmental assessment office and includes local, regional and federal governments, First Nations and government agencies within that working group the only community that is represented is Squamish. C: Judy Kirk: The BCEAO makes that determination just to be clear. C: Byng Giraud: Just to explain the working group, we are not actually part of the working group ourselves, that is not how they operate. This is a government run process. We present to that committee but we are not actually part of it or the selection of who is in it, that is taken care of by the government. Q: Tom Bruusgaard: I remember that the Woodfibre site had up to 6 sometimes 7 ships monthly and the average time for loading was around 2 days and lights all over the place. I just wonder if that kind of background information will be included in the studies that are on-going. A: Jonathan Turner: Yes. C: Byng Giraud: Marine water quality, page 14. Sources of treated water in the marine environment. There are existing water treatment plants on site right now, one has sediment that we have to be aware of and we ve talked about the seawater cooling system. So here are some of the measures that you are typically required to do and we certainly have volunteered to do. Erosion control, sediment control our construction plan has a very typical approach to these sorts of things. The treatment of water on site, and our permanent facilities on site and we will be making sure they are up to standard. Q: Wendy Winter: I am wondering what kind of traffic we will see in the Sound for ship, how many ships? A: Byng Giraud: We believe it will be approximately 40 vessels, 3 a month which works out to 36. There is a constant flow of gas, sometimes in the summer you get a little bit more gas because people on the island aren t using as much power in the summer. So there is a little bit of additional gas in the summer which would mean there could be an additional ship which is why we say approximately 40. What other vessels could there be? During construction there could be vessels taking things over, barge vessels during operation and primary traffic will be marine taxi taking workers to and from the site. Tag boats will assist the vessels as well. Q: Wendy Winter: Does that mean there is a possibility of one of those ships leaking in the Sound, and if so what would be the consequences of that be? A: A.G. Gelotti: The LNG industry has been moving cargos since the mid-1960s and over 140 ship movements have taken place all the way up through There hasn t ever been an incident with any loss of containment from anyone of those ships. The ships are highly maintained and safe. There is also mechanisms on board the ship should there be a leak in the system. It has the ability to collect any of the LNG and not let it leak out. It if it were to go into the containment area it would vaporize into methane and then it is gathered in a closed system so it is not vented. Q: Kati Palethorpe: As far as I know, LNG tankers do not run empty, once the LNG is unloaded in Asia they will have some kind of cargo and what is that? Page 15 of 24

16 A: A.G. Gelotti: Earlier when Alex mentioned the heel, that is the amount of LNG that stays on board the ship once it arrives at its destination to unload. The reason that that small amount of LNG is kept on board in the containment system is to keep the containment system cold. When the ship is returning and is using ballast where it is empty, other than the heel, the ship is still using a small amount of roll off gas (methane gas) as fuel. The ship propulsion is primarily base on natural gas. So now when the ship arrives at the loading terminal, those storage tanks are already at a low enough temperature where they don t have to be cooled down and are already cold. Q: Kati Palethorpe: There is no water being added? Because there are some LNG tankers that have used that technology right? A: A.G. Gelotti: Nothing. All LNG tankers have the ability to carry heel, some tankers if going on a short voyage, some can discharge everything and just the vapor in there is enough to keep the tanks cold. Q: Kati Palethorpe: What about the balance of the boats? A: A.G. Gelotti: The balance of the boat is the ballast. So the ship will take in sea water Q: Kati Palethorpe: That is my question, so you are taking in sea water? A: A.G. Gelotti: All ships take in sea water as ballast. Q: Kati Palethorpe: But it is a huge ship so I assume it needs more sea water than a smaller ship. Where will that sea water be disposed? I am thinking of invasive species that can come. A: A.G. Gelotti: There is international restrictions on exchange of ballast water and it has to occur at least 200 nautical miles off of sea shore. And that is any ship. Q: Tracey Saxby: I have a question about the cooling system. It said earlier in the document that you will be using chlorine to stop anything from growing inside the tanks, while you are using seawater to cool the system. Is there anything else in addition to chlorine that you will be adding? A: Alex Brigden: So firstly let me clarify, the chlorine which is added has nothing to do with tanks it has to do with the seawater system which takes from Howe Sound seawater which passes through an heat exchanger and goes back to Howe Sound. There is no cooling of tanks involved. The chlorine which is added is actually made from the sea water itself in a hydrochloride unit. We take the seawater, we break out the chemical chlorine and we use that to re-add to the seawater to control the growth of mollusks and other shell based organisms specifically in the pipeline and in the heat exchanger. Q: Tracey Saxby: So when that gets back to the ocean is there anything done to control or remove the excess chloride, because you have concentrated that now, and what impact will that have on sea life? A: Alex Brigden: The discharge will be monitored and the regulation requires that the discharge is less than.02 milligrams per liter. Q: Mohammad Afsar: The discharge of treated water, before it is treated, needs to meet the present regulations of the province. But if the proposed systems goes beyond that, it should be highlighted because it goes in excess of the provincial standards and that is very good news for the environment. A: Alex Brigden: For the treated water I am not aware of exceeding any regulation. Q: Ingrid Wray: I am concerned that we were not considered stakeholders and the reason that we are stakeholders is that traffic coming through has to exit very close to Lions Bay, Furry Creek and again in Horseshoe Bay. My concern is that I am pleased to hear that you have such a good safety record Page 16 of 24