Valuing safe drinking water

Suzuki Fan

- March 14, 2013 at 12:36:29

Hello. I am a student. I have nevwer held a real job, or had to make a mortgage payment, or faced many difficult decisions yet in life. Maybe someday. But for now, I'd ust like to pick and choose a few issues to stick my nose into, and exercise my right to be the dangerously misinformed, pompously self-confident, elitist, green-brainwashed fool that I am. And BTW, do NOT Google the term "Saint Suzuki Scandal" and watch the associated Youtube video clip.....that is totally not the truth about our wonderful leader!

Submit a comment

Rod Mercer

- March 13, 2013 at 11:35:20

Glen, Thank you for your letter. You are absolutely right in saying that the focus should be the details of the project. To this point I would like to clarify and add to some of the statements you have made and restate some of the very pertinent information that Thomas Resources has submitted to City Council, the Grenfell Student’s Union, the Western Environment Centre and provided at the public information session. Firstly, as we discussed with you in our meeting on February 28 and with the attendees at the public information session that same evening, our project area is located in an area designated as an Unprotected Water Supply Area in the City of Corner Brook’s Watershed Management Plan. The Protected Water Supply Area is approximately 5 km north of the project area and is generally known as the Eastern Lakes watershed. I hope you can recall the one of the possible mitigations we discussed, SHOULD development be viable, whereby we would study the possibility of extending the city’s water intake pipe to Eastern Lakes Brook. This point was also covered in the Q&A handout which you were given and which was also available at the public information session. This handout was also given to council, WEC and the press. For clarity, the question and answer from this handout is copied below: Is Thomas Resources prepared to provide information on its future plans and how they will protect the environment moving forward? Because we have no reliable data on which to base a development decision, we cannot provide a detailed development plan. However, we have been aware of the sensitivity of working in the watershed since we began our work in 2003 and have conducted our activities accordingly. If a project were to move to a quarry operation, one of the mitigating actions that we could build into the viability analysis of the project is extending the city’s intake pipe to Eastern Lakes Brook. This would effectively remove Corner Brook Lake (and therefore our project) from the watershed which is part of the city’s water supply. Secondly, I would like to clarify the point you made regarding this project being our largest single quarry project. What I said was, this project, IF successful, at a possible $50M investment, would be our largest single capital investment to date. We provided this information to make the point that we are not undertaking this project lightly. This project has to be environmentally sound or we will not proceed. With regard to quarry production, we actually produce between 1 and 1.5 million tonnes annually. If we are successful at Corner Brook Lake, such an operation would be considered a small to midi-sized operation. Next, you are correct in saying that the ultimate goal of our mineral exploration is mineral development. This is obviously true for us and all mineral exploration companies. However, to state that the risk of exploration is too high because its goal is development is incorrect. Exploration is data collection required to answer the very difficult, yet basic questions such as, is this project environmentally sound? Is this project economically sound? The basic fact is, neither you nor I, council or anyone else know the answers to these questions at this point. We are willing to provide the data to answer these questions and the only RISK we are willing to take is that the answers will not be favourable to project development..To close this point, I would encourage you and all your fellow students to base all your decisions on sound data. Finally, I would like add that Corner Brook is truly blessed to have such a strong post-secondary sector and I encourage all involved that seek ways to expand this sector at every opportunity. I would also like to add that IF we are successful in confirming an environmental and economically sound project at Corner Brook Lake we would add to the economy of the city, thus complementing the contribution of the post-secondary sector.. I would also hope that our presence would create opportunity for expansion of post-secondary sector with the introduction to a brand new business to the city and the province. Kind Regards, Rod Mercer.

Submit a comment

• 

  Grenfell Campus Student Union

  - March 15, 2013 at 09:36:17

  Mr. Mercer, We have never questioned the transparency of your company (and in fact have praised it), but we do contest the message you are trying to convey in some of your comments. The area is not protected water supply, you are correct. It is however protected via management plans and regulations which control the types of activity and development that can occur. This is a form of protection and it is in place for a valid reason. We recognize that mitigation ideas have been proposed, however we do not believe that changing the source of the water is an ideal solution. The notion that we can simply create a new water source whenever something potentially damaging could occur in our current source is flawed. Eventually, we run out of water sources. Furthermore, the inter-connectivity of lakes through streams and brooks means that an incident in one area may potentially affect a significantly larger area. The City’s Watershed Management plan states “Currently, guidelines exist for mineral exploration, mining and quarrying. However, before these activities are approved for operation, more stringent best management practices should be developed and resources found to ensure their enforcement." (pg 101). This explicitly states that our current policies are not adequate for Mineral exploration to be allowed. This plan can be found at http://www.cornerbrook.com/images/CityHall/Development%20and%20Planning/Corner%20Brook%20Watershed%20Document_Final_Draft_web.pdf The plan also cites ten specific risks associated with mineral exploration and quarry development (pg 61). The plan states that “Sedimentation is of grave concern with regard to potable water supplies as it can lead to a decline in surface water quality.” (pg 58). It goes on to state that both mineral exploration and quarry development are potential contributors to increased sedimentation of the water. We believe that City Council should respect the conclusions of its own study, recognize the great number of concerned citizens, and put a stop to this project before it goes any further. Sincerely, The Grenfell Campus Student Union

• 

  Grenfell Campus Student Union

  - March 15, 2013 at 09:40:47

  Mr. Mercer, We have never questioned the transparency of your company (and in fact have praised it), but we do contest the message you are trying to convey in some of your comments. The area is not protected water supply, you are correct. It is however protected via management plans and regulations which control the types of activity and development that can occur. This is a form of protection and it is in place for a valid reason. We recognize that mitigation ideas have been proposed, however we do not believe that changing the source of the water is an ideal solution. The notion that we can simply create a new water source whenever something potentially damaging could occur in our current source is flawed. Eventually, we run out of water sources. Furthermore, the inter-connectivity of lakes through streams and brooks means that an incident in one area may potentially affect a significantly larger area. The City’s Watershed Management plan states “Currently, guidelines exist for mineral exploration, mining and quarrying. However, before these activities are approved for operation, more stringent best management practices should be developed and resources found to ensure their enforcement." (pg 101). This explicitly states that our current policies are not adequate for Mineral exploration to be allowed. This plan can be found at http://www.cornerbrook.com/images/CityHall/Development%20and%20Planning/Corner%20Brook%20Watershed%20Document_Final_Draft_web.pdf The plan also cites ten specific risks associated with mineral exploration and quarry development (pg 61). The plan states that “Sedimentation is of grave concern with regard to potable water supplies as it can lead to a decline in surface water quality.” (pg 58). It goes on to state that both mineral exploration and quarry development are potential contributors to increased sedimentation of the water. We believe that City Council should respect the conclusions of its own study, recognize the great number of concerned citizens, and put a stop to this project before it goes any further. Sincerely, The Grenfell Campus Student Union

Jim Jim

- March 13, 2013 at 07:27:13

Well it appears Mr. Mercer's opinion of what the students said and what the students actually said is very different. What else will be different I wonder? This is our drinking water people. Our drinking water!!! Wake up.

Submit a comment