EDITORIAL PAGE — The pros and cons of MRAs

Cynicism is regarded by some as intellectual defeatism, and by others as the triumph of experience over idealism. This just about sums up the difference of opinion within the mining industry over the thorny issue of mineral resource assessments (MRAs).

Industry organizations, including the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, are hearing widely divergent opinions about the role MRAs should play in land-use decisions, how they should be conducted, and how much importance governments should attach to them.

Some in the industry feel that MRAs, while far from perfect, are the best tool available for land-use planning. They argue that the industry should participate in the process of deciding which areas are prospective for mineral discoveries and which are not.

The opposing camp argues that MRAs are based on incomplete data that may be valid for only a limited time, and that, therefore, they are a flawed tool that results in bad decision-making by government. (As industry participants well know, changing economic conditions and new technologies can transform areas of low-mineral potential into highly promising, even successful, ventures.) Others in this camp feel that MRAs compromise attempts at achieving multiple land-use designations, based on the principle of sustainable development.

There are cynics in both camps.

Some support the MRA process not because they feel it is especially useful, but simply because they believe it will help clarify which blocks of land they can and cannot explore. In other words, if the “greenies” want, say, 15% of the land protected, give it to them and let’s get on with exploring the rest.

In the opposing camp, some cynics see MRAs as having little weight if, as is often the case, government has another agenda. In theory, the selection of protected areas is supposed to be based on scientific criteria, followed by consultations with industry and other stakeholders. Final selection is supposed to take into account appropriate economic, environmental and social information.

But all these good intentions can go out the window when a government is out to score political points with environmental groups, Windy Craggy being a case in point.

The British Columbia government set aside a corner of the province that would appear to host one of the province’s richest mineral districts. The region contains a world-class copper-cobalt deposit, as well as a geologic belt prospective for similar discoveries. Common sense dictates that this valuable resource should be kept available for exploitation. But scientific and economic reasoning had little sway over the provincial legislators who, instead, based their decision on rhetoric and propaganda. What resulted was one of the worst land-use decisions ever made in Canada.

Small wonder, then, that the industry is struggling to formulate a position on what essentially amounts to the use of a less-than-perfect tool in a less-than-perfect world.

After months of debate, the PDAC has taken a stand which supports the use of MRAs as a tool in the decision-making process for land-use planning. But the endorsement comes with a list of eight provisions which suggest that this support is less than whole-hearted. Clearly, government and industry need to work together to make mineral resource assessments a more effective tool for land-use planning.