--
: Dear Beneficiary
I'm donating $620,000.00 to you. Contact me via my private email at
(jesusdavila766@qq.com) for further details.
Best Regards,
jesus Davila
Copyright (c)2015* The jesus Davila Foundation* All Rights Reserved*
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Good News,
We offer private, commercial and personal finance with very minimal annual interest rates as low as 2.5 per cent within 1 year to 50 years maturity period anywhere in the world.
Our Credits are well insured for maximum security is our priority, contact Verizon Heights now, specialists who help stop Bad Credit History, to discover a win solution.
Interested parties may get in touch:
name: John Hubbell
lender: verizonheightltd@ gmail. com
Best regards,
John Hubbell.
We offer private, commercial and personal finance with very minimal annual interest rates as low as 2.5 per cent within 1 year to 50 years maturity period anywhere in the world.
Interested parties may get in touch:
name: John Hubbell
lender: verizonheightltd@ gmail. com
Best regards,
John Hubbell.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
ginar@mymts.net has a new email address
Special Announcement RHEAUME has a new email address! Old Email Address: ginar@mymts.net New Email Address: ginar1@shaw.ca Hello, GEORGINA RHEAUME asked us to send you a quick note about their new Shaw email address. Be sure to update your address book now. |
Monday, May 9, 2011
National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section - 2010 DOJ/NEERLS Meeting Presentations
National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section - 2010 DOJ/NEERLS Meeting Presentations
NEERLS annual meetings with lawyers from Department of Justice (DOJ) Canada
If you missed the CBA National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section (NEERLS) events taking place around the annual meeting with lawyers from the federal Department of Justice, we invite you to view the presentations provided by panel speakers.
Thursday, November 4th, 2010
Panel on Arctic Issues: Including Review of Off-Shore Drilling, Arctic Governance, Shipping, First Nation Leadership and Engagement
Facilitator: Charles Birchall
Presentation: Wylie Spicer, McInnes Cooper (Moncton)
Presentation: Terry Fenge, Consultant, (Ottawa)
Syncrude Decision, Penalties & Enforcement, and Industry Response
Facilitator: Carole Chan, McInnes Cooper (Moncton)
Presentation: Kent Brown (PPSC)
Presentation: Alex Bernard (PPSC)
Presentation: Duff Harper, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP (Calgary)
NEERLS annual meetings with lawyers from Department of Justice (DOJ) Canada
If you missed the CBA National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section (NEERLS) events taking place around the annual meeting with lawyers from the federal Department of Justice, we invite you to view the presentations provided by panel speakers.
Thursday, November 4th, 2010
Panel on Arctic Issues: Including Review of Off-Shore Drilling, Arctic Governance, Shipping, First Nation Leadership and Engagement
Facilitator: Charles Birchall
Presentation: Wylie Spicer, McInnes Cooper (Moncton)
Presentation: Terry Fenge, Consultant, (Ottawa)
Syncrude Decision, Penalties & Enforcement, and Industry Response
Facilitator: Carole Chan, McInnes Cooper (Moncton)
Presentation: Kent Brown (PPSC)
Presentation: Alex Bernard (PPSC)
Presentation: Duff Harper, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP (Calgary)
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Nunatsiaq 2011-04-15: Nunavut’s Mary River i
NunatsiaqOnline 2011-04-15: NEWS: Nunavut’s Mary River iron mine may end up twice as big: draft EIS
The promoters of the Mary River iron mine in North Baffin have a plan for everything.
These plans are spelled out in volumes nine and 10 of their draft Environmental Impact Statement, which deal with their environmental, health and safety management systems and the mine’s cumulative effects.
This final portion of the draft EIS shows there’s also a high level uncertainty involved in the entire project as it’s presented in the EIS, which runs to more than 5,000 pages.
That’s because the Mary River mine, recently acquired from Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. by the steel—making giant ArcelorMittal, may expand to twice the size predicted in the draft EIS.
So, instead of mining 21 million tonnes of iron ore a year over 21 years, the mine would also grow to include rich nearby iron deposits, doubling its production and lasting many years longer.
If these deposits are developed, on land, this means emissions from waste incineration and dust could cumulatively affect local air quality, the draft EIS says.
As well, there could be effects on Arctic char health and condition habitat and some “direct mortality.”
“The credible development scenario of a doubling of production at Mary River” would also mean twice as much shipping. This would result in a ship transits every day along the southern and northern shipping routes, the draft EIS says.
This increase in shipping frequency would likely increase the potential for cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood that more than one ore carrier will be in a given area at the same time — so shipping could have more of an impact on marine mammals during the ice-covered season, and, during the open-water period, on whales and narwhals in Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet.
There would also be an increase in temperatures in the immediate vicinity of the dock sites of the mine’s two ports.
And the amount of land-fast ice disrupted as a result of a larger mine “may conservatively be doubled.”
More ships in Steensby Port (and possibly Milne Port) could also lead to a doubling of the amount of ballast water released from ships.
The promoters of the Mary River iron mine in North Baffin have a plan for everything.
These plans are spelled out in volumes nine and 10 of their draft Environmental Impact Statement, which deal with their environmental, health and safety management systems and the mine’s cumulative effects.
This final portion of the draft EIS shows there’s also a high level uncertainty involved in the entire project as it’s presented in the EIS, which runs to more than 5,000 pages.
That’s because the Mary River mine, recently acquired from Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. by the steel—making giant ArcelorMittal, may expand to twice the size predicted in the draft EIS.
So, instead of mining 21 million tonnes of iron ore a year over 21 years, the mine would also grow to include rich nearby iron deposits, doubling its production and lasting many years longer.
If these deposits are developed, on land, this means emissions from waste incineration and dust could cumulatively affect local air quality, the draft EIS says.
As well, there could be effects on Arctic char health and condition habitat and some “direct mortality.”
“The credible development scenario of a doubling of production at Mary River” would also mean twice as much shipping. This would result in a ship transits every day along the southern and northern shipping routes, the draft EIS says.
This increase in shipping frequency would likely increase the potential for cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood that more than one ore carrier will be in a given area at the same time — so shipping could have more of an impact on marine mammals during the ice-covered season, and, during the open-water period, on whales and narwhals in Eclipse Sound and Milne Inlet.
There would also be an increase in temperatures in the immediate vicinity of the dock sites of the mine’s two ports.
And the amount of land-fast ice disrupted as a result of a larger mine “may conservatively be doubled.”
More ships in Steensby Port (and possibly Milne Port) could also lead to a doubling of the amount of ballast water released from ships.
Quebec vs Moses Agreement: Enviromental Assessments in Northern Quebec
Attorney General of Quebec v. Moses - Supreme Court of Canada decision on environmental assessments in northern Quebec
By Charles Kazaz
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
On May 14, 2010 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its long awaited decision in Attorney General of Quebec v. Moses.
The decision deals with issues related to the applicability of Federal environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) legislation in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (“JBNQA”).
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the proponent of the Project could not proceed without a Federal fisheries permit and that the Quebec Court of Appeal decision should be varied to require compliance with the Federal EIA process rather than the JBNQA EIA process. The issuance of the Federal fisheries permit is also subject to the Crown’s duty to consult with the Cree to the extent that it may adversely affect their rights under the agreement.
Background
The JBNQA is a modern treaty between the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Cree and Inuit of Northern Quebec. It establishes a specific environmental and social protection regime that applies to the territory covered by the agreement. The EIA process will differ depending on whether the Project is under federal or provincial jurisdiction.
Under the JBNQA, if a project is of provincial jurisdiction the EIA process is conducted through a committee composed of members of the Quebec government and the Cree and decisions are made by a Provincial Administrator. If a project is of federal jurisdiction the EIA process is conducted through a committee composed of members of the Federal government and the Cree and decisions are made by a Federal Administrator. In exceptional circumstances a review can be conducted by a joint federal-provincial panel.
The case involved a proposed Vanadium Mine (the “Project”) in the vicinity of Chibougamau, Quebec. Given the Project’s potential impact on fish habitat –
By Charles Kazaz
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
On May 14, 2010 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its long awaited decision in Attorney General of Quebec v. Moses.
The decision deals with issues related to the applicability of Federal environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) legislation in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (“JBNQA”).
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the proponent of the Project could not proceed without a Federal fisheries permit and that the Quebec Court of Appeal decision should be varied to require compliance with the Federal EIA process rather than the JBNQA EIA process. The issuance of the Federal fisheries permit is also subject to the Crown’s duty to consult with the Cree to the extent that it may adversely affect their rights under the agreement.
Background
The JBNQA is a modern treaty between the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Cree and Inuit of Northern Quebec. It establishes a specific environmental and social protection regime that applies to the territory covered by the agreement. The EIA process will differ depending on whether the Project is under federal or provincial jurisdiction.
Under the JBNQA, if a project is of provincial jurisdiction the EIA process is conducted through a committee composed of members of the Quebec government and the Cree and decisions are made by a Provincial Administrator. If a project is of federal jurisdiction the EIA process is conducted through a committee composed of members of the Federal government and the Cree and decisions are made by a Federal Administrator. In exceptional circumstances a review can be conducted by a joint federal-provincial panel.
The case involved a proposed Vanadium Mine (the “Project”) in the vicinity of Chibougamau, Quebec. Given the Project’s potential impact on fish habitat –
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)