B.C. mining company accused of making "misleading" statement to federal agency
By Peter O'Neil, Vancouver Sun July 16, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/junior+miner+accused+making+misleading+statement+federal/6942254/story.html [cid:image001.jpg@01CD63D1.D96D5C30] Taseko Mines Ltd. made a "misleading" statement in a submission last month to the federal government about the potential of an earthquake-related environmental accident at its proposed $1.5 billion gold-copper mine in the B.C. interior. OTTAWA - Taseko Mines Ltd. made a "misleading" statement in a submission last month to the federal government about the potential of an earthquake-related environmental accident at its proposed $1.5-billion gold-copper mine in the B.C. Interior. The company also failed to provide adequate information relating to the project's impact on the local environment and aboriginal rights, according to some of the more than 200 other critical comments made by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in its July 6 letter to the Vancouver-based junior mining company. The CEAA was responding to a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted to federal authorities in early June. Taseko is making a renewed bid for approval to tap the riches of one of the world's largest undeveloped gold-copper properties located roughly 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake. The company says the mine has a net value of more than $3 billion, based on current gold and copper prices, and will generate 71,000 jobs over the mine's 20-year life. That was a compelling enough argument to convince the B.C. government to give the project a conditional thumbs-up in early 2010, with the province agreeing that the economic benefits off-set the environmental damage caused by turning Fish Lake into a tailings dump. But Taseko's plans were shot down in a CEAA report later that year that then-federal environment minister Jim Prentice called "scathing." Among the numerous "information gaps" and questionable statements made in the Taseko's June 6 draft Environmental Impact Statement was the company's assertion that the mine is in a "seismically stable region" of Canada. "This is a misleading statement," the CEAA said on one of the 45 pages of comments about the company's initial report While the mine itself would be located in an area with historically low seismic activity, the CEAA noted that it is "immediately adjacent to a very seismically active region." There have been 207 earthquakes over the past 20 years within 100 kilometres, and 1,900 within 200 kilometres, the document noted. Taseko's bid to get project approval has been launched amid the Conservative government's aggressive campaign to encourage natural resource investment as an antidote to combat global economic uncertainty. That effort has included legislation to reduce bureaucratic hurdles, attacks on environmentalists, and even criticism of its own bureaucrats and regulators for being overzealous. But if the federal government is trying to grease the tracks for companies like Taseko, that message didn't get through to federal officials from six federal departments, who along with the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office had numerous issues with the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS "did not meet the requirements of the EIS guidelines," wrote Lisa Walls, director of CEAA's Pacific and Yukon region, in the July 6 letter. The company document left out "critical aspects" federal fisheries officials need to consider about the impact on fish and fish habitat, according to the letter. "The reviewers identified sections of the draft EIS where information specified in the EIS guidelines is missing, presented in insufficient detail to enable a determination of the potential environmental effects of the project, and/or presented using methodologies that would also preclude such a determination," Walls wrote. Brian Battison, Taseko's vice-president of corporate affairs, stressed that its draft document was "not meant to be complete" and that the company's finalized EIS will be able to benefit from the government's feedback. "There is nothing raised in CEAA's comments that we have not anticipated or that will be difficult to respond to in what will be our final EIS submission," he said in an email. Taseko, in its written reply last week to the CEAA, said the company's "understanding" was that its draft was only an "administrative step and would not be posted on the public registry." Environment Minister Peter Kent announced last November that the Vancouver-based company would receive another chance to get approval for the mine that was rejected in 2010 because of the extent of environmental damage, its impact on land subject to local first nation title claims, and its expected impact on fish, fish habitat and the local grizzly bear population. The company has boasted that its new proposal satisfies concerns voiced about the project's likely impact on the environment and first nations. That has been accomplished by spending an extra $300 million to drop plans to use Fish Lake as a tailings dump, and instead build a new tailings storage facility two kilometres upstream from the lake. "We have made significant efforts to address all the necessary requirements for final federal approval," Taseko president Russell Hallbauer said in a press release last month. The letter was accompanied by 45 pages of detailed comments on a wide range of deficiencies, starting with an opening volley from the CEAA suggesting Taseko's document was poorly prepared. "There is substantial information missing from this draft EIS. Deficiencies listed below are not an exhaustive list of the missing information," began the opening comment of the 45 pages of deficiencies. "The quality of all figures provided in the draft EIS is very poor. The resolution is very low, so that text on the figures is very difficult to read." Among the critiques: - The EIS doesn't meet federal guidelines requiring the company to deal "previously identified potential impacts to aboriginal potential and established rights." - It lacks information on project "insurance and liability management." - Details on plans to consult and engage local first nations, hire aboriginals and procure from first nations companies, and consider other "corporate social responsibility" matters, is "missing or incomplete." - The company's plans to pump groundwater away from the area of the proposed tailings facility, in order to prevent "slope failure" on its walls, alters natural underground water flows and therefore increases "risks for contamination" of area groundwater. - There is also "insufficient information regarding proposed measures to control and collect seepage" from the tailings facility. Nor does the EIS spell out its planned emergency response actions in the event that the tailings facility walls suffer a "structural failure." - "The requirement from the EIS guidelines to consider community and aboriginal traditional knowledge in conducting the environmental assessment does not appear to have been considered. The EIS is inadequate if this has not been done." - The draft EIS doesn't include a full assessment of the project's impact on fish and fish habitat in the area, or provide a fish habitat compensation plan. - The potential impact of climate change on the mine's infrastructure over the 20-year life of the mine is only "cursorily addressed." - One "information gap" concerns the need for an assessment of the potential impact of increased vehicle traffic in the area on the local grizzly bear population. - The company was asked "why potential human exposure to mercury in drinking water ... and fish was not evaluated." - The EIS failed to take into consideration the impact on aboriginal rights resulting from the elimination of fishing rights in Little Fish Lake and Fish Creek as a result of the mine. - Taseko, asked in the EIS guidelines to assess "the probability of accidents and malfunctions," responds by referring to the "possibility" of such problems. "A 'possibility' is not a probability," the federal document noted tersely. - Taseko didn't meet the requirement to assess possible worst case scenarios such as "tailings impoundment structural failure, accidental explosion, earthquake or landslide into the tailings impoundment." - Taseko, in its EIS submitted to Ottawa on June 8, said that "at the time of writing this EIS, the terms of reference for the review panel have not been finalized, nor has a panel been appointed." Wrong, federal authorities replied. "The draft EIS was submitted June 8. The panel was appointed and the [terms of reference] was published on May 9." pon...@postmedia.com<mailto:pon...@postmedia.com> Twitter.com/poneilinottawa Read his blog, Letter from Ottawa, at edmontonjournal.com/oneil vancouversun.com/oneil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Native News North List info{all lists}: http://nativenewsonline.org/natnews.htm Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNews-north/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NatNews-north/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: natnews-north-dig...@yahoogroups.com natnews-north-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: natnews-north-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
