Support for LNG Slipping
Prince George, B.C.- The Government of BC is still confident LNG development will move forward, and as recent rallies across the northern region have shown, some British Columbians are pushing to have the projects approved in order to offset the job losses due to the downturn in the oil patch.
But a new survey by InsightsWest suggests the support for LNG expansion and for fracking ( the process used to extract gas from shale) is sliding .
According to the survey of 802 British Columbians from across the province, support for LNG has dropped from 50% recorded in April of 2013, to 43% in the March 2016 survey.
Over that same period, opposition to LNG has grown from 32% to 41% with the balance unsure about how they feel on the matter.
“The public’s distaste towards fracking is playing a role in perceptions of the provincial government’s actions on the LNG file,” says Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs, at Insights West.
Insights West says the rising opposition is a direct result of growing concerns over fracking with 61% opposing the practice. That’s up from 47% in the same survey three years ago.
The opposition to fracking is based on a number of concerns including contamination of the water supply and that fracking would trigger earthquakes.
Comments
When you are a current government looking to be re-elected on an LNG pipedream, I suppose the LNG Industry can be looked at in terms of a popularity contest, however we all know this is not the case.
Science tells us we are moving into the world’s sixth mass extinction event, and our use of fossil fuel products is causing it (global warming). Perhaps we should do a survey to find out how popular that is as well?
So what happened to all the other past religious connotations that the world will end. oh wait?
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. (Arthur Schopenhauer).
Seamutt, you are still stuck in the first stage! We know what comes next!
If we did become extinct who would miss us??
Why would that matter? When you are extinct, you are toast like the Dodo bird and the woolly mammoth!
Space travelers.
If you are out of work this is not good news.
“Most of the Earth’s remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground to avoid disastrous consequences for today’s young people and for future generations, according to research published today.”
ht tp://phys.org/news/2013-12-climate-inaction-betrays-scientists.html
I think Mercenary said it best;
Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 @ 6:59 PM by Mercenary with a score of 10
I think it’s obvious to most people that widespread destruction of the planet has to stop. Burning fossil fuels in any form is causing catastrophic damage to our only home in the universe. I don’t care how many jobs are lost because of it. Once the atmosphere is screwed…we’re ALL screwed.
Yes, change is difficult but it needs to occur or its lights out folks.
75% 25%
You do realize the earth has been much warmer in the past and that looking at past climatic history there is very little correlation between C02 and temperature. Actually c02 levels follow temperature by about 800 years. What wide spread destruction?
Is it slipping or was it never there to start with?
I see visions of fracking increasing and thus causing more pressure on tectonic plates, which in turn will increase the severity of earthquakes. What if we had a tracking induced mega quake … a 9 pointer on the Richter scale close to the Peace River dams… Triggering a land slide into the reservoir that in turn leads to a topping of the reservoir, and consequent failure of one dam leading to a cascading effect of dam failures…. Leading to massive downstream flooding wiping out towns and cities all down the Peace and Mackenzie systems, including the oil sands projects and their tailings ponds that are essentially right next to the river.
It would catastrophic damage to the Canadian economy and likely kill every living thing downstream of the oil sands and destroy the aquatic life in the Arctic Ocean.
I am not sure how strong those dams are. I know a dam in Italy once collapsed with the very same scenario. I know tracking leads to ever greater earthquakes. I hope site C is designed to hold back the force of all three dams, but some how I doubt it could and likely has the same engineers involved that brought us Fukushima.
Fracking has been around for over forty years and well never been any serous issues of any kind. Fracking itself does not cause the mini quakes but the injection of waste water.
This activity has nothing to do with fracking.
The fact that wastewater disposal can augment earthquake activity has been known for decades.
The process actually lubricates the fault lines and permits shifting at the fault line.
We could argue all day whether this is a good thing.:
Small earthquakes take the pressure off and reduce the chances of a big one.
On the other hand it’s not nice to fool with mother nature.
So many countries around the world are cautious about this activity in seismic regions.
But to conflate this activity with fracking is dishonest. (And I don’t think the authors intend it) Fracking liquids go directly into the porous rock. It can cause small tremors, just as an underground explosion would, but it has never led to an earthquake.
Comments for this article are closed.