Ajax opponents will return $5,000 donation from KGHM
Screenshot from crowdfunding video.
NEWS/ AJAX — A coalition of groups opposing the Ajax open-pit mine plan will give a $5,000 donation back to KGHM, the company proposing the mine.
Accepting the money would be “inappropriate,” the groups say.
They announced the decision late Sunday night after representatives met earlier in the day. They decided unanimously to return the donation, received as part of a crowd funding campaign on Indiegogo.com to hire consultants.
Arrangements are being made with Indiegogo to refund the money to KGHM “as soon as possible.”
“Our goal in responding to this situation was to act in a manner consistent with our principles,” stated coalition representative Dianne Kerr.
“Ethical guidelines regarding the acceptance of gifts support our decision. We used the Suzuki Foundation as our resource. It is an obvious conflict of interest for the coalition of advocacy groups to accept funds directly from the very proponent to be scrutinized by independent reviewers.”
“We encourage everyone interested in a fair, independent review of the application to continue to donate to our target of 25,000 unbiased dollars.”
The Kamloops Area Preservation Association, Kamloops Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Kamloops Moms for Clean Air are among the groups involved in the fundraising campaign, which has raised close to $18,000 — including the KGHM donation — as of Sunday night to hire independent experts to analyze the company’s environmental permit application, expected to be submitted in late summer.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
We’re disappointed that those speaking out against the Ajax Project prior to the release of any studies have rejected our no-strings online donation. We wanted to ensure only that the community had the resources to engage unbiased experts.
The reports to be “scrutinized” will be the work of independent, world-renowned engineering and consulting firms. These firms are staffed by engineers, PhDs and varied scientists, many of whom must answer to professional associations. Their reports will be further peer-reviewed by other independent, third-party experts before being submitted to government.
We are confident the science that will support the Ajax Project EA application will be thorough, fact-based and objective, and we encourage all unbiased third-party reviews.
LikeLike
If permitted, will the project have to built exactly the way those reports are written with no modifications after the fact? Will any changes have scrutiny applied to them?
Did the mine in Malartic have to go through a rigorous review? Why can’t they actually run the mine in alignment with their permits there?
You talk about “science” in broad terms but you won’t give out details of the studies that you are undertaking? I have heard of no actual research being done by your consultants – just modelling. If there is any room for interpretation or weaknesses in the scientific literature, will the precautionary principle be applied? Do you really think there is never any chance of bias in the reports?
If you really wanted to help the opponent groups financially (as should be required by government) your donation was shockingly small.
If you were respectful of your opponents, you would have asked before making a donation and done it in a respectful fashion. Instead you splashed it all over the media.
If you respected the people of Kamloops you would have already released any available information and whatever studies are done…. this is common practice amongst mining companies – why have you not done this here? You talk about respect, but treat the sceptical citizens of Kamloops with contempt.
Maybe you should walk the walk, KGHM. Talk is cheap (and so is $5000 donations for a company like yours).
LikeLike
If that was truly the case, why didn’t you donate anonymously?
LikeLike
If your reports are being prepared by “independent, world-reknowned engineering and consulting firms” then why the worry? If you are so confident, then why meddle in the affairs of your opponents?
LikeLike
Why doesn’t your company just man up and host an open debate already? Where is this conversation you’ve been going on and on about? No info for the public, no talking. Just sitting back until we get our measly few months to digest thousands of pages of info.
LikeLike
This “offer” by KGHM is ill-conceived. It is cheap and tacky – in fact it is trashy!
KGHM says “We wanted to ensure only that the community had the resources to engage unbiased experts” >>>> If KGHM was honest and truthful, it would have supported the requests by city Council and residents for a Panel Review – the best assessment process available, and conducted in open hearings.
That option still remains – KGHM can publicly request a Federal Panel Review.
LikeLike
Would the socioeconomic parameters be the same if the CEO would to be living amongst us?
LikeLike
I was sorry to hear that the opponents were put in such an awkward position by KGHM. If the company was behaving sensitively and with respect for the opponent groups, they should have asked before making the donation. I am glad that they have decided to return the money. It feels like the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Hmmmmmmmm, Ajax wins this one.
LikeLike
Good. KGHM’s donation may have had good intentions behind it, but it was wrong.
Respect your opponent.
LikeLike