Faulty science muddies waters of LNG plan for Lelu Island


#1

Not Happening!
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/story.html?id=11591311

A growing body of science — from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Simon Fraser University, the Skeena Fisheries Commission, and others — suggests that industrial port development on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert is likely to damage Flora Bank, a shallow eelgrass bed next to Lelu that rears 300 million juvenile salmon every year as they graduate from fresh to salt water. The Skeena salmon fishery generates in excess of $110 million annually.


Things PNW ad left out
#2

I edited your link to the non-mobile version (will redirect to mobile version if viewing on a phone).

It’s also good practice to put in a quote from the link, so I added it as well. Feel free to edit the post if you’d like.

As an aside, that’s another nice thing about this software, it shows wikipedia-style. edits.


#3

Pacific NorthWest is on their fourth try to provide credible science. Never mind publication, the company’s application to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has been rejected three times by government scientists at DFO and Natural Resources Canada. Each time, the company has been asked to provide trustworthy information on potential impacts on fish. Each time, they have come up short.

4th time’s the charm? Wow.


#4

that is not an editorial from an unbiased person, it is from someone who is opposed to Petronas LNG proposal no matter what the science does or does not say,

Greg Horne is the energy coordinator for the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, which is a participant in the Canadian Environmental Assessment of the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal.


#5

So he’s wrong when he says “the company’s application to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has been rejected three times by government scientists at DFO and Natural Resources Canada. Each time, the company has been asked to provide trustworthy information on potential impacts on fish.” ?

Are you saying that they haven’t been rejected 3 times?

“no matter what the science does or does not say” – well, I think this is the issue, isn’t it?


#6

no i’m saying it is his view the fourth time will be rejected, the last one submitted by Petronas was if i’m not mistaken was over seen by metlakatla, so in his editorial he is assuming the science they used was faulty and it will be rejected, because of the past clarifications. but lets face it ppl strongly opposed to it will never accept anything put forward by Petronas so it has to be taken in that light