DOCSLIB.ORG

Intervention from FRMC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intervention from FRMC Fort Resolution Métis Council 1 August, 2019 INTERVENTION REPORT MVEIRB File No EA1819-01. Diavik Diamond Mine - Processed Kimberlite to Mine Workings 1 Table of Contents Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 4 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Organization of the Intervention Report ............................................................................ 9 1.2 Fort Resolution Métis Council ........................................................................................... 10 2.0 Caribou ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Project-Specific And Cumulative Impacts On Caribou ...................................................... 11 2.1.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Caribou and Habitat Health ............................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 18 2.2.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 18 2.2.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 19 3.0 Culture .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Engagement of FRMC in Diavik’s Assessment of the Project ........................................... 20 3.1.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 20 3.1.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 20 3.1.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Inadequate Baseline Collected for Assessment of Impacts to FRMC Culture .................. 23 3.2.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 23 3.2.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 23 2 3.2.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 24 3.2.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 24 3.2.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Limited Impact Pathway’s for Assessing Culture .............................................................. 27 3.3.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 27 3.3.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 28 3.3.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 28 3.3.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Inadequate Mitigations Proposed for Reducing Impacts to FRMC Culture ..................... 29 3.4.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 29 3.4.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 30 3.4.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 30 3.4.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 30 4.4.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Project-Specific And Cumulative Impacts On Culture ....................................................... 35 3.5.1 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................... 35 3.5.2 DDMI’s Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 36 3.5.3 FRMC’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 36 3.5.4 Evidence and Rationale ............................................................................................... 37 3.5.5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 38 4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 39 References ................................................................................................................................... 43 List of Tables: Table 1: Measures required by FRMC prior to a hydrologic connection between the Pits and Mine Workings and Lac de Gras .................................................................................................. 32 3 Summary and Recommendations Fort Resolution Métis Council (FRMC) represents the rights and interests of our Métis members in our traditional territory. The Diavik Diamond Mine overlaps with our territory, and Diavik Diamond Mine Inc’s (Diavik or DDMI) proposed Processed Kimberlite to Mine Workings project poses potential impacts to FRMC cultural use and caribou within our territory. One of our key issues is to protect caribou and cultural values from these impacts so as to ensure our ability to exercise our right to harvest caribou within our territory. We are specifically concerned with DDMI’s cumulative effects assessment for caribou. DDMI’s assessment contains high levels of uncertainty, does not sufficiently account for the decline of caribou and does not include an accurate baseline inclusive of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK). We are also concerned that DDMI has failed to adequately engage with FRMC and has not engaged with us to identify impact pathways on cultural use. Measures presently proposed by DDMI are inadequate for mitigating cultural impacts, and we hold DDMI’s conclusion that there are no significant cultural impacts associated with the project to be invalid. DDMI believes that there will be no residual adverse effects from the project, but this conclusion fails to account for the historical and current contexts for caribou and culture within our territory. Based on our review of the Project, we believe that the following should be required of DDMI: FRMC Recommendation 1 - Proponent to consider all of Diavik mine activities and closure plans within the assessment, as well as additional pressures on the Bathurst caribou herd including predation, fire, disease, and other impacts. In addition, DDMI to adjust the baseline timeline to include the full decline of the Bathurst herd and reassess. FRMC Recommendation 2 –Should the Review Board determine that the EA will be allowed to complete without FRMC recommendation 1 being adopted, FRMC recommends that the Review Board find that there is already a pre-existing significant adverse cumulative effect on Bathurst caribou, and consider Project effects in light of this highly sensitive receiving environment, and make its decisions on whether the Project should be allowed to proceed and under what conditions accordingly. FRMC Recommendation 3 – As a condition of approval, the Proponent to engage FRMC in a funded caribou ITK study prior to closure, with the results of the study included in filings for relevant regulatory stages of approvals with the Wek’èezh?i Land and Water Board (WLWB)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Svalbard Reindeer As an Indicator of Ecosystem Changes in the Arctic Terrestrial Ecosystem
    Postprint of: Pacyna A., Koziorowska, K., Chmiel, S., Mazerski J., Polkowska Ż.: Svalbard reindeer as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the Arctic terrestrial ecosystem. CHEMOSPHERE. Vol. 203 (2018), pp. 209-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.158 1 Svalbard reindeer as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the Arctic terrestrial 2 ecosystem 3 Aneta Dorota Pacyna1, Katarzyna Koziorowska2, Stanisław Chmiel3, Jan 4 Mazerski4, Żaneta Polkowska1* 5 6 1Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Chemistry, Department of Analytical Chemistry, 11/12 Narutowicza 7 st, Gdansk 80-233, Poland 8 2Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Powstańców Warszawy 55, Sopot, Poland 9 3Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Skłodowska 10 University, Kraśnicka Ave. 2 cd, 20-718 Lublin, Poland 11 4Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Chemistry, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and 12 Biochemistry, 11/12 Narutowicza st, Gdańsk 80-233, Poland 13 *corresponding author [email protected] 14 15 Abstract 16 Over the years, noticeable effort has been directed towards contaminant determination in 17 multiple biotic samples collected from the inhabitants of the Arctic. Little consideration has 18 been given to polar herbivores, however, especially those from the European parts of the 19 Arctic. To provide a broader perspective, we aimed to decipher trace element concentration 20 in hairs of the key species in the Arctic, namely the Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus 21 platyrhynchus), and to recognise whether diet variations could correspond with forward 22 exposure. The effect of habitat and diet was investigated using the ratios of stable isotopes of 1 23 carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N), and previous literature studies on vegetation from the areas 24 of interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Caribou (Barren-Ground Population) Rangifer Tarandus
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus Barren-ground population in Canada THREATENED 2016 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Barren-ground population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiii + 123 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Anne Gunn, Kim Poole, and Don Russell for writing the status report on Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Barren-ground population, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Justina Ray, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee, with the support of the members of the Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment and Climate Change Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), population de la toundra, au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Caribou — Photo by A. Gunn. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2016. Catalogue No. CW69-14/746-2017E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-07782-6 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2016 Common name Caribou - Barren-ground population Scientific name Rangifer tarandus Status Threatened Reason for designation Members of this population give birth on the open arctic tundra, and most subpopulations (herds) winter in vast subarctic forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaching Economic Growth and Sustainable Communities in Context of Mining in Nunavut
    Mining a Better Future: Approaching Economic Growth and Sustainable Communities in Context of Mining in Nunavut by Nadav Goelman B.A. (Professional Communications), Royal Roads University, 2010 Capstone Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Nadav Goelman 2014 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2014 Approval Name: Nadav Goelman Degree: Master of Public Policy Title of Thesis: Mining a Better Future: Approaching Economic Growth and Sustainable Communities in Context of Mining in Nunavut Examining Committee: Chair: Dominique M. Gross Professor, School of Public Policy, SFU Nancy Olewiler Senior Supervisor Professor Doug McArthur Supervisor Professor Maureen Maloney Internal Examiner Professor School of Public Policy Date Defended/Approved: March 5, 2014 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Ethics Statement iv Abstract Resource development near isolated communities in Nunavut exacerbates preexisting social problems that are insufficiently ameliorated by the policy frameworks addressing them. Data from Baker Lake shows rising crime rates correlating with the mine’s arrival; and failure to ameliorate stagnant, declining education outcomes. The current framework of policy is comprised of loosely coordinated efforts by the federal and territorial governments. Supplemental community-driven research was found to identify additional interventions that garner renewed local support and heightened efficacy. Economic modeling of estimated costs and benefits of these interventions within three alternatives: a local, regional, or territorial rollout, revealed plausible net benefits at various discount rates. Additional qualitative evidence of pros and cons for each alternative supported recommendation of up to three local pilot project(s) to assess efficacy of these interventions to mitigate, ameliorate, and prevent the negative side effects of resource development in Nunavut, and remove barriers to equitable sustainable economic growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan
    Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan Options and Recommendations Draft – 2014 Contents Introduction .............................................................................. 3 Aerodromes ................................................................................ 75 Purpose ........................................................................................... 3 DND Establishments ............................................................... 76 Guiding Policies, Objectives and Goals ............................... 3 North Warning System Sites................................................ 76 Considered Information ............................................................ 3 Encouraging Sustainable Economic Development ..... 77 Decision making framework .................................................... 4 Mineral Potential ...................................................................... 77 General Options Considered .................................................... 4 Oil and Gas Exploration .......................................................... 78 Protecting and Sustaining the Environment .................. 5 Commercial Fisheries .............................................................. 78 Key Migratory Bird Habitat Sites .......................................... 5 Mixed Use ............................................................................... 80 Caribou Habitat ......................................................................... 41 Mixed Use ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TB1066 Current Stateof Knowledge and Research on Woodland
    June 2020 A Review of the Relationship Between Flow,Current Habitat, State and of Biota Knowledge in LOTIC and SystemsResearch and on Methods Woodland for Determining Caribou Instreamin Canada Low Requirements 9491066 Current State of Knowledge and Research on Woodland Caribou in Canada No 1066 June 2020 Prepared by Kevin A. Solarik, PhD NCASI Montreal, Quebec National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Acknowledgments A great deal of thanks is owed to Dr. John Cook of NCASI for his considerable insight and the revisions he provided in improving earlier drafts of this report. Helpful comments on earlier drafts were also provided by Kirsten Vice, NCASI. For more information about this research, contact: Kevin A. Solarik, PhD Kirsten Vice NCASI NCASI Director of Forestry Research, Canada and Vice President, Sustainable Manufacturing and Northeastern/Northcentral US Canadian Operations 2000 McGill College Avenue, 6th Floor 2000 McGill College Avenue, 6th Floor Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3H3 Canada Montreal, Quebec, H3A 3H3 Canada (514) 907-3153 (514) 907-3145 [email protected] [email protected] To request printed copies of this report, contact NCASI at [email protected] or (352) 244-0900. Cite this report as: NCASI. 2020. Current state of knowledge and research on woodland caribou in Canada. Technical Bulletin No. 1066. Cary, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Errata: September 2020 - Table 3.1 (page 34) and Table 5.2 (pages 55-57) were edited to correct omissions and typos in the data. © 2020 by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) is a species of deer that lives in the tundra, taiga, and forest habitats at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, including areas of Russia and Scandinavia, the United States, and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Protected Areas in Svalbard – Securing Internationally Valuable Cultural and Natural Heritage Contents Preface
    Protected areas in Svalbard – securing internationally valuable cultural and natural heritage Contents Preface ........................................................................ 1 – Moffen Nature Reserve ......................................... 13 From no-man’s-land to a treaty and the Svalbard – Nordaust-Svalbard Nature Reserve ...................... 14 Environmental Protection Act .................................. 4 – Søraust-Svalbard Nature Reserve ......................... 16 The history of nature and cultural heritage – Forlandet National Park .........................................18 protection in Svalbard ................................................ 5 – Indre Wijdefjorden National Park ......................... 20 The purpose of the protected areas .......................... 6 – Nordenskiöld Land National Park ........................ 22 Protection values ........................................................ 7 – Nordre Isfjorden National Park ............................ 24 Nature protection areas in Svalbard ........................10 – Nordvest-Spitsbergen National Park ................... 26 – Bird sanctuaries ..................................................... 11 – Sassen-Bünsow Land National Park .................... 28 – Bjørnøya Nature Reserve ...................................... 12 – Sør-Spitsbergen National Park ..............................30 – Ossian Sars Nature Reserve ................................. 12 Svalbard in a global context ..................................... 32 – Hopen Nature Reserve
    [Show full text]
  • Mining, Mineral Exploration and Geoscience Contents
    Overview 2020 Nunavut Mining, Mineral Exploration and Geoscience Contents 3 Land Tenure in Nunavut 30 Base Metals 6 Government of Canada 31 Diamonds 10 Government of Nunavut 3 2 Gold 16 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated 4 4 Iron 2 0 Canada-Nunavut Geoscience Office 4 6 Inactive projects 2 4 Kitikmeot Region 4 9 Glossary 2 6 Kivalliq Region 50 Guide to Abbreviations 2 8 Qikiqtani Region 51 Index About Nunavut: Mining, Mineral Exploration and by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), the regulatory Geoscience Overview 2020 body which oversees stock market and investment practices, and is intended to ensure that misleading, erroneous, or This publication is a combined effort of four partners: fraudulent information relating to mineral properties is not Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada published and promoted to investors on the stock exchanges (CIRNAC), Government of Nunavut (GN), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), and Canada‑Nunavut Geoscience Office overseen by the CSA. Resource estimates reported by mineral (CNGO). The intent is to capture information on exploration and exploration companies that are listed on Canadian stock mining activities in 2020 and to make this information available exchanges must be NI 43‑101 compliant. to the public and industry stakeholders. We thank the many contributors who submitted data and Acknowledgements photos for this edition. Prospectors and mining companies are This publication was written by the Mineral Resources Division welcome to submit information on their programs and photos at CIRNAC’s Nunavut Regional Office (Matthew Senkow, for inclusion in next year’s publication. Feedback and comments Alia Bigio, Samuel de Beer, Yann Bureau, Cedric Mayer, and are always appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Experiences of Mining in Baker Lake, Nunavut
    Community Experiences of Mining in Baker Lake, Nunavut by Kelsey Peterson A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography Guelph, Ontario, Canada ©Kelsey Peterson, April, 2012 ABSTRACT COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES OF MINING IN BAKER LAKE, NUNAVUT Kelsey Peterson Advisor: University of Guelph, 2012 Professor Ben Bradshaw With recent increases in mineral prices, the Canadian Arctic has experienced a dramatic upswing in mining development. With the development of the Meadowbank gold mine, the nearby Hamlet of Baker Lake, Nunavut is experiencing these changes firsthand. In response to an invitation from the Hamlet of Baker Lake, this research document residents’ experiences with the Meadowbank mine. These experiences are not felt homogeneously across the community; indeed, residents’ experiences with mining have been mixed. Beyond this core finding, the research suggests four further notable insights: employment has provided the opportunity for people to elevate themselves out of welfare/social assistance; education has become more common, but some students are leaving high school to pursue mine work; and local businesses are benefiting from mining contracts, but this is limited to those companies pre-existing the mine. Finally, varied individual experiences are in part generated by an individual’s context including personal context and choices. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the support and assistance of several key people. My advisor, Ben Bradshaw, has been instrumental in all stages of pre- research, research and writing. From accepting me to the program and connecting me to Baker Lake to funding my research and reading innumerable drafts of the written thesis, Professor Bradshaw has been critical to this research project.
    [Show full text]
  • And Flight Behaviour in Subpopulations of Svalbard Reindeer Rangifer
    Vigilance and fright- and flight behaviour in subpopulations of Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus in Nordenskiöld Land, Svalbard Vaktsomhet og frykt- og fluktåtferd i subpopulasjonar av svalbardrein Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus på Nordenskiöld Land, Svalbard Steinar Lund MASTER THESIS 60 CREDITS 2008 OF DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY ECOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGAMENT PREFACE This Master thesis, written at the Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, is the final 60 credits of my Master of Science degree in Natural Resource Management. The thesis is part of a larger research programme conducted by The University of Oslo. The field work was funded by The Research Council of Norway, Norwegian Polar Institute and Framkomiteens Polarfond. I would like to thank my supervisors Olav Hjeljord and Eigil Reimers. A special thanks to Eigil for thoroughly supervision throughout the whole process and for allowing me to take part in this project. Also thanks to Pål Preede Revheim and Vidar Selås for tips on the statistical part of the thesis. Last but not least, thank you Ronny Steen and Knut Fredrik Øi, my good friends and field companions in thick and thin. So many hours under the midnight sun, so many miles wandered in the spectacular landscape of Svalbard. Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, May 13th 2008 Steinar Lund 1 ABSTRACT Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus survival is based upon minimal energy output and optimal grazing during summer, to withstand a marginal Arctic climate. Svalbard reindeer is by nature relaxed upon encounters with humans, due to the absence of coevolution with predators and humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Svalbard Reindeer (Rangifer Tarandus Platyrhynchus) a Status Report
    Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) A status report Åshild Ønvik Pedersen, Ingrid M. G. Paulsen, Steve Albon, Gustav Busch Arntsen, Brage B. Hansen, Rolf Langvatn, Leif Egil Loe, Mathilde Le Moullec, Øystein Overrein, Bart Peeters, Virve Ravolainen, Erik Ropstad, Audun Stien, Nicholas J. C. Tyler, Vebjørn Veiberg, Renè van der Wal, Roy Andersen, Larissa T. Beumer, Isabell Eischeid, Mads Forchhammer, R. Justin Irvine, Filippo Marolla, Gabriel Pigeon, Eigil Reimers, and Liv Monica Trondrud Rapportserie / Report Series 151 Åshild Ønvik Pedersen, Ingrid M. G. Paulsen, Steve Albon, Gustav Busch Arntsen, Brage B. Hansen, Rolf Langvatn, Leif Egil Loe, Mathilde Le Moullec, Øystein Overrein, Bart Peeters, Virve Ravolainen, Erik Ropstad, Audun Stien, Nicholas J. C. Tyler, Vebjørn Veiberg, Renè van der Wal, Roy Andersen, Larissa T. Beumer, Isabell Eischeid, Mads Forchhammer, R. Justin Irvine, Filippo Marolla, Gabriel Pigeon, Eigil Reimers, and Liv Monica Trondrud Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) A status report The Norwegian Polar Institute is Norway’s central governmental institution for management-related research, mapping and environmental monitoring in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The Institute advises Norwegian authorities on matters concerning polar environmental management and is the official environmental management body for Norway’s Antarctic territorial claims. The Institute is a Directorate within the Ministry of Climate and Environment. Norsk Polarinstitutt er Norges hovedinstitusjon for kartlegging, miljøovervåking og forvaltningsrettet forskning i Arktis og Antarktis. Instituttet er faglig og strategisk rådgiver i miljøvernsaker i disse områdene og har forvaltningsmyndighet i norsk del av Antarktis. Instituttet er et direktorat under Klima- og miljødepartementet. 1 Contact: Åshild Ønvik Pedersen, [email protected] Norwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296 Tromsø, Norway Contributions: Rolf Langvatn1* (Background and rationale) Nicholas J.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Nunavut News
    Tracking Latest News progress on NWT - NUNAVUT on Northern Exploration Baffinland IBA Projects 2019 QXQDYXWQHZV photo courtesy of Agnico Eagle photo courtesy of the Department Infrastructure Residents gather in Rankin Inlet for a donation event sponsored by Agnico Eagle in June. The mining company gave away $1 million to aid literacy and firefighting. 2 November 18, 2019 November 18, 2019 3 NWT/NUNAVUT MINING How much more should mines give the North? Many factors to consider when assessing whether Northern mines are truly on solid ground SKRWRFRXUWHV\RI'RPLQLRQ'LDPRQG0LQHV The Ekati diamond mine, 300 km northeast of Yellowknife, has been in production since 1998. Residents of the NWT are still waiting to hear whether owner Dominion Diamond Mines will proceed with the Jay project. by Derek Neary claims organization Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) to assist in national miner has repeatedly referred to Nunavut as a "politic- 1RUWKHUQ1HZV6HUYLFHV housing. NTI takes in royalty payments from mining compan- ally attractive and stable jurisdiction with enormous geological NWT/Nunavut ies and has a trust fund approaching $2 billion. NTI's president potential" that has "the ability to generate strong gold produc- The North's mining industry has injected an enormous sum declined to discuss the matter when Nunavut News broached it. tion and cash flows over several decades." into the economies of the NWT and Nunavut. Netser has also made it clear that the mining industry must In the Baffin region, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) There's no doubt about that. play a key role in the housing crisis, although he's stopped short extracted greater benefits from Baffinland Iron Mines through Notwithstanding, one area of debate remains whether the of imploring mining companies to construct new homes for the renegotiation of its Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement last year.
    [Show full text]
  • MINERAL EXPLORATION, MINING and GEOSCIENCE OVERVIEW 2012 Table of Contents
    NUNAVUTMINERAL EXPLORATION, MINING AND GEOSCIENCE OVERVIEW 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Land Tenure in Nunavut ........................ 3 ABOUT THE NUNAVUT: MINING, MINERAL EXPLORATION AND GEOSCIENCE OVERVIEW 2012 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ... 4 Government of Nunavut ........................ 6 This exploration overview is a combined effort of four partners: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated ................. 11 Government of Nunavut (GN), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Canada-Nunavut Geoscience Office ............... 13 (NTI) and Canada-Nunavut Geoscience Office (CNGO). The intent of this publication is to capture information on exploration and NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines ............... 16 mining activities in 2012 and to make this information available Summary of 2012 Exploration Activities to the public. Kitikmeot Region......................... 18 We thank the many contributors who submitted data and photos Base Metals ......................... 20 for this edition. Prospectors and mining companies are welcome to submit information on their programs for inclusion in the next Diamonds . 23 Overview. Feedback and comments are appreciated. Gold ............................... 24 Inactive Projects ...................... 30 NOTE TO READERS Kivalliq Region .......................... 32 This document has been prepared on the basis of information Base Metals ......................... 34 available at the time of writing. All resource and reserve figures Diamonds .
    [Show full text]