Generation Mining Ltd T.GENM

Day 14

[Sacks45]

The topic was about cumulative affects of the project. GenPgm started the day with a presentation that was backed up by slides and quotes from the EIS. The first presenter spoke about how in their expert opinion GenPgm experts did not adequately study different species of birds ( habitat,mating and rehabitating due to project). The claim is that GenPgm used a one fit all mentality. They said that one fit all does not includes all bird species. ( I didn't know we can read birds minds) Then they proceded to say that their is not enough data to know exactly how all the species act. Well by their admission data is lacking then logically a one fit all scenario should suffice l. Then came the environmental group ( Crino). They had 4 main points. A) They spoke about other projects in the area how they can overlap with the marathon project thus causing more damage. ( note the closest project is 18 km away). GenPgm did a study on that topic and presented their findings in the EIS. B) the lumber producer in the area has violated the environmental act some 479 times give or take and were only fined 400k dollars. ( thank you for this fun fact but what does that have to do with GenPgm, I didn't make the connection) I feel like I'm repeating myself. Just because the lumber company committed violations does not equal to GenPgm doing the same. ( simple Arithmetics) C) I never understood how those presenters can make some of the statements they do. The presenter said that GenPgm has not adequately done their job. How do they know that infact its the case. How can you bluntly accuse experts in the field of not knowing what they are doing without a shred of evidence. D) It was also claimed that even though GenPgm agrees with some impact stated they did not take those impacts seriously. The argument is that GenPgm stated in the addendum that no extra mitigation measures is necessary.That doesn't mean that they had no mitigation in place as it's suggested ,it simply means that the mitigation in place are sufficient and had accounted for that impact. Overall I was disappointed with the weakness of the presenters cases and the lack of evidence (from the EIS). That indicates that either these presenters did not sufficiently study the EIS or the EIS was presented well enough as to not give the presenter any thing to work with. GenPgm has proven their case by spending time, resources and documenting all their findings. If those presenters want to argue against those findings, then it is only fair to ask them to do their own studies in order to support their claims and prove the EIS wrong. If not then I would lean more towards the party that did field work rather than not. The Panel again kept things running fair for all participants and asked the questions that reflected most of the presented concerns over the past two days. GenPgm respectfully answered all the questions and used their research from the EIS to support their claims. Thanks Sam

[IgnacioCashmere]

my gut feeling so far is that the panel will ask for more time before making a decision, delaying construction 12-18 months. The risks of groundwater movement are real. The language being presented makes me believe the panel will want more information before giving approval. Government employees & panelists have no vested interest in the outcome, they do not lose anything if the mine is not

[Sacks45]

It does feel like that at some points. I would say they get the permit. I don't know if you've been watching all of the sessions but most of the government bodies are either satisfied with the EIS findings or giving minor recommendations. The only resistance I see is Crino which I think goes around looking for mine projects to bug and BIIGTIGONG NISHNAABEG first Nation. There was also a

[YQTlanding]

I have also been listening intently. I share the same viewpoint as Sacks45. GENM hired experts to do the EIS and they wasted no time in assembling  the best group of people to do their absolute best work. People who have been through this process before. Everything said is backed up by an expert in the field with real data. The panel members are fair in asking the hard questions. GENM has

[JAUBE123]

I'm confident we get permits. How could Argonauts open pit and Cote Gold open pit (which also had agreements with First Nations), get approved but not this. I'm sure they both went through the same things.