The Keltic hearings
Day two, Sherbrooke
Opponents rally after positive opening
“I’d like to get into the business of selling terminals that don’t
exist on land I don’t own.”
~ Colin Negus, lobster fisher.
SHERBROOKE – Monday’s positive start to the Keltic Petrochemicals Environmental
Assessment Board (EAB) hearings continued in the opening exchanges of Tuesday’s
sessions in Sherbrooke.
After an opening presentation by AMEC Engineering’s Shawn
Duncan (the primary spokesman for Keltic throughout the week’s hearings),
Spanish Ship Harbour resident Wendy Breen lauded the project and lamented
the ongoing exodus of the region’s young people.
“Like a lot of people from this shore, we moved away because
there just isn’t any opportunity,” she said. “We all know how hard it is
to make a living unless you have a good government job or you win the lottery.”
Breen said she and her husband Rick wound up in Sarnia, Ontario
– Canada’s petrochemical bedrock.
Since returning to Nova Scotia several years ago, Breen says
she’s been anxious for a project like Keltic to arrive. Her experience in
Sarnia vanquished any worries.
Referencing a section of Duncan’s presentation that delved
into just how much the project will affect the local landscape, Breen said,
“What I saw was a flare from every window, and I saw what a beautiful thing
that is on paydays. I saw prosperity.”
But the next presenter, Kevin McAllister, quickly changed
the upbeat mood.
McAllister identified himself as a gold prospector with land
claims in the proposed project area. Warning the audience that Keltic’s
treatment of him is ominous for the community at large, McAllister accused
the company of “sweeping” him “under the rug.”
“I feel Keltic has ignored all my attempts to communicate
with them,” he said. “And they’ve left me without any options except to
communicate with the (environment) minister and the EAB.
“I’ve spent 13 years developing these claims. For them to
say there’s no development is false.”
Colin Negus, a lobster fisherman from Isaac’s Harbour, supported
McAllister.
“I can’t see how you wouldn’t be compensated and I can’t
see how I, as a local fisherman, wouldn’t be compensated, either,” Negus
said.
Negus was aggressive throughout the afternoon and evenings
sessions, tossing barbs over EAB chair Tony Blouin and directly at the proponents.
“I’d like to get into the business of selling terminals that
don’t exist on land I don’t own,” he said, drawing laughter and applause.
In response to McAllister’s presentation, Guysborough County
Regional Development Authority (GCRDA) special projects manager Gordon MacDonald
rose from his seat and launched an attack on McAllister’s credibility.
A subsequent exchange between the pair revealed that the
Municipality of the District of Guysborough owns the land and that warden
Lloyd Hines has denied McAllister permission to prospect it.
“So you’ve been conducting work over the past 13 years?”
MacDonald asked.
“Yes, I have,” McAllister said.
“Without the consent of the property owner,” MacDonald retorted.
The tension eased briefly when EAB board member Ray Cranston
asked about marine traffic in Isaac’s Harbour, as well as the recovery strategy
and efficiency of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) lost during transportation.
Rob Schonk, a waste management and energy technology project
manager with Royal Haskoning, a Netherlands company involved in the proposed
project, replied that the recovery strategy is “100 per cent” efficient.
Schonk also said that the only way the harbour might become
congested would be a result of bad planning, and “that’s not realistic,
in my opinion.”
During the time allotted for members of the audience to offer
comments or ask questions, area resident Les Van Hemert gave a short presentation
on the benefits of an offshore project site.
“What I have against the Keltic project is the location,”
he said. “I think the location in Goldboro is awful, atrocious, horrendous.
And I’m appalled at the idea of turning Goldboro into a petrochemicals plant.”
Hemert attempted to float the concept of Keltic building
a “baby Sable Island” site, about 100 miles out to sea. But during the break
before the evening session, Keltic Petrochemicals president Kevin Dunn said
government would be unlikely to green light Hemert’s idea, and that it would
cost too much to transport workers and construction materials that far.
Evening session
The evening session started with a brief presentation from the District of St.
Mary’s, which voiced its support of the project. Warden David Clark read from
a two-page letter addressed to Keltic.
Katherine Reed, an intervenor representing a large swath of the audience, then
presented a scathing list of grievances on behalf of some residents from Fisherman’s
Harbour.
“We do not foresee that the proposed LNG facility and petrochemical plant would
bring much economic benefit to your local area and we find major issues with
the negative impacts that it would certainly bring, as well as the risks that
we know cannot be completely eliminated,” she said.
Reed worried that local lobster catches would be “stigmatized” as a result of
the nearby plant. She also raised concerns about competition between industrial
marine traffic and fishing boats and questioned Keltic about whether it would
be prepared to compensate fishers if the project affected their work.
“If there’s a demonstrated effect on the resource, then there would be a compensation
plan,” Duncan said, adding that compensation would be made for fish habitats
affected by marine port construction, wetlands affected by construction and ponds
filled in for construction.
As the evening drew to a close, GCRDA development officer Chris MacIsaac gave
an impassioned speech in favour of Keltic’s proposal.
“I’m the only 24-year-old in Isaac’s Harbour,” he said. “I live among 60- and
70-year-old people.
“I know if something doesn’t occur there, then I’m not going to be there much
longer. You take one opportunity away, and there I go. I’m scuttling out of here.”
INTERVENORS:
•Kevin McAllister
•Municipality of the District of St. Mary’s, David Clark
•Katherine Reed
