Juvenile Salmon Usage of the Skeena River Estuary

yeah, I get where your coming from for sure GLG. sometimes I find some of the comments generated from these articles from readers more interesting than the article. for sure, this is a bit of a conspiracy theorist type article. but there could be some truth to it but how much is anyones guess. loved the no LNG T shirts on the Haida first nations from the earlier article... I don't think there's any conspiracy there as to how the Haida feel about the LNG=Fracking that the liberals would like to push through.

http://i.cbc.ca/1.3787075.147527478...derivatives/16x9_620/royal-visit-20160929.jpg
 
But it's gonna be covered by a carbon tax 3X what the PM is imposing for the rest of the country. Doesn't that make it OK, carbon tax is supposed to fix the problem isn't it?
 
triplenickel said:
But it's gonna be covered by a carbon tax 3X what the PM is imposing for the rest of the country. Doesn't that make it OK, carbon tax is supposed to fix the problem isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes there are consequences to our decisions that's how it works. This project is equivalent to adding one million cars on the road. If we are going to have an LNG industry then we need to find reductions in other parts of BC's economy and a carbon tax is the most efficient way of doing that. Let the market sort it out.
 
Anyone with an ounce of common sense and basic knowledge of the importance of river estuaries to salmon habitat should have red flagged the LNG project in the Sheena . What happened to the FL solidarity and their claim to be the stewards of the land ? How come the ones who signed off are never mentioned in mainstream media or getting up in front to say what a great idea this is ? I say this because they have much more power to do something than us sport fishers who see things going down hill and feel powerless to do anything about it , who listens to us ? This project would be a disaster , hopefully LNG prices will see it never happen.
 
I don't think they've (First Nations) signed off. at least definitely not a majority. I think industry will try to forge ahead whether they sign off or not. I believe that the way it's (Federal Law) written is that industry only needs to meaningfully consult with FN's. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that. seems pretty F'd up.... I hope it doesn't happen also Salmonholic.
 
triplenickel said:
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016MNGD0051-001543
Click to expand...
On August 25, 2016 (just before Trudeau Gov't approves the project) the scriptwriter(s) releases: "The Province [Media Contacts Lindsey Byers, Ministry of Natural Gas Development] would like to thank [532] members of the Lax Kw’alaams Band for voting in favour of continuing to pursue liquefied natural gas (LNG) development in their traditional territory [in May 2015] - "to continue discussions with both the Province and industry, provided the environment is protected"."

Meanwhile, in other news (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/b-c...b-for-lng-project-in-1st-of-3-votes-1.3065166): "All of the more than 180 eligible voters at a meeting in Port Simpson stood up to oppose the plan to build a liquefied-natural-gas pipeline and terminal in their territory, said Lax Kw'alaams band member Malcolm Sampson."
 
agentaqua said:
On August 25, 2016 (just before Trudeau Gov't approves the project) the scriptwriter(s) releases: "The Province [Media Contacts Lindsey Byers, Ministry of Natural Gas Development] would like to thank [532] members of the Lax Kw’alaams Band for voting in favour of continuing to pursue liquefied natural gas (LNG) development in their traditional territory [in May 2015] - "to continue discussions with both the Province and industry, provided the environment is protected"."

Meanwhile, in other news (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/b-c...b-for-lng-project-in-1st-of-3-votes-1.3065166): "All of the more than 180 eligible voters at a meeting in Port Simpson stood up to oppose the plan to build a liquefied-natural-gas pipeline and terminal in their territory, said Lax Kw'alaams band member Malcolm Sampson."
Click to expand...

I read that article too when it came out in May of 2015. My impression is that they've had a change of plan which is hard to believe with the terrible choice of location for the loading terminal. I kinda thought all along that it was a strategic move by Petronas, get everyone focused on a fairly fixable problem then give in as a concession.
 
Ya - those provincial scriptwriters - paid through your and my taxes - had to scrape to selectively say something supportive, too. If on one of the 1st votes - only 532 out of a 3219 membership (2009 stats) voted to continue discussions (and only provided the environment is protected) - then 83.5% thought further discussions were pointless - even after a $1.15B bribe. Lindsey didn't provide that stat in their news release.

http://laxkwalaams.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lax-web-content-salmon-report-final-nov2-1.pdf
http://laxkwalaams.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/11-2015-Dec-17-LK-Salmon-Science-Report-11.pdf

 
Last edited:
thxs AA, !
Looks like an overwelming rejection to me from the first vote. looks to me like they've discussed it (which the provincial government has congratulated them on) and are now in the process of rejecting it. (2 more votes to go) this looks like it will be tied up in the courts if they vote no to this terminal project.
from what I understand these first nations have never signed treaties and are their own Nation. with the peer reviewed science and studies showing that there is evidence that these salmon runs could become extinct or be severely damaged if this project were to go ahead it's hard to understand what our government(s) are thinking when they would attempt to put a project in the worst possible place like this.
bait and switch maybe... definitely wouldn't put anything past them. how could any country do business with a government like that? Or want to do business with people (in our government) that are untrustworthy? probably because these foreign corporations are just as corrupt. guess I just answered my own question...
 
This maybe of interest to those that want to look at the world market of LNG. Spoiler alert.... not good with so many new projects turning import terminals to export terminals and spot prices well below long term contracts. The glut in LNG looks like it will continue as there is too much LNG and client demand is dropping.
http://www.igu.org/publications/2016-world-lng-report
 
triplenickel said:
What/where is the Frasers equivalent of Flora Bank?
Click to expand...
Excellent question 3x5. Shooting from the hip - I'd say the geologic differences between the rivers/mouths/estuaries determines the differences in habitat and salt/fresh interactions that allow certain conditions to exist that juvies can take advantage of today. The Fraser - unlike many other rivers in BC - has a large Delta - and the Skeena was cut-off by glaciers many thousands of years ago - which would have affected sediment transport and deposition. Check out pages 213-236 at: http://ftp.maps.canada.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/publications/ess_sst/215/215772/bu_567.pdf
 
Last edited:
Interesting read thanks for the link. Seems that the juvenilles end up all throughout the delta and lower river in some super industrialized areas that see way more marine traffic than the LNG project ever will. The part about the study in 1975 prior to the airport expansion and the abundance of fry in the area that is now gone was interesting too. It's strange that for all the reasons I hear about the decline in fraser salmon it's rarely the industrialization of the mouth and never the airport. I have to wonder how some pilings along the edge of Flora bank will actually affect the juvies? I'm also still not sure why the feds didn't make Petronas use electric drivers on their compression, especially with all the clean power coming online not far down the road. It would be another easy change like moving the terminal a small distance compared to the amount of pipeline needed to bring the gas from NE BC.
 
more interesting questions 3x5. My understanding that eelgrass beds at the interface of rivers/oceans are particularly sensitive to slight to moderate changes in flow. Erosion verses deposition. Think that was well described in some of the CEAA submissions against the current proposed location for the trestle/dock that the Pacific NorthWest Stantec consultants came up with. See:

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00134.1
http://saveourskeenasalmon.org/wp-content/uploads/Pacific-Northwest-LNG-CEAA-CritiqueFaggetter1.pdf
http://skeenawatershed.com/resource...h_Utilization_of_the_Skeena_River_Estuary.pdf
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/mpo-dfo/Fs70-7-2016-007-eng.pdf
http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p80032/109810E.pdf

I agree - the transport of LNG itself is of small risk. It's the generation of the LNG (fracking) - the pipelines - and the dock/plant/nearshore construction that poses the most risks. Lelu/Flora is a stupid idea IMHO. Can't help but think this is yet but another stupid venture capital troll.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

searun
New Pinniped Study - harbour seals consume 46−59% of juvenile Coho Salmon
Replies
9
Views
1K
trophywife
trophywife
IronNoggin
Petition to the House of Commons
Replies
22
Views
1K
G Gordon
G Gordon
OldBlackDog
BCWF, Conservation Hatchery. Things to Contemplate by Bob Hooton.
Replies
7
Views
798
Derby
Derby
Last_Call
Ongoing seal and salmon and log booms studies by PSF and partners
Replies
0
Views
436
Last_Call
Last_Call
IronNoggin
Terry Beech Response
Replies
3
Views
526
IronNoggin
IronNoggin
Back
Top