On March 3rd, after the Watershed Sentinel went to press, I went over to the Courtenay, BC head office of Compliance Coal, owners of the Raven coal mine. Compliance Coal had announced they had withdrawn their Raven Underground Coal Project re-application from the provincial Environmental Assessment screening process. I had been told the office looked empty and peering thorough the window, it did. But when I tried the door, it opened, and on the spot, I was interviewing Stephen Ellis, president and chief operating officer of Compliance Coal.
(These notes are from memory because I had no expectation of meeting Mr. Ellis, but it was a very enjoyable experience.)
I first said I was surprised to see him, since I had heard that the press was unable to contact him, but he read off a long list of press he had spoken with this morning, including the Globe, CTV, and local newspapers. He also referred to John Snyder’s (from CoalWatch Comox Valley) interview on CBC this morning.
I asked what misinformation he was referring to in the letter of withdrawal “We received some misinformation that is circulating in some communities….”
Mr. Ellis spoke about the shellfish industry, saying the shellfish were dying from ocean acidification and warming, but people always linked that to the Raven coal mine “which doesn’t even exist yet.” He said that he doubted their million tonnes of coal a year would have any effect on the shellfish. I resisted the invitation to get into a lengthy discussion of fossil fuels, and he continued with issues around Port Alberni — the traffic, which he insisted would add a mere 3% to current levels, unlike the pulp mill which was contributing 25% of the traffic in 1982. He referenced “the new mayor of Port Alberni” and ended with a spirited defence of the covered facilities for the coal which would not add dust to the environment.
He felt that the “misinformation” was skewing the process. We went around the bush a few times, with me saying that the environmental assessment was the science-based process to sort these questions out, so surely that was the way to deal with it, but he insisted he felt the process was off track. He said he hoped to hear more from the Environmental Assessment. I said, how can you, when you have stopped the process, and he said other withdrawn projects still had information posted. (Note: CBC is reporting that the BC Environmental Assessment office gave them a statement saying they had communicated to Compliance that the re-application had “issues.”)
Ellis was very clear that Compliance could, and would, re-introduce their application at any time – 5 weeks, 3 months, whatever. I asked if they could afford to revise the application again, given that their shares were so low (he said, probably 2 cents today), but Ellis said yes, because they still had their overseas partners.
This was very interesting. I said I had heard speculation that they couldn’t afford to pay the $112,000 owing for the assessment fee, and he said, we will be paying it sometime soon, but it isn’t due yet. I mentioned March 2 and he said, oh no, it is due 30 days from receipt. I pressed on it, but he was very clear, somewhat upset at the question, that the bill would be paid. (The actual wording is “30 days from the date of this order.”)
I asked if he had any idea of the thousands of hours of community volunteer time this mine had taken, and how that was unfair, and he nodded and said, yes, we all have a lot at stake.
I said, oh that reminds me, the Community Advisory Group (CAG) hasn’t met in 4 years, and he said, well, that was before his time, but he had been told the CAG had decided they did not want to meet again. I said I would have to find the minutes….
We ended the meeting cordially, with both of us assuring the other that we were not going away.
***
Delores Broten is the editor of the Watershed Sentinel.
