[Rock Bay] BC Hydro land | unknown | land remediated
#1
Posted 18 October 2010 - 03:14 PM
#2
Posted 18 October 2010 - 03:49 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#3
Posted 18 October 2010 - 06:01 PM
It would be interesting to know how much could be recovered from the water at the loading area of Budget / Selkirk Steel.
#4
Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:33 PM
#5
Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:52 PM
#6
Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:22 PM
#7
Posted 27 October 2010 - 11:37 AM
Will this material then become 'out of sight, out of mind'? It seems that so often when we (homo sapiens) think that we have control over our environment that it rears its head to show us that we are often a bit full of ourselves.
#8
Posted 27 October 2010 - 10:14 PM
#9
Posted 20 June 2012 - 09:36 PM
The original bay was larger than it is now, as part of it has been filled in. I wonder how much pollution is now under the businesses that have been built on that fill?
The feds plan to build a cofferdam across the mouth of the bay so that they can dredge up some 65,000 tons of polluted mud. What about the mud outside of the cofferdam that has been going up and down the harbour with the tides? How will they retrieve that stuff?
The big question is, where will they take the 65,000 tons of pollution?
Video here;
http://www.ctvvancou...ng-phase-three/
old aerial photo here;
http://vintageairpho...com/bo-47-1457/
#10
Posted 20 June 2012 - 09:46 PM
#11
Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:11 PM
50% to be shipped to city hall, 50% to the BC Legislature, and 50% to Ottawa.The big question is, where will they take the 65,000 tons of pollution?
And if that's not enough 50% to BC Hydro.....they had some nasty stuff going on up the street.
Keep digging.
#12
Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:16 PM
They should just sell the toxic sludgy land/seabed "as is where is" to the highest bidder that accepts the risks and signs off a waiver...
Love Canal anyone?
#13
Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:42 AM
They should just sell the toxic sludgy land/seabed "as is where is" to the highest bidder that accepts the risks and signs off a waiver. That seems more appropriate.
http://richardhughes...-for-shawnigan/
#14
Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:04 AM
Cleanup costs at a single northern mine next to Great Slave Lake are ballooning so high they are forcing Ottawa to rethink plans for thousands of contaminated sites across the country.
Documents obtained by northern environmentalists show the government expects the cost of cleaning up the Giant Mine just outside Yellowknife to be nearly a billion dollars – perhaps the largest single environmental cleanup in Canada and paid for entirely by taxpayers.
...
The Giant Mine remediation project is funded out of a federal program for contaminated sites. Beginning in 2005, a total of $3.6-billion over 15 years has been earmarked for the program. That was supposed to be enough for 6,765 known toxic sites, including 2,709 “priority” sites. They include the Lennard Island lighthouse off the coast of Vancouver Island, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay air force base in Labrador and Rock Bay in Victoria Harbour.
http://www.theglobea...rticle10659731/
#15
Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:10 PM
The mine has been owned by several deep pocket mining companies, why weren't they made to remediate the land?
#16
Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:09 PM
^So tell me again why the taxpayers are on the hook for this?
The mine has been owned by several deep pocket mining companies, why weren't they made to remediate the land?
Because environmental concerns were not well understood when permits were issued and cleanup was never mandated. A failure of our government, not of the mining company.
#17
Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:29 AM
Because environmental concerns were not well understood when permits were issued and cleanup was never mandated. A failure of our government, not of the mining company.
Bwahaha, that's hilarious! Were you able to type that with a straight face?
Now, if you had written, "An intentional failure of government, carefully managed by business interests" then you might be making a serious point that is somewhat accurate.
Lake Side Buoy - LEGO Nut - History Nerd - James Bay resident
#18
Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:42 AM
#19
Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:53 PM
Because environmental concerns were not well understood when permits were issued and cleanup was never mandated. A failure of our government, not of the mining company.
It was last privately owned in 2004, that's not all that long ago and remediation should have been part of any agreement prior to sale.
#20
Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:26 AM
It was last privately owned in 2004, that's not all that long ago and remediation should have been part of any agreement prior to sale.
Yes, the government really screwed it up by not making that part of it.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users