Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Social acceptance of the project
By the same token, the public intuitively focuses on the serious consequences of a
potential accident rather than on the fairly abstract likelihood of it happening. Contrary
to other quantifiable aspects of the natural and social order with which we are
familiar – measuring and quantification of which immediately imply accuracy and
certainty – the idea of probability has an elusive aspect to it: although it is quantifiable,
quantification in no way eliminates its inherent uncertainty.
Risk and the project
Debate and controversy surrounding the location of LNG facilities in Quebec, Canada,
the United States, and Western Europe take place in an atmosphere of polarization
between two interpretations of the concept of risk: one that is scientific, rational and
objective; and one that is subjective and hypothetical. It certainly is legitimate for
project supporters to cite the security of LNG, which has been exempt of major
accidents for over 40 years. It is equally legitimate for citizens, especially those who
live near the proposed project facilities, to worry about the possible consequences of
potential accidents that could upset their lives.
If it were a matter of a project using facilities and techniques never before used, and
giving equal weight to both “rationales” just described regarding risk, the Panel would
have drawn its inspiration from the precautionary principle in a restrictive sense. As it
turns out, the whole LNG industry security profile shows few major incidents and
documented accidents. In point of fact, such a good showing paradoxically becomes
an added source of uncertainty in the development of models to quantify risk related
to this industrial sector. Thus, on one hand, there are uncertainties and gaps in
information about quantification of potential risk and, on the other hand, an industrywide
security profile based on more than 40 years of land and sea operations.
In the present situation and in the final analysis, the Panel considers it logical and
reasonable to rely in its deliberations on the LNG industrial history in relation to safety.
Thus, in the area of industrial and technological risk, such an historical background
favours the project’s safety.
♦ Opinion 15 — The Panel is of the view that in the area of risk, the safety history of
the liquefied natural gas industry weighs in favour of the project’s safety.
The social impacts
Where the local community is concerned, the project’s economic impact would
translate into job creation, improved income, the supply and maintenance of public
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 175