The Ajax question with no answer — what will mine do to quality of life?

Ajax officials at press conference releasing letter. (Kamloops Daily News photo)

For all the questions it left unanswered, the KGHM International letter to mayor and council, released just before the weekend, answered, in a sense, the biggest and most troublesome question of all. And the answer is, strangely but almost predictably, that it cannot be answered.

It confirms that the ultimate impact of Ajax is a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

The 18-page letter, written in response to a query from the City of Kamloops almost two years ago, is full of non-answers on a wide range of issues. Page after page, point by point, it begins with phrases like “We are currently completing…,” “We are conducting…,” “We are currently generating…,” “We are working on…,” and “We are still quantifying….”

It comes as part of a promise by the project’s external affairs manager Yves Lacasse that KGHM will be more open and transparent about progress on its plans to build an open-pit copper mine straddling the south boundary of Kamloops.

In fairness, though the letter is long overdue, it at least attempts to provide a status update.

It begins by explaining that the company didn’t intend to mislead anyone by stating the mine would be 10 km. away. What it meant, the letter says, is that it would be 10 km. “driving distance” from the city.

Why, one must ask, did it take close to two years to clarify something so simple? There are many other questions with respect to environmental impacts, for example, that remain unanswered. But the company is working on them.

One major issue, the fate of Jacko Lake, is answered succinctly and without much reassurance.

“What will be the quality of Jacko Lake as a fishing lake if a 450m deep open-pit is located immediately adjacent?” asked the City’s letter, submitted by environmental services supervisor Jen Fretz in July 2011.

Indeed, Jacko Lake has been the subject of much concern ever since it became evident that KGHM proposes its giant hole in the ground immediately next to it.

The answer provided by KGHM is this: “Reports completed for the historic Afton Mine indicate that no complaints were received from Jacko Lake users during operation. Our socio-economic research will address impacts to fishing and other recreational opportunities and we are considering building a berm to block noise, sight, and dust from impacting lake users.”

There isn’t anything at all new in that. The maps and scale models have long shown that the pit will be virtually on the edge of the lake, and that a berm is supposed to protect it. The larger question is, will the pit, many times deeper than the lake, and the effect of the blasting, fracture the lake bottom and cause Jacko to drain?

But here is the one Really Big question, and the answer without an answer.

The City’s letter: “What will be the impact (positive and negative) on the quality of life for Kamloops residents as a result of mining operations?”

Lacasse’s answer: “This is a subjective question and the impact will certainly vary from resident to resident. We know that the economic impact will be positive and any negative environmental impacts will be mitigated as thoroughly as possible. This is a very difficult question to quantify and may require additional research once the mine is in operation.”

It is, indeed, subjective and hard to quantify. Yet the impact on the quality of life in Kamloops, on the vision of what this community wants itself to be, is the most important question of all.

And yet, it can’t possibly be answered until after the mine is in operation. Then, the answer will be all around us.

 

 

 

Reality check on election statement about Aboriginal Cogeneration Corp.

ACC president Kim Sigurdson at public forum. (Daily News file photo)

UPDATE: There’s been some back and forth on this blog during the past couple of hours that deserves to be reported.

Terry Lake responded by tweeting that he “did not say I set it up but pressured proponent to have public forum based on ICE fund rules.”

He then also tweeted that his reference was to the Ministry of Small Business and Innovation, and further that he had met with then-minister Iian Black, rather than Ministry of Environment. He didn’t say this during the forum but I appreciate the clarification, though the debate was in the context of environment matters.

I noted in a return tweet that the Kamloops Daily News live forum blog quoted him as saying during the debate that “I got the ministry to force the proponent to have a public meeting.” That’s in agreement with my own memory of the comment.

So the ministry involved is clarified. Fact remains, it was through the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce that a forum was held.

Original blog follows:

In the heat of an election campaign, history has a way of being re-written. I suppose candidates can be forgiven once in awhile for exaggerating or making an honest mistake.

In this campaign, there’s been a fair amount of it as the NDP and Liberals battle to convince us who deserves to form the next government.

A small example of that occurred at last Thursday’s KDN-CBC-sponsored candidates’ forum at the Kamloops Convention Centre.

The environment was a major topic at the forum, maybe in part because the environment minister in the last Liberal administration, Terry Lake, was on the stage.

In this context, the issue of the Aboriginal Cogeneration Corp. gasification plant was raised. Those who were around in 2009 and 2010 know that this became a major cause célèbre with local environmentalists who claimed the plant would, as Ruth Madsen put it, “pollute our children and many generations to come and destroy our wonderful city.”

The ACC plan met all the requirements of the Environment Ministry for a discharge permit, got a clean bill of health from the IHA, and was also approved for a development grant from the provincial Innovative Clean Energy fund to help it get established. But it hit the fan as public fears were whipped up about the impact of the project, and MLAs Lake and Kevin Krueger suddenly had a big problem on their hands.

At last Thursday’s forum, Lake told the crowd he had gotten the Environment Ministry to force ACC to hold a public forum on the project, leaving the impression the problem was thus solved.

That’s not how it happened, and Lake is mistaken in his description of how the forum came about. I know this, because I was involved.

Lake and Krueger were in a tough spot and couldn’t overtly criticize ministry staff or tell them to reverse their approval. Instead, they began suggesting that the ICE funding — even though the fund was supposed to be free of political influence — might be withdrawn based on what they said was inadequate consultation.

For months ACC president Kim Sigurdson had refused any meaningful public consultation because he had, technically, met the requirements of his environmental permits and simply wanted to get on with it.

I supported the science of the project, which was meant to solve a major environmental problem with the disposal of used railway ties but, like many others, I felt Sigurdson needed to consult with Kamloops residents.

Early in 2010, I proposed to Sigurdson that he come back to Kamloops and face the music at a public forum. He was concerned about whether such a forum would be conducted in a fair manner by a neutral party. I suggested that the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce might be interested and that the chamber would be a credible, neutral host as it hadn’t taken a position on the proposal.

I then talked with chamber president Leslie Bruchu and she agreed to pitch it to the chamber board, of which I was a director. With the board in agreement, I contacted the local Environment Ministry office, which agreed to send a representative to sit on the panel.

It was the chamber that arranged for the venue, the panel, the moderator (Murray Young of TRU) and the format. Neither Terry Lake nor Kevin Krueger had anything to do with initiating it or setting it up, and the Ministry was a willing participant, not an overseer.

A few days after the packed forum, which was more like a town hall meeting, Sigurdson and his shareholders decided not to proceed with the project.

So, while Lake and Krueger were certainly players, and put some pressure on Sigurdson via the ICE grant, Lake’s statement that the Environment Ministry ordered up a public forum misses the mark.

So long to the RIH heritage trees, it’s been good to know you

Oops, there goes another heritage tree.

It’s fitting, in a way, that the trees in front of Royal Inland Hospital should go out in at least a little controversy. The word “little” is key, since there’s been little fuss compared to the first time their removal was proposed.

Time makes a big difference. At the turn of the century, chain-sawing the grand old heritage trees to put up a parking lot became the subject of an intense political debate and heavy community protest. Those who opposed taking down the trees won the day; the trees stayed.

Last week, the trees started coming down with only a murmur of public objection. The IHA announced they would come down Friday, then started the work on Thursday. Just a matter of available crews, it said.

The timing is interesting in another way — in the middle of an election campaign. In the past, attacking the trees during a campaign would have been regarded as risky. Now, it’s seen as a plus, a sign that long-wanted upgrades to RIH are a promise that will be kept.

No objections from City Hall, either, contrary to the earlier plan to build a parkade. Last July, when the new RIH master plan was unveiled, I wrote a column comparing the then and now. Here’s some of it.

“Say so long to the RIH trees.

“A dozen years ago, 12-year-old Emily Ferguson led a rebellion against a bureaucracy that wanted to cut down the grand old elm and ash trees in front of the hospital.

“She won. Today, she wouldn’t.

“The RIH master plan this week not only reveals the fate of the trees, but is revealing for its total lack of consideration for them. Nowhere in the plan can I find any acknowledgement that removal of the trees was or is an issue.

“… There are lots of reasons this plan will go ahead, and the trees lost.

“One is that there is no political will to save them. In 1999, the prospect of losing the trees became an election issue as Emily Ferguson’s battle gained national attention. Though municipal politicians had no authority in the matter – just as they have no technical authority now – their vocal opposition to the hospital’s plans had a big influence on the outcome.

“You won’t find that opposition this time around. They were well primed at closed-door meetings with IHA brass to extol the virtues of the plan.

“Secondly, the IHA didn’t exist in 1999…

“Thirdly, this is a very different concept than the traditional ugly parkade contemplated back at the turn of the century. It comes complete with very nice looking artist’s renderings that show glass and plants and pleasant surroundings.

“People are so desperate for improvements to health care, so anxious for RIH to be updated, that they feel there’s no option…

“As Mayor Peter Milobar, clearly not a tree guy, remarked, ‘There is always trade-offs in life. Are we trying to improve health care or what?’

“Oh, and one more. The trees are 12 years older. They were old in 1999; today it won’t be difficult to find an arborist to say they’re past their prime and will soon pose a danger to public safety.

“Really, when it comes down to it, it’s hard to argue that a couple of dozen trees are more important than much-needed upgrades to a hospital that was built in the wrong place.

“In other words, that was then, this is now. Every tree has its day; their time has, unfortunately, come.”

 

Coun. Dever’s resolution on Ajax public information session

Mayor Peter Milobar and his councillors still don’t understand that the purpose of a public meeting on Ajax is equally as much to allow people to ask questions as it is to get answers.

Milobar believes holding a meeting now would just be an exercise in frustration because all the answers wouldn’t be available. But council’s decision to plan a meeting is already “much overdue,” as Coun. Nelly Dever told me after yesterday’s council session. A meeting sooner rather than later would allow the public to be clear on what their questions are, so that KGHM, the City and Environmental Assessment Office can go get the answers. And the resolution approved at Tuesday’s council meeting doesn’t necessarily guarantee there will be an opportunity at the planned presentation for questions from the floor.

The timing in Dever’s motion puts a public meeting off until next January, since it couldn’t practically be held during the Christmas season. Nevertheless, credit where due — this is at least a beginning. I’ll have more to say on council’s Ajax discussion in tomorrow’s Armchair Mayor column in The Kamloops Daily News, but here, for the record, is Dever’s resolution:

Notice of Motion for April 9, 2013 (** Note: Council decided to discuss it March 26 instead of waiting for April 9)

CITY HOSTED KGHM AJAX MINE INFORMATION SESSION

WHEREAS

A. The KGHM Ajax mine proposal has created much controversy with the community;

B. The City itself has asked a number of questions of the BC Environmental Assessment Office (cc to KGHM Ajax and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) about the mine proposal, which remain unanswered at this time;

C. Most Councillors have chosen not to take a position on the mine proposal until after the results of the environmental assessment are received and reviewed;

D. The environmental assessment results are now projected to be available in September 2013.

E. When the environmental assessment is complete and the environmental assessment application is submitted, the federal and provincial governments have a month to assess the completeness of the environmental assessment;

F. If judged complete, a six-month review period follows;

G. During the review period, the City will review and analyze the environmental assessment from the City’s perspective of economic, social, and environmental sustainability;

H. Kamloops citizens need to know that following the City’s review and analysis of the environmental assessment, the City will provide a public report to the community and will also look for community input about the KGHM Ajax mine proposal.

BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Kamloops hold a public information session after the results of the KGHM Ajax environmental assessment are received. The purpose of the session is to discuss the environmental assessment and the City’s review of it, and gather community feedback.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the information session be held mid-way through the six-month comment period for the environmental assessment.

The Ajax issue comes down to location, location, location

Cherise Udell of Utah Moms for Clean Air speaks to a packed council chambers today.

A couple of comments from Coun. Marg Spina at today’s City council meeting got straight to the nub of the Ajax mine issue.

Cherise Udell of the Utah Moms for Clean Air, who also made a presentation at Sunday’s public meeting hosted by the Kamloops Moms for Clean Air (which I was pleased to moderate) was speaking to council about the impacts of Rio Tinto’s giant Kennecott Mine near Salt Lake City.

Spina first wanted to know how far Salt Lake is from the ocean, which she seemed to feel is of some relevance to the discussion. She then noted that she has asked many local and provincial officials their opinions of Ajax and is routinely told that all the information isn’t in yet.

The councillor added that City council does not have the authority to approve or reject the mine.

Both of these points are well-known. The answer to her second point is that council does not have authority, but it has influence, so it’s of little value to the debate for the mayor and councillors to keep bringing it up.

As to her comment about waiting for information before forming an opinion, I say this — the environmental impact, while important, is not the only factor in need of consideration. The major issue is this: location, location, location.

If this were the cleanest open-pit mine in the world, would you want it in the City of Kamloops? If the answer is no, then you should feel perfectly comfortable in saying so, without waiting for environmental reports. Coun. Donovan Cavers and Coun. Tina Lange have come to that conclusion.

Following Sunday’s forum hosted by the Moms, Dr. Brian Moench of Salt Lake, who also made a presentation, made the comment, while looking at the scale model of the proposed Ajax mine, that in the U.S. a mine located so close to a city wouldn’t even be considered, regardless of environmental studies.

Councillors clearly don’t know much about Kennecott. They admit this. They should find out, and look at other open-pit operations, too, while they’re waiting for those studies and reports to be finished.

By the way, my favourite quote from today’s meeting came from Mayor Peter Milobar, who told Udell, “It’s pretty scary looking air quality you have there.”

Three good reasons to attend Moms’ event on the mine issue

“You should come to the Kamloops Moms for Clean event on Sunday,” I told a friend yesterday.

“What’s that about?”

“There are going to be two great speakers talking about the Rio Tinto mine near Salt Lake City.”

“Is this one of those anti-Ajax groups?” he asked suspiciously.

“What difference does it make?”  I replied.

“They’ve already got their minds made up!” he exclaimed. “They’re the ‘don’t confuse me with the facts’ crowd.”

“You’re missing the point.” I said. “These speakers are experts who know what they’re talking about. Facts are friendly. If you want to learn more about what effect Ajax might have on the community, you have nothing to lose, and maybe something to gain, by listening.”

So, regardless of whether you’re for or against Ajax, here are three good reasons (aside from the fact I’ll be the moderator) you should be there on Sunday, 2 p.m., Parkside Lounge in the ISC:

1. Ajax is the most important issue to come along in a long, long time. Finding out more about how mines affect communities is important.
2. The two speakers the Moms have lined up are top-notch. Dr. Brian Moench is Founder and President of Utah Physicians for Healthy Environment. He will discuss medical research regarding air pollution and its effects on our health. Cherise Udell is Founder and President of Utah Moms for Clean Air. She travelled to London during the Olympics to challenge Rio Tinto (which was contracted to produce the medals) on the issue of air quality.
3. This is a rare opportunity to ask questions, and get them answered.

See you there.

City council squandering its neutrality on Ajax

Public needs a voice on Ajax proposal.

Yesterday’s Armchair Mayor column, ‘Council in need of spine on Ajax’

http://tinyurl.com/cfoju4j

seems to have struck a chord with Kamloops Daily News readers.

The gist of the column is that if City council is going to insist on not taking a position on Ajax, it should at least not squander that neutrality by sitting on its hands. In fact, that neutrality could be used to demonstrate leadership and do good for the community, instead of the do-nothing approach currently favoured by Mayor Peter Milobar and most of his councillors.

Kamloops needs a forum for discussing/ debating Ajax. KGHM refuses to hold a town-hall style meeting even though the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office promised it. And the EAO hasn’t seen fit to enforce the directive.

StopAjaxMine/KAPA don’t have the clout do host such a meeting. Their bias against the mine works against them, and KGHM will ignore any invitation to an open meeting.

City council alone has the influence and means to organize a citizens’ meeting, or a series of them. It comes from a neutral position, has the skills within City Hall to organize such an initiative, and, further, has a duty to do so.

To ignore this opportunity is a waste of its authority and a waste of the neutrality it has proclaimed.

Touring the Ajax site — a sense of magnitude

At the Ajax open-pit site, looking toward Knutsford.

Four times a week, KGHM loads about 30 people onto a bus and takes them on a bumpy ride from Inks Lake up into the grasslands to the future site of the giant open pit copper-gold mine it wants to operate if it can get all the official permissions.

I took the tour yesterday. It wasn’t the first time I’ve been in the area, but after having looked at maps, read reports and viewed both scale models of the proposal, a 90-minute visit to the area provides a more complete perspective of the size of the proposed mine.

On a map or model, you get a feel for comparison — the pit will be as big as…. the waste rock pile will be as big as…. etc. And, by now, surely every resident of Kamloops knows the general layout, knows how many jobs would be created, how much would be spent building and operating this mine, knows about Inks Lake and Jacko Lake and diverting Peterson Creek and where the water will come from and where the roads will go to and on and on.

But, being there, when you can look to the horizon where a waste pile will begin and turn your head in the opposite direction to where it will end, and try to imagine how high a hundred meters is, and stand in the middle of where the pit will be, and scan the huge piece of land that will become a massive hole in the earth — it’s almost hard to believe that man could alter our planet on such a scale.

The tours were supposed to end this month but the company will continue them into October to meet demand.

Observations on the two Ajax mine models

As the week comes to a close I’m struck by two things about the many people who have come into our lobby since Monday to view the two scale models of the Ajax mine proposal.

One is that the so-called “citizen’s model” (the one I refer to as the “Mader model” for ease) has been receiving more attention that the model produced for KGHM-Ajax.

I think there are two reasons for that. One is that the Mader model, as previously mentioned, uses aerial photography images that make it realistic. It’s easy to imagine the mine and the city in their true size, and people seem to like being able to pick out their own houses on the model.

The second reason is that the Mader model has a transparent polypropylene cap that protects it but allows for a clear view.

The KGHM version was made without such protection, and is draped with a clear plastic sheet that, unfortunately, has a sheen to it and makes viewing a little more difficult. Their model is still valuable, however, and having the two of them side by side is helping people get an overall impression of the scale of the project.

The second thing I’ve noticed is that most of the people coming for a look are in their 50s and up. The first thing coming to mind is that seniors are more concerned with the possible impacts of the project.

However, I think it’s more likely due to the simple fact of our business hours here at the Daily News, which coincide with when most people are at work. Retired folks have more opportunity to stop in, while those still in the workforce are occupied elsewhere.

So, hopefully, there will be opportunities in other venues, perhaps at shopping malls and public facilities, to have the two models displayed together on weekends and/or evenings.

Debate over Ajax models — let’s keep our eyes on the ball

The ‘Mader’ model of the proposed Ajax mine (Daily News photo).

As predicted, the debate over the “dueling” Ajax models has begun in earnest. Poor KGHM is being raked by mine opponents for supposedly trying to make it hard to figure out from the model what the mine will actually look like in comparison to the built part of the city, and for supposedly trying to make it hard for the average working stiff to even get a look at the model.

I maintain that both models are useful. The Mader model is prettier and more realistic, but the KGHM version is worthwhile as well because of — not despite — its simplicity.

So instead of wasting a lot of words condemning or celebrating one or the other, let’s make the best use of them.

It will be interesting to hear the impressions of City council members, if they dare to actually express opinions. City CAO David Trawin tells me administration doesn’t intend to make any comments of its own about either model to council, nor to make any recommendations. Staff will leave it up to individual councillors to look for themselves, and up to council as a whole if it wants to have a discussion about them.

He hadn’t yet seen the KGHM model when I talked to him, but did offer the opinion that the Mader model is “pretty close,” though it will depend on what information was used to create it.

Meanwhile, both models will be making the rounds to various venues in the city so the public can have a look, so stay tuned.