Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[troutbreath]

B.C. approves controversial 20-year open pit mine
 
Prosperity project will create a new lake with loss of Fish and Little Fish lakes
 
By Scott Simpson, Vancouver SunJanuary 15, 2010
 
Taseko Mine's ambitious $800 million Prosperity gold-copper project cleared a major hurdle Thursday with the awarding of a provincial environmental assessment certificate.

Taseko's certificate is contingent on fulfilling 103 commitments -- including the creation of a new lake as a replacement for the destruction of Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake for the sake of the 20-year open pit mine near Williams Lake.

"The [Environmental Assessment Office] assessment report concluded the project is not likely to result in any significant adverse effect, with the exception of the loss of Fish Lake and Little Fish Lake," the province said.

Environment Minister Barry Penner and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Blair Lekstrom announced the government's decision in a joint news release.

Conditions for developing the mine include implementation of a fish and fish habitat compensation plan to offset the loss of fish and fish habitat in the rainbow trout-bearing lake, and providing fishing opportunities for the public and first nations.

"This will include the establishment of a new lake in the vicinity of Fish Lake," the province said.

Taseko vice-president for corporate affairs Brian Battison noted that the project first entered B.C.'s environmental assessment process in 1995, and that to date, Taseko has spent more than $100 million to get it to this stage.

Taseko is still in the midst of a federal panel review and Battison could not say when that process will conclude.

Estimated capital cost to bring Prosperity into production is $800 million. The mine would support 700 jobs for two years during construction, and up to 500 full time jobs during operation.

The province expects the mine to contribute approximately $340 million to provincial GDP annually and $400 million in revenue to B.C. and $43 million to local and regional government over its estimated 20-year operating life.

"This is huge news, not just for our company but for Williams Lake and the Cariboo, for the mining industry in general in British Columbia, and for the government of British Columbia," Battison said.

The province said it was satisfied that the duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate first nations interests had been discharged, noting that 13 aboriginal groups were consulted.

The Xeni Gwet'in First Nation has previously indicated its opposition to the project and in January 2009 filed a writ in B.C. Supreme Court in an attempt to stop the project.

Xeni Gwet'in Chief Marilyn Baptiste, who announced the court case, could not be reached for comment.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun



Why would they put in a man made lake? I guess tat was Penner's idea

[hammer]

That Fish Creek (flows out of Fish Lake) is a trib. of the Taseko which is a major trib of the Chilko/Chilcotin system is extremely concerning. Copper cyanide and other by-products of the mining process are long lasting and extremely toxic to wildlife. Late-summer/Fall steelhead on the Upper Fraser are at extremely fragile population levels (What's the spawner count of the Chilcotin steelhead run- how about very low). What about Fraser sockeye? The Chilcotin being a significant sockeye river. When you compare this to the Highland Valley mine (both copper and open pit), at least the devastion is somewhat localized (that pit still leaves me in awe whenever I fish Island Lake). The Prosperity Mine outflow is connected to the upper Fraser through the Taseko and the Chilko (an awesome wild trout fishery). Fraser sockeye and steelhead runs don't need another reason to go extinct. I use copper and my wife's ring is gold, but isn't a better place than what was the greatest wild salmon highway in the world.   


My 2cents,
Hammer   

[fishfinder]

Housing bubble in the U.S. has decimated forestry jobs in B.C.. People need jobs. There is nothing worse than being unemployed. It's fairly easy to find work in the Lower Mainland, but try finding one in rural areas of B.C. I am against the mine, but Prosperity will be good for the people of Williams Lake. People are suffering there and who am I to say that they can't have jobs because it may kill off the fish I want to catch? I'm sure the government is well aware of that. We are in a massive recession and governments need to create jobs so they can collect taxes to pay for health care, education and other pet projects. You can count on more of these projects in the province in the future.

Mining is a dirty business and nobody wants it in his backyard. But you can't have it both ways. If you use copper and your wife wears gold then these mining companies have already destroyed the environment elsewhere on earth to deliver the copper and gold for YOU. But, of course we don't care what happens in other places as long as it doesn't happen around the areas where we live.

[hammer]

Yeah, I get that mining and industry has to happen. In my own family, uranium mining, gillnetting, and logging are only a generation away. It's the location and connection to the Chilcotin and Fraser that concerns me. The Highland Valley copper mine doesn't bother me as much as the effects seem localized and (to my knowledge) can not negatively impact the largest watershed in Britsh Columbia. The health of which a whole lot more people depend on for culture, employment, induistry, food. Mine copper and gold- absolutely, employ people- absolutely,  but there has to be copper and gold deposits in areas that could have less widespread negative impact.

     

[fishfinder]

Mine copper and gold- absolutely, employ people- absolutely,  but there has to be copper and gold deposits in areas that could have less widespread negative impact.

I agree 100% with you, but I think any industry, be it mining, forestry or manufacturing in B.C., will negatively impact the environment because of our mountainous geography. There is a river or a creek running off every mountain in the province.  It's the cost of living off the land and there is no way to escape it. you and I can see this but the majority of people just don't care.
Just look at the beautiful city of Vancouver. Could any of the office or condominium towers downtown be built without gravel and concrete? What about the wood for all the nice houses on the West side? You can bet none of it came from the city itself because the citizens will not allow logging in Stanley Park or the North Shore mountains for its wood or allow companies to lop off half of Grouse mountain for crushed gravel. But it's okay for the Vancouver citizens if Prince George mountains are denuded and a good chunk of Sumas mountain blasted away for gravel. Nobody cares where the stuff comes from as long as it doesn't affect his view, property value and his lifestyle.

As for government, it's only job is to make expensive promises so it can stay in power. If it really cared for the welfare of wild salmon and steelhead it would not have approved this mine, and it would have abolished fish farms by now. It hasn't. Its sights are set only at the next election, not what happens 30 years from now when all the fish are gone. I know it's cynical, but it's just the way it is.

 

[chris gadsden]

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Fish+bearing+lakes+destroyed+become+tailings+ponds+feds/3109850/story.html

[skaha]

--I see this to be an opportunity.. creation of a "new" lake of the size proposed will afford significant challenges and perhaps some good scientific data. Lessons learned may prove useful in understanding processes in natural lakes and provide information that could be used to rehabilitate other natural water ways that are suffering.
--I don't want to name names at the risk of offending some who live there, so lets just say that I've seen a few towns and urban areas that I could do without and believe they have had significantly more impact on the environment than a... well run mine.
--Storm sewers running directly into fish bearing water ways, getting extensions on permits to allow dumping of raw sewage and other garbage in the ocean, trucking garbage from large urban areas many miles and dumping it into the old open pit mine sites.   
--Let's have a full and proper scientific and social review of the plan with no government fast tracking.   
--Think about it...adding a double lane to the highway between penticton and kelowna likely alienated more land than this mine will, I'll leave it to you to decide which is more useful to society as a whole.

[VAGAbond]

“In some cases, use of a natural water body may provide the best storage option to ensure that the tailings are stored in a safe, controlled way, as it may have fewer risks of engineering failure than on-land storage under water in some cases,” said Lemay.

How soon we forget.     When Western Mines opened on Buttle Lake in Strathcona Park, they were going to dump tailings in the deep water of the lake where they would be sequestered in the quiet deep.   It only took about three years to almost poison the entire Campbell River drainage.

Same story when Utah Mines opened up on Quatsino Sound near Port Hardy.

Here we go again?

[chris gadsden]

Hello All Friends of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley;

Today the federal review Panel of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency (CEAA) made their long, and anxiously awaited, recommendations to the
federal government re Taseko Mines proposed open pit gold and copper mine:
the mine that would destroy Fish Lake/Teztan Biny.

We are very pleased to say that the Panel made the best decision we could
have hoped for!

Here is an excerpt from the Summary Review (available here:
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/43937/43937E.pdf


 
<http://sms.vsip.ca/mailings/68/27d0fca2820c99d5814fa8c6a1f1717b_4c2e64906aa
15?link=1>


 )

"The Panel concludes that the Project would result in significant adverse
environmental effects on fish and fish habitat, on navigation, on the
current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations
and on cultural heritage, and on certain potential or established Aboriginal
rights or title.

The Panel also concludes that the Project, in combination with past, present
and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a significant
adverse cumulative effect on grizzly bears in the South Chilcotin region and
on fish and fish habitat."

The Panel notes that Taseko's proposed "replacement" lake would not meet
DFO's "No Net Loss" policy and that Taseko could not provide assurances that
the fish in such a lake would be safe to consume.

The Panel cites the effects on navigation would be "high magnitude and
irreversible" as presented by Transport Canada's submission.

The Panel places significant and detailed emphasis on the presentations and
teachings from the First Nations witnesses who appeared before them, saying
their "overall conclusion is that the Project would have a high magnitude,
long term, irreversible effect on the Tsilqhot'in". They also note that,
"the effects of the Project on the potential Tsilhqot'in title would be
significant as the value of the claim would be reduced substantially due to
changes in the landscape and the loss of the area for current use for
traditional purposes".

In regard to grizzlies, the Panel says that Taseko's proposal to mitigate
the effects of increased traffic (through speed limits, etc.) are not
sufficient to compensate for loss of habitat or landscape fragmentation.

Reference to negative impacts on local use of meadows and trap lines is also
included.

FONV would like to congratulate everyone who wrote letters to the panel and
who appeared before them. For many, this was a difficult and upsetting
process to go through and it was done with great dignity and integrity.
Thanks to you all.

Now, it's up to the federal government to decide how they will proceed.

Pat Swift
www.fonv.ca

[skaha]

-- I am disappointed that Taseko mines did not appear to present a reasonable case. Either they feel there is no way the proposal would go through or they feel government will rubber stamp an approval.
--Basically their proposal was trust us to do the bare minimum required under the law and try to get away with least cost rather than best practice.
--I made my earlier comments about possible research benefits prior to reading the proposal.
--Please let me know when one of these companies volunteers to do more than the minimum, I really would like to support it.