SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
The federal government allowed a much smaller cost estimate for the cleanup of Giant Mine to circulate publicly for a year despite knowing the price tag was twice as high, at $903 million, according to a Northern watchdog group.
Kevin O'Reilly of Alternatives North visits at Giant Mine on Tuesday. A report released by the federal government through an access-to-information request by Alternatives North shows the federal government's overall estimated cost to clean up Giant Mine has increased to $930 million from $449 million. - Simon Whitehouse/NNSL photo |
Alternatives North obtained a Giant Mine remediation progress report dated Sept. 1 through an access-to-information request which states the total remediation project costs and liability estimates are now at $903,535,080. It also shows the figure was approved by the Treasury Board of Canada last March.
Nonetheless, the new nearly $1 billion figure was not released during public hearings with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board last August and September.
"When the government folks came to the review board to talk about the costs, they said it was $449 million," said Alternatives North representative Kevin O'Reilly.
"Earlier in their presentation, they also said they had spent $160 million. Even if they had spent that, it still leaves us $294 million short. What is the explanation for this difference and why did that approved cost figure from the treasury board not get disclosed to the review board?"
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
The report indicates the added costs are a "normal progression," and that inflation and escalating cost of living are factors in the increase, along with care and maintenance - including last minute plans to take down the roaster complex and stabilize underground mine workings. An expanded freezing study of arsenic chambers underground, where 237,000 tonnes of toxic arsenic trioxide - a byproduct from smelting gold ore - will remain indefinitely, is also planned.
The report states costs can be expected to rise higher still. The project is only in the second phase of a multi-decade project, and has yet to complete the environmental assessment, site stabilization plan, freeze optimization study, engineering designs and other care and maintenance needs - all to be done by 2017. The federal government originally predicted cleanup costs borne by taxpayers to total about $200 million.
"There is potential for the total project cost estimates to increase over time," states the report. "The increase in costs could occur due to the need to urgently address unanticipated risk events. Costs could also increase as a result of the completion of the engineering designs as these will provide significantly more detail for overall project planning."
O'Reilly said the theme that should be drawn from this most recent revelation is that more community partnerships have to be involved in the project's direction.
"What I want to see is the development of a real remediation plan that really involves the community and a much stronger say in what happens there," said O'Reilly.
"We can design a best set of options that we can come up with collectively. That way we can have a more meaningful role for the Yellowknives Dene First Nations, the City of Yellowknife and the citizens of the community."
Western Arctic MP Dennis Bevington raised the issue in the House of Commons on Wednesday during question period.
"It is very remiss for that to happen," said Bevington of the lack of disclosure during last year's public hearings.
"When this was all first laid out, the project costs was to be less than $300 million and it has simply escalated to this point now. We need to know that we are taking the right direction here with these additional costs."
Alan Ehrlich, manager of environmental impact assessment with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, said the board must consider many factors in its review of the project, and costs are only a small part of that.
"Our board's mandate is to assess potentially significant adverse projects and causes of public concern," said Ehrlich, adding the environmental assessment report is likely to be complete by June. "So what a project like this releases over the very long term into Great Slave Lake is something the board is going to think about.
"Whether it costs $449 million or $903 million over the next many, many decades are not going to be the main thing the board is thinking about."
