Jump to content

      













Photo

[Rock Bay] BC Hydro land | unknown | land remediated


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#1 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 18 October 2010 - 03:14 PM

FEDS ANNOUNCE PLAN TO DRAIN ROCK BAY
CFAX Oct 18, 2010

http://www.cfax1070....hp?newsId=15631

#2 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 18 October 2010 - 03:49 PM

I worry that if they evict the barge traffic during the clean up it will never come back.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#3 manuel

manuel
  • Member
  • 595 posts

Posted 18 October 2010 - 06:01 PM

That must be a hugely polluted site with all of the effort that is being put in. Will be really interesting to see how sea life in the harbour and gorge waterway comes back.

It would be interesting to know how much could be recovered from the water at the loading area of Budget / Selkirk Steel.
"I know nothing"

#4 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,632 posts

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:33 PM

i knew about the coal tar (?) buried in the ground there but i didn't think of what might be under the water there. sounds like a big job

#5 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,416 posts

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:52 PM

It'll be interesting to see what is there once the water is drained out. How far down do you think they will have to excavate to remove the contamination?

#6 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:22 PM

It will be interesting to see how the feds timetable accomodates the spawning herring and all the other fish that we heard so much about. The city had a whole slew of reasons why the bridge would be closed for a year during rehabilitation and the spawning fish was one of them.

#7 JETT

JETT
  • Member
  • 33 posts

Posted 27 October 2010 - 11:37 AM

I'm all for rejuvenating these previously contaminated areas especially in the interest of bringing the area closer to its once clean state. But I have to say.... where do they intend to put these 65 thousand tonnes of CONTAMINATED MATERIAL FROM THE SEA FLOOR?
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 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 1,672 posts

Posted 27 October 2010 - 10:14 PM

^ Interesting question. Depending upon the contamination, I think that they sometimes incinerate it. In this case, I wonder what the actual volume of material will be? Seeing as it's waterlogged, it might not be such a huge volume.. If they're just going to haul it off to a landfill (Hartland?) then why don't they just encase the bay floor in a rubber or concrete membrane, and leave the contamination in place?
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#9 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 20 June 2012 - 09:36 PM

“Toxic Mess” Clean Up in Rock Bay Entering Phase Three

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 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 June 2012 - 09:46 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. That seems more appropriate.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#11 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,407 posts

Posted 20 June 2012 - 10:11 PM

The big question is, where will they take the 65,000 tons of pollution?

50% to be shipped to city hall, 50% to the BC Legislature, and 50% to Ottawa.

And if that's not enough 50% to BC Hydro.....they had some nasty stuff going on up the street.

Keep digging.

#12 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,822 posts

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 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,284 posts

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 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

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/
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#15 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,856 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:10 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?
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#16 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

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.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#17 tedward

tedward
  • Member
  • 1,864 posts
  • LocationJames Bay

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 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:42 AM

At today's retail gold price, the mine produced about $11B in gold.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#19 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,856 posts

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.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#20 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

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.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

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