or believe it or not they actually listened to the ppl and knew that it wouldn’t pass if they actually stuck to the dredging plan
Word is that 150-160 people attended the first meeting in Lax Kw’alaams last night and zero voted to support PNW!
Of course last night was the chance for the advisors to tell about the risk to salmon and tonight the proponents get their chance still its looking good for Skeena salmon.
Wed and Thur are the meeting times in Rupert 7-10:30 at Chances I think with the same format; 1st night advisors 2nd night proponent.
The meeting times and format may be wrong and may have changed I just got it off the LK website bulletin.
[quote=“Jabber63”]thanks North Coast Review for this post
northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ue-to.html
and why the HELL has the city put a scientist on its payroll but yet can not use 200,000 from the legacy fund for its budget
plus with the city going to Petronas with cup in hand for money for infrastructure what a slap to the face to Petronas to have our resident scientist speak out against the project.[/quote]
This can NOT be said enough…why would Petronas EVER give this city anything…their own resident scientist is continually leading the charge to shut them down.
Jabber 63 and bthedog think our local scientist just doesn’t get it. They think he who pays should determine the science.
I must admit I do worry about the CEA process given that most of the science is supplied by Stantec who get most of their money from oil and gas. I guess these guys expect Stantec to tow the oil and gas line too. But how can they then turn around and say they have great confidence in the process don’t worry everything will be fine.
I am just hoping there isn’t a sudden shift and this can set Petrona back and result in cancellation on Lulu.
I am so tired of the city’s lack of planning and the social issues this speculation is causing. We simply are not prepared given the state of our infrastructure and lack of
social housing. These are only 2 of the issues. Construction Phase means a rush of people than once built the bottom will fall out anyway so I am hoping nothing takes place
If first nations say no to petronus folks in rupert will never see anyone invest in prince rupert for along time.the ndp is going to kill business in alberta like they did in bc you all remember that?a billion dollers is a game changer and rupert better pray it can show the world its open for business.
I just heard that the second meeting in Lax Kw’alaams, the one where the proponents put forth was attended by 181 people and that 100% voted against PNW. This is a rumour with one source.
best news again in a very long time
Alberta NDP to stop Northern Gateway Pipeline more great news besides the above ~~!
How is that best news in a very long time for the opponents? Decisions made in Lax Kw’alaams have no bearing on the CEAA panel. It can still give project approval with or without conditions. All that would be accomplished by the opponents is that there would be great uncertainty about community benefits and accommodating aboriginal rights.
You really think that Petorna could go ahead on Lulu regardless ?
I do. You have to remember that other benefit packages have been accepted. The Lax Kw 'alaams is just one band. A company doesn’t spend the amount of money that PETRONAS has in the proposal and planning stages without thinking long term.
Of course it could. CEAA is obliged to render a decision based on the proposal and design submitted by Petronas and other submissions it has received whether in support or against. Its mostly looks at scientific evidence submitted through formal procedures. It does not respond to or consider community votes, petitions, or social media campaigns.
The CEAA does respond to community pressure. In 2012 it looked like they were going to dump sediment contaminated above the ISQG level with dioxins and furans right into the middle of the entrance to Rupert harbour. When they were faced with public pressure pointing to science showing a risk to the seafood in the area they backed off. I guess there is always a faint risk they will try to go ahead anyways but Lax Kw’alaams has very strong science on its side and strong legal protections of First Nations food supply.
We have been protecting the north coast against offshore oil and gas and tankers for decades. There is always the argument that it will happen anyways why not take a payout for it. But somehow people here stand strong and we are still oil free, tanker free and we don’t have disease ridden salmon farms either.
In 2012, did CEAA respond to “community pressure”, eg meetings, petitions, social media, or to “science showing a risk” from dumping sediment in the harbour? I suspect that they responded to the science, which is what they’re legally required to do.
Our impression of Lax Kw’alaams having very strong science on its side is very different.
From what I understand, Lax Kw’alaams submitted scientific reports demonstrating the risk to the Flora Bank of the original project design. Petronas then changed the design to mitigate the risk. Are you saying that those same reports would now be used to oppose the amended design as well, ie the entire project? That does not seem very plausible considering that Lax Kw’alams, Petronas and BC have negotiated term sheets that are premised on the project proceeding according to the revised design.
as for the meetings I heard they were a show of hands, so actually the vote is neither here nor there, it doesn’t matter, a private ballot vote is what matters and i’m sure that will come after the meetings. and yes if Lax Kw’alaams does not vote to agree to the agreement their council came up with and the CEAA does give them approval, i’m sure they can amend the pipeline route where Lax Kw’alaams really would be moot, but since i’m a betting person i’m going to say the private ballot would give the go ahead
James Brander of the Sauder School of Business says he thinks a rejection by Lax Kw’alaams will kill the project. Maybe he is wrong but you can hear him say it on the video part of the story at this link.
cbc.ca/news/business/b-c-fir … -1.3065166
[quote=“atsea”]James Brander of the Sauder School of Business says he thinks a rejection by Lax Kw’alaams will kill the project. Maybe he is wrong but you can hear him say it on the video part of the story at this link.
cbc.ca/news/business/b-c-fir … -1.3065166[/quote]
Real Estate Agents will be praying he is wrong: but heard from many that the project will die without consent from Lax Kw’alaams so glad the environment and a way of life mean more than a projected and maybe false payout !!
[quote=“jamesbrown”]
Real Estate Agents will be praying he is wrong: but heard from many that the project will die without consent from Lax Kw’alaams so glad the environment and a way of life mean more than a projected and maybe false payout !![/quote]
Just a modest suggestion - maybe its best to leave it to Lax Kw’alaams to work through its internal consultations (which are obviously complex) and related discussions with Petronas and BC before drawing too many conclusions.
CEAA is not bound by anything that Lax Kw’alaams, Petronas and BC agree or fail to agree on. Sometimes CEAA seems to be viewed as being the proponent, or as a political agency that responds to “pressure”, rather than as an independent tribunal that makes science-based determinations, but it has its own jurisdiction to exercise. They may say ‘no’ or set so many conditions that the proposed project is unlikely to go ahead regardless of what else happens (or doesn’t). It’s difficult to see anything being finally agreed (or not) by Lax Kw’alaams, Petronas and BC until the panel makes its decision.
As for the “false payment” fears, which re-surface, maybe the City should forget about LNG development on Lot 444. Following the logic of the anti-Petronas narrative, maybe Exxon presents just too great a payment risk. After all Exxon has borrowed more on bond markets than Petronas.
[quote=“jamesbrown”]
[quote=“atsea”]James Brander of the Sauder School of Business says he thinks a rejection by Lax Kw’alaams will kill the project. Maybe he is wrong but you can hear him say it on the video part of the story at this link.
cbc.ca/news/business/b-c-fir … -1.3065166[/quote]
Real Estate Agents will be praying he is wrong: but heard from many that the project will die without consent from Lax Kw’alaams so glad the environment and a way of life mean more than a projected and maybe false payout !![/quote]
I highly doubt this project will die just because one band is not signing on. I don’t believe Petronas actually needs this bands support to proceed with this project. I am sure there is contingency in place for this regardless. Every other band has signed on at this point…that should be enough for social license and as previously mentioned, one band does not have any veto over this project.
If this does go through, it will be a sad sad day for this band as they will literally miss out on any money while every other band geographically around them will become that much richer.
No band has a veto, and strictly Petronas does not “need” an agreement with Lax Kw’alaams or with anyone else, but they obviously value having a positive relationship with Lax Kw’alaams. In the end, if CEAA approves the project and it proceeds, first nations are free to go after the Crown for failing to “accommodate”. But those disputes are not good for business and create uncertainty, so I can see why Petronas would prefer to have an agreement.
What other bands have “signed on”, leaving aside the pipeline, which has its own issues? Do any of them have names? As for having “enough” social licence even if Lax Kw’alaams does not sign on, who determines how much social licence is “enough” and what are the applicable standards for a social licence?