{"id":97696,"date":"2026-07-29T17:15:43","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T20:15:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/2026\/07\/29\/lng-canada-dropped-commitments-to-operate-without-routine-flaring-docs-reveal\/"},"modified":"2026-07-29T17:15:43","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T20:15:43","slug":"lng-canada-dropped-commitments-to-operate-without-routine-flaring-docs-reveal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/2026\/07\/29\/lng-canada-dropped-commitments-to-operate-without-routine-flaring-docs-reveal\/","title":{"rendered":"LNG Canada dropped commitments to operate without routine flaring, docs reveal"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\n<p>                                                                                Summary     Internal documents show LNG Canada\u2019s original plans for the project included a commitment that operations would not include routine flaring.    While LNG Canada and the BC Energy Regulator have promoted the site as an environmental leader, the facility burned about 350 million cubic metres of gas in its first year of operation.    LNG Canada did not directly respond to questions about the removal of the commitments and said it is currently working to \u201creduce flaring and progress toward steady, long-term operations.\u201d        This story is a collaboration between The Narwhal and Point Source, a U.K.-based investigative journalism organization.    LNG Canada, the country\u2019s first major liquefied natural gas export facility on B.C.\u2019s West Coast, has made international headlines over the past year \u2014 for burning off the gas it should have been exporting.    An issue with one of the facility\u2019s flare stacks has caused the plant to burn off extra gas since starting up in late 2024. It wasn\u2019t supposed to be this way.    Early versions of LNG Canada\u2019s operational plans included detailed environmental commitments \u2014 and a promise the Kitimat, B.C., plant would operate \u201cwithout routine flaring.\u201d    In 2019, the consortium of five foreign-owned companies behind the multi-billion-dollar project told the BC Energy Regulator its massive gas liquefaction and export facility would have minimum disturbance to the local community, assuring the provincial government the plant would be built to specifications that would ensure flaring \u2014 the burning of unused gas \u2014 would only need to be done in extraordinary circumstances.    Originally, LNG Canada was not planning to regularly burn excess gas through flaring. But in its first year of operation, the company flared every single day.    These promises appeared in multiple versions of regulatory reports submitted to the B.C. government. Six versions of the reports \u2014 drafts of LNG Canada\u2019s flaring management plans marked as \u201crestricted\u201d \u2014 were included in hundreds of pages of government documents obtained by The Narwhal and UK-based investigative journalism outlet Point Source.    In November 2023, the commitments vanished from the latest drafts \u2014 and remained absent from all subsequent drafts and the final version. The removal of commitments close to completion raises fresh questions about whether potential problems during construction may have led the company to downgrade its environmental targets.    A few months later, the mega-project started its commissioning process. Then came the flaring.    As The Narwhal and Point Source previously reported, LNG Canada burned approximately 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, making it one of the most polluting LNG facilities in the world. Some unplanned flaring events included multiple occurrences of flames reaching heights of 90 metres, roughly as tall as London\u2019s Big Ben, along with plumes of black smoke settling over the community.   \u201cThe fact that LNG Canada showed the regulator multiple draft documents which all said that the facility would not flare on a routine basis was beyond misleading,\u201d Tim Doty, a former state oil and gas inspector from Texas, said in an interview. \u201cThis was totally false information.\u201d    During his tenure with the Texas government, Doty managed thousands of air quality monitoring projects as part of environmental assessments of industrial facilities. He\u2019s now a consultant who works on behalf of companies and organizations to assess and monitor emissions at oil and gas facilities around the globe.    Unnecessary flaring of gas essentially wastes the resource \u2014and creates carbon pollution.    Even after LNG Canada quietly dropped its planned commitment to operate without routine flaring, stakeholders continued to tout its environmental credentials. In June 2025, Shell CEO Wael Sawan said LNG Canada would be \u201cone of the lowest-carbon [LNG] projects anywhere in the world,\u201d speaking at the Energy Asia conference in Malaysia.    B.C. Premier David Eby echoed the claim in July that year, saying gas processed at the Kitimat terminal is the \u201clowest-carbon LNG in the world.\u201d    Many experts now say these claims were fundamentally untrue.    In the small town of Kitimat, B.C., on the province\u2019s North Coast, LNG Canada\u2019s flare is visible day and night.    Christopher Doleman, an LNG and gas specialist at the U.S.-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the volume of flaring at the facility \u201cundermines claims being made\u201d about low-carbon LNG.    \u201cStatements that have been made by officials saying that the LNG is the cleanest in the world now seem to be completely untrue,\u201d he previously told The Narwhal.    The premier\u2019s office did not reply to a request for an interview, referring questions to the Energy Ministry, which acknowledged it received the questions but ultimately did not respond.    LNG Canada did not directly respond to questions about the removal of the commitments and said it is currently working to \u201creduce flaring and progress toward steady, long-term operations.\u201d    \u2018An extremely big polluter\u2019: former oil and gas inspector    LNG Canada flared a minimum of 127,900 cubic metres of gas every day in 2025, with the daily average being much higher: almost one million cubic metres. Government data show 3,648 million cubic metres of gas were sent to the facility last year via the Coastal GasLink pipeline, meaning almost 10 per cent of all gas transported to the terminal was burned off without being used for power or exported.    The average household in Canada consumed around 2,216 cubic metres of natural gas in 2024, according to the Canadian Gas Association. That means LNG Canada burned off the equivalent amount of gas that could have provided energy to 157,942 homes.    Yet, LNG Canada\u2019s documents submitted to the provincial government claim environmental excellence.    \u201cLNG Canada\u2019s \u2018commitment and policy on health, safety, security, environment and social performance\u2019 focuses on ways to avoid and minimize negative environmental and social impacts resulting from our operations and enhance the positive impacts in a systematic manner,\u201d the early documents noted.    Previous reporting by The Narwhal found the LNG facility has been dealing with an \u201cintegrity issue,\u201d leading to higher levels of flaring.    Doty said regulatory plans for LNG facilities are often subject to multiple revisions by the government regulator.    \u201cIt is normal for there to be a bit of back and forth between the operator and the regulator when documents are being prepared that are associated with operating permits which allow the company to release pollution,\u201d he explained. \u201cHowever, it does seem strange that these documents contained these environmental pledges that were later scrapped entirely.\u201d    The BC Energy Regulator told The Narwhal and Point Source the early versions of the reports \u201cincluded commitments and commentary that were outside of the intended scope of the report and not consistent with the design of their facility.\u201d    \u201cRoutine flaring is authorized for specific purposes, including pilot systems, continuous purge systems, passing valves, manual sampling systems and online process analyzers,\u201d a regulator spokesperson explained in a detailed response to questions.    Doty questioned whether the designs were ever intended for a facility that would operate without routine flaring or if something happened while building the plant.    \u201cYou can see from the way that this facility was designed that there was always supposed to be some kind of combustion going on \u2014 and with that comes emissions,\u201d he said, adding additional problems may have occurred early in the commissioning process.    The regulator spokesperson disagreed with the theory that the plant was designed for high rates of flaring.    \u201cThe [BC Energy Regulator\u2019s] reviews of the facility and LNG Canada\u2019s submissions during design and construction \u2026 did not identify factors that would have contributed to increased flaring rates during operation,\u201d the spokesperson noted.    LNG Canada\u2019s Kitimat, B.C., facility burned 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025. That\u2019s more than any other LNG export facility on record in 2024, and around 10 per cent of all gas sent to the terminal.    James Smith, a Kitimat community member whose name has been changed to protect his family from potential repercussions, worked on the project during construction. He said he witnessed numerous problems on the job site, ultimately leading him to quit.    \u201cThey cut corners: it was about timelines and money,\u201d he said. \u201cThey knew even before the flare arrived, before they started building it, that it wasn\u2019t going to work. That was the word on the ground.\u201d    The Narwhal could not independently verify Smith\u2019s claims, and LNG Canada did not respond to questions about alleged problems during construction.    In January, The Narwhal revealed an \u201cintegrity issue\u201d with the facility\u2019s flaring equipment resulted in LNG Canada burning significantly more gas than expected \u2014 and discovered it could take three to five years to fix.    The issue was identified shortly after the LNG plant started testing its equipment in late 2024, if not before, but the government regulator did not learn about the problem until April 2025.   \u201cI\u2019ve been assessing and monitoring facilities in the oil and gas sector for more than 30 years, and I can tell you that LNG Canada is an extremely big polluter,\u201d Doty said. \u201cIn my opinion, it should not be allowed to operate with such excessive emission levels.\u201d    The facility is currently operating with a cracked flare tip as well as several leaking valves, according to previous reporting from The Narwhal and technical reports since the issue was identified. A flare tip, which sits at the top of the flare stack, helps ensure the safe combustion of the gas.    The technical problems have increased the risk of flames from flares retreating back into the system\u2019s pipes and causing an explosion. To stop this from happening, LNG Canada has substantially increased the gas flows to all of the facility\u2019s flares.    \u201cA replacement flare tip is currently being installed,\u201d a spokesperson for the consortium wrote in an emailed statement. \u201cWhile the replacement is expected to improve flare tip integrity, a longer-term redesigned tip is being developed.\u201d    LNG Canada wants the B.C. government to let it increase flaring tenfold    Earlier this year, LNG Canada revealed it was planning to ask the B.C. regulator to increase its flaring limit tenfold for the next three years. The company\u2019s deputy chief operating officer, Teresa Waddington, disclosed the plans during a Kitimat council meeting in March and at a recent presentation to Kitimat residents.    If approved, the new limit would allow the company to continually flare up to 300 tonnes of gas per day, an increase from its current limit of 28 tonnes per day. The company said the new, more permissive flaring limit would help accommodate operational problems which have led to higher-than-anticipated flaring volumes.    LNG Canada told The Narwhal and Point Source the proposed amendment is \u201cnot expected to materially increase emissions in the local air shed.\u201d    LNG Canada\u2019s sprawling export terminal sits in the Kitimat River estuary, just below the town centre and within sight of nearby homes. Residents living nearby say the facility\u2019s persistent noise, smoke and flaring have transformed life in the community.    \u201cThe original \u2026 authorization was based on long-term, stable operating conditions and did not reflect the higher flaring volumes typically seen during start-up and early operations at an LNG facility,\u201d the spokesperson wrote. \u201cLNG Canada is requesting a temporary, three-year provision that reflects overall flaring during the early operations period.\u201d    However, flare tips are large and complex pieces of equipment and can take more than a year to procure, according to Waddington. As a result, she said LNG Canada wants to keep purging extra gas to prevent the flames from spreading downward into the pipes, likely until 2028.    \u201cLNG Canada has said that it\u2019s going to take three years to replace the flare [tip]but I can tell you that it doesn\u2019t take three years to replace a flare [tip] like this,\u201d Doty said. \u201cThe plant should be shut down. It should be properly repaired and engineered and then started back up again.\u201d    Tracey Saxby, a marine scientist and executive director of non-profit environmental organization My Sea to Sky, worries LNG Canada is setting a precedent that other liquefaction and export facilities will follow.    \u201cWoodfibre LNG in Sq uamish has estimated that flaring during startup will last for one month, with intermittent flare events of three to four days,\u201d she said in an interview. \u201cAfter that, during regular operations, they are saying they will only flare three per cent of the time, which is 11 days a year. But after what we have seen at LNG Canada and other facilities worldwide, this seems unrealistic.\u201d    She said the excessive flaring at LNG Canada held against its previously stated commitments demonstrates there is \u201cnothing anyone can do if the operator of one of these facilities breaks its promises about pollution.\u201d    The regulator said it is \u201cactively overseeing LNG Canada\u2019s progress on short-term and long-term corrective actions and measures to reduce flaring from all facility flare systems.\u201d    \u201c[BC Energy Regulator] technical experts review flaring and air contaminant discharge information submitted by LNG Canada, conduct inspections and take compliance actions where required,\u201d the spokesperson noted, adding an \u201cinvestigation into potential non-compliances is ongoing.\u201d                             <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Summary Internal documents show LNG Canada\u2019s original plans for the project included a commitment that operations would not include routine flaring. While LNG Canada and the BC Energy Regulator have promoted the site as an environmental leader, the facility burned about 350 million cubic metres of gas in its first year of operation. LNG Canada [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":587,"featured_media":97697,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[118,2338,1],"tags":[116,2337],"class_list":["post-97696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-indigenous","category-northwest-territories","category-uncategorized","tag-indigenous","tag-northwest-territories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/587"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97696\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/97697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service.codeus.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}