CEAA's PNW LNG draft report released


#1

CEAA’s PNW LNG draft report came out, and much of an annoyance to the Save Lelu Island/Flora Banks crowd, the report concludes “there would be no significant adverse environmental effects” to fish habitat.

http://www.thenorthernview.com/news/368403011.html

I have no doubt the protesters will make full use of the 30 day comment period.


Petronas LNG in Prince Rupert, Happening or Not?
#2

I say yes to Lelu. Interesting what will happen next.


#3

So basically they have to take care of harbour porpoise? :slight_smile: How about we get our own version of Marineland? :frowning:

The Agency concludes that the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, on harbour porpoise and as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The Agency also concludes that the Project is likely to result in significant adverse cumulative environmental effects to harbour porpoise. With respect to all other valued components, the Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into account the implementation of the key mitigation measures. The Draft EA Report will be finalized following the public and Aboriginal consultation period and submitted to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for consideration in making a decision on whether or not the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of the mitigation measures that the Minister considers appropriate.


#4

watch how quick the save our salmon protesters turn into save our porpoise protesters :slight_smile: hey Save our Salmon protesters less porpoises more salmon :slight_smile:


#5

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s draft environmental assessment report for Pacific NorthWest LNG’s planned export terminal on Lelu Island has critics calling the entire process “broken.”

The draft report says Skeena salmon at Flora Bank and Lelu Island won’t be significantly affected by the Petronas backed Pacific NorthWest LNG project.

Greg Horne, of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition says the report is superficial and ignores a slew of data showing how damaging the project will be to Flora Bank and salmon.


#6

oh and to those interested there is this the Russian’s are coming to Rupert! Lester Fri Feb 12th 7pm FREE

Join three visiting Russian scientists and a noted conservationist who have extensively studied LNG’s impacts. Their compelling presentation is highly relevant to Petronas’ Paci c Northwest LNG project proposed for Lelu Island near the mouth of the Skeena River.

This event is sponsored by Friends of Wild Salmon, Wild Salmon Centre, and the Kaien Island Elders. Admission is free.

Viktor Afanasev is a geomorphologist and is head of the Department of State Environment Expert Committee for Protection of Environment and Natural Resources in Sakhalin.

Alexander Vedenev is the Head of the Ocean Noise Laboratory, P. P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences (SIO RAS), Moscow.

Aleksandr Shubin is a salmon ecologist living in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia. He is also a researcher for the Sakhalin Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography Department.

Dmitry Lisitsyn is the Director of Sakhalin Environment Watch and lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Island.


#7

Probably want to make that its own thread too.


#8

Right there in black and white from the CEAA…no significant adverse effects to Flora Bank or salmon…

And like clockwork, Friends of Skeena Salmon slams the CEAA as a broken system…is anyone really surprised by that response?

The entire main basis for opposition to this project, the destruction of Flora Bank and damage to fish habitat, is no longer a legally viable argument after this report.

So everyone get ready for the “Save our Porpoises” protesters now.


#9

Article from the Vancouver Sun


#10

It does say that salmon will be unaffected, but, it also says that green house gases will cause adverse effects. It remains to be seen if that will put the project in danger.

A draft report issued Wednesday following a federal government review concludes the proposed $12-billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in northwestern B.C. would cause adverse effects from greenhouse gases and harm harbour porpoises, but not adversely affect salmon.


#11

so let me get this straight it took the CEAA almost 19 months going back and forth for more information, instead of the 12 months it was supposed to take and the system is broken, what is broken is the world is ending nonsense, the CEAA dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s, no significant harm to salmon, go get your save the porpoise tshirts


#12

On the porpoise issue, considering the amount of shipping that already occurs daily in Chatham Sound from the container, grain, coal, BC ferries, Alaska ferries and wood pellet terminals, I doubt this would be big enough an issue to warrant the minister to cancel a $12 billion dollar investment that would provide 5000 constructions jobs and 630 full-time jobs.

The GHGE could be an issue for the government, it depends if they feel that a 0.75% increase to Canada’s overall GHGE is enough to cancel the project. I sincerely hope that they take into account the amount of GHGE that this project would reduce in other major polluting countries like China and India.

Canada produces just 1.7% of total Worldwide greenhouse gasses…China contributes 22.7%, India 5.7%, Japan 3%…these are three countries that will be using LNG directly from PNW LNG. The United States who contributes 15.6% of worldwide GHG is already building LNG terminals.

Regardless, this terminal will produce less GHGE than was being produced by Skeena Cellulose and we all seemed to survive that thing chugging out toxins for over 50 years.


#13

8 Billion of it will be outsourced to China and it will employ 300 full-time employees! plus a whole lot of TFW’S!


#14

300 full time direct employees is HUGE for Prince Rupert…and we know a terminal like this will have a ton of indirect jobs as well…all the terminals in this region support hundreds of indirect jobs (not talking retail/service).

Don’t forget the taxation and royalties, local and provincial…this regions stands to gain millions per year in direct taxation benefits from this plant.


#15

it is kind of funny our local MLA and the MLA for the kitimat area complain about GHGE from Lelu island but yet not one of them say anything about GHGE if Shell Canada builds their LNG plant I wonder why? as for the GHGE part BC charges a carbon tax if the plant exceeds a certain limit per year, whether that limit is too high or not who cares no one else in Canada as of yet charges a carbon tax, oh and Alberta is going to start to burn Natural gas since they are going to close down the coal plants that produce energy, why aren’t the environmentalists whining about that?