Jean-Pierre Page: in Gaza, France’s CGT Union Turned Its Back on Internationalism

by Alain Marshal / August 20th, 2024

While the CGT proudly participated in the ‘Games of Shame,’ a personal triumph for Macron and his repressive, regressive policies, with the participation of the Israeli delegation and even the Israeli President, who was honored amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza, this letter from Jean-Pierre Page, former head of the CGT’s International Department, condemns the betrayals of France’s leading trade union.

Jean-Pierre Page sent this message (see original in French here) to an elected CGT representative who, on January 29, wrote against an open letter calling for genuine support for the Palestinian cause. He claimed the signatories were merely opponents of the current CGT leadership seeking reasons to criticize them, arguing that the CGT’s international meetings had never focused more on the Palestinian issue and that the union had been active in mobilizations. He dismissed the open letter as lacking concrete proposals and accused its authors of internal manoeuvring rather than genuine advocacy.

Both Jean-Pierre Page, a prominent signatory of the open letter, and I, the initiative’s originator, reacted the same day with the messages below, both of which went unanswered. Subsequently, I faced defamation, threats, and exclusion from the CGT local Teacher’s Union of Puy-de-Dôme (central France) on April 12th, with national CGT authorities confirming this exclusion on June 25th. These repressive measures also aimed to discredit and intimidate all signatories challenging the CGT’s stance on Palestine (see this petition detailing the facts and demanding my reinstatement).

For more on the CGT’s involvement in the Olympic Games, see the revealing interview with Bernard Thibault, the CGT’s celebrated Olympic torchbearer. Thibault downplays labor code violations, claims that there have been “no fatal accidents” on the Olympic construction sites (despite seven deaths), and explains social cleansing with misleading justifications. Also, see “The CGT Union Bears the Olympic Flame and Validates Macron’s Social Truce” and “Olympic Games: Mass Surveillance and Political Discrimination”.

Message from Jean-Pierre Page

[Notes in square brackets by Alain Marshal]

Dear Comrade,

I have read your comments on the Appeal and your refusal to support it. I concur with Alain/Salah’s response and arguments [see below], so I won’t reiterate them. I have frequently expressed my views on the situation in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, and on the broader geopolitical stakes. More generally, I have written about the historical dispossession of Palestine, which has been colonized and dissected for a century, and whose people have endured martyrdom. The Palestinian people is currently subjected to a policy of extermination and genocide by Israel, a criminal state whose impunity is guaranteed by Western governments.

Do you share this view? If not, I find it damning for a CGT activist, considering that this is the only union in France whose proclaimed internationalist commitment is part of its foundations and values. Certainly, not just any kind of internationalism! Not the rhetoric from Congresses that the CGT leadership feeds us, but a consistent class-based internationalism, one that is anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist. Not just in words, but in deeds.

I was a member of the Confederal Executive Commission for 20 years and head of the CGT’s International Department for 10 years. This doesn’t give me more authority than others, but since the refocusing of our Confederation, I have observed that the CGT leadership has not only abandoned our internationalist principles but, worse, has aligned itself with the official narrative shared uncritically with the ETUC [European Trade Union Confederation] and the ITUC [International Trade Union Confederation, formerly the ICFTU, which broke with the WFTU — World Federation of Trade Unions dominated by Communists] whose complicities and compromises are well-documented. Let’s be clear: the CGT now follows a different international ‘policy’, aligned not with today’s world but with yesterday’s. Internationally, the CGT is on the wrong side of the barricade. Since the 53rd Congress [in 2023], the situation hasn’t improved but deteriorated.

This is particularly the case with positions in line with current trends and declarations condemning the October 7 action, which aim to stigmatize the armed and political struggle of an entire nation through the Palestinian resistance organizations that the people have established for themselves, without exception. I regard October 7 as a historic act, for which the Palestinians are paying a high price with extraordinary courage. This was also true in other anti-colonial struggles, such as in Algeria, Vietnam, China, and Africa. What’s different now? In practice, solidarity is no longer the position of the CGT’s International Department. I regret this deeply.

In my open letter to Sophie Binet [CGT Secretary General], I outlined several arguments about the historical causes of this liberation struggle, which can only be resolved through the self-determination of the Palestinian people. I made similar points in the Appeal I initiated, which gathered 300 French and international figures in support of the “Palestinian people on their feet, who do not want to live on their knees”. Yet, for obvious reasons, the CGT has chosen not to clarify “how it came to this”. In the latest issue of Ensemble — La Vie Ouvrière [the CGT’s monthly magazine], I encountered astonishing comments legitimizing Israel’s actions. This is not merely due to the weaknesses and gross ignorance of the CGT’s International Department but is a deliberate choice, reflecting a broader orientation. It stands in stark contradiction to the CGT’s historical international commitments, such as those made by the CGTU with Abdel Krim during the Rif War in 1925.

In the 1970s, I lived and worked in this region, alongside the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance. The CGT once enjoyed great prestige there, as I can personally attest. Today, that prestige has been lost. How did this happen? In 1996, I accompanied Louis Viannet [former CGT Secretary General] to Beirut, where we met with all progressive organizations, including Hezbollah, and to Gaza, where we had an extensive discussion with Yasser Arafat. I recall his warm praise for the CGT’s efforts and its capacity to maintain fraternal relationships with all the trade unions and political organizations of the Palestinian resistance. This is no longer the case, and the reason is quite clear. Contrary to the decisions of the Confederal Congress, the CGT leadership has chosen to make selective alliances. For instance, it ostracizes the oldest Palestinian trade union confederation [the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions], due to its affiliation with the WFTU. Do you support this stance? Conversely, the CGT refuses to sever ties with the Histadrut, a historic pillar of Israeli Zionism known for its corruption and unwavering support for Netanyahu. Do you agree with this? Additionally, the CGT no longer has relations with Syria, Iraq, or Jordan, and its ties with FENASOL in Lebanon, also affiliated with the WFTU, have become merely formal. Do you consider this acceptable?

These are just a few examples to help you reconsider and refine your arguments, which frankly fall short of what should be expected from a CGT militant who claims to be in solidarity. In reality, solidarity with what and how? Do you or do you not support the right to armed struggle, a legitimate right recognized by the United Nations Charter?

Shouldn’t we address this question and have the courage to answer it clearly? Why do we support armed struggle in Ukraine but not in Palestine?

You see, to me this choice belongs to the Palestinian people, and it is certainly not up to their class adversary — imperialism — to decide for them, especially in this area. This is why our internationalism must be substantive. Clarity is essential — indeed, indispensable. That’s why I signed this Appeal, as it contributes to this. All that’s left for you to do is sign it!

Fraternally yours,

Jean-Pierre Page

Message from Alain Marshal

Dear Comrades,

I’d like to take the liberty of responding to the comrade’s comment. I don’t see this as a ‘personal opinion on the document,’ as our 5 pages of detailed and referenced arguments are entirely ignored, with no mention of potential flaws. What stands out instead is a sweeping ad hominem attack on dozens of signatories from diverse backgrounds, accusing them, without a shred of evidence, of insidious motives. This baseless accusation, claiming comrades are exploiting the genocide in Gaza to settle personal scores, is unworthy. Misrepresenting the substance of a comment to launch personal attacks is usually a tactic when there are no compelling counterarguments or may even tacitly admit that the CGT’s problematic statements we are highlighting are indeed indefensible. Pitting quantity against quality is unacceptable; calling for a ceasefire while endorsing key (and widely discredited) elements of Israeli propaganda is neither healthy nor constructive.

If you want to argue against signing a document, it would be more appropriate to justify your opposition based on the document’s content or a principled disagreement with the open letter’s approach, rather than casually dismissing the majority of its signatories. Several comrades have declined to sign the letter for valid reasons — whether because a particular point in the petition concerned them, or because they preferred to maintain a different relationship with the CGT Confederation — without resorting to denigrating its initiators and supporters.

The appeal’s fundamental proposals are clear and concrete: we urge the Confederation to stop using pro-Israeli rhetoric and base its declarations on international law, justice, and morality, rather than succumbing to emotional, political and media pressures from our capitals subservient to Washington and its unconditional support for Israel. We could have made even more proposals had the Conf’ not responded so disappointingly — and even contemptuously — to our request, or had it been willing to engage in a genuine internal debate on this issue.

When the dust settles, the propaganda fades, and the truth about the events of October 7 and their aftermath becomes clear, the CGT will be credited for having leaders, members, and sympathizers who recognized what was happening and did their utmost to urge the Confederation to reconsider its stance. At a time when efforts to annihilate the Palestinian cause are in full force — including the egregious act of cutting off funding to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, effectively condemning millions to starvation — it is our moral duty to distance ourselves from anything that could be seen as endorsing what is happening in Gaza. Many revelations since October 7 should have prompted the Conf’ to correct its position, yet it persists in its unacceptable statements. The dire situation in Gaza, the existential stakes for over 2 million Palestinians, the very future of Palestine, and the defense of the CGT’s values and history, which demand a firm stance against colonial oppression and the rejection of war propaganda, compel us to take this stand.

Fraternally yours,

Salah L. (Alain Marshal is a pseudonym used on this blog to uphold my ‘duty of neutrality’ as a public servant)Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Alain Marshal is a plebeian by nature and nurture. Contact: alainmarshal2 [at] gmail [dot] com. Read other articles by Alain.

 

First, Elon Musk made us pay for “free speech”; now he decides who’s allowed it

The ‘saviour of free speech’ is cracking down on criticism of Israel’s genocide. What he calls the ‘faaaaar left’ is in his crosshairs. It’ll be erased so utterly, you won’t remember it was ever there

by Jonathan Cook / August 20th, 2024

Many users of X, formerly Twitter, seem deeply misguided. They imagine that Elon Musk is the saviour of free speech. He’s not. He is simply the latest pioneer in monetising speech. Which isn’t the same thing at all.

All the blue ticks on X – mine included – are buying access to an audience. Which is why Musk has made it so easy to get a blue tick – and why there are now so many of them on the platform. If you don’t pay Musk, the algorithms make sure you get minimal reach. You are denied your five seconds of fame.

That has particularly infuriated corporate journalists. On what used to be called Twitter, they got access to large audiences as a natural right, along with politicians and celebrities. They never paid a penny. They felt entitled to those big audiences because they already enjoyed similarly big audiences in the so-called “legacy media”. They did not see why they start competing with the rest of us to be heard.

The new media system was rigged, as the old media system has been for centuries, to ensure that it was their voices that counted. Or rather it was the voices of the ultra-wealthy paying their salaries who counted.

Independent journalists, including myself, have been some of the chief beneficiaries of Musk’s X. But I don’t for a minute make the mistake of thinking Musk is really in favour of my free speech – or anyone else’s – compared to his own.

Being able to buy yourself an audience isn’t what most people understand as free speech.

Musk’s X is simply the latest innovation on the traditional “free speech” model from the bad old days. Then, only a handful of very rich men could afford to buy themselves lots of hired hands, known as journalists; own a printing press; and be in a position to attract advertisers.

Billionaires paid a small fortune to buy the privilege of “free speech”. As a result, they managed to secure for themselves a very big voice in a highly exclusive market. You and I can now pay a hundred bucks a year and buy ourselves a very, very small voice in a massively overcrowded, cacophonous marketplace of voices.

The point is this: Speech on X is still a privilege – it’s just one that you can now pay for. And like all privileges, it is on licence from the owner. Musk can withdraw that privilege – and withdraw it selectively – whenever he thinks someone or something is harming his interests, whether directly or indirectly.

Musk is already disappearing opinions, either ones he doesn’t like or ones he cannot afford to be seen supporting – most visibly, anything too critical of Israel.

He has threatened users with suspension for repeating slogans such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – in other words, for calling for an end to what the judges of the World Court recently decreed to be Israel’s apartheid rule over Palestinians. He is also against hosting on X the term “decolonisation” in reference to Israel, claiming perversely that “it implies a Jewish genocide” – itself an implicit admission that Israelis (not Jews) have long been colonising Palestine and ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

The Israel lobby is also pushing hard for a ban on the words “Zionism” and “Zionist”. It won’t be long before X, like Meta, cracks down on these terms too.

Note that banning these words makes it all but impossible to discuss the specific historical forces that led to Israel’s creation at the expense of the Palestinian people, or analyse the ideology that today underpins Israel’s efforts to disappear the Palestinian people, or explain how the West has been complicit in Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories for decades and is currently aiding the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

The loss of “Zionist” and “Zionism” from our lexicon would be a serious handicap for anyone trying to explain some of the major events unfolding in the Middle East at the moment. Which is precisely why the establishment, and Musk, are so keen to see such words discredited.

The Egyptian comedian Bassem Yousef, one of the most acute and acid critics of Israel, has suddenly disappeared from X. Many assume he has been banned. The Jerusalem Post highlights that, shortly before he vanished from X, he had written: “Are you still scared to be called an antisemite by those Zionists?”

Whatever the case, you will see Musk’s X getting a lot more censorious over the next months and years, especially against what he is terming the “faaaaaar left” – that is, disparate groups of people he has lumped together who hold opinions either he doesn’t like personally or that can damage his business interests.

Billionaires aren’t there to protect free speech. They got to be billionaires by being very good at making money – by seizing markets, by inflating our appetite for consumption, and by buying politicians to rig the system to protect their empires from competitors.

Musk understands that the only people against a world based on rapacious profit and material greed are the “faaaaaar left”. Which is why the “faaaaaar left” are in the crosshairs of anyone with power in our rigged system, from the centrists to the right wing, from “liberals” to conservatives, from Blue to Red, from Democrats to Republicans.

The right and the centrists disagree only on how best to maintain that rapacious, consumption-driven, environmentally destructive status quo, and on how to normalise it to different segments of the public. They are competing wings of a system designed by a single ruling cabal.

Musk used to see himself as a liberal and now leans towards the Trumpian right. Trump used to see himself as a Clintonian Democrat but now sees himself as… well, fill in the blank, according to taste.

The point is that centrists and the right are, in essence, interchangeable – as should be only too clear from the rapid shift of free-speech liberals towards authoritarian censorship, and the rapid (pretend) reinvention of conservatives from moralising guardians of family values to the embattled defenders of free speech.

Neither’s posturing should be taken at face value. Both are equally authoritarian, when their interests are threatened by “an excess of democracy”. Their apparent differences are simply the competition for dominance within a system that’s been gerrymandered to their mutual benefit. We are their dupes, buying into their games.

The two tribes are there to offer the pretence of a battle of ideas, of competition, of choice at election time, of freedom. They look hostile to each other, but when push comes to shove they are united in their support for oligarchy, and opposition to genuine free speech, to real democracy, to meaningful pluralism, to an open society.

The “faaaaaar left” are the true enemy of both the centrists and the right. Why? Because they are the only group struggling for a society in which money doesn’t buy privilege, where speech isn’t something someone can own.

That’s why, when Musk intensifies his crackdown, it will be the “faaaaar left” that’s erased so completely you won’t notice it’s gone. You won’t remember it was ever there.FacebooTwitter

RedditEmail

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

 

Violating the Sherman Act: Google’s Illegal Monopoly

by Binoy Kampmark / August 20th, 2024

The occasion sparked much in the way of visionary language and speculative musings.  This month, one of the world’s most conspicuous and dominant behemoths of Silicon Valley was found to be operating an illegal monopoly in internet search and advertising markets, thereby breaching the Sherman Act which renders monopolisation, attempted monopolisation and conspiracy to monopolise unlawful.

In a Memorandum Opinion ruling running into 286 pages, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that Google acted as a monopoly in its “general search” and “general search text advertising” markets and had breached Section 2 of the Sherman Act by making exclusive dealing agreements with various vendors (Apple, Samsung, Verizon and so forth).

In doing so, Google’s search engine was given exclusive default status on various platforms and devices, notably web browsers, wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers.  “These partners agree to install Google as the search engine that is delivered to the user right out of the box at key search access points.”  Through its “revenue share” operation, involving the payment of billions of dollars to its partners, “Google not only receives default placement at the key search access points, but its partners also agree not to preload any other general search engine on the device.”  Such a distribution system had forced Google’s competitors to seek other means of reaching users.

The decision offers a chronology of how such monopoly developed.  Initially, Google most likely reached the high summit of market supremacy through legal means, making its search product enviably singular.  The problem here was Google’s conduct in seeking to maintain that supremacy in the market, thereby foreclosing it to competitors.

The memorandum ruling is also valuable for revealing the tactical and strategic approach of the company in preserving its dominance, not to mention showing full self-awareness of that fact.  Were such partners as Apple to develop their own search engine as the default in Safari, for instance, a fortune would be at stake.

The company also showed a sketchy practice to preserving evidence, indulgently destructive in the practice of deleting chat messages after 24 hours, unless the default setting was turned to “history on”.  According to arguments of the DOJ and the regulators, doing so revealed knowledge that Google’s practices “were likely in violation of the antitrust laws and wanted to make proving that impossible.”  In Judge Mehta’s words, “Any company that puts the onus on its employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril.  Google avoided sanctions in this case.  It may not be so lucky with the next one.”

Other practices included an extensive, overly indulgent misuse of attorney-client privilege by filling email communications with gratuitous references to the company’s in-house legal team.  Directions were also issued to employees to avoid using “certain antitrust buzzwords in their communications.”  A March 2011 presentation, “Antitrust Basics for Search Team,” was blatant in instructing employees to avoid any reference to “markets”, “market share” or “dominance,” not to mention “scale” and “network effects”.  Best also avoid, according to the presentation, any “metaphors to wars or sports, winning or losing.”

The exclusionary conduct engineered through Google’s agreements was found by the Court to have had “three primary anticompetitive effects”: market foreclosure, preventing rivals from achieving scale and diminishing the incentives of any rivals, including nascent challengers, to invest and innovate in general search.

Causation of such harm could be “inferred” in this case if the anticompetitive conduct in question reasonably appeared “capable of making a significant contribution to … maintaining monopoly power”.  There was no need for “but-for proof,” something that made the task of the US Department of Justice that much easier.  It followed that the company’s “distribution agreements are exclusionary contracts that violate Section 2 because they ensure that half of all GSE [general search engine] users in the United States will receive Google as the preload default on all Apple and Android devices, as well as cause anticompetitive harm.”

The saga is set to become even lengthier, given that no remedies have yet been identified.  These, as Robert Milne and Edward Thrasher of White & Case explain, can vary in terms of severity and effect, ranging from prohibiting Google from entering into the exclusive agreements to privilege the default status of its search engine, to requiring the company to share data and relevant code with other competitors in the search market, to the more drastic breaking up of the company.

Google has announced that it will appeal the decision, and the commentary about how it could do so is already mushrooming.  Geoffrey A. Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics, is one, offering a detailed overview about where Judge Mehta is said to have misread or misunderstood such concepts as proof of anticompetitive conduct.

Invariably, scribblers in the tech industry have seized the opportunity to wonder what the alternatives to a post-Google world – or one where the company is stripped of its monopolistic ascendancy – might look like.  Natasha Lomas in Techcrunch writes dreamily that a web lacking Google’s acquisitive, data-pinching domination, let alone existence, “is absolutely bigger than mere utility.”  This presented a chance “for different models of service delivery – ones that prioritize the interests of web users and the public infosphere – to achieve scale and thrive.”

Broadly speaking, the Google decision can be said to nest in a range of recent efforts and undertakings by government regulators to conserve competition in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital markets, a point made by the July 23, 2024 “Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI Products” from the US Department of Justice, the US Federal Trade Commission, the European Commission, and the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority.

The regulators are mindful of potential attempts by firms “to restrict key inputs for the development of AI technologies,” entrench or extend existing market power in digital markets “in adjacent AI markets or across ecosystems, taking advantage of feedback and network effects to increase barriers to entry and harm competition,” create instances of monopsony power and develop and wield AI “in ways that harm consumers, entrepreneurs, or other market participants.”

Such talk is hardly novel.  It peppers and haunts the incipient stages of the web’s existence: misty visions of the informed cybersphere; communities of engaged digital citizens rowdily if respectfully engaged in civil discourse.  All of this done in defiance of policing measures and the suspicious eye of the authoritarian State.  Eventually, techno utopianism is as faulty as any other variant of the unrealised idyll.  The honey, milk and fruit always seem better on that side of the river, till the journey is made.Facebook

Email

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

The Future of Our World by Noam Chomsky

 August 18th, 2024

Noam Chomsky (95) famous dissident and father of modern linguistics, considered one of the world’s leading intellectuals, is recovering from a stroke he suffered at age 94 and now living with his wife in Brazil. According to a report in Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now (July 2, 2024), in June, Brazilian President Lula personally visited Chomsky, holding his hand, saying: “You are one of the most influential people of my life” personally witnessed by Vijay Prashad, co-author with Noam Chomsky, The Withdrawal (The New Press).

Indeed, Noam Chomsky is established as one of the most influential intellectuals of …

(Full article …)

E3 aims to transform Alberta’s lithium brine into battery gold



20th August 2024
By: Mariaan Webb
Creamer Media Senior Deputy Editor Online

Canadian company E3 Lithium is making progress on its path to transforming Alberta into a major player in the global lithium market.

The company last week announced government funding for its demonstration project aimed at producing battery-grade lithium carbonate from locally sourced brines in Alberta.


This week, E3 announced a joint development agreement with Boston-based lithium metal battery technology firm Pure Lithium, focusing on the design and construction of a lithium metal anode and battery pilot plant in Alberta.

The latest project would combine Pure Lithium’s patented brine-to-battery technology with E3’s lithium brines and concentrate production. This collaboration, E3 said, would seek to streamline the battery production process by eliminating the need for a lithium salt intermediary, potentially simplifying the overall process flow.


The companies have been working together since mid-2022, when Pure Lithium successfully produced a lithium metal battery from E3’s lithium concentrate. Over the past two years, this partnership has led to the development of lithium metal cells with higher energy density compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, without the use of nickel, cobalt, or graphite.

According to the development agreement, the two companies would spend the next 12 months completing a detailed techno-economic model, scaling up their efforts, and designing a pilot facility near Calgary. The facility would use lithium from E3’s concentrate to produce 200 kg of lithium metal anodes, which would be tested in lithium metal vanadium rechargeable batteries. The successful operation of this pilot could pave the way for the establishment of a commercial lithium metal battery facility adjacent to E3’s lithium production site in Alberta.

“Integrating the E3 DLE flow sheet with Pure Lithium’s electrodeposition technology shows significant promise to deliver low-cost, sustainable batteries that would be industry-leading,” said E3 president and CEO Chris Doornbos.

“We are excited to be taking this next step with Emilie [Bodoin] and her team to bring the battery out of the lab and into Alberta, an accomplishment that would be a major step towards a commercial brine-to-battery process.”

Bodoin, founder and CEO of Pure Lithium, highlighted the impact of the partnership on battery production. “Securing a supply of lithium is something all battery and battery material companies have historically struggled to do. We are doing things differently and solving this problem with trusted partners prior to the commencement of battery production,” she said.

“After two years of diligent work, E3 has continuously provided Pure Lithium with lithium concentrate and we are excited to use this concentrate as we scale. Producing our lithium metal anodes from concentrate dramatically reduces the cost of battery production and removing the need to prepare anodes for shipping will lead to increased performance in the battery. We are thrilled to be moving this project forward, and to continue working with the fantastic team at E3.”

Meanwhile, the Alberta government last week announced it would invest C$5-million through the Emissions Reduction Alberta Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction fund to support E3’s integrated lithium brine demonstration facility.

E3 is constructing a demo project at an increased scale that will allow for the operation of a fully integrated process that will help in achieving the company’s goal of producing battery-grade lithium carbonate from locally sourced brines in Alberta.

“There is a critical minerals race happening worldwide, and with investments like this one, Alberta is leading,” said Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz. “We are tapping into our province’s plentiful brine reserves, well-documented drill sites and talented oil and gas workforce to help E3 Lithium get its technology closer to commercialization, setting the stage for Alberta to become a global leader in lithium production while stimulating investment and creating jobs here at home.”

“E3 Lithium exemplifies Alberta's entrepreneurial spirit,” said Justin Riemer, CEO of Emissions Reduction Alberta. “They saw an opportunity and developed an innovative strategy to capitalise on it, transforming industrial waste into a valuable energy source that can power your cell phone or your electric vehicle. Along with supporting the circular economy, the environmental and economic rewards of this kind of leading-edge technology directly align with the province's long-term goals.”

Doornbos stated that E3 was on the path to building a new industry in the province. “As we prove the technology at an increasing scale, we increase the certainty that Alberta can be a major lithium-producing jurisdiction.”

Edited by Creamer Media Reporter

B.C. fines Teck Coal over $220K for unauthorized waste spills

Waste contained substances harmful to the health of humans and aquatic life, ministry report says

Alex Nguyen · CBC News · Posted: Aug 19, 2024 

A welcome sign in the coal mining town of Sparwood, B.C., which is close to Elk Valley Resources' Elkview operations. The company, which was previously operating as Teck Coal Ltd., has been fined nearly $221,000 by the province after unauthorized waste discharges. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• X
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

A mining company has been fined close to $221,000 for almost 30 instances of discharging waste into the environment without authorization in southeastern B.C.

On Aug. 8, the B.C. Ministry of Environment handed Teck Coal Ltd. — now operating as Elk Valley Resources — two administrative penalties based on waste disposal issues over two years at its Elkview operations near Sparwood, B.C. 

The company was aware that the discharges of process slurry were unauthorized but "did not take all reasonable measures" to prevent them, the ministry said in a report.

It also said in a separate penalty assessment document that the slurry contained substances that are harmful to the health of humans and aquatic life. 

The larger of the two penalties — at $168,750 — deals with 27 separate instances of unauthorized waste discharges between February 2021 and November 2022. 

A coal mining operation in Sparwood, B.C., is shown on Nov. 30, 2016. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

While each instance's release varied in volume, the discharge from these cases totalled more than 109,000 litres, according to the report.

But the ministry also found that they had little to no actual impact to the environment because they were "limited to the heavily disturbed area in and around the [Elkview operations] pit and Coal Processing Plant."

Meanwhile, the second penalty of $52,000 covers just two incidents. But, in these instances, the mining waste did get to nearby creeks that support animal life, the report says. 

In particular, around 1,000 litres of slurry was discharged to the ground and approximately 50 litres reached Otto Creek in October 2021. Three months later, about 10,500 litres were released into the ground and reached Goddard Creek.

The report said water sampled from the second creek exceeded guidelines for sulphide and selenium, which can cause deformities in fish and health issues for humans.

But the ministry also said they were "within historical ranges" for these areas, and found that there was "insufficient evidence" of actual harm. 

According to the report, equipment failures caused the majority of these 29 instances of unauthorized waste discharge.

• B.C. fines Teck Coal $16 million for contaminating Kootenay waterways

• Coal company Teck fined $60M for contaminating rivers in southeastern B.C.

Coal mining now under Glencore

Teck Coal said in a statement to CBC News that investigations were undertaken to determine the root causes of each unintended spill, and that repairs have been completed to prevent any future incidents.

The company is also now operating under Glencore as the new company Elk Valley Resources, after Teck sold its B.C. coal mining operations to the Swiss commodities giant in July. 

"Spills were cleaned up and subsequent monitoring results were within normal ranges for the areas where the spills occurred," a spokesperson said.

The company has 30 days to appeal the penalties, and it didn't say whether it would do so. 

• Teck closes sale of B.C. coal mining operations to Swiss company

• Teck Coal charged for alleged dumping harmful to fish in B.C

This is not the first time the Elkview coal mining operations have been penalized for unauthorized waste disposals. Two years ago, Teck Coal received a penalty of close to $200,000 for several discharges in 2020. 

In addition, Teck Coal has faced tens of millions of dollars in fines for contaminating waterways in B.C. over the years. 

It is also now dealing with allegations of dumping harmful substances into waters frequented by fish in the province's southeastern region. Environment Canada laid five charges against the company in July, and they have not been tested in court. 

A court hearing in that matter is scheduled for Oct. 10.

US gives Electra $20 million to build cobalt plant 

IN CANADA

Bloomberg News | August 19, 2024 | 

Electra Battery Metals’ cobalt refinery in northern Ontario. Credit: First Cobalt

Canada’s Electra Battery Materials Corp. has received a $20 million award from the US government to build a cobalt plant close to North America’s automotive heartland.


The funds will support construction of a cobalt sulfate facility in Ontario that will be North America’s only refinery for the material used in lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles, Electra said Monday in a statement. The $250 million project is about 500 kilometers (310 miles) north of Toronto at Temiskaming Shores.

The US Defense Department said separately that the award will help develop North American production of a key material for large capacity batteries and, once completed, will benefit the region’s growing EV supply chain.

The funding is the latest in a series of investments the Pentagon has put toward North American mining companies as part of a push to secure metals needed for EV manufacturing and the transition away from fossil fuels.

Prices for cobalt, the majority of which is processed in China, have plunged from a peak about two years ago in part because of Chinese firms that ramped up production faster than traders anticipated. Toronto-based Electra, which has a market value of about $28 million, paused construction of the project last year due to low prices, and after revealing the plant would cost much more than previously anticipated.

“We’re not in a free market, with China subsidizing producers and overproducing,” chief executive officer Trent Mell said Monday in an interview. “I think it’s essential that, if we’re going to build our own domestic supply chain, we have this financial support.”

Mell said he’s in talks to get more funding from the Canadian government, which awarded the firm C$5 million ($3.7 million) in June.

(By Jacob Lorinc)