Get in touch using the form below, or you can send mail to:

My Sea to Sky
PO Box 2668
Squamish BC, V8B 0B8

Showing 71 reactions

  • Chantal Coschizza
    commented 2017-01-06 10:51:34 -0800
    Hi there,

    I’m reaching out from CKNW Radio hoping to speak to someone from My Sea To Sky Today on our afternoon talk show. Please give me a shout for more information – 604-331-2856. Thanks very much,

    Chantal Coschizza
  • Niamh Anderson
    commented 2016-11-04 10:42:08 -0700
    Hi there,

    I wondered if someone could call me on 6043312766 to speak about the Woodfibre LNG project?

    Many thanks

    Niamh Anderson
  • Rod Coleman
    posted about this on Facebook 2016-07-12 17:34:55 -0700
  • Rod Coleman
    commented 2016-07-12 17:34:12 -0700
    Last year when Christy Clark began putting out all the negative propaganda about the evil ’Forces of No", I thought that someone should create a web site called the Forces of Know where organizations such as yours or anti fracking and any thing that could show corruption in BC could have a forum so that the people of this province could have one source where they could find the truth behind the bs so they can be properly informed for the next election. Anyhow I have purchased the website and for one year and would like to donate the site to any organization that would use it in this manner. if your organization would like to use this or you know of where I could ask, I would appreciate it. I don’t know anything about website building so it is pretty useless to me. I hope I don’t sound too confusing.

    Looking forward to feedback, Rod
  • Rod Coleman
    commented 2016-07-12 17:34:12 -0700
    Last year when Christy Clark began putting out all the negative propaganda about the evil ’Forces of No", I thought that someone should create a web site called the Forces of Know where organizations such as yours or anti fracking and any thing that could show corruption in BC could have a forum so that the people of this province could have one source where they could find the truth behind the bs so they can be properly informed for the next election. Anyhow I have purchased the website and for one year and would like to donate the site to any organization that would use it in this manner. if your organization would like to use this or you know of where I could ask, I would appreciate it. I don’t know anything about website building so it is pretty useless to me. I hope I don’t sound too confusing.

    Looking forward to feedback, Rod
  • Jamie Schumacher
    commented 2016-06-27 10:11:08 -0700
    Hi I`m a Squamish resident with an idea to show the Canadian Government that the community is against Woodfibre LNG… really that the BC coast is against LNG. When Elizabeth May was here in Squamish she said she believes Justin Trudeau wants to do the right thing, but he needs to hear from more people. More people need to stand up.

    My idea locally is that we get all the people against Woodfibre LNG to dress in Red, head to their coastline, ie… Squamish- everyone head to the waterfront… Bowen Island… their waterfront, North and West Vancovuer- their waterfront park… so on and so on— on the same day at the same time… ie- the weekend before BC day- then we get media to fly over… or a helicopter service to fly over and see the sea of Red against LNG…. ideally this could happen all over BC, but the impact would be the greatest here in the local area and the lower mainland.

    In hopes we send the message to the rest of Canada and the Trudeau government that is community, this coastline does not grant permission for the LNG plant!
  • Warren Bell
    commented 2016-05-13 19:15:52 -0700
    I live far away in the Southern Interior (Salmon Arm) but I’m impressed by your efforts, and support them 100%. Here’s a link to the piece I wrote in the National Observer last year about this situation and the Lelu Island debacle.,2
  • Hans Schaer
    commented 2016-05-10 08:57:30 -0700
    WLNG scores a publicity stunt….. China pretends to buy just about all the LNG from WLNG
  • Hans Schaer
    commented 2016-05-09 23:49:55 -0700
    Economic direct action is what we need, lets vote with our spending’s, a good way, start with boycotting Chinese merchandise, for there support for WLNG by signing a worth less piece of paper that they are anyway not considering to adhere to ( remember the coal deal at Thumbler Ridge). China has 2x more LNG potential then Canada, so let them use there own and as far as our government, lets get ready to build up an other party as a third power, in a coalition, to send the present government packing in less then a Year and yes, lets not make a mistake to replace one no good with an other no good, it is time that we have a coalition that has to be responsible with a strong, fair and democratic leader, it has worked well for many nations. The Swiss in particular and to stop to have big business buy the politicians an or union ..same thing. This is the first item on the agenda . Canadian LNG send elsewhere is doing the pollution for others in our country . It will ruin a fair price policy for domestic Energy as there is always a way to artificially jack up the cost, by pretending that they don,t need the local market and we better pay what the other guys are willing to pay ( nice bluff).

    We don,t need a referendum, even so on the coast and especially in Squamish, the No LNG would dominate, we have to speak with our pocket book and with the support of right minded non corrupt individuals, to engage them to get involved and the re-emergence of endless talk of the so called sophisticated , educated, professional talkers, is not what this country needs, less talk and more action. Lets stop buying Chines stuff and let them know, until they rescind that empty promise to buy WLNG, we will not buy Chinese stuff.. there are many other nations, maybe a bit more cost, but worth making a point.
  • Hans Schaer
    commented 2016-05-09 15:46:47 -0700
    Dear Editor …..Answer to the news today about the announcement having just read about China buying Woodfiber LNG .. Here is my solution and reply to them, Please make the following announcement.

    People of Squamish , people of BC, People of Canada…..

    They pollute our country by us having to provide Canadian fracked LNG to China …. those against destruction and against pollution in Canada ….. immediately stop buying Chinese merchandise right away, until they annul there deal.

    Hans Schaer
  • Linda Peterson
    commented 2016-05-08 19:43:24 -0700
    FYI I saw an angry man tearing down the posters about May 14th. the ones he removed were in the grassy area right to the south of where the farmer’s market happens in the summer. You probably need to repost here and in other locations, if this was any indication of what’ shappening.

    Tahnks for all your advocacy!
  • scott carrell
    commented 2016-05-02 21:26:43 -0700
    Thought you might find this information useful.

    Asia’s LNG Markets Breaking Down, Reform Comes Next

    Unmoored pricing, declined delivery, mothballed capacity, asset sales, write downs.

    A Pan-Asian Gas Pipeline (at left, above) provides Asia a much longer, lasting, flexible, economically-valuable energy infrastructure than single-generation, greenhouse gas-intensive Liquid Natural Gas.

    Click Image to Enlarge

    Asia’s LNG market is in multi-hundred billion dollar chaos. Counter intuitively, that’s good news for the future.

    The reason? The intra-Asian LNG industry is a result of government capture by fossil fuel interests. It makes no sense on reasonable economic grounds.

    The distorted results are now on display: bloated construction costs in Australia, environmental degradation in the Great Barrier Reef), overcharged buyers in Japan and uncounted/uncosted carbon emissions everywhere.

    LNG oversupply is creating an active Asian LNG ‘spot market’ to the horror of insiders. It’s stripping the veil from this overpriced, misinvested industry.

    A painful economic process of adjustment has several years (and bankruptcies) to run. It won’t be pretty. It could have been avoided.

    Had proper economics been applied from the start, an intra-Asia LNG industry wouldn’t have taken root. Natural gas pipelines are better, cheaper and longer-lasting option.

    Proper application of ‘demand-pull’ economic analysis would have shown this. Instead, the LNG industry sought ‘supply-push’ economic rents created by technological ‘lock in.’ The bet’s now gone bad.

    The reason: for intra-regional trade, LNG has fundamental flaws.

    Renewables are rapidly achieving cost parity with natural gas. This undermines the rationale for long-term investment in natural gas, let alone a grossly expensive, single-purpose bespoke infrastructure to deliver it.

    Ignoring LNG’s carbon emissions distorts LNG’s poor investment economics. But nstead of making rational calculations based on all economic factors, the LNG industry flattered LNG’s economics by excluding carbon.

    Adding carbon prices to LNG’s ‘life-cycle’ emissions raises costs dramatically. Faced with this problem, the LNG industry excluded carbon emissions (and their costs) as irrelevant. They won’t be irrelevant for long.

    Global carbon market reform in the next five years will deliver broader coverage and much higher prices (to $20-$50 per tonne). These will expose LNG’s poor carbon economics.

    Capital costs of pipelines are lower than for LNG. For intra-regional transport of natural gas, pipelines are a better deal on both economic and technology grounds. Government capture— however — tilted decisions toward more LNG, a more lucrative business for industry.

    That bet’s now going wrong. The result is an albatross industry. The evidence: an oversupplied regional Asian LNG market in which spot market prices have fallen so low they now more than offset financial penalties of failing to honor long-term delivery contracts.

    This, in turn, is rapidly breaking down the industry’s preferred sinecure of long-term pricing.

    It’s the horror scenario for LNG insiders. They deliberately excluded key variables from their economic analysis. These include carbon pricing and the advantageous multifuel advantages of pipelines.

    The current mayhem will mark the evolution of a regional LNG spot market priced on ‘demand pull’ signals generated by consumers instead of ‘supply-push’ factors favoring producers. That’s the market Asia should have gotten all along.

    In response, some LNG shipping capacity and upstream natural gas production will be mothballed. This is already happening in Australia’s overbuilt LNG export port of Gladstone, Queensland.

    Billions in write downs will follow in time. This will lead to revised calculations about the LNG’s market’s economic value. That in turn will lead to consideration of alternative delivery methods for natural gas that are less capital intensive and less vertically integrated.

    An ideal new system would enable natural gas to be ‘pulled’ into the market as needed in response to demand instead of ‘pushed’ into the market by companies with expensive, bespoke, infrastructure to pay off.

    At present, the problem is one of vertical integration. LNG producers mine the gas, build the LNG shipping facilities and LNG ships. They’ve bet the farm on everything going right with all three all the time.

    By contrast, an open-access, common-carrier, multi-fuel pipeline would be built, operated and maintained by an unrelated middle party. Financing of natural gas transport would be divorced from the economics of upstream production and downstream sale.

    A pipeline would sell access to all comers, changing transport prices in response to market demand. The example here is the United States. There, an open-access, common-carrier merchant pipeline network is open to all comers.

    It features its own ‘spot’ market price (aka the Henry Hub) quoted on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis.

    The future of global energy markets lies in networks such as this. They have proved themselves in telecommunications (the internet), electricity (Europe’s increasingly integrated grids) and now natural gas (the US merchant pipeline system).

    Furthermore, ‘just in time’ inventory management lowers the albatross of idled, high-fixed cost investments — such as long construction lead time LNG facilities that are under utilized once finished. The only winners of that game are construction contractors.

    This generates much better price signals than 20-year lock in, the model favored by the LNG industry on the grounds such certainty is required to justify large initial investment.

    To learn more, visit

    Grenatec is a research organization studying the viability of a Pan-Asian Energy Infrastructure (PAEI).

    It would serve two billion people and one-third of the global economy

    This commentary may be reprinted with attribution.
  • steve Pelman
    commented 2016-04-16 12:52:33 -0700
  • Warren Bell
    commented 2016-04-10 13:16:16 -0700
    I sent the attached email to Catherine McKenna:

    Dear Min. McKenna: I must concede that I am shocked by your decision to approve the Woodfibre LNG project, in contrast to your strong stance re: addressing climate change in Paris. It just does not add up.

    First, the project partner, behind all the holding company smokescreens, is Sukanto Tanoto, the Indonesian businessman called, in one report, “one of the planet’s worst environmental plunderers”, with a long history of rainforest destruction and human rights offences.

    Second, the ecosystem of Howe Sound has just recovered from the disastrous effects of the Woodfibre pulp and paper manufacturing enterprises that devastated the ocean environment with decades of toxic discharges. To introduce a massive hazard into this freshly rehabilitated site is, at very least, disrespectful to the efforts of all the people who have brought this positive change about.

    Third, the economy of the area is rebuilding with non-fossil fuel, green tourism businesses that are exceeding, in terms of local employment and revenue, the benefits of the fossil-fuel-based industries they are replacing. To suddenly revert, once again, to a high-capital cost, remotely operated, low-employment business is a tragic misdirection of jurisdictional responsibility.

    And finally, this project, by its very nature, goes against the forceful and apparently heart-felt pronouncements you made in Paris a few months ago. Calling for a 1.5 degree limit on global warming, and acknowledging that we must move away from dependence on fossil fuels, is all very well. But then, as a concrete action, approving a massive LNG project, when the high leakage rates from fracked gas are widely acknowledged, the extreme impact of methane as a GHG is widely known, and the movement to “leave it in the ground” is gaining momentum worldwide, makes it clear that the rhetoric was nothing more than empty words.

    Has the government withdrawn its subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? No.

    Has the government put out a concrete scheme for supporting renewable energy development? No.

    Is the government now moving away from taking concrete steps to limit GHG production? Yes.

    As someone who contributed to the Liberal Party during the last election process, I am deeply, deeply disappointed.

    I hope something will happen soon to restore my faith in your government’s approach to global climate change.


    R.Warren Bell BA MDCM CCFP FCFP

    Past Founding President, CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

    Founding President, WA:TER (Wetland Alliance: The Ecological Response

    Rural Preceptor, University of BC

    Salmon Arm, BC

  • Sharon Russell
    commented 2016-04-07 10:26:47 -0700
    April 5, 2016
    (I’ve sent this letter to the appropriate offices)
    To whom it may concern,
    Like thousands and thousands of people living in BC who have voiced objection to permitting an LNG plant in Woodfibre I implore you to rescind permission.
    The proposed water cooling system has been declared illegal in California because of the harm it does to sea life. How much more harm it would do in our Howe Sound within it’s narrow confines. The Vancouver Observer and the Globe and Mail have both reported danger to the herring spawn should this course be followed.
    It’s not clear how ferry traffic, not to mention recreational boat traffic could deal with the huge LNG tankers and their entourages. Does tourism count for nothing.
    An LNG facility just means more fracking. How could the economics makes sense? How the heck can you justify using large amounts of fresh water and contaminating it to produce energy from a non-renewable resource the value of which is declining?
    I understand that jobs paying a decent living wage for Canadians is a priority. I grew up in Woodfibre and Dad used to say that the smell of the pulp and paper mill was the smell of bread and butter. However This world is on the cusp of change and I believe that those ‘living wage jobs’ must come from environmentally responsible sources. . . Thank you for your attention,
    Sharon Russell, Sechelt BC
  • Mike Chouinard
    commented 2016-03-31 09:12:07 -0700
    I want to attend the presentation to cover for The Squamish Chief at 7 p.m. but I don’t need to get there earlier, i.e. for the dinner, so I didn’t want to RSVP on the site.
  • Mary Gray
    commented 2016-03-22 09:05:18 -0700
    I need your postal code to send some signed petitions to you.
  • Victoria Rogers
    commented 2016-03-15 14:27:39 -0700
    To get wider exposure to people signing the Howe Sound Declaration, why not consider using “”?
  • Marcelle Roy
    commented 2016-03-02 10:39:17 -0800
    It seems there is a problem with your site.

    It won’t let me sign and yet it says Thank You for signing??
  • Diana Schroeder
    commented 2016-03-01 15:58:37 -0800
    Hi – I am unable to unfollow this petition (Sorry, we couldn’t find your account. To stop following this page, please sign in and click the X next to follow reactions.) I signed the petition but I do not not want further notifications or email of any kind. Thank you.
  • Angelina Theilmann
    commented 2016-02-29 11:18:17 -0800
    Angie here at Radio-Canada’s radio afternoon show Boulevard du Pacifique. Is there a french-speaker out there willing to share their thoughts on Woodfibre LNG? We are looking at a possible interview tonight (monday feb 29th) around 4pm to talk about your thoughts and concerns. I’m at [email protected] Contact me ASAP if interested. Merci.
  • Cathryn Robertson
    commented 2016-02-20 23:38:35 -0800

    I sent out the request via my personal email for friends to sign your petition, however your link doesnt lead you to the petition, it says sign now, but nowhere to sign!!!!
  • Orin Beebe
    commented 2016-02-14 12:28:03 -0800
    FYI#ForcesofNO : May 1st is PROTEST DAY your MLA office or court house at NOON. Every town and city across #BC – posted on Facebook and gaining a lot of support over last week from protest groups and individuals .
  • rachael sherstad
    commented 2016-01-04 14:09:49 -0800
    Hello, I heard there was dirty work being done to pass bear trophy hunting in BC. Could you please direct me a petition regarding this issue.

    Thank you for all of your hard work.
  • Jim Ronback
    commented 2015-12-06 19:29:57 -0800
    For Eoin Finn

    -——- Forwarded Message -——-

    Subject: Safety and Security of Hazardous LNG

    Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 18:55:14 -0800

    From: James Ronback

    Reply-To: [email protected]

    To: Delta Optimist , Chief Bryce Williams , Honourable Carla Qualtrough , Vicki Huntington MLA , Doug Stout , Mayor Lois Jackson , Honourable Mary Polak , Enviroinfo [NCR] , Catherine McKenna Minister of Environment and Climate Change , Honourable Marc Garneau – Minister of Transport , Honourable Justin Trudeau

    CC: Mayor and Councillors of Delta

    Editor: Delta Optimist et al,

    Below you will find my response to Doug Stout’s letter “LNG cannot contaminate water or soil”, on 4 December.

    Yours safely,

    Jim Ronback

    System Safety Engineer (retired)

    1530 Kirkwood Road

    Tsawwassen, BC

    V4L 1G1

    604 948 1589


    6 December, 2015

    To: Editor Delta-Optimist et al,

    Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister

    Chief Bryce Williams, Tsawwassen First Nation,

    Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, MP, Privy Council,

    Marc Garneau – Minister of Transport

    Catherine McKenna – Minister of environment and Climate Change

    Vicki Huntington, MLA

    Mary Polak, MLA, Minister of Environment

    Mayor Lois Jackson and Delta Council

    Subject: Safety and Security of hazardous LNG transportation and processing near residential areas in Delta

    Re: “LNG can’t contaminate water or soil” by Doug Stout, VP Market Development, FortisBC, 4 December.

    Doug Stout in his letter to the Editor conveniently ignores the safety and security aspects of the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) via super tankers and the storage and refrigeration facilities and the huge amount of energy from the Site C dam (13, 14) required to convert methane (natural gas) to a liquid after it is delivered via a pipeline.

    Living close to this proposed LNG facility will be more hazardous than living next to a nuclear power station.

    One only needs to google the following string of key words (without quotes) “safety security hazard transport LNG” to find ominous reports on the multiple hazards of processing and transporting LNG. The amount of energy stored in these facilities and tankers is enormous. It’s equivalent to several Hiroshima atomic bombs. The most serious hazard it a fuel vapour air explosion (1) that can be devastating. Although this may be a rare high consequence and possibly a terrorist event (21), Tsawwassen First Nation community could be wiped off the map and its mall and thousands of homes would be destroyed by the powerful blast wave and intense heat radiation (14).

    Most tankers have only a single engine which is a single point of failure that can result in loss of propulsion and steering leaving the ship floundering as a dangerous hazard to navigation (9). The worldwide tanker fleet of 10,000+ is experiencing at least two full losses of power or steering per day, and probably more than ten. If this fleet were twin screw, properly implemented, this number would be cut by a factor of one thousand (10, 11).

    Between 1944 and 2006 there were 52 major incidents (5, 6) in which 177 people died (6). I invite your readers to view the YouTube presentation by Eoin Finn on the “Impacts on Howe Sound from the LNG Industry.”(8). If the Algerian gas plant that was attacked by militants in 2013 had exploded in 2013, “it would have killed and destroyed anything within 5 kilometers or further.”. (12).

    The provincial and federal governments do not have any guidelines or regulations for locating hazardous industries away from residential areas. Without this type of guidance (2, 4) the Fraser River Delta is becoming another clogged Amsterdam like industrial harbor impacting all the nearby residents and its fragile environment (20).

    LNG terminals can pose significant risks and impacts to coastal regions and communities. It is critical that provincial governments, local agencies and public stakeholders participate and inform themselves in every step of the LNG port licensing process (7). The Tsawwassen First Nation’s LNG project will be subject mainly to federal environmental review process which may be delegated to Port Metro Vancouver and harmonized with the BC Environmental Assessment Office. This is like the fox (PMV) guarding the hen house. LNG projects must be approved by many federal and provincial agencies, thus, there are many opportunities for public input. An informed public will foster equally informed decision making (18).

    How will our dedicated politicians ensure that this will happen?

    Our safety and security (3) are much too important to be left to corporations and politicians alone. We have a right to be properly informed and adequately consulted with respect to all the hazards and cumulative risks of this proposed project (15) before an informed decision can be made.

    The Tsawwassen First Nation must protect their ancestral lands for their grandchildren instead of embarking on such hazardous projects near their homes. Some risks to public safety cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. (16, 17)

    Yours safely,

    Jim Ronback, B.A.Sc.

    System Safety Engineer (retired)

    1530 Kirkwood Road,

    Tsawwassen, BC, V4L 1G1

    604 948 1589


    1) BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) Demonstration – How it Happens Training Video

    2) Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water SANDIA REPORT, SAND2004-6258, December 2004

    3) LNG Safety and Security

    Center for Energy Economics, November 2006



    6) Cabrillo Port EIR,

    Appendix C3 C3-1 Chronological List of LNG Accidents, C3-2 Marine Safety and Security Requirements, C3-3 Design and Safety Standards Applicable to Natural Gas Projects

    7) States Can Affect Federal Deepwater Port LNG Licensing Decisions:

    A Case Study Involving the Deepwater Port Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act,

    Linda Krop, 10-Oct-2011

    8) Eoin Finn speaks about Impacts on Howe Sound from the LNG Industry

    9) “Worldwide we are experiencing over 5000 total loss of power casualties per year.”

    2008 Tanker Loss of Power Casualties, Jack Devanney,

    10) The current large (over 10,000 tonne deadweight) worldwide tanker fleet is experiencing at least two full losses of power or steering per day, and probably more than ten. If this fleet were twin screw, properly implemented, this number would be cut by a factor of one thousand.” [The Argument for Twin Screw Tankers, Jack Devanney, Center for Tankship Excellence, USA, [email protected] , September 20-21, 2007].

    11) “Twin Screw and more power redundancy would additionally help to drastically improve low speed maneuverability and the pilot’s ability to correct a mistake” p. 118

    Second International Workshop on Risk-Based Approaches in the Maritime Industry, 5-8 May 2008

    12) At least 37 hostages killed in Algeria gas plant standoff, prime minister says.

    By Amir Ahmed, CNN, January 23, 2013

    13) Is the Site C dam’s electricity destined for LNG Industry?

    Volume: 32 Issue: 4, 2014

    By Judith Lavoie Writer, DeSmog Canada

    14) LNG and Site C aligned for perfect storm

    By Keith Baldrey, Global News, July 31, 2015

    15) Tsawwassen First Nation LNG

    Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, Lower Mainland

    Accessed: 6 Dec 2015

    16) Acceptable Risk

    17) Risk Acceptance Criteria or “How Safe Is Safe Enough”

    18) LNG on the Fraser: what should be in the EA?

    19) LNG Dangers and Possible Disasters

    20) Canaport pleads guilty to killing 7,500 birds that flew into burning flare at gas facility

    November 5, 2015

    21) Are natural gas ships “boat bombs” for terror?


  • Michael McGillion
    commented 2015-11-20 17:07:26 -0800
    I ment 4 not 40 for rsvp
  • marc gawthrop
    commented 2015-11-11 15:35:51 -0800
    Thank you for your updates on Federal Environmental Review deficits for LNG. In addition to the concerns you expressed, there is room for demanding complete financial transparency on the anticipated earnings of the principal beneficiary in Singapore, under the existing Canada-Singapore Tax treaty concurrent with Singapore’s ongoing 10 year tax holiday for new LNG projects. Woodfibre LNG in Canada will easily operate at a net tax free loss.

    There exists a need to “open the books” so that those who live in and around Howe Sound can fully examine the size of the principal beneficiary’ s anticipated tax free offshore income , versus the value of the benefits offered in return at Howe Sound’s delicate risk.

    The new Federal government remains the last line of defense after the apparent provincial government give-away of Northern BC (for fracking) the aquifers between Northern BC and Squamish (for pipelines), and Howe Sound environmental sovereignty itself….for the offshore enrichment of Mr. Sukanto Tanoto.
  • Joe Carvalho
    commented 2015-10-13 05:28:57 -0700
    Please use the ‘Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’ web site, a division of the United States Department of Transportation, to search for pipeline company’s ‘Violations’. For example, in the search engine for Spectra Energy Violations, I came up with 59 violations that Spectra Energy has been cited for.
  • Ash Conrad
    commented 2015-10-12 14:11:50 -0700
    The .gov link you sent us to, is very user unfriendly from an iPhone 5s. Is it by design? As most young people use smartphones. We need to make our gov work the way it’s constituents choose to work not the other way around.
  • Thor, Dorte Froslev
    commented 2015-10-07 10:34:20 -0700
    Oct. 24th is not a Wednesday.

    I might be interested in the workshop but where and when?