QIA wants more consultation on Nunavut’s Mary River mine project

Baffinland’s Mary River camp can house about 350 workers — but if the huge iron mine project moves ahead, a lot of new infrastructure, including several camps, mines, a port and railway will be built. The proposed mine is now moving into the final hearing stage. (FILE PHOTO)

The Qikiqtani Inuit Association wants Nunavut regulators to add another consultation step before Baffinland’s Mary River iron mine project moves into the final hearing stage.

If the Nunavut Impact Review Board agrees to this request, the final permitting process for the project could be delayed.

The QIA wants Baffinland to respond to requests for more information on the project’s final environment impact statement, before the project moves ahead into final hearings — the last step in the permitting process.

Another technical meeting would “improve the format and function of final hearings, particularly technical meetings,” the head of the QIA’s department of major projects, Stephen Williamson Bathory said in a March 30 letter to the NIRB.

The QIA said it understands that this suggestion would affect the overall timing of the review.

If that additional step is added, it could “very well” lead to hearings being scheduled during mid-to-late July, rather than earlier in that month.

On February 29 the NIRB gave groups like the QIA 30 days to submit information requests on the final EIS for the Mary River iron ore project.

Baffinland, a private company now under the control of ArcelorMittal, the European steel-making giant, and a private investment firm, Iron Ore Holdings LP, wants to see the Mary River mine churn out about 18 million tonnes of iron ore a year, which will then be shipped out year-round to markets in Europe and Asia for at least 20 years — and some predict up to 100 years.

In its submission, the QIA came back with additional requests, asking, among other things, for more information on Baffinland’s proposed marine mammal monitoring and mitigation measures.

The QIA also said it found that portions of the final EIS’s plain language summaries “inaccurate and confusing.”

And the QIA said the plain language summaries are too confusing to be labeled “plain language”.

For example it cities this summary of the “Construction Risk Management Report:”

“The focus of the risk assessment was on higher level risks representing threats to the success of the project. Opportunities were also captured. The scope included project execution risks only, excluding environmental permitting. Additionally, operational risks that could be caused or mitigated by design were also included in the scope. The risk ranking according to probability of occurrence and impact was done at a pre-mitigation level. Mitigation actions were also identified for each risk; however, a post-mitigation ranking was not included as part of the scope.”

The QIA said they “strongly” suggest Baffinland improve its plain-language summaries “as soon as possible so as not to delay the review process.”

Other groups also submitted information requests.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada said “Baffinland has provided sufficient information to satisfy most issues,” but the department still identified some remaining gaps.

It suggested the final EIS include “sufficient data and analysis of social and economic benefits of project alternatives [for the selection of a port] in order to complete a balanced review of the selected alternatives.”

The Government of Nunavut said it wants more information about how the company will work with the GN, how it plans to use the Iqaluit airport and what revenues the GN might expect to receive from the project and how these will balance the cost of the project’s impact on the territorial government services.