Petronas believes final decision on Pacific NorthWest LNG project close, but denies deadline

The leader from the Petronas-led North american LNG project said he expects a virtually three-year environmental review tactic to ended March 22 and a “timely” cabinet decision right after.

But within an interview from Kuala Lumpur, where Petronas is based, Michael Culbert, the project’s president, denied proponents have given Ottawa a March 31 ultimatum for a decision on where it may be built.

“We are continuing to move that forward and we believe we are within the final stages to a final decision,” said Culbert, who’s stepping down April 1 from the LNG leadership role to concentrate on the upstream end from the project.

Related

Malaysia’s Petronas threatening to abandon LNG project over new climate change rulesAltaGas Ltd shelves Douglas Channel LNG plans amid global surplus

The shareholders of the $36 billion proposed project will decide whether or not to go ahead after reviewing its economics and the conditions of their permit. The work is owned by Petronas, China’s Sinopec, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., India Oil Corp. and Petroleum Brunei.

A source near to the project said the consortium gets frustrated with continuing delays and won’t accept new hurdles to satisfy Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate change priorities.

Culbert also denied the work is laying off staff, despite the fact that a terminated employee said Tuesday some are now being advised they’ll be from a job.

Meanwhile, a lot more than 130 Canadian and international scientists are urging the us government to reject an environmental review of the project, claiming it’s “scientifically flawed.”

The open letter to the federal environment and climate change minister, Catherine McKenna, made public Wednesday, comes as consultation winds down this week on the draft report through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), resulting in duelling campaigns by supporters and opponents.

The project, to become located on federal lands on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, received a largely favourable assessment in the agency recently, was greenlighted through the Bc government in November 2014 and received conditional corporate support from Malaysia’s state-owned company and it is partners in June of last year.

In the draft report, finalized recently, CEAA concluded the project would likely cause significant negative effects on “harbor porpoise … because of greenhouse gas emissions” but “with respect to all other valued components, the company concludes the project isn’t likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into account the implementation of key mitigation measures.”

Jonathan Moore, Liber Ero chair of coastal science and management at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C., said he isn’t in opposition to LNG, but that the report ignores science and is based on data put forward through the proponent.

“What we know scientifically is that this is really a bad place for LNG when it comes to risks to fish and people who depend on fish,” Moore, among the scientists calling for the report’s rejection, said in an interview.

The report misrepresents the importance of the work place to fish populations, especially salmon, the scientists say.

“Five decades of science has repeatedly documented this habitat is not representative of other locations across the north coast or in the higher Skeena River estuary, but rather that it’s exceptional nursery habitat for salmon that supports commercial, recreational, and First Nation Fisheries,” the scientists, from B.C. to California to Russia, write.

The LNG project is conducting its own campaign. In an emailed statement obtained by the Financial Post, Culbert urges supporters to obtain family and friends to transmit letters to the CEAA by March 11, once the public comment period ends.