RE: AUA Newbie - Waldi"First , if Mr. Sawyers info is correct , which is most likely the case , we are ALREADY subject to a further public
scrutiny , based on the technical qualifier of "Project Size" and the government statements. Second , there is NO CURRENT INFO on which to base an assumption that work will stop during this public phase. Assuming we "pass" the scrutiny , there would then be NO delays , and this scrutiny a non event."
Firstly - with respect to your pagination critique - the original response was posted on the old version of stockhouse. It contained bullet points, paragraphs and quotation marks for each quote. This formatting did not carry over to the stockhouse beta. At least Heissa and Mike Sawyer could read it I guess...
Secondly risk is a two-dimensional characteristic. It's axes are probability of occurence and consequence/impact. A risk is therefore an outcome with an associated probability of occurence. One of the business risks associated with a comprehensive EA is that of expanded environmental impact analyis and public participation leading to program delay.
Third. I'm not sure what you mean with respect to "public scrutiny". If you mean public participation then, as I stated in the previous post, the exact degree of public participation is ambiguous (link to CEAA public participation was provided). We would be subject to further public particpation when the DFO solicits further public participation through prommulgation on the CEAAO website. It is my understanding that the DFO/CEAAO has yet to solicit such. Interestingly, did you know that the CEAAO offers funding to support public participation? If you mean oversight/analysis, then yes a comprehensive study would result in an assessment of more than just the tailings dam as described in the Federal Court's comments on the Red Chris decision.
It's certainly nice to "assume" our Federal Environmental Assessment will receive certification. In effect, we are all betting on exactly that outcome. I would go so far as to assume that we already have a significant foundation to our Federal EA in the form of our provisional EA(?).
With respect to current info, no there is none. I have asked Adanac to comment but to no evail. I have provided a list of the comprehensive assessments already underway at the federal level. All we have is speculation based upon the input of Mke Sawyer, the scope of a comprehensive EA, the necessity of public participation, the fractured relationship between provincial and federal environmental agencies and all our varied interpretations of the phrase "may, by order, prohibit a proponent from [...] alter[ing] the environment"
GM