So, Petronas operates in all of the Sudan contract areas mentioned in the first article, where a Sudan petroleum ministry official announced that international oil companies have done nothing (so far) to minimize or stop environmental damage caused by oil extraction.
…
Please read the entire links posted above, before commenting on this comment.
Again, obligatory disclaimer, this comment is solely my own opinion, and does not necessarily represent the views of the company I work for.[/quote]
I read the links but what any of this has to do with PNW at Lelu Island is at best obscure and certainly not ‘obvious’.
What I read is that the Government of Sudan entered into transitional agreements with companies and has not yet implemented its own legislation: “Machar said the ministry would begin to operationalize the Petroleum Act to safeguard the environment if the compromise peace deal is implemented.” The government spokesman added that environmental damage began during the Second Sudanese Civil War.
As well as failing to implement environmental protection legislation, the government sent in ground forces, tanks, helicopter gunships and bombers, destroyed or cleared villages, displaced local people and otherwise committed human rights abuses in order to clear the way for oil development.
Petronas is described as “operating” in Block 5A, while the link says “European companies have been accused of complicity in clearance of the population from the oil field”. Another link refers to Chinese working within the conflict zone. One of the companies operating under a transitional agreement is Petrodar, in which Petronas has a minority interest. Companies and their shareholders are not one and the same.
This is all fascinating history, but none of it has anything to do with PNW, how we regulate the energy sector in this country or the CEAA Panel’s anticipated decision about the proposed plant at Lelu Island.
You just hope it doesn’t go through. This article from the Globe and Mail doesn’t say anything of the such. PETRONAS is the money behind the project, Pacific Northwest LNG is the company that is doing all the work.
let me look into my crystal ball like all those ppl that say there will be a glut for years and years to come, my crystal ball says for certainty that all these experts will change their minds over and over and over again, oh and it also says I will be going to the washroom at 10pm april 1 2020
I ran into this little fact: "In Massachusetts, the state House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill on July 24th 2008 prohibiting construction of LNG terminals within 5,000 feet of residences, schools, hospitals, elderly housing complexes, businesses and developments. It also prohibits LNG tankers from passing within 1,500 feet of populated shorelines."
How far is Petronas from the Port Ed school? If Exxon goes through, a little shiver is going to run down my spine everytime I look out my harbourview window at the passing LNG carrier.
Even the industries’ own professional standards organization (which Petronas is a part of) says: “LNG ports must be located where LNG vapors from a spill or release cannot affect civilians” -SIGTTO LNG Terminal Siting Standards Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators.
I can travel all day on the coast and not see another soul and now all of a sudden the only place for these plants is right in Rupert harbour-- and in the case of Petronas right beside Flora Bank.
um Doug Quillen works for ChevronTexaco Corp. not saying what he has to say is wrong but i would trust a 3 party more then i would then someone being paid by the very same company that they work for.
except for one thing they use information from Lloyds of London which insures tankers and plants, they evaluate risks to come up with their premiums, that is your 3 party