Closing remarks

Today was very brief with only four presenters. I thought BN first nation's seemed to be satisfied with the talks during the discussions related to undertaking #31.

The mayor of Marathon said it well when he stated that Marathon and BIIGTIGONG NISHNAABEG were the main parties affected by this project. 

Then came Jamie Kneen. I found his presentation very vague, misleading and confusing.  Kneen's remarks suggested that he is an environmental and financial expert. Also suggested he is an oil,diesel and all mineral financial analyst. Where Genm got an expert for each of those areas and discussed at length the solutions,benefits and means to having a sound operation backing it all up with their extensive knowledge and past experience, kneen seems to suggest that he commands more knowledge and experience that all of Genms experts put together. 

Kneen then decides to ignore feasibility studies and all the hard work that goes into them and accused Genm of either being incompetent in completing the mine or that they will simply  sell it. Those are unsubstantiated direct accusations of the mental capabilities of Genm management. 

Kneen then reiterates the ridiculous notion that every study completed by Genm does not "Adequately' represents this or thar. H e did so without stating what that "Adequate " threshold is.

Kneen further represented his Jack of all trades claims  by saying the project will either go bust in five years or be so successful that they might sneak in and mine other deposits under the radar of the law. As I stated in a previous extensive reply to this argument kneen you are contradicting yourself . Your options are either they will be a bust or a success but you can't argue that both are bad as that clearly exposes your bias.

Finally Kneen says he is happy to answer questions when  the panel had specifically instructed participants that no questions are permitted. That leads me to believe that Kneen didn't bother attending today's sessions from the beginning.  Furthermore I don't believe that he watched any previous session or read a single page of the feasibility study. That would explain his extreme bias and vagueness during the presentation. It can be further argued that someone prepared his speech. All other presenters spoke directly to the audience whereas kneen"s eyes were glued to the monitor thar he seems to enjoy along with electricity and all the comforts of modern day living 

In the sprit of fairness I don't mind hearing the other sides opinion as long as it's informative,factual and beneficial to all.kneens presentation was none of those. I personally think his presentation,conclusions and recommendations were inadequate because it's ihis job  say these things and not a well revise answer that truly represents  the benefits of all.

Other than keeens and the organization he works for's vague observations.I thought the closing arguments  were a great success for everyone affected by this project,  BIIGTIGONG NISHNAABEG, town of Marathon and Genpgm.

Thank you 

Sam