Uranium Mining in Greenland and Saskatchewan: The Challenge of Finding Common Ground Melanie Plante, Anne Merrild Hansen, Greg Poelzer Arctic Energy Summit Helsinki September 19, 2017
Conflicts and Resource Development Conflicts in relation to resource development can be costly, risk jeopardizing projects and economic development, build public distrust, and create divisions in communities. Negative impacts of these conflicts can be long lasting regardless of whether a project is approved or not. The potential for conflict is heightened during impact assessment processes as they create opportunities for stakeholder interactions and are key points in the decisionmaking process.
Conflicts in the early phases of mining Conflicts can occur at various points in the life cycle of a mining project. Opposition can start before exploration has even commenced and continue long past the life of a mine. A point in the life cycle were escalating conflict is common is the assessment and approval process. This is were impact industry applies for regulatory permits. Conflict awareness in EIA, which deals with socio-economic impacts, is vital GME workshop
Uranium Mining and Conflict Uranium mining has particular risks, both real and perceived, that make it particularly vulnerable to conflict. Opposition to projects are related to concerns over: Radioactive waste disposal, Health and safety issues regarding radioactive material and radon gas, Global health and environmental impacts from background radiation Contaminated water, and Broader issues with the end point use of uranium such as the production of nuclear weapons, concerns with nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle.
About the Two Regions Greenland and the Northern Administrative District of Saskatchewan are separated by approximately 3,000 kilometers, a shorter distance than the drive from Toronto to Vancouver. Both regions hold vast mineral wealth embedded in Precambrian rock. have low population densities are that are almost identical, with Saskatchewan at 0.1 km 2 and Greenland 0.14 km 2. These regions have large Indigenous population, 87% in Saskatchewan and 88% in Greenland,
Saskatchewan: Hard to Say, Easy Draw
Comparative Analysis of Two Cases Analysis of how different approaches to SIA influence perceptions of conflicts in mining projects by exploring conflict as perceived by impacted residents and stakeholders. Mapping the conflict formation by identifying parties, their goals, and real or perceived contradictions. Analysis of the role SIA in addressing the roots of conflict. Does SIA address contradictions in a manner that encourages finding common ground and creative solutions? Mixed methods approach, literature review, documentary study, interviews. The fishing harbor in Narsaq, Greenland
Kvanefjeld, Greenland The proposed Kvanefjeld project is a multi-element project focussed primarily on rare earth elements (REEs); uranium and zinc will be extracted as by-products. The development is located in Southern Greenland, 10 km from Narsaq (pop. 1,503) and 35 km from Narsarsuaq (pop. 145). Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd. (GME), an Australian company whose shares are partially held by the Chinese company Shenghe Resources Holding Co Ltd., is leading the project. Rock samples from Kvanefjeld
Kvanefjeld, Timeline in the 1950s the site was identified. Extensive exploration work was undertaken from the 1960s to the early 1980s. Work ceased once the Danish government ended nuclear power pilot project. 2007 GME started exploration in the area. Plans for building a mine started in earnest in 2010 and the company hoped to start production as early as 2017; 2010, the Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum (BMP) granted GME permission to begin feasibility studies on the Kvanefjeld project this includes EIA and SIA; which are independent processes required for obtaining an exploitation permit. 2011, a series of workshops conducted with local stakeholders. GME published the Terms of Reference (ToR) for both the EIA and the SIA. 2017, GME announced that they engaged the consultation company Share Resources to assist in finalizing the IAs. Once the assessments are completed and published there will be a mandated 8-week period of public consultation. Pipaluk Lund, Coach
Millennium, Canada The Millennium project is Cameco s, a Saskatchewan based mining company, most recent proposal for a new uranium mine in Northern Saskatchewan. The project located between two of the companies other uranium facilities, McArthur River and Key Lake, is much more isolated than the Kvanefjeld project with the closest community Wollaston Lake (pop. 1,250) located 115 km away. Cameco is the majority shareholder in the project (70%); the other major shareholder in the project is AREVA a French multi-national company.
Millenium, Timeline Uranium was first discovered in Northern Saskatchewan in the 1930s, and the area has been exporting uranium since the early 1950s. Cameco has been operating as a private entity in the region since 1991. At the time of the Millennium application in 2009 Cameco was operating several other uranium facilities in the region. Currently, the project is on-hold due to low market prices. The project finished the majority of the environmental assessment process but was shelved in 2013 before a final decision from the federal authorities was made.
Attitudes In both cases there is a mix of stakeholders supporting and opposing the project. Proponents for the project tout the economic benefits while advocates against the project bring up concerns over environmental and social impacts. Issues related to the commodity; the end use of the product (fear of nuclear weapons) and exposure to radioactivity were also present in both cases. Although in both regions stakeholders in favour for the project touted its economic benefits in Southern Greenland it s about bringing economic development to the local communities whereas in Northern Saskatchewan it s more about maintaining it. Ole Christiansen, Kommune Kujalleq Photo by Rachael L. Johnstone
Behavior Behaviour is where stakeholders in the two case studies start to differentiate. Both regions have vocal opponents and supporters of the project but in Northern Saskatchewan the public opinions are largely voiced in processes related to EIA. In Greenland, where opportunities to discuss the project have been few and far between residents have turned to the media to express their opinions and concerns. Because the mine is of national importance to Greenland, journalists and international NGO s have travelled to Southern Greenland looking for stories. In Saskatchewan, there was neither the controversy nor the national interest necessary to make the project a major draw for the media. Ib Laursen, GME
Contradictions Major issues in Greenland Efficacy: people concerned that their feelings and voices on the project aren t being taken into consideration Industry gets frustrated that scientific facts are being disregarded and it is difficult for facts to trump feelings Government, particularly the Greenlandic Parliament, is in the difficult position where legally they must approve the project based on fact but their electoral survival is largely based on feelings Relatively Modest Issues in Saskatchewan The issue of fact versus feelings is not absent in the case of Saskatchewan but it isn t the root of the conflict because it s being managed. Community members have voice in the environmental process through community monitoring committees Efforts to incorporate traditional knowledge in assessment process Regularly and openly communicating the stages of the project with community members, and Locals are part of the management and communication staff. Elna and Aqqaluk Knudsen, Sheep farmers
Contradictions (continued) In Greenland case, the second conflict root is the national issue of uranium mining. The GME project was the catalyst for lifting the uranium ban and it has not been able to separate itself from the issue ever since. This conflict has taken on a national scale and it is continuously tied back to the project. This is extremely challenging because the EIA system is not designed to address this type of conflict, it is much better suited for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) but at the same time the project cannot be discussed without the larger issue of whether uranium should be mined comes in to play. This problem is simply non-existent in Saskatchewan where there is an overwhelming consensus that there is not issue with the idea of mining uranium. In fact, governments in the Saskatchewan case are overwhelming uninvolved in stakeholder conflict. Photo retrieved from sermitsiaq.ag.gl
Conclusion Conflict roots in Greenland: mistrust due to problematic process and uncertainty, the issue of what is fact and what are feeling fear of the implications of uranium mining strongly articulated debate about uranium Conflict roots Saskatchewan are limited in scope focus is on economic impacts and social impacts issue of fact versus feelings largely addressed outside the assessment process (community monitoring, high local employment) there effectively is no uranium debate Peoples feelings on a project are important and they need to be taken into account; however, this may be better addressed with an inclusive and robust assessment process, rather than directly in the political arena. We suggest that Greenland may consider an SEA to deal with uranium debate (information. current assessment system could find a better way to balance facts versus feelings: better incorporation of TK, more locals involved in the collection of environmental info.
Kiitos!