Special Guest Chris Taylor: Analysing BC's New Critical Mineral Strategy
The Province of BC has a unique opportunity, but it shouldn't rush itself into making a mistake, argues Kodiak Copper's Chris Taylor.
tl;dr:
Chris Taylor joined me to break down the recent news by the BC government announcing their new critical minerals strategy. Drawing from his experience across Canada, Chris discusses the opportunities and challenges he sees present in the current plan and offers a note of caution that the process move with the thoughtfulness an deliberation such a sensitive and powerful opportunity deserves.
As always, there are 3 parts to this update:
1. The Interview
2. The Companion Article
3. The Written Summary & Transcript
Part 1: The Interview
Part 2: The Companion Article
This article, springing from my conversation with Chris Taylor, is ultimately going to be about the absolutely critical nature of mining, and how we should be strongly supportive of - and engaged with - government efforts to facilitate it properly and fairly. But let me get something out of the way first:
Mining has a major marketing problem.
No, I don’t mean the evergreen paid pump and dump storyline here - though that would be a fair assumption. What I mean is that average members of the public generally don’t know, don’t care, or are even hostile towards the industry.
And to be fair, the worst headlines this industry can produce are a big reason why. Whether it is current executives of juniors being officially charged for corruption, or other executives charged for environmental and humanitarian devastation created by corruption, and - fairly or unfairly - you can see why mining’s approval numbers would be low in the general population.
And it turns out they are indeed actually incredibly low - consider the poll results below:
Put bluntly, mining’s image sucks. And furthermore - again, fairly or unfairly - I can understand why. The negative headlines I highlighted above are a tough read and most people just don’t have much exposure beyond headlines to events beyond their own lives and interests.
This reality is made even more challenging due to the fact that the counternarrative of “mining is super important for today and for tomorrow” is too opaque and too general to overcome stories of acute industry failure. Metals and mining are at the same time invisible and omnipresent in society and that can be a tough thing to champion.
Because this means that when things go right, no one notices because everything just operates the way it is supposed to. But when things go wrong, and people end up dead, rivers poisoned, or CEOs charged with massive corruption, everyone notices. So even as someone who advocates for mining, I understand why mining struggles in the public domain. Making mistakes at critical moments in this industry can lead to disaster in a way few other sectors are capable of.
But this negative attitude towards mining - though understandable - is ultimately one that proves itself to be ignorant of larger trends and threatens to paint western society into a vulnerable corner in contemporary geopolitical landscapes. Put another way, if the west does actually reject future domestic mining, it is in fact throwing the baby out with the bath water and working against their overall goal of minimal negative impact from the mining industry.
Let me try to explain where I am going with all this through a thought exercise, if you don’t mind.
Thought Exercise
I will try to demonstrate clearly why western public perception needs to be changed and mining for critical minerals needs to be not shunned, or even casually accepted, but embraced. Consider the steps in this argument:
Electrification and decarbonisation are A Good Thing. (Note that I sidestep here any discussion of the wobbly, “talk-without-action” execution we’ve seen so far in pursuit of this. I am focusing only on the idea that actually transitioning to clean energy is a laudable, critical goal humanity should have. Which, I mean, come on.)
That electrification transition is going to require a staggering amount of critical metals to be mined to feed even the most conservative of anticipated growths in demand.
Therefore, mining is an absolutely inflexible, critical necessity to modern and future society. A cornerstone of human existence and advancement.
Thusly, all decision trees on “what should we mine?” have to stem from this basic truth: Not only should we mine, but we actually need to be doing much, much more of it. There just isn’t nearly enough current and potential supply to come close to our electrification goals.
With this in mind, now add in the fact that mining has for millennia (weep for the Roman slaves of Hispania) now proven to be a tremendously sensitive and difficult thing to actually successfully and profitably pull off, with many geological, physical, economic, social, and environmental risks involved.
It follows from all of the above that mining - due to its essential-yet-challenging nature - should be pursued according to absolute best practices. This is done to maximise its benefits and prevent and minimise those headline-grabbing moments of failure.
Therefore jurisdictions that are leaders in this pursuit of mining best practice should be targeted and encouraged by western societies that values the just distribution of risk and reward. Simlarly, efforts to update mining policy to pursue best practice and orient it towards future-facing metals should similarly be targeted and encouraged.
This reprioritisation of mining best practices will necessarily force us in the west to reimagine our current relationships with our domestic metals supplies. This truth is only made more emphatic by the fact that our current international supply chains are fraught with significant environmental and social danger and generally held to much lower standards than our own.
So therefore, to draw this thought exercise to a close, if we do actually care about decarbonization, just labour laws, and effective environmental regulations, we need more western supply. Significantly more. And, as I have hopefully made clear, there doesn’t really seem to be much room for debate on this if you’re dedicated to working outward from first principles.
So, if that all made sense, mining in the west isn’t really a question of “if” we should, but “how much” we need to.
This means two fundamental goals of the mining industry needs to be to 1. Conduct yourself according to stringent concepts of modern best practice in pursuit of mining critical metals and 2. Keep pounding the narrative of how critical western critical minerals actually are.
Now we are circling around to my actual topic here, and the ultimate topic of my conversation with Chris Taylor - that mining needs to be embraced, and a critical in-depth assessment of what best practice is and should be needs to be conducted. This therefore means that initiatives like BC’s new Critical Minerals Strategy (the subject of our conversation) needs to be openly welcomed and actively engaged in in good faith by government, communities, and industry alike.
Take a look at the stated goals from the Jan. 24 News Release. They honestly read pretty well:
I will bypass lengthy conversations detailing the above stated goals. You can read them yourself, and I cover them in my interview with Chris. Taken at face value, they demonstrate a clear and good-faith effort by the government of BC to revamp and revitalise its approach to mining. But, as always, words are cheap - its actions that define outcomes. So now that we know their vision, now we need to know their plan to execute it.
DRIPA and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
Chris in our conversation discussed recognising he believes BC’s government wants this to be an opportunity for genuine improvement and growth. However, he cautioned quite strongly against pushing through BC’s proposed massive changes (including its integration of UNDRIP into the BC staking/mineral claims process) to meet arbitrary deadlines. And he certainly has a point - adhering to artificially-imposed deadlines seems like it runs totally counter to the ideals free, prior, and informed consent is built upon. What do the various agencies and communities involved themselves believe they need?
So I admit I am inclined to agree with Chris quite strongly on this point. BC has begun an ambitious and massive (and laudable) undertaking that is an opportunity to fundamentally reimagine mining for the future. With so much at stake, why rush it, or risk rushing it? This is one of those “you only get one shot” moments. You’ve opened the can of worms, now deal with it exhaustively and deliberately so the process breeds fruit, not bitterness. Take things apart so as to to put them back together better than it was before, not just broken in a new way.
So there are concerns about time and timing that dot my conversation with Chris - is the BC Supreme Court’s 18 month deadline to get BC legislation caught up on its UNDRIP commitments enough time to fully understand all potential actions and consequences? Is the BC government pushing to get the process wrapped up well in advance of an upcoming election to prevent it from morphing into an election issue? Because this process is too important to fall prey to the whims of 4 year election cycles. It needs to be done, and it needs to be done well.
Buried on the Back Page
Chris’ particular frustration that the BC government’s call for public input was buried on the proverbial back page of the government website is reasonable. (Note: Click on the screen grab below to access said page to leave your inputs and suggestions for BCGov if you wish.) For this exercise to work, it needs to be given a chance to work. And that doesn’t happen by leaving it in the dark.
Modern First Nations Relationships with Mining
Because, circling back to the image problem mining suffers from, it shouldn’t be a surprise modern First Nations communities want increased say and benefits over exploration and exploitation that takes place in their territories. Even the most cursory glance through history demonstrates why they have a right to be wary of mining and want an increased say in how it happens and where. Because the historical record of First Nations communities materially benefitting from a nearby operation (or being meaningfully compensated after a disaster) is awfully spotty.
This means that any analysis of modern relationships between First Nations communities and the mining industry that fails to place it in that historical context will always fail to understand modern First Nations reservations towards the industry. Because all those nasty stories I started with? These communities have unquestionably borne an outsized burden of their impact. Those are their, and their parents, and their grandparents stories of what can go wrong when the mining company comes to town.
Mining today is not what it was 40 years ago. And mining tomorrow looks to continue that trend. Mining has never been safer - to people and the environment - when best practice is pursued. But mining is in effect one long trust exercise ongoing throughout the entire mine life, one that is not fully passed the last reclamation stone is placed. So the memories of the past can take time to get past. Funnily enough, trust is like relationships and your reputation - hard to build and easy to destroy. Who knew.
Now, some mining commentaries have dished out apocalyptic warnings about how integrating UNDRIP into BC’s mining legislation will be the death knell of BC mining. That First Nations groups just want to hold the whole process hostage and destroy the industry once and for all. I disagree that this is a likely outcome.
Why? Simply because literally no one involved in this wants that to happen. The government doesn’t want to throttle the industry. Industry certainly doesn’t want to throttle the industry, and First Nations themselves - pretty clearly don’t even want that, generally speaking.
For proof of this, take a look at the province-by-province breakdown of Indigenous support for natural resource development. A clear and powerful majority of every province’s Indigenous population support it. See below:
The fact is is that responsible resource exploration and extraction is the most potent tool these communities have of lifting themselves out of situations that are often desperate and challenging, and they know it. Jobs are created that last generations when mining comes to town.
So, to finally return to where I started (that is to say, a little off-topic) - how does mining begin to win the image war? Well, I believe opportunities such as the BC Critical Mineral Strategy are exactly how. Bring people together to build a new reality to operate in, and build it to be better than before. Rare are the opportunities to actually and genuinely clean away negative detritus and inertia from social regulations and structures and rebuild with the future in mind. Don’t waste it.
Because the stakes really couldn’t be much higher. Mining holds the keys to a green future. Mining can be a defining tool in the struggle to eliminate generations of poverty, and BC can establish itself as a global leader in combining economic potential and environmental responsibility.
But only if they take the time to do it right.
Thanks for reading, final thoughts below Part 3.
-Matthew from JRI
Part 3: Written Summary & Transcripts
Link to the unedited transcripts can be found here.
Introduction
Matthew overviews the 11 total goals of the newly released strategy. They include “plans to invest in geoscience, critical mineral infrastructure, and even the projects themselves rather, as well as targeted incentivization programs, increased trading initiatives for skilled and unsealed mining jobs, promoting BC's ESG advantage, working more closely with First Nations and performing the Mineral Tenure Act.”
02:14 What was Chris encouraged to see in the release?
There appears to be genuine interested by politicians at the provincial and federal level in supporting mining. For a long time, mining was sort of absent or invisible in Canada and internationally despite its importance. Government’s appear to be discussing this publicly and supportively in a way Chris hasn’t seen before.
03:35 What was missing that Chris was hoping to see?
Chris responds that if you had asked him 20 years ago he would have said infrastructure – powerlines, power stations, roads, etc.
But now, Chris would “really like to see is some clarity around the relationship with First Nations interests and the different areas of the province. And really sorting out of what benefits accrue to who, who's part of the decision making process, and a lot of clarity on those elements.”
Integrating UNDRIP into Canadian law is going to fundamentally change how mining and exploration operates. What does free, informed, and prior consent look like in this context? Companies want to efficiently explore while First Nations want to see good stewardship of the land and economic benefits and how are those two things going to be married?
06:16 Is there any risk of this becoming a political football in BC?
Chris is concerned that a public call for policy feedback on the new laws was put on a hard-to-find government page and not publicly announced and advertised for feedback. He is concerned that such a massive process as integrating UNDRIP needs lots of time and input and consideration to be done properly.
He makes the comparison to a mining company just putting up their notice for a meeting in a local grocery store’s message board and not doing any more outreach – that wouldn’t be good enough, and the hard-to-find website isn’t good enough either.
Getting UNDRIP integrated in a way that preserves the sector’s ability to function properly is going to take time and energy and input and risks being damaged and damaging if it is rushed. Which could create long-term ramifications.
13:12 What sort of support do you see from First Nations communities themselves?
Chris reflects that some of the most intimidating meetings in his career was going into communities and facing a group of strangers that don’t know him at all and try to convince them why your vision should also be their vision. Building the relationships required to gain community buy-in takes lots of repeating effort and communication and isn’t something that can be rushed.
Chris discusses some of the knowledges he’s been impressed by in local communities -from excellent accountants to traditional knolwedges. And taking the time to actually get to know these people is how you build these connections, rather than ramming things through in a rushed fashion.
These are communities that live in isolation without access to money or resources and the struggles that come from that. So when you engage in sincere outreach you get to understand both sides of these communities.
Chris thinks a natural way to get First Nations communities on board is for them to become their own miners and explorers, effectively – bring on people with education needed to claim their own mineral titles on behalf of their nation. It seems a clear role for government within existing framework to support these communities through education and employment initiatives.
This would allow the government to facilitate desired outcomes without becoming too involved.
20:50 What is one change you would make if you were in charge of this process?
Chris furthers his previous point. In Ontario, many First Nations groups he interacted with had experts on staff to help the process – GIS experts, mineral title experts, forestry, permitting, etc. These experts would have direct contact with the government for their individual First Nations. This would allow these nations to become economic drivers in their own rights. Would also give them complete authority over the land they acquired claims to within their territory.
26:09 Do you have any notion of what the government’s plan looks like?
Premier David Eby’s discussion at Roundup was a good start. New branches of government. Improvements within the current system. Have a decent sense of what it will look like.
27:44 Mining Association of BC (MABC) Response was that BC miners and smelters are financially disadvantaged vs. Ontario and Quebec – explain how this is
Their feedback was: faster permitting, more funding to fair stations for land use decisions. That kind of fits into what you were saying there. Electrification, investment, training skilled and unskilled workers.
Took look at this issue, you need to look at the cost of electricity in each jursidcition, as mining is primarily an electrical-intensive process. Electrical grids need to be amply overpowered to operate effectively with growing, energy-intensive industries like mining.
33% of BC power is imported because they operate in a current deficit. And carbon-based policies that are being implemented before the grid is ready for them is making the deficit worse. BC is 93% or more hydro power.
The other aspect is environmental regulation – and for this reason especially he wants to see Canadian commodities developed, rather than offloading all the impacts onto other regions with less stringent policies.
35:04 What other lessons might BC learn from Ontario and Quebec?
Land claims in Ontario are settled, for one. There is a clear and concise list of who you must consult and for what in what region in Ontario,
With so many unsettled land claims and overlapping/competing lands in BC it becomes much more challenging, and the government is not willing to step into make decisions on it.
How do you split benefits of a mine up between 20 different groups?
So a prioritized consultation list would help, with defined sets of benefits and obligations for each.
41:16 BC Hydro coming up with billions in infrastructure spending – what is the process involved for mining companies to access that cash?
No specific BC knowledge to share, but it is a process that involves input from government, communities, and the company itself to demonstrate need and potential. What do communities demonstrate in terms of need? What do companies demonstrate in terms of tax flow and other benefits? Companies have a variety of studies to have to produce for it.
45:15 ESG Conversations – How does mining shed its negative reputation and be seen as critical to future decarbonisation efforts and attract younger generations into working in it and supporting it?
Start at home and teach your own family how important metals are.
School curricula could be updated.
Be aware of how international regimes are impacted by how we do and don’t use/process our resources.
Government and industry outreach (Matthew suggested the Idris Elba World Gold Council documentary as an example)
52:00 Final Thoughts
Just be careful with this new policy implementation. Know what you are doing and what the consequences of your actions will be. Uses the metaphor of a marathon – you could run one as a 3-legged race, but it could quickly become impossible if you had 10 people tied together as such. Whatever policies end up in place, there needs to be a clear-cut decision making process.
Thank you, as always, for reading. I sincerely believe this moment in BC’s history presents an incredible opportunity for the province to once again prove itself to be a global leader in defining what mining is and can be, but outputs are always inherently connected to inputs, and BC’s New Critical Mineral Strategy will only become as strong and comprehensive and effective as the BC government lets it.
-Again, Matthew from JRI.