Day 12

Reference Number

The day started with GenPgm as a team flawlessly presenting. In their presentation I believe they covered all the concern presented on day 11.

The first presenter spoke about the possibility of accidents at the project. To demonstrate this they used an example of a mine that's no where near the proposed mine. According to the presenter the mine leaked tailing material into the surrounding water when a basin broke due to what they said was a weak foundation. They never presented any facts about the incident. For example when was the mine built  what did the EIS look like compared to GenPgm or what material was used and how long did it take for the incident to occur. I don't think anyone can condemn GenPgm by bringing up another mine. ( you can't punish a son for a mistake a father committed). In the sprit of fairness I think the presenter should have included an example of a mine that did not have such an incident.

Later they described " the severe" adverse impact on the populations living in close proximity to the mine.Those included having to move a bit further down the body of water to catch their fish. On a personal level people were extremely concerned about the incident and some even had anxiety or depression. 

Furthermore they suggested that there should be a third party organization that shadows GenPgm while they preform there monitoring. I say who will monitor the 3rd party.  I do appreciate the personal effects on the people in the example but I don't think it has any relevance here 

Furthermore if someone comes in with the mentality that anything that may go wrong will go wrong, then it follows that humans should sieze all development activity related to mining or otherwise bcause the measure  becomes that all industry has liabilities when it concerns people saftey, environment, air and water pollution and wildlife.


The second presentation confused me a bit. It seemed that the presenter repeated their concerns from their first presentation on Day1. The presenter proceded to  asks the panel not to believe GenPgm at their word ( that to me atleast is implies that GenPgm and there experts are not qualified to do their jobs and/ or GenPgm is decieving everyone about ther findings.(Day 12 around 2:25 to 2:30 into the day) available on YouTube.

Rather than spending sometime to provide proof of their statements, the presenter asked the panel to effectively do their work for them. Google this and Google that and you will find what I am telling you to be true is what was asked of the panel.

Side note: Doctors advise us not to search Google when we have symptoms because 9 times out of ten the information we gather suggests that we are dying.

Ofcourse this presentation was done in the comfort of a heated, equipped  with electricity, using a computer and mobile devices. All thigs that require PGM's and/ or copper to be produced and operated.

Being a panel member is not an easy task. The panel often find themselves sorting through information from all presenters that contradict one another. They have kept those proceedings organized and fair. They listen to all concerns brought up and formulate questions in order to allow GenPgm to clarify. So far in my opinion GenPgm has not disappointed.


I am in favor of this project advancing while insuring the protection of the people, environment and wildlife.


Thank you



Submitted by
Public Notice
Date Submitted
2022-03-30 - 9:12 PM
Date modified: