EDITORIAL PAGE — The New Age, Sensitive Miner

The great mining men of yesteryear would be surprised, indeed shocked, by the modern-day complexities involved in bringing a mine into production.

It is no longer sufficient simply to be concerned with tonnage and grade and selecting the mining and processing methods best suited to a deposit. These days, companies have to generate and sift through a multitude of studies that their forefathers would probably have regarded as unthinkable — everything from biology, archaeology and anthropology to a range of social sciences, including psychology and sociology.

For evidence of this, one need look no further than the eight (count ’em, eight) volume environmental impact statement (EIS) recently filed by BHP Minerals and partner Dia Met Minerals for their diamond joint venture in Canada’s Northwest Territories. The EIS covers the development of five kimberlite pipes: Panda, Misery, Koala, Fox and Leslie.

The report outlines the operating and environmental management plans for the project, and addresses the requirement to drain five lakes, the mining of five pipes and the use of one lake for tailings disposal. It also outlines the economic benefits of a project that is expected to generate annual revenue of about $500 per year, as well as more employment and higher wages than any other private employer in the Territories. An average of 830 people will be directly employed during the 25-year operating life of the project; as a result, unemployment in the N.W.T. is expected to fall by at least 3 per cent.

But the EIS goes well beyond the traditional procedure of outlining an operating and environmental management plan. Aboriginal issues, for example, are handled with extreme sensitivity. This was no easy task as there were, and still are, conflicting and unresolved aboriginal land claims in the region, involving both the Dogrib and Dene peoples.

From the early days of the project, BHP committed itself to “respecting the aboriginal lifestyle” and to giving full and equal consideration to their “traditional knowledge.” And, with the best of intentions, the company sought to integrate these values into its mine plan.

But it soon become apparent that some members of the aboriginal community objected to non-aboriginal consultants collecting knowledge about their traditional lifestyle. One chief stated concerns about the elders’ information in terms of “intellectual property rights,” and said this proprietary information ought to be kept protected “from commercial exploitation by third parties.”

BHP deserves credit for dealing with this and other issues in a sensitive manner. It sought the views of the local aboriginal population; it listened to a variety of comments and concerns; and, at the end of the day, it appears to have won the support of much of the local population. Most of the comments were clearly in favor of the project and the jobs that would be made available to young natives, who are particularly in need of professional training and opportunity.

Among the comments noted in the EIS was a request urging BHP, and the mining industry in general, “to demonstrate a generosity beyond current business practices.” It is evident from the impact statement that BHP is prepared to do just that.