Thanks for that WSJ analysis Terry. Now what is required to upgrade that beer to a beer and some SM Scotch? Do I need to bang my shoe on a table??
Voisey's Bay (Interview w/ Adrian Tanner)
The environmental assessment panel still continues with their public hearings on the coast and in Goose Bay regardless of some organizations who believe that they should not continue.
Interview with Dr. Adrian Tanner
Media: CKOK-AM
Reporter: JOANNA DICKER
10/26/98
14:30
Eva Kojak: The environmental assessment panel still continues with their public hearings on the coast and in Goose Bay regardless of some organizations who believe that they should not continue. The Canada's Mining Council believes that there was not adequate information to carry on into public hearings. Adrian Tanner is with the Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. John's as well as with the Mining Council. I spoke with him this morning. First of all, Dr. Tanner tell us why you made a presentation to the environmental assessment panel.
Dr. Adrian Tanner: Yes, I'm a member of the Citizens Mining Council, which, I think you can say, began life as with a concern over the smelter that was spoken of as being located here, but the decision was made to put the smelter under a different environmental assessment process from the mine mill at Voisey's Bay.
Eva Kojak: What came out of your presentation?
Dr. Adrian Tanner: In addition to our concerns that I just mentioned, we have looked through the assessments. And on several points we are not happy with the job that was done. And I will simplify this down to two main points. Number one, we do not think the EIS, the environmental impact statement, was ready to go to public review because there were things missing that should have been there. Number one, the main instruments to deal with the social impact of the mine are to be contained in something called the impact benefit agreement. Those agreements have yet to be completed. And so we as outside interveners cannot see what . . . we can't read these impact benefit agreements because they haven't been written yet.
And so we feel that on that basis it was improper of the panel to send the EIS for public review under the Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment process. An EIS is not ready for public review until all information is available about it. And we feel that the impact benefit agreement is a key, absolutely essential part of how the company proposes to minimize the social impact of the mine. I should say there was a second concern, and that was that everybody knows that mining is an uncertain business; that the price of nickel could rise or could fall. A number of other things are not yet clearly known as to how this mine will develop. They don't know how much ore is under the ground. They know how much ore is in the ovoid, but they don't know yet how much ore is under the ground. There is a way for an environmental assessment to deal with these uncertainties, and this iis called scenarios. You make a scenario that says if the future price of nickel is at such a level, then this will be the result. If it's at a different level, a different result. The same thing with the amount of ore underneath the ground. If they find more ore then they could have told us what the different impact of the mine would be given different assumptions about things like the price of nickel or the amount of ore. They didn't do that. There is nothing in that.
The guidelines asked them to do that, asked Voisey's Bay Nickel to present different scenarios. They didn't do that and so that's the second reason why we are not satisfied that the EIS, the environmental impact statement, is ready for public review.
Eva Kojak: But the hearings are going ahead and they will be concluded in at least a couple of weeks. So what else do you think can be done?
Dr. Adrian Tanner: We have asked for an explanation from the panel. They wouldn't give us an explanation at the hearing. They said they would think about it so that if we get an explanation from them, that we will, presumably we will make it public. I have to talk to the rest of the people in the group before we decide what to do. If we don't get a satisfactory explanation, I'm not sure what we can do. We think these are very serious matters and we are concerned and if they're not satisfactorily answered we feel we have to go take additional steps to try and get this matter resolved.
Eva Kojak: You mentioned additional action. What additional action?
Dr. Adrian Tanner: Well, what we asked the panel to do was stop the hearing, stop the process until the IBA, impact benefit agreement, has been signed and published, so we can read them. We've asked them to get the proponents, the Voisey's Bay Nickel, to provide different scenarios. But until those are produced, and we also have a court case, which if we win it will force the smelter to be assessed along with the mine together.
We would like that they wait until the court case result is heard and not go ahead and finish the public hearing. Because once the public hearings are finished, then if the IBAs come out, if the different scenarios, the court case comes out, it's too late then. You cannot go back to public hearings. So we're asking the panel to stop the public hearings until these matters are resolved.
Eva Kojak: So how did VBNC or the panel respond to concerns from the Citizens Mining Council?
Dr. Adrian Tanner: We didn't get any good response from Voisey's Bay Nickel. I think we clarified some points with them, but by and large they didn't respond. The panel did say they would get back to us. That's the best we did get from them. I should say that we do trust the panel. They are very excellent members of that panel who, I'm sure, are very competent and very aware of the problems involved in putting together a good assessment of the project. So at the moment we're trusting in their good judgment that they will not go ahead with the hearings and finish off the hearings until the IBAs have been tabled and until the scenarios, the different possibilities of how the thing will come out, and hopefully until our court case will have ended.
Eva Kojak: Finally Dr. Tanner, you keep mentioning the court case. How far along are you there and how long have you been in court?
Dr. Adrian Tanner: The actual hearing in front of a judge took place several months ago. It was basically finished the end of last December or in January, I'm not quite sure. So the judge is now writing his decision, but it's taking a long time, longer than we had expected. And I have no way of knowing when it will be coming out. But because it's been so many months now, we are expecting it very soon.
Eva Kojak: Okay Dr. Tanner, thanks for taking the time to talk to me.
Dr. Adrian Tanner: Thanks very much for the interview.
Eva Kojak: Dr. Adrian Tanner is with the Memorial University of Newfoundland as well as with the Citizens Mining Council. |
