Subject: RE: Hope Bay JV Licence Application NWB file # NWB1BOS9801
From: John Donihee <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Jack Kaniak <[email-masked]>, Charlie Evalik <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 09:42:16 -0700

I trust that an electronic response to your letter of March 26, 2001 is
acceptable. I was away on holiday until the 31 of March and did not get
the letter until April 1.

As you know, KIA is the land owner for at least part of the area
affected by the appurtenant undertaking invloved in this licence. We
have direct and significant interests in the questions of security for
abandonment and restoration (A&R), the cost of any clean up of the site
and the environmental effects of the licenced activity.

KIA has not yet taken a position on the need for a public hearing. We do
wish to participate in a prehearing conference (PHC) on May 16th. Our
participation will include Mr. Kaniak and myself. Please treat this as
our "registration of attendance". We would like to be joined by phone.

With respect to the PHC, KIA is concerned that the Board's time table
for the filing on an updated A&R report by the applicant means that we
will not have that evidence available on May 16th for the PHC.   KIA has
also been advised by the DIAND inspector of some possible concern with
respect to acid rock drainage (ARD) at the operation site. KIA will be
taking steps to determine whether ARD is a matter which must be dealt
with at the hearing.

We are concerned that the discussion in the PHC may have to take place
in the absence of real information about the A&R update. This, in our
view, will limit KIA's ability to advise Board staff about the need for
a hearing until after the A&R update is filed on May 31st.

At the moment, we suggest the following matters should be discussed in
the PHC:

    1) Information be provided by the applicant about their new cost
estimates for A&R, including the early circulation of a description of
the "summer of 2000 clean up" and its purported costs and benefits;
    2) Information be provided by regulatory officials (DIAND/DOE) about
acid rock drainage at the site and any environmental concerns arising
therefrom;
    3) DIAND should come forward to indicate their position on the issue
of joint payees for the security;and
    4) Procedural issues associated with the hearing.

KIA notes that at the 1998 hearing that led to the current licence,
DIAND did not send senior staff and that DOE/DFO did not participate. We
urge the NWB to ensure that the regulators at least participate in the
PHC so that  KIA, Inuit and the Board may have access to these
departments' experts in framing the hearing issues and deciding on
process.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly.

John Donihee
Counsel for KIA