Dear Santa,
Thank you for recognizing Too Close 2 Home as a diverse group of PG citizens trying to invest in the future of our city (which we love!). As you know, we share profound concerns and are raising key questions about the (return of) a proposed West Coast Olefins (WCO) multi-purpose large-scale petrochemical and plastic pellet production site. Santa, we wonder if WCO is on the naughty or nice list but it’s hard to get that information since they have only existed since 2018, have no other projects listed, and are based out of Alberta.
Anyway Santa, here is our Christmas wish list. We would like:
1) For the City of Prince George to make clear whether it is still seriously considering the proposal given that the leaders of the Lheidli T’enneh and McLeod Lake First Nations have stated their clear disappointment with the process and WCO and so will no longer discuss this proposal. The province of B.C. is a signatory to UNDRIP (the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and any discussion of this project should reflect this.
2) A transparent discussion of the expansive scale of the proposed plant, and clear description of the full set of facilities proposed, including those operated by third parties.
3) An admission that this is an old-fashioned “dinosaur” of a proposal that combines two dying industries: oil and gas, and plastics production, and is not a “green” or a cutting-edge project.
4) A detailed description of why the WCO proposal(s) keeps changing locations, and why the Kitimat-based proposal seems now to have disappeared off the list of sites contemplated. We’d also like to know why the proposal is back in PG since we are not “a path of least resistance.”
5) A review of similar sites in North America, and the balance of costs and benefits that have resulted from such facilities being introduced into communities near family homes and key waterways, in similarly polluted airsheds. This should also include an examination of how this could foster a “sacrifice zone” reputation for Prince George— an outcome that does not fit with community or city visions of Prince George as a dynamic and attractive place progressing towards economic diversification and sustainability goals.
6) A frank, evidence-based discussion from project proponents, including City of Prince George councillors (if there are some are in favour), about how they see the proposed petrochemical site as beneficial for the city, its residents, local First Nations, and surrounding environment, given the known environmental history of negative impacts and costs associated with similar sites. Further, we’d like to know their views of benefits vs. probable costs, as they relate to current and future city goals.
7) More information on WCO’s professional track record given that their website lists no other projects (past or present), and they share their Alberta mailing address with another oil and gas company. We would also like information on any recent lawsuits or forfeitures linked to the names on this project as we know that our city is interested in risk and loss reduction.
8) An open evidence-based discussion of the inevitable health consequences and cumulative impacts this proposal would bring for potential workers and the greater community. This would consider all on and off-site aspects of the facility (shorter and longer term), and how those would interact with existing environmental burdens and cumulative impacts.
9) Strategies from the city, WCO, Tourism Prince George, and the Northern BC Tourism Association that will reconcile related branding conflicts. How can one city take on a proposed noxious heavy industry proposal while also promoting a diversifying economy and much-loved nature-based tourism and recreation?
Thanks, Santa!
Zoe Meletis and Too Close 2 Home administrators
