Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Dredging up toxic chemicals
Both terminals would require massive dredging of Port of Prince Edward to allow for LNG carriers.
Trouble is, the harbour’s sediments are laden with toxic chemicals and heavy metals going back decades. An old paper mill once spewed effluent in the area, causing a dramatic decline in aquatic life.
“These contaminated sediments are buried right now, so they’re sort of locked up, they’re safe right now. But the worry is, if you dredge [700,000] cubic metres, you might mobilize some of it,” said Moore.
Both companies have tested the underwater sediments.
Pacific Northwest LNG consultants found a nasty brew of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), metals and dioxins and furans in the estuary mud.
Some of the toxic levels are not safe, but below levels where adverse effects are typically observed, states the report.
Dredging areas from LNG and other proposed projects. Flora Bank eelgrass shown in green. Source: Skeena Wild Conservation Trust & Ocean Ecology
A question of location?
BG's Canadian president told the Prince Rupert community last year that the location of the Prince Rupert LNG terminal was less damaging to the environment, because it's slated for the already industrially busy Ridley Island, whereas Lelu Island is a "green field."
Likewise, an often-cited 1973 Department of Fisheries and Oceans report said Lelu Island should be a no-go zone for industrial development due to the "high biological significance" of the salmon rearing habitat. But development on Ridley Island would have the least environmental harm, it said.
Complicating matters, the region is seeing a boom in other industrial projects. A potash terminal is proposed, and two more LNG terminals are also proposed north of Prince Rupert near Grassy Point:
Source URL: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...ld-collapse-bc-wild-salmon-run-sfu-scientists
Both terminals would require massive dredging of Port of Prince Edward to allow for LNG carriers.
Trouble is, the harbour’s sediments are laden with toxic chemicals and heavy metals going back decades. An old paper mill once spewed effluent in the area, causing a dramatic decline in aquatic life.
“These contaminated sediments are buried right now, so they’re sort of locked up, they’re safe right now. But the worry is, if you dredge [700,000] cubic metres, you might mobilize some of it,” said Moore.
Both companies have tested the underwater sediments.
Pacific Northwest LNG consultants found a nasty brew of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), metals and dioxins and furans in the estuary mud.
Some of the toxic levels are not safe, but below levels where adverse effects are typically observed, states the report.
Dredging areas from LNG and other proposed projects. Flora Bank eelgrass shown in green. Source: Skeena Wild Conservation Trust & Ocean Ecology
A question of location?
BG's Canadian president told the Prince Rupert community last year that the location of the Prince Rupert LNG terminal was less damaging to the environment, because it's slated for the already industrially busy Ridley Island, whereas Lelu Island is a "green field."
Likewise, an often-cited 1973 Department of Fisheries and Oceans report said Lelu Island should be a no-go zone for industrial development due to the "high biological significance" of the salmon rearing habitat. But development on Ridley Island would have the least environmental harm, it said.
Complicating matters, the region is seeing a boom in other industrial projects. A potash terminal is proposed, and two more LNG terminals are also proposed north of Prince Rupert near Grassy Point:
- Woodside Energy LNG – by Australia’s Woodside Petroleum
- Aurora LNG – by a Chinese-Japanese consortium led by a Nexen (a subsidiary of the Chinese state-oil company CNOOC)
Source URL: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...ld-collapse-bc-wild-salmon-run-sfu-scientists
