Open-pit mine expansion too risky, panel rules
Document Actions
By Scott Simpson, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, September 17, 2007
A controversial proposal to expand an existing mine in northern British Columbia was rejected Monday by a federal-provincial panel due to the project's extensive environmental, social and cultural risks.
The joint panel reviewing the proposed Kemess North copper-gold mine project, in a report submitted to the federal and provincial ministers of the environment, first nations and the proponent Northgate Minerals, has concluded that the development of the project in its present form would not be in the public interest.
Northgate has proposed a $190-million open-pit development at a site adjacent to its existing Kemess mine 430 km northwest of Prince George, using 269-hectare Duncan Lake as the disposal site for mine tailings and waste rock.
According to Northgate, there are no other economic options for sustaining the company's Kemess mining operations, which employ 350 workers.
"In the panel's view, the economic and social benefits provided by the project, on balance, are outweighed by the risks of significant adverse environmental, social and cultural effects, some of which may not emerge until many years after mining operations cease," the panel said in a news release.
"The panel recommends to the Government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, that the project not be approved as proposed. In addition, the panel made a number of recommendations that, should governments decide to approve the project, would assist in the mitigation of the adverse effects of the project."
The panel's recommendations will be reviewed by several provincial and federal cabinet ministers, including B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner.
Penner and the others, including federal Environment Minister John Baird, will forward the report to their respective environmental assessments offices, where a final set of recommendations on the project will be developed.
Then it's up to the various ministers to decide whether to accept or reject the advice they receive from staff.
The final decision is not expected for several months.
Takla First Nation Chief Dolly Abraham said in an interview that she and other aboriginal leaders in the area will press the federal and provincial governments to accept the panel's advice.
"It is good news but there is a big 'but' in there. We expect the ministers to not approve the fill-in of [the] lake," Abraham said.
"The ministers should follow the advice of the panel and I think the panel has, to me, been pretty brave to do something like this. It's not just about protecting the lake for first nations people. It's about protecting it for all Canadian people."
Mining Association of B.C. president Michael McPhie expressed disappointment over the panel's recommendations.
"It is unfortunate that a project of such considerable importance to the entire province has been essentially halted by untested subjective concerns," said McPhie in a news release, noting that the public process to examine the project took more than three years and cost "tens of millions" of dollars.
McPhie said the report states clearly that Northgate's plans for the mine site meet the test of environmental stewardship "and the project would not cause significant adverse environmental effects."
"This decision could potentially mean the loss of hundreds of high paying jobs and the flight of investment from an area desperately in need of economic activity."
He added that the decision "seriously calls into question" the Canadian environmental assessment project and sends "a poor message to the international investment community."
Northgate has promised to rehabilitate Duncan Lake when Kemess North is exhausted, but first nations in the area reject that idea and express vigorous opposition to the project.
The joint panel took a similar view in its report, describing as a "key adverse effect" the degradation of the lake and the loss to first nations of its spiritual values.
The panel also warned that in contrast to the short-term benefits from the mine, there would be a environmental management obligations to protect water quality and public safety that "may continue for thousands of years."
"In the panel's view, no party is in a position to provide reliable assurance that the necessary oversight regime would still be in place that far into the future to guarantee implementation of all necessary measures to protect the environment.
"If site management efforts weakened or lapsed, downstream hydrological regimes, water quality and aquatic systems could experience adverse effects. The magnitude of any such effects is uncertain, but they could potentially be significant."
The panel also says the mine project is "not economically robust" and could close prematurely in the event of a downturn in metal commodity prices.