The "Prosperity Mine Decision"

[dogspoiler]

It seems that the natives are finding that big buisness and our government are not trustworthy.
They are learning our ways.

[Merry]

This is the age old issue of "jobs" versus the environment. The bottom line is that there is no industry on this planet that doesn't have some sort of environmental impact, so we have to decide how much or how little impact we're willing to accept in order to generate employment.
In this particular case, much was made of the destruction of a picture perfect lake that is in a very isolated location. Yet locals I've spoken with told me that this lake is not a good fishing lake, and that it does not have a significant impact on the lifestyle of the local native population. Rather that the environmental card was played to try to lever more economic benefit for the FN people than had previously been offered. In other words, sweeten the pot or we'll kill the deal. This type of strategy has been used in other situations with some success, so it's no wonder it was tried here. But as a society we're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to allow this type of blackmail to continue, because there is nowhere in this beautiful province of ours that industry will not have at least some sort of negative effect. Should we all go back to being hunters and gatherers in order to save the environment, or can we find some sort of compromise, and if so, what should that compromise be?
Mining in particular has always received a bad rap from those who are not directly involved in it. Yet we all benefit from the products that are produced as a result. None of us want to change our lifestyle in a significant enough way to render mining unecessary. Also, it generates an awful lot of revenue for our government, so if mining disappears we'd all better either get ready for a HUGE drop in services or a HUGE increase in our personal taxes. Add to that a loss of many spinoff jobs in towns which service the mining industry (such as Kamloops and Prince George) not to mention the loss of jobs in larger centres such as Vancouver where many of the mines head offices are located. Putting a freeze on mining would cause much more than the loss of the immediate jobs in the mine itself. There is much more at stake here.

[Al Czervic]

This is the age old issue of "jobs" versus the environment. The bottom line is that there is no industry on this planet that doesn't have some sort of environmental impact, so we have to decide how much or how little impact we're willing to accept in order to generate employment.
In this particular case, much was made of the destruction of a picture perfect lake that is in a very isolated location. Yet locals I've spoken with told me that this lake is not a good fishing lake, and that it does not have a significant impact on the lifestyle of the local native population. Rather that the environmental card was played to try to lever more economic benefit for the FN people than had previously been offered. In other words, sweeten the pot or we'll kill the deal. This type of strategy has been used in other situations with some success, so it's no wonder it was tried here. But as a society we're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to allow this type of blackmail to continue, because there is nowhere in this beautiful province of ours that industry will not have at least some sort of negative effect. Should we all go back to being hunters and gatherers in order to save the environment, or can we find some sort of compromise, and if so, what should that compromise be?
Mining in particular has always received a bad rap from those who are not directly involved in it. Yet we all benefit from the products that are produced as a result. None of us want to change our lifestyle in a significant enough way to render mining unecessary. Also, it generates an awful lot of revenue for our government, so if mining disappears we'd all better either get ready for a HUGE drop in services or a HUGE increase in our personal taxes. Add to that a loss of many spinoff jobs in towns which service the mining industry (such as Kamloops and Prince George) not to mention the loss of jobs in larger centres such as Vancouver where many of the mines head offices are located. Putting a freeze on mining would cause much more than the loss of the immediate jobs in the mine itself. There is much more at stake here.

Awesome Post !

There is also the fact that our MSP Premiums, our HST, and our BC Personal Incomes Tax all combined do not add up to even cover the annual BC Health Budget, the same budget that health care unions refer to as “underfunded” every year. Not to mention we still have to find money to pay for our “underfunded” education system (where we continue to dump more money into in spite of their being fewer students) and of course we need more Parks with free parking and whatever else.

Where does the extra money come from over and above our MSP Premiums, our HST, and our BC Personal Incomes Tax to pay for these services we all need? It comes from sources such as our natural resources. As an example the Prosperity Mine would have been an upfront investment of over 800 million and would have created hundreds of well paying jobs. The mine itself was expected to generate $5 Billion in returns over it’s lifespan. Not any more.

[Rwede]

This is the age old issue of "jobs" versus the environment. The bottom line is that there is no industry on this planet that doesn't have some sort of environmental impact, so we have to decide how much or how little impact we're willing to accept in order to generate employment.
In this particular case, much was made of the destruction of a picture perfect lake that is in a very isolated location. Yet locals I've spoken with told me that this lake is not a good fishing lake, and that it does not have a significant impact on the lifestyle of the local native population. Rather that the environmental card was played to try to lever more economic benefit for the FN people than had previously been offered. In other words, sweeten the pot or we'll kill the deal. This type of strategy has been used in other situations with some success, so it's no wonder it was tried here. But as a society we're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to allow this type of blackmail to continue, because there is nowhere in this beautiful province of ours that industry will not have at least some sort of negative effect. Should we all go back to being hunters and gatherers in order to save the environment, or can we find some sort of compromise, and if so, what should that compromise be?
Mining in particular has always received a bad rap from those who are not directly involved in it. Yet we all benefit from the products that are produced as a result. None of us want to change our lifestyle in a significant enough way to render mining unecessary. Also, it generates an awful lot of revenue for our government, so if mining disappears we'd all better either get ready for a HUGE drop in services or a HUGE increase in our personal taxes. Add to that a loss of many spinoff jobs in towns which service the mining industry (such as Kamloops and Prince George) not to mention the loss of jobs in larger centres such as Vancouver where many of the mines head offices are located. Putting a freeze on mining would cause much more than the loss of the immediate jobs in the mine itself. There is much more at stake here.

Well stated. One need look no further than the OKIB's blockade of Tolko's logging operations in Brown's Creek to see the "cards" played. At first, the Indians wanted a percentage of the harvest. Then, they said the trucks were a safety hazard to the westside residents. Then, when that was shown to be bunk, they played the "logging will destroy our drinking water" card. Hmm, odd that they didn't care about the drinking water or the truck safety when they wanted a slice of the annual allowable harvest.

As it turns out, OKIB were quite content when predecessor companies (Crown, Fletcher Challenge, Riverside) paid them 50¢ per M3 for all wood hauled down that road to shut them up. When Tolko bought out Riverside, they decided the Free Ride was over, and refused to pay the ransom. Suddenly, the share of cut, truck safety, and environmental cards were played and the illegal roadblocks went up. Go figure.

[100milewizard]

Well stated. One need look no further than the OKIB's blockade of Tolko's logging operations in Brown's Creek to see the "cards" played. At first, the Indians wanted a percentage of the harvest. Then, they said the trucks were a safety hazard to the westside residents. Then, when that was shown to be bunk, they played the "logging will destroy our drinking water" card. Hmm, odd that they didn't care about the drinking water or the truck safety when they wanted a slice of the annual allowable harvest.

As it turns out, OKIB were quite content when predecessor companies (Crown, Fletcher Challenge, Riverside) paid them 50¢ per M3 for all wood hauled down that road to shut them up. When Tolko bought out Riverside, they decided the Free Ride was over, and refused to pay the ransom. Suddenly, the share of cut, truck safety, and environmental cards were played and the illegal roadblocks went up. Go figure.

Is there something wrong with the Natives wanting a percentage of money from their own land? Or do you agree with big companies raping and pillaging the land?

[Rwede]

Well stated. One need look no further than the OKIB's blockade of Tolko's logging operations in Brown's Creek to see the "cards" played. At first, the Indians wanted a percentage of the harvest. Then, they said the trucks were a safety hazard to the westside residents. Then, when that was shown to be bunk, they played the "logging will destroy our drinking water" card. Hmm, odd that they didn't care about the drinking water or the truck safety when they wanted a slice of the annual allowable harvest.

As it turns out, OKIB were quite content when predecessor companies (Crown, Fletcher Challenge, Riverside) paid them 50¢ per M3 for all wood hauled down that road to shut them up. When Tolko bought out Riverside, they decided the Free Ride was over, and refused to pay the ransom. Suddenly, the share of cut, truck safety, and environmental cards were played and the illegal roadblocks went up. Go figure.

Is there something wrong with the Natives wanting a percentage of money from their own land? Or do you agree with big companies raping and pillaging the land?

It's not their land. It's Crown land that belongs EQUALLY to all the citizens of BC, and natural resource extraction is necessary to fund things like health care and education. Big companies (and small companies too) pay large fees for the rights to extract these resources to our government. Without them, we would have NO health care and NO schools. Then what? Will the natives pay for it?

[coffeeFreak]

Here is another news report about the Prosperity mine that idicates there were also other reasons for the govt's decision. I bolded information that isn't focused on Aboriginal issues with this as it seems that there is a sort of tunnel vision when some of our Castaneters see the words "Aboriginal or Native" that is translated into narrow and limited views. Instead of turning this into a "let's bash First Nations" discussion, is it possible to consider that there were other issues factored into this decision? Consider these final comments of the article that follows:

[While] the B.C. government had argued the economic advantages of the mine would offset the environmental damage, [while], the federal government...has responded with a powerful signal that profits and taxes do not trump environmental and human rights.

Should jobs take precedence over the environment or should we consider these types of jobs as being only only short-term gain? Why has there been very little discussion on this thread on the environmental reasons for the decision?!

Tories right to block B.C. mine

Edmonton Journal November 4, 2010 The federal government's move to kill a billion-dollar gold and copper mine project in British Columbia should send a strong message to provincial governments and proponents of developments that have adverse environmental impacts.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice rejected plans for the Taseko Mines Prosperity project Tuesday on the basis that it would destroy a lake and a highly productive ecosystem in the British Columbia's interior and negatively impact local aboriginal groups. At the same time, Prentice approved a Mount Milligan gold and copper mine proposed by Thompson Creek Metals Company, applauding its proponents for adopting a "highly consultative and a collaborative approach."

"The result is a responsible, successful project proposal and the government of Canada commends this approach and encourages other resource companies to follow this example," he said.

Those are clearly words that proponents of future developments should remember: consultative and collaborative.

The B.C. government had given a green light to both projects. Over its 20-year life. the Prosperity project would have created almost 1,000 jobs directly and indirectly and pumped about $200 million into the provincial economy. Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government hoped to reap $30 million a year from the mine, located in a pine beetle-ravaged logging area, 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake.

The project included an open pit mine on a 35-squarekilometre site in the Fish Creek watershed. It would have affected a pristine area that included the Taseko River, Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake. The plan called for the destruction of Fish Lake for use as a tailings pond and would have also resulted in the destruction of connecting streams, wetlands and aquatic life. Prentice was acting on a "scathing" report of a federal review panel that he said was "probably the most condemning report that I've seen."

The three-member federal panel noted that proposals by the company did not mitigate the damage that would be caused by the mine during its life. The panel noted that 90,000 rainbow trout would be destroyed by the project and the compensation plan filed by the company didn't meet federal requirements or provide assurance to First Nation communities that fish would be safe for consumption.

****Note RichardWede: The report also raised concerns about the adverse impact on a threatened grizzly population in the area and on present and future aboriginal rights.

Aboriginal groups had adamantly opposed the project. Rightly, they praised the federal government Wednesday for honouring its constitutional duty to protect First Nation rights and its responsibility to protect the environment, but said the decision demonstrates the need for a better way to identify and develop projects that are environmentally and culturally acceptable.

Although the panel said there was no way to mitigate the destruction the mine would cause under the proposal submitted, Prentice left the door open for the company to submit another plan. While that has alarmed environmental groups, who say there is no way to tame the "nasty polluting beasts" that are copper mines, the federal rejection of this proposal should raise flags in Alberta, where oilsands companies have been allowed to operate toxic tailings ponds despite a federal law that forbids them.

The B.C. government had argued the economic advantages of the mine would offset the environmental damage. The federal government, which has a responsibility to protect aboriginal people, fish and fish habitat, has responded with a powerful signal that profits and taxes do not trump environmental and human rights.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Tories+right+block+mine/3775058/story.html

[butcher99]

I've baited a bit of interest in this topic so here it is. It's own thread.

The gyst of this story is that there was an application put forth to the BC Government to open a gold/copper mine in a remote area near Williams Lake. The provincial government approved the mining permit despite the opposition from the area residents and the local First Nations band.

In the end, the federal government denied the application based on the arguements of those that opposed the mine development to the BC Government.

Cocky decisions made by the province DESPITE what the electorate wanted...starting to see a trend!

*edited to delete dead link

I am curious on your comments that local residents opposed the Prosperity mine. According to poll commissioned by the Tribune and Black Press shows support for the Prosperity mine in Williams Lake....


• 62 per cent of people want the federal cabinet to approve the mine, and 32 per cent do not want it approved.

• A plurality of all demographics want the mine approved. Support for the project increases with age.

• 83 per cent see positive economic impacts from the mine, but 55 per cent see negative environmental impacts.

Also.....


The Cariboo Regional District (CRD) board and its member municipalities of Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and Wells are expressing united support for the Prosperity gold-copper mine project proposed by Taseko Mines.

And I am told that the William's Lake Chamber and Mayor and Council also were in support. That is not to suggest some were opposed but I did not get the sense that "area" residents were collectively "opposed" as you had stated.

Great little article on the poll that was taken.
http://www.mail-archive.com/natnews-nor ... 07709.html

a little snippet from the article:

" * It was conducted by a boutique firm which boasts: "We know
what questions to ask, but more importantly, we know how to analyze the
results to help our clients win."

* It was conducted three months ago, before much of the negative
information about the project was widely known or considered in the
targeted communities.

* It was commissioned by a paper that has been adamant in its
editorial promotion of this mine. "

You have to read the questions asked and understand where the poll was taken to figure out why it was so much in favour of the project.
Only 200 people were surveyed and those 200 people were 100 from Williams Lake and 100 from 100 mile house. Two areas that would benefit the most from the project. To start with, 200 people is not enough surveyed to have a meaningful poll.

As for area residents being opposed, if you ask the right questions phrased the right way you can swing any poll.

I am not against the project. Neither am I for it. Let it go ahead as soon as they find a way to do it without killing the lake and without doing undo harm to the environment. Right now, it is obvious they do not have a plan that is environmentally sound. They do have 30 days to spruce up their proposal and I doubt we have heard the last of this yet.

[butcher99]

Well stated. One need look no further than the OKIB's blockade of Tolko's logging operations in Brown's Creek to see the "cards" played. At first, the Indians wanted a percentage of the harvest. Then, they said the trucks were a safety hazard to the westside residents. Then, when that was shown to be bunk, they played the "logging will destroy our drinking water" card. Hmm, odd that they didn't care about the drinking water or the truck safety when they wanted a slice of the annual allowable harvest.

As it turns out, OKIB were quite content when predecessor companies (Crown, Fletcher Challenge, Riverside) paid them 50¢ per M3 for all wood hauled down that road to shut them up. When Tolko bought out Riverside, they decided the Free Ride was over, and refused to pay the ransom. Suddenly, the share of cut, truck safety, and environmental cards were played and the illegal roadblocks went up. Go figure.

Is there something wrong with the Natives wanting a percentage of money from their own land? Or do you agree with big companies raping and pillaging the land?

It's not their land. It's Crown land that belongs EQUALLY to all the citizens of BC, and natural resource extraction is necessary to fund things like health care and education. Big companies (and small companies too) pay large fees for the rights to extract these resources to our government. Without them, we would have NO health care and NO schools. Then what? Will the natives pay for it?

No one has said never to the project. They have said that the way the proposal is now it is not environmentally sound. Fix the problems and come back.
Gone are the days when a company can just come in and extract what they want and move on. Although it would appear that this government feels it is ok, there are still some cooler heads in Ottawa. Killing the lake, no matter how poor quality lake it is, and I have no idea how poor it is, should just not be an option any longer.

[Merry]

Is there something wrong with the Natives wanting a percentage of money from their own land? Or do you agree with big companies raping and pillaging the land?

No, there is nothing is wrong with them wanting a piece of the economic pie. As a matter of fact I'm all in favour of a certain number of jobs being "guaranteed" for FN residents who live close to new mines, and a percentage of the profits being earmarked for infrastructure improvements on the reserve. What I'd really like to see is mines offering some First Nations youth apprenticeships, thereby guaranteeing them a brighter economic future. First Nations are right to demand such economic help from mining and logging companies that operate on their traditional lands. What I have a problem with is when people are less than honest about what they really want, and then choose to play the "environment" card when they don't get the economic benefits they feel they deserve; because blocking this kind of economic development has far reaching effects that impact more than just the mining company itself.
Nobody wants to allow mining or any other industry the right to pollute our environment at will, hence the need for strong environmental controls on such activity. But banning it outright is not the answer. There is no human activity on earth that doesn't have some sort of negative effect on the environment, so what we really need is to make sure that effect is managed in such a way as to keep it to a minimum. We don't need more environmental laws, we already have more than enough on the books. What we need are more government inspectors to enforce the laws we already have. But inspectors cost money, and if we continue preventing new industry from starting up in this Province, then the necessary money is going to be in even shorter supply than it currently is.

[Glacier]

New developments on this front.

Canadian securities investigators are probing a recent run on a B.C. gold mining stock and a possibility the sell-off was triggered by a leak of confidential information from inside the federal government, CBC News has learned.

Shares in Taseko Mines Ltd. mysteriously dropped almost 40 per cent in frantic trading on Oct. 14, more than two weeks before Ottawa announced it was blocking the firm's planned development of a controversial B.C. mine.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/ ... z16JLFSHx2

[Al Czervic]

New developments on this front.

Canadian securities investigators are probing a recent run on a B.C. gold mining stock and a possibility the sell-off was triggered by a leak of confidential information from inside the federal government, CBC News has learned.

Shares in Taseko Mines Ltd. mysteriously dropped almost 40 per cent in frantic trading on Oct. 14, more than two weeks before Ottawa announced it was blocking the firm's planned development of a controversial B.C. mine.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/ ... z16JLFSHx2

I wonder if the RCMP are going to get involved in this. They certainly did when the Federal Liberals were in power....

Federal officials interviewed by CBC News on condition of anonymity said the unexplained crash of Taseko stock caused instant panic in the ministerial offices that were involved in reviewing the proposed mine.
Everyone, they said, had the same fear — a government leak.

"We had an immediate concern when we saw it had happened," said one senior federal official. "It didn't appear right to us."

The political concern was understandable: An RCMP investigation of insider trading just before the former Liberal government's 2005 decision on income trusts sparked a political scandal that helped topple Paul Martin's administration. After a publicized review, the Liberals had decided to allow income trusts to continue.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/ ... z16Jetpc6A

[Merry]

It certainly does appear that there was some sort of a leak. Unfortunately, Canada's penalties for this type of white collar crime tend to be so mild they don't act as much of a deterrent to this sort of behaviour. Often petty thieves get more time in jail for shoplifting than some of our white collar criminals do. It's time for a major overhaul of the way we punish these more "well heeled" types of criminal.

[mrj222]

It certainly does appear that there was some sort of a leak. Unfortunately, Canada's penalties for this type of white collar crime tend to be so mild they don't act as much of a deterrent to this sort of behaviour. Often petty thieves get more time in jail for shoplifting than some of our white collar criminals do. It's time for a major overhaul of the way we punish these more "well heeled" types of criminal.

Not going to happen when the people in power to change the laws are the ones profiting off it.

[RJ2]

Like I've said before British Columbia will never be a Saskatchewan our resource based economy is defunct and and the whiners will throw up roadblocks that will always leave us a "have not" province with a hand out welfare state.....forever and ever............