E-mails reveal GNWT's hoped to save Robertson Headframe
All came to a sudden end after government attempts went public
Shane Magee
Northern News Services
Friday, October 28, 2016
SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
Last April, territorial government officials were brimming with optimism at the prospect of the GNWT stepping in to save the Robertson Headframe from demolition.
E-mails and other documents reveal an initially confident bureaucracy aiming at announcing an agreement to save the headframe. |
Less than four months later the government was in full flight as questions arose about liability and transparency in the government's bid to keep the iconic Yellowknife landmark from falling.
This is what has been learned from documents obtained by Yellowknifer through an access to information request.
The more than 500 pages of e-mails and other documents reveal an initially confident bureaucracy aiming toward announcing an agreement between the GNWT and Con Mine owner Newmont Mining Corporation as early as May in time for Tourism Week.
"Congratulations Mark! This will be a very interesting and exciting project," Kelly Kaylo, acting deputy minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment wrote to the then-deputy minister of Lands Mark Warren on April 1.
The ball began rolling in early March shortly after Yellowknifer reported a contractor had been hired by Newmont subsidiary Miramar Mining Corporation to demolish the headframe by the end of April.
CloudWorks Adventure Capital Inc. managing partner Rob Warburton and NWT Mining Society President Walt Humphries met March 15 with then-Lands minister Robert C. McLeod in the cabinet room at the legislative assembly, providing a slide show outlining a plan to turn the headframe into a tourist attraction. The meeting triggered an examination of the idea and the risks the government could face.
"It would not likely cost anything to add it to our program," wrote a manager of risk management and insurance with the Department of Finance, in an e-mail March 21.
"If we were to insure the headframe for replacement cost - I'd need a property appraisal to establish that value, first - and it would cost a fairly small amount of money to insure it."
The manager outlined three concerns: condition of the land around the headframe, condition of the building and security/liability.
"It's going to be an attractive hazard and we will have to make sure that it is safe for any visitors - or figure out a way to make sure we don't have visitors," the manager wrote about the liability risk.
Much of what was considered in negotiations has been redacted from the released documents.
One of the few glimpses comes in an e-mail from one Department of Lands official who wrote that Newmont was "basically looking for ways to be free to carry out the remediation they're responsible for, while still preserving options for things like parking and access to the headframe structure."
On June 30, multiple spokespeople were sent an e-mail announcing "head's up - headframe agreement reached," that outlined steps for breaking the news, including planning around dates the minister of Lands wouldn't be available.
Word of the headframe negotiations wasn't a well kept secret in the city. By July 6 a reporter contacted the government seeking comment about the talks. The story was published July 13, triggering some MLAs to react with surprise about not being told of the talks by cabinet.
Their comments were sent to several staffers including Sean Dean, the top cabinet communications official.
"Meh," he wrote back. The rest of the message was redacted.
At some point in July, cabinet decided to end efforts to save the headframe and the focus shifted to how to break that news.
The e-mails do highlight worries about the risk the government could face if a plan for a third party to take over the headframe didn't materialize.
The GNWT faced being on the hook for $2 million or more in liabilities to cover future demolition and reclamation costs had long term maintenance of the headframe proved unfeasible. Andrew Livingstone, cabinet senior communications adviser, told Yellowknifer on Wednesday additional costs including structural repair work at $235,000, $5,000 for surveying the land, $70,000 for fencing and maintenance costs of $50,000 to $100,000 per year.
The GNWT would also have to pay Newmont about $52,250 - half the money the company already spent preparing the headframe for demolition as talks began. On March 23, Mike Burns, assistant deputy minister of Public Works and Services, highlighted the GNWT's experience with the Negus Mine site and how after years of delays and deteriorating buildings, the government was forced to undertake reclamation.
"All the Mine Heritage folks could come up with after all that time was enough to salvage a (corner) piece of one of the old log buildings for display purposes. In the meantime the GNWT was significantly exposed due to the deteriorating condition of the unprotected assets on site," he wrote.
The following day, Ernie Campbell, deputy minister of Environment and Natural Resources, wrote that if the government were to step in, it needed to be sure of what would come next.
"Before taking this step we must be confident not only that there are parties seriously interested in acquiring this site from the GNWT but also that these parties are capable of posting the necessary security for the reclamation of this structure," Campbell wrote.
Despite concerns, it appears the government never sought a business plan from Humphries and Warburton. Instead they were told several times in April to sit and wait for news of an agreement.
"We realize this might not be a quick process but a confidential update would be appreciated," Warburton wrote April 21. It's not been established whether the group had the financial means to back up a plan. In any event an announcement on the deal never materialized. On July 29, the GNWT issued a news release stating it had "determined that a suitable agreement could not be reached."
Even Miramar seemed caught by surprise by this.
"We believed the revised agreement met all of the GNWT's demands and was therefore acceptable to both parties," general manager Scott Stringer wrote in a statement in August.
