Tag Archives: Mining

Raven Coal Mine Editorial: Jobs Yes, But Not at Any Cost

Mining
Share

From the Comox Valley Record – April 23, 2011

Should people in Courtenay be dismayed about living in only the
93rd-best city in Canada or glad about being rated above 87 others?

We’re more likely to be OK with being 93rd (up from
100th last year) of 180 cities with at least 10,000 residents than
Campbell River (175th) or Port Alberni (172nd).

Considering Courtenay is rated behind 85th-place Cold
Lake, Alta., and 76th-place Greater Sudbury, maybe we should shrug off
the annual report by MoneySense magazine.

A report like this is only as good as its methodology.
The magazine factored in factors such as weather, air quality and the
percentage of people who walk or bike to work with the more traditional
MoneySense criteria of unemployment, housing costs, household income,
discretionary income and population growth.

Factor in other things like taxes, health professionals, crime, transit, culture and amenities, and out comes the list.

With no disagreement that all these considerations
contribute to quality of life, the survey does not weigh unquantifiable
factors like awe-inspiring vistas of mountains and oceans, clean water,
locally grown food and numerous hiking opportunities not far from any
local town.

What we’re really getting at here is that various values mean different things to different people.

The opportunity to work for a living and to feed our
families is  crucial us. While an awesome place to visit and even to
inhabit, the Comox Valley is not a Mecca for high-paying jobs. We have
trouble attracting and keeping young singles and families.

Read original article

The economy of any place is crucial to its health and
desirability, making the largest Costco on Vancouver and a coal mine
overlooking Baynes Sound seen attractive.

The coal mine, especially, has such potential downside,
though,  that makes anybody without a jobs-at-all-costs mentality
ambivalent or outright opposed.

We need jobs, and good-paying ones, but not any jobs at any cost.

Share

Chinese group makes billion-dollar bet on B.C. coal

Mining
Share

From the Globe & Mail – March 31, 2011

A Chinese group is making a $1-billion bet on coal in British
Columbia to secure a key raw material for its steel making industry, the
latest in a series of moves this year by international companies to
stake a claim on Canadian resources.

A consortium of Chinese
companies, including Shougang Group, one of the country’s top steel
makers, plans to develop three underground coal mines in northeastern
B.C., a region rich with coal that fell on hard times in the 1990s but
is now booming again.

The goal is to start construction on the first mine late next year,
with the companies “moving forward at a very rapid rate,” said Pat Bell,
B.C.’s jobs minister.

“They have the fiscal resources already in
place to do it,” said Mr. Bell, who met with executives at Shougang and
other consortium partners in Beijing this week on a trade mission to the
country. “It’s a very big deal.”

Shougang’s move to take a direct
position in Canadian mines represents a new chapter in the push among
the world’s steel makers to secure long-term supply of the commodities
that go into making steel. The strategy is to lessen dependence on
mining companies, especially as commodity prices rise.

Metallurical
coal, the type found in the ground in rugged northeastern B.C., is one
ingredient. Iron ore is another, one which has led India’s Tata Steel
Ltd. to proposed mines in Quebec and Labrador, while ArcelorMittal SA of
Europe wants to build a mine in Nunavut, north of the Arctic Circle.

The
Chinese consortium’s domestic arm is Canadian Kailuan Dehua Mines Co.
Ltd., officially formed in early 2010 when Shougang joined. The
investors already included Kailuan, a mining company in China, and Dehua
Group, which opened for business in Canada in 2003 with the aim of
mining coal underground. It began an official process in 2006 but the
global recession delayed the effort.

The backers put $120-million
into Kailuan Dehua. The company wants to use a new regulatory review
system in B.C. that allows proposed mines to obtain necessary permits
and clear environment assessment requirements in one process.

Gething,
the main project, could produce two million tonnes of metallurgical
coal annually for 30 years, according to Kailuan Dehua’s website.

Mr.
Bell said the companies are looking to produce as much as eight million
tonnes a year from three mines. That figure is equal to about
one-quarter of all coal production in B.C., which is one of the leading
producers in the world and generates most of Canada’s coal for export.

To
develop mines to unearth that much coal would take at least $1-billion
in construction costs, based on an industry average development cost of
$125-million to $175-million per annual tonne. The mines would employ
1,200 and generate about 5,000 more indirect jobs.

The first
northeast B.C. coal boom came in the early 1980s, backed by demand from
Japanese steel mills and underpinned by more than $1-billion in
government funding to build the infrastructure necessary for mines in
the region. Not long after, however, the high-cost coal was slammed by
surging supply of cheaper coal from elsewhere in the world. By the early
2000s, every mine was shuttered.

But bolstered by higher coal
prices, there are four operating mines – open-pit surface operations –
in the region right now. China joins a crowded list of proposals for
additional mines, including Teck Resources Ltd.’s plan to resurrect the
Quintette mine, closed in 2000. Quintette could be once more producing
three million tonnes of coal by 2013.

“It’s definitely a boom
time. The northeast is really going great guns right now,” said Pierre
Gratton, chief executive officer of the Mining Association of B.C.
“There’s potential for a lot more.”

But there are potential snags in the Chinese proposal, including questions about labour, safety and export capacity.

On
labour, when Dehua first proposed Gething in 2006, the company said it
would likely bring in experienced underground coal miners from China.
Kailuan Dehua this month posted job notices for the mine and the best
paying jobs – as much as $45 an hour – require underground coal mining
or related experience.

Most of Canada’s coal mines are surface operations, though many other mines in the country are underground.

Kailuan Dehua said it may need workers from overseas.

“We
will keep looking for the workers in Canada. We’ll try our best here,
but we are not sure about the results,” said company administrator Peter
Shao.

Safety is another question, as underground mining in China
has killed several thousand people in each of the past several years.
Mr. Bell said he was assured by the consortium that their safety record
is on par with Western companies.

The last major question is
export capacity, with Ridley Terminals Inc. at Prince Rupert in
northwest B.C. near its limit. Ridley is owned by the federal
government. In the Conservatives’ dead-on-arrival federal budget, an
allowance was made for Ridley to tap capital markets for cash to expand –
and the terminal this week said it has received the official green
light to go ahead.

______________

COAL-FIRED B.C.

The
rising price of coking coal, used to make steel, has made the commodity
the province’s most important raw material for export, buoyed by
continued demand in Japan and new demand in China.

$5.1-billion: Value of B.C. coal exports in 2010 (more than entire wood products industry)

86%: B.C.’s share of Canada’s $6-billion of coal exports in 2010.

106%: Increase in value of B.C.’s exports since 2007 (underpinned by higher prices)

$804-million: B.C. coal exports to mainland China in 2010, (15 times more than $54-million annual average from 2003-07)

B.C. coal exports to China:

2010: $804-million

2009: $560-million

2008: $121-million

2007: $13-million

Read original article

Share

Christy Clark presses Harper over rejected Prosperity mine proposal

Mining
Share

From the Globe & Mail – March 16, 2011

by Ian Bailey & Justine Hunter

Premier Christy Clark has put the Prosperity Mine atop her
federal-provincial agenda, pressing Prime Minister Stephen Harper in
their first meeting to get on with the project previously scuttled by
the federal regulator on environmental grounds.

Ms. Clark
indicated Tuesday she was not backing down in her bullish support for
the open-pit copper and gold mine, although that enthusiasm generated
anger from environmentalists when she laid it out during the campaign to
become leader of the BC Liberals.

Native groups have also expressed concerns about the project, which
is to be located about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake.

Going into her first caucus meeting as Premier, Ms. Clark told reporters that she advocated for the project on economic grounds.

“I
told him I’m interested in making sure we find a way to get that mine
going in British Columbia because it’s important for investment, it’s
important for jobs, for families across the province to make sure our
rural economies are really working,” she said. “So we talked about that
and we are going to continue talking about that.”

Supporters say
the Prosperity project would be a major economic boost for a B.C. region
hard hit by a forest-sector downturn, and also create hundreds of jobs.

Mr. Harper confirmed that he met privately with Ms. Clark on Tuesday morning, but did not comment on the content of the talks.

“I
am very hopeful that we will continue to move forward in a productive
relationship,” he told reporters, following an election-style
announcement in Surrey.

He did not mention Prosperity. But an
official in the PMO later noted the Prime Minister has previously been
clear that the government has rendered a final decision regarding the
original application. But if the proponent proceeds in a manner that
respects the environmental concerns raised by the assessment, the
official said in a statement on Tuesday, Ottawa is open to assessing
that proposal.

Last year, B.C. approved the project, but Ottawa
rejected it over environmental and wildlife concerns, including the
draining of Fish Lake, once featured in a provincial tourism campaign.

Last
month, Taseko, the company that’s developing the project, submitted a
revised proposal. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has said
it is reviewing the submission.

In a statement last month, Ms.
Clark noted that she was committed to bringing the project to an
“environmentally sustainable conclusion.”

Also Tuesday, Mr. Harper
said the Tories will continue to have a strong bench of MPs in British
Columbia despite the announcement last week that cabinet minister
Stockwell Day and Chuck Strahl, as well as veteran MP John Cummins, all
from B.C., will not be running in the next election.

“We have a
great team in British Columbia and, as much as we’ll miss these strong
colleagues, we have a lot of others that are all too anxious to fill
their place, and I’ll cross bridges in terms of election when we get to
them.”

Read original article

Share

Critics question Fraser River gravel plan

Mining,
Share

From the Chilliwack Progress – March 7, 2011

By Robert Freeman

Gravel removal from the Fraser River is back in the news.

After a period of relative quiet, cancellation of a
gravel removal operation at Tranmer Bar near Chilliwack renewed the
charge by critics that gravel mining in the river is driven by
commercial interests rather than flood protection.

John Werring, a member of the Fraser River Stewardship
Gravel Committee, said he was told by B.C. government officials that the
Tranmer Bar operation was cancelled because no buyer for the gravel
could be found.

“How is it that a provincial government, with all its
resources … is not able to pull together the resources to take care of
that emergency,” said.

“If this is an emergency … call in the army,” he said.

But a spokesman at Emergency Management B.C. said the
reason for the cancellation was a request by federal fisheries for
“additional information,” which pushed the project beyond the “window”
for in-river work.

Without a completed permit, not even the government,
could go ahead and remove the gravel despite market conditions, the
spokesman told The Progress on a background basis.

Chilliwack MLA John Les, who has long pushed for gravel
removal to reduce the risk of flooding, lambasted critics for telling
the public that the government aims to prevent flooding by mining gravel
from one specific site.

He said the idea is to remove gravel from many sites
around the river reach from Hope to Abbotsford to “unplug” the river and
lower water levels.

“Many children understand, if you let (gravel build-up)
to continue, it will plug up the river … and one of these years the
inevitable will happen,” he said.

Les said the Tranmer Bar permit was completed “far too late” to allow the mining to proceed.

He said the bar has been mined before, “but this year, for whatever reason, the permit wasn’t completed by Jan. 22.”

“Everyone is concerned about the fish,” he added, but
despite several years of gravel removal operations in the Fraser, record
returns are being reported.

Werring said the Tranmer Bar is “unique habitat” for
sockeye salmon and other fish species not found in other parts of the
river. It may also be habitat for sturgeon, he said.

If the Fraser River floods next year because gravel was
not removed at Tranmer Bar this year, he said the B.C. government is
going to find itself in an embarrassing position with the “lame excuse”
that no gravel was removed because no contractor could be found.

He said he hoped the real reason for the cancellation
was the influence of the stewardship committee and others on government
officials, and will eventually lead to a long-term, multi-year plan,
agreed upon by everyone.

“We’re not opposed to gravel removal from the Fraser River, if it’s necessary for flood protection,” he said.

Meanwhile, a letter of agreement between federal
fisheries and the B.C. government on gravel removal operations expired
in March, 2009. A one-year extension was approved to March, 2010.

But no B.C. officials were available last week to explain the delay in reaching a new agreement.

Read original article

Share

B.C. may face unprecedented native unrest if rights ignored

Mining, WATER,
Share

From the Vancouver Sun – March 3, 2011

by Tex Enemark

In an article in The Sun Feb. 14, (“The Skeetchestn
say enough already”), Rich Deneault, the Skeetchestn Band chief served
notice that the way business and governments ride roughshod over native
rights in British Columbia has to come to an end, or face the
consequences, which may not be pretty.

He says, very bluntly, “In
the days ahead, those companies and agencies that have not acted
honourably will be receiving letters from us, advising them to tell
their customers to expect possible service interruptions regarding their
operations in our traditional lands. We’re writing to the six Liberal
leadership candidates to advise them as well … [to ask if] … a first
nations community should be shredded for the betterment of forest
companies, or railway companies, or energy companies, or tax revenues.”

One
might have thought that such a threatened disruption of B.C.’s economy
might have stirred some debate among the Liberal leadership candidates,
but none was noticeable. And that is too bad because I expect that Chief
Deneault’s impatience might signal broader direct action in the native
community over the next few years.

Why, most B.C. people might
ask, has it come to this? Is there not a Treaty Commission charged with
getting modern treaties arranged with B.C.’s natives? Is not a lot of
money being spent on this by the B.C. and federal governments? Are there
not a lot of negotiators working to resolve matters?

The answer
is, of course the machinery is in place, but it is all jammed up for
lack of political mandates to actually operate, to see progress come out
of the end of the spaghetti machine. One does not have to sit around a
negotiating table for long to realize the elaborate charade taking
place. Able government negotiators stall, fiddle, obfuscate, redirect
discussion, and come up with more questions requiring answers than you
could believe existed all in the name of delay, delay, delay.

The
game is, a day of delay is another day the governments do not have to
pay for anything more than airfare and hotel rooms for negotiators,
another day of the native groups going further into debt to stay in the
game, another day of hopelessness for most on-reserve Indians and
another day B.C. and Canada avoid actually choosing to make difficult
choices. Frankly, what is taking place these days falls far short of
meeting any test of sincerity by either government, protestations to the
contrary.

The negotiators have honed their skills in being
helpfully not helpful for, now, a generation since B.C. consented to
being brought into the modern treaty-making process after 150 years of
shameful behaviour toward its native population.

Can you imagine
how frustrating and angry one becomes, sitting around a “negotiating
table,” literally for 20 and more years and achieving, well, nothing?
All the while, you see members of your community, whom the Supreme Court
of Canada have ruled have aboriginal title to the lands and resources,
suffer Third World levels of unemployment and health outcomes, the
country’s highest suicide, crime, and substance abuse rates? You see
those who take forest and mineral wealth from lands in which you hold
rights being exploited with scant regard for your welfare; sometimes a
penny or two is dropped to claim “accommodation,” but there is no plan
and no commitment to actually address and improve native conditions by
either government.

This is not to deny that
some progress has been made by the Campbell government, because it has
shown a change of attitude and a willingness to at least begin. But for
lack of clear, strong direction from the top to the whole government
that this was a priority, and a regular rotation of ministers, little
real progress was made.

The province’s native communities are very
likely not going to be able to restrain those who would be much more
militant in the near future and it will be up to the new premier to face
this reality.

Through the regulatory processes we have seen
native obstruction doom the . Kemess For all large format and
applications Prosperity mining proj-(newspaper boxes, tents, etc.) ects
over the past six years. We see the . Enbridge Crop off tag line
pipeline if it is too small facing to the same sort be read, or too
small to print of opposition. Any number of governproperly. ment and
private-sector projects over the past few years much less newsworthy
have been ground to a halt as well.

As Chief Deneault has said,
it’s going to get worse, much worse, because r Height”between 20 the
years logo and of other almost graphic elements. no prog-ensure ress
it’s on placement most is land appropriate claims to its relative is
becoming importance. an issue around which to rally for a more militant
next generation that will look to recent events in Cairo and Benghazi
for examples of how to make change.

For premier-designate Christy
Clark, this should indeed be a top of the “in-basket” issue. It simply
has to be. That it was not addressed by any leadership candidate is a
shame. But maybe Clark will recognize this and make addressing it a lead
item in a first Throne Speech, and very clear new marching orders will
be given to officials in the aboriginal affairs, education,
attorney-general and finance ministries. Or maybe the expectations of
the coming political change that now abound in the native community will
be dashed. And if Clark is smart, she will re-assign George Abbott to
the portfolio because he has shown evidence of understanding the issues
and wanting them resolved. Sorry, George. And Premier Clark will have to
tell Ottawa that it, too, had better get serious.

But if real progress on the native file is not a Clark priority, the result could well be what Chief Deneault predicts.

And
what Deneault foresees is more than a few days of inconvenience. It
could well be provincewide. It could be a signal to all sorts of
putative investment in B.C. that maybe somewhere else is better. This is
particularly true of the mining industry, which has not been as engaged
in the issues as it should have been. If B.C. and Canada do not take
seriously the warnings of Chief Deneault and others, the damage done to
our recovering economy could be serious, and our reputation as a fair
and progressive society very much harmed.

The ball is now in the
hands of soonto-be-premier Clark. Every person in B.C. that would like
to see generations of wrongs done to B.C.’s first nations will be
watching. It will be a real test of “change.”

Tex Enemark is a
public policy consultant, a former president of the Mining Association
of BC and an adviser to the Gitxsan Treaty Society.

Read original article

Share

Otto Langer Slams John Les on Gravel Mining Comments

Mining
Share

From the Chilliwack Times – Feb 25, 2011

by Otto Langer

Editor:

I found the recent comments from MLA John Les blaming
the federal Department of Fisheries for the cancellation of this year’s
Fraser River gravel bar mining to be misguided and incorrect.

It
is unfortunate that some B.C. politicians often want to blame Ottawa
for their problems. This is nothing more than cheap politics. DFO has
unfortunately gone out of its way to cater to the Fraser River gravel
bar mining program as promoted by Mr. Les and his fellow MLA Barry
Penner under the alleged rationale of flood control.

The facts
indicate that Mr. Les’s old ministry’s office, Emergency Measures B.C.,
put in applications to mine gravel several months later than specified
in a Canada -B.C. gravel removal agreement signed in 2004. Gravel
mining can only occur from the fall into March of each year. This
agreement has been violated by the province on an annual basis and that
is not the fault of DFO. Further, this approach by the province has
almost eliminated the possibility of proper public consultation.

This
year EMBC did not apply for an environmental assessment until November
and for an authorization to destroy fish habitat until late December
2010. Their contractor, Link Construction and Aggregates, did not apply
for a permit to mine Tranmer Bar until Dec. 28, 2010. The province
then gave the public only two days to respond to that application and
that was in the middle of the Christmas break. Applications by the B.C.
government had to be in months ago and the permits were to be in place
by November 2010. Mr. Les should also comment on the low value of the
gravel that made its mining uneconomic and the fact that the government
could not find the equipment to do the job.

For John Les to
blame DFO for holding up the process by not issuing permits on time is
simply misleading. He has to assume responsibility for a misguided
program that will continue to cause great conflict and harm to the
river’s environment. The public in the Chilliwack area must hold their
politicians more accountable for what they stand for and say.

Otto E. Langer

fish biologist and aquatic ecologist

adviser to the Fraser River Gravel Stewardship Committee

Richmond

Read original article here
Share

Paul Willocks: New Plan Shows B.C. Blew it on Prosperity Mine

Mining,
Share

From the Times-Colonist – Feb 24, 2011

by Paul Willocks

The Liberal government – and would-be leader Christy Clark – are looking a little inept in the Taseko Mines affair.

They
certainly wouldn’t be a first choice if you needed someone astute to
negotiate a good deal on a used car. They’ve proven to be too quick to
believe the story about the former owner who only drove it to church on
Sundays and too willing to pay the list price without asking any
questions.

Since 1995, Taseko has been seeking approval for the
open-pit Prosperity Mine 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake. The
mine would make the company a lot of money and boost the economy, but
there would be major environmental damage and conflict with First
Nations’ interests.

The provincial government approved the project
a year ago. The environmental damage would be significant, the
provincial assessment process determined. A lake would be turned into a
big tailings dump, for example.

But the provincial review process
balances the damage against the economic benefits. Blair Lekstrom and
Barry Penner -then the mines and environment ministers -decided the jobs
from the gold and copper mine were worth the destruction.

But the project was big enough, at $800 million, that there also had to be a federal environmental review.

It
was found the mine would have “significant adverse environmental
effects on fish and fish habitat, navigation, on the current use of
lands and resources for traditional purposes by First Nations.”
Aboriginal rights and a grizzly population might be at risk.

The Harper government considered the review, decided the damage was too great and said no.

Gordon
Campbell was unhappy. So were many people in the region. The mine would
mean about 375 jobs and $20 million a year in revenue for the
provincial government. The north faces several decades of tough times
while the forests recover from the pine beetle disaster; it hurts to
give up opportunities.

The two governments took different
approaches. The federal government focused on the damage done; the
province on balancing the costs against the benefits.

They’re both
legitimate. Any major resource project -or new road or trail -brings
some environmental damage. But the provincial government’s approach
calls for competence in reaching the best balance and making sure the
company is doing all it can to address concerns.

The government, as it turns out, didn’t do that.

Because
this week, Taseko announced a new plan. Copper prices are high, the
company said. We can afford to build a tailings pond to hold the mine
waste. We don’t need to destroy the lake after all.

But companies rarely make major investment decisions based on fluctuations in commodity prices over the course of a year.

It
seems more likely Taseko thought governments would accept the cheaper,
more environmentally destructive option of using the lake as a waste
dump. That would save it $300 million -good news for shareholders.

The provincial government did accept the lake’s destruction; the federal government didn’t.

And as a result Taseko came up with a better plan.

That’s
not too surprising. Taseko forecasts it can take $3 billion worth of
gold and copper out of the mine over 20 years and produce a 40 per cent
pre-tax return. It can afford a significant capital investment. (The
public, which owns the minerals, will get about $400 million.)

It’s
reasonable to trade off the benefits and costs of development in
assessing projects. But you need a competent government able to get the
best deal for the public.

And in this case, at least, the B.C.
government failed to ensure environmental protection which, it turns
out, the company was able and willing to provide if pressed.

Enter
Christy Clark. She made the mine an issue in her leadership campaign
before Taseko unveiled its new approach. She called the federal decision
“dumb” and promised to go to Ottawa and fight for a reversal. She
backed the plan that would have -needlessly -destroyed the lake. The
environmental damage was acceptable given the benefits, Clark said.
(Stephen Harper said the project’s rejection was based on the facts and
wouldn’t be reversed based on political lobbying. The government will
review the new proposal.)

The Prosperity Mine case shows the
provincial government -not the federal government -was a poor bargainer,
too quick to buy the line that the lake had to go to make the mine
viable. Taseko has now acknowledged that’s not true.

Which, of
course, raises questions about the government’s skill in handling other
projects and industry demands for subsidies and tax and royalty breaks.

Read original article

Share

Alberni Valley Times: Rafe Mair Speaks Out vs Coal Mine

Mining, , ,
Share

From the Alberni Valley Times – Feb 21, 2011

by Heather Thomson

More than 300 people gathered at the high school to hear from outspoken radio personality Rafe Mair, and he didn’t disappoint.

The event kicked off with a video by Damien Gillis, who travels with
Mair in the Take Back Our B.C. tour. It focused on the battle being
waged in coastal communities in B.C. to fight the Enbridge pipeline.

Gillis said the idea behind their tour is to make sure people are informed.

“We decided to ramp things up to create this journal so we can reach as
many people as possible,” he said. “We want them to learn more about
the issues that are affecting their community.”

If you want more information about what Mair and Gillis are doing,
go to www.thecanadian.org. You can also check out the videos Gillis has
shot around the province.

From there the talk moved to a more local issue, the fight against opening a coal port in the Alberni Valley.

John Snyder, president of CoalWatch, asked the crowd to get involved.

“If
your vision of the Comox Valley doesn’t include a coal mine and your
Alberni Valley vision doesn’t include a coal port, it’s time to get
involved,” he said. “With your help we can stop this ill-advised
project from happening.”

He said there are a lot of maybes involved in discussions, and maybe none of the things they worry about will come true.

“Maybe we’re all just worried about nothing,” he said. “But it’s not worth the risk.”

Coal Free Alberni’s Stacey Gaiga spoke next on the issue.

She said there hasn’t been a coal mine on Vancouver Island since the 1970s, so why start now?

She
said the clear message is that coal is “toxic for the community.” That
is why she encouraged people to voice their objections.

“The next public comment period is when you will have your say,” she said. “Please submit your concerns.”

She
added that the coal port is bad for the Valley because it will damage
the roads, harm the air quality, will mean dredging the Inlet and it
goes against the official community plan that encourages tourism-based
development on the waterfront.

“It’s important that you have your say,” she said.

Mair then took to the stage, immediately taking up the issue of a defunct provincial government.

“The
government no longer has any control over what they do,” he said,
adding that the province is being run by corporations because they have
so much power over B.C.’s elected officials.

He offered the example of the falsehoods the finance minister gave on the subjects of privatization of rivers.

He said the government isn’t doing enough to save the rivers by offering public consultation.

“Not only do we have to have public involvement,” he said. “We have to have public consent.”

He said the problem is that the government isn’t being held accountable for their actions.

“There’s no criticism from the mainstream media,” he said. “We have to be our own media – circulate the message ourselves.”

He said sometimes it is frustrating fighting a battle that has no clear end.

“But
you have to be patient and fight right to the end of the road,” he
said. “You never know you’ve won until you’ve won, so you have to keep
fighting.”

He offered the same words of encouragement when referring to the battle the Alberni Valley is waging against a coal port.

As for the government, he said it’s time to kick them out.

“No
one wants to believe a government can be that stupid, but they are
because they don’t care,” he said. “We can win, we just have to join
hands for a hell of a fight that can save our beautiful province from
the government and corporation that is harming it.”

Gillis offered similar advice on the fight against the coal port. He
said it is possible to win the fight, but everyone will have to band
together to make it one the whole province cares about.

If you would like to know more about these issues go to www.thecanadian.org.

Read original article

Share

Raven Coal Mine’s Port Proposal for Alberni Valley

Mining, , ,
Share

At a recent event co-sponsored by The Common Sense Canadian, Coal Free Alberni’s Stacey Gaiga discussed the proposed coal port in her community, designed to export coal mined on the other side of Vancouver Island to Asia. If proponent Compliance Energy has its way, it will build the underground Raven Coal Mine near Fanny Bay and truck 100 loads of coal every day across the Island to Port Alberni – jeopardizing communities and ecologies along the trucking route, in Port Alberni, and in the Somass River estuary (a key salmon river) and other waterways en route to Asia.

Share

Rejected Prosperity Mine Project Makes New Bid

Mining,
Share

From CBC.ca – Feb 21, 2011

Owners of B.C.’s controversial Prosperity mine have launched a second attempt to get the $1-billion project approved.

The gold and copper mine near Williams Lake was opposed by First
Nations and ultimately failed an environmental assessment, released in
July 2010 by the federal environment ministry.

The B.C. environment ministry had already aproved the project

On Monday, Taseko Mines Ltd., of Vancouver, submitted a revised plan
for the mine that addressed the major concern of both natives and
officials — the proposed destruction of Fish Lake.

The original proposal called for the lake to be drained and turned
into a dump for toxic tailings from the mine, poisoning much of the
watershed in which it lies.

That would wipe out 90,000 rainbow trout, according to the Tsilhqot’in and Secwepemc First Nations.

The company said there was no alternative.

Metal prices up sharply

Taseko’s new proposal now would preserve Fish Lake and all its aquatic life, the company said.

What’s changed is the price of gold and copper, making it possible to
pay for a more expensive solution to the waste problem, said CEO
Russell Hallbauer.

“Price projections for copper average about $2.50 [per pound] and for
gold above $1,000 [per ounce], nearly two times the prices we used in
our original assessment,” Hallbauer said. “We are now able to consider
and advance this new design proposal which adds construction costs and
life of mine operating expenditures of approximately $300 million.”

The company said in a release Monday that the proposal greatly
reduces environmental impacts [and] preserves Fish Lake and its
aquatics.

There is no timeline for environmental approval, but Taseko said it
hoped the environmental assessment would only have to review the aspects
of the proposal that have changed.

Read original article

Share