“LNG Canada is a huge polluter,” says air monitoring expert.

VANCOUVER | TRADITIONAL, UNCEDED TERRITORIES OF THE xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (MUSQUEAM), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (SQUAMISH) AND səlilwətaɬ (TSLEIL-WAUTUTH) FIRST NATIONS, June 24, 2026 | Specialized optical gas imaging (OGI) technology proves that LNG Canada—the country’s first LNG export facility, which Ottawa is strongly backing for expansion—is releasing huge, invisible plumes of toxic chemicals directly into the air as part of regular operations. These pollutants are harmful to climate and human health, and people in nearby communities are breathing them in. The new imaging comes as Ottawa is promoting another 11 LNG projects across the country.

OGI technology, a tool widely used by U.S. regulators, makes visible the uncombusted and partially combusted hydrocarbons, methane, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene. OGI data collection at the LNG Canada facility in May 2026 documents the extent of these flaring and venting emissions. It was led by Tim Doty, a technical air monitoring expert, who is an ITC Level III Master Thermographer, Technical Advisor to Texas-based nonprofit Oilfield Witness, and recently retired from nearly 30 years’ service at the state of Texas’ environmental agency.

The invisible hydrocarbon pollutants documented at LNG Canada are above-and-beyond the excessive flaring that has been taking place at the facility. New documents from the BC Energy Regulator, obtained last week through Freedom of Information requests, show that LNG Canada continues to surpass its permitted levels of flaring and continues to rely on the spare flare because an ongoing problem rendered the warm/wet flare unusable earlier this year.

These documents show the spare flare had a monthly average rate of 141.3 m3/minute against a 7.8 m3/minute permit level in April, 18 times higher than the permit. At this rate, a single day of flaring from the spare flare at LNG Canada burns enough gas to heat roughly 13,500 to 20,000 homes for one day in the winter. The facility’s other flares were also in exceedance of their permits in April:

  • at 16.79m3/minute against the permit limit of 9.6 m3/minute for the cold/dry flare, and;
  • at 32.92 m3/minute against the permit limit of 6.0 m3/minute for the loading and storage flare.

Flaring refers to the combustion of gas in a flare stack or an incinerator. It is an intentional and controlled burning of hydrocarbons with a visible flame. Venting is an intentional and controlled release of uncombusted gases into the atmosphere during operations. Both processes release uncombusted methane, benzene, other VOCs and oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. Many are known to harm human health even over short exposure periods.

Benzene, for example, is such a potent carcinogen that no safe exposure level has been found. Benzene is not routinely measured or reported at LNG facilities in British Columbia. However, monitoring elsewhere reveals that significant levels of benzene can be released from such facilities. For instance, more than 660 kilograms (1473 pounds) of benzene was released by Freeport LNG in Texas in 2024—an enormous quantity for a chemical often measured in milligrams. In Australia, an independent review of Inpex Ichthys LNG found that benzene was ‘systematically underestimated’ for years.

LNG Canada says that gas processed at the facility “has the same composition as the natural gas used in homes for heating and cooking.” Yet peer-reviewed research shows gas stoves in Vancouver and Calgary have the highest levels of benzene among 17 North American cities.

In British Columbia, five communities that share an airshed with LNG infrastructure—Squamish, New Westminster, Dawson Creek, Hazelton, and Terrace—as well as the Squamish Lillooet Regional District, the Health Officers Council of B.C., and more than 50 organizations across the country have called on Ottawa and B.C. to immediately mandate a cumulative, independent health impact assessment of British Columbia’s gas and LNG industry.

To date, the Prime Minister’s Office has deferred the request for a cumulative and independent health impact assessment of British Columbia’s gas and LNG industry to other ministries. The BC Premier’s Office has passed it to the Minister of Energy and Climate Change. British Columbia’s Ministry of Health has noted the province’s Environmental Assessment Office acknowledges concerns from medical professionals that project-by-project assessments may not fully address cumulative impacts.

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act allows for regional and strategic assessments that could be used to study the cumulative effects of the province’s gas and LNG industry, but to date, none have been conducted.

QUOTES

Tim Doty, technical air monitoring expert for almost 30 years at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; ITC Level III Master Thermographer; current Technical Advisor to Texas-based nonprofit Oilfield Witness, and President of TCHD Consulting LLC

“I have conducted thousands of environmental assessments using optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras since 2005, including surveying all currently operational LNG facilities in Texas and Louisiana, with one exception. I can clearly say that LNG Canada is a huge polluter whose site emissions appeared to be equivalent to or exceed that of anything that I have witnessed to date in the U.S. Field observations over a four-day period resulted in the documentation of extremely significant uncombusted/partially combusted emissions being released from flares, stacks, and processing trains. These emissions, which were not visible to the naked eye, filled the airshed with pollution both overhead and downwind of the facility causing great potential to negatively impact downwind receptors.”

Thomas Green, ecological economist and senior manager, climate solutions at David Suzuki Foundation

“We keep hearing that Canadian LNG has 60 per cent lower emissions than the global average. That’s untrue, and it misses the mark. LNG is a fossil fuel, and burning it abroad adds to global heating and extreme weather. Ottawa and B.C. are leaning on an optimistic estimate from the LNG Canada project’s 2015 environmental assessment filing. That number ignores how LNG plants, even the newest ones, vent and emit under real-world conditions. It also assumes the plant’s power-hungry liquefaction would run on electricity, not the gas turbines it actually uses, with no plans to change. We can’t see the full extent of the toxic pollution pouring off LNG export facilities, but imaging technology proves it’s there, in massive amounts.”

Ankur Patel, Kitimat-based Registered Nurse and representative of the Canadian Association of Nurses for the Environment

“When we see some of the largest private investments in Canadian history, we expect to see a monitoring structure and regulatory oversight that protects people living nearby. Community discussions and forums are revealing again and again that many residents living in Kitimat are reporting health impacts, ranging from acute symptom exacerbation to unexpected personal and family diagnoses. We are watching the investment in LNG Canada come with integrity issues, broken permits, and an unexpected picture for those across the Northwest. The picture has shifted from what we were promised by the Province, and a comprehensive health assessment should follow in kind.”

Tracey Saxby, executive director, My Sea to Sky

“LNG is not clean, it is a dirty fossil fuel, and a lot of this harmful air pollution is unmonitored and unregulated. For example, benzene—which is a potent carcinogen—is not routinely monitored at LNG Canada. Our governments have not properly assessed the human health risk for people who are living near LNG plants in Kitimat, Squamish, or Vancouver. Why aren’t they doing a cumulative health impacts assessment of the LNG industry, from the fracking fields to the final consumer? Why isn’t there better air monitoring to keep these massive polluters accountable? If there’s not a problem, there should be nothing to hide.”

Dr. Tim Takaro, BC-based physician-scientist in environmental medicine, public health and toxicology and representative of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

“People are genuinely concerned about the rapid growth of the industry, especially when cumulative health impacts are not being considered as new multi-billion-dollar LNG projects are proposed and approved. We’re seeing these projects built before their final air quality permit is granted, leaving governments in an impossible position if the facility should not be operating because air quality is worse than expected.”

Note to editors:

  • LNG Canada has been exceeding its permitted levels of flaring since at least September of last year. The facility entered regular operations when the first shipments of LNG left Train 1 (June 2025) and Train 2 (December 2025).
  • LNG Canada is the country’s first LNG export facility. Another 11 are earmarked across the country, according to the 2026 federal budget (page 33).
  • The governments of Canada and British Columbia are set to provide $4 billion in public funding to the private LNG sector by 2030.
  • Year-to-date royalties for natural gas in British Columbia (for the first nine months of 2025/26) are $530 million, without deducting any subsidies provided to the sector or LNG facilities. In comparison, the B.C. government spent $1.1 billion dollars in 2023 fighting wildfires, which are exacerbated by climate change that is largely driven by producing and burning fossil fuels.
  • Flaring does not fully combust all gas, so it releases hydrocarbons and VOCs, including potent carcinogens, into the environment.
  • Methane is 80 times more potent at warming the climate over a twenty-year time period than carbon dioxide.

– 30 –

Resources available to the media

  • OGI visual package, with side-by-side comparisons, video, photos and b-roll | Photo credit in file names.
  • B-roll of start-up flaring at LNG Canada in Kitimat | Photo credit: supplied video
  • High-resolution images of one of LNG Canada’s flarestacks | Photo credit: supplied image

For more information or interviews, please contact:

Rosie Rattray: rrattray@davidsuzuki.org, 604-732-4228, ext 132