There have been a few recent reports dealing with issues surrounding the Northern Village of Pinehouse - including a systematic refusal to answer access to information requests to which continued at last notice, the disappearance of the village's website and public records, an inspection recommending the removal of Pinehouse's mayor and a councillor which has turned into a formal inquiry and audit, and the recusal of Finance Minister Donna Harpauer from all discussions due to a close personal connection to the councillor in question.
But most of the media discussion of the village's current circumstances avoids a crucial piece of background information - even as the mayor who has also been recommended for removal identifies the significance of the issue, without recognizing that it provides no excuse for thumbing his nose at legal obligations.
The relationship between Pinehouse and the nuclear industry has long been the source of justified concern. The same leadership now dismissing any obligations of transparent governance include the same people behind a sketchy deal which included millions of dollars in payments from Areva and Cameco in exchange for a cover-up of the social and environmental impacts of uranium mining.
And the village's leadership tried to volunteer Pinehouse for a nuclear waste disposal site through communications - which were exposed through what was then at least a marginally functional access to information system under the current administrtion. The attempt to become a dumping ground for radioactive waste was ultimately ruled out due to a lack of support in the community.
So let's turn the spin around.
Does it make sense that Pinehouse would be uniquely unable to meet its access to information obligations - both compared to its own history and compared to other Northern and rural communities - even as it receives substantial funding from the uranium industry to cover what would normally be municipal expenses?
Does it make sense that Pinehouse would be unable to meet basic access to information requirements, but have enough spare resources lying around to provide free accommodations to cabinet ministers whenever they see fit to stop by? And wouldn't cabinet ministers themselves be expected to notice the problem with accepting that type of gift before somebody else identifies it?
Ultimately, Pinehouse looks only to be a particularly vivid example of the Saskatchewan Party's governing mindset in both its service of industry over people, and its contempt for accountability. And everybody rightly looking at Pinehouse and asking how its administration can be left in place should be asking the same about the province.
Showing posts with label uranium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uranium. Show all posts
Monday, May 20, 2019
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Sunday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Julian Cribb reports on new research as to mass exposure to chemicals and pollutants:
- Charlotte Aubin discusses Africa's energy transition which figures to see long-term development oriented toward renewable sources (even in the face of continued subsidies of fossil fuels in the near term). And Agence France-Presse takes note of the price advantage clean energy already holds compared to burning fossil fuels.
- Meanwhile, Naomi Klein writes that New York City's divestment from the oil sector (and concurrent claim for climate damages) may offer a turning point in the balance of power between citizens and the oil industry. And Gary Mason writes that Canada's climate change laggards - including Brad Wall and his heirs - are kidding themselves about the shape of future development.
- Finally, Aditya Chakrabortty discusses the imminent collapse of the UK's largest P3 profiteer - which also plays a prominent role in the privatization of Canadian infrastructure and public services.
- Julian Cribb reports on new research as to mass exposure to chemicals and pollutants:
Almost every human being is now contaminated in a worldwide flood of industrial chemicals and pollutants – most of which have never been tested for safety – a leading scientific journal has warned.- In another reminder of the consequences of failing to take into account the future costs of exploitative industries, Alex MacPherson reports on the nine-figure (and mounting) public costs arising out of the abandoned Gunnar uranium mine. And Joe Romm reports on NASA's latest research showing the connection between fracking and global warming.
Regulation and legal protection for today’s citizens from chemical poisons can no longer assure our health and safety, according to a hard-hitting report in the journal PLOS Biology, titled “Challenges in Environmental Health: Closing the Gap between Evidence and Regulations”.
The report describes a chemical oversight system corrupted from its outset in the 1970s when 60,000 chemicals were registered for use in the US, mostly without being safety tested. Many of these chemicals were subsequently adopted as ‘safe’ around the world.
Over the years, public health protection has stagnated – despite mounting scientific evidence that many chemicals are damaging whole classes of organisms, say report editors Liza Gross and Linda Birnbaum.
...
“Evidence has emerged that chemicals in widespread use can cause cancer and other chronic diseases, damage reproductive systems, and harm developing brains at low levels of exposure once believed to be harmless. Such exposures pose unique risks to children at critical windows of development - risks that existing regulations fail to consider.”
The report underlines a recent finding by The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health which concluded nine million deaths (or 16% of the total) every year worldwide are due to diseases caused by the human chemical environment – 15 times the number killed in wars.
- Charlotte Aubin discusses Africa's energy transition which figures to see long-term development oriented toward renewable sources (even in the face of continued subsidies of fossil fuels in the near term). And Agence France-Presse takes note of the price advantage clean energy already holds compared to burning fossil fuels.
- Meanwhile, Naomi Klein writes that New York City's divestment from the oil sector (and concurrent claim for climate damages) may offer a turning point in the balance of power between citizens and the oil industry. And Gary Mason writes that Canada's climate change laggards - including Brad Wall and his heirs - are kidding themselves about the shape of future development.
- Finally, Aditya Chakrabortty discusses the imminent collapse of the UK's largest P3 profiteer - which also plays a prominent role in the privatization of Canadian infrastructure and public services.
Monday, April 20, 2015
On radioactive proposals
Never mind Brad Wall's hand-picked group of nuclear industry shills using public money to further their own profits found that nuclear power is not price-competitive even among an artificially limited set of options absent a substantial carbon price - and that Wall himself refuses to set one.
And never mind that a subsequent public consultation found that "the overwhelming response...was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan".
When it comes to locking in a high-cost, high-risk nuclear plant just as renewables are emerging as a viable large-scale alternative, Wall won't take "no" for an answer. But if Wall is telling us that he insists on having Saskatchewan pay for an expensive nuclear toy with the rent money saved by living in Ontario's basement, that's all the more reason to ensure he isn't in a position to make the call.
And never mind that a subsequent public consultation found that "the overwhelming response...was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan".
When it comes to locking in a high-cost, high-risk nuclear plant just as renewables are emerging as a viable large-scale alternative, Wall won't take "no" for an answer. But if Wall is telling us that he insists on having Saskatchewan pay for an expensive nuclear toy with the rent money saved by living in Ontario's basement, that's all the more reason to ensure he isn't in a position to make the call.
Sunday, December 09, 2012
#skndpldr - Swift Current Debate Notes
As Scott has already noted, Saskatchewan NDP's Swift Current leadership debate included plenty of familar themes:
And indeed, one of the more interesting issues facing both the candidates and the debate organizers is how to account for the difference between an audience which may be seeing the candidates for the first time, and the relationship between the contestants themselves based on regular responses to the same questions. My preference would be to ensure that the candidates face a wider range of questions during the course of the campaign, meaning that the pattern of maybe 2 new questions at each debate falls short of what would be ideal - but there are certainly sound arguments to be made in both directions.
That said, even with the questions largely echoing the previous debates there were once again a few relatively new developments worth pointing out - which I'll cover in a quick candidate-by-candidate review.
Cam Broten's performance wasn't quite as effective in the Swift Current debate as in some of the previous ones - which may be explained in part by his having to carry out double duty between the Legislative Assembly and the debate. But the most noteworthy part of his answers on a couple of questions (those related to revenue and free trade agreements) was a tendency to emphasize an undefined concept of "balance" first, then only afterward point out some of the problems with the Sask Party's current direction.
Of course, few candidates will want to argue for imbalance in those policy areas (nor indeed in any other). But it may be telling that Broten's instinct is to triangulate rather than emphasizing contrasts on issues where there's a strong case to be made that we're a long way from balance by any reasonable measure.
The most noteworthy development in Ryan Meili's performance was his most direct audition yet for the role of leading off question period against Brad Wall. Meili identified an issue of substantial ambiguity in Cam Broten's Saskatoon answer on uranium refining, and pressed Broten to explain why he would treat refining differently from reactor construction (which all candidates have ruled out altogether).
But Meili's style still looks to have some way to go: he's speaking more clearly and effectively in his opening and closing statements, but reverting to a softer, faster pace when answering questions (and still regularly running out of time in his responses). And future debates should tell us whether he'll be able to develop the same habits in speaking off the cuff that he's working on in his prepared speeches.
Erin Weir received the most significant gift of the debate in the form of a question from Trent Wotherspoon. So far, I've found Weir's strategy somewhat surprising: he hasn't entirely pivoted away from lumping all three of his opponents together in order to criticize a lack of focus on short-term costing and legislative priorities, leaving me to question how he'd expect to make up ground in later ballots.
But Wotherspoon positively invited Weir to speak in terms of broader principles rather than short-term proposals - which looks to me to be exactly what his campaign has all too often glossed over. And while Weir's follow-up response drifted back into policy detail, he'll be well served to focus on being able to demonstrate to other candidates' supporters that he can be as effective as anybody in motivating citizens to deal with the underlying principles that have mostly been endorsed by all sides.
Finally, Wotherspoon's own performance was somewhat improved from earlier debates. He was once again tripped up by relatively simple questions of policy detail - one from Weir asking him to choose how to pay for feed-in tariffs, and one from Meili on rural land ownership. But in each case the issue was more tied to a failure to choose among options than difficulty recognizing the choice presented to him. And in general the repetition of questions looks to have assisted Wotherspoon in developing more detailed answers as the debates have progressed.
In closing, I do disagree with Scott's view that the candidates "have all hit their strides", as each looks to me to have room to grow as the campaign continues. But all have certainly built from the first debate to the fourth - and there's ample reason for optimism that the result will be a strong set of choices for NDP members.
And indeed, one of the more interesting issues facing both the candidates and the debate organizers is how to account for the difference between an audience which may be seeing the candidates for the first time, and the relationship between the contestants themselves based on regular responses to the same questions. My preference would be to ensure that the candidates face a wider range of questions during the course of the campaign, meaning that the pattern of maybe 2 new questions at each debate falls short of what would be ideal - but there are certainly sound arguments to be made in both directions.
That said, even with the questions largely echoing the previous debates there were once again a few relatively new developments worth pointing out - which I'll cover in a quick candidate-by-candidate review.
Cam Broten's performance wasn't quite as effective in the Swift Current debate as in some of the previous ones - which may be explained in part by his having to carry out double duty between the Legislative Assembly and the debate. But the most noteworthy part of his answers on a couple of questions (those related to revenue and free trade agreements) was a tendency to emphasize an undefined concept of "balance" first, then only afterward point out some of the problems with the Sask Party's current direction.
Of course, few candidates will want to argue for imbalance in those policy areas (nor indeed in any other). But it may be telling that Broten's instinct is to triangulate rather than emphasizing contrasts on issues where there's a strong case to be made that we're a long way from balance by any reasonable measure.
The most noteworthy development in Ryan Meili's performance was his most direct audition yet for the role of leading off question period against Brad Wall. Meili identified an issue of substantial ambiguity in Cam Broten's Saskatoon answer on uranium refining, and pressed Broten to explain why he would treat refining differently from reactor construction (which all candidates have ruled out altogether).
But Meili's style still looks to have some way to go: he's speaking more clearly and effectively in his opening and closing statements, but reverting to a softer, faster pace when answering questions (and still regularly running out of time in his responses). And future debates should tell us whether he'll be able to develop the same habits in speaking off the cuff that he's working on in his prepared speeches.
Erin Weir received the most significant gift of the debate in the form of a question from Trent Wotherspoon. So far, I've found Weir's strategy somewhat surprising: he hasn't entirely pivoted away from lumping all three of his opponents together in order to criticize a lack of focus on short-term costing and legislative priorities, leaving me to question how he'd expect to make up ground in later ballots.
But Wotherspoon positively invited Weir to speak in terms of broader principles rather than short-term proposals - which looks to me to be exactly what his campaign has all too often glossed over. And while Weir's follow-up response drifted back into policy detail, he'll be well served to focus on being able to demonstrate to other candidates' supporters that he can be as effective as anybody in motivating citizens to deal with the underlying principles that have mostly been endorsed by all sides.
Finally, Wotherspoon's own performance was somewhat improved from earlier debates. He was once again tripped up by relatively simple questions of policy detail - one from Weir asking him to choose how to pay for feed-in tariffs, and one from Meili on rural land ownership. But in each case the issue was more tied to a failure to choose among options than difficulty recognizing the choice presented to him. And in general the repetition of questions looks to have assisted Wotherspoon in developing more detailed answers as the debates have progressed.
In closing, I do disagree with Scott's view that the candidates "have all hit their strides", as each looks to me to have room to grow as the campaign continues. But all have certainly built from the first debate to the fourth - and there's ample reason for optimism that the result will be a strong set of choices for NDP members.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Pat Atkinson discusses the need to make sure that Saskatchewan's boom-time spending actually sets us up for long-term prosperity, rather than fiscal disaster:
- Trish Hennessy notes that Tim Hudak's ideological drive to privatize liquor sales in Ontario isn't based on any reason to think the province will do anything but lose out in the process. And of course, the same applies here in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, while Jason Warick's report on the disturbingly cozy relationship between the uranium industry and the community of Pinehouse has received some attention, this looks to me to be the most worrisome aspect of how future interests are being sold out for a modest amount of immediate funding:
- Pat Atkinson discusses the need to make sure that Saskatchewan's boom-time spending actually sets us up for long-term prosperity, rather than fiscal disaster:
Even though the OECD report, the burgeoning federal government deficit, China's economic slowdown and America's political deadlock all advise us that now is the time for caution, the Wall government is trapped. Its political image is completely dependent upon constant economic growth or the appearance of it.
It is so cemented in its own message of a New Saskatchewan, that any deviation from it is unlikely.
From its first day in office, the Sask. Party oversold its product and cannot now risk voter wrath if the public is suddenly (and unexpectedly) informed of the government's deteriorating fiscal climate.- Meanwhile, Barbara Yaffe highlights the absurdity of the Harper Cons raiding tens of millions of public dollars for War of 1812 jingoism while cutting desperately-needed public programs.
It is time our government started planning for tougher times, if only for the simple reason to err on the side of caution.
The Wall government and Krawetz seem equipped to ride the wave, but are ill-prepared to manage in challenging times. When the government starts believing its own hype, we're all in trouble.
- Trish Hennessy notes that Tim Hudak's ideological drive to privatize liquor sales in Ontario isn't based on any reason to think the province will do anything but lose out in the process. And of course, the same applies here in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, while Jason Warick's report on the disturbingly cozy relationship between the uranium industry and the community of Pinehouse has received some attention, this looks to me to be the most worrisome aspect of how future interests are being sold out for a modest amount of immediate funding:
Highlights of the draft agreement between Pinehouse, Cameco Corp. and Areva:
Pinehouse agrees to not make any future financial requests or claims against the companies.Now, normally restrictions on future liability are treated with skepticism by the courts, and I'd hope this particular one would be limited to the types of claims or requests already involved in the agreement. But how short-sighted would an agreement look if it managed to get a mining operation off the hook for a future nuclear disaster?
Sunday, November 25, 2012
#skndpldr Roundup
The Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign hasn't seen a lot of official news over the past week, as the candidates look to have directed most of their efforts toward the continued series of debates. (Among the more thorough coverage of the recent ones, see the live-tweets of the Humboldt debate from Brett Estey and Erica Spracklin, and Saskatoon live-tweeting from Aaron Genest - who followed up with a blog post on the level of acrimony in the leadership race.)
Meanwhile, Ryan Meili's campaign turned a headline typo into a discussion of what actually constitutes the #frontlineofdemocracy:
Meanwhile, Ryan Meili's campaign turned a headline typo into a discussion of what actually constitutes the #frontlineofdemocracy:
I found the list Mr Gormley presented of "frontline" elements of democracy very interesting. Autocratic states, totalitarian states, oligarchical communist regimes – these also have courts, soldiers, and their own version of the rule of law. They sometimes even have parliaments. Yes, the items he listed are important institutions in the protection of a democratic state. But are they elements of democracy itself? What about the autonomy and freedom to make our own choices, the power of the citizenry to direct its own destiny? Aren't these things the core of democracy? Isn't active engagement the true frontline?Finally, while the Saskatoon debate mostly covered fairly similar ground to the previous ones, Erin Weir's position on uranium development managed to get some attention. But as with his push on political financing, the main effect looks to have been to identify an area of broad agreement - with the main difference being Weir's suggestion that it's worth having a debate within the NDP as to what to do about uranium mining, while Cam Broten and Trent Wotherspoon gave continued mining a thumbs-up.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Parliament in Review: December 14, 2011
Wednesday, December 14 saw another day of debate devoted to free trade issues, this time addressing a proposed treaty with Jordan. But first...
The Utterly Unprecedented, Stunning Development Which Shook The Very Foundations Of Canada's System Of Government As Administered By Stephen Harper
Helene Laverdiere asked a simple question to Peter MacKay. And MacKay actually answered it.
The Big Issue
Gerald Keddy started debate on C-23 with a fairly helpful summary of the goods currently traded between Canada and Jordan. But as the opposition parties noted, there's much more to the picture than mere dollars: Brian Masse pointed out Jordan's abuses of migrant workers, while Wayne Easter highlighted its political instability. Wayne Marston noted that the main difference in philosophy between the NDP and the Cons is that the former considers human rights to be a top priority in foreign relations, while the latter somehow believes that deals aimed solely at shiny dollar figures will take care of all other issues. Masse questioned how Canadian industry can be expected to compete against sweatshop labour, and tore into the Cons over their utter negligence in dealing with the United States on border issues. Linda Duncan noted that the Cons' versions of free trade agreements were omitting even the lip service that was once paid to labour and environmental standards in NAFTA and other previous deals. Chris Warkentin, apparently concerned about any such talk, invoked the Cons' amendment-barring tactic to make sure that omission wouldn't be fixed within the bill. And Raymond Cote noted that Parliamentary scrutiny should be a crucial means of preventing Canada from signing onto bad deals - rather than the nuisance the Cons find in any critical analysis of every bill they present.
In Brief
Alex Atamanenko expressed disbelief that the Cons would approve of GMO contamination of Canada's food supply, while Libby Davies made a statement criticized their efforts to undermine the long-term viability of a publicly-funded health care system. Nycole Turmel responded to Stephen Harper's description of the Kyoto Protocol as "stupid" by pointing out some genuinely stupid political decisions. Marc Garneau raised the Cons' newly-announced intention to move all committee proceedings behind closed doors. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons are rushing to force through approval for new pipelines when we already lack the resources to monitor the pipelines which currently exist in Canada. Peter Julian noted that the Harper government's spirit of giving was limited to further freebies for rich corporations - to which Jim Flaherty responded by offering the public a lecture about credit. Brad Trost, apparently concerned that we're not selling off our natural resources fast enough, introduced a bill to facilitate total foreign ownership of uranium mines. Ryan Cleary's bill proposing an inquiry into the cod fishery was defeated by the Cons at second reading. And Helene LeBlanc summed up the case for her infrastructure motion, while Dan Harris criticized the Cons' attempt to impose a private toll structure on any new infrastructure.
The Utterly Unprecedented, Stunning Development Which Shook The Very Foundations Of Canada's System Of Government As Administered By Stephen Harper
Helene Laverdiere asked a simple question to Peter MacKay. And MacKay actually answered it.
The Big Issue
Gerald Keddy started debate on C-23 with a fairly helpful summary of the goods currently traded between Canada and Jordan. But as the opposition parties noted, there's much more to the picture than mere dollars: Brian Masse pointed out Jordan's abuses of migrant workers, while Wayne Easter highlighted its political instability. Wayne Marston noted that the main difference in philosophy between the NDP and the Cons is that the former considers human rights to be a top priority in foreign relations, while the latter somehow believes that deals aimed solely at shiny dollar figures will take care of all other issues. Masse questioned how Canadian industry can be expected to compete against sweatshop labour, and tore into the Cons over their utter negligence in dealing with the United States on border issues. Linda Duncan noted that the Cons' versions of free trade agreements were omitting even the lip service that was once paid to labour and environmental standards in NAFTA and other previous deals. Chris Warkentin, apparently concerned about any such talk, invoked the Cons' amendment-barring tactic to make sure that omission wouldn't be fixed within the bill. And Raymond Cote noted that Parliamentary scrutiny should be a crucial means of preventing Canada from signing onto bad deals - rather than the nuisance the Cons find in any critical analysis of every bill they present.
In Brief
Alex Atamanenko expressed disbelief that the Cons would approve of GMO contamination of Canada's food supply, while Libby Davies made a statement criticized their efforts to undermine the long-term viability of a publicly-funded health care system. Nycole Turmel responded to Stephen Harper's description of the Kyoto Protocol as "stupid" by pointing out some genuinely stupid political decisions. Marc Garneau raised the Cons' newly-announced intention to move all committee proceedings behind closed doors. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons are rushing to force through approval for new pipelines when we already lack the resources to monitor the pipelines which currently exist in Canada. Peter Julian noted that the Harper government's spirit of giving was limited to further freebies for rich corporations - to which Jim Flaherty responded by offering the public a lecture about credit. Brad Trost, apparently concerned that we're not selling off our natural resources fast enough, introduced a bill to facilitate total foreign ownership of uranium mines. Ryan Cleary's bill proposing an inquiry into the cod fishery was defeated by the Cons at second reading. And Helene LeBlanc summed up the case for her infrastructure motion, while Dan Harris criticized the Cons' attempt to impose a private toll structure on any new infrastructure.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
On nuclear testing
One of the obvious questions facing Saskatchewan voters in the lead up to this fall's election is that of how much credit (if any) Brad Wall and his government should be able to claim for economic gains based mostly on favourable resource prices. So let's take a look at a couple of ways of testing whether the Sask Party has had anything at all to do with Saskatchewan's success.
For now, let's consider how Wall has done when it comes to the single industry that his government has made its top priority from day one.
In its 2007 platform, the Sask Party singled out uranium development as its most-touted industry. It followed that up by paying $3 million to have the sector develop a wish list as to how the province could hand it money and resources. And after public consultations pointed out plenty of concerns with those plans, it extended a middle finger to the citizens who disagreed with the push for nuclear development.
So has that willingness to ignore public opinion in favour of what business wants translated into economic gains?
Well, uranium exploration and development...is down by half from the level it reached under the NDP (and in the final year before the Sask Party's Uranium Development Partnership started defining the industry's future).
The Sask Party was reluctantly forced to put off nuclear power for now - though I'm sure we can count on a second term seeing some effort to dust off Bruce Power's proposal to contract out another chunk of Saskatchewan's power needs. And its efforts to lobby the Harper Cons for an isotope reactor were soundly rejected.
So after four years under Brad Wall's watch, the industry he singled out for its private-sector growth potential has seen somewhere between zero and negative progress - at least other than a smattering of publicly-funded research projects.
Which should make it glaringly clear that what's going right for Saskatchewan at the moment has precious little to do with anything the Sask Party has done.
Update: See also (via Jaime Garcia).
For now, let's consider how Wall has done when it comes to the single industry that his government has made its top priority from day one.
In its 2007 platform, the Sask Party singled out uranium development as its most-touted industry. It followed that up by paying $3 million to have the sector develop a wish list as to how the province could hand it money and resources. And after public consultations pointed out plenty of concerns with those plans, it extended a middle finger to the citizens who disagreed with the push for nuclear development.
So has that willingness to ignore public opinion in favour of what business wants translated into economic gains?
Well, uranium exploration and development...is down by half from the level it reached under the NDP (and in the final year before the Sask Party's Uranium Development Partnership started defining the industry's future).
The Sask Party was reluctantly forced to put off nuclear power for now - though I'm sure we can count on a second term seeing some effort to dust off Bruce Power's proposal to contract out another chunk of Saskatchewan's power needs. And its efforts to lobby the Harper Cons for an isotope reactor were soundly rejected.
So after four years under Brad Wall's watch, the industry he singled out for its private-sector growth potential has seen somewhere between zero and negative progress - at least other than a smattering of publicly-funded research projects.
Which should make it glaringly clear that what's going right for Saskatchewan at the moment has precious little to do with anything the Sask Party has done.
Update: See also (via Jaime Garcia).
Saturday, September 10, 2011
On royal bias
The Wall government's position on reviewing an eight-year-old royalty regime when the expected result would be substantially more revenue for the province: firmly against.
The Wall government's position on reviewing an eight-year-old royalty regime when the expected result would be substantially less revenue for the province: unequivocally for.
Just in case there was any doubt whether the Sask Party is on the side of the province, or the corporations looking to siphon off as much wealth as they can.
The Wall government's position on reviewing an eight-year-old royalty regime when the expected result would be substantially less revenue for the province: unequivocally for.
Just in case there was any doubt whether the Sask Party is on the side of the province, or the corporations looking to siphon off as much wealth as they can.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Someday, this could all be...hey, it's ours already!
CBC:
When the Sask Party took office, it declared its intention to make the nuclear industry an economic centrepiece. And in hopes of making that happen, it handed the industry millions to draw up a wish list for future development.
Not surprisingly, Areva and other participants responded by putting together a report which claimed that exploration and mining should be a top priority for immediate expansion due to the certainty of a global boom in demand. And of course the report featured nary a mention of even a remote risk of downturns in the industry to counterbalance such optimistic declarations as "demand for primary uranium will grow substantially over the next 10 years".
But Areva's enthusiasm for provincial investment apparently wasn't matched by its own willingness to keep its existing operations going. And so when the chips were down, the Sask Party's eagerness to be the uranium sector's best friend didn't save a single job.
Just so we're clear: it's not that Areva can be faulted for the decision it's made. After all, its job is to value the interests of its shareholders over those of the province where it does business.
But while the story doesn't necessarily have a villain, it certainly stars Brad Wall as Chump #1. And hopefully the combined lessons from today's closure announcement and this year's potash fiasco will encourage the Sask Party to stop basing its expectations on unreliable and unrealistic resource development plans in time to set its direction for the industry in the future.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
The uranium mill at McClean Lake, Sask., will close next summer, resulting in about 140 layoffs, but company officials say it will reopen when the economy improves.So what can we learn from the closure? Well, let's recap the interaction between the Wall government and Areva since the Sask Party took power just two short years ago.
Areva owns 70 per cent of the mill, while Denison Mines Corp. and OURD Canada Co. Ltd. own the remainder.
Denison said Tuesday that the McClean Lake project is being placed on "care and maintenance" mode, starting in July 2010.
...
The company didn't provide a date for reopening, saying processing will begin again "when economically viable."
The layoffs will take place at the mill site and Areva's office in Saskatoon. Areva employs about 270 people at McClean Lake and about 200 at the Saskatoon office.
When the Sask Party took office, it declared its intention to make the nuclear industry an economic centrepiece. And in hopes of making that happen, it handed the industry millions to draw up a wish list for future development.
Not surprisingly, Areva and other participants responded by putting together a report which claimed that exploration and mining should be a top priority for immediate expansion due to the certainty of a global boom in demand. And of course the report featured nary a mention of even a remote risk of downturns in the industry to counterbalance such optimistic declarations as "demand for primary uranium will grow substantially over the next 10 years".
But Areva's enthusiasm for provincial investment apparently wasn't matched by its own willingness to keep its existing operations going. And so when the chips were down, the Sask Party's eagerness to be the uranium sector's best friend didn't save a single job.
Just so we're clear: it's not that Areva can be faulted for the decision it's made. After all, its job is to value the interests of its shareholders over those of the province where it does business.
But while the story doesn't necessarily have a villain, it certainly stars Brad Wall as Chump #1. And hopefully the combined lessons from today's closure announcement and this year's potash fiasco will encourage the Sask Party to stop basing its expectations on unreliable and unrealistic resource development plans in time to set its direction for the industry in the future.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)