Taseko Studying Report on New Prosperity
Friday, November 1, 2013 @ 8:50 AM
Williams Lake, B.C. – Taseko Mines has issued a statement in the wake of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s 323 page report which says the proposed New Prosperity Mine’s water quality goals for Fish Lake are “not likely achievable” and there is “considerable uncertainty” about the plan for water treatment.
The report says there would be a “significant adverse effect on fish and fish habitat” in Fish (Biny) Lake, would have a negative impact on the South Chilcotin grizzly population as well as adverse effects on the Tsilhqot’in First Nation’s use of the area for traditional purposes.
In it’s official response today, Taseko Mines says the report is detailed “and we will be examining and considering its full content over the coming days.”
But the company indicates it is not giving up saying “Taseko is committed to protecting Fish Lake, and fish habitat, and we strongly disagree with the panel’s findings related to the potential impact on the water quality, fish and fish habitat of Fish Lake. Taseko will challenge these findings as they contradict best practices in place around the world today and expert opinion and analysis.”
The company is also bringing into question the matter of “fairness” during the panel process “ During the course of the panel process, Taseko expressed a number of concerns about the fairness of the process and will be reviewing the report carefully against those concerns.”
The Panel’s report is now in the hands of the Federal Minister of the Environment. It is that office that will make the final decision on whether or not this project is given the green light.
The proposed New Prosperity mine “must go ahead” says the response from Taseko because it would be “of enormous benefit to British Columbia and Canada.” The project is estimated to provide thousands of person years of employment and billions of dollars in new tax revenue.
Comments
“But the company indicates it is not giving up saying âTaseko is committed to protecting Fish Lake, and fish habitat, and we strongly disagree with the panelâs findings related to the potential impact on the water quality, fish and fish habitat of Fish Lake. “
In case you all missed it, that’s double speak for; we don’t care about the environment we just want our mine built!
Lol, Fish lake if you have ever been to the lake its pretty yes great fishing NOT, the lake is shallow and fish are soft and most covered with lice. The place is not bad for swimming on a hot day most of the fishing is done in chilco lake or chilco river or one of many other great fishing lakes in this vast area. As for the Mine effecting Grizzly bears get real those of us that have covered this Country know different. To kill this project is just crazy and only benefit those that moved to the area claiming it as there own. The fact is there are more First nations supporting the project then apposed and the Band Chief and counselors well they still collect $5ooo a month each while others get peanuts.
steph99 states; “As for the Mine effecting Grizzly bears get real those of us that have covered this Country know different.”
Umm… would you mind terribly if I was to get my facts from people and experts who’s job it is to actually study the habitat and populations of these Grizzly Bears?
One only has to scroll to the map of BC on the second page of the attached 2012 BC Grizzly Bear Population Status Report to realize Grizzly Bears are considered “threatened” in the South Chilcotin Ranges where this proposed mine is to be situated.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/archive/print_ver/plants-and animals/2012_Grizzly_Bear_Population_Status_BC.pdf
There are “opinions” and then there is the actual “facts” and “truth”!
So, no to Gas/Oil (pipelines) and now no to mining. What’s next to say no to?
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/miners+First+Nations+learn+along/8262989/story.html
Things are not as black and white as you think they are “just johnny”. The issues are much more complex than your one sentence questions on this comment board… try growing up!
Thank goodness the roads and rail infrastructure was put in place before it became a crime to carry on the lifestyle that we do. Can you imagine getting permission to build highway 97 today? fagetaboutit
This was exactly why the Dominion of Canada sought out and negotiated Treaties with First Nations going from the East to the West of Canada, so that the railway could be built and the Dominion of Canada expanded.
Too bad that treaty process stopped at Alberta and was never applied to British Columbia, only recently was a smaller portion of BC negotiated under Threat 8.
Maybe if you brushed up on our county’s history Furbink? You might learn why the relationship between BC and it;’s First Nations is so different, and at times strained than the rest of Canada!
Furbink: “Thank goodness the roads and rail infrastructure was put in place before it became a crime to carry on the lifestyle that we do. Can you imagine getting permission to build highway 97 today? fagetaboutit”
You got that right.
So just what do you support people #1? I know you most likely not answer my question as you seem to avoid inconvenient questions.
Oh I would to believe someone who is actually familiar with the area. Experts tend to show a bias to who ever signs their paycheck. Majority of climate scientists do it all the time.
“Maybe if you brushed up on our county’s history Furbink? You might learn why the relationship between BC and it;’s First Nations is so different, and at times strained than the rest of Canada!”
Perhaps, People#1, if you read my comment again you would see that I make absolutely no reference to First Nations. I am merely pointing out that the approval process, especially in this province, is so onerous that getting to go on any major project is just too daunting. If I’m looking to open a mine or expand transportation, power, other, I’m going somewhere else.
Comments for this article are closed.