In another recent challenge to BC Big Industry, a petition against the Ksi Lisims floating LNG terminal has been dismissed.
Not long after the PRGT pipeline project – that would potentially supply the Ksi Lisims terminal – was challenged, and the case dismissed in the BC Supreme Court; another challenge to the BC gas industry has also been dismissed. The Gitanyow hereditary chiefs filed a petition to challenge the validity of the environmental assessment of the Ksi-Lisims Project – due to lack of consultation, failure to meaningfully consult with the Gitanyow, and environmental concerns.
Although the project wouldn’t run directly in their territory, the Gitanyow territory encompasses large sections of the Nass and Skeena watersheds.
Ksi-Lisims – a jointly Nisga’a-owned floating LNG project – means “from the Nass” in the Nisga’a Language.
The Nisga’a Nation, Rockies LNG Limited Partnership and Western LNG LLC have proposed to jointly develop Ksi-Lisims LNG, a liquified natural gas processing plant and marine terminal, located on the northern end of Pearse Island on the northwest coast of B.C.
Ksi-Lisims LNG proposes to construct and operate up to two floating liquid natural gas structures which together would receive up to 2 billion cubic feet per day of pipeline grade natural gas and export no more than 22.4 billion cubic metres per year of natural gas.
Participating Indigenous Nations according to the project details include the Gitga’at First Nation, Gitxaala Nation, Kitselas First Nation, Kitsumkalum Band Council, Lax Kw’alaams Band, and Metlakatla First Nation.
In filing the legal proceedings, the Gitanyow Lax’yip cited grave concerns over threats to salmon populations, escalating climate risks, and inadequate consultation with the Gitanyow Huwilp.
They cite that the The Nass River, flowing through Gitanyow Lax’yip before entering Nisga’a territory and emptying into the Portland Canal, is the lifeblood of Gitanyow.
The application for judicial review was filed in BC Supreme Court in Vancouver on October 25, 2024.
The EAO maintained throughout the following proceedings that that there was no information to suggest that effects in the project area will result in impacts to Gitanyow fisheries. And that the possible impacts listed by the Gitanyow – and backed by Skeenawild’s Dr. Michael Price- were “speculative”.
The EAO and the Province also maintained that there was no duty to consult, due to the negation of direct impacts to Gitanyow territory.
The Honorable Justice Whately dismissed the petition.