Indonesia curbing nickel supply to support locals, Eramet says
The French miner was this year given a sales quota by the Asian nation that was 29% less than it expected.
Image by rickz|Flickr.
Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) issued Wednesday 145 draft conditions that Kinder Morgan (NYSE:KMI) must meet for its proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to be approved.
Among the requirements, the NEB called the company to increase consultation with First Nations and upgrade its emergency response unit.
The conditions were not welcome by participants in the board’s review, and 35 of them announced they were dropping out of what they called a “biased” and “unfair” process, Canadian Press reported.
Remaining participants have six days to respond to the conditions, which are legally-required and do not mean the board has made a decision yet.
First Nations weren’t happy either. Rueben George, a member of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, said more consultation does mean less risks for the band and their land along the Burrard Inlet in North Vancouver.
“[The conditions are] a joke,” George was quoted as saying. “They don’t address the concerns that we brought up.”
He is referring to an independent review released by the nation in May, which concluded that a major spill could kill as many as 500,000 birds and foul up to 25 km of shoreline.
The proposed pipeline expansion will let Kinder Morgan triple its bitumen-carrying capacity to 890,000 barrels a day by laying almost 1,000 kilometres of new pipe near the existing pipeline that runs from Alberta to Burnaby, B.C.
The company will review the conditions and submit comments to the board next week.
2 Comments
Mar
So the “Biased and Unfair” are dropping out of a process that they conciser “biased and unfair”!! The only acceptable solution to these groups would have been a complete stop to the project which means that they were just wasting the commissions time anyway.
Monab
Just a little reminder that Kinder Morgan is responsible for the spill into the Kalamazoo River. 850K gallons that are still not cleaned up and the taxpayer is paying a large of that cost since insurance is never enough on the part of the corporation responsible. It is irresponsible to not consider the outcome in a worst case scenario. Exxon Valdez spill is not cleaned up 20 years later. The risk is real and it is not necessarily something that can be fixed. The government process is biased unfortunately and the same is true for these Environmental Assessments taking place for LNG projects. The problem is that the residents where one is proposed and the taxpayer should something go wrong are the ones who will have to live with the project and supertankers. And they are the ones who will have to pay. It is public safety, the environment and the economy of the region that is put at risk. That risk is too high.