47116
49893

Ajax rejected

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby erinmore3775 » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:05 pm

Fortunately, it was not just the "environmentalist nuts" or the Indigenous Nations that lived near the proposed Ajax mine that opposed the granting of the permit. "...The City of Kamloops biggest concern was the potential hazards of a tailings pond. The city’s own consultant addressed those concerns somewhat, leaving dust from the mine’s operations as the biggest concern for Kamloops residents.
"The mine would be located just two kilometres from a residential area. An EAO report cited air quality concerns as one of the determining factors for rejection the project. http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/kamloops-council-opposes-proposed-ajax-mine/

The major concern was the tailings pond. Now if KGHM International Ltd., a Polish company, and B.C.’s Abacus Mining & Exploration Corp., had only proposed a solidification process for the management of the mine tailings, it is my opinion that the mine would have been approved. The Mount Polley disaster certainly put tailing ponds, controlled by earthen dams, in a new perspective. The fact that the mine and its pond would be located so close to urban development was a critical factor in its rejection.

The jobs could have been saved and the companies involved bottom lines improved if they had only decided that newer technology for tailings and dust control had been proposed.
"Justice will not come until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured."
- Thucydides, Greek Philosopher

"You make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give." - Winston Churchill

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
erinmore3775
Übergod
 
Posts: 1020
Likes: 900 posts
Liked in: 1398 posts
Joined: Aug 18th, 2010, 8:16 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Queen K » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:08 pm

erinmore3775 wrote:Fortunately, it was not just the "environmentalist nuts" or the Indigenous Nations that lived near the proposed Ajax mine that opposed the granting of the permit. "...The City of Kamloops biggest concern was the potential hazards of a tailings pond. The city’s own consultant addressed those concerns somewhat, leaving dust from the mine’s operations as the biggest concern for Kamloops residents.
"The mine would be located just two kilometres from a residential area. An EAO report cited air quality concerns as one of the determining factors for rejection the project. http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/kamloops-council-opposes-proposed-ajax-mine/

The major concern was the tailings pond. Now if KGHM International Ltd., a Polish company, and B.C.’s Abacus Mining & Exploration Corp., had only proposed a solidification process for the management of the mine tailings, it is my opinion that the mine would have been approved. The Mount Polley disaster certainly put tailing ponds, controlled by earthen dams, in a new perspective. The fact that the mine and its pond would be located so close to urban development was a critical factor in its rejection.

The jobs could have been saved and the companies involved bottom lines improved if they had only decided that newer technology for tailings and dust control had been proposed.



AH, so they tried to go cheap from the get-go. It will be interesting to see if they come back in the New Year with a new proposal addressing these very issues, or not.
If you have castanet friends on your facebook friend list, set your privacy setting on the friend list as "Only me." Just call, "Nagging Internet Wife" for all your problem nemesis'.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 49987
Likes: 10000 posts
Liked in: 10712 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Jflem1983 » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:09 pm

erinmore3775 wrote:Fortunately, it was not just the "environmentalist nuts" or the Indigenous Nations that lived near the proposed Ajax mine that opposed the granting of the permit. "...The City of Kamloops biggest concern was the potential hazards of a tailings pond. The city’s own consultant addressed those concerns somewhat, leaving dust from the mine’s operations as the biggest concern for Kamloops residents.
"The mine would be located just two kilometres from a residential area. An EAO report cited air quality concerns as one of the determining factors for rejection the project. http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/kamloops-council-opposes-proposed-ajax-mine/

The major concern was the tailings pond. Now if KGHM International Ltd., a Polish company, and B.C.’s Abacus Mining & Exploration Corp., had only proposed a solidification process for the management of the mine tailings, it is my opinion that the mine would have been approved. The Mount Polley disaster certainly put tailing ponds, controlled by earthen dams, in a new perspective. The fact that the mine and its pond would be located so close to urban development was a critical factor in its rejection.

The jobs could have been saved and the companies involved bottom lines improved if they had only decided that newer technology for tailings and dust control had been proposed.



Thats actually a good point. Why cant they make cement out of the tailings and get rid of it that way. Put even more people to work
We don't reach for handouts we reach for those who are down . "Garth Brooks "

You have got to stand for something . Or you will fall for anything "Aaron Tippin"
MAKE ALBERTA GREAT AGAIN

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
Jflem1983
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2933
Likes: 4817 posts
Liked in: 1648 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2015, 10:38 am

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby erinmore3775 » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:33 pm

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11595-012-0486-3

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/268596

" Why cant they make cement out of the tailings and get rid of it that way. Put even more people to work...

The above articles outline that process. While it would not necessarily be appropriate in the New Prosperity case it may have been appropriate in the Ajax Mine proposal. There are other solidification processes available to mining companies, however, they are more expensive than the traditional tailings pond.
"Justice will not come until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured."
- Thucydides, Greek Philosopher

"You make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give." - Winston Churchill

Cactusflower likes this post.
User avatar
erinmore3775
Übergod
 
Posts: 1020
Likes: 900 posts
Liked in: 1398 posts
Joined: Aug 18th, 2010, 8:16 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Boda » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:34 pm

Jflem1983 wrote:[
Thats actually a good point. Why cant they make cement out of the tailings and get rid of it that way. Put even more people to work


I think there'd be a significant volume of tailings from that (or any) mine that couldn't be used to make cement but dust control is definitely available and tailings ponds shouldn't be allowed to be rubber stamped by a company owned engineer to allow double it's original design capacity.
The corporations capable of the enormous task of extracting these minerals have proven time and again that the can't regulate themselves in the best interests of we the owners of the bounty they process. So governing bodies have to do it for them.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Boda
Board Meister
 
Posts: 675
Likes: 198 posts
Liked in: 240 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2007, 3:21 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 17th, 2017, 12:45 pm

There you two ^^^^^^^^ go again. Making reasonable suggestions, just to cloud up the emotional waters of irrational leftist thinking.

seewood likes this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1573
Likes: 533 posts
Liked in: 1019 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Queen K » Dec 17th, 2017, 1:35 pm

Ultimately, this version of the Ajax mine got rejected.

I suspect there will be a new, improved, cleaned up proposal in 2018 or even 2019.
If you have castanet friends on your facebook friend list, set your privacy setting on the friend list as "Only me." Just call, "Nagging Internet Wife" for all your problem nemesis'.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 49987
Likes: 10000 posts
Liked in: 10712 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 17th, 2017, 1:40 pm

They will probably try again with a revised plan, but I doubt it will get accepted either. It won't be rejected because of native issues, it will be rejected due to the environmental heath issues of the local townsfolk.
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1573
Likes: 533 posts
Liked in: 1019 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby maryjane48 » Dec 17th, 2017, 1:40 pm

Its on native land .its finished until the natives agree . [icon_lol2.gif]
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby maryjane48 » Dec 17th, 2017, 1:51 pm

Queen K wrote:Ultimately, this version of the Ajax mine got rejected.

I suspect there will be a new, improved, cleaned up proposal in 2018 or even 2019.

Wont matter .its dead for ever until the natives say yes . Canada,is heading into different times .the days of cowboy colonialism is coming to a end :130:
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Old Techie » Dec 17th, 2017, 3:53 pm

^^ Yes and the SJW's sitting at home on mom's couch will lead the charge. [icon_lol2.gif]
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein

Jflem1983 likes this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2485
Likes: 2061 posts
Liked in: 3408 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 17th, 2017, 4:27 pm

erinmore3775 wrote:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11595-012-0486-3

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/268596

" Why cant they make cement out of the tailings and get rid of it that way. Put even more people to work...

The above articles outline that process. While it would not necessarily be appropriate in the New Prosperity case it may have been appropriate in the Ajax Mine proposal. There are other solidification processes available to mining companies, however, they are more expensive than the traditional tailings pond.


According to a CBC news report, the approval process for the Ajax mine may continue:
"While the provincial government decided not to issue an environmental assessment certificate this week, the project is now before the federal government which could issue its own certificate and then send it back to the province for review."

Well, we all know how that turns out. Trudeau has a history of issuing environmental assessment certificates after provinces and First Nations reject projects. And as for KGHM spending money to clean up their act, that's not likely to happen.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4452147
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1791
Likes: 796 posts
Liked in: 403 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 17th, 2017, 4:33 pm

The "natives" were not the predominate factor in this decision. The Township has been fighting longer and harder than the "come lately natives". it was the White people that put the kibosh on this project, not the natives.
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1573
Likes: 533 posts
Liked in: 1019 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Ajax rejected

Postby Cactusflower » Dec 17th, 2017, 11:56 pm

alanjh595 wrote:The "natives" were not the predominate factor in this decision. The Township has been fighting longer and harder than the "come lately natives". it was the White people that put the kibosh on this project, not the natives.


Why is this so important to you? Nobody else cares who or what the 'predominate factor' was. The right decision was made. End of story.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1791
Likes: 796 posts
Liked in: 403 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Previous

Return to B.C.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests