Industry favors fly-in operations

We are surprised that David Johnston takes issue in his letter to the editor (T.N.M., Oct. 14/91) with our research findings cited by Olav Svela (T.N.M., Sept. 2/91) with respect to the growth of commuter mining.

We agree that single-industry towns “can be great places to raise a family and earn a good living,” and that the local economic contributions of mining towns will not be matched by commuter mines. However, we would disagree that it is “academics and bureaucrats” who “are saying no more single-industry towns.”

Family issues represented the single most important factor why many commuter miners and their families favor that system and why many of those living in mining communities prefer that alternative. These two groups clearly have different visions of the family and family life.

In terms of the loss of economic benefits associated with commuter mining, there is considerable evidence of potential negative implications from “fly-over” effects, in which a significant proportion of mining expenditures are made outside of the region. We have, and we continue to argue, that a great deal more attention must be given to this issue by mining companies and governments.

It is primarily the mining industry which is saying “no” to more single-industry towns. In the last decade, 18 commuter mines have opened in Canada and 40 in Australia, and more are in the planning stages. We know of only a single case (Olympic Dam, South Australia) during the same period where a new mining community has been built.

While mining towns can undoubtedly be fine places to live, and while it is important that “fly-over” and other commuter mining issues be addressed, the mining industry (including Cominco Ltd. at Polaris, Red Dog and Snip) is voting for commuting, as it were, with its feet.

Mark Shrimpton,

Keith Storey

Memorial University

St. John’s, Nfld.