There go those fish and everything thats coming upstream is dead!
- Thread starter KV1
- Start date
http://westcoastnativenews.com/impe...e-sediment-and-tailings-from-hazeltine-creek/
Imperial Metals does not believe it will make sense to remove sediment and tailings from Hazeltine Creek
derrick on October 3rd, 2014 7:45 pm - No Comment Yet
In part with files from Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun
LIKELY — With 24 million cubic metres of water and tailings flushed downstream of the Mount Polley gold and copper mine, the company’s biggest challenge now is to keep the remaining tailings and water contained.
There is already considerable concern over the potentially toxic metals released into the environment after the failure of the earthen tailings dam on Aug 4.
The tailings surged into nine-kilometre Hazeltine Creek, which was home to spawning trout and coho salmon, as well as Quesnel Lake, the migration path of more than one million sockeye salmon.
With an estimated 17 million cubic metres of tailings remaining in the storage facility (enough to fill 6,800 Olympic-sized swimming pools), there is urgency in ensuring it stays in place.
Mine owner Imperial Metals must also begin to address the effects of the tailings deposited into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.
And with winter rains about to hit soon — and the deep-freeze of winter around the corner — the company has little time to waste.
But a plan of attack has emerged and trucks are once again moving on the mine site, although the mine remains closed.
The plan includes blocking the hole in the tailings dam with an earth and rock dike, collecting water that seeps through the dike (which is not waterproof), repairing roads and bridges to create better access to Hazeltine Creek, and probing Quesnel Lake to determine the effect of the spill.
“We think we are making good progress,” said Steve Robertson, vice-president of corporate affairs for Imperial Metals.
With the water emptied, the tailings storage facility seems like an alien world.
There are large areas of flat, reddish bare ground — where only the recent imprints of some large bird mark its surface.
There are also deep valleys and jagged edges carved out by the rush of the water when the dam collapsed.
These type of mine facilities are often referred to as tailings ponds, but this one is anything but a pond.
Like everything at the mine site, the tailings storage facility is big.
At about four square kilometres, the tailings inside comprise finely ground rock that remains after the milling process. They contain potentially toxic heavy metals that are a concern to human health, animals and aquatic life.
It has taken nearly two months, but workers called back after the collapse have completed a 500-metre dike to keep the tailings from washing away in rain or snow melt into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.
The earth and rock dike is only a temporary structure, but will be in place until an investigation into the dam failure is complete, and when Imperial Metals has determined how the original dam might be fixed or rebuilt. (Robertson declined to discuss reasons for the failure while the investigation is underway).
The temporary dike is porous, which is why a water collection pond system has been built downstream and another is under construction inside the tailings facility itself.
The collected water from the ponds will be pumped back up to the mine site into one of the large holes dug out to get at the ore, commonly called pits.
The company has also been draining Polley Lake (adjacent to the mine site) with pumps because its level was raised when water washed into it from the dam breach, and the lake’s outlet was plugged by tailings.
Enough water has been drained now that it has been deemed safe enough for work to start below the breach in the lower reaches of Hazeltine Creek.
The company and the province were concerned that heavy rains could have released another rush of water, tailings and sediment if the plug had let loose.
Once Polley Lake has been returned to its normal level, a new channel will be created to provide an outlet to Hazeltine Creek.
Work on the collection ponds was visible on a recent tour of the mine site, but Polley Lake and the area below the breach were off limits due to safety concerns.
The Cariboo Regional District has also kept a state of emergency in place to keep the public away from the mine site because of safety concerns.
The general thrust of Imperial Metals’ creek rehabilitation plan is to create a series of collection pools along Hazeltine Creek so that sediment can be filtered out before water reaches Quesnel Lake.
The province’s environment ministry has not given approval to that rehabilitation plan, saying it must first review data from a series of samples of tailings and sediment taken along the creek by the company.
The original five-metre-wide creek — scoured by the millions of tonnes of water, tailings, timber and other debris — is as much as 30 metres wide now and much wider at the delta at Quesnel Lake.
Imperial Metals does not believe it will make sense to remove sediment and tailings from the creek, an expensive proposition that the company says could create more damage.
The company’s belief is predicated on its position that the tailings are relatively benign and will not produce acid that would release heavy metals into the environment. While the rock that has been milled in its mine does contain acid-generating pyrite, the acid-generating potential is neutralized by the significant amount of carbonate in the rock, says Robertson.
ALSO READ: Imperial metals covers up exposed tailings with fast germinating grass
“It’s the same thing when you think of your stomach acid and Tums. Well, we don’t have one Tums, we have a whole box of Tums — so it’s a very, very neutralizing environment,” he said.
Vancouver-based SRK Consulting, in a 2012 review for the company of years-long lab tests of mine samples, found that it would take decades to produce acid drainage in most of the rock at Mount Polley.
Nevertheless, Robertson acknowledges that continued testing will be needed. “We are going to make sure we do the scientific testing and have the data to be able to demonstrate over a long period of time that things are safe,” he said.
The province’s environment ministry has also said as much, noting that samples of tailings have shown low but “potentially significant” arsenic and selenium concentration that will need monitoring.
While it’s possible it may make sense to leave some tailings in place, others may need to be returned to the mine site, said Hubert Bunce, an environment ministry director appointed recently to head the Mount Polley file.
And while Bunce noted historical data suggests the mine does not have an acid-generating problem, he said one of the concerns is how the material will evolve over time.
“Will it leach in the future? And will that occur in the next year or in the next 10 years or in the next 100 years? And what does that mean for plants, both terrestrial and subaqueous, that may colonize it, and the animals that might eat that?” noted Bunce. “So, that’s what the long-term monitoring programs will attempt to ascertain. But obviously it’s premature at this point to make any guesses as to what that may be.”
There is also the issue of Quesnel Lake.
Imperial Metals does not have a cleanup plan for the lake, or know whether it will be necessary.
To determine what needs to be done in Quesnel Lake, the company is awaiting results from its consultant Tetra Tech EBA, which has a 37-foot research boat on the lake carrying out bottom sampling and water testing, Robertson said.
Tetra Tech EBA is part of a coterie of consultants — including SNC Lavalin and Golder Associates — hired by Imperial Metals to work on a cleanup plan.
Bunce said the environment ministry is also waiting for the results of the lake tests.
Imperial Metals does not believe it will make sense to remove sediment and tailings from Hazeltine Creek
derrick on October 3rd, 2014 7:45 pm - No Comment Yet
In part with files from Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun
LIKELY — With 24 million cubic metres of water and tailings flushed downstream of the Mount Polley gold and copper mine, the company’s biggest challenge now is to keep the remaining tailings and water contained.
There is already considerable concern over the potentially toxic metals released into the environment after the failure of the earthen tailings dam on Aug 4.
The tailings surged into nine-kilometre Hazeltine Creek, which was home to spawning trout and coho salmon, as well as Quesnel Lake, the migration path of more than one million sockeye salmon.
With an estimated 17 million cubic metres of tailings remaining in the storage facility (enough to fill 6,800 Olympic-sized swimming pools), there is urgency in ensuring it stays in place.
Mine owner Imperial Metals must also begin to address the effects of the tailings deposited into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.
And with winter rains about to hit soon — and the deep-freeze of winter around the corner — the company has little time to waste.
But a plan of attack has emerged and trucks are once again moving on the mine site, although the mine remains closed.
The plan includes blocking the hole in the tailings dam with an earth and rock dike, collecting water that seeps through the dike (which is not waterproof), repairing roads and bridges to create better access to Hazeltine Creek, and probing Quesnel Lake to determine the effect of the spill.
“We think we are making good progress,” said Steve Robertson, vice-president of corporate affairs for Imperial Metals.
With the water emptied, the tailings storage facility seems like an alien world.
There are large areas of flat, reddish bare ground — where only the recent imprints of some large bird mark its surface.
There are also deep valleys and jagged edges carved out by the rush of the water when the dam collapsed.
These type of mine facilities are often referred to as tailings ponds, but this one is anything but a pond.
Like everything at the mine site, the tailings storage facility is big.
At about four square kilometres, the tailings inside comprise finely ground rock that remains after the milling process. They contain potentially toxic heavy metals that are a concern to human health, animals and aquatic life.
It has taken nearly two months, but workers called back after the collapse have completed a 500-metre dike to keep the tailings from washing away in rain or snow melt into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.
The earth and rock dike is only a temporary structure, but will be in place until an investigation into the dam failure is complete, and when Imperial Metals has determined how the original dam might be fixed or rebuilt. (Robertson declined to discuss reasons for the failure while the investigation is underway).
The temporary dike is porous, which is why a water collection pond system has been built downstream and another is under construction inside the tailings facility itself.
The collected water from the ponds will be pumped back up to the mine site into one of the large holes dug out to get at the ore, commonly called pits.
The company has also been draining Polley Lake (adjacent to the mine site) with pumps because its level was raised when water washed into it from the dam breach, and the lake’s outlet was plugged by tailings.
Enough water has been drained now that it has been deemed safe enough for work to start below the breach in the lower reaches of Hazeltine Creek.
The company and the province were concerned that heavy rains could have released another rush of water, tailings and sediment if the plug had let loose.
Once Polley Lake has been returned to its normal level, a new channel will be created to provide an outlet to Hazeltine Creek.
Work on the collection ponds was visible on a recent tour of the mine site, but Polley Lake and the area below the breach were off limits due to safety concerns.
The Cariboo Regional District has also kept a state of emergency in place to keep the public away from the mine site because of safety concerns.
The general thrust of Imperial Metals’ creek rehabilitation plan is to create a series of collection pools along Hazeltine Creek so that sediment can be filtered out before water reaches Quesnel Lake.
The province’s environment ministry has not given approval to that rehabilitation plan, saying it must first review data from a series of samples of tailings and sediment taken along the creek by the company.
The original five-metre-wide creek — scoured by the millions of tonnes of water, tailings, timber and other debris — is as much as 30 metres wide now and much wider at the delta at Quesnel Lake.
Imperial Metals does not believe it will make sense to remove sediment and tailings from the creek, an expensive proposition that the company says could create more damage.
The company’s belief is predicated on its position that the tailings are relatively benign and will not produce acid that would release heavy metals into the environment. While the rock that has been milled in its mine does contain acid-generating pyrite, the acid-generating potential is neutralized by the significant amount of carbonate in the rock, says Robertson.
ALSO READ: Imperial metals covers up exposed tailings with fast germinating grass
“It’s the same thing when you think of your stomach acid and Tums. Well, we don’t have one Tums, we have a whole box of Tums — so it’s a very, very neutralizing environment,” he said.
Vancouver-based SRK Consulting, in a 2012 review for the company of years-long lab tests of mine samples, found that it would take decades to produce acid drainage in most of the rock at Mount Polley.
Nevertheless, Robertson acknowledges that continued testing will be needed. “We are going to make sure we do the scientific testing and have the data to be able to demonstrate over a long period of time that things are safe,” he said.
The province’s environment ministry has also said as much, noting that samples of tailings have shown low but “potentially significant” arsenic and selenium concentration that will need monitoring.
While it’s possible it may make sense to leave some tailings in place, others may need to be returned to the mine site, said Hubert Bunce, an environment ministry director appointed recently to head the Mount Polley file.
And while Bunce noted historical data suggests the mine does not have an acid-generating problem, he said one of the concerns is how the material will evolve over time.
“Will it leach in the future? And will that occur in the next year or in the next 10 years or in the next 100 years? And what does that mean for plants, both terrestrial and subaqueous, that may colonize it, and the animals that might eat that?” noted Bunce. “So, that’s what the long-term monitoring programs will attempt to ascertain. But obviously it’s premature at this point to make any guesses as to what that may be.”
There is also the issue of Quesnel Lake.
Imperial Metals does not have a cleanup plan for the lake, or know whether it will be necessary.
To determine what needs to be done in Quesnel Lake, the company is awaiting results from its consultant Tetra Tech EBA, which has a 37-foot research boat on the lake carrying out bottom sampling and water testing, Robertson said.
Tetra Tech EBA is part of a coterie of consultants — including SNC Lavalin and Golder Associates — hired by Imperial Metals to work on a cleanup plan.
Bunce said the environment ministry is also waiting for the results of the lake tests.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...+mine+reports+UVic+centre/10271696/story.html
Victoria breaking the law by not releasing mine reports: UVic law centre
Justice Ministry says release could jeopardize case into Mount Polley tailings dam collapse
By Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun October 8, 2014
Victoria breaking the law by not releasing mine reports: UVic law centre
The government is facing a legal challenge after refusing to make public reports on this tailings pond at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley Mine that predate the dam collapse in August.
The University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre has filed a complaint with the province’s privacy commissioner, arguing the B.C. government is breaking the law by not releasing reports about Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley mine.
The gold and copper mine has been under scrutiny since the collapse of its tailings dam on Aug. 4, which released millions of cubic metres of water and tailings containing potentially toxic metals into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.
B.C.’s Mines Ministry has refused to release some documents that are required to be produced under law, saying to do so could jeopardize the outcome of several government investigations.
The UVic centre noted that the “apparent” breach of the information act had taken place with the B.C. government’s refusal to release environmental assessment documents and dam inspection reports, some of which were later found in public libraries.
“Government’s delay in releasing documents that should be released relevant to the greatest mining environmental disaster in B.C. history is a matter of clear and pressing public interest,” said the law centre in its 60-page submission.
The law centre said that it’s only because public libraries are not under the control of a “secretive” provincial government that the public has gained access to the 1992 and 1997 environmental assessment reports and a dam inspection report from 2010.
“When things are concealed, things go wonky. Backroom stuff is not the way to operate a democracy,” said Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the environmental law centre.
The UVic law centre is also calling on the privacy commissioner to recommend reform of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to require posting online of mining permits, orders, engineering and safety inspections and tailings storage facility reports.
The centre notes that these type of documents are routinely posted online in other jurisdictions, including the United States, Ontario and Nunavut.
B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett has said he’s been advised by the Attorney General’s office that if he releases the documents, there is a “real” risk of jeopardizing a prosecution after the investigations are complete.
That’s because any firm that might have liability in the collapse — the company, engineering firm, contractors and others — could argue the government prejudiced the courts against them by releasing this information, Bennett said in an interview before the UVic law centre filed its complaint.
Investigations into the dam collapse are underway by the B.C. Conservation Service, the province’s chief inspector of mines and a three-member expert panel appointed by the B.C. government.
Bennett said he’s been told there are as many as 280 documents that deal with geotechnical aspects at Mount Polley mine.
“It’s obvious to me it would be better for government, if we could just say to the public: ‘Here it is — everybody can sort through it. See for themselves’,” said Bennett.
But because of the legal advice, he can’t release them, he said.
The Justice Ministry confirmed it provided advice to the Mines Ministry on the release of documents.
Justice Minister Suzanne Anton and ministry officials were not made available for an interview.
“The Ministry of Justice conducted a privileged and confidential legal analysis on whether there would be any legal issues with disclosing the 2011, 2012 and 2013 annual tailings storage facility inspection reports and other related reports,” assistant deputy attorney general Kurt Sandstrom said in a written statement.
That analysis concluded it would not be appropriate to release the reports during regulatory investigations as their release may be harmful to law enforcement matters, he said.
ghoekstra@vancouversun.com
Follow me: @Gordon_Hoekstra
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Victoria breaking the law by not releasing mine reports: UVic law centre
Justice Ministry says release could jeopardize case into Mount Polley tailings dam collapse
By Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun October 8, 2014
Victoria breaking the law by not releasing mine reports: UVic law centre
The government is facing a legal challenge after refusing to make public reports on this tailings pond at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley Mine that predate the dam collapse in August.
The University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre has filed a complaint with the province’s privacy commissioner, arguing the B.C. government is breaking the law by not releasing reports about Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley mine.
The gold and copper mine has been under scrutiny since the collapse of its tailings dam on Aug. 4, which released millions of cubic metres of water and tailings containing potentially toxic metals into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.
B.C.’s Mines Ministry has refused to release some documents that are required to be produced under law, saying to do so could jeopardize the outcome of several government investigations.
The UVic centre noted that the “apparent” breach of the information act had taken place with the B.C. government’s refusal to release environmental assessment documents and dam inspection reports, some of which were later found in public libraries.
“Government’s delay in releasing documents that should be released relevant to the greatest mining environmental disaster in B.C. history is a matter of clear and pressing public interest,” said the law centre in its 60-page submission.
The law centre said that it’s only because public libraries are not under the control of a “secretive” provincial government that the public has gained access to the 1992 and 1997 environmental assessment reports and a dam inspection report from 2010.
“When things are concealed, things go wonky. Backroom stuff is not the way to operate a democracy,” said Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the environmental law centre.
The UVic law centre is also calling on the privacy commissioner to recommend reform of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to require posting online of mining permits, orders, engineering and safety inspections and tailings storage facility reports.
The centre notes that these type of documents are routinely posted online in other jurisdictions, including the United States, Ontario and Nunavut.
B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett has said he’s been advised by the Attorney General’s office that if he releases the documents, there is a “real” risk of jeopardizing a prosecution after the investigations are complete.
That’s because any firm that might have liability in the collapse — the company, engineering firm, contractors and others — could argue the government prejudiced the courts against them by releasing this information, Bennett said in an interview before the UVic law centre filed its complaint.
Investigations into the dam collapse are underway by the B.C. Conservation Service, the province’s chief inspector of mines and a three-member expert panel appointed by the B.C. government.
Bennett said he’s been told there are as many as 280 documents that deal with geotechnical aspects at Mount Polley mine.
“It’s obvious to me it would be better for government, if we could just say to the public: ‘Here it is — everybody can sort through it. See for themselves’,” said Bennett.
But because of the legal advice, he can’t release them, he said.
The Justice Ministry confirmed it provided advice to the Mines Ministry on the release of documents.
Justice Minister Suzanne Anton and ministry officials were not made available for an interview.
“The Ministry of Justice conducted a privileged and confidential legal analysis on whether there would be any legal issues with disclosing the 2011, 2012 and 2013 annual tailings storage facility inspection reports and other related reports,” assistant deputy attorney general Kurt Sandstrom said in a written statement.
That analysis concluded it would not be appropriate to release the reports during regulatory investigations as their release may be harmful to law enforcement matters, he said.
ghoekstra@vancouversun.com
Follow me: @Gordon_Hoekstra
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.timescolonist.com/tailin...c-dropped-off-suddenly-in-2010-2011-1.1425127
Tailings dam inspections in B.C. dropped off suddenly in 2010, 2011
B.C. government only conducted five inspections during period, none at Mount Polley mine
Gordon Hoekstra / Vancouver Sun
October 14, 2014 08:10 AM
Kemess copper-gold mine was one of the B.C. mines inspected by government geotechnical engineers in 2011. It is now closed. Photograph By Vancouver Sun
The B.C. government conducted only five geotechnical inspections of about 60 open and closed mines in 2010 and 2011, according to statistics provided by the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines.
None of the five government inspections took place at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley gold and copper mine. In fact, there was also no government geotechnical inspection in 2009 at the mine, whose tailings dam collapsed on Aug. 4 of this year. The collapse released millions of cubic metres of water and tailings containing potentially toxic metals into Quesnel Lake, an important sockeye salmon watershed.
There were three inspections at B.C. mines by government geotechnical engineers in 2010 (at Myra Falls on Vancouver Island, MAX Molybdenum southeast of Revelstoke, and Sirdar Granite in the Kootenays), and just two in 2011 (Max Molybenum and Kemess north of Smithers), according to data requested by The Vancouver Sun.
In the preceding decade, the average had been 24, including as high as 41 in 2003.
B.C. Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett said he has been unable to discover an explanation for the sudden drop-off in inspections during the two years.
“It’s not good. It’s not something that I think any government would be happy to see. It’s got to be directly related to the financial, fiscal situation that the ministry was in at the time,” Bennett said Monday.
Government revenues had declined in the aftermath of the 2009 global financial crisis.
Government geotechnical engineers visually inspect tailings dams during their inspections, as well as review dam instrumentation data and company dam safety inspections and reports, according to the mines ministry.
If problems are found, the government makes recommendations or orders.
While geotechnical inspections have increased since 2011 (including at Mount Polley mine in 2012 and 2013), the small number of government inspections at the operating and closed B.C. mines raises questions of how the government was ensuring that tailings dams were safe in 2010 and 2011.
Bennett also distanced himself from what was happening in the ministry and B.C. Liberal government at the time, noting he had been kicked out of cabinet in November 2010 after a short stint as mines minister. Bennett was appointed energy and mines minister by Premier Christy Clark in June 2013.
And Bennett said he believed it was a “stretch” to connect the lack of inspections in 2010 and 2011 to the “accident” at Mount Polley mine in 2014.
He stressed that in 2012, 2013 and 2014, the mines ministry’s budget had been increased and the number of geotechnical engineers was increased to two from one. More contract geotechnical engineers were also enlisted.
There were 26 government geotechnical inspections at mines in B.C. in 2012, 31 in 2013, and 33 to date in 2014. The last government geotechnical inspection at Mount Polley was in September 2013. No orders were issued.
A third government geotechnical engineer, hired in July, started in the first week of October.
There had been five geotechnical engineers on government staff in 2000, four in 2001 and 2002 and three in 2003. That number dropped to one between 2004 and 2011.
The Liberals came to power in 2001 after nearly a decade of NDP rule. The New Democrats have criticized the government for its cuts to inspectors and engineers.
“The assumption is from the NDP that this is the cause of the accident (at Mount Polley). We are a long ways from knowing what the cause of the accident was. Frankly, it’s just too easy to say, ‘This dam burst because there weren’t enough inspections’,” said Bennett.
“Maybe the independent (investigation) will determine that. I have said I am open to that, if that’s the case. I don’t think they are going to say that,” he said.
In an earlier interview, Bennett had said it was possible there was a period where there was no geotechnical engineer on staff. He said Sunday the figure of one geotechnical engineer during 2010 and 2011 was correct.
He also said that “obviously” having one B.C. government geotechnical engineer was not enough.
Glenda Ferris, a longtime community advocate in the Houston area in northwest B.C., says she believes there was a period of time when the province had no geotechnical engineer on staff.
Ferris, a member of a public advisory group for the closed Equity Silver mine, said she was told a few years ago by mines ministry officials there was no geotechnical engineer available to inspect the mine near Houston.
“That condition lasted about 18 months,” said Ferris.
She noted that despite requests, she has not been provided a copy of a government geotechnical inspection of the acid-generating mine for three years.
© Copyright Times Colonist - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/tailin...-2011-1.1425127#sthash.0pI7v9mU.c7ZkcP2t.dpuf
Tailings dam inspections in B.C. dropped off suddenly in 2010, 2011
B.C. government only conducted five inspections during period, none at Mount Polley mine
Gordon Hoekstra / Vancouver Sun
October 14, 2014 08:10 AM
Kemess copper-gold mine was one of the B.C. mines inspected by government geotechnical engineers in 2011. It is now closed. Photograph By Vancouver Sun
The B.C. government conducted only five geotechnical inspections of about 60 open and closed mines in 2010 and 2011, according to statistics provided by the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines.
None of the five government inspections took place at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley gold and copper mine. In fact, there was also no government geotechnical inspection in 2009 at the mine, whose tailings dam collapsed on Aug. 4 of this year. The collapse released millions of cubic metres of water and tailings containing potentially toxic metals into Quesnel Lake, an important sockeye salmon watershed.
There were three inspections at B.C. mines by government geotechnical engineers in 2010 (at Myra Falls on Vancouver Island, MAX Molybdenum southeast of Revelstoke, and Sirdar Granite in the Kootenays), and just two in 2011 (Max Molybenum and Kemess north of Smithers), according to data requested by The Vancouver Sun.
In the preceding decade, the average had been 24, including as high as 41 in 2003.
B.C. Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett said he has been unable to discover an explanation for the sudden drop-off in inspections during the two years.
“It’s not good. It’s not something that I think any government would be happy to see. It’s got to be directly related to the financial, fiscal situation that the ministry was in at the time,” Bennett said Monday.
Government revenues had declined in the aftermath of the 2009 global financial crisis.
Government geotechnical engineers visually inspect tailings dams during their inspections, as well as review dam instrumentation data and company dam safety inspections and reports, according to the mines ministry.
If problems are found, the government makes recommendations or orders.
While geotechnical inspections have increased since 2011 (including at Mount Polley mine in 2012 and 2013), the small number of government inspections at the operating and closed B.C. mines raises questions of how the government was ensuring that tailings dams were safe in 2010 and 2011.
Bennett also distanced himself from what was happening in the ministry and B.C. Liberal government at the time, noting he had been kicked out of cabinet in November 2010 after a short stint as mines minister. Bennett was appointed energy and mines minister by Premier Christy Clark in June 2013.
And Bennett said he believed it was a “stretch” to connect the lack of inspections in 2010 and 2011 to the “accident” at Mount Polley mine in 2014.
He stressed that in 2012, 2013 and 2014, the mines ministry’s budget had been increased and the number of geotechnical engineers was increased to two from one. More contract geotechnical engineers were also enlisted.
There were 26 government geotechnical inspections at mines in B.C. in 2012, 31 in 2013, and 33 to date in 2014. The last government geotechnical inspection at Mount Polley was in September 2013. No orders were issued.
A third government geotechnical engineer, hired in July, started in the first week of October.
There had been five geotechnical engineers on government staff in 2000, four in 2001 and 2002 and three in 2003. That number dropped to one between 2004 and 2011.
The Liberals came to power in 2001 after nearly a decade of NDP rule. The New Democrats have criticized the government for its cuts to inspectors and engineers.
“The assumption is from the NDP that this is the cause of the accident (at Mount Polley). We are a long ways from knowing what the cause of the accident was. Frankly, it’s just too easy to say, ‘This dam burst because there weren’t enough inspections’,” said Bennett.
“Maybe the independent (investigation) will determine that. I have said I am open to that, if that’s the case. I don’t think they are going to say that,” he said.
In an earlier interview, Bennett had said it was possible there was a period where there was no geotechnical engineer on staff. He said Sunday the figure of one geotechnical engineer during 2010 and 2011 was correct.
He also said that “obviously” having one B.C. government geotechnical engineer was not enough.
Glenda Ferris, a longtime community advocate in the Houston area in northwest B.C., says she believes there was a period of time when the province had no geotechnical engineer on staff.
Ferris, a member of a public advisory group for the closed Equity Silver mine, said she was told a few years ago by mines ministry officials there was no geotechnical engineer available to inspect the mine near Houston.
“That condition lasted about 18 months,” said Ferris.
She noted that despite requests, she has not been provided a copy of a government geotechnical inspection of the acid-generating mine for three years.
© Copyright Times Colonist - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/tailin...-2011-1.1425127#sthash.0pI7v9mU.c7ZkcP2t.dpuf
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.news1130.com/2014/11/05/...aska-to-ease-concerns-over-provincial-mining/
B.C.’s mines minister in Alaska to ease concerns over provincial mining
Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press November 5, 2014 4:00 am
VICTORIA – British Columbia’s Energy Minister Bill Bennett is in Alaska to soothe concerns about the province’s mining industry, which he says is perceived by many Alaskans as a threat to their environment and salmon fishery.
Bennett will address the annual Alaska Miners Association convention in Anchorage, and meet with state officials, commercial and sport fishing organizations and aboriginal groups during his two-day visit.
“There is this impression in some parts of Alaska that our environmental standards, compliance and enforcement efforts are not as strong as theirs,” Bennett said in an interview. “My purpose in going up there … is to talk to folks about how our process actually works. How do you get a mine permitted in B.C.”
The minister will be accompanied on his trip by Chad Day, the Tahltan Central Council president, along with senior government environment and energy officials.
Bennett said concerns about B.C.’s plans to expand its mining interests in the province’s north have heightened since last summer’s massive tailings pond failure at the Mount Polley mine in the central Interior.
“All of a sudden we have now a potential issue with Alaska given that many of these (mine) projects are located in B.C. watersheds that ultimately flow into Alaska watersheds,” Bennett said. “They are hearing these stories about B.C.’s standards and they are hearing about Mount Polley.”
Bennett is scheduled to give a presentation Wednesday at the mining convention on the B.C. government’s response to the tailings failure at Mount Polley.
He said he is also meeting with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who has expressed concerns about the province’s mining industry.
Aboriginal groups in Alaska have called for municipalities and organizations there to register concerns about B.C. mining issues and their potential impact in Alaska.
“In a nutshell, the British Columbian government doesn’t give a damn about us over here,” said aboriginal leader Rob Sanderson Jr., in a recent statement. He is second vice-president of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.
“British Columbia is up for sale to the highest bidder,” Sanderson said. “This is an issue that needs to be dealt with in (Washington) D.C. We live in the most pristine waters in the world, and we share that water with Canada … for Canada to have no regard for us here in Southeast Alaska is a shame.”
Bennett said he needs to go to Alaska to build a stronger relationship with the northern neighbour.
“It’s a good time for us to go up there and make sure they understand that we do care,” he said.
B.C.’s mines minister in Alaska to ease concerns over provincial mining
Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press November 5, 2014 4:00 am
VICTORIA – British Columbia’s Energy Minister Bill Bennett is in Alaska to soothe concerns about the province’s mining industry, which he says is perceived by many Alaskans as a threat to their environment and salmon fishery.
Bennett will address the annual Alaska Miners Association convention in Anchorage, and meet with state officials, commercial and sport fishing organizations and aboriginal groups during his two-day visit.
“There is this impression in some parts of Alaska that our environmental standards, compliance and enforcement efforts are not as strong as theirs,” Bennett said in an interview. “My purpose in going up there … is to talk to folks about how our process actually works. How do you get a mine permitted in B.C.”
The minister will be accompanied on his trip by Chad Day, the Tahltan Central Council president, along with senior government environment and energy officials.
Bennett said concerns about B.C.’s plans to expand its mining interests in the province’s north have heightened since last summer’s massive tailings pond failure at the Mount Polley mine in the central Interior.
“All of a sudden we have now a potential issue with Alaska given that many of these (mine) projects are located in B.C. watersheds that ultimately flow into Alaska watersheds,” Bennett said. “They are hearing these stories about B.C.’s standards and they are hearing about Mount Polley.”
Bennett is scheduled to give a presentation Wednesday at the mining convention on the B.C. government’s response to the tailings failure at Mount Polley.
He said he is also meeting with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who has expressed concerns about the province’s mining industry.
Aboriginal groups in Alaska have called for municipalities and organizations there to register concerns about B.C. mining issues and their potential impact in Alaska.
“In a nutshell, the British Columbian government doesn’t give a damn about us over here,” said aboriginal leader Rob Sanderson Jr., in a recent statement. He is second vice-president of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.
“British Columbia is up for sale to the highest bidder,” Sanderson said. “This is an issue that needs to be dealt with in (Washington) D.C. We live in the most pristine waters in the world, and we share that water with Canada … for Canada to have no regard for us here in Southeast Alaska is a shame.”
Bennett said he needs to go to Alaska to build a stronger relationship with the northern neighbour.
“It’s a good time for us to go up there and make sure they understand that we do care,” he said.
http://www.adn.com/article/20141106/alaska-mining-conference-talk-pebble-and-mount-polley
At Alaska mining conference, talk of Pebble and Mount Polley
Yereth Rosen|
November 6, 2014
The owner of the Canadian mine that suffered a disastrous dam breach in August might face sanctions as serious as criminal penalties, British Columbia government officials said on Wednesday.
Decisions on corrective and possibly punitive steps will be made after provincial officials learn the findings of three separate investigations into the Mount Polley Mine dam failure, said Bill Bennett, British Columbia’s minister of energy and mines.
The Aug. 4 dam failure, though unprecedented for British Columbia, undercut confidence in the safety of mining in the province and around the world, Bennett told an audience at the Alaska Miners Association annual convention in Anchorage.
“If it could happen there, where else can it happen? And that’s a question that’s on all of our minds, I think,” he said.
The Mount Polley dam breach has been cited by opponents of the controversial Pebble mine as a harbinger of risks that project poses to Alaska’s salmon-rich Bristol Bay region. Mount Polley is considered a moderate-sized mine for British Columbia; the proposed Pebble copper and gold project would be much bigger, with a much bigger tailings dam and much bigger potential damages, critics say.
Mount Polley’s woes also concern fishermen and environmentalists in Southeast Alaska, many of them already on edge because of spreading mine development just over the border in British Columbia. Those mines, upstream from Alaska fisheries, pose risks of pollution that would cross the international border, Southeast Alaska fishing groups claim.
Bennett, who is in Alaska to meet with state officials, Alaska fishermen and others worried about transboundary mining problems, said the Mount Polley dam breach was out of character for the mine’s owner, Imperial Metals Corp.
Although he is not an engineer or miner, “I know enough about it to know good companies and companies that aren’t so good. And this is a good company,” he said. “This company was not a bad actor. This company was not out of compliance on a regular basis or anything. The people care. They were extremely distraught when this happened.”
That is “not an excuse” for the breach, and not an attempt to minimize impacts of the event, which sent water and waste rushing out so fast that some of it swept upstream as well as downstream, he said.
“It’s an ugly sight,” he said. “It’s a huge breach.”
Bennett has appointed three independent experts to investigate the mine and its accident. The experts also have the authority to investigate the way provincial agencies oversaw and regulated the mine, he told the Alaska audience.
All concerned are on “pins and needles” to find out “what they’re going to recommend and whether or not they’re going to find a single actual cause,” Bennett said. The experts' report is due on Jan. 31.
Another inquiry, an internal investigation by provincial Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment, will take longer, said David Morel, assistant deputy minister for mines and mineral resources.
“That may lead to charges. I’m not saying it’s going to, but there may be some charges under the (provincial mines) act, or some other criminal charges,” Morel said.
Another review, by British Columbia’s chief mines inspector, is examining the safety of all mine tailings ponds in the province, Morel said.
Despite the magnitude of the dam breach and the volume of materials released, Bennett said the accident appears to have had a negligible impact to fish.
“They’ve killed more fish doing fish-tissue samples,” he said. “We know of one trout that died as a result of the accident.”
At Alaska mining conference, talk of Pebble and Mount Polley
Yereth Rosen|
November 6, 2014
The owner of the Canadian mine that suffered a disastrous dam breach in August might face sanctions as serious as criminal penalties, British Columbia government officials said on Wednesday.
Decisions on corrective and possibly punitive steps will be made after provincial officials learn the findings of three separate investigations into the Mount Polley Mine dam failure, said Bill Bennett, British Columbia’s minister of energy and mines.
The Aug. 4 dam failure, though unprecedented for British Columbia, undercut confidence in the safety of mining in the province and around the world, Bennett told an audience at the Alaska Miners Association annual convention in Anchorage.
“If it could happen there, where else can it happen? And that’s a question that’s on all of our minds, I think,” he said.
The Mount Polley dam breach has been cited by opponents of the controversial Pebble mine as a harbinger of risks that project poses to Alaska’s salmon-rich Bristol Bay region. Mount Polley is considered a moderate-sized mine for British Columbia; the proposed Pebble copper and gold project would be much bigger, with a much bigger tailings dam and much bigger potential damages, critics say.
Mount Polley’s woes also concern fishermen and environmentalists in Southeast Alaska, many of them already on edge because of spreading mine development just over the border in British Columbia. Those mines, upstream from Alaska fisheries, pose risks of pollution that would cross the international border, Southeast Alaska fishing groups claim.
Bennett, who is in Alaska to meet with state officials, Alaska fishermen and others worried about transboundary mining problems, said the Mount Polley dam breach was out of character for the mine’s owner, Imperial Metals Corp.
Although he is not an engineer or miner, “I know enough about it to know good companies and companies that aren’t so good. And this is a good company,” he said. “This company was not a bad actor. This company was not out of compliance on a regular basis or anything. The people care. They were extremely distraught when this happened.”
That is “not an excuse” for the breach, and not an attempt to minimize impacts of the event, which sent water and waste rushing out so fast that some of it swept upstream as well as downstream, he said.
“It’s an ugly sight,” he said. “It’s a huge breach.”
Bennett has appointed three independent experts to investigate the mine and its accident. The experts also have the authority to investigate the way provincial agencies oversaw and regulated the mine, he told the Alaska audience.
All concerned are on “pins and needles” to find out “what they’re going to recommend and whether or not they’re going to find a single actual cause,” Bennett said. The experts' report is due on Jan. 31.
Another inquiry, an internal investigation by provincial Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment, will take longer, said David Morel, assistant deputy minister for mines and mineral resources.
“That may lead to charges. I’m not saying it’s going to, but there may be some charges under the (provincial mines) act, or some other criminal charges,” Morel said.
Another review, by British Columbia’s chief mines inspector, is examining the safety of all mine tailings ponds in the province, Morel said.
Despite the magnitude of the dam breach and the volume of materials released, Bennett said the accident appears to have had a negligible impact to fish.
“They’ve killed more fish doing fish-tissue samples,” he said. “We know of one trout that died as a result of the accident.”
http://www.thenorthernview.com/business/281975981.html
B.C. seeks to calm mining worries in Alaska
Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett meets Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in Anchorage Nov. 6. With a Republican majority, Murkowski is slated to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year. - B.C. government photo
Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett meets Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in Anchorage Nov. 6. With a Republican majority, Murkowski is slated to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year.— Image Credit: B.C. Government Photo
4 Pin It
by Tom Fletcher - The Northern View
posted Nov 7, 2014 at 2:00 PM
Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett hopes for a closer relationship with Alaska after speaking to a mining conference in Anchorage and meeting one of the new power players in U.S. resource policy.
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is expected to take over next year as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee after her Republican Party won a majority in the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 4 midterm elections. Murkowski plans to work for senate approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline to the U.S. Gulf Coast that has been held up by the former Democrat majority.
Bennett's trip was mainly to reassure Alaska's fishing and tourism industries about environmental controls for six proposed mines in northwest B.C. watersheds that drain to the Alaska coast. Those projects are on Alaska's political map after the Aug. 1 tailings dam failure at Mount Polley copper-gold mine near Williams Lake.
"We talked about Mount Polley, we talked about the mining industry generally in Alaska and B.C.," Bennett said after his meeting with Murkowski. "We talked about the current interaction between Alaska and B.C. on mining projects like the KSM project."
Seabridge Gold received a B.C. environmental assessment certificate in July to develop KSM, four ore bodies near Stewart and the Alaska border that contain gold, copper, silver and molybdenum. Seabridge is looking for a major mining company as a financial partner for what would be one of the biggest metal mines in B.C.
Bennett proposed a joint management agreement between B.C. and Alaska similar to one with Montana for coal mining and environmental protection of the Flathead and Kootenay Rivers that flow south of the border. The agreement would include protocols for upstream industrial development.
Other mine proposals Alaska is watching are the Red Chris copper-gold project near Dease Lake, the Galore Creek, Schaft Creek and Brucejack gold properties north of Stewart, and Kitsault Mine, a molybdenum deposit near Alice Arm northeast of Prince Rupert that operated from 1967 to 1982.
B.C. seeks to calm mining worries in Alaska
Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett meets Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in Anchorage Nov. 6. With a Republican majority, Murkowski is slated to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year. - B.C. government photo
Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett meets Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in Anchorage Nov. 6. With a Republican majority, Murkowski is slated to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next year.— Image Credit: B.C. Government Photo
4 Pin It
by Tom Fletcher - The Northern View
posted Nov 7, 2014 at 2:00 PM
Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett hopes for a closer relationship with Alaska after speaking to a mining conference in Anchorage and meeting one of the new power players in U.S. resource policy.
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is expected to take over next year as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee after her Republican Party won a majority in the U.S. Senate in the Nov. 4 midterm elections. Murkowski plans to work for senate approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline to the U.S. Gulf Coast that has been held up by the former Democrat majority.
Bennett's trip was mainly to reassure Alaska's fishing and tourism industries about environmental controls for six proposed mines in northwest B.C. watersheds that drain to the Alaska coast. Those projects are on Alaska's political map after the Aug. 1 tailings dam failure at Mount Polley copper-gold mine near Williams Lake.
"We talked about Mount Polley, we talked about the mining industry generally in Alaska and B.C.," Bennett said after his meeting with Murkowski. "We talked about the current interaction between Alaska and B.C. on mining projects like the KSM project."
Seabridge Gold received a B.C. environmental assessment certificate in July to develop KSM, four ore bodies near Stewart and the Alaska border that contain gold, copper, silver and molybdenum. Seabridge is looking for a major mining company as a financial partner for what would be one of the biggest metal mines in B.C.
Bennett proposed a joint management agreement between B.C. and Alaska similar to one with Montana for coal mining and environmental protection of the Flathead and Kootenay Rivers that flow south of the border. The agreement would include protocols for upstream industrial development.
Other mine proposals Alaska is watching are the Red Chris copper-gold project near Dease Lake, the Galore Creek, Schaft Creek and Brucejack gold properties north of Stewart, and Kitsault Mine, a molybdenum deposit near Alice Arm northeast of Prince Rupert that operated from 1967 to 1982.
http://www.krbd.org/2014/11/09/bc-says-mine-concerns-heard-critics-disagree/
BC says mine concerns heard, critics disagree
by Ed Schoenfeld, CoastAlaska News
November 9, 2014 10:06 PM
Text-size A A A Print Article E-mail
Oxidized rock colors a valley where one of Seabridge Gold's open pit mines will be dug. (Ed Schoenfeld/ CoastAlaska News)
Oxidized rock colors a valley where one of Seabridge Gold’s KSM project’s open pit mines will be dug. (Ed Schoenfeld/ CoastAlaska News)
British Columbia officials say they understand why Alaskans are concerned about new mines planned for transboundary rivers. But critics on this side of the border say they’re not doing anything about it.
00:0000:00
Canada’s farthest-west province is in the midst of a mining boom.
With government support, more than half a dozen projects are under exploration or development near rivers where Alaska salmon spawn and live.
British Columbia’s top mining official says he’s not ignoring objections from fishermen, environmentalists and tribal leaders on this side of the border.
“My message to Alaskans is not, ‘Don’t worry, be happy, nothing to worry about,’” says Bill Bennett, B.C.’s minister of energy and mines.
He recently visited Alaska to meet with government officials and address the state mining association.
“I think that people who are downstream from any industrial activity have every right to know what’s going on, to express their point of view. And we in B.C. need to be listening,” he says.
“There is no policy set that allows us to have any influence in what is happening on the Canadian side,” says Jill Weitz of Trout Unlimited.
She was part of a recent Salmon Beyond Borders tour through Southeast Alaska. Appearances in five cities drummed up opposition to transboundary river mines.
“Canada has come in and they have essentially weakened some of their environmental regulations as far as streamlining permitting processes,” she says.
Tour speakers cited plans for the Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell, or KSM, project, one of the most controversial near-border mines. They said its water treatment plant will not be up to Alaska standards.
Bennett says that’s not true. He says B.C.’s government has strict rules to protect the environment from mine runoff and other pollution.
“It’s just not credible to suggest that somehow or other we have some sort of a weak process in British Columbia and that it’s easy to build a mine there and operate a mine there, because it isn’t,” he says.
Bennett says he wants Alaskans to know his agency has been working with the state Department of Natural Resources to address concerns.
He says the same is true for developers of the KSM.
“I had assumed that if the Department of Natural Resources was engaged in the assessment of the KSM project that first of all, the public would be aware of that. And that secondly, the officials involved would be accountable to some elected folks,” Bennett says.
Salmon Beyond Borders and other critics, including several state lawmakers, don’t have much faith in that process.
Weitz, of Trout Unlimited, says they’re lobbying for a U.S.-Canada panel that considers cross-boundary issues to take it up. She says her coalition wants the panel to look at all the transboundary projects, not just one or two.
“This is going to be a big push in order to have this International Joint Commission look at this issue as a regional issue, rather than project by project,” she says.
Critics point to last summer’s dam break at the Mount Polley Mine, in eastern British Columbia. There, a dam collapsed, allowing millions of gallons of water laden with silt and rock to flow into nearby waterways.
They say it’s an example of what could happen near transboundary rivers.
B.C. Energy Minister Bennett disagrees.
“We are not taking any chances.” he says.
He says that mine is closed until his agency knows what caused the breach.
And he says he’s ordered fast-track government inspections of similar dams around the province. That includes the Red Chris Mine, which will open soon in the Stikine River watershed.
“I ordered all of those companies that have tailings impoundment facilities in B.C. to engage an independent engineering company that has no connection to the mining company, to the site, to come in and do a second inspection,” he says.
He calls the Mount Polley dam break huge and impactful. But he says so far, officials have not found dangerous levels of toxins in a nearby lake or its fish.
Hear earlier reports:
BC’s KSM mine nears environmental approval http://www.krbd.org/2014/07/23/bcs-ksm-mine-nears-environmental-approval/
Southeast groups oppose KSM mine http://www.krbd.org/2013/10/25/southeast-groups-oppose-ksm-mine/
Protesters at BC mine step aside http://www.kstk.org/2014/10/13/protesters-block-access-to-bc-mine-as-it-nears-completion/
BC says mine concerns heard, critics disagree
by Ed Schoenfeld, CoastAlaska News
November 9, 2014 10:06 PM
Text-size A A A Print Article E-mail
Oxidized rock colors a valley where one of Seabridge Gold's open pit mines will be dug. (Ed Schoenfeld/ CoastAlaska News)
Oxidized rock colors a valley where one of Seabridge Gold’s KSM project’s open pit mines will be dug. (Ed Schoenfeld/ CoastAlaska News)
British Columbia officials say they understand why Alaskans are concerned about new mines planned for transboundary rivers. But critics on this side of the border say they’re not doing anything about it.
00:0000:00
Canada’s farthest-west province is in the midst of a mining boom.
With government support, more than half a dozen projects are under exploration or development near rivers where Alaska salmon spawn and live.
British Columbia’s top mining official says he’s not ignoring objections from fishermen, environmentalists and tribal leaders on this side of the border.
“My message to Alaskans is not, ‘Don’t worry, be happy, nothing to worry about,’” says Bill Bennett, B.C.’s minister of energy and mines.
He recently visited Alaska to meet with government officials and address the state mining association.
“I think that people who are downstream from any industrial activity have every right to know what’s going on, to express their point of view. And we in B.C. need to be listening,” he says.
“There is no policy set that allows us to have any influence in what is happening on the Canadian side,” says Jill Weitz of Trout Unlimited.
She was part of a recent Salmon Beyond Borders tour through Southeast Alaska. Appearances in five cities drummed up opposition to transboundary river mines.
“Canada has come in and they have essentially weakened some of their environmental regulations as far as streamlining permitting processes,” she says.
Tour speakers cited plans for the Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell, or KSM, project, one of the most controversial near-border mines. They said its water treatment plant will not be up to Alaska standards.
Bennett says that’s not true. He says B.C.’s government has strict rules to protect the environment from mine runoff and other pollution.
“It’s just not credible to suggest that somehow or other we have some sort of a weak process in British Columbia and that it’s easy to build a mine there and operate a mine there, because it isn’t,” he says.
Bennett says he wants Alaskans to know his agency has been working with the state Department of Natural Resources to address concerns.
He says the same is true for developers of the KSM.
“I had assumed that if the Department of Natural Resources was engaged in the assessment of the KSM project that first of all, the public would be aware of that. And that secondly, the officials involved would be accountable to some elected folks,” Bennett says.
Salmon Beyond Borders and other critics, including several state lawmakers, don’t have much faith in that process.
Weitz, of Trout Unlimited, says they’re lobbying for a U.S.-Canada panel that considers cross-boundary issues to take it up. She says her coalition wants the panel to look at all the transboundary projects, not just one or two.
“This is going to be a big push in order to have this International Joint Commission look at this issue as a regional issue, rather than project by project,” she says.
Critics point to last summer’s dam break at the Mount Polley Mine, in eastern British Columbia. There, a dam collapsed, allowing millions of gallons of water laden with silt and rock to flow into nearby waterways.
They say it’s an example of what could happen near transboundary rivers.
B.C. Energy Minister Bennett disagrees.
“We are not taking any chances.” he says.
He says that mine is closed until his agency knows what caused the breach.
And he says he’s ordered fast-track government inspections of similar dams around the province. That includes the Red Chris Mine, which will open soon in the Stikine River watershed.
“I ordered all of those companies that have tailings impoundment facilities in B.C. to engage an independent engineering company that has no connection to the mining company, to the site, to come in and do a second inspection,” he says.
He calls the Mount Polley dam break huge and impactful. But he says so far, officials have not found dangerous levels of toxins in a nearby lake or its fish.
Hear earlier reports:
BC’s KSM mine nears environmental approval http://www.krbd.org/2014/07/23/bcs-ksm-mine-nears-environmental-approval/
Southeast groups oppose KSM mine http://www.krbd.org/2013/10/25/southeast-groups-oppose-ksm-mine/
Protesters at BC mine step aside http://www.kstk.org/2014/10/13/protesters-block-access-to-bc-mine-as-it-nears-completion/
http://www.tu.org/blog-posts/part-o...-why-pebble-is-a-disaster-in-waiting?gid=5822
Part One: BC mine dam failure shows why Pebble is a disaster in waiting
Submitted by zcockrum on Fri, 2014-08-08 11:11
Conservation
West of The Rockies
Southeast Alaska
+42+
32
8-5-15-Polley-tailings-pond-break-image.jpg
Image: Cariboo Regional District Emergency Operations Centre
Editor's note: This is the first in a three-part series. Coming next, why the Mount Polley disaster could repeated in the transboundary region of British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. The second installment is available here.
One of the most frequent claims of promoters of the proposed Pebble Mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska, is that modern technology means the failures of “tailings ponds” is highly unlikely. However, just this week, an earthen dam at the Mount Polley Copper mine in British Columbia, Canada, failed, releasing an estimated 1.3 billion gallons of contaminated tailings into the Fraser River watershed, known for its abundance of sockeye salmon. What we’ve seen this week is exactly why TU is supporting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effort to limit mining activities in Bristol Bay.
When open-pit copper mines are created, the percentage of the deposit which contains the actual mineral is very low. In order to extract valuable minerals, chemicals are applied to large volumes of crushed rock. The result is far more toxic “tailings," than extracted minerals. In the case of Pebble Mine, extraction could generate more than 10 billion tons of waste rock that would be contained by a 740-foot tall tailings dam similar to the one that failed at Mount Polley. While Mount Polley’s tailings amounted to 20,000 tons per day, Pebble’s are estimated to be 200,000 tons per day.
When the EPA assessed the potential impacts of large scale mining in the area, the Pebble Limited Partnership, which owns the claim to the Pebble deposit, hired an engineering firm to critique the EPA’s findings. The consultants said [PDF], “Modern dam design technologies are based on proven scientific/engineering principles and there is no basis for asserting that they will not stand the test of time.”
There’s just one problem: the consulting firm PLP hired, Knight Piesold Limited, engineered the tailing dam at Mt. Polley. Worse yet, PLP also hired them to design their tailings dam at the Pebble deposit. You read that right. The same company that PLP hired to criticize the EPA’s assessment, who argued there is no reason to believe these dams will fail, engineered a dam that failed, and is on the hook for building a similar structure at the headwaters of one of the best salmon fisheries in the world.
The impact in the Fraser watershed has been disastrous. Waters are off limits to swimming, and drinking. Dr. Peter Ross of the Vancouver Aquarium says the failure means, “sudden, lethal injury to fish and their feed." Over the long run, sediment loads will bury salmon spawning sites, and deposit toxic chemicals into the streambed. That’s a serious problem for the estimated 1.5 million sockeye salmon which return to waters near the mine every year. You can see a short video of the damage below:
The unfortunate events in British Columbia demonstrate exactly what TU has been saying for years – the Pebble Mine is the wrong mine in the wrong place. An average of 40 million salmon return to the Bristol Bay every year to spawn. A similar failure at Pebble could threaten these fish, and the 14,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic activity generated by commercial salmon fishing in the region. Please add your voice today to stand up for these fish, and support the EPA’s effort to protect Bristol Bay.
Part One: BC mine dam failure shows why Pebble is a disaster in waiting
Submitted by zcockrum on Fri, 2014-08-08 11:11
Conservation
West of The Rockies
Southeast Alaska
+42+
32
8-5-15-Polley-tailings-pond-break-image.jpg
Image: Cariboo Regional District Emergency Operations Centre
Editor's note: This is the first in a three-part series. Coming next, why the Mount Polley disaster could repeated in the transboundary region of British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. The second installment is available here.
One of the most frequent claims of promoters of the proposed Pebble Mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska, is that modern technology means the failures of “tailings ponds” is highly unlikely. However, just this week, an earthen dam at the Mount Polley Copper mine in British Columbia, Canada, failed, releasing an estimated 1.3 billion gallons of contaminated tailings into the Fraser River watershed, known for its abundance of sockeye salmon. What we’ve seen this week is exactly why TU is supporting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effort to limit mining activities in Bristol Bay.
When open-pit copper mines are created, the percentage of the deposit which contains the actual mineral is very low. In order to extract valuable minerals, chemicals are applied to large volumes of crushed rock. The result is far more toxic “tailings," than extracted minerals. In the case of Pebble Mine, extraction could generate more than 10 billion tons of waste rock that would be contained by a 740-foot tall tailings dam similar to the one that failed at Mount Polley. While Mount Polley’s tailings amounted to 20,000 tons per day, Pebble’s are estimated to be 200,000 tons per day.
When the EPA assessed the potential impacts of large scale mining in the area, the Pebble Limited Partnership, which owns the claim to the Pebble deposit, hired an engineering firm to critique the EPA’s findings. The consultants said [PDF], “Modern dam design technologies are based on proven scientific/engineering principles and there is no basis for asserting that they will not stand the test of time.”
There’s just one problem: the consulting firm PLP hired, Knight Piesold Limited, engineered the tailing dam at Mt. Polley. Worse yet, PLP also hired them to design their tailings dam at the Pebble deposit. You read that right. The same company that PLP hired to criticize the EPA’s assessment, who argued there is no reason to believe these dams will fail, engineered a dam that failed, and is on the hook for building a similar structure at the headwaters of one of the best salmon fisheries in the world.
The impact in the Fraser watershed has been disastrous. Waters are off limits to swimming, and drinking. Dr. Peter Ross of the Vancouver Aquarium says the failure means, “sudden, lethal injury to fish and their feed." Over the long run, sediment loads will bury salmon spawning sites, and deposit toxic chemicals into the streambed. That’s a serious problem for the estimated 1.5 million sockeye salmon which return to waters near the mine every year. You can see a short video of the damage below:
The unfortunate events in British Columbia demonstrate exactly what TU has been saying for years – the Pebble Mine is the wrong mine in the wrong place. An average of 40 million salmon return to the Bristol Bay every year to spawn. A similar failure at Pebble could threaten these fish, and the 14,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic activity generated by commercial salmon fishing in the region. Please add your voice today to stand up for these fish, and support the EPA’s effort to protect Bristol Bay.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.tu.org/blog-posts/part-t...es-need-for-more-review-of-new-mines?gid=5822
Part Two: BC mine disaster proves need for more review of new mines
Submitted by chris_hunt on Sun, 2014-08-10 14:42
Conservation
West of The Rockies
Southeast Alaska
+45+
4
P7160176.jpg
The Taku River, southeast Alaska's greatest sockeye salmon stream, runs at the base of Taku Glacier southeast of Juneau.
Editor’s note: This is the second in a three-part series about how the Mount Polley mine dam disaster could have devastating impacts on salmon in Alaska if proposed mines are allowed to be constructed in important salmon watersheds. You can read the first installment here.
By Mark Kaelke
In an eerie possible prequel to what could happen in southeast Alaska if a vast mining district in western British Columbia picks up momentum in the coming months, a massive mine tailings dam on BC’s fabled Fraser River failed last week, sending millions of gallons of toxic water and tainted mine waste on a collision course with an estimated 23 million sockeye salmon beginning to make their way upstream.
It was to be the best sockeye run on the Fraser in years.
The Mount Polley Mine, owned by Imperial Metals, is located near the town of Quesnel, B.C., and has been in operation intermittently since 1997. The earthen tailings dam was located on Hazeltine Creek, a tributary to Quesnel Lake and the Cariboo River which flows to the Fraser.
This disaster, and what it will mean for fish and fishermen in the affected area, is astounding. But when you stop and consider tailings dams just like it are in operation or proposed throughout the western half of North America, you realize the scope and scale of the environmental catastrophe that lies in wait for fish, fisheries and clean water. It is simply staggering.
In fact, the company that designed the dam that failed in B.C. has been tapped by Pebble Mine owner Northern Dynasty to design a much wider and higher series of dams for the proposed Pebble Mine. In Northern Dynasty’s submission to Environmental Protection Agency on the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, Mount Polley dam designer Knight-Piesold said, "Modern dam design technologies are based on proven scientific/engineering principles and there is no basis for asserting that they will not stand the test of time.”
The dam below the Mount Polley Mine lasted 17 years, give or take. And it’s a fraction of the size of the dam complex proposed for Pebble.
But, Pebble Mine and its potential impact on the world’s largest sockeye salmon producing watershed of Bristol Bay is just one concern. More immediately, commercial fishermen in Alaska are looking at a complex of mines very similar to Mount Polley that are proposed—some have been granted preliminary approval—for western B.C. in waters that drain into Alaska.
Of particular concern to fishermen in southeast Alaska are five mines proposed or beginning operations on the transboundary Unuk, Stikine and Taku Rivers. These rivers begin in B.C. and flow into estuaries in Alaska and represent three of the four largest king salmon producers in the region. They are home to some of the largest steelhead runs in all of Alaska, home to trophy Dolly Varden and sea-run cutthroat trout, and are some of the last places on the continent where bull trout are found.
On top of their amazing fishery values, these watersheds are the very essence of wilderness and are some of the last undeveloped, fully functioning ecosystems left on the planet. One of the mines in question, Red Chris near the town of Iskut, is owned by Imperial Metals--the same company that owns Mount Polley.
Metal is integral to the pursuit of our sport. We drive cars and boats containing an array of it to our favorite fishing spots. We use metal hooks and reels machined from blocks of aluminum, so we, like most of humanity are metal-dependent. But, like the rest of humanity we need to realize metal comes at a cost far greater than the price we pay for it. We have to get vocal about where mining takes place and do our utmost to stop mining operations in areas like Bristol Bay and northern B.C. that are critical to fish and the existing jobs they support. We also have to call for the highest standards possible in the operation and maintenance of mining operations when they do occur.
Would doing all of that have prevented the tragedy unfolding on the Fraser right now? The answer is likely an emphatic yes. The Mount Polley mine had been issued five notices of substandard operating practices since 2012, and the inspection frequency for the mine was much lower than it was a decade ago. More information about Imperial’s shady business practices are coming to light by the day.
It’s unfortunate that it takes dead fish floating around in back-eddies, the closure of community drinking water supplies and millions of gallons of toxic sludge coursing down river systems to prod us to a new vigilance about protecting our fish and waterways, but that’s exactly what we have here and exactly what we need to avoid in the future.
Help us prevent the next big disaster. Comment on the proposed KSM mine on the Unuk River, and help us ensure that, if the mine is constructed, it’s constructed with the highest degree of engineering integrity possible. And reach out to the U.S. State Department--we must urge Secretary Kerry to engage with the Canadian government to ensure mining in British Columbia doesn't trash Southeast Alaska's $1 billion-a-year fishing-based economy.
Alaska's existing gold mine--its salmon, trout and char--will pay dividends for generations to come, if we take care of the habitat they need to spawn and grow. Putting fish habitat at risk behind fragile, poorly designed dams in perpetuity for short-term gain is not acceptable.
Mark Kaelke is the director of TU's Southeast Alaska work on the Tongass National Forest.
Part Two: BC mine disaster proves need for more review of new mines
Submitted by chris_hunt on Sun, 2014-08-10 14:42
Conservation
West of The Rockies
Southeast Alaska
+45+
4
P7160176.jpg
The Taku River, southeast Alaska's greatest sockeye salmon stream, runs at the base of Taku Glacier southeast of Juneau.
Editor’s note: This is the second in a three-part series about how the Mount Polley mine dam disaster could have devastating impacts on salmon in Alaska if proposed mines are allowed to be constructed in important salmon watersheds. You can read the first installment here.
By Mark Kaelke
In an eerie possible prequel to what could happen in southeast Alaska if a vast mining district in western British Columbia picks up momentum in the coming months, a massive mine tailings dam on BC’s fabled Fraser River failed last week, sending millions of gallons of toxic water and tainted mine waste on a collision course with an estimated 23 million sockeye salmon beginning to make their way upstream.
It was to be the best sockeye run on the Fraser in years.
The Mount Polley Mine, owned by Imperial Metals, is located near the town of Quesnel, B.C., and has been in operation intermittently since 1997. The earthen tailings dam was located on Hazeltine Creek, a tributary to Quesnel Lake and the Cariboo River which flows to the Fraser.
This disaster, and what it will mean for fish and fishermen in the affected area, is astounding. But when you stop and consider tailings dams just like it are in operation or proposed throughout the western half of North America, you realize the scope and scale of the environmental catastrophe that lies in wait for fish, fisheries and clean water. It is simply staggering.
In fact, the company that designed the dam that failed in B.C. has been tapped by Pebble Mine owner Northern Dynasty to design a much wider and higher series of dams for the proposed Pebble Mine. In Northern Dynasty’s submission to Environmental Protection Agency on the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, Mount Polley dam designer Knight-Piesold said, "Modern dam design technologies are based on proven scientific/engineering principles and there is no basis for asserting that they will not stand the test of time.”
The dam below the Mount Polley Mine lasted 17 years, give or take. And it’s a fraction of the size of the dam complex proposed for Pebble.
But, Pebble Mine and its potential impact on the world’s largest sockeye salmon producing watershed of Bristol Bay is just one concern. More immediately, commercial fishermen in Alaska are looking at a complex of mines very similar to Mount Polley that are proposed—some have been granted preliminary approval—for western B.C. in waters that drain into Alaska.
Of particular concern to fishermen in southeast Alaska are five mines proposed or beginning operations on the transboundary Unuk, Stikine and Taku Rivers. These rivers begin in B.C. and flow into estuaries in Alaska and represent three of the four largest king salmon producers in the region. They are home to some of the largest steelhead runs in all of Alaska, home to trophy Dolly Varden and sea-run cutthroat trout, and are some of the last places on the continent where bull trout are found.
On top of their amazing fishery values, these watersheds are the very essence of wilderness and are some of the last undeveloped, fully functioning ecosystems left on the planet. One of the mines in question, Red Chris near the town of Iskut, is owned by Imperial Metals--the same company that owns Mount Polley.
Metal is integral to the pursuit of our sport. We drive cars and boats containing an array of it to our favorite fishing spots. We use metal hooks and reels machined from blocks of aluminum, so we, like most of humanity are metal-dependent. But, like the rest of humanity we need to realize metal comes at a cost far greater than the price we pay for it. We have to get vocal about where mining takes place and do our utmost to stop mining operations in areas like Bristol Bay and northern B.C. that are critical to fish and the existing jobs they support. We also have to call for the highest standards possible in the operation and maintenance of mining operations when they do occur.
Would doing all of that have prevented the tragedy unfolding on the Fraser right now? The answer is likely an emphatic yes. The Mount Polley mine had been issued five notices of substandard operating practices since 2012, and the inspection frequency for the mine was much lower than it was a decade ago. More information about Imperial’s shady business practices are coming to light by the day.
It’s unfortunate that it takes dead fish floating around in back-eddies, the closure of community drinking water supplies and millions of gallons of toxic sludge coursing down river systems to prod us to a new vigilance about protecting our fish and waterways, but that’s exactly what we have here and exactly what we need to avoid in the future.
Help us prevent the next big disaster. Comment on the proposed KSM mine on the Unuk River, and help us ensure that, if the mine is constructed, it’s constructed with the highest degree of engineering integrity possible. And reach out to the U.S. State Department--we must urge Secretary Kerry to engage with the Canadian government to ensure mining in British Columbia doesn't trash Southeast Alaska's $1 billion-a-year fishing-based economy.
Alaska's existing gold mine--its salmon, trout and char--will pay dividends for generations to come, if we take care of the habitat they need to spawn and grow. Putting fish habitat at risk behind fragile, poorly designed dams in perpetuity for short-term gain is not acceptable.
Mark Kaelke is the director of TU's Southeast Alaska work on the Tongass National Forest.
Attachments
http://www.flyrodreel.com/node/25927
Mine Field : The trout- and salmon-rich rivers of southeast Alaska face a new danger
that few Americans have heard about.
By: Ted Williams
Photography by: Chris Miller
Conservation Conservation
Acid drainage from the Tulsequah Chief mine discolors a leaking containment pond next to the Tulsequah River, in British Columbi
IF YOU THOUGHT THE PROPOSED Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area was the most rash and reckless development scheme ever to threaten Alaska’s fish and wildlife, you’d have been wrong. Five enormous hard-rock mines are proposed for the Stikine, Taku and Unuk river systems, southeast Alaska’s main producers of Pacific salmon (all species) and trout (resident and sea-run rainbows, coastal cutthroats, dollies and bulls). Gold, silver, copper and molybdenum would be extracted by acid- and heavy-metal-generating mining. Most of these mines would need monitoring and water treatment basically forever.
There’s the Galore Creek, Red Chris and Schaft Creek open-pit mines, planned for tributaries of the Stikine River; the Tulsequah Chief underground mine, on a tributary of the Taku River (in most years southeast Alaska’s biggest salmon producer); and the Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) combined open-pit and underground mine, on the headwaters of the Unuk River. This last one would be roughly the size of Pebble. It would leach out gold with cyanide, destroy three mountains, fill a valley with 1.62 billion tons of toxic tailings held between two Hoover-size dams and generate 118,000 gallons of wastewater a minute. The mine site and the tailings area would be connected by twin 14-mile tunnels, with at least six of the miles beneath glaciers.
Except for Tulsequah Chief, the proposed mines are to be powered by BC Hydro’s federally subsidized, $736 million, 215-mile-long Northwest Transmission Line.
All five mines are in seismically active areas. Rob Sanderson, second vice president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, co-chairs the United Tribal Transboundary Work Group, which is desperately trying to get safeguards imposed. “If the KSM tailing dams fail, southeast Alaska and its thousands of rivers and islands will be turned into a dead zone,” he told me on July 25, 2014. That happened to be the day a powerful 5.9-magnitude earthquake shook the Alaska coast west of Juneau.
If you are like most anglers I’ve spoken with, you have heard about these threats only in passing, or not at all.
That would be because the mines are to be constructed just across the border in British Columbia, and the watersheds are remote and sparsely populated even by Alaska standards. Governor Sean Parnell, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources appear singularly unconcerned. And while BC is not without effective environmental organizations, such as Skeena Wild Conservation Trust, Friends of Wild Salmon, Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and Forest Ethics, they’re focused on the southern part of the province currently being laced with pipelines to transport tar-sands oil.
When it comes to environmental review and water-quality standards, Canada is about where the US was at mid-20th Century. So insipid is the country’s version of our National Environmental Policy Act that on July 21, 2014, with scant baseline data, the overseeing Canadian agencies recommended that the federal government approve the KSM mine.
Canada did have a strong Fisheries Act, which prohibited “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” But Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who scolds Americans because he says they “would like to see Canada be one giant national park,” found it inconvenient. So, to facilitate strip-mining of metals and tar sands, his administration led a successful campaign to do away with the habitat provision, restricting protection to fish themselves, provided they’re used by humans and the harm done to them by human development is deemed “serious” (whatever that means to Canadian bureaucrats). The 2012 emasculation of the law removes protection for 80 percent of the nation’s 71 imperiled freshwater fish species.
Meanwhile, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which enforces the Fisheries Act, is being bled to death. Recent budget cuts have reduced its BC habitat staff by 50 percent. Environment Canada’s program for monitoring effluent from mines and other development has been cut by 20 percent.
Also in 2012, pushed by the Harper administration, parliament gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The new version of the latter law sharply limits public input and rushes environmental review so that thousands of dangerous projects that would have been nixed will now be permitted.
BC emasculated its own Environmental Assessment Act 12 years ago. In July 2011 its auditor general reported that the province “cannot assure British Columbians that mitigation efforts are having the intended effects because adequate monitoring is not occurring and follow-up evaluations are not being conducted. We also found that information currently being provided to the public is not sufficient to ensure accountability.”
As member of Parliament Fin Donnelly told his House of Commons colleagues: “The conservative government is systematically dismantling environmental protection and regulation. By eliminating provisions to protect fish habitat, they can push through their agenda of pipelines, oil supertankers, mega-mines and other projects that harm the environment.”
And yet Canada is in desperate need of provisions that protect fish habitat, as its abominable record of containing mine waste illustrates. That record deteriorated still further on August 4, 2014 when the tailings dam at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley open-pit copper and gold mine in Central BC failed, disgorging 1.3 billion gallons of poison-laced slurry into Hazeltine Creek and Polley and Quesnel lakes.
THERE IS NO BETTER EXAMPLE of how pollution mitigation works in BC than the fiasco at the Tulsequah Chief Mine, which was abandoned in the 1950s and is now proposed for re-opening and major expansion. Canada has routinely told the US that it will stop the mine’s ongoing acid pollution via the permitting process. Here’s how well that process works: For about 60 years now Tulsequah Chief has been belching sulfuric acid, arsenic and other toxic heavy metals into the Taku River system. So bad was the pollution that it even offended Sarah Palin who, in her capacity as Alaska’s governor, fired off a July 1, 2009 letter to BC’s then-premier Gordon Campbell, demanding prompt abatement “in order to protect downstream water quality and assure the continued health of the valuable Taku River fisheries.”
Tulsequah Chief’s current owner, Chieftain Metals, was ordered by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment to construct a wastewater treatment plant. The plant operated from December 2011 to June 2012, when the company shut it down, claiming it was too expensive to run. Apparently, that’s fine with the province. There has been no discipline or threat of discipline.
If BC can’t clean up old mine drainages, how can it possibly deal with the kind of acid and heavy metal contamination that would spew from the far larger KSM mine? No treatment plant has ever been built that can do anything close to that. So Seabridge Gold, the company that hopes to develop KSM, has come up with a solution called “adaptive management.” Translation: We don’t know how to do it, but we’ll figure it out as we go.
“What does it mean to manage a mine and its toxic tailings dumps forever?” inquires Chris Zimmer, of Rivers Without Borders, an international organization operating in southeast Alaska, central and southern British Columbia, and northwest Washington. “Who’s going to be around to take care of this massive toxic time bomb above the Unuk River that will be there for thousands and thousands of years? BC’s just doing this unrestricted mining boom willy-nilly without any safeguards. It has ignored about every concern we’ve put on the table. There is no requirement in the permitting processes for the Canadian or BC governments to accommodate Alaskan concerns. They can listen but they don’t have to do anything.”
Environment Canada seems not even to have listened, concluding that the KSM project “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” and that “the agency is satisfied that [untested, never-attempted] mitigation measures for the project would address potential impacts in Alaska on fish, recreational and commercial fisheries and human health from changes to water quality and quantity in the Unuk River.”Scientists on both sides of the border are less easily satisfied, having ample reason to predict horrendous impacts. In a 2006 study of hard-rock mines from which no water-quality exceedances (instances in which a pollutant exceeds an allowable amount) were predicted, 91 percent were found to pollute surface waters. Of the mines that predicted low exceedances but imposed mitigation, 73 percent polluted surface waters.
At this writing it doesn’t appear that scientists will have a way of determining how current water quality and fish and wildlife productivity will compare with what comes after development. That’s because both state and province have thus far declined to fund adequate baseline monitoring or broad cumulative-effects analyses.
...continued below....
Mine Field : The trout- and salmon-rich rivers of southeast Alaska face a new danger
that few Americans have heard about.
By: Ted Williams
Photography by: Chris Miller
Conservation Conservation
Acid drainage from the Tulsequah Chief mine discolors a leaking containment pond next to the Tulsequah River, in British Columbi
IF YOU THOUGHT THE PROPOSED Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area was the most rash and reckless development scheme ever to threaten Alaska’s fish and wildlife, you’d have been wrong. Five enormous hard-rock mines are proposed for the Stikine, Taku and Unuk river systems, southeast Alaska’s main producers of Pacific salmon (all species) and trout (resident and sea-run rainbows, coastal cutthroats, dollies and bulls). Gold, silver, copper and molybdenum would be extracted by acid- and heavy-metal-generating mining. Most of these mines would need monitoring and water treatment basically forever.
There’s the Galore Creek, Red Chris and Schaft Creek open-pit mines, planned for tributaries of the Stikine River; the Tulsequah Chief underground mine, on a tributary of the Taku River (in most years southeast Alaska’s biggest salmon producer); and the Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) combined open-pit and underground mine, on the headwaters of the Unuk River. This last one would be roughly the size of Pebble. It would leach out gold with cyanide, destroy three mountains, fill a valley with 1.62 billion tons of toxic tailings held between two Hoover-size dams and generate 118,000 gallons of wastewater a minute. The mine site and the tailings area would be connected by twin 14-mile tunnels, with at least six of the miles beneath glaciers.
Except for Tulsequah Chief, the proposed mines are to be powered by BC Hydro’s federally subsidized, $736 million, 215-mile-long Northwest Transmission Line.
All five mines are in seismically active areas. Rob Sanderson, second vice president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, co-chairs the United Tribal Transboundary Work Group, which is desperately trying to get safeguards imposed. “If the KSM tailing dams fail, southeast Alaska and its thousands of rivers and islands will be turned into a dead zone,” he told me on July 25, 2014. That happened to be the day a powerful 5.9-magnitude earthquake shook the Alaska coast west of Juneau.
If you are like most anglers I’ve spoken with, you have heard about these threats only in passing, or not at all.
That would be because the mines are to be constructed just across the border in British Columbia, and the watersheds are remote and sparsely populated even by Alaska standards. Governor Sean Parnell, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources appear singularly unconcerned. And while BC is not without effective environmental organizations, such as Skeena Wild Conservation Trust, Friends of Wild Salmon, Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and Forest Ethics, they’re focused on the southern part of the province currently being laced with pipelines to transport tar-sands oil.
When it comes to environmental review and water-quality standards, Canada is about where the US was at mid-20th Century. So insipid is the country’s version of our National Environmental Policy Act that on July 21, 2014, with scant baseline data, the overseeing Canadian agencies recommended that the federal government approve the KSM mine.
Canada did have a strong Fisheries Act, which prohibited “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” But Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who scolds Americans because he says they “would like to see Canada be one giant national park,” found it inconvenient. So, to facilitate strip-mining of metals and tar sands, his administration led a successful campaign to do away with the habitat provision, restricting protection to fish themselves, provided they’re used by humans and the harm done to them by human development is deemed “serious” (whatever that means to Canadian bureaucrats). The 2012 emasculation of the law removes protection for 80 percent of the nation’s 71 imperiled freshwater fish species.
Meanwhile, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which enforces the Fisheries Act, is being bled to death. Recent budget cuts have reduced its BC habitat staff by 50 percent. Environment Canada’s program for monitoring effluent from mines and other development has been cut by 20 percent.
Also in 2012, pushed by the Harper administration, parliament gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The new version of the latter law sharply limits public input and rushes environmental review so that thousands of dangerous projects that would have been nixed will now be permitted.
BC emasculated its own Environmental Assessment Act 12 years ago. In July 2011 its auditor general reported that the province “cannot assure British Columbians that mitigation efforts are having the intended effects because adequate monitoring is not occurring and follow-up evaluations are not being conducted. We also found that information currently being provided to the public is not sufficient to ensure accountability.”
As member of Parliament Fin Donnelly told his House of Commons colleagues: “The conservative government is systematically dismantling environmental protection and regulation. By eliminating provisions to protect fish habitat, they can push through their agenda of pipelines, oil supertankers, mega-mines and other projects that harm the environment.”
And yet Canada is in desperate need of provisions that protect fish habitat, as its abominable record of containing mine waste illustrates. That record deteriorated still further on August 4, 2014 when the tailings dam at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley open-pit copper and gold mine in Central BC failed, disgorging 1.3 billion gallons of poison-laced slurry into Hazeltine Creek and Polley and Quesnel lakes.
THERE IS NO BETTER EXAMPLE of how pollution mitigation works in BC than the fiasco at the Tulsequah Chief Mine, which was abandoned in the 1950s and is now proposed for re-opening and major expansion. Canada has routinely told the US that it will stop the mine’s ongoing acid pollution via the permitting process. Here’s how well that process works: For about 60 years now Tulsequah Chief has been belching sulfuric acid, arsenic and other toxic heavy metals into the Taku River system. So bad was the pollution that it even offended Sarah Palin who, in her capacity as Alaska’s governor, fired off a July 1, 2009 letter to BC’s then-premier Gordon Campbell, demanding prompt abatement “in order to protect downstream water quality and assure the continued health of the valuable Taku River fisheries.”
Tulsequah Chief’s current owner, Chieftain Metals, was ordered by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment to construct a wastewater treatment plant. The plant operated from December 2011 to June 2012, when the company shut it down, claiming it was too expensive to run. Apparently, that’s fine with the province. There has been no discipline or threat of discipline.
If BC can’t clean up old mine drainages, how can it possibly deal with the kind of acid and heavy metal contamination that would spew from the far larger KSM mine? No treatment plant has ever been built that can do anything close to that. So Seabridge Gold, the company that hopes to develop KSM, has come up with a solution called “adaptive management.” Translation: We don’t know how to do it, but we’ll figure it out as we go.
“What does it mean to manage a mine and its toxic tailings dumps forever?” inquires Chris Zimmer, of Rivers Without Borders, an international organization operating in southeast Alaska, central and southern British Columbia, and northwest Washington. “Who’s going to be around to take care of this massive toxic time bomb above the Unuk River that will be there for thousands and thousands of years? BC’s just doing this unrestricted mining boom willy-nilly without any safeguards. It has ignored about every concern we’ve put on the table. There is no requirement in the permitting processes for the Canadian or BC governments to accommodate Alaskan concerns. They can listen but they don’t have to do anything.”
Environment Canada seems not even to have listened, concluding that the KSM project “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” and that “the agency is satisfied that [untested, never-attempted] mitigation measures for the project would address potential impacts in Alaska on fish, recreational and commercial fisheries and human health from changes to water quality and quantity in the Unuk River.”Scientists on both sides of the border are less easily satisfied, having ample reason to predict horrendous impacts. In a 2006 study of hard-rock mines from which no water-quality exceedances (instances in which a pollutant exceeds an allowable amount) were predicted, 91 percent were found to pollute surface waters. Of the mines that predicted low exceedances but imposed mitigation, 73 percent polluted surface waters.
At this writing it doesn’t appear that scientists will have a way of determining how current water quality and fish and wildlife productivity will compare with what comes after development. That’s because both state and province have thus far declined to fund adequate baseline monitoring or broad cumulative-effects analyses.
...continued below....
Last edited by a moderator:
The lack of such data is one of the reasons 36 Canadian and US scientists issued this warning to BC’s premier, Christy Clark: “The scale and intensity of proposed development certainly will fragment the watersheds with roads, transmission lines, river diversion projects, and open-pit mines. Habitat for salmon and other wildlife will be destroyed at the development sites. Cumulative impacts likely will cascade throughout the watersheds in the form of altered flow and temperature patterns, disturbance to wildlife interacting with roads, and reduced water quality associated with sedimentation and acid mine drainage.”
When I asked Zimmer to explain the ho-hum attitude of Alaska’s departments of Natural Resources, and Fish and Game, he responded as follows: “They seem very happy with the Canadian review process, despite the example of the Tulsequah Chief. Alaskans have nothing to gain and will bear many of the risks of KSM, but our state is not stepping up to the plate. The DNR submitted about a page and a half of comments on KSM, a mine that rivals the size of Pebble. To me that level of involvement is shocking. Fish and Game’s habitat division is supposed to ensure strong habitat-protection measures in the permits, but it’s not doing its job. It’s a permit factory. Governor Parnell [a tireless Pebble promoter] has muzzled a lot of staff. He has made it clear that their job is to issue permits in a timely fashion, and not let habitat issues gum up the works.”
And Zimmer points out that the casual engagement of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on KSM has been paid for by the prospective developer, Seabridge Gold—a gross conflict of interest.
If all this seems so depressing and hopeless that you’re tempted to put it out of your mind and go fishing or drinking, keep reading.
WHILE BC’S AND CANADA’S governments don’t need to do anything about most American concerns, the same cannot be said about the concerns of First Nations. In June 2014 Canada’s Supreme Court ruled on a decades-old suit brought by BC’s Tsilhqot’in Nation, granting it the right to be consulted on industrial development affecting its land and water. This doesn’t quite give First Nations veto power over, say, a proposed mine, but the language of the decision makes it clear that any effort by a company or province to infringe on title rights would be extremely difficult to defend in court.
Meanwhile, the BC Supreme Court has ruled that the province breached its legal obligation to consult the Taku River Tlingit on the Tulsequah Chief Mine. So the Ministry of Environment must now reconsider its decision to make permanent its permit. Outcry from the Tlingit and the public in Alaska and BC sent the previous owner, Redfern Resources, into bankruptcy in 2009 by inducing investors to jump ship. Now Chieftain is flirting with bankruptcy for the same reason.
Is Tulsequah Chief dead? Well, probably only moribund—but very moribund.
One reason the Taku River Tlingit have prevailed in court is because the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station and partners spent three years collecting salmon data on the Taku above and below the border. “The Tlingit didn’t want their hunting grounds disturbed,” says station research scientist Tom Bansak. “So Redfern proposed to use a hover barge that would carry ore down the river to the ocean and then around the bend to Juneau. We showed there was no way they were going to do that and not degrade extensive salmon rearing and spawning habitat. We turned all that data over to the Tlingit; and they used it to help stop Redfern. BC rubber-stamps every mining proposal that comes along, but First Nations hold the cards.”
Of course not all of BC’s First Nations oppose the mines. Some are starry-eyed about perceived employment opportunities. Abe Tanha, owner of Hooked on Juneau—a guide service for shore-based fly and spin fishermen—told me this: “I’ve talked to several of the elders on the other side of the border who really want these mines. But when we brought them here they said, ‘We do have a responsibility to take care of the headwaters. We owe it to our brothers and sisters in Juneau and to ourselves.’ I think we’ve made a lot of progress on that front. As Americans we don’t have a lot of pull with the province, but what we can do is reach out to the native communities. They can affect policy in BC. That has been our big move.”
With First Nations help, Americans may be able to stop some of the mines. At worst they can make them significantly less damaging. One of their options is the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, which established the International Joint Commission to facilitate transboundary water disputes. The treaty is unwieldy and its implementation time consuming. But it works. In the late 1970s and for most of the 1980s a proposed coal mine on the Canadian side of the Flathead River threatened the imperiled bull trout that migrate between BC and Montana. In 1988 the commission found that bull-trout spawning habitat was in jeopardy and recommended that the mine not be approved until risks could be prevented or fully mitigated. So far, the mine has not been built.
In Canada there are three levels of environmental review—“screening,” “comprehensive” and “panel,” the last being the most rigorous. “We’re trying to get the mine assessment for KSM elevated from comprehensive to panel,” says Brian Lynch, a former Alaska Fish and Game biologist who now directs a commercial fishing support group called the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association. “The commercial fishing industry in southeast Alaska has been going on for 100 years. It’s sustainable. We’re not anti-mining, but these are open-pit mines which produce sulfuric acid; and we want protection.”
The fact that BC’s proposed orgy of mine development will benefit no Alaskan has an upside in that it has forged an alliance among all interests, many of whom had been at war over Pebble. Even Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young have joined environmentally enlightened Alaska Senator Mark Begich in demanding safeguards. On April 2, 2014 the delegation sent a letter to John Kerry requesting US State Department intervention. “This is a very unique situation to have all these stakeholders united on this,” says Lynch. “It’s something you may never see again.”
This united front has the shorts of the Mining Association of British Columbia in a knot. Lamenting “systematic attacks” by greenies, it is attempting to hatch its own version of Big Oil’s Orwellian-named “Ethical Oil” ad campaign. In an apparent bid to get hired for this effort, a communications firm called PR Associates organized an industry pow-pow in May, whipping up paranoia with this warning: “Several Alaskan and BC-based NGOs are using US governmental lobbying and grassroots campaigns in an attempt to stop industrial development in the transboundary region . . . . Research shows that the movement, which is relying on inaccurate and misleading public messaging, is gaining momentum.”
Zimmer sees an important lesson in the current travails of Chieftain Metals. “I’m not sure Tulsequah Chief will ever completely die,” he says. “But its current predicament shows that if you can scare away the money from these kinds of projects, at least a few decades will go by before someone takes another look at them. Chieftain hasn’t been able to get the necessary funds or what we call the ‘social license.’ So Americans shouldn’t feel powerless. The precedent there is the need for strong public outcry from Alaskans, First Nations and our allies in BC. That can put the brakes on at some of these mine proposals or at the very least build in stronger safeguards. The message to the public is this: ‘If you stand up and yell, we can get Canada’s attention.’ Our success at Tulsequah Chief has been because we’ve convinced the investors not to go near it. It’s too controversial and too difficult.”
When I wrote about the Pebble Mine eight years ago (See “Pits in the Crown Jewels,” April 2006) the project seemed unstoppable. Readers of our magazine, me included, felt a sense of hopelessness.
Now recall that when you started reading I referred to Pebble in the past tense. Maybe that’s premature, but not by much. As in the case of Tulsequah Chief, investors have been jumping ship. Even before July 18, 2014 Pebble was listing heavily. But on that date it took a devastating broadside when the EPA exercised its authority under the Clean Water Act to propose severe restrictions on “the use of certain waters in the Bristol Bay watershed for disposal of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit.” It’s almost inconceivable that the agency will back off, especially considering that 98 percent of the 204,000 public comments it had previously received supported protection for Bristol Bay. The sense of hopelessness has shifted to Pebble promoters.
Capturing perfectly the mood of the American public is gifted environmental journalist Susan Cosier, who wrote this in the July 18, 2014 OnEarth Magazine: “Pebble, nobody likes you! So hey, Pebble Mine, listen up: you’re not welcome here. Government regulators are not going to roll over for you. And your own investors are fair-weather friends. Take the hint and just go away.”
Pebble may not be quite dead. But it’s swimming on its back with pectoral fins flapping in the air. Let’s remember that in the by-no-means-hopeless fight to protect Alaska from slap-dash mine development in British Columbia.
What You Can Do
“Contact your legislators,” says Tim Bristol, director of Trout Unlimited’s Alaska office. “If the State Department hears from enough of them, the issue might get elevated.”
When I asked Zimmer to explain the ho-hum attitude of Alaska’s departments of Natural Resources, and Fish and Game, he responded as follows: “They seem very happy with the Canadian review process, despite the example of the Tulsequah Chief. Alaskans have nothing to gain and will bear many of the risks of KSM, but our state is not stepping up to the plate. The DNR submitted about a page and a half of comments on KSM, a mine that rivals the size of Pebble. To me that level of involvement is shocking. Fish and Game’s habitat division is supposed to ensure strong habitat-protection measures in the permits, but it’s not doing its job. It’s a permit factory. Governor Parnell [a tireless Pebble promoter] has muzzled a lot of staff. He has made it clear that their job is to issue permits in a timely fashion, and not let habitat issues gum up the works.”
And Zimmer points out that the casual engagement of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on KSM has been paid for by the prospective developer, Seabridge Gold—a gross conflict of interest.
If all this seems so depressing and hopeless that you’re tempted to put it out of your mind and go fishing or drinking, keep reading.
WHILE BC’S AND CANADA’S governments don’t need to do anything about most American concerns, the same cannot be said about the concerns of First Nations. In June 2014 Canada’s Supreme Court ruled on a decades-old suit brought by BC’s Tsilhqot’in Nation, granting it the right to be consulted on industrial development affecting its land and water. This doesn’t quite give First Nations veto power over, say, a proposed mine, but the language of the decision makes it clear that any effort by a company or province to infringe on title rights would be extremely difficult to defend in court.
Meanwhile, the BC Supreme Court has ruled that the province breached its legal obligation to consult the Taku River Tlingit on the Tulsequah Chief Mine. So the Ministry of Environment must now reconsider its decision to make permanent its permit. Outcry from the Tlingit and the public in Alaska and BC sent the previous owner, Redfern Resources, into bankruptcy in 2009 by inducing investors to jump ship. Now Chieftain is flirting with bankruptcy for the same reason.
Is Tulsequah Chief dead? Well, probably only moribund—but very moribund.
One reason the Taku River Tlingit have prevailed in court is because the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station and partners spent three years collecting salmon data on the Taku above and below the border. “The Tlingit didn’t want their hunting grounds disturbed,” says station research scientist Tom Bansak. “So Redfern proposed to use a hover barge that would carry ore down the river to the ocean and then around the bend to Juneau. We showed there was no way they were going to do that and not degrade extensive salmon rearing and spawning habitat. We turned all that data over to the Tlingit; and they used it to help stop Redfern. BC rubber-stamps every mining proposal that comes along, but First Nations hold the cards.”
Of course not all of BC’s First Nations oppose the mines. Some are starry-eyed about perceived employment opportunities. Abe Tanha, owner of Hooked on Juneau—a guide service for shore-based fly and spin fishermen—told me this: “I’ve talked to several of the elders on the other side of the border who really want these mines. But when we brought them here they said, ‘We do have a responsibility to take care of the headwaters. We owe it to our brothers and sisters in Juneau and to ourselves.’ I think we’ve made a lot of progress on that front. As Americans we don’t have a lot of pull with the province, but what we can do is reach out to the native communities. They can affect policy in BC. That has been our big move.”
With First Nations help, Americans may be able to stop some of the mines. At worst they can make them significantly less damaging. One of their options is the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, which established the International Joint Commission to facilitate transboundary water disputes. The treaty is unwieldy and its implementation time consuming. But it works. In the late 1970s and for most of the 1980s a proposed coal mine on the Canadian side of the Flathead River threatened the imperiled bull trout that migrate between BC and Montana. In 1988 the commission found that bull-trout spawning habitat was in jeopardy and recommended that the mine not be approved until risks could be prevented or fully mitigated. So far, the mine has not been built.
In Canada there are three levels of environmental review—“screening,” “comprehensive” and “panel,” the last being the most rigorous. “We’re trying to get the mine assessment for KSM elevated from comprehensive to panel,” says Brian Lynch, a former Alaska Fish and Game biologist who now directs a commercial fishing support group called the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association. “The commercial fishing industry in southeast Alaska has been going on for 100 years. It’s sustainable. We’re not anti-mining, but these are open-pit mines which produce sulfuric acid; and we want protection.”
The fact that BC’s proposed orgy of mine development will benefit no Alaskan has an upside in that it has forged an alliance among all interests, many of whom had been at war over Pebble. Even Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young have joined environmentally enlightened Alaska Senator Mark Begich in demanding safeguards. On April 2, 2014 the delegation sent a letter to John Kerry requesting US State Department intervention. “This is a very unique situation to have all these stakeholders united on this,” says Lynch. “It’s something you may never see again.”
This united front has the shorts of the Mining Association of British Columbia in a knot. Lamenting “systematic attacks” by greenies, it is attempting to hatch its own version of Big Oil’s Orwellian-named “Ethical Oil” ad campaign. In an apparent bid to get hired for this effort, a communications firm called PR Associates organized an industry pow-pow in May, whipping up paranoia with this warning: “Several Alaskan and BC-based NGOs are using US governmental lobbying and grassroots campaigns in an attempt to stop industrial development in the transboundary region . . . . Research shows that the movement, which is relying on inaccurate and misleading public messaging, is gaining momentum.”
Zimmer sees an important lesson in the current travails of Chieftain Metals. “I’m not sure Tulsequah Chief will ever completely die,” he says. “But its current predicament shows that if you can scare away the money from these kinds of projects, at least a few decades will go by before someone takes another look at them. Chieftain hasn’t been able to get the necessary funds or what we call the ‘social license.’ So Americans shouldn’t feel powerless. The precedent there is the need for strong public outcry from Alaskans, First Nations and our allies in BC. That can put the brakes on at some of these mine proposals or at the very least build in stronger safeguards. The message to the public is this: ‘If you stand up and yell, we can get Canada’s attention.’ Our success at Tulsequah Chief has been because we’ve convinced the investors not to go near it. It’s too controversial and too difficult.”
When I wrote about the Pebble Mine eight years ago (See “Pits in the Crown Jewels,” April 2006) the project seemed unstoppable. Readers of our magazine, me included, felt a sense of hopelessness.
Now recall that when you started reading I referred to Pebble in the past tense. Maybe that’s premature, but not by much. As in the case of Tulsequah Chief, investors have been jumping ship. Even before July 18, 2014 Pebble was listing heavily. But on that date it took a devastating broadside when the EPA exercised its authority under the Clean Water Act to propose severe restrictions on “the use of certain waters in the Bristol Bay watershed for disposal of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit.” It’s almost inconceivable that the agency will back off, especially considering that 98 percent of the 204,000 public comments it had previously received supported protection for Bristol Bay. The sense of hopelessness has shifted to Pebble promoters.
Capturing perfectly the mood of the American public is gifted environmental journalist Susan Cosier, who wrote this in the July 18, 2014 OnEarth Magazine: “Pebble, nobody likes you! So hey, Pebble Mine, listen up: you’re not welcome here. Government regulators are not going to roll over for you. And your own investors are fair-weather friends. Take the hint and just go away.”
Pebble may not be quite dead. But it’s swimming on its back with pectoral fins flapping in the air. Let’s remember that in the by-no-means-hopeless fight to protect Alaska from slap-dash mine development in British Columbia.
What You Can Do
“Contact your legislators,” says Tim Bristol, director of Trout Unlimited’s Alaska office. “If the State Department hears from enough of them, the issue might get elevated.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Support Trout Unlimited and Rivers Without Borders. Together they have formed Salmon Beyond Borders. To join the campaign for mine cancellations and safeguards, to keep abreast of the latest developments and to get information on how to write comment letters go to www.salmonbeyondbor ders.org
Ted Williams is Fly Rod & Reel’s longtime Conservation editor.
Photograph by Chris Miller/CSMPhotos.com : Acid drainage from the Tulsequah Chief mine discolors a leaking containment pond next to the Tulsequah River, in British Columbia.
Ted Williams is Fly Rod & Reel’s longtime Conservation editor.
Photograph by Chris Miller/CSMPhotos.com : Acid drainage from the Tulsequah Chief mine discolors a leaking containment pond next to the Tulsequah River, in British Columbia.
http://www.kfsk.org/2014/11/13/transboundary-group-wants-a-voice-in-bc-mining-process/
Transboundary group wants a voice in BC mining process
by Angela Denning
November 13, 2014 10:55 am
Text-size A A A Print Article E-mail
Salmon Beyond Borders-editProposed copper mines in British Columbia have a coalition speaking out on what they say could potentially hurt salmon runs for people on both sides of the border.
Salmon navigate through their noses and that sense of smell could be in jeopardy if proposed mines are developed in British Columbia, according to Sarah O’Neal, a fisheries biologist.
“That’s what they use to find predators and prey and mates and also to find their way back to the receiving stream where they were born,” O’Neal says. “So that’s how they know how to get back to spawn is by smelling.”
O’Neal is working with the campaign, Salmon Beyond Borders, which is trying to raise public awareness about the potential impacts of proposed mines in BC. She says it doesn’t take much contact with copper for salmon to be affected.
“Experiments have shown that salmon’s ability to smell can be impacted at just two to ten parts per billion of copper,” O’Neal says. “So, that equates to like two to ten drops of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool. . . so, miniscule amounts.”
O’Neal says those amounts are within water quality standards and can be legally discharged. And as the amount of cooper increases, the effect on salmon does too.
“They can impair their brain function, they can impair their ability to make the transition from salt water to fresh water, you know, all different aspects which can ultimately impact their overall survival,” O’Neal says.
Salmon Beyond Borders has been touring around Southeast Alaska. The group is a coalition funded through different sources including Trout Unlimited and the True North Foundation.
Jill Weitz is the Southeast Outreach Coordinator for Trout Unlimited and she’s working on the Salmon Beyond Borders campaign.
“A big part of this campaign is not against mining, it is speaking for the salmon essentially,” Weitz says.
The group works with conservation groups United Tribal Transboundary Mining Working Group which includes a dozen tribes in Southeast holding informational forums. They are also working with the Tahltan First Nations which has been blocking the Red Chris Mine in BC.
The group wants input in the B.C. permitting process for proposed mines. Three of the proposed mines are in three main shared watersheds shared with Alaska , the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk Rivers.
“We’re trying to look at this as a mining district, not just one project,” Weitz says. “It’s incredible how many projects are being proposed right now. There are over a dozen large scale mines that are in different stages of permitting and development.”
Dr. David Chambers is a Geophysicist and former mine engineer. He’s now with the Centers for Science and Public Participation and is working with Salmon Beyond Borders.
“I think the real issue is how do folks in the U.S. address issues in Canada that could impact them and there’s no real mechanism in place right now to do that,” Chambers says.
He uses the proposed KSM mine as an example of why they have concerns.
“The water treatment plants that they plan to employ there will not discharge water at water quality standards,” Chambers says. “It will still be contaminated above, you know, in excess of those standards. And that contamination will actually reach down into the Unuk River itself. They plan on treating something like 21 billion gallons of water a year and that water treatment is going to have to have to go on in perpetuity.”
Besides the idea of treating the mine’s water forever, Chambers has issues with the cost. He crunched numbers and says that developers would need one billion dollars in a trust fund to come up with enough interest to pay for that kind of water treatment.
British Columbia leaders maintain that mines on transboundary rivers will not damage salmon. The country’s top mining official, Bill Bennett, was in Alaska recently and said they would listen to Alaskans concerns.
But Salmon Beyond Borders is skeptical that they will. The group is looking to the public to help continue what it calls momentum in getting a voice in the permitting process.
For more information about Salmon Beyond Borders, you can go to their website: salmonbeyondborders.org
Transboundary group wants a voice in BC mining process
by Angela Denning
November 13, 2014 10:55 am
Text-size A A A Print Article E-mail
Salmon Beyond Borders-editProposed copper mines in British Columbia have a coalition speaking out on what they say could potentially hurt salmon runs for people on both sides of the border.
Salmon navigate through their noses and that sense of smell could be in jeopardy if proposed mines are developed in British Columbia, according to Sarah O’Neal, a fisheries biologist.
“That’s what they use to find predators and prey and mates and also to find their way back to the receiving stream where they were born,” O’Neal says. “So that’s how they know how to get back to spawn is by smelling.”
O’Neal is working with the campaign, Salmon Beyond Borders, which is trying to raise public awareness about the potential impacts of proposed mines in BC. She says it doesn’t take much contact with copper for salmon to be affected.
“Experiments have shown that salmon’s ability to smell can be impacted at just two to ten parts per billion of copper,” O’Neal says. “So, that equates to like two to ten drops of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool. . . so, miniscule amounts.”
O’Neal says those amounts are within water quality standards and can be legally discharged. And as the amount of cooper increases, the effect on salmon does too.
“They can impair their brain function, they can impair their ability to make the transition from salt water to fresh water, you know, all different aspects which can ultimately impact their overall survival,” O’Neal says.
Salmon Beyond Borders has been touring around Southeast Alaska. The group is a coalition funded through different sources including Trout Unlimited and the True North Foundation.
Jill Weitz is the Southeast Outreach Coordinator for Trout Unlimited and she’s working on the Salmon Beyond Borders campaign.
“A big part of this campaign is not against mining, it is speaking for the salmon essentially,” Weitz says.
The group works with conservation groups United Tribal Transboundary Mining Working Group which includes a dozen tribes in Southeast holding informational forums. They are also working with the Tahltan First Nations which has been blocking the Red Chris Mine in BC.
The group wants input in the B.C. permitting process for proposed mines. Three of the proposed mines are in three main shared watersheds shared with Alaska , the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk Rivers.
“We’re trying to look at this as a mining district, not just one project,” Weitz says. “It’s incredible how many projects are being proposed right now. There are over a dozen large scale mines that are in different stages of permitting and development.”
Dr. David Chambers is a Geophysicist and former mine engineer. He’s now with the Centers for Science and Public Participation and is working with Salmon Beyond Borders.
“I think the real issue is how do folks in the U.S. address issues in Canada that could impact them and there’s no real mechanism in place right now to do that,” Chambers says.
He uses the proposed KSM mine as an example of why they have concerns.
“The water treatment plants that they plan to employ there will not discharge water at water quality standards,” Chambers says. “It will still be contaminated above, you know, in excess of those standards. And that contamination will actually reach down into the Unuk River itself. They plan on treating something like 21 billion gallons of water a year and that water treatment is going to have to have to go on in perpetuity.”
Besides the idea of treating the mine’s water forever, Chambers has issues with the cost. He crunched numbers and says that developers would need one billion dollars in a trust fund to come up with enough interest to pay for that kind of water treatment.
British Columbia leaders maintain that mines on transboundary rivers will not damage salmon. The country’s top mining official, Bill Bennett, was in Alaska recently and said they would listen to Alaskans concerns.
But Salmon Beyond Borders is skeptical that they will. The group is looking to the public to help continue what it calls momentum in getting a voice in the permitting process.
For more information about Salmon Beyond Borders, you can go to their website: salmonbeyondborders.org
spring fever
Well-Known Member
Aside from that -what don't you like about him?
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=211114
VIEW: To prevent future Mt. Polleys, BC must restore its professional public service
By SCOTT MCCANNELL
Published November 20, 2014 05:10 pm | 5 Comments
Share article via email Print this article
Do you know what's going on in your own backyard? The B.C. government certainly doesn't.
In "An Engineer's Idea to Prevent Future Mount Polleys," published today on The Tyee, the notion of voluntary peer reviews is promoted as a means of preventing mining disasters similar to Mount Polley. More due diligence relating to approval of mining and other resource development projects is certainly needed, but the best approach is to ensure that government knows what is happening on Crown land.
The B.C. government has slashed professionals in the public service to the point where it doesn't have a full picture of what's happening. In a March 2014 report, the Professional Employees Association (PEA) demonstrated that the province has reduced its complement of scientific and technical professionals by 15 per cent since 2009.
Looking back to 2001, there are 25 per cent fewer professionals in the public service. In the report, the PEA warned that these reductions could threaten both public safety and the environment because of inadequate monitoring and inspections.
Unfortunately, the PEA's prediction was spot-on, and now one of the worst mining disasters in B.C.'s history has spilled 10 million cubic metres of water and mine tailings flow into Polley Lake and Quesnel Lake. This spill will likely result in long-term environmental degradation and significant negative impacts on local communities for generations.
Government policy over the last 13 years has been to dramatically reduce in-house government professionals, deregulate natural resource industries and to reduce the role of public service professional staff in monitoring, compliance and enforcement.
We believe that government policy increases the risks of disasters like Mt. Polley and may have significantly contributed to this event. Watchdog agencies, including the Forest Practices Board and the Auditor General, have already voiced concern over the lack of on the ground monitoring happening in natural resource ministries.
The peer review concept proposed relies on a process of voluntary reviews. This still doesn't solve the problem of government knowing what's happening on Crown land. The costs of voluntary reviews would average $300 an hour for panelists. This hourly rate would be the approximate equivalent of three professional engineers working directly for the province.
Hiring more professional staff in mining ministries with the expertise needed to ensure mining takes place safely, along with an appropriate level of professional development, would allow the province to ensure they have required staff expertise.
The PEA believes that the provincial government must know what's happening with public land. If the public does not trust that publicly owned resources, such as minerals and forests, are being appropriately stewarded and that the environment and public safety are protected, then resource development may grind to a halt.
Peer reviews can be a helpful tool in the natural resource management toolkit, but the government needs to take a stand on knowing what's happening with the public's natural resources. You can't rely on industry to solve all of the problems with natural resource development. A professional public service is a key step to understanding what's happening on the ground and preventing another Mount Polley disaster.
Scott McCannell is the executive director of the Professional Employees Association.
- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...mail&utm_campaign=211114#sthash.4UZfNHZe.dpuf
VIEW: To prevent future Mt. Polleys, BC must restore its professional public service
By SCOTT MCCANNELL
Published November 20, 2014 05:10 pm | 5 Comments
Share article via email Print this article
Do you know what's going on in your own backyard? The B.C. government certainly doesn't.
In "An Engineer's Idea to Prevent Future Mount Polleys," published today on The Tyee, the notion of voluntary peer reviews is promoted as a means of preventing mining disasters similar to Mount Polley. More due diligence relating to approval of mining and other resource development projects is certainly needed, but the best approach is to ensure that government knows what is happening on Crown land.
The B.C. government has slashed professionals in the public service to the point where it doesn't have a full picture of what's happening. In a March 2014 report, the Professional Employees Association (PEA) demonstrated that the province has reduced its complement of scientific and technical professionals by 15 per cent since 2009.
Looking back to 2001, there are 25 per cent fewer professionals in the public service. In the report, the PEA warned that these reductions could threaten both public safety and the environment because of inadequate monitoring and inspections.
Unfortunately, the PEA's prediction was spot-on, and now one of the worst mining disasters in B.C.'s history has spilled 10 million cubic metres of water and mine tailings flow into Polley Lake and Quesnel Lake. This spill will likely result in long-term environmental degradation and significant negative impacts on local communities for generations.
Government policy over the last 13 years has been to dramatically reduce in-house government professionals, deregulate natural resource industries and to reduce the role of public service professional staff in monitoring, compliance and enforcement.
We believe that government policy increases the risks of disasters like Mt. Polley and may have significantly contributed to this event. Watchdog agencies, including the Forest Practices Board and the Auditor General, have already voiced concern over the lack of on the ground monitoring happening in natural resource ministries.
The peer review concept proposed relies on a process of voluntary reviews. This still doesn't solve the problem of government knowing what's happening on Crown land. The costs of voluntary reviews would average $300 an hour for panelists. This hourly rate would be the approximate equivalent of three professional engineers working directly for the province.
Hiring more professional staff in mining ministries with the expertise needed to ensure mining takes place safely, along with an appropriate level of professional development, would allow the province to ensure they have required staff expertise.
The PEA believes that the provincial government must know what's happening with public land. If the public does not trust that publicly owned resources, such as minerals and forests, are being appropriately stewarded and that the environment and public safety are protected, then resource development may grind to a halt.
Peer reviews can be a helpful tool in the natural resource management toolkit, but the government needs to take a stand on knowing what's happening with the public's natural resources. You can't rely on industry to solve all of the problems with natural resource development. A professional public service is a key step to understanding what's happening on the ground and preventing another Mount Polley disaster.
Scott McCannell is the executive director of the Professional Employees Association.
- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/201...mail&utm_campaign=211114#sthash.4UZfNHZe.dpuf
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/20/Prevent-Future-Mount-Polleys/
An Engineer's Idea to Prevent Future Mount Polleys
Jack Caldwell says peer review process, convened by firms during a mine's life, could avert disaster.
By David P. Ball, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Mount Polley tailings dam spill
Breached tailings pond at Imperial Metals' Mount Polley mine: could a peer review panel have prevented disaster? Source: Cariboo Regional District.
Related
In Polley's Wake, Downstream Alaska Fears BC's Mining Boom
Tag along with the fishermen whose livelihood depends on watersheds that cross borders.
In Wake of Mount Polley, Union Wants New BC Safety Regime
Ministry defends miners' exclusion from WorkSafeBC.
After Mount Polley, a Recipe for Better Mines
Yes, we can create a more responsible, even sustainable industry.
Read more: Labour + Industry, BC Politics, Environment
Two months before provincial investigators wrap up their postmortem of the Aug. 4 Mount Polley tailings dam collapse in the British Columbian Interior, a leaked review of another Imperial Metals' mine singles out risks of leaks, stability problems and landslides around the project.
The Tahltan Nation-commissioned report by Vancouver consulting firm Klohn Crippen Berger into the Red Chris copper and gold mine in northwestern B.C. warns that "any failure of the Red Chris impoundment will likely have a much more significant environmental impact than the Mount Polley failure."
But a leading tailings engineer argues the Mount Polley disaster could have been averted if the B.C. mining sector had adopted a forward-thinking practice from other jurisdictions: mines should be subjected to ongoing, "independent peer review" tests.
The idea presents a potential way forward for improving the safety of mining projects across the province -- both those proposed, and those underway.
According to Jack Caldwell, a geotechnical engineer with nearly 40 years of international mining experience, what sets the safest projects around the world apart is peer review -- a process of close scrutiny and criticism from experts independent of employers or government, long before accidents occur.
Three government-appointed engineers continue to investigate the Mount Polley disaster, which sent 25 million tonnes of toxic tailings slurry into the watershed near Likely, B.C. That expert panel's conclusions are due Jan. 31.
WHAT IF MOUNT POLLEY HAD PEER REVIEW?
Why not encourage mining companies to convene their own panels of experts before things go awry, as they did at Mount Polley?
Although mines must have an Engineer of Record who is responsible for the design of tailings storage facilities, in the case of Mount Polley that job changed hands in 2011 from Knight Piésold Ltd. to British consulting firm AMEC, and Knight Piésold distanced itself from the subsequent raising of the tailings dam's height.
"Significant engineering and design changes were made subsequent to our involvement, such that the tailings storage facility can no longer be considered a Knight Piésold Ltd. design," the original engineers wrote.
An ongoing peer review panel would have bridged the change-of-hands and ensured there was continuous expert oversight at every stage, said tailings engineer Jack Caldwell. "If you constitute and treat them properly, they will go on and it doesn't matter if the Engineer of Record changes."
Though the government's own panel investigating the accident won't release its conclusions for three more months, Caldwell theorized that the dam collapsed because its particular design was meant to hold solid tailings, not liquids at all.
"I find it difficult to believe that a peer review panel wouldn't have expressed concern about the presence of water being stored on the dam," he added. "I know people warned there was too much [water], but ideally they shouldn't have had any against the embankment. A peer review group would surely have had a lot of say compared to an inspector."
'No dam that's ever been peer reviewed has failed'
In his work on tailings facilities, Caldwell has sat on a number of independent peer review panels, also known in the industry as independent tailings dam review boards or third-party reviews, which run throughout a mine's entire operational life.
Such panels exist at diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, in Alberta's oilsands and in other countries. Their promoters say they help instil confidence in companies and investors that dams won't fail. Convened during the initial planning stages of a mine, the panels ideally meet twice a year, Caldwell said.
What makes them different from government inspections of dams, or federal-provincial Joint Review Panels as required for mines such as Taseko's rejected New Prosperity Mine, is that peer review panels are voluntary on the part of mining companies -- an extra safety measure.
"It really is something the mining companies themselves need to institute and pay for," Caldwell said. "They do that as part of risk management."
Provincial mines inspections are supposed to occur annually, but B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett has said they did not take place at Mount Polley in 2010 or 2011, according to The Globe and Mail.
While Caldwell credits B.C. with relatively strong regulations when it comes to dam safety, he said that a lone Ministry of Energy and Mines inspector could not have the expertise and experience of a peer review panel.
"It's seldom you would find all of that in one person," he argues. Peer review panels are best assembled with different disciplines -- for instance, experts in geology, soil mechanics, tailings behaviour, and groundwater hydrology.
That level of specialization doesn't come cheap: Caldwell estimated that at an average $300-an-hour fee per panelist, the panel would cost a company more than $20,000 for a two- to three-day session, plus travel costs.
But from a longterm financial standpoint, the hefty price of ongoing oversight pays off by reducing accidents, he said. Case in point: Imperial Metals' stock price plummeted immediately after the Mount Polley disaster, and has not fully recovered.
"Such a peer review board is costly -- until failure occurs," Caldwell said. "No dam that's ever been peer reviewed has failed. But to be quite honest, I don't know of any mine in B.C. that has a peer review board."
In fact, there is a lone example. Of the province's 18 active metal and coal mines, only Teck's Highland Valley Copper Mine near Logan Lake, the largest open-pit copper mine in Canada, has such a panel.
Mines ministry spokesman Jake Jacobs said that one other proposed mine plans to launch a peer review process, but did not specify which project.
Polley investigators approve of peer review
The panel of engineers appointed by government to investigate Mount Polley is independent and will determine what caused the dam failure. It will review geotechnical standards, the design of the dam, maintenance, regulations, inspections regimes, "and other matters the panel deems appropriate," Jacobs said.
It's comprised of three respected names in the mine safety business: geotechnical engineer Steven Vick; professor Dirk Van Zyl, at UBC's Normal Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, and the University of Alberta's Norbert Morgenstern (whose engineering renown earned him the nicknames "Mr. Earthquake" in Japan and "Mr. Landslide" in Hong Kong).
In a 2010 edition of Tailings and Mine Waste, Morgenstern extolled the benefits of independent review boards, arguing that they are a "valuable component in the safety system applied to all tailings storage facilities."
He added that the World Bank and other lenders already require independent review boards for projects they fund. Review boards provide advice on "all geotechnically sensitive matters" from a mine's opening to its closing, Morgenstern noted.
But most importantly, review boards play the role of sober watchdog in the face of pressures to work faster or save money, he wrote.
Amy Crook, executive director for the nonprofit B.C. Fair Mining Collaborative, said she isn't familiar with such peer review boards but called the idea "intriguing."
The collaborative recently released a weighty tome of proposed guidelines for mining in the province, including improvements in mine oversight, community transparency and safety.
"It saves everybody a lot of heartache, money and time if the critical aspects of the mine are reviewed up front," she said. "If it's an ongoing review of operations, even better."
But Crook questioned why independent reviews should be voluntary. Making ongoing oversight merely an option "is only as good as the company's or the government's will" to be transparent, she said.
An Engineer's Idea to Prevent Future Mount Polleys
Jack Caldwell says peer review process, convened by firms during a mine's life, could avert disaster.
By David P. Ball, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Mount Polley tailings dam spill
Breached tailings pond at Imperial Metals' Mount Polley mine: could a peer review panel have prevented disaster? Source: Cariboo Regional District.
Related
In Polley's Wake, Downstream Alaska Fears BC's Mining Boom
Tag along with the fishermen whose livelihood depends on watersheds that cross borders.
In Wake of Mount Polley, Union Wants New BC Safety Regime
Ministry defends miners' exclusion from WorkSafeBC.
After Mount Polley, a Recipe for Better Mines
Yes, we can create a more responsible, even sustainable industry.
Read more: Labour + Industry, BC Politics, Environment
Two months before provincial investigators wrap up their postmortem of the Aug. 4 Mount Polley tailings dam collapse in the British Columbian Interior, a leaked review of another Imperial Metals' mine singles out risks of leaks, stability problems and landslides around the project.
The Tahltan Nation-commissioned report by Vancouver consulting firm Klohn Crippen Berger into the Red Chris copper and gold mine in northwestern B.C. warns that "any failure of the Red Chris impoundment will likely have a much more significant environmental impact than the Mount Polley failure."
But a leading tailings engineer argues the Mount Polley disaster could have been averted if the B.C. mining sector had adopted a forward-thinking practice from other jurisdictions: mines should be subjected to ongoing, "independent peer review" tests.
The idea presents a potential way forward for improving the safety of mining projects across the province -- both those proposed, and those underway.
According to Jack Caldwell, a geotechnical engineer with nearly 40 years of international mining experience, what sets the safest projects around the world apart is peer review -- a process of close scrutiny and criticism from experts independent of employers or government, long before accidents occur.
Three government-appointed engineers continue to investigate the Mount Polley disaster, which sent 25 million tonnes of toxic tailings slurry into the watershed near Likely, B.C. That expert panel's conclusions are due Jan. 31.
WHAT IF MOUNT POLLEY HAD PEER REVIEW?
Why not encourage mining companies to convene their own panels of experts before things go awry, as they did at Mount Polley?
Although mines must have an Engineer of Record who is responsible for the design of tailings storage facilities, in the case of Mount Polley that job changed hands in 2011 from Knight Piésold Ltd. to British consulting firm AMEC, and Knight Piésold distanced itself from the subsequent raising of the tailings dam's height.
"Significant engineering and design changes were made subsequent to our involvement, such that the tailings storage facility can no longer be considered a Knight Piésold Ltd. design," the original engineers wrote.
An ongoing peer review panel would have bridged the change-of-hands and ensured there was continuous expert oversight at every stage, said tailings engineer Jack Caldwell. "If you constitute and treat them properly, they will go on and it doesn't matter if the Engineer of Record changes."
Though the government's own panel investigating the accident won't release its conclusions for three more months, Caldwell theorized that the dam collapsed because its particular design was meant to hold solid tailings, not liquids at all.
"I find it difficult to believe that a peer review panel wouldn't have expressed concern about the presence of water being stored on the dam," he added. "I know people warned there was too much [water], but ideally they shouldn't have had any against the embankment. A peer review group would surely have had a lot of say compared to an inspector."
'No dam that's ever been peer reviewed has failed'
In his work on tailings facilities, Caldwell has sat on a number of independent peer review panels, also known in the industry as independent tailings dam review boards or third-party reviews, which run throughout a mine's entire operational life.
Such panels exist at diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, in Alberta's oilsands and in other countries. Their promoters say they help instil confidence in companies and investors that dams won't fail. Convened during the initial planning stages of a mine, the panels ideally meet twice a year, Caldwell said.
What makes them different from government inspections of dams, or federal-provincial Joint Review Panels as required for mines such as Taseko's rejected New Prosperity Mine, is that peer review panels are voluntary on the part of mining companies -- an extra safety measure.
"It really is something the mining companies themselves need to institute and pay for," Caldwell said. "They do that as part of risk management."
Provincial mines inspections are supposed to occur annually, but B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett has said they did not take place at Mount Polley in 2010 or 2011, according to The Globe and Mail.
While Caldwell credits B.C. with relatively strong regulations when it comes to dam safety, he said that a lone Ministry of Energy and Mines inspector could not have the expertise and experience of a peer review panel.
"It's seldom you would find all of that in one person," he argues. Peer review panels are best assembled with different disciplines -- for instance, experts in geology, soil mechanics, tailings behaviour, and groundwater hydrology.
That level of specialization doesn't come cheap: Caldwell estimated that at an average $300-an-hour fee per panelist, the panel would cost a company more than $20,000 for a two- to three-day session, plus travel costs.
But from a longterm financial standpoint, the hefty price of ongoing oversight pays off by reducing accidents, he said. Case in point: Imperial Metals' stock price plummeted immediately after the Mount Polley disaster, and has not fully recovered.
"Such a peer review board is costly -- until failure occurs," Caldwell said. "No dam that's ever been peer reviewed has failed. But to be quite honest, I don't know of any mine in B.C. that has a peer review board."
In fact, there is a lone example. Of the province's 18 active metal and coal mines, only Teck's Highland Valley Copper Mine near Logan Lake, the largest open-pit copper mine in Canada, has such a panel.
Mines ministry spokesman Jake Jacobs said that one other proposed mine plans to launch a peer review process, but did not specify which project.
Polley investigators approve of peer review
The panel of engineers appointed by government to investigate Mount Polley is independent and will determine what caused the dam failure. It will review geotechnical standards, the design of the dam, maintenance, regulations, inspections regimes, "and other matters the panel deems appropriate," Jacobs said.
It's comprised of three respected names in the mine safety business: geotechnical engineer Steven Vick; professor Dirk Van Zyl, at UBC's Normal Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, and the University of Alberta's Norbert Morgenstern (whose engineering renown earned him the nicknames "Mr. Earthquake" in Japan and "Mr. Landslide" in Hong Kong).
In a 2010 edition of Tailings and Mine Waste, Morgenstern extolled the benefits of independent review boards, arguing that they are a "valuable component in the safety system applied to all tailings storage facilities."
He added that the World Bank and other lenders already require independent review boards for projects they fund. Review boards provide advice on "all geotechnically sensitive matters" from a mine's opening to its closing, Morgenstern noted.
But most importantly, review boards play the role of sober watchdog in the face of pressures to work faster or save money, he wrote.
Amy Crook, executive director for the nonprofit B.C. Fair Mining Collaborative, said she isn't familiar with such peer review boards but called the idea "intriguing."
The collaborative recently released a weighty tome of proposed guidelines for mining in the province, including improvements in mine oversight, community transparency and safety.
"It saves everybody a lot of heartache, money and time if the critical aspects of the mine are reviewed up front," she said. "If it's an ongoing review of operations, even better."
But Crook questioned why independent reviews should be voluntary. Making ongoing oversight merely an option "is only as good as the company's or the government's will" to be transparent, she said.
http://www.kstk.org/2014/11/19/review-of-red-chris-mine-finds-tailings-dam-concerns/
About KSTK
Support Us
Program Schedule
Contact Us
Community Calendar
Events
Photo Of The Week
LOCAL NEWS
Review of Red Chris Mine finds tailings dam concerns
by Katarina Sostaric, KSTK News
November 19, 2014 7:51 pm
Text-size A A A Print Article E-mail
red chris tailings
The tailings impoundment facility at the Red Chris Mine. (Photo from Imperial Metals website)
As Southeast Alaskans become more concerned about mine development in British Columbia, a copper and gold mine in the Stikine River watershed is expected to start full operations next month. But an independent review of its tailings facility found issues with the design.
The review found the tailings dams for Imperial Metals’ Red Chris Mine will be stable if they are constructed properly. But it suggests Imperial should follow 22 specific recommendations before commissioning the tailings facility.
00:0000:00
The review by engineering firm Klohn Crippen Berger was not officially made public, but it has been circulating online. Other media outlets, including The Vancouver Sun, have quoted extensively from the document.
One issue in the review is the mine’s plan to release untreated wastewater into the Stikine River watershed that is predicted to barely meet B.C. water quality standards. And the mine does not have a treatment plan in place if predictions are wrong, and water quality becomes non-compliant.
The Red Chris Mine is upriver from Wrangell and Petersburg, and Alaskans worry heavy metals in the water will affect salmon runs.
First Nation groups living near the mine are worried, too.
The Tahltan Central Council demanded an independent review after a tailings dam break at the Mount Polley Mine spilled about 2 billion gallons of silty water into a salmon-bearing river in eastern B.C.
Imperial Metals owns that mine and Red Chris. The review states a similar tailings dam break at Red Chris would have a more significant environmental impact than at Mount Polley.
Another concern addressed in the review is the high permeability of the Red Chris tailings facility foundation. The review says the design will likely succeed, but there has not been enough research into the possibility of water seeping out through the bottom of the pond.
There is also a landslide very close to the mine site that is poorly understood. The review recommends further investigation of how it could affect the mine, and vice versa.
Another major recommendation made by the review is Red Chris needs to have a detailed manual for tailings management and surveillance. The mine also lacks an emergency response plan in the event the tailings facility collapses.
Finally, the review suggests Red Chris form a review board composed of independent engineers and scientists to monitor the tailings dam.
It is unclear whether Imperial has addressed any of these concerns since the report was completed a month ago. According to a statement on Imperial’s website, the company is working with the Tahltan Central Council “to implement the recommendations contained in the review.”
Imperial Metals and the Tahltan Central Council did not respond to interview requests.
In its third quarter report, Imperial Metals states Red Chris is hooked up to hydropower and has ore stockpiled for milling. It needs one more permit—to discharge tailings into the pond—before it can be commissioned.
B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett says he’s considering the Tahltans’ input.
“We’re working with them to ensure that they’re satisfied with the design and construction of that tailings impoundment facility at Red Chris,” Bennett said. “And we’re not going to give the company their final permit until the Tahltan is satisfied.”
But the Tahltan First Nation is divided on the issue. A group of Tahltans calling themselves the Klabona Keepers has been protesting at Red Chris since August. Last month, they blockaded the access road and slowed construction at the mine.
Imperial Metals is trying to get a permanent injunction against the protesters. Tahltan Central Council President Chad Day says in a statement he wants to intervene in the lawsuit on Imperial’s side to oppose Klabona Keepers claims to territory near the mine.
Meanwhile, conservation groups in Alaska are asking the federal government to use the Boundary Waters Treaty to engage in mining talks with Canada.
About KSTK
Support Us
Program Schedule
Contact Us
Community Calendar
Events
Photo Of The Week
LOCAL NEWS
Review of Red Chris Mine finds tailings dam concerns
by Katarina Sostaric, KSTK News
November 19, 2014 7:51 pm
Text-size A A A Print Article E-mail
red chris tailings
The tailings impoundment facility at the Red Chris Mine. (Photo from Imperial Metals website)
As Southeast Alaskans become more concerned about mine development in British Columbia, a copper and gold mine in the Stikine River watershed is expected to start full operations next month. But an independent review of its tailings facility found issues with the design.
The review found the tailings dams for Imperial Metals’ Red Chris Mine will be stable if they are constructed properly. But it suggests Imperial should follow 22 specific recommendations before commissioning the tailings facility.
00:0000:00
The review by engineering firm Klohn Crippen Berger was not officially made public, but it has been circulating online. Other media outlets, including The Vancouver Sun, have quoted extensively from the document.
One issue in the review is the mine’s plan to release untreated wastewater into the Stikine River watershed that is predicted to barely meet B.C. water quality standards. And the mine does not have a treatment plan in place if predictions are wrong, and water quality becomes non-compliant.
The Red Chris Mine is upriver from Wrangell and Petersburg, and Alaskans worry heavy metals in the water will affect salmon runs.
First Nation groups living near the mine are worried, too.
The Tahltan Central Council demanded an independent review after a tailings dam break at the Mount Polley Mine spilled about 2 billion gallons of silty water into a salmon-bearing river in eastern B.C.
Imperial Metals owns that mine and Red Chris. The review states a similar tailings dam break at Red Chris would have a more significant environmental impact than at Mount Polley.
Another concern addressed in the review is the high permeability of the Red Chris tailings facility foundation. The review says the design will likely succeed, but there has not been enough research into the possibility of water seeping out through the bottom of the pond.
There is also a landslide very close to the mine site that is poorly understood. The review recommends further investigation of how it could affect the mine, and vice versa.
Another major recommendation made by the review is Red Chris needs to have a detailed manual for tailings management and surveillance. The mine also lacks an emergency response plan in the event the tailings facility collapses.
Finally, the review suggests Red Chris form a review board composed of independent engineers and scientists to monitor the tailings dam.
It is unclear whether Imperial has addressed any of these concerns since the report was completed a month ago. According to a statement on Imperial’s website, the company is working with the Tahltan Central Council “to implement the recommendations contained in the review.”
Imperial Metals and the Tahltan Central Council did not respond to interview requests.
In its third quarter report, Imperial Metals states Red Chris is hooked up to hydropower and has ore stockpiled for milling. It needs one more permit—to discharge tailings into the pond—before it can be commissioned.
B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett says he’s considering the Tahltans’ input.
“We’re working with them to ensure that they’re satisfied with the design and construction of that tailings impoundment facility at Red Chris,” Bennett said. “And we’re not going to give the company their final permit until the Tahltan is satisfied.”
But the Tahltan First Nation is divided on the issue. A group of Tahltans calling themselves the Klabona Keepers has been protesting at Red Chris since August. Last month, they blockaded the access road and slowed construction at the mine.
Imperial Metals is trying to get a permanent injunction against the protesters. Tahltan Central Council President Chad Day says in a statement he wants to intervene in the lawsuit on Imperial’s side to oppose Klabona Keepers claims to territory near the mine.
Meanwhile, conservation groups in Alaska are asking the federal government to use the Boundary Waters Treaty to engage in mining talks with Canada.