- John Gibson
- March 03, 2013 - 10:31
The DFO lawyer stated that without using Sandy Pond a container of 70 ha of terrestrial habitat would have to be used. However she failed to mention that they are building a reservoir, incorporating two adjacent ponds, to create a reservoir covering 74 ha. Also the 'compensation' calculated by Vale was in error, and they estimated far less that the fish habitat to be destroyed. Unique races of trout and smelt are to be destroyed. The 'compensation' is totally inadequate and merely a public relations ploy. Another 'Newfoundland giveaway'.
- March 01, 2013 - 22:55
It starts with "There is no saving Sandy Pond" because Sandy Pond has already been destroyed. http://pacificfreepress.com/opinion/12377-on-schedule-canada-turning-fresh-water-lakes-into-mine-tailing-dumps.html
- February 28, 2013 - 14:52
This may be wrong but I believe that: Big Business spends millions on supporting and influencing Politicians. Politicians/Elected Officials appoint Judges. Judges in most cases want to advance to higher courts. Now I think that is right...................... Sandy Pond was doomed the day Big Business decided to take it - that simple!!!!!
- February 28, 2013 - 08:44
What a lie that "alternatives at Long Harbour would potentially cover 70-100 hectares of terrestrial habitat." is. That simply is not true. Effluent containers would not take up near that amount of space. But here is the problem - they are more expensive than pumping effluent into Sandy Pond. And companies like Vale don't like that. Vale knows that it could have used containers, and it certainly wasn't to save terrestrial habitat that it chose to go with Sandy Pond. It was money. And Clyde Jackman's willingness to sign off on something for Vale instead of for the people of the Province.
- February 28, 2013 - 07:26
How does this article start with 'There is no saving Sandy Pond' when the court has not even dealt with it?? I hope they do save the Pond - great place to take kids or just relax for an afternoon.