Government would not support coal development
The Yukon government cannot refuse Chevron Corp. access to the Crest iron ore deposit in the Peel watershed, Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) Minister Brad Cathers asserted Wednesday in the legislatue.
The Yukon government cannot refuse Chevron Corp. access to the Crest iron ore deposit in the Peel watershed, Energy, Mines and Resources (EMR) Minister Brad Cathers asserted Wednesday in the legislatue.
If it did, Chevron would almost certainly take the government to court, and YTG would almost certainly lose, the minister declared.
"What the member needs to understand is if the Yukon government were to take action that directly or indirectly expropriated that, we would lose a court case and be faced with paying compensation,” Cathers said in response to a question from Jim Tredger, the NDP's EMR critic.
"It's not all flowers, sunshine, roses, theories, fairies and Marxism ... if the Yukon government were to deny access to the even potential development of the Crest iron ore deposit, we would, quite simply, lose in court to Chevron, which has a lot deeper pockets and a lot better lawyers than the Yukon government does,” Cathers stated in his answer to a subsequent question.
"The estimated value of just 15 per cent of that deposit is in excess of $139 billion. If the Yukon government were forced to pay even a small fraction of that in court costs, it would come at a very drastic cost to our territory and future,” Cathers told the house.
Tredger argued that Premier Darrell Pasloski made his government's Peel agenda clear during his budget address two weeks ago today.
"The premier is promoting the Crest iron ore deposit based on a financially speculative project analysis as the basis for his vision of economic development in the Peel,” Tredger said.
"According to a report by Hatch Associates on the proposed development of the Crest iron ore deposit, the heart of the Peel River watershed would contain one of the world's largest strip mines and a steel mill for the extraction of low-grade iron ore.”
Tredger, who represents Mayo-Tatchun, continued to reference the Hatch Associates plan. It calls for a second strip mine, this time after the Bonnet Plume coal deposit, the MLA noted.
"How does the premier reconcile the recommended Peel land use plan as developed by the land use planning commission with his support for one of the proposed world's largest industrial developments in the heart of the Peel?” Tredger asked.
Cathers shot back, saying Tredger was "unequivocally wrong.”
The minister clarified that his government would not support the development of coal nor nuclear energy, as directed by Yukon citizens.
"Our vision for the Peel area is taking an approach that protects the environment and respects all sectors of the economy,” he said.
The deadline for public comments on the future of the world-renowned watershed was Feb. 25.
The government has not released its final decision on the area's fate, though it has dropped plenty of hints about its positive attitude about economic development.
Pasloski launched a spirited attack on environmental groups during his March 21 budget speech, essentially saying they want the territory turned into a park with only limited human inhabitation.
Comments (15)
Up 0 Down 0
yukonertoo on Apr 9, 2013 at 10:55 pm
It seems that the conservatives have trouble with simple math. What constitutes a majority opinion? This article has 15 comments: all of these comments show disfavour with the conservative's position. This constitutes a majority opinion. Pretty simple.
With respect to suggestions that the conservatives make backroom deals with business interests, one only need to recall Mr. Fentie's attempt to sell our power utility to Atco in secrecy.
Up 0 Down 0
Sam Holloway on Apr 5, 2013 at 11:34 am
I have worked in the mining industry- staked claims, panned small creeks for gold, watched rivers flow from helicopters, turned over rocks on mountaintops, driven old pickup trucks, hiked and canoed deep into the wilderness, and occasionally gotten horribly lost (it happens to the best of us).
Aldo Leopold once hunted animals without understanding their essence, they do have souls- I know this. Aldo became a prominent American author, scientist, ecologist, forester and environmentalist. He wrote "A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There".
I am many things and see how a person changes with age and wisdom. The Crest iron ore deposit is not economical. If it was cost effective to mine it, it would have been done in the late 1960's or the seventies. It would have been used for pickup trucks, skyscrapers and muscle cars.
It's hard to find special places in the bush like the old days. Survival cabins apparently have no value and they are burned. People who are not in shape rip up the land with quads- it is very distressing. I stay awake at nights thinking about it. And I have changed. I now understand people who want to protect fish and the Conservation Society is amazing- they work so hard to protect the bush I love.
As hard as it is to say this as someone who loves the mining industry- listen to the people, leave the ore in the ground and protect the land up there in the Peel country. There are mountains everywhere and rivers run through it. Its God's country- We cannot all afford to get up there, but let's leave it pristine for those lucky enough to make it that far.
Up 1 Down 0
not impressed on Apr 5, 2013 at 10:35 am
Good lesson to learn for Yukon Government, do not allow a FIPA agreement to be signed, as stated we can't fight it, so why sign in the first place - China has more money than Chevron.
Up 1 Down 0
as id on Apr 5, 2013 at 9:19 am
Go figure, Yukon Party keeps quiet on all issues leading up to the election then afterwards and now I understand why: not to much intelligent governing knowledge. Doesn't Yukon have a huge surplus in the budget? Let's use it to protect the land - after all the mining companies are not obtaining funds as easily anymore. Can the Yukon Party not see the benefit of working with the Yukon First Nations and govern our territory to benefit all people. Utilize the Umbrella Final Agreements and fight instead of rolling over and making yourselves look like fools.
Up 0 Down 0
Paul Christensen on Apr 5, 2013 at 9:08 am
One other comment I would like to make.
The really unfortunate outcome that The Yukon Party can accept sole responsibility for is the division of the Yukons populace into either pro or anti mining. A "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
I don't know anyone who is against mining in the Yukon, yet even if you support mining here in general, if you speak out for preserving the Peel, you are a"hippie", "greenie" etc. I've worked in many mines in the past (all since shut), I use products made from mines. I get it. But we also need other things that make life worthwhile, like remote areas to paddle in, to hunt in, to hike in.
Mining (especially placer) is an integral part of our economy. A part, not all. I have not heard one iota of protest against projects like the Minto mine or the White river area from any of the so-called harbingers of economic doom such as CPAWS. There are many areas of the Yukon that can be mined without taking away from the core essence of what makes the Yukon so special. The Peel river watershed is one of those core areas. We can and should take a very slow and cautious approach to any development in this area. This is at the heart of the PRPC final plan. We can afford to move slowly and cautiously.
When we run out of wild places, whats left? Where do we move to next? This is it folks, the Yukon IS the last frontier. Its worth protecting.
Up 0 Down 0
YukonGal on Apr 5, 2013 at 8:54 am
Well said everyone!
This story goes back three years if you want a read...
http://www.yukon-news.com/news/18636/
"Yukon environmentalists want the government to force oil giant Chevron to clean up a contaminated site in the Peel Watershed before renewing the company's leases to explore there."
Is this not enough reason to deny them access to the Peel?
Up 0 Down 0
June Jackson on Apr 5, 2013 at 7:10 am
I totally agree with all the above comments.. I want to add though, that these comments and attitude are very unlike Brad. I don't think I have ever seen sarcasm, stupidity and inanity in his comments. Very childish.
Why is this government defending their stance soooo stanchly.. do these people have something personal to lose?
The government should not be the enemy..but they are.. how did you get to that Pasloski?
Up 1 Down 0
hmmm on Apr 5, 2013 at 5:08 am
Acutally Brad use your brain boy. First and foremost you make it so expensive for them to get to the ore deposit they won't want it and at the same time increase the royalties being paid to the Yukon. Right now every Yukoner is loosing out because the royalties are so low.
Up 0 Down 0
Stan Rogers on Apr 5, 2013 at 4:32 am
Brad could have put it another way. He could have said the government has heard from Yukoners and their desire to protect the Peel has been heard loud and clear. There will be no roads built in the areas outlined in the planning commission's report, and recent nuisance claims will be canceled.He could also have said we have to deal with the Chevron iron ore deposit. Why did he not say it's not economical to mine this deposit in the foreseeable future?
To me, what he is saying is that mining will be protected because this industry is important (yes we all know that) and it contributed heavily to his Party's campaign contributions.
What is the value of wilderness and special areas- I say billions of dollars. What is the value of a political party- virtually nothing if they leave no legacy. What does it cost to have the support of the Yukon Party- modest campaign contributions.
Up 1 Down 0
Time for change on Apr 5, 2013 at 3:04 am
I cannot believe that a minister could say something so totally ridiculous?
Just imagine how the lawyers at YTG must feel, nothing like a ringing endorsement from a minister.
Who voted for this tool for irresponsible development?
The yukon party is a joke and only represents those interested in profiting from the raping and pillaging of the Yukon that belongs to all Yukoners!!
Up 0 Down 0
Arn Anderson on Apr 5, 2013 at 12:46 am
Of course Brad, you have that losing mentality when it comes to filling you and your cronies pockets.
Up 0 Down 0
Paul Christensen on Apr 4, 2013 at 10:48 pm
If the only question on the table is whether the Yukon Government would have to compensate Chevron for the expropriation of their claims, well then it's not a case of win or lose, we would just have to pay compensation which would be decided in court, as it was for Windy Craggy when the Tat/Alsek park was created.
Denying access is another issue. Of course access can be denied if it is found to be in contravention of environmental legislation, fisheries acts etc. Allowing only helicopter or fixed wing access is considered access. Refusing to allow the development of a mine is always a possibility that any company faces when staking claims. Its not a "done deal" so to speak.
"...if the Yukon government were to deny access to the even potential development of the Crest iron ore deposit, we would, quite simply, lose in court to Chevron, which has a lot deeper pockets and a lot better lawyers than the Yukon government does,”
I'm not quite sure what the minister was trying to say here. It seems to imply that we have to let Chevron do whatever they want to, because they have more money than us, and better lawyers? Bit of an insult really. Of course we can dictate to Chevron. Its our land, not theirs. Restrictions and bans are placed on mining claims all the time. Isn't this why we have YESAB and other review boards? And sometimes, mines just don't happen due to a myriad of factors.
If this is the sole reason the minister can come up with to justify not following the PRPCs final recommended plan, he should go back to the drawing board.
Up 0 Down 0
Smitty's Thoughts on Apr 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
So let me get this straight...
If you have lots of money, and lawyers and are a large corporation, well then little people YOU ARE SCREWED.
I am pretty sure that's what I heard, my interpretation is just a tad more succinct.
So, when Final Agreements were being discussed, was Chevron included as a stakeholder, what did they have to say about the their part of the process?
At one point in this land, outfitters had laws to adhere to, but also enjoyed the opportunity to hunt mostly unhindered in their areas, we have all seen the pictures of the end of season bounty.
At some point that changed for them, because the times changed, the times changed and so did the laws of the land. And so be it, outfitting still goes on with restrictions, and though not as many as there used to be, it does still thrive.
There must have been some sort of "buyer beware" as Land Claims were starting, and even for concession holders who were old timers...things changed!
So why is this different for Chevron? Or any mining corp? The Final Agreements are Law...
There is Land Use Planning in all the agreements, its no secret. So if Chevron could not come and be a part of the consultation, as a stakeholder, and put their considerations forward, well then...its unfortunate that they choose to not be a part of the solution, sadly, with the Yukon Gov't acting as a part of the problem. Rather disappointing, and the scent of desperation reeks.
Up 0 Down 0
B. Foster on Apr 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
Geez....nuthin gets past bad Brad huh?
There have been many letters to the editor regarding this type of situation. The type of situation wherein some big and impossibly huge corp. hangs the Yukon by the heels and shakes her pockets empty.
It sounds a lot like our leaders have made promises....promises to those with deep pockets.
Careful what ya wish for...
Way to go boys....thought where ya might like to move to?
Up 0 Down 0
bobby bitman on Apr 4, 2013 at 8:26 am
"It's not all flowers, sunshine, roses, theories, fairies and Marxism ... we would, quite simply, lose in court to Chevron, which has a lot deeper pockets and a lot better lawyers than the Yukon government does,”
What an insulting, childish misrepresentation of the issue! Cathers is as bad as Darrel who mouthed off about CPAWS during the budget speech.
Hey Brad, they did not have access in place when they bought or staked the claims. Let them take the Yukon to court and if they win, we'll think about it then whether to allow access. You do not throw yourself to the mat and say, "Gee I'm really SCARED because I am weak and he is strong, so okay, Chevron wins."
What kind of a wimp is Cathers, anyway?!
And this is pre-empting any discussion about better ways to access the area and whether the ore deposit might actually be something that Yukoners agree should be developed. Doing it right is the key, Brad. If it can be done right, and results in a good net benefit for the Yukon, fine.
I will take this opportunity to remind you that your job is to represent Yukoners, not to throw the race because you're scared. Whew. What kind of leadership do we have here anyway? What hope is there for the Yukon to be represented at all with such cowardice at the helm?