EDITORIAL PAGE — Bad timing

In case anyone needed reminding that Canadian mining has entered a new era, in which projects must be justified in terms not merely of economics but of environmental and social concerns as well, they need only consider events of the past week in Saskatchewan.

There, Denison and its partners in a couple of uranium projects were dealt a severe setback. A panel established under the auspices of FEARO (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office) recommended shelving McClean Lake (Denison and Cogema) for at least five years and scrapping the Midwest joint venture (Denison, Cogema and Uranerz) altogether. A third decision on a proposed extension of Cogema’s Cluff Lake mine was approved. Now, the provincial and federal governments can either accept or reject the panel’s recommendations. The federal response is expected later this year. The federal-provincial panel, convened under FEARO regulations for Saskatchewan uranium projects, is composed of a biologist, a medical doctor, an aboriginal and a mining professor and chaired by the head of the chemistry department at the University of Regina.

It was established in mid-1991 with a threefold mandate: to review the environmental, health, safety and socio-economic impact of proposed uranium developments; to determine whether each project is acceptable or unacceptable; and to provide full opportunities for public consultation and review.

The same joint public review panel will soon deliberate over Cameco’s Cigar Lake and McArthur River projects.

Mining projects come under the FEARO process if one of four conditions is present: if federal government money is involved; if a federal government department (Oceans and Fisheries, for example) is involved; if the developments are on Canada lands; and, in the case of uranium projects, if they’re regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

In its recommendations, the panel focuses on the need for greater participation of northern people in employment and training, in monitoring uranium developments and in business opportunities derived from the industry. The panel identifies areas of the industry which require “new and more stringent regulations: site-specific surface water quality objectives; sediment quality guidelines; and radiation exposure standards. The panel also recommends that a financial guarantee to cover decommissioning and post-decommissioning be secured before project approvals are granted.” At this point, it is not known what recourse Denison, Cogema and Uranerz have. All three have been unusually quiet since the panel published its recommendations. Perhaps they’ll remain silent, in public at least, until Ottawa says either “yea” or “nay”. (We’ll hold our tongue until after we’ve studied the panel’s full report.)

We do not doubt, however, that the $54 million Denison and partners have funnelled into Midwest alone is now in jeopardy. If the Midwest partners are entertaining thoughts of compensation, they’d be wise to review the failed bid for compensation by Cream Silver Mines in British Columbia. Until we read the full panel report, we don’t want to hit too sour a note, but if explorationists continue hitting walls just at the point when the possibility of development nears, this new era of Canadian mining will be shortlived.