Will Ajax mine go ahead no matter what?

By MEL ROTHENBURGER/ The Armchair Mayor

Back on June 16 when about 400 people attended the public meeting on the proposed Ajax mine that could be built a hop, skip and a jump from Aberdeen, project manager Jim Whittaker made a remark that raised some hackles and confirmed the perception that a multi-national mining bully intends to steamroller into town come hell or environmental protests.

The last question of the evening was whether the mine will go ahead even if the public and City council are against it.

Whittaker replied, “Yes, we are a mining company and that is what we do.”

In other words, he seemed to be saying, as long as all the necessary assessments and permits are in place, it won’t much matter what anyone thinks.

John Froese has been on the job barely a month as the community relations co-ordinator for Abacus Mining and Exploration, the Vancouver-based partner of Polish mining company KGHM.

“He did make that comment to that effect,” Froese confirmed Monday in the absence of Whittaker, who’s holidaying in Hawaii until next week.

He admits he cringed a little when Whittaker said it, but it doesn’t mean the company isn’t interested in what people have to say.

“The way he said it — ‘that’s our business.’ He meant more along the lines of ‘we are a mining company and we look for mines. We go through due process.’ I don’t think Jim meant ‘it doesn’t matter what you say.’”

But, I said, in reality, the regulatory process ensures only that the public has an opportunity to question the impact of the mine, and to have its concerns answered. It’s not a referendum, is it?

“It’s not a referendum,” Froese confirmed.

It strikes me that the public-input process for this project is a little like the much-misunderstood public hearings of City council for new developments. When people speak against a rezoning, they can’t understand how council can then approve it.

What they don’t get is that the decision is based on the merits of an argument, not the fact someone is opposed to a plan.

In the environmental assessment world, decisions are similarly made on empirical evidence, not on popularity. For example, everyone in town could insist, and strongly believe, that the Ajax mine will pollute our environment. However, if they don’t provide strong evidence that it will do what they say, it has no standing.

If a project developer puts a priority on public support, he might withdraw voluntarily anyway if the support isn’t there. What Whittaker, and Froese, seem to be saying is that such a scenario isn’t in the cards for Abacus-KGHM.

Froese said opposition wasn’t as strenuous as he expected at the public meeting. “I thought it would be worse.”

The public is bound to be divided, he said. Some will appreciate the economic benefits, others will be concerned, especially because it’s so close to residential areas.

The public consultation requirements will take the debate well into next year. By then, KGHM will have to make a fourth-quarter decision on continuing its investment.

In the meantime, Abacus continues to consult with stakeholders including the City of Kamloops (a meeting with staff is scheduled for today) and with First Nations, specifically the Tk’emlups and Skeechestn Indian Bands. The interests of the latter will undoubtedly hinge on agreement on the payment of royalties from the mine to the bands.

Froese is busy buying furniture and hiring staff for the project’s new office on Seymour Street, expected to be open by July 18.

Based on public interest, it should be a busy place.