Cappysmart: Residents have raised concerns over the project's environmental impact, citing the site's problematic location and the threat it poses to the watershed.

River mouth

"Why would you build an LNG plant right at the mouth of the Skeena River?" said Sampson, who spoke at Tuesday's meeting. "There of all places."

Makes me think of a Danish story. About 1970 the Swedes built the nuclear power plant Bäsebeck about 20 km from the Danish capitol of Copenhagen (600 km from the Swedish capitol of Stockholm). Anybody think the Danes had concerns?? Do you think the Danes could do anything about what they were doing in the neighboiuring sovereign nation?? The Danes held their breath for 40 years, as the last reactor was decomissioned a few years ago.

There are two moralities to the story. 1) if you are dealing with a truely sovereign foreign nation, they do whatever they wanna do, and you do whatever you wanna do. In that context, if the FN communities want to be considered as 'nations' the first thing Canada should do, was to cut all aid, and let them be truely independent. My bet is that the RoF would end up moving forward quicker and cheaper that way. But of course, all people are not created equal - that seems to be the Canadian way. 2) whether you handle radioactive material or LNG, make sure the level of safety match the implications of a failure - the Swedes did, and so can the Canadians. If the FN communities are truely concerned about the environment, no bribe regardless of how big it is will ever be sufficient. But if that was the case, why did they have the negotiations in the first place?

There's an old Danish saying. Don't know how exactly to translate it, so here's my best shot: If morality is good, double standards should be twice as good...

Best regards DRA