June 1st Marathon Mercury article and corrections

On May 27, members of the community met with Marathon PGM and some of its consultants to discuss the project. Much of the concern related to Marathon PGM's proposal to have Bamoos Lake scheduled as a tailings impoundment area (TIA).

The following article appeared in the June 1, 2010 Marathon Mercury and is reproduced here with the gracious permission of the publisher. A scanned .pdf version of the article can be found here.

Following the article you will find corrections to misstatements by Marathon PGM's consultants that were reported in the article.

[note: click on Read more>>, below the photo, to view the entire piece.]

---

Marathon PGM public meeting on environment assessment review:

‘Taking out a lake is not an easy thing to do, it’s a significant challenge’

Representatives for Marathon PGM told a Marathon audience last Thursday that ‘taking out a lake is not an easy decision, it’s a significant challenge’.

Brian Fraser, technical data consultant for the proposed open pit mine operation, said a creative solution is needed to compensate for the loss of Bamoos Lake if that option is approved by provincial and federal agencies following the environmental assessment process.

 “A creative solution is needed because we can’t create an identical lake when the mine ceases operation,” he said. “It has to be creative in a way that’s acceptable. We have to look at an ‘apples to oranges’ solution rather than an ‘apples to apples’ solution,” he said. “This approach will be the foundation for the solution. We might also look at rehabilitation or restocking of lake trout fishing in other lakes as compensation for the loss of Bamoos Lake.”

Fisher was responding to questions from an audience of approximately 40 people who turned out for the public session which was focused on the environmental aspects of the proposed open pit mine with particular emphasis on the processed solids (tailings) options

The company has submitted two options to the environmental process called the ‘North’ option and the ‘South’ option. The ‘North’ option would involve using Bamoos Lake and, when the mine ceases operation, Bamoos Lake will be changed from a cold water fishery to a warm water fishery.

Ted Schintz said he was personally in support of the mine and hopes it will be successful.

“However, Bamoos Lake is a naturally sustained trout lake and only one of the many lakes in Pukaskwa National Park is a naturally sustaining trout lake. There are not too many of them,” he said. “This makes Bamoos Lake very special.”

Eric Zackrewski, president of True Grit Consulting Ltd., uses a map to illustrate one of his answers to a question from the audience at the Marathon PGM public meeting last Thursday.


Fisher said it was a ‘real challenge’ in dealing with compensation for the loss of Bamoos Lake and this (loss) ‘may even eventually lead it not being an option’.

”We don’t have any answers on compensation for change at this point although we have had discussions about it with the federal and provincial officials involved.”

Fisher said ‘we have to come to grips with the Bamoos Lake situation in black and white terms or we don’t.

“The environmental assessment is scheduled and we’ll let the integrity of the process dictate where we go from here.”

Eric Zackrewski, president of True Grit Consulting Ltd., one of the technical consultants for the project, said there is no preconceived compensation package or notion in place at the time but it is part of the process.

Nancy Fitch said the ‘Panel Review’ level for the environmental assessment review would be the sensible approach to the process as opposed to the comprehensive assessment that Marathon PGM is currently under.

Fisher said the ‘Panel Review’ option would include only three people appointed by the government(s).

“Traditionally, these three people would be one First Nations, one mining expert and one socio economic expert and they would make the final decision,” he said.

“But, under the comprehensive assessment, the process would have to have the approvals of about 30 different federal and provincial agencies. As well, it is not the company that makes the decision on which level is used, the government makes this decision.” It was pointed out that Bamoos Lake will be impacted no matter which of the two options is approved.

Stan Bouchie said that Bamoos Lake should be classified as a ‘valued eco system’.

“If it’s used for tailings, it won’t be worth anything,” he said. “Why ruin a pristine lake. The government, town or First Nations should step in here and prevent this.” Bouchie said if tailings were allowed in Bamoos Lake they could be allowed in Coubran Lake as well ruining two lakes in the process.

"Why not consider other lakes. Ruining a pristine speckled trout lake is wrong.”

Zackrewski said that one of the criteria of considering lakes for storage was their physical capability to receive such a large amount of material and ‘not all lakes in the area can meet this criteria’.

Teri Burgess said it’s important to be ‘careful with this on the front end because, there may be different people involved or different companies running the operation later on’.

“Marathon PGM has submitted two options. But, why not submit the ‘South’ option excluding Bamoos Lake - and another option?”

Fisher said the company could have submitted a ‘preferred option’.

“But, we submitted two options and they have to be considered independently and this means twice the work and twice the costs,” he said. “Today, we are still going ahead with the ‘North’ and ‘South’ options but there’s a long timeline here and things could change."

It was pointed out that the process to arrivie at the preferred options started back in 2001 and any option has to be on the table now.

If Marathon PGM were to change their options, at this point they would have to start the nine year process to arrive at preferred options all over again.

In response to another question, Marathon PGM is mandated to begin its closure plan as soon as the mine opens.

“It will cost in the $8 million range, using Lac des Iles as a model, to complete the reclamation. The money for this would be submitted to the government at the end of every quarter of production life.”

Ray Mason, vice president of operations for Marathon PGM, said he felt the meeting was ‘very worthwhile and a lot of information changed hands’.

“There’ll be more public consultations and meetings as the process continues and we’re willing to meet with groups small and large at any time,” he said. “But, we submitted two options and, if they are both denied, there’ll be no mine. It’s that simple.” 

---

Many thanks to the Marathon Mercury for allowing the reproduction of this article.

---

Our comments:

The quotes from PGM and their consultants that were  printed in the Mercury included several inaccuracies regarding environmental assessment. The following clarifications are provided in order to help those with an interest in the project more clearly understand the process that would be involved as proposed - through a "comprehensive" environmental assessment and a "panel review". 

By way of introduction, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act there are three regularly used levels of environmental assessment. A screening is done when it is assumed a project will have little risk of significant negative effects that can not be mitigated. Screening reports are written by federal government agencies using information provided by the proponent.

Where there are risks of significant negative effects than a comprehensive study is conducted, this is still largely an in-house affair but there are requirements for public consultation periods and funding is made available for First Nations and interested parties to review the information provided by the proponent and the assessment done by the government agencies. 

Where there is a greater risk of significant environmental effects and high degree of public concern a project may be assessed through a panel review - a process which provides the greatest opportunity for public input, higher amounts of participant funding. A panel review includes public hearings that provide a venue for general and technical concerns to be raised. Supporters of a project can also weigh in and explain to the panel the reasons for their support.

Under a panel review process a panel (typically made up of three independent and qualified people)  reviews the information provided by the proponent, government, First Nations and stakeholders and following that makes a recommendation to the government about whether or not there are significant environmental effects and if so what are the trade-offs in accepting them. The exact terms of reference for the panel are written by the government before they begin their work.. The final decision is not the panel's - it is the Minister of the Environment who makes it in consultation with other responsible Ministers.

As with a comprehensive review, many federal departments will evaluate the information provided by the proponent and provide opinions to the panel. Contrary to what is suggested by the quote from PGM in the article - a panel review does not rely solely on the three panel members to review the proposal. In fact there is a greater level of review because public servants are required to defend their evaluations in a public hearing process and more time and attention is typically given to a panel review than a comprehensive assessment. It is also much easier to hold the proponent to account for their assessment through a panel review with public hearings and greater participant funding.

Dropping current options to examine others would not take nine years as suggested in the article. This could be done within a year by qualified engineering experts. If the project proceeds, at least for the North Option and possibly for the South Option too the project will need a regulatory amendment that requires a much more extensive review of alternatives that what the proponent has done to date. The two proposed options will not be enough to satisfy regulators that a thorough investigation of options was considered - this work is going to have to be done sooner or later if the project proceeds.