The head of Compliance Energy Corp. said his firm's proposed Raven Underground Coal Project, in Vancouver Island's Comox Valley, will not harm the environment -- as critics protested outside the firm's annual general meeting today in Vancouver.
John Tapics, president and chief executive officer of Compliance Energy Corp., told The Tyee that he's listened to critics' environmental concerns as the company heads into its legally required environmental assessment process.
"We've listened to the issues and concerns raised by the local public," he said. "We've been very open and transparent with the public from day one as we began exploration of the project.
"We have committed to develop this project in an environmental and socially responsible manner."
Opposition to the Raven mine has focussed on the impact of mine tailings on the area's rivers, as well as the abundant Fanny Bay oyster bed in the sea nearest the site. Environmental groups have also expressed opposition to the coal industry, citing the fossil fuels' impact on climate change.
"I live in Fanny Bay, which is ground zero for this mine," said Comox Valley resident Lynne Wheeler. "This mine would be right in the heart of our watershed.
"It's very personally impacting me. I live just a few miles away from where the mine would be. . . I'm worried about global warming. I'm worried about my drinking water. I'm worried about the sustainable food industry being poisoned by the mine tailings. And I'm worried about my grandson -- what kind of world is that kid going to live in?"
But Tapics said that critics of his industry should consider what coal is being used for: in the case of the Raven project, coke, a vital part of producing steel.
"The coal we are extracting is coking coal," Tapics said. "There is no other means of making steel without some form of carbon. The whole steel industry is dependent on coking carbon. At this point in time, without the demand for steel, there wouldn't be a demand for coking coal."
The organizers of today's demonstration outside Compliance Energy's AGM said that the Raven Underground Coal Project is unsuitable for the Comox Valley, and an alternative to coal is needed to mitigate climate change.
"We need to be looking for alternatives here," said Torrance Coste, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee's Vancouver Island campaigner. "It's all dirty coal. The slag heaps from the processing are potentially going to pose a huge, huge risk to the Fanny Bay oyster beds, which is a really sustainable industry. This region wants fisheries, tourism and these kinds of economies that are going to last -- that aren't going to go away in 16 years."
On June 7, the company announced that Canada and the province had set out a framework for research required in order for the Raven project to be approved. Dubbed Application Information Requirements and Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines, the research requirements will likely result in 8,000 to 10,000 pages of expert documents, Tapics said. The company has already completed several months of public input into the project in the local community.
But environmentalists questioned the neutrality of the environmental assessment process in the wake of Bill C-38, the omnibus budget implementation bill, which cut the length of assessments and streamlined the process.
"Those assessments were imperfect before this administration's recent legislation," Coste said. "But after this, it's useless really.
"[Environmental assessments] now have absolutely no ramifications for any semblance of real safety or security for the environment."
Over the projected 16 year life of the Raven mine, Tapics said, it will employ 350 full-time workers and spend $1 billion in the local economy.
David P. Ball is a Vancouver-area reporter and photographer.
36
Login or register to post comments
Sask Resident
48 weeks ago
Long term industries?
Coal, depending on the resource, is as long lasting as the others quoted. People need income to be tourists and N&L can tell us all about fish disappearing. The project spokesman says that the mine will produce met coal which provides the carbon to make carbon steel yet people are protesting as if it was for thermal use. Somebody lacks understanding of the resource and its uses. Most of the opposition seems to follow the NIMBY principle, they like the jobs and incomes as long as the project isn't close to them. The Elk valley has lots of coal mines and still have a world class sports fishery.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
a-yup
http://fernie.com/blog/2008/05/coal-industry-in-elk-valley-among-top-polluters-in-bc/
D Broten
48 weeks ago
Unanswered Question
Re: Compliance Coal's openness toworking with the public.
Comox Valley Water Watch sponsored the first public information meeting about the proposed Raven Coal Project in November 2009. We had concerns at that time about how drinking water in this area would be affected.
We asked three questions: How much water would be used to wash the coal? How will the runoff from the stockpiles of washed coal be contained? How will our watershed be protected?
As we wrote in our tabloid in March of this year, "To date, nearly two and a half years later, those questions have not been answered by the proponent nor the government. More public meetings have been held since then, including but not limited to the three co-sponsored by the provincial and federal environmental assessment agencies.
The questions remain unanswered, although our best scientific information tells us some of the metals and toxins contained in the coal are certain to end up in our drinking water. We believe the citizens of a community should be involved in development decisions that directly affect their lives. To date we have not been, and our questions are unanswered."
It ill behooves The Tyee to print this sort of junk without doing a little fact-checking. It wouldn't take a lot of work.
Sign me,
Disappointed,
Delores Broten, Copmox Valley Water Watch Coaltion and editor, Watershed Sentinel.
FYI: www.coalwatch.ca
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
ya read this , Delores?
http://www.coalwatch.ca/sites/default/files/Analysis-of-the-Raven-Coal-Mine-CSL-May2012.pdf
lynnescape
48 weeks ago
Environmentally and Socially Responsible, Indeed!
Tapics likes to pretend that Compliance is engaged with the public, when in actuality, citizens of the Comox Valley and Port Alberni have told them loudly and clearly that they are overwhelmingly opposed to coal mines in this sensitive ecosystem. Compliance hasn't addressed any of our concerns about having a coal mine in the heart of the watershed and close to the shores of Baynes Sound, (and this is possibly the first of three coal mines). Their Draft AIR document is completely inadequate and gives absolutely no confidence that the environment is a prime concern. The only selling point Mr. Tapics has for his mine is jobs, oh yes, and steel. What he doesn't talk about is the real cost, to our drinking water, our shellfish industry, our public health and safety. This is just about the worst place for a coal mine. Socially and environmentally, it is about as palatable as clear-cutting Stanley Park.
Fiat lux
48 weeks ago
The issue is not whether we
The issue is not whether we want steel, but how much and for what purposes? The same goes for oil and all other resources.
For real, human needs, or to "make money" ?
Two totally different and opposing purposes and concepts.
Years ago we practically had no garbage, and very little pollution, now the whole world is covered with the remnants of short lifespan, junk products, unnecessary packing, "fashions" etc. etc.
Here for our small community of perhaps 3-400 people we now have to have a garbage dump almost the same size Vancouver had on Kerr Road, for a million people, 40-50 years ago.
Thanks to "cheap" imports made from our resources shipped halfway around the world, then shipped back to satisfy our "demands for economic efficiency" and GDP, soon to be increased with more "free trade" crime wave by our "prominent business and political leaders", we need like holes in our heads.
Ed Deak.
Van Isle
48 weeks ago
How come Mr. Tapics doesn't
How come Mr. Tapics doesn't mention the other mines (open pit)that he wants to open up, one in particular, right behind Cumberland. I wonder if anybody has looked at a map between Mud Bay and Cumberland and asked; "Where in hell's sake are they going to put the tailings"?
metacomet
48 weeks ago
While Stop Using Steel
The Raven Coal proposal just behind Buckley Bay is a curious thing. Lets start by responding to the trite suggestion to stop using steel. Assays subsequent to Raven's initial application have shown that not only is the deposit much smaller than first claimed, the grade of coal is much lower, much less of it is metallurgic coal, much more thermal coal. It begs the question: why is Raven going to so much trouble for an at-best mediocre deposit? There is no shortage of coal in this world, so why here? Opposition is strong and well organized yet it seems to suit Raven just fine.
If there is an ulterior motive, it might have something to do with the unique status of land tenure below which the deposit sits: the area is in the E&N Railway Grant, the massive land-for-rail contract extras CPR negotiated with the crown a hundred and thirty years ago which still features quirky tax and royalty rules unlike anywhere else in the province. Much of this land, including the Raven claim, enjoys a forest production tax shelter; converting this use to something else, like real estate or mine development, normally requires conversion to regular land-tax assessment. As former forest minister Rich Coleman showed, forest companies who are friends of this government (such as WFP is and Timberwest is not), can get their private forest lands out of the tax-shelter without paying back the discounted tax. The minister was quickly shuffled out of his portfolio the day after WFP was allowed, by government fiat, to take thousands of acres of their private holdings near Port Renfrew out of forest production. The details of why the discounted forest production tax was not paid back remain secret. Every forested parcel of this status is potentially subject to this kind of shenanigan.
It makes one wonder what might be going on when owners like Raven are standing on their heads to get proposals into the process when the prospects are conspicuously mediocre or downright unprofitable. Is some kind of precedent being sought with regard to land tax status?
Jeff59Langley
48 weeks ago
Don't Buy Steel?
Please. What a naive, pick up your marbles and go home remark. These guys want to make a profit, period. They will moderate their greed only to the extent that they are forced to mitigate damage that they cause the environment. That they WILL damage the environment is a no brainer; of course they will. The question is: "Does the upside for the community justify the downside of environmental erosion?". Their problem, is that while the economic upside for them is great, the upside for the local community is not there.
needleroozer
48 weeks ago
High grade coal?
I was surprised to see that the Tyee would reinforce the idea of the Raven coal mine producing high grade coking coal. Thanks to Hakuin for providing the report that shows only 38% of mine production would be low grade steel making coal, 6% thermal coal and the bulk would be tailings garbage disposed of on surface at the mine site. I agree with metacomet that there is more going on here than we know.
shellshocked
48 weeks ago
Raven coal a coking coal
There's no denying that metallurgical coal is important to making coke which is crucial to making steel. Calling Raven coal a coking coal is like saying a tandem bicycle is a form of mass transit. The Raven coal is a semi-soft coking coal (SSCC) so by definition it is in the coking coal category. However, it's high ash and sulfur content make it a very poor quality coal. The processing plant is being designed to produce a SSCC product ( under 10% ash content), a thermal middlings product ( 10-15% ash content), and a thermal coal product ( over 15% ash content). This Project is a boondoggle, and the Tyee's article is shoddy at best. Finally if you think the coking coal part is BS, check out the fact that methane emissions from the mine are estimated at 127,500 cubic meters PER DAY. So much for reducing our carbon footprint.
Luck
48 weeks ago
STOP USING EVERYTHING
STOP USING EVERYTHING,
LETS START WITH INEPT GOV. OFFIVCIALS TRYING TO BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYBODY BUT THE TAXPAYER AT LARGE,
STOP USING STEEL, COAL, TIMBER, HEALTHCARE AND SO ON,
BECAUSE WE CAN EXPORT IT OUT AND THE BUY IT BACK PROCESSED,
SORTA LOOKS ANS SOUNDS RETARDED,
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING TO US,
GOES DEEPER, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND INTO SILENT COVERUP,
WE NEED TO BUY BACK OVER 35 YEARS OF MISMANAGED PIRACY SALE OF OUR COUNTRY,
THE VERY PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISIONS IN CANADA BELONG TO FOREIGN OWNERSHIP,
THATS IT,
THATS ALL,
LIKE IT OR CHANGE IT COLLECTIVELY PEOPLE,
IT IS THAT SIMPLE,
judycross
48 weeks ago
Metacomet seems to have nailed it.
Given the small amount of coal and its lesser quality, the Tax implications seem to be the real driver of this destructive project.
I watched the the shell fish industry grow and flourish in Baynes Sound, which is directly below the proposed mine site. There is no way it can survive coal mine drainage.
The jobs created by this industry would last much longer than the life of the mine.
The Strait of Georgia gets very little flushing, as was shown over 30 years ago during hearings about sewage treatment from the Comox Valley. The toxins dumped into it would stay for a long time and given the expected 20 year life of the mine, would probably spread throughout the Strait. That's the real pollution problem, not the phony global warming nonsense.
This must be stopped.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
"phony global warming nonsense"?
really, Judy?
motorcycleguy
48 weeks ago
use it wisely
How about if the products we buy made from steel are made wisely. Just as much of the earth's resources go into manufacturing a piece of crap as for something of quality that lasts. If it doesn't last 25 years then don't unload it from the ship.....better still, make it here like we used to....where environmental requlations need to be followed in the manufacturing process.
judycross
48 weeks ago
Yes, Hakuin, "phony global warming nonsense"
One of the uses of the nonsense was to divert us from real pollution issues like this one.
Hak, may I suggest you read the submission to the Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into Carbon Tax Pricing Mechanisms
by Dr. David Evans who
"consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time to the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University."
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/
He's unequivocal about what has been going on.
"The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.
There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. If there was, we would have heard all about it. Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it.
Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made.
Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator – models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong."
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
the scientific consensus is
anthropogenic global warming is a reality. You can always find someone to say otherwise, but the vast majority of peer reviewed opinion is that we are in deep shit. I think I'll go with the folks screaming "FIRE!".
I also have a prophesy: The time will come when those who actively worked to deny the fact of us cooking ourselves in our own slop so they could make a quick buck will find themselves hunted though the streets by angry mobs. Sooner than they think.
judycross
48 weeks ago
Ignorance surpassed only by nastiness
If AGW is such a reality, how come nobody has been able to prove it?
David Evans isn't just "someone". He was in the inner sanctum of the carbon caper counting it all up. Re-read his credentials.
Dunderheads have all but destroyed the credibility of the Environmental Movement with their denial of real evidence that climate is beyond our control. The longer such ignoramuses continue bleating about CO2 being dangerous, the less people will understand that mining the coal is the dangerous part...not the burning of it.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
the proof you require
requires the death of our species. Nope.
judycross
48 weeks ago
What a copout answer!
You must be very naive to think you can get away with that one.
A recent article says the shell fishery supports 600 jobs now and for the future, whereas the mine "is a few hundred jobs for 16 years."
Clearly, there is something quite wrong with the concept. It does not make any sense except as a way for insiders to profit
pwlg
48 weeks ago
Hakuin thanks, Part 1
Compliant Coal, now there's an oxymoron. Indeed, that's why they changed the name of the company to Compliant Energy. Either way the coal from the proposed Raven Mine would not meet standard for compliance due to sulphur and ash content.
Perhaps its just another penny stock company, trading at 15 cents a share today, juicing the benefits without quantifying the costs (environmental, social and economic). I am dismayed by AMEC's flimsy information contained in the study by UBC students that Hakuin provided the link to. Thanks Hakuin.
I am hoping for more detailed information released through the environmental assessment. I think knowing how many trucks a day they assume going to Port Alberni would shed light on many aspects of the proposed mine.
pwlg
48 weeks ago
Part 2, Denial-a-palooza
I sure wish judycross would provide other sources that show significant errors in David Evans' opinions. They are easy to find.
Judycross rails at climate scientists who use computer models to provide estimates of future impacts from CO2 on climate.
Is there no evidence that the same computer model predictions used by climate scientists have been tested and proven accurate against real world situations like erupting volcanoes?
In fact computer modeling is used to engineer bridges like the Port Mann and tunnels like the Canada Line uses.
Here's what Evans had to say about James Hansen's projections in 1988:
"It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality."
However in all cases the projections by Hansen have proven remarkably accurate.
"James Hansen's 1988 projections are consistent with a climate sensitivity of approximately 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which of course contradicts Evans' principle claim that climate sensitivity is low."
A quote from Skeptical Science regarding Evans:
"Evans has not learned from his mistakes, instead choosing to misinform others by propagating his errors to a much wider, and sadly all too receptive audience."
Evans was invited to give his debunked opinions to the Heatland's Conference on Climate Change financed by Exxon (oil) and Koch Foundation (oil) in 2009. The right wing think tank didn't seem to think inviting climate scientists to its conference though. They thought a guy with a Ph.D in electrical engineering would suffice. The scientists these guys like to criticize, or vilify, were not even given an opportunity to present their data and findings at any of the panels at this "conference".
In fact, even Evans has proclaimed he is no climate scientist. Besides his one 2008 opinion piece on climate science written in a newspaper in Australia he has had no peer or non-peer reviewed academic paper on climate science published. The only paper he has ever published was in 1987 and was related to his field of expertise (which is not climate science).
Evan's has admitted he is no computer modeler but he seems to have a great deal of opinions about the subject that are more rhetoric and political than scientific according to Tim Lambert a computer scientist in Australia.
For a more thorough debunking of Evan's newspaper opinion piece on climate change read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/18/the-australians-war-on-science-16/
Doc Evans now spends his days providing investor tips on gold as editor of 'Goldnerds'. He has been trading on the Australian Stock Market since 1990 his bio on Goldnerds proclaims.
Seems some will need to find another denial hero. Doc Evans is busy making money these days.
pwlg
48 weeks ago
Jim O'Rourke, Chair Compliance Energy
Mr. O'Rourke's bio fails to mention that he once ran Cassiar Asbestos in northern BC well after claims began hitting the courts due to worker's health issues to do asbestos related diseases.
Cassiar Asbestos which ceased operations in late 1991 and went bankrupt early in 1992 has had a few visits to the courts over worker deaths and long term illnesses due to asbestos related diseases.
Litigation began in 1970 against Cassiar Asbestos in US courts and when O'Rourke re-opened the mine in 1990 there were several cases pending.
In 1998 the California Superior Court of Orange County stated that "Cassiar is not a stranger to California litigation" and ruled against Cassiar to squash a petition from 10 workers who were exposed to asbestos and were suffering from asbestos related diseases.
O'Rourke brushed this bankruptcy and subsequent court cases aside without any loss to his own personal wealth. The but investors including the taxpayers of BC and Canada who had a hand in financing the underground shaft O'Rourke hoped would put Cassiar Asbestos back in business. It didn't and creditors, small businesses and investors took a loss while O'Rourke receives an Order of BC.
judycross
48 weeks ago
Evans is not a "climate scientist" but then neither is
Maurice Strong...the Godfather of the Green Agenda, formerly of Dome Petroleum,Power Corp, Petrocanada, and the Rockefeller Fund, who says:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
http://www.whale.to/a/strong_h.html
Al Gore, failed politician, Divinity School dropout and along with Strong, a principle in the defunct Chicago Climate Exchange and largest shareholder in Occidental Petroleum which is ruining the lands of indigenous people in Columbia. When Vice president he arranged the sale of Federal lands to Occidental.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468
Head of the IPCC, Rajenda Pachauri,a RAILROAD ENGINEER who ran the Indian State OIL Company http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/tag/rajendra-pachauri/
David Suzuki, is a geneticist and media guru,he thinks people are maggots, so why does anyone pay him attention?
Funny thing about the rampant hypocrisy within the climate movement...it doesn't matter how many times it is pointed out, it just goes on and on and on.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
tell me Judy;
how do you feel about Obama's birth certificate?
judycross
48 weeks ago
And if one needed any more evidence of funny business
within the Climate Cult, "Climate Scientists" have asked for IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION:
"Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued it’s formal request for immunity from prosecution to “protect” researchers who have provided “evidence” supportive of the man-made global warming scare story. The perplexing plea will likely reverberate throughout the general scientific community as further affirmation that many climate scientists were not conducting honest research after all. John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, questioned the motives, “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for UN activities is symptomatic of a larger problem.”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9795
paisley
48 weeks ago
Nothing to do with SLAPP's right
Hey Judy while you would claim scientists are looking for protection because of shoddy research I think I will go with protection from SLAPP's. A tried and true corporate tactic to shut people up and destroy their lives. Good for you to ignore that reality.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
a-yup
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
lynnescape
48 weeks ago
Jim O'Rourke's Shady Past
Mr. O'Rourke also worked for Marcopper in the Phillipines. A quick Google search can tell you how Marcopper was responsible for killing the Boac River with toxic mine tailings and displacing the local citizens who could no longer get fish or water from the river. Mr. O'Rourke says he loves mining because it is fun.
judycross
48 weeks ago
Paisley, I'm against the mine because it would ruin
the Baynes Sound area and perhaps even more of the Strait of Georgia than we can even imagine.
What I am against is using specious arguments against the mine, like the CO2/global warming nonsense. Because the carbon hysteria is so wrong and unscientific, serious people tend to dismiss whatever else one has to say, no matter how valid.
As for SLAPP suits, I know all about them having been threatened with two in 1987.
judycross
48 weeks ago
BTW , why was Heartland dragged into this discussion?
But as long as it was, if you really want to know about the slimy trick played on them,
here's some food for thought:
DeSmog Blog headed back to obscurity
Posted on March 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts
The blog that broke created the Fakegate story, only to have it blow up in their faces when skeptics fingered Peter Gleick as the culprit, forcing him to admit that he’d been the one to steal the documents from Heartland, has had its 15 minutes of fame, and is now headed back into Internet obscurity.
New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal
Posted on May 1, 2012 by Anthony Watts
This is in addition to the forensics report that I had done by the JGAAP folks here: Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger
Heartland Institute Responds to Pacific Institute’s Reinstatement of Gleick – cites Federal criminal prosecution
Posted on June 7, 2012 by Anthony Watts
JUNE 7, 2012 – The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute announced yesterday it was “pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president” of the organization. The announcement comes three months after Gleick, a prominent climate scientist, confessed to stealing confidential board documents from The Heartland Institute.
Gleick also circulated a memo, purportedly describing Heartland’s “climate strategy,” that he originally claimed to have received from Heartland, and later claimed to have received “in the mail” from an anonymous source. Heartland and others identified the memo as a fake and continue to believe it was most likely written by Gleick himself to damage Heartland’s reputation.
Since the “Fakegate” scandal broke in February, environmental groups including Greenpeace and 350.org have used the fake memo to launch disinformation campaigns against Heartland’s donors and the scientists who participate in its climate change research programs.
Above articles @
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Heartland+Gleick
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
:)
Google " Judy cross heartland institute"; first hit:
http://www.wordnik.com/words/reposter
With such AstroTurf can sock puppets be far behind? Or maybe already here?
judycross
48 weeks ago
What is this about?
Thanks for illustrating the fall-back position of the Climate Crazies when they can't show any evidence that the message is wrong...attack the messenger.
All I do is provide an alternative viewpoint, but cultists can't deal with real information. The use of the word "denialist" gives the game away.
Of course those using cover names have the advantage over those of us who expose our real identities. I'm traceable.
The paid shills for Global Governance are not.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
you must be looking fo rthe Heartland shill thread
this one is about coal
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/business/global/chinese-data-said-to-be-manipulated-understating-its-slowdown.html?_r=1
judycross
48 weeks ago
Thanks for the link to the Chinese slowdown
It does tend to reinforce the idea that the Compliance coal mine is about a tax fiddle rather than supplying a market which just might not even be there.
We are asked to sacrifice a food source and 600 jobs based on it for something which will probably go bankrupt and would disappear in 16-20 years anyway.
Hakuin
48 weeks ago
there now!
see? No need for One World Government conspiracy or other silliness, just talk about the coal. Not EVERYTHING is a suitable vehicle for ANY agenda.