folc.ca's comment on HAZCO's answer to FAQ #19

Note: The background text in the following was copied from the Frequently-asked Questions page at HAZCO's website, Nov. 2, 2005.  HAZCO's answers to "frequently asked questions" deserve further comments.  Those comments are inserted where required in HAZCO's text and are shown on yellow background.

From HAZCO's FAQ web page (quoted verbatim):

FAQ #19. What kind of support do you have for your project from local councils and municipalities?

We made a presentation to the Lamont County Council in May 2005 and at that time the response was favourable.  To date, we have not submitted any applications to the county, and have not followed up with the councilors regarding this project.  The intent is to submit the development permit application in late August 2005.

Comment: That statement is true, but it omits a few facts.  Some Lamont-County Councillors are in a conflict-of-interest situation with respect to HAZCO's proposal.  They cannot participate in any debates regarding the HAZCO proposal. It bears watching them to make sure that they don't. It is apparently true that HAZCO has not filed an application with anyone in the County, but rumour has it that HAZCO intends to wait with filing their application until February or March 2006.  Perhaps their tactic is to anticipate that the residents of the County of Lamont will get tired of the issue by then and lose interest.  That won't work.  The interest is here and will stay.  HAZCO will remain in the focus of attention, and HAZCO's moves are being closely monitored. As of 2005 11 01, HAZCO apparently had just recently purchased the land for their proposed site, and Shell was apparently negotiating with the Scotford Colony to obtain the right-of-way for the construction of a liquid-sulphur pipeline to the HAZCO site. Speaking of support by "municipalities", Thorhild County and the County of Sturgeon turned down the previous attempts by HAZCO to launch the sulphur storage and processing facility north of Thorhild and right next to the DEGUSSA hydrogen-peroxide production facility west of Gibbons. (See information pertaining to those two failed attempts by HAZCO.) Let there be no mistake in anyone's perceptions.  It is up to the Council of Lamont to say yes or no to HAZCO's proposal.  All our County Council has to do is to say no, and HAZCO's proposal will be nothing more than a bad memory. Our County Council would be wise to make the right decision in that respect, or else there will be serious consequences.    Already the members of the Friends of Lamont County spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars in the pursuit of actions against the HAZCO proposal.  Those efforts should have been required to be made by County residents.  That they became necessary is for no other reason than that our County Council is not looking after the interest of the residents of the County.  Why the Council doesn't do that is left up to anyone's imagination, but the reasons better be good ones.  Still, one has to wonder why it appears that some Council members appear to be so strongly in favour of letting HAZCO get its foot in the door in our County.  What makes them do that?    The present circumstances in relation to HAZCO's proposal will without a doubt have repercussions in the next municipal elections. However, our County Council would be just as wise to make sure that the County manager is reigned in a bit.  There is no doubt that the County Manager and his closest staff are firmly in support of HAZCO (heaven only knows why).  Much information has been passed on by our County office that the office had no business to dig up for and pass on to HAZCO, although it is hard to see how the truth can hurt the cause of the residents of Lamont County.  However, the latest actions by the County manager take the cake.  Usually reliable sources reported that the Lamont County Manager instructed his employees that, They are forbidden to display "No to HAZCO SULFUR" signs on the front lawns of their homes, They are forbidden to sign the petition against the proposed HAZCO sulphur site, and that They are forbidden to speak to members of the Friends of Lamont County. What in the world could possibly persuade a public servant of the residents of the County of Lamont to act against the interests of his employers.  Not only that, but why, in doing so, would he choose to violate the constitutional rights of the employees working under him by prohibiting them from exercising their right to freedom of expression? The Council of the County of Lamont is legally responsible for its manager's actions.  It is time that the Council calls its employee to task! However, here is a thought that it doesn't bear thinking about, the possibility that the County Manager may have acted on the instructions of the Council.

Next FAQ

Back to index page to HAZCO's FAQs

Back to index page for Hazco sulphur storage site pages

Back to Bruderheim Main Page

Created Nov. 4, 2005