The NDP Opposition has been making some headway lately in pouring scorn on the B.C. Liberal government's liquefied natural gas vision, but it's tricky work.
It takes some manoeuvring to concentrate on all the problems associated with LNG development, without leaving the strong impression that they're against LNG development.
They say they aren't. But they say that in the pauses between long attacks on how the Liberals are pursuing the industry.
There's lots of leftover bitterness in the NDP about how brilliantly the LNG vision was exploited by Premier Christy Clark to beat them soundly in the 2013 election. It wasn't the whole story of the campaign, but it was a big part of the win.
So focusing on the potential for an LNG flop, apart from being the Opposition's obligation, also eases some of the pain from the loss.
One of them this week equated the LNG sales job to the epic Bre-X stock fraud of the 1990s.
Their skepticism got some boosts last month when one proponent -- Malaysia's Petronas -- said the economics appear marginal and it needed some concessions or it would shelve the plans.
Then an industry alliance expressed some pessimism about LNG. The cost structure is "potentially too high."
Then the tax regime was introduced with a rate that's half the top rate that was forecast just eight months ago. It left the impression the government is urgently backtracking on the numbers to keep the dream alive.
Through it all, the price of oil was dropping, which is linked on some markets to the price of natural gas, which is the key driver for the whole concept.
Those and other developments seem to have deepened the Opposition's conviction that LNG is a pipe dream. So in a legislative session that is mostly devoted to LNG, they've been pressing the case lately that the problems are overwhelming and Clark's vision is going to be a bust.
Billions of dollars worth of development work has been underway for the past few years. But NDP critic Bruce Ralston said: "These companies are capable of making huge investments in advance of a final investment decision and then just walking away if the conditions are not met."
The Opposition has also questioned who will be getting the jobs if the plants go ahead. There was some renewed debate on temporary foreign workers, with one New Democrat saying the party supports an LNG industry "built with 100 per cent B.C. workers."
That's an impossibility that would exclude the rest of Canada, something the Liberals were quick to land on.
LNG safety is usually discussed in the context of being much safer than oil. But NDP MLA Doug Routley on Tuesday -- even while acknowledging the good safety record -- raised the prospect of "devastating" fires burning at 2,000 C that "can cause second-degree burns 1.6 kilometres away."
He said vapour clouds can drift from LNG spills and then explode if ignited, which would put coastal communities at risk.
On the one vote that's been called to date, the NDP voted with Green MLA Andrew Weaver to delay the key emission legislation by six months.
And when the LNG tax regime gets called, they'll vote against it as well.
Liberals announced two moves Tuesday in a bid to restore some momentum to the LNG drive. The electricity price for plants to power their ancillary needs was set at a rate two-thirds higher than the standard industrial rate. That covers all the interconnection costs and ensures Hydro customers don't subsidize the industry.
The plants are expected to produce most of their own power using their own gas. But penalties for emissions over a set limit are a goad to use clean electricity for ancillary needs.
Also announced was the agreement by one proponent -- LNG Canada, at Kitimat -- to sign up at that rate.
The dubious Opposition will stay critical of the vision all the way down the line. But they'll have to calibrate their skepticism to avoid flatly rejecting the vision.
It was appealing in 2013, and if the Liberals manage to get a firm commitment from one or more proponents, it will be just as appealing in 2017.
