Keeping Watch: Prosperity Mine - May 11, 2012

Helping oppose Taseko Mines’ proposed Prosperity Mine in the Southwest Chilcotin.

Ten Reasons Why *New* Prosperity Mine Proposal Is Not Acceptable

10. Plenty of Non-Fish Mine Proposals In The Stream Already 
There are many other more worthy projects to be pursued – the vast majority of which, if not all will require working with aboriginal communities. Natural Resources Canada estimates there is $350 billion-$500 billion worth of such potential projects in Canada.  Governments, industry and investors do not need to go backwards by pushing this confrontational proposal and rebuffing efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system that would benefit everyone in the long run.

http://prosperity-mine-vs-fish-lake.blogspot.ca/2012/05/prosperity-mine-more-things-change.html

Sierra Club BC - Last Modified: Feb 21, 2012

Photo: Doug Keech, www.dougkeech.ca

Eliminating regulations for B.C.’s expanding mining projects will jeopardize water and wildlife and lead to increased community concern and conflict, Sierra Club BC warns following the B.C. budget. The government will spend $24 million to reduce the turnaround time for mineral exploration permits, but not a penny more to ensure robust environmental assessment capacity.

The budget, released February 21, earmarks $24 million to reduce the turnaround time for mineral exploration permits as the government focuses on eliminating “unnecessary regulations” for B.C.’s rapidly expanding mining sector.

“British Columbians are increasingly concerned about secure access to clean water, but this budget fast-tracks mining projects while cutting regulatory provisions that clearly exist to protect the public interest,” said Sierra Club BC Executive Director George Heyman. “There is no vision here for a sustainable economy that protects our environmental assets. Instead, we have more raw resource extraction with reduced public interest protection.”

Government’s public affairs bureau budget – at $26 million — is now three times as big as the budget for B.C.’s environmental assessment office, which has been frozen at $8.75 million despite a significant leap in proposed mining and energy projects.

“There appears to be plenty of money for the government to spin its message, but no increased funding for environmental assessment.  New mine proposals around the province, and the environmentally questionable practice of natural gas fracking, cry out for strong measures that guarantee public and community health,” said Heyman.

Notably, B.C.’s environmental assessment process gave a green-light to the controversial “Prosperity” open pit mine at Fish Lake, a mine that was later rejected by former federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice. “And now the B.C. government wants to make it even easier for mining companies to engage in controversial road-building and drilling that will only lead to community conflict and economic uncertainty around the province,” said Heyman.

Heyman also said the government’s announcement of a one-year review of B.C.’s carbon tax sends the wrong signal at a critical time when scientists say we need immediate action to slow global warming. “Real climate leadership requires long-term commitment, not a one-time gesture,” he stated. Learn more about global warming and the need for action.

Rather than starting to restore B.C.’s ailing parks system following a decade of devastating cuts, the parks budget remains static. “Investing in B.C.’s parks system would create jobs and provide B.C. families with affordable recreation activities that help children develop healthy lifestyles. If Premier Clark is serious about focusing on families, repairing our B.C. parks system would be a great place to start.”

Heyman said the B.C. government needs to follow the lead of jurisdictions like Ontario and eliminate privileged permit treatment for the mining sector by modernizing B.C.’s mineral tenure act to ensure a level playing field for all industries, and respect for community development plans and First Nations rights. Learn more.

http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work/mining-energy/spotlights/b.c.-budget-risks-water-environment

APTN National News - November 15, 2011

By Jorge Barrera
APTN National News
On Saturday afternoon, a Taseko Mines convoy of trucks and equipment was stopped by an RCMP cruiser on the gravel Nemiah Valley road in British Columbia’s interior.

Xeni Gwet’in Chief Marylin Baptiste pulled up alongside the convoy and the RCMP cruiser to inform them that the Taseko contractors and employees would not be welcome on Tsilhqot’in nation territory.

“We had discussions back and forth and the company talked to the RCMP and the RCMP talked to me and said they were agreeing to turn around,” said Baptiste, whose community is one of six that make up the Tsilhqot’in nation.

The company informed the RCMP earlier in the day that Baptiste would be waiting for the convoy and two officers from the RCMP Alexis Creek detachment went to the area to “keep the peace,” said Sgt. James Anderson.

Baptiste said she doesn’t know how the company knew she would be waiting, but Tsilhqot’in members had been keeping an eye on the company’s movements.

“I knew that their dozer sitting in Williams Lake had moved and I had every reason to believe they were on their way,” said Baptiste.

This was the second weekend in a row a Taseko convoy was turned back on Nemiah Valley road.

On Nov. 6, a Taseko convoy was stopped by Baptiste and others. The company claims in a court filing that someone threatened to set fire to the equipment.

Nemiah Valley road leads to the planned site of Taseko’s 35 square-kilometre, open-pit gold and copper Prosperity Mine project, which is about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake, B.C.

The incidents on Nemiah Valley Road could foreshadow more explosive confrontations.

Taseko has been trying for years to dig up the area for gold and copper and it has the full backing of the provincial government.

The Tsilhqot’in oppose the project and view it as a threat to their very existence.

And the RCMP is aware of the rising tensions.

“We at the Alexis Creek RCMP detachment remain neutral on this issue. We do not want to do anything to create a negative impact on our relations with our local First Nations communities,” said Anderson. “The RCMP officers in the command structure above me are well aware of the issue going on at this time.”

Taseko has since gone to B.C. court seeking a restraining order against Baptiste and other individuals that try to stop the company from entering the territory, according to a company statement.

Taseko could not be reached for comment.

The Tsilhqot’in in turn filed for a court injunction to stop Taseko from entering the territory to drill, build roads or excavate test pits until a separate court action comes to a conclusion.

The Tsilhqot’in have filed for a judicial review to quash the B.C. provincial government’s decision to give Taseko permits allowing the company to dig the pits and clear timber for roads without first consulting the First Nations whose lands would be impacted.

Baptiste said Taseko is planning to drill 59 sites and build 23 kilometres of road and trail while clearing about 1,500 cubic metres of timber.

“That is a tremendous amount in destruction of our wetlands in the territory,” said Baptiste.

Taseko says it needs to do the work to gather data for the environmental assessment it needs to present to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) which is reviewing its controversial Prosperity Mine project for a second time.

The federal cabinet rejected the Prosperity project last year after the agency concluded the project would have a devastating environmental impact on fish habitat and grizzly bear populations in the region.

Former environment minister Jim Prentice said at the time that the agency’s report was the “most condemning” he had ever seen. Prentice said the project threatened not only Fish Lake, which Taseko planned to drain, but the entire ecosystem flowing from the lake.

Prentice, however, said the company was free to try again.

The federal government recently directed the CEAA to review a second proposal from the company.

This time the company says it has no plans to drain Fish Lake, but will still destroy Little Fish Lake and parts of Fish Creek by turning them into waste dumps.

The company claims it will preserve Fish Lake and its surrounding area while also reducing the mine’s impact on grizzly bear habitat.

The company has said it would spend an additional $200 million to relocate its tailings dam and move mine waste around Fish Lake to other locations.

Fish Lake, Little Fish Creek and Little Fish Lake are at the headwaters of the Taseko River systems which is one of Canada’s main six producers of sockeye salmon. The system also supports Chinook salmon and endangered stocks of steelhead trout.

Taseko said the project will generate over $1 billion in tax revenues to federal and provincial coffers over the 20 to 30 year life-span of the mine. The company said the mine will also generate $340 million in GDP annually and create hundreds of jobs.

Taseko has been trying since the mid-1990s to get the mine approved, but has faced resistance, in particular from the federal Fisheries and Oceans department.

Baptiste said the Tsilhqot’in feel frustrated the project keeps on finding new life.

“We have tried working through the processes respectfully,” said Baptiste. “There is always this uproar about blockades or this or that, but it is not our people who are forcing that, who are choosing such action. It is the federal and provincial governments and industry that is pushing people to no other option.”

Baptiste said stopping the Prosperity project is a matter of cultural survival and honour directly linked to the Chilcotin War of 1864.

As it is today, the conflict was over gold.

Already reeling from an outbreak of smallpox spread by infected blankets sold by traders, the Tsilhqot’in fought to stop the planned construction of a toll wagon road connecting the nascent colony’s Pacific coast to the newly discovered gold fields in the interior.

The Tsilhqot’in launched a guerrilla campaign and eventually stopped the road, but it came at a high price. At least 19 European settlers were killed and six Tsilhqot’in chiefs were hanged.

“I’m getting flashbacks of 1864,” said Baptiste. “Our war leaders defended our way of life and stopped a road crew. Today, nothing has changed…I am hoping we don’t get to that point.”

Baptiste says the Tsilhqot’in will stop the mining project at all costs.

“If it weren’t for our war leaders back then, we wouldn’t be who we are,” she said. “That is our honour. We cannot allow the destruction of our land that provides for us.”

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/16/echoes-of-a-long-ago-guerrilla-war-on-nemiah-valley-road/

Council of Canadians - November 7, 2011

CBC reports this hour that, “Taseko Mines will get a second kick at the can for its gold and copper mine at Fish Lake, BC. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ordered a new federal review (late on) Monday of the company’s proposal for the New Prosperity Mine… The review panel will be a group of independent experts selected on the basis of their knowledge and expertise and appointed by the minister of the environment (Peter Kent). The assessment that (then-environment minister Jim) Prentice based his judgment (against the mine) was a comprehensive study. Those studies are conducted by CEAA staff in collaboration with environmental experts from various federal departments.”

The CEAA has never before considered a proposal that had already been turned down by a federal review panel, then modified and resubmitted. But this past June, Taseko submitted their revised plan for consideration. At that time, the Council of Canadians stated that the new plan still threatened Little Fish Lake and Fish Creek which are connected to Fish Lake. This past August, Prime Minister Harper defended the practice of allowing mines to dump their toxic tailings into freshwater lakes. He said, “Obviously, when you dig holes here you create some environmental issues and those have to be addressed, but that can’t stop development…”

On November 2, 2010, a CEAA review panel turned down Taseko’s proposal for its ‘New Prosperity’ mine given it “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 Council of Canadians had presented to that panel in on March 22, 2010 and expressed strong concerns about the danger to water systems by the project.

The Tsilhqot’in National Government, on whose land the mine would be constructed and the lakes destroyed, has consistently opposed the mine. A media just released states, “The Tsilhqot’in Nation reacted today with anger, frustration, bewilderment and disappointment to the announcement that the already rejected Prosperity Mine proposal will proceed to another review. …Tsilhqot’in National Government Tribal Chair Chief Joe Alphonse said: ‘To avoid duplication and reduce costs, CEAA must re-appoint the same review panel members.’ …Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Chief Marilyn Baptiste added: ‘The government is still required under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to reject the proposal to protect our rights.’”

MEDIA RELEASE: Tsilhqot’in Angry and Alarmed by Decision to Review dead Prosperity Mine project, Tsilhqot’in National Government, November 7, 2011

The Council of Canadians continues to stand in solidarity with the Tsilhqot’in.

Sierra Club BC - November 7, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 7, 2011

Victoria, B.C.-Ottawa’s decision to accept a repackaged Prosperity Mine
proposal for environmental review is a “disappointing and absurd” waste
of taxpayers’ money, Sierra Club BC said today.

Taseko Mines Ltd’s original proposal for a gold and copper mine near
Williams Lake was rejected last year by former federal Environment
Minister Jim Prentice, following a scathing environmental assessment
that concluded the mine would cause irreparable damage to First Nations
rights, as well as to fish stocks and at-risk grizzly populations.

“This repackaged proposal would be even more environmentally destructive
than the original proposal, according to Taseko’s own statements,” said
Sierra Club BC Executive Director George Heyman. “There is something
seriously wrong with our assessment process when a company like Taseko
can simply re-submit a mining proposal after it has been soundly
rejected. It would be a far better use of time and money to focus on
mining proposals that are more environmentally appropriate and have the
support of First Nations.”

Heyman called on the B.C. government to revoke permits it recently
granted Taseko to build 23.5 kilometers of roads and to make 59 test
pits and 18 drill holes around Fish Lake in preparation for the $1
billion mine. The proposed mine is on the traditional lands of the Xeni
Gwet’in First Nation, a member of the Tsilhqot’in National Government,
which won a court case recognizing its rights to the area and is
staunchly opposed to the mine.

“Allowing Taseko to start preparations for their toxic tailings pond
points to serious flaws in B.C.’s mining laws and a lack of due
process,” said Heyman.

Taseko’s revised project avoids draining picturesque Fish Lake, home to
80,000 rainbow trout and once featured on a B.C. tourism brochure.
Instead of the company’s original proposal to drain the lake, its
revised proposal says the lake would be surrounded by the proposed
open-pit mine, unusable for the life of the mine (up to 33 years) and,
by the company’s own admission, essentially destroyed by leaching from
nearby mine waste.

Sierra Club BC and the Tsilhqot’in National Government are calling on
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to reduce time and costs by
appointing the same panel members who examined Taseko’s original
proposal to the new review. It’s the first time a company has ever
resubmitted a reshaped proposal for federal environmental review after
it has been rejected.

-30-

Contact:
George Heyman, Sierra Club BC Executive Director: (604) 312-6595
Sarah Cox, Sierra Club BC Communications Director: (250) 812-1762

Aug 30th, 2011 by salmon guy

Salmon Guy

Figure this one out… (is this not exhausting?… and expensive for taxpayers…?)

.

you heard the one about a pig in lipstick…?

.

The controversial proposed Prosperity Gold project west of Williams Lake in BC is back into the federal Environmental Assessment process.

Last November, the federal government denied approval for this flawed open-pit mining proposal following a “scathing” (Jim Prentice — Conservative Environment Minister’s words) federal Environmental Assessment report. The report concluded that the project as proposed would have “signficiant environmental effects” and therefore should not be approved. The federal government (then a Conservative minority) agreed.

Environment Canada Nov. 2, 2010  press release:

the significant adverse environmental effects of the Prosperity project cannot be justified as it is currently proposed.”

“as it is currently proposed” is the big phrase to pay attention to here…

In short… one of the central concerns of the proposed project was turning Fish Lake (aptly named) into a mining waste and tailings facility. Taseko Mines Ltd. the Vancouver-based mining company swore up and down that without the lake for a tailings facility the project was not economically feasible. They put a $300 million price tag on the lake — as in it would cost an extra $300 million to undertake the project without having access to destroying the lake.

And this made the project economically infeasible.

Despite fierce opposition from First Nations and many others — including the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for many, many years — Taseko insisted on pushing ahead with the ‘kill-Fish Lake’ option.

_ _ _ _ _

For those not entirely familiar with this project… Taseko Mines Ltd. has been trying to push this proposed open-pit copper and gold mine for many years. A few years ago, in my own conversations with senior staff at the organization, they suggested Taseko had over $90 million invested in bringing this project to development.

Now that it has gone through two environmental assessment process — British Columbia and Canada — those costs are sure to have risen significantly.

Taseko Mines lobbied British Columbia and Canada to ensure that they were not subjected to a Joint Review Panel. The purpose of a Joint Review process is to harmonize the process and save the costs of having to do two separate Environmental Assessments.

Now why would a company not want a harmonized process? Why enter two separate processes with the added cost?

That appears to be clear when through a fast-tracked British Columbia Environmental Assessment (EA) the proposed project was approved.

This despite several important studies still not being completed. And the fact that the BC EA process still suggested that the project would have significant environmental impacts…

‘But these would be outweighed by the apparent economic benefits.’

_ _ _ _ _

Curious, that, as it is called an: “environmental” assessment”…

However, the BC EA website does suggest that the Office and process considers:

… thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects

_ _ _ _ _

Yet, if one reviews the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) website there is a much more comprehensive discussion of the benefits of “sustainable development” and there are lengthy reports describing what this means and how Canada will uphold its international commitments on this front.

To provide Canadians with high-quality federal environmental assessments that contribute to informed decision making in support of sustainable development.

The classic internationally-recognized definition of sustainable development being upheld here: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In the mid-1990s, every Canadian federal government ministry was bound by this definition and provided strategies, actions plans, and other bureaucratic drivel to meet this definition. (you know… benchmarks, accountability measures, best practices, etc.)

And so what option was the federal government left with last November when the “scathing” federal EA assessment report was tabled and not only laid out the ‘significant environmental impacts’ of killing Fish Lake and turning it into a tailings pond for mining waste but also more, as outlined in their final report:

The Panel concludes that the [Prosperity] 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.

Yeah, that does seem a bit scathing… and straight forward.

Sorry folks, Rejected. (with rubber stamp)

_ _ _ _ _ _

Now through the federal EA process many questions were asked about alternative proposals for the project. Against Taseko’s desires, they did start to rumble about other options, as opposed to killing Fish Lake — especially as commodity prices such as gold and copper started to recover from the global recession.

However, some of those options may very well have bigger impacts then the initial proposal.

And now, folks, we have “New Prosperity“.

Taseko Mines has created a fancy new PR website touting all the economic advantages of their “New” project. One can also read the “new” project summary, which includes:

…While the New Prosperity proposal does result in the loss of the 6 hectare Little Fish Lake, Little Fish Lake provides only low overwintering values (i.e., it is subject to winterkill)…

Hmmm.

I’m guessing there’s no connection between Little Fish Lake and Fish Lake…?

And, yup, i’m sure that Little fish “provides only low wintering values”…

I’m attaching a couple of images that most folks learn in elementary school:

example food web in a lake

example of mountain lake food chain

And here’s another:

Fascinating stuff, that ecology thing…

_ _ _ _ _ _

Now, I’m sure there’s no connection between the incredible run on commodity prices such as Gold and Copper over this past year? Gold now sits at record prices, copper not far off.

And somehow Taseko’s “long-term” forecasts for these metals looks so much better now, then they did two years ago.

How does that happen?

How does the “forecast” change that dramatically?

Oh wait, because its based a helluva lot more on current prices then it has anything to do with what computer models pump out. Because really, we know that economic forecasting is less accurate than weather forecasting, and even less accurate then things like modelling natural ecosystems (e.g. wild salmon returns).

So let ask the experts this… what happens when a project such as this ramps into development and commodity prices crash?

Then no lake (even Little Fish Lake), and ‘no economic benefits’.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Now, it is important to notice that the federal government (aka Conservatives) left the door wide open for Taseko to return to the consultants… er… drawing table to draft up more reports and more plans to revise their development plans…

However, even the alternatives discussed through the previous EA process will most likely still have significant environmental impacts. The new proposal (e.g. “New Prosperity”) reminds me of the old saying of putting lipstick on a pig…

And this apparent “New Prosperity” is largely based on commodity bubble prices that won’t last in a very, very fragile world economy — and still doesn’t change the fact that the ‘new prosperity’ represented in the project still poses significant adverse environmental impacts and effects.

It may be a “new” prosperity — but that’s still to the same people as before, not the local First Nations and others that still oppose the project in its “new” form.

And it’s still the “old” environmental impacts, and still the “old” economy vs. environment debate.

And most of all… it still makes a mockery of an Environmental Assessment process in BC that is still simply a BC Liberal-government kangaroo court, rubber stamping facility.

http://www.salmonguy.org/?p=4343