Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Inco-Voisey Bay Nickel [ T.N.V] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry J. Crebs who wrote (251)	5/19/1998 11:01:00 AM
From: Kent C.	Respond to of 1615

-- Off Topic -- Hi Terry, I agree, Canada needs a federal regulatory body. They seem to be making steps in that direction.... baby steps > > > > > > cheers, Kent

To: Terry J. Crebs who wrote (251)	5/20/1998 7:36:00 PM
From: Winer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1615

Discussion related to Environmental Panel Review. Leslie Griffith Chairman of Environmental Review Panel 09 CBC Radio - On The Go Reporter: Cindy Wall Date: 98/05/01, 16:40 Cindy Wall: A decision today by the Voisey's Bay Environmental Review Panel could delay the public hearings by another couple of months. The panel has asked Voisey's Bay Nickel for more information on the effects of its proposed mine. Jeff Gilhuley: The decision came after months of public review and scrutiny by panel members of the nickel companies impact statement. Leslie Griffiths Chairs that panel and Cindy reached her in her home in Nova Scotia. Cindy Wall: Miss Griffiths can you explain for us how the panel came up with this decision to ask for more information from Voisey's Bay Nickel? Was it entirely based on your own reading of the statement or did the public play a large role here? Leslie Griffiths: Well certainly the Deficiency Statement is the result of the panel's deliberations and it is our decision. The process that we used was that like many other people we spent some long hours reading the EIS very carefully and then of course we received many submissions, some quite long and detailed submissions from the public and also of course from federal and provincial agencies. So we got a lot of input there and we looked at that very carefully, then we held several days of meetings in which we went back to our guidelines, very carefully went through our guidelines, looked at our own comments from our own reading, looked at comments that we received from other people and tossed it round, round, and round and then eventually made our decision. So we certainly had a lot of input to consider, ultimately of course it is the panels decision. Cindy Wall: Can we go over then some of the areas that you do need more information on, what specifically are you looking for? Leslie Griffiths: Some of the things that we are looking for more information on is the Marine Transportation system. We are looking for some more information on the water and waste management proposals they have. We have focused on a couple of, some key geographic areas within the claim block and asked for some more information on those. Then we... Some more information on biological resources to fill out some of the impact assessment information they have given us. Finally we have asked for some more information on socio economic matters particularly relating to the labor force information, and stuff on insurance and liability provisions, and then finally some more information on monitoring and follow up. Cindy Wall: Oh those are some big, broad areas aren't they? Leslie Griffiths: Well we have tried to be quite specific within those areas about the information we feel is required to complete the EIS. Cindy Wall: I'm going to jump to one area that sort of stood out for me, that's mercury contaminant potential. Your saying there is just not enough of what can happen, you know if, what the potential is for some contamination there. Leslie Griffiths: Well the issue around that is that obviously mercury contamination is, in the north has been a question that many people have in other areas. So we found that when we went to the EIS we were not able to determine whether or not the project, it was likely that the project was in fact going to be releasing any additional mercury into the environment. It may be and it may not be, but we didn't find the information to, that would enable people to discuss that at the public hearings. So we just asked for the proponent to provide us with some basic information about that. Cindy Wall: Okay. Overall how did the original statement do in meeting the panels guidelines? Can you tell us that? Leslie Griffiths: There was certainly a great deal of information in the EIS and many of our guidelines were certainly met adequately. But there were some specific areas which we have identified in the statement that we feel we need more information. Cindy Wall: How much, I wonder, does this amount to, this additional information that's required? I'm not sure how far in depth now the company has to go that it hasn't already gone. I don't know if you can give us some sense of that? Leslie Griffiths: I think that's certainly for VBNC to respond to and to give some indication of how long they think it would take them to get the information. It's certainly never the panels intention to cause long delay's in the process, and in many cases when you read the deficiency statements you will see that we have in fact qualified our requests by saying that we would like the response based on currently available data so that in many cases we quite specifically asked the proponent not to go out and gather a whole lot of new data. Cindy Wall: Okay so once you do get the additional information then what happens? Does it go back to the public once again? Leslie Griffiths: Yes, there is another, somewhat shorter public review of that additional information. It will be out for public review for 45 days. When that period is ended the panel then has an additional 15 days in which we will determine whether this, with this additional information we now believe we can go forward to public hearings or not. Cindy Wall: Miss Griffiths thank you very much. Leslie Griffiths: Okay your welcome. Jeff Gilhuley: Leslie Griffiths is Chair of the Federal Environmental Panel that is reviewing the Voisey's Bay Project. _________________________________________________________________ The Premier isn't surprised that the Environmental Panel found deficiencies in the Voisey's Bay EIS report. 09 CBC Radio - On The Go Reporter: Jeff Gilhuley Date: 98/05/01, 16:48 Jeff Gilhuley: The Premier, Brian Tobin also gave his reaction this afternoon to this news about the Voisey's Bay EIS. The Premier told reporters that he is not surprised the assessment panel found deficiencies in it, especially given the scope of the project. Brian Tobin: I think you have got recognize this is very large, very complex project. It is a green field site that's being developed, not an existing industrial site and frankly what the people should... what the public should draw from the conclusion today is that the environmental review process has integrity, that the panel is working, it's doing its job, it is not prepared to accept at face value a report notwithstanding the effort and the cost and the complexity that's gone into it, that they are asking additional questions. Quite frankly we have said from day one we want a project from many points of view including the environmental point of view which represents a world class undertaking. We are not in a hurry as a province to see from an environmental point of view shortcuts taken. So quite frankly it gives me added comfort that the process is an appropriate one, that at the end of the day I think this project is still deliverable within the kind of time frame that was talked about originally as it was announced, baring in mind somewhat of a delay which has already been built in. Frankly you can't rush the environmental requirements of this project, that's what we are seeing with today's decision. We are seeing that the process works, but there is nothing here in what has been handed down today which should cause any undue delay. There is a request, there is a demand, there is a requirement for additional information, but we are not talking about a demand that is going to set this back by six months or nine months or a year. This company ought to be able to respond to this within a month or two. That should not unduly affect the project. Jeff Gilhuley: Premier Brian Tobin speaking with reporters earlier this afternoon. ______________________________________________________________