• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (24)
  •  

City council should approve drilling program

Published on March 15, 2013
Published on March 14, 2013
Topics :
Dear Editor , Department of Environment and Conservation , Department of Natural Resources , Corner Brook , Newfoundland and Labrador

Dear Editor: A version of this letter has been sent to members of Corner Brook city council.

Dear Mayor Greeley and councillors: Thomas Resources has proposed a routine exploration drilling program for the benign industrial minerals, garnet and kyanite, on Crown land in the Corner Brook region.

The project has been approved by Department of Environment and Conservation, which is responsible for water resources, and the Department of Natural Resources, among other provincial agencies.

As well, the company has committed to going far beyond the usual precautions to protect the environment.

However, the project has run into vocal opposition, apparently based on a misunderstanding of what is involved, although Thomas Resources has attempted to provide detailed information on the project and anyone interested may call or email the company for further information.

Most municipal water supplies in Newfoundland are from surface sources and, like that of Corner Brook, the catchment areas can have a very large aerial extent.

The Trans-Canada Highway runs through many of them and motorists will see signs noting some of them on their trips across the island.

Mineral exploration is routinely conducted in such areas with the appropriate precautions and regulatory oversight and it is, therefore, difficult to see what opponents of the Thomas Resources project view as the particular risks posed by this project.

On the other hand, should exploration be successful and the company willing to make the investment, the project could, after a rigorous permitting process by the province and city, help diversify the local and regional economy.

We urge city council to approve the project. If Corner Brook and other communities were to reject the mere possibility of resource development and wealth creation in their regions, companies will have no option but to take their investments to other parts of the world where they are welcome.

The fact that more of our children have a better chance than previous generations of building a decent life in Newfoundland and Labrador is a result of the contribution of the resource industries to the economy.

Without resource development, from where would the good jobs, the opportunities for our businesses and the tax revenues that fund our health, education and public services come?

Gerry O’Connell, P.Geo., executive

director, Mining Industry NL

Comments

  • Username
    Rod Mercer
    - March 23, 2013 at 15:58:50

    The drilling project is a terrible idea. The evidence speaks for itself.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      david
      - April 4, 2013 at 19:18:59

      The drilling project is a good idea. The economic potential speaks for itself. So....that's an equally well-presented and thorough rebuttal.

  • Username
    garge
    - March 19, 2013 at 21:03:52

    if we are not going to allow the drilling in the watershed then why are we spending 60 million dollars to build a water treatment plant that cant even filter out a bit if drill dust.i never heard of a hole being a dangerto health as the most of us grew up drinking water from a hole dug in the ground-its called a well for council members.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Rod Mercer
    - March 18, 2013 at 13:36:49

    I would like to respond to a comment made by 'Shawn" below where he countered my comment regarding the possiblity of moving the intake pipe..The official designated protected water supply for the city is the Eastern Lakes Watershed. For reasons unknown to me but maybe because of convenience at the time of construction, the intake pipe was place in Corner Brook Stream below where Eastern Lakes Brook runs into CB Stream. As a result the city's water supply receives water from both the Corner Brook Lake Watershed and the Eastern Lakes Watershed. These two watersheds can likely serve the water requirements for a city of 200,000 people yet Corner Brook is a city of less than 20,000. Therefore, the mitigation of extending the intake pipe to the actual designated watershed is a reasonable scenario and one worthy of study IF we are sucessful in proving a viable deposit. By extending the pipe the water flowing from the CB Lake watershed would not enter the city's water supply....We are in the data collection phase of this project and we are willing to let the project pass or fail on its merits. However, those who are opposed to the project are suggesting that your water supply is in danger as a reason to not allow the answers to the questions about the project to be presented...So I ask, who is doing the greater service to the community, us who are willing to provide the answers or those who are trying to stop us from collecting the data to answer the questions that we all have?? We are honestly trying as hard as we can to do business in Corner Brook, so I hope this comment will travel as far as the misinformation being spread by others has..

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      Shawn
      - March 18, 2013 at 20:13:43

      Well, it's been left up to our city council to decide if you get those answers or not. They have a proven track record of completely bizarre decisions so it certainly could go either way. My personal opinions of the project aside, I hope we all find the factual answers we are looking for.

  • Username
    That Guy
    - March 18, 2013 at 10:31:03

    Ok well lets not develop a profitable resource. Let's not allow a modular home facility under normal operating conditions, lets not allow a mini-home subdivision, lets not allow costco, etc. You have to compete on the world market to survive. Maybe developing a world class environmental protection system that includes managing and sustaining resource development could be a start. As for the ACOA report on the role of post secondary on Corner Brook's economy, well I have seen this before. So 83.8 million dollars in expendatures over a year. It does not seem to outline construction costs as an expendature....as it is not clear whether it is a part of the years total spending I am reluctant to consider the overall figure as a sustainable dollar figure over, lets say, 20 years. A mining operation will profit probably, at least, double the post secondary's overall spending. And that includes CONA, Acadamy Canada, and MUN. So given how much it costs to mine a resource, multiply that by five, and you have a 10 fold economic increase in our area over that of post secondary education. I wish you people would stop using the catch phrase "watershed" and use your environmental knowledge to help develop this program with an environmental responsibility instead of bash it like a bunch of wieners. Coner Brook's lowest elevation is at sea level and some of the highest points in Newfoundland surrond it. Of course a development is going to be in the watershed, the whole friggen area is a watershed for god sakes. But like I said, if you guys have it the way you want it, depending on the provincial and federal government for jobs and security, I will not be a part of Corner Brook much longer. If the governments keep cutting the way they do, soon there will only be two types of income in Corner Brook anyways. Those working in the EI office and those collecting EI.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Donald
    - March 16, 2013 at 19:20:12

    As a BBA student at Grenfell, I know it is not only green-washed elitist students who are taking this stance against development in a protected watershed zone. Not only am I a BBA, I have also worked in quarries, gravel pits in Alberta, and I have even planted trees in the clear cuts near the proposed development. The area is breathtaking; the thought of a quarry scarring the beautiful landscape is stomach-wrenching. I believe in responsible resource development which accounts for all the externalities and risks associated with such a development. A proposed quarry in a watershed zone is not responsible resource development. It’s argued that students are only temporary residents of Corner Brook, but many hope to be permanent. However the economy needs to grow in areas that accommodate the degrees of those students. There is amazing potential in Corner Brook, the city sits within an environmental paradise. It is extremely picturesque and full of kind hearted people. The only economic opportunities here are not the age old industrial resource extraction. Corner Brook does not need to be a city propped up by an industry that has an expiry date. Those 50 jobs are but a drop in the “bucket” when compared to the Post-Secondary Sector. Think of the future, is Corner Brook to go from a “Mill Town” to a “Mining Town” or will it become something more?

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      david
      - March 18, 2013 at 13:30:01

      Donald: Those 50 jobs certainly are a drop in the bucket....from the perspective of someone who certainly feels they are above needing one of them. The "expiry date" on your hubris is graduation day...and I predict that your real education might begin soon after (if ever). 'Paradise' is where you tell your kids that the family pet ended up...grow up, man. Shake your head, read a newspaper....and please pay back the student loan we gave you.

  • Username
    Nick Mercer
    - March 16, 2013 at 18:48:52

    I believe that city-council needs to take the no-risk approach here. Come on people, this is our drinking water. I am all for responsible resource development, but nothing about developing so close to a drinking water source can be considered responsible. I understand the need for data collection, but if we allow this project to move forward here we are opening up the opportunity for full-scale development in our watershed. From a purely fundamental perspective, the community must be cognizant of the fact that quarries and similar developments can indeed be developed, but they must be developed away from communities, pristine and/or fragile environments and most importantly away from any water supply which our communities thrive on. Simply stated, quarries are an option, water supplies are not!

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      david
      - March 18, 2013 at 13:46:01

      So that's it...the strawman of 'clean water' is simply too fundamental to even utter all this complete heresy. It is self-evident, so no evidence needs be presented. Fine.....you sold me! So, now what do we do? Well, I for one demand that we create a 100-mile buffer around this "Lake of Life". Corner Brook needs to be vacated, it's simply too selfish and risky for us to live this close, presenting such a hazard to it's purity. It is well-reported and documented that the typical Corenr Brook resident is completely environmentally ignorant, predisposed to polluting and spoiling our very own living spaces. It's not us that deserves this water...it's our unborn, great-grand kids. So I say we stop being such drinking it altogether, so that the future generations wil have all they want.

  • Username
    That Guy
    - March 16, 2013 at 06:34:50

    As a long standing resident, a professional in the civil construction industry, a fiance, a father, and a tax payer, I will consider the rejection of this project as the last of many reasons I leave the City of Corner Brook. The only reason my family stays here is because one of us has a great job in Corner Brook, and you will never guess who the employer is.....the Provincial Government of course. This and past councils automated rejections of viable business plans is the most ridiculous show of politics I have come across. And no offense to students or the unions, (I was on the GCSU at one point) I wish you would stop your whining and look at the real picture. Students do not inject money into the economy. An average of $40 000 spent over 4 years is hardly a drop in the bucket where economic development is concerned. And the resulitng PUBLIC SECTOR jobs that arise from this higher education, about 1/3 of a drop of water in the bucket. Companies today are more responsible for their actions than you think. And not only the companies, but the people running the companies as well. Given the environment impact assessments and the resulting litigation for non-compliance, you can be rest assured that companies take due care in providing a product or service that is not harmful to the evnironment. So here is the issue you face my fair council. Approve this project and agitate a few residents (most of which are temporary as they are students) or approve this project and create a better quality of life for the rest of the residents. Do you guys have any idea, ANY IDEA, how much economic development comes from a project like this. It's not just the jobs from the mining itself, its the dependance these projects have on local businesses. Just putting this out there, and maybe just to stir our pot with 1 + 1/3 drops of water in it, but maybe Grenfell needs an engineering and a law program. At least a few students along with the BBA's who have enough sense to argue with environmentalist. Maybe if we had a few representatives on the other side of the arguement in the GCSU, this would not be such a lengthy and needless discussion.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      Glen Keeling
      - March 16, 2013 at 18:15:05

      Your figure of 40 000 over four years is incorrect. Please have a look at this link, which is a study done on the economic impact of the PSE sector in Corner Brook. http://www.cornerbrook.com/images/Business/Impact%20Analysis%20of%20Post%20Secondary%20Education%20in%20Corner%20Brook%20Final%20Report%20June%2012%20%202012.pdf Student related spending contributes over 50 million EVERY SINGLE YEAR to the GDP of the area. As for your comments on engineering and law, there is engineering in St Johns and programs are not duplicated between campuses. A feasibility of a law program is also in progress currently. Bringing more programs to Grenfell will no doubt be beneficial I agree with you completely on that note. The problem here is that the regulations and non-compliance measures you speak of are nowhere near what they need to be. This is clearly stated withing the Watershed Management Plan

  • Username
    Jack
    - March 15, 2013 at 20:33:01

    Since Mayor Greeley, Leo Bruce, and their Corner Brook City Council merry men have already done enough economic damage to the city with one major business idea after another rejected, notably the Modular Home Plant, Teen Dance Hall, trailer park, and also put a stop to John's Point Subdivision, if Mayor Greeley wants his last chance to attract economic development and investors, and prove to the world that Corner Brook is open for business and development, he should do the right thing and allow Thomas Resources to conduct mineral exploration around Corner Brook Lake. However, if Greeley and his merry men reject this project, then this city will be ruined and become a ghost town as the world will know that Corner Brook is not open to business. Secondly, it would send a message that Corner Brook has an anti-entrepreneurial climate that will hurt this city further. Mayor Greeley, before you get voted out in the 2013 Civic Elections, do the right thing for once in your tenure and approve this project. That way, the city will be prepared for life after Pulp and Paper.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Lonewolf
    - March 15, 2013 at 14:46:58

    Yes very good idea, spend the money on students so that when they get educated, they can leave the province and go somewhere where there is work because the stupid idiots in this province won't allow any development . I think they are afraid people might get jobs.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    CB Daddy
    - March 15, 2013 at 11:57:59

    Why is it that opposition to this project is based upon misunderstanding? Why is it that the Mayor categorizes people who are opposed to this as emotional? Quite frankly I find this insulting. Resource development, wealth creation and economic benefits do not have to come from out dated, traditional, turn of the century methods. How about focusing on post secondary education. By some accounts the students that decided to go to school here in Corner Brook contribute over one million dollars per month to our local economy. If you add in the multiplier effect, a basic economic principle, that one million dollars could easily be 1.5 million dollars monthly. Mineral exploration is all about risk vs. reward. There is far too much risk here for far too little reward. Of the reward available... I'm sure Thomas Resources will rape most of it and not the dozen or so people who will get minimum wage jobs.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      david
      - March 15, 2013 at 18:40:27

      The absence of any data or verifiable facts, the use of hyperbole and lies, and the dependence on fear and emotion is where the accurate "categorization" of these people comes from. And where do you get your financial firures from ? A million dollars a month?!? Really? I call complete, utter ridiculous BS. Of the much smaller "real" figure, how much of that is paid through student loans, ie. the taxpayer? And how much of that ever gets repaid to the taxpayer who lent it. Go away, b'ye...your opinion isn't even worth laughing at.

  • Username
    Shawn
    - March 15, 2013 at 09:51:32

    " apparently based on a misunderstanding of what is involved " . Wrong. It's not that we misunderstand anything about the current proposition. It's that we do understand what the end product will be if the current proposal is successful, which is a mine/quarry within our defined watershed area. If the mine/quarry is unacceptable to us, then the exploration is pointless. Let me ask you this Gerry O'Connell, will a full scale mine/quarry be a good fit with the Corner Brook Watershed Development Plan, or will there have to be adjustments to that plan for the mine/quarry to proceed? I read the flyer from Thomas Resources this morning and they are focusing their marketing of the project on the exploration rather than the end game just as you are. We don't see it that way. I encourage everyone to stand back and look at the big picture while visualizing the end product, which is a mine/quarry within our watershed area. There are many other ways to maximize our economic potential here in the Corner Brook area without this project. Our leaders just have to open their minds to new ways of doing business and get off the age old bandwagon of non renewable resources as the mainstay of the economy. As an example, this mine would bring some jobs for a limited number of years because of the finite supply of the mineral in question. Refitting a failing paper mill to produce currently in demand paper products(such as retail grade tissues, toilet paper, hand towels and such) could supply the same or more jobs but could be sustainable indefinably with proper forest management. We should never lose sight of the fact that Thomas/Pennecon are not in business to create jobs or protect our watershed area. It's about the end product which, for them, is however many dollars worth of minerals are located the area. Once that is gone, so will they, so will the jobs, but their footprint in our watershed will be there for many generations. We should be focusing on more sustainable industries so that "our children have a better chance than previous generations of building a decent life in Newfoundland and Labrador".

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      david
      - March 15, 2013 at 12:36:05

      The paper mill is a source of airborne toxins and poisons that are killing our children.....and some people drink only bottled water, but everyone breathes air. And the mill is a certainty, while your fears about the watershed are just possibilities. Ergo, you need to focus on shutting down the mill, Shawn. Quit re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and prioritize, man!

    • Username
      Rod Mercer
      - March 15, 2013 at 18:07:18

      Hi Shawn, I believe we met at the public info session, where I explained that one of the possible migitations we could study is extending the city's intake pipe to the actual designated protected watershed at Eastern Lakes Brook. This would in affect remove our project area from the city watershed area...Regarding the refit of the paper mill,,if that were to happen it would require wood thus cutting in the watershed would be required with a foot print of 100's of hectares and much more operation equipment than we would ever need..Regarding our business,,we do create jobs and lots of them..If we are sucessful in proving a viable deposit the quarry life would be 30 to 40 years...Regarding our foot print, by law our foot print will be ZERO at the end of quarry life..During operation it will be never more that 10 hectares..To respond to person above regarding the low wage jobs..If we are sucessful most of the jobs created would be professional and high skilled type positions..Finally to restate our position again, we are seeking approval to collect the data to answer the questions many people have, including us. Without this information no one will know if the project is a good idea or a bad one..We are willing to provide these answers and if it turns out that the project is not viable then it will be our loss..

    • Username
      Shawn
      - March 18, 2013 at 08:26:20

      The refit of the paper mill was just an example, nothing more. With that said, Mr. Mercer, that area should never have been clear cut from the beginning. There is a lot of forest on this island that can be harvested and cultivated without using that area. That area was clear cut simply because of the power that one company held over this city. Those days are gone for good or bad, depending on who you are. With respect to moving the city intake source, that will not remove your project from the watershed area. Please refer to the definition of a "watershed area or basin", just as was pointed out at the information session. Please forgive me if I don't have much faith in your statement about either a zero footprint after the fact or the 30 to 40 year figure. History has shown that just never happens. We are still trying to remediate mines on this island that closed in the 1970's. History has also shown that people with a financial stake in a project such as this have not always been forthcoming with complete facts. I have no financial stake in this whatsoever, I just want my family to have a source of clean water. In fact, my business would benefit greatly from your project, but it doesn't make it right. My point was that this area does need economic growth, but not at all cost. The same economic growth provided by this project could be realized in a number of ways without taking a chance on destroying our water source. Our leaders just need to move into the present with their thinking. That doesn't include possibly trading off a lifetime of potable water for a few years of economic growth that could be obtained in other ways. The ends just don't justify the means from my side of the issue.

    • Username
      Rod Mercer
      - March 18, 2013 at 12:15:35

      Shawn, for your benifit please follow this link to the current requirements under the mining act regarding reclamation and closure;http://assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/regulations/rc000042.htm...progressive reclamation and proper mine closure is required by law and an operation can not start until a finiance bond in place to cover the closure costs..It appears our government has learned from the mistakes of history that you are referring to. I thought I should make you aware of those changes (that are now approximately 15 years old)...Also with regard to your lesson about the defination of a watershed, if you read my comment you will see that i said the city's watershed..We will never ask you to trade potable water for a mine, we are saying the exact opposite..We will confirm no harm to the water supply or the project will not be proposed..

  • Username
    G.B.
    - March 15, 2013 at 09:38:53

    While it is your right to state your case for this development, you are wrong on one point. The people are not simply against this because of a "misunderstanding", it is based on looking at examples from history. How many times have communities been promised that there will be no harm done by projects and agencies only to be surprised later when those promises were not true. When it comes to vital resources of a community, there should be a ZERO risk attitude. Once our water supply is contaminated, there is no going back. The people of Corner Brook have endured some questionable decisions and skewed policies from our council and when it comes to our water we are unwilling to gamble on their oversight this time around. Corner Brook welcomes the business of outside investors but on this issue I think a bit of stubbornness is warranted.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      david
      - March 15, 2013 at 12:56:12

      Examples from history? That isn't "history", it's very selective, cherry-picked stories that you use to prey on people's fears. The major lesson from "History" shows unequivocally that capitalism and indutrialization raise a society's standard of living. They provide the economic resources and technological advancements that benefit everyone for a common good. Yet Newfoundlanders, quite uniquely, reject and largely despise the private sector, especially "big business", we prefer government economic solutions to everything, and we expect to be able to live forever in any little cove, outport or dnet in the Earth that we prefer (including Corenr Brook, BTW), whether there is any economic rationale for it or not. AS far as vilifying Thomas Resources as a company that "will ruin our lives and poison our water and blah balh balh...."., there are regulations in place, rules to follow, and well-paid government emoployees whose job it is to oversee and ensure that doesn't happen. If you have such basic fears for your own safety, I strongly suggest you take more of an interest in the inefficacy of the government you are paying quite a lot to do this job on everyone's behalf.

  • Username
    G.B.
    - March 15, 2013 at 09:32:19

    While it is your right to state your case for this development, you are wrong on one point. The people are not simply against this because of a "misunderstanding", it is based on looking at examples from history. How many times have communities been promised that there will be no harm done by projects and agencies only to be surprised later when those promises were not true. When it comes to vital resources of a community, there should be a ZERO risk attitude. Once our water supply is contaminated, there is no going back. The people of Corner Brook have endured some questionable decisions and skewed policies from our council and when it comes to our water we are unwilling to gamble on their oversight this time around. Corner Brook welcomes the business of outside investors but on this issue I think a bit of stubbornness is warranted.

    Submit a comment

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

More

Business Directory


Milestones Moving Up

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
SmartEdition logo smart

Advertising