Ajax application to be explained in ‘plain language,’ promises KGHM’s Lacasse
Old Ajax West pit. (Knight Piesold report)
NEWS/ AJAX — The public will get a chance to digest the Ajax environmental permit application in “plain language,” the company wanting to develop an open-pit copper and gold mine south of Kamloops says.
Yves Lacasse, external affairs manager for KGHM Ajax Mining Inc., says in a letter to City council the Polish firm understands the concerns of residents about being able to “digest and comprehend” the application and its technical wording in a short period of time.
“As a result, KGHM Ajax Mining Inc is taking several steps to assist people’s understanding of these important studies and results,” Lacasse says in his letter.
KGHM has hired a consultant to prepare “plain language summaries” of the 40-plus studies specified in the document covering geophysical, social and health impacts of the project, he says.
“These plain language summaries will summarize the key findings in the reports at a level that will be accessible and understandable to a layperson. These plain language summaries will be factual, objective summaries that fully explain the results of the technical summaries in clear, direct wording.”
The summaries will be put on a new website, he said. It will also include “even more simplified” fact sheets immediately after the application is submitted and accepted for review.
KGHM will hold open houses as required, plus other public events, and will print a booklet.
“We are excited to have a conversation with the community that is based on facts and science.”
The company expects to submit its application to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office later this year, after which there will be a 75-day public comment period.
As well as receiving the letter at its Tuesday regular meeting, council will consider a notice of motion from Coun. Donovan Cavers aimed at ensuring adequate time for the public to read and comment on the application. That motion states:
That a letter be sent to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) requesting that:
a) The 75-day public comment period on the Ajax Mine proposal application not occur at the begin(ning) of the 180(-day) review period in order that the public be given fair opportunity to review and comment on the document, which is expected to be very large; and
b) That the City be notified immediately when the application is first received by the B.C. EAO.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Carolyn says: the Kamloops public not only needs accurate research data on what harm this Mine will cause it’s citizens, but also some photos of KGHM’s mess they left behind in Europe with one of their last “projects”.
LikeLike
The full technical reports will always be available, side-by-side with the plain language summaries.
LikeLike
Will the full report and the “plain language” summaries be released at the same time?
I encourage KGHM Ajax to support Coun. Donovan Caver’s motion at the EAO level; do the right thing. Furthermore, submitting the application during the time when many people are on vacation or away is so obviously strategic on your part. Do the right thing and allow for a maximized public opportunity and ability to scrutinize the submission.
LikeLike
Those technical reports are based on studies designed and interpreted by people who are paid by KGHM. They can choose to omitt data or results deemed unflattering to the project. In cases where several different conclusions are possible, they can choose the one most favourable to the project. When assessing a potential problem or risk, they are free to choose the smaller number or the larger one. When citing literature or previous studies, they are free to choose the ones most favourable to the project. There are a multitude of ways a technical report can “spin” its conclusions favourably.
LikeLike
So we now have studies done by people paid by KGHM being summarized by people being paid by KGHM. Later there will be open houses featuring “experts” paid by KGHM followed by a booklet prepared by people being paid by KGHM. I’m fed up with the whole
“facts based on science” tripe being served up by people whose main function is PR. Whatever “facts” that are used (or not used) will be nicely varnished to make everything look highly plausible and safe. If you don’t believe this, take a look at other reports written by consultants paid by mining companies. On the other side, suppose an environmental group hired a consultant to write a report for them. Can you imagine them writing a positive report for a mine?
LikeLike
Really looking forward to the release of any new information from KGHM-Ajax, plain language or not…it’s been a long time coming.
I am particularly interested in the socioeconomic justifications/modelling/etc.
LikeLike
Let me guess:
“Jobs, jobs, jobs”
“Prosperity for all”
“Zero harm”
“Nothing to see here!”
“Plain language” summaries are usually written at a Grade 5-7 level. I think I would rather read the report written for the grown ups.
LikeLike