The letter from Houston, B.C. (“Eskay benefits belong at home,” T.N.M., March 21/94) expressed disappointment at the decision to bypass the Houston-Equity site to treat Eskay ore.
I attended the reception of British Columbia’s mines minister at the recent PDAC convention and listened to Homestake’s reasoning for exporting the concentrate. Homestake made a business decision, which is what companies are supposed to do. So I thought fine — too bad, but fine. Then the letter from Houston started me thinking.
New Nadina owns the Silver Queen mine near Houston. We were considering trucking ore to the Equity-Houston site. Combining the Nadina and Eskay ore trucked to Houston and treated there with other custom-milling jobs, how many jobs would there be? The Silver Queen would generate at least 30 jobs, plus spinoffs. If we balance income assistance against payroll, tax revenue and goods and services purchased in the area, how would the balance sheet look? I suggest that before economic decisions are made, the government counter those decisions with all the cards available to complete the equation. Homestake saves money by exporting concentrate. But if it were economically attractive to treat the ore in British Columbia, the company would do so. Living in the Kootenays, I applaud the Trail smelter decision and hope it is the type of economic decision between government and industry that we can grow to expect in British Columbia and Canada.
George Stewart
President
New Nadina Exploration
Greenwood, B.C.
Be the first to comment on "LETTERS TO THE EDITOR — Many factors involved in Eskay"