KGHM, debate merits of Ajax in a public form
THURSDAY MORNING EDITORIAL — When will KGHM International come out of hiding and face the public in an open debate about the merits of the Ajax project?
The mine company does a fine job with colourful brochures, and has held some public open houses and presentations, but it has yet to provide the opportunity to put the project in context in a manner in which people can shop and compare.
Last weekend, Dr. Peter Tsigaris, an economics professor at Thompson Rivers University, amply illustrated that, despite the proponents of the mine insisting there’s not much to talk about right now, there is plenty to discuss.
Let’s take just one example. According to a study released last week by Venture Kamloops, the mine will generate annual tax revenue of $360,000. This, of course, is viewed by proponents as significant benefit and reason to support the mine.
Yet, Tsigaris, with some basic calculation, showed that if $360,000 in revenue is reason to support an open-pit mine on the border of the city, there’s an easy alternative — the City need simply put into place a gasoline tax of half a cent a litre on gasoline.
That would raise about $360,000 a year.
Tsigaris, in examining the many other economic aspects of placing an open-pit mine on the Ajax site, raised many more issues, concluding that the positive economics of clean air surpass the potential economic benefits of dirty air all day long.
Those kinds of issues don’t need to wait until environmental studies are completed. Let’s not wait until it’s too late to do anything about it. And that’s a two-way street — if Ajax can stand up to public scrutiny on economic as well as environmental issues, and if it can show that this mega project can exist side by side with Canada’s Tournament Capital, then surely it has nothing to worry about.
KGHM, take up the challenge. If Ajax is a project worth supporting, then come to a public forum and debate why that is so, with the likes of Dr. Peter Tsigaris.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Ajax is probably proud of its recent, glossy booklet, two copies of which landed in my mail box, personally addressed, then followed up by personal phone calls.
I was impressed by the quality of the book and the intent of the calls, but turned sour when neither of the callers could understand my questions, let alone answer them, and seemed to be rank amateurs, unable to understand some of my questions and certainly unable to answer them.
The brochure was slick, but very misleading and offensively superficial, as if written by slick ad-men confident in the gullibility of the reading public. I quote: “led by science and informed by fact.” “Planning for the highest standards of sensitivity .”
These assertions stand in sharp contrast to the statement that there will be “a zero discharge facility, meaning that no wastewater will be discharged into the environment.”
This claim is patently false and insultingly, illogically absurd!
Just where does Ajax propose the water will go? The water is already in the environment, and will forever be in the environment! The mine is in the environment, the earth and atmosphere are in the environment! Everything on earth is in the environment!
All that water, half a percent of the two rivers’ flow, will not sit on that plateau forever; some will evaporate into the air, but most will seep into the ground and return to the river via whatever channels exist – Peterson creek, Cherry creek, Sahali aquifers, and so on, which are already potentially dangerous. And it will be toxic!
LikeLike
KGHM probably thinks this is their’s to lose, hence they’re not taking any chances on a public debate. In their mode of thinking, opponents can talk all they want, but they have all the real answers and facts. And they’re confident that in the end, the BC EAO will prove them right. So, from their perspective, what’s the point of a debate? Anyway, what would one expect them to say if there was a debate?
One has to attack this issue from a different angle. One could have a panel discussion on various related issues. One could discuss the need to revise the mineral tenure act. One could talk about the effectiveness of the whole EAO process as it applies to our unique situation. One could talk about where this city wants to be in twenty years. Why not involve local politicians and others in discussions along these lines?
LikeLike