Straightening out the 10 km. Ajax issue

Full text of emails referenced in last post on Ajax mine.

Date: July 28, 2011 4:46:36 PM PDT

To: kamloopsnews@telus.net

Cc: (Various people in government)

Subject: Proposed Ajax Project – Environmental Assessment – Re: “Just how close is that new  mine?’, Mel Rothenburger

The Environmental Assessment Office provides the following information to address an inaccuracy in the article regarding the location of the proposed Ajax Mine Project.

 KGHM Ajax Mining Inc. submitted a Project Description to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for the proposed Ajax Project in May 2011, which was then posted on the EAO’s website. 

 During the public comment period from June 8 to July 11, 2011, the EAO received comments expressing concern that the manner in which the proposed project location was described in the proponent’s Project Description was unclear and misleading because it stated that the proposed project was approximately ten kilometres from Kamloops. 

 Based on feedback received from the public, the EAO investigated how the distance was calculated and then directed the proponent to submit a revised Project Description prior to the end of the public comment period that more accurately described the location of the proposed project, including reference to its location with respect to the boundary of the City of Kamloops. 

 The proponent revised the Project Description (“Executive Summary”, page I, and “Section 3.0 – Project Location and Mapping”, page 6) to state that some components of the proposed mine, including the north waste-rock management facility, the processing facility and truck shop, and the tailings storage facility, would be within Kamloops city limits on Crown land and land privately owned by the proponent. 

 The proponent also revised Figure 5.2 in the Project Description to include a visual representation of the proposed project location in relation to the city boundary. The EAO posted the revised Project Description and Figure 5.2 on its website on July 7, 2011, which continue to be available to the public and can be accessed via the “News” section of the EAO homepage (www.eao.gov.bc.ca).

 Nicole Vinette

Project Assessment Manager

Environmental Assessment Office

 My response:

Good morning. I’m unclear from your email whether the “inaccuracy” to which you refer is with respect to the content of my column as it pertains to the location of the mine, or to the location of the mine as originally described by the proponent and circulated by your office. In any case, for your interest I have copied and pasted this morning from your office’s website the following two entries:

Ajax Mine Project

2011/07/20

 $535,000,000

 Abacus Mining and Exploration proposes to develop a new copper and gold mine with a production capacity of 21.9 million of ore per year. The mine life expectancy is 23 years.

 $535,000,000

 10 km southwest of Kamloops

 Nicole Vinette, Environmental Assessment Office

 250-387-2406

 

Ajax Mine Project

Type: Typical EA Process (Active and Complete)

Status: Pre-Application

Category: Mining Pre-application

 Start Date: 2011/02/25

Comments: Abacus Mining and Exploration proposes to develop a new copper and gold mine with a production capacity of 21.9 million of ore per year. The mine life expectancy is 23 years.

Location: 10 km southwest of Kamloops

 As you can see, in at least two instances, your website continues as of today to include the erroneous information about the location of the Ajax mine.

 Mel Rothenburger,

Editor

At last, Ajax mine is ‘partially’ in the City

By MEL ROTHENBURGER/ The Armchair Mayor

If you go on the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office website today, you’ll find the Ajax mine project listed as being “partially within the City of Kamloops.”

The change was made this morning after a few days of back-and-forth between yours truly and the EA Office.

KGHM Ajax had claimed the mine site was 10 km. from Kamloops, and the EAO took it as valid.

Thursday, I wrote in this space about City environmental services manager Jen Fretz’ request that an accurate distance be used, since the mine site actually straddles the City’s boundary.

That fix had still not been made on the EAO website weeks later, I wrote. Which led to the receipt of an email Thursday afternoon from Nicole Vinette at Environmental Assessment.

Ajax, closer than we thought. (Daily News photo)

It said, in part:

Subject: Proposed Ajax Project – Environmental Assessment – Re: “Just how close is that new mine?’, Mel Rothenburger

The Environmental Assessment Office provides the following information to address an inaccuracy in the article regarding the location of the proposed Ajax Mine Project.

 KGHM Ajax Mining Inc. submitted a Project Description to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for the proposed Ajax Project in May 2011, which was then posted on the EAO’s website. 

 During the public comment period from June 8 to July 11, 2011, the EAO received comments expressing concern that the manner in which the proposed project location was described in the proponent’s Project Description was unclear and misleading because it stated that the proposed project was approximately ten kilometres from Kamloops. 

 Based on feedback received from the public, the EAO investigated how the distance was calculated and then directed the proponent to submit a revised Project Description prior to the end of the public comment period that more accurately described the location of the proposed project, including reference to its location with respect to the boundary of the City of Kamloops. 

 The proponent revised the Project Description (“Executive Summary”, page I, and “Section 3.0 – Project Location and Mapping”, page 6) to state that some components of the proposed mine, including the north waste-rock management facility, the processing facility and truck shop, and the tailings storage facility, would be within Kamloops city limits on Crown land and land privately owned by the proponent…. 

 All of which is good to know, but I felt behooved to forward the following response:

Good morning. I’m unclear from your email whether the “inaccuracy” to which you refer is with respect to the content of my column as it pertains to the location of the mine, or to the location of the mine as originally described by the proponent and circulated by your office. In any case, for your interest I have copied and pasted this morning from your office’s website the following two entries:

 (I then included two examples on the EA Office website in which the mine was referred to as “10 km. southwest of Kamloops”.)

 As you can see, in at least two instances, your website continues as of today to include the erroneous information about the location of the Ajax mine.

 A short time later, I checked the EAO website again.

Voila, the reference to “10 km. southwest of Kamloops” had been replaced in both examples with “partially in the City of Kamloops.”

The “feedback received from the public” came from Doreen Wallace, who started emailing Vinette on the matter back on June 19, pointing out the inaccuracy of the claimed distance and asking for an extension of the public input period.

Her request was turned down, but EA did direct the changes referred to in Vinette’s email as above.

So, at last, the Ajax mine has “moved” the 10 clicks to be partially within the City.

Just how close is that new mine?

Jacko Lake near Terasen pipeline. (Knight Piesold report)

By MEL ROTHENBURGER/ The Armchair Mayor

The closeness of the Ajax minesite to city homes would seem to be of more pressing importance to the people who live there than it is to the mining company.

A well-circulated 11-page letter from Jen Fretz, the City’s environmental services manager, to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office raises the issue very effectively.

The distance is as little as 1,400 meters, says Fretz, and only 950 meters from the urban growth boundary.

“Our research has yet to discover where a mine is operating in North America within these short distances from residences.”

And that’s the difference between this mine and any other. Many cities have mines nearby; none, apparently, as close as this one would be.

Fretz points out that the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office website states the mine would be located 10 km. southwest of the city. “This description is misleading as the proposed mine actually straddles the City of Kamloops southern boundary. Approximately half of the mine is located with the City of Kamloops.”

Though Fretz asks that this be corrected, the assessment office’s website still uses the 10 km. figure almost three weeks after the date of the letter.

An easy fix, one would think, but an important one.

“. . . Some residents of Kamloops have not even paid attention to any information being published about the mine because they think that it is some distance away from Kamloops,” Fretz writes.

The 10 km. number claimed by KGHM Ajax and accepted by the enviro folks was derived from an odometer reading taken during a drive to the minesite from the PetroCan station at the Versatile truck stop.

How anyone could think a measurement taken along a winding road— especially from a gas station down on the highway — could in any way be relevant is a puzzler, but maybe mining people have a different way of measuring things.

At any rate, Fretz’ letter will be put into a grinder with other questions being raised and will be the subject of a document presented to the Environmental Assessment Office by the company.

Initially, a short outline will be circulated in order to ensure all questions are being addressed. Fretz says that should be ready sometime in September or October.

After more consultation, the final response from KGHM Ajax will be drafted.

I put in a call to Nicole Vinette, the person in charge of the Ajax file at the EA Office, to find out more, and left her a voicemail explaining what I wanted.

I then got a call back for a government PR guy asking me what I wanted. He said he’d pass along my request, but I have yet to hear back three days later.

Government works in wondrous ways. No matter.

Fretz’ letter continues with a lot of questions about the direct impact of the mine on neighbourhoods. For example, specifically how much additional dust will fall on Aberdeen, Upper Sahali, Pineview Valley, Dufferin and Knutsford.

She also asks about noise and vibration, traffic and even whether the waste rock and tailings piles that will rise above the height of hills in the area will block sunlight during winter months.

We can only hope the company does a better job on the answers than it did taking its measurement from the city to the minesite.

‘God hid them where he put them’

Further to the role of God in mining ventures, here’s the complete text of the letter from MLA Kevin Krueger’s office to Jill and Shaun Walton with respect to the Ajax mine:

Hello Jill and Shaun

Thank you so much for taking the time to share your concerns with our office regarding the Ajax Mine Proposal and we encourage you to do so with Environmental Assessment as well if you have not already done so. The website is http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/Ajax.html and it is open for public comments and concerns until July 11.

 

If it's there, we must dig it.

MLA Krueger understands your concern for your property and your mother at Ridgepointe. He wants you to be assured that modern mining in BC is a careful , productive, beneficial process. Proposals for mines are almost always controversial; our government has a very thorough, inclusive, exhaustive process to evaluate all the input, concerns, costs and benefits.  Nobody gets a mining permit without a mining plan complete from construction through operation to reclamation, inclusive.  Due diligence is under way, and that is right and good.

Some members of the public with personal interests in an area will demand that government abort the process, and just pronounce the conclusion that they want.  The same people would be absolutely outraged if they were treated that way because of opposition from folks on what they might want to do.  Those people will also expect their healthcare and other social needs to be fully funded by government when they need them; mining is a gigantic contributor to government being able to do so.

People often say “let them mine where there are no people,” not realizing that the minerals are not evenly distributed across the landscape; God hid them where he put them, and once people have invested the risk capital to find and claim the needle in the haystack, they have the moral and legal right to determine whether those minerals can be safely and economically drawn from the subsurface.

It is unfortunate that some people say destructive things about proposals, which can have the very effect that they dread, i.e. de-valuing their property in the minds of prospective purchasers.  Much of that is hyperbole, and not helpful at all.

We are confident in the environmental assessment process of both the Provincial and Federal Governments and await the outcome of the process with interest.

Thank you again for your inquiry,

Joel Neustaeter,
Constituency Assistant
Kevin Krueger, MLA
Kamloops – South Thompson

God is on the side of mining company

Old Ajax West pit. (Knight Piesold report)

Phil Gaglardi used to say that God put minerals in the ground and fish in the rivers for man to use, not to admire.

There isn’t much doubt which side of the Ajax mine debate Flyin’ Phil would have come down on.

But while we need the minerals that God gave us, and therefore must dig them out of the ground, He didn’t always put them in convenient places.

I think it’s safe to say — environmental concerns aside — that the Ajax mine project wouldn’t be nearly so controversial if not for the fact the property straddles City boundaries and is next door to what’s expected to be the greatest area of residential growth in coming years.

For example, there was no significant environmental resistance either to the old Afton site when it was originally being developed back in the ‘70s, or to the New Afton site currently nearing production.

We can conclude, then, that people are not so thick that they don’t understand mining is a necessity. But the question is, must we dig no matter where it is?

Many, including Jill and Shaun Walton, don’t think so. Granted, they live in Aberdeen, near Pacific Way elementary, so their concern is bolstered by the fact the new mine will be close to them.

They wrote to Terry Lake and Kevin Krueger expressing that concern.

“Our house is 15 years old and we have endured and are still enduring all the construction in Aberdeen West, as well as the new fire station construction,” they wrote.

They listed several reasons they think the mind is a bad idea, not the least of which is, “The mine will be a complete scar on the landscape and the grasslands and sage will never recover.”

They summed up, “Open-pit mining is never an attractive project wherever it is, but this proposal is outrageous.”

Two weeks later, Krueger’s constituency assistant, Joel Neustaeter, replied to the Waltons’ email.

Krueger understands their concerns, he wrote, assuring them that “modern mining in B.C. is a careful, productive, beneficial process. Proposals for mines are almost always controversial; our government has a very thorough, inclusive, exhaustive process to evaluate all the input, concerns, costs and benefits.”

He noted that money for public services must come from somewhere. “Those people will also expect their healthcare and other social needs to be fully funded by government when they need them; mining is a gigantic contributor to government being able to do so.”

On the matter of location, Neustaeter had a most enlightening answer.

“People often say ‘let them mine where there are no people,’ not realizing that the minerals are not evenly distributed across the landscape; God hid them where he put them, and once people have invested the risk capital to find and claim the needle in the haystack, they have the moral and legal right to determine whether those minerals can be safely and economically drawn from the subsurface.”

As Gaglardi was, Krueger is a man of God. And as expressed by his executive assistant, it’s clear the MLA for Kamloops South is of the mind that people must take a backseat to the exploitation of resources.

After all, if God put those minerals in somebody’s backyard, He must have wanted us to dig them up.

NDP optimism shows in Kamloops nominations

The social justicey folks finally nominated their candidates today. After an earlier delay, the NDP for both the Kamloops-North Thompson and Kamloops-South Thompson provincial ridings combined their official nomination meeting in the BCGEU meeting room in Valleyview.  

Putting the two together was a good idea, as it attracted a very respectable crowd of better than a hundred. And, since Tom Friedman (pictured in this post) was unopposed for the nomination in Kamloops South, that riding association would have had a challenge generating much enthusiasm for its own meeting.

I chose a comfie twirly chair with wheels and settled in as the three candidates in Kamloops North took to the podium. The best speaker of the three was legal-aid lawyer Kathy Kendall, who has learned the knack of pausing at the right times for applause.

Throughout the meeting, there were the appropriate cat calls and snide asides whenever the Liberals, Christy Clark, Terry Lake or Kevin Krueger were mentioned.

Technically, the candidate with the lowest number of votes on the first ballot was to be dropped, with the remaining pair moving to a run-off on the second count. But Kendall won a majority in the first round over Chad Moats and Cecile McVittie, so it wasn’t necessary.

Kendall had the support of three-time federal candidate Michael Crawford, while McVittie was backed by former Kamloops MLA Cathy McGregor. The latter, who bowed out a decade ago, was the last NDP MLA elected in Kamloops.

NDP leader Adrian Dix is no slouch in the speech department either, rallying the troops to get out and defeat the HST and then the Liberals in a one-two punch.

The optimism in Kamloops North is well-founded. Lake beat Doug Brown by only 510 votes in the 2009 election, and that was in a year when Gordon Campbell was still riding high and the HST wasn’t on the agenda. And while Lake later survived a recall campaign, several thousand eligible voters — if Moats’ numbers are to be believed — wanted him out.

In Kamloops South, not so much. Kevin Krueger, after a narrow win over the late Fred Jackson in Kamloops-North Thompson in 1996, has been relatively comfortable ever since. Switching over to Kamloops South, he blitzed Friedman by more than 4,000 votes in 2009.

Whether the Liberals’ problems eclipse those of the New Democrats remains to be seen, but we’ll get a good preview of that when the results of the HST referendum are released in a few weeks.

 

Our love affair with trees is fickle

We in Kamloops have an on-again off-again love affair with trees.

We love them, we love them not. We can’t make up our minds.

Each year on Arbor Day, people gather and make speeches about all the great things trees do for us — they give us shelter, purify the air we breathe and put food on our table, for our local economy would be very poor indeed without trees.

Mel's beloved old silver maple.

Yet we’re a fickle bunch. During and after the 2003 wildfires, we were urged to get rid of the trees that had been shading our homes for decades, lest they catch fire.

Then came the pine beetle invasion four years later, and we were in love with trees again, trying desperately to stop the tiny bug on its relentless march.

Homeowners sprayed their trees with insecticides, tacked pouches of repellant on them, and prayed. The effort failed for most, and we mourned the loss of our beautiful pines in yards and subdivisions.

Now we have the Royal Inland Hospital heritage trees, the Lloyd George elementary trees, and the St. Paul Street trees. At RIH, they’re talking about cutting them down as though the massive public protest that saved them from the chainsaw a dozen years ago never happened.

At Lloyd George and on St. Paul Street, they’re deemed a nuisance and a hazard by B.C. Hydro, which doesn’t yet understand the emotional attachment we have to trees.

But then, lots of people don’t get that. They’re just trees, after all. They can’t feel pain and if they’re in the way or they’re old, what’s the big deal about getting rid of them?

Actually, the issue of trees and pain isn’t as clearcut — if you’ll excuse the expression — as one might think. While trees don’t have brains, they’re capable of healing themselves when cut, and protecting themselves when insects attack.

I’m not onside with those who say that just because a tree can’t talk it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have feelings. Let’s face it, talking to trees is a waste of time — they have no ears.

But there’s no question trees give us a sense of well being, and do a lot for us. If we didn’t have trees we wouldn’t survive on this earth.

Despite that, it’s typically human that we love and protect them when it’s convenient, and discard them like an unwanted pet or a worn-out pair of shoes when it’s not.

The trees at RIH are old and will, in all likelihood, have to make way for progress, and I’m okay with that, but must we be so cavalier about it? And could Hydro, the City and school district at least tell people when their neighbourhood trees are about to be chopped down?

In our yard, we have one of those big old silver maples just like the one on St. Paul Street that was cut down this week. I have a picture of it taken in 1916 when, I’d guess, it was already about 15 to 20 years old, so it’s well into its second century of life.

It’s battered and gnarled and past its prime, but I love that thing. I’m in no rush to consign it to the woodpile, and when it’s time to say goodbye, I’ll miss it.

Former newspaper owner Allie Campbell passes away

A former Kamloops newspaper man died this week. He was Allie Campbell, one of my former partners in the ownership of this newspaper way back when it was locally owned.

While Allie was a shareholder when the paper was The Kamloops News Advertiser and then The Kamloops News, he wasn’t directly involved in day-to-day operations, instead tending to his own printing business down the street on Tranquille Road. That didn’t mean, however, that he didn’t have a serious interest in the newspaper business.

Born right here in Kamloops, Allie was a going concern in the community, involved in Rotary, the chamber of commerce, Thompson Valley Savings Credit Union, Legion, Boy Scouts and the Overlander Extended Care Hospital Board.

He was 86 when he died Wednesday. A service is set for Friday, July 29 at 2 p.m. in Kamloops United Church.

Embarrassing times at the TN film commission

Roland Stanke, the affable mayor of Clinton, TNRD director, and chair of the Thompson-Nicola Film Commission, found himself in a political jackpot today over the awarding of a $9,000 contract.

Stanke

Some members of the TNRD board expressed concern about the fact film commissioner Vicci Weller awarded a contract to Stanke for photography work. Stanke, as chair of the commission, is, more or less, Weller’s supervisor.

It doesn’t quite work that way in practice, but here’s the situation. The film commission is a creation of the regional district. Though the film commission board is made up mostly of community volunteers, the key positions of chair and vice-chair are rotated between two TNRD directors appointed by the regional district board.

By tradition, one of those two TNRD reps on the commission is from Kamloops, the other is from somewhere else. Currently, Stanke is chair and has been for the past three or four years. Mayor Peter Milobar of Kamloops, who is also TNRD chair, is vice chair of the commission.

Weller was hired by a committee of the commission and approved by the TNRD board. She reports to the TNRD board through the commission chair, who reads her notes to the regional directors at their monthly meetings.

As commission chair, Stanke takes part in Weller’s annual employee evaluation.

Weller has the authority to directly award certain contracts without going to tender. She says she gave Stanke the photography job — he also has other employment in Clinton but has also worked in photography for many years — because he was the best qualified.

Is it a conflict of interest?

In the realm of civic politics, you’re not allowed to take part in debate on, or vote on, decisions that would result in a direct benefit to yourself. For example, Milobar routinely excuses himself from any Kamloops City council discussion involving anything to do with liquor, because he’s in the liquor-sales business. John O’Fee, when he was on council, left the room whenever a matter came up on which any member of his law firm was providing advice to a participating party. 

Other councillors have often declared a conflict of interest, so it’s not a rarity. Many times, they have no legal conflict at all, but are extra careful to avoid any suspicion of impropriety.

Stanke does not appear to be technically in conflict because he didn’t make the decision that awarded him the contract, but it’s surprising indeed that he and Weller didn’t play it safe. Weller, had she been on the ball, would not have put Stanke in an embarrassing position, and Stanke, had he been smart about it, would have refused the contract when offered.

As for the TNRD board, they could have slapped Stanke on the wrist with a censure, or, at the least, passed a motion recommending that in future such situations be avoided. Instead, they almost unanimously approved of the way it was handled. Some of the directors who supported it have, on occasion, declared conflicts of their own on lesser grounds.

And though Stanke and Weller defend what happened, they both should have known better.

An unhappy choice for City council

By MEL ROTHENBURGER/ The Armchair Mayor

Some days it’s not much fun being a politician.

At its regular weekly gabfest Tuesday, City councilors had an unhappy choice: give the 46-member Kamloops Voters Society credibility as a force in civic politics, or come off as a status-quo-don’t-ask-us-to-change bunch of dotards who aren’t interested in new ideas.

Divided on budget-input issue, council turned it down with a split vote. (Daily News file photo)

They chose the latter — though as much by accident as by design — and struggled with how to explain why.

KVS president Chris Ortner, expected to be a candidate in the November civic election, followed up his earlier email to council with an appearance at the meeting.

He went a step further than simply asking for a better process as part of his plan for “participatory budgeting,” proposing that ratepayers actually have a direct say in how to allocate certain parts of the City’s budget.

“Important to note,” Ortner’s outline said, “that the citizens’ representatives identify, in consultation with City staff, what parts of the budget are of interest to them, and appropriate for them to play a part in.”

The direct involvement of citizens in budget decisions isn’t as radical as it sounds. Ortner pointed out that Guelph allows neighbourhood groups a say in spending for recreation programs, youth services and physical improvements to community facilities.

It’s actually a concept borrowed from American cities whose councils have exported limited budgetary authority to neighbourhood associations.

It answers the problem of such associations thriving when they’re fighting a cause but stagnating when the battle is over. Giving them some power — but not too much power — to allocate how tax monies are spent on their home turf keeps them vibrant.

Half of City council either didn’t get it, or didn’t like it. Jim Harker commented that council is elected every three years “and you feel that’s not good enough?”

John DeCicco thought things were fine the way they were, and Pat Wallace figured any changes to the process should be left for the new council to decide — a refrain that will be heard from the incumbents more and more often as the election approaches.

Mayor Peter Milobar was equally unreceptive.

He began by asking Ortner if he’d ever proposed changes to City spending at the annual budget meeting. When Ortner said no, the mayor dropped it, but the unspoken question seemed to be why he thought the process needed improvements if he didn’t even use what’s currently in place.

Then he telegraphed a perhaps-unintended message by asking administrator Randy Diehl if he thought the budget process needed fixing. In other words, council leaves it to staff to run the show.

Tina Lange, Denis Walsh, Nancy Bepple and Marg Spina were in favour of doing some research on the matter. As Lange said, “It’s our duty to do what we can to change things.”

But, the 4-4 tie put an end to it. Council might regard the KVS as a butinsky bunch of would-be civic revolutionaries, but an option would have been to apprehend the issue and undertake the City’s own dialogue with taxpayers on whether they even care about how the budget is done.

It’s the kind of middle ground John O’Fee might have used to rescue his colleagues if he’d still been at the table.

As it is now, consultation and accountability are pretty much guaranteed to be an issue come November.