Thanks for including the link to the report. That is very helpful.

Alarming that the report states the environmental effects of the Mount Polley tailings pond breach will occur in perpetuity (lasting forever). Also alarming that the report states; “Following the investigation into the Mount Polley disaster by an expert panel, we now know that without significant changes to the current mining practices, in British Columbia alone we can expect two tailings dam failures every 10 years.”

Are First Nations saying; “no mining in our traditional territories, or in BC”? Not at all, however they are saying; “mining operations must occur in an environmentally responsible manner”. These First Nations are not just looking after their own interests, of which 33 primary First Nations communities are in watersheds containing or downstream of tailings facilities. First Nations are looking after our collective interests, where a total of 208 cities and settlements are in watersheds containing or downstream of tailings facilities in British Columbia.

The concerns of our First Nations, regarding mining and other resource extract impacts on our environment, should be a shared concern. If we cannot, and will not, listen to our First Nations, perhaps we should be listening to our neighbours?

www. theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mount-polley-spill-taints-alaska-bc-mine-relations/article22741378/

Copy and paste the link to your address bar, then delete the space between www. and the t

Interesting report. Who wrote it?

You know what the problem is Sophic – there are just too many people in B.C. In order to support this 4.6 million population – which is expected to grow as more of Asia immigrates to the lower mainland, we’ll need an even bigger economy to keep everyone in ipads and sports cars.

And the problem with industrial activity – is it can’t be done with zero risk. This is true of mining, logging, oil and gas – doesn’t matter. Even farming causes environmental damage. Wherever humans are involved – there is risk.

And because all those products are produced world wide, and have a market price, if the cost of “zero risk” resource extraction exceeds the market price – all industry shuts down.

So just how much risk are F.N. willing to accept in exchange for a functioning economy that provides benefits not only to us, but to them as well? Because their rhetoric sounds like they want a zero risk situation, and unless we can get the rest of the world to do their resource extraction on the same basis, pretty soon we’ll all be fishing and hunting as a way of life – all 4.6 million of us.

And I wonder, do F.N. actually understand the link between resource extraction, and the government entitlements they (rightly) receive. Do they fully understand that when all industry grinds to a halt, they have to return their F150, snowmobile and quad as well?

And if we handed every resource over to them, and let them manage it – would they do it with zero risk – knowing they can’t make a buck at it?

Very well said ski51 , but our lovely society is going to jump all over you for telling it like it really is.

VERY well said Ski51, your comments reflect how most of the silent majority thinks………

Resource extraction should take place in a managed, sustainable, and evironmentally responsible, manner! This government needs to step up and act in the best interests of public safety and environmental responsibility.

ski51 asserts an all or nothing approach, which is not even reality based. Here, I will apply his argument to fossil fuels; “Oh those greenies, always taking about stopping pipelines and hugging nature. How do they get to their protest? Do they drive a car, which run on fossil fuels? Do they type on computers, which are made of petroleum based plastics? If they are against pipelines and fossil fuels, why don’t they just STOP USING all cars, and all computers.. yada, yada, yada.

Yawn… just another all or nothing scenario. Everyone knows we rely on fossil fuels, as much as everyone knows we rely on resource extraction in BC. The way forward, with respect to each, is that we gradually wean ourselves off fossil fuel energy and replace it with alternative energy sources. The way forward is not to STOP all resource extraction, but to manage it in a sustained, and responsible manner.

If we don’t, we will have “tailings pond breaches twice every ten years”. Time to step up and take some responsibility and ownership here Christy Clark government!!!

Sophic, I’m under the impression that the Mt. Polley mine development permit and tailings pond design were approved by the NDP Government. Should the members of that former Government also step up to take some responsibility and ownership?

“Resource extraction should take place in a managed, sustainable, and evironmentally responsible, manner! This government needs to step up and act in the best interests of public safety and environmental responsibility.”

Fine, I agree, but what does it mean? Does it mean 1 tailing pond every 20 years, 100 years. And you missed my bigger point – this risk is driven by our ever increasing provincial population – everyone wants a job so they can buy stuff, and the pressure will be on governments of every stripe to provide those jobs because we’re a democracy and government at the end of the day – wants to get reelected.

When I moved here 50 years ago, there was 1.5 million of us. Farms were interspersed with neighborhoods – in Surrey. Now that whole area is condos and pavement. And it’s only going to get worse. Fact is, pollution is caused by population, and the fastest growing segment of our population is FN. And they’re all going to want stuff as well.

So, pressure will be on government to increase resource activity to provide jobs to provide cash so people can buy stuff.

And weaning us off fossil fuels may help, but based on what I see in Vancouver when I visit, the concept of cycling to work isn’t catching on, even in the most bicycle friendly part of the province.

If you really want to see where the problem lies read **The Corporation as Psychopath** by Michael Jessen.

That should bring it all together for you.

Have a nice day.

The independent geotech investigation into the tailing pond breach found that it was destined for failure right from the get go because of a weak layer in the subsoil under the berm. The berm wall did not fail but the breach was caused by slipage in this weak layer.

On the matter of inspections, none of them would have found the pre existing weak layer because it is not something they look for after the thing is built. Those things should be found before a shovel hits the ground, glen clark et al . The inspections themselves are more going through the paperwork to ensure everything detailed in the permits is being done. The actual on site work is carried out under the direction of company geotech staff and firms who have the required expertise. The government inspectors may do site tours but are not involved in any way with the hands on inspections.

I too think that it was a Clark government that approved the tailing pond permit….Glen Clark to be exact. At the time he was more concerned about what color to stain his new “casino” deck and just pencil whipped the approval leaving a ticking time bomb for others to deal with.

@HG

How come @ss vanishes like a ghost whenever peeps or BH is mentioned?

Lots of generic comments about; the economy and jobs, political history (14 years ago) directed at me. However, socredible’s comment seem to be more on topic.

socredible states; “The inspections themselves are more going through the paperwork to ensure everything detailed in the permits is being done. The actual on site work is carried out under the direction of company geotech staff and firms who have the required expertise. The government inspectors may do site tours but are not involved in any way with the hands on inspections.”

Sounds just like the sawmill industry, and look what happened there!!! So why should we be surprised that Mount Polley, one of the world’s largest environmental disasters, occurred in our back yard? The fact is, resource extraction projects in BC are occurring on a massively large scale, from supermills, to mega mines. When accidents happen, they are bound to happen on a massive scale as well. IMO, our government is asleep at the wheel, and if it doesn’t wake up, more accidents are going to happen.

ski51 states; “Fine, I agree, but what does it mean? Does it mean 1 tailing pond every 20 years, 100 years.”

You should not limit your thinking to just volume, or quantity, this is not necessarily about that, think “dry stacking”. Google; “use of dry stacking in mining”.

WE ARE TALKING LIBERAL GOVT FOR the last 12 yrs. whose responsibility is to oversee the mining code is adhered too, which they have not this is why we are in this mess today. NO ONE IS saying to stop resource extraction completely you bonehead but to do it responsibly with consequences to be levied if not done properly. IT REALLY isn’t that hard to comprehend.

ice; thanks for being another voice of reason on this subject.

It would seem the alarm bells are going off across our country about the current lack of oversight in BC’s mining industry. It’s the wild, wild west when it comes to resource extraction, here in BC, folks!

www. theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-mining-development-poses-serious-risk-to-water-sources-report/article24763705/

You know what to do with the link.

Okay Sophic, I read it, and I agree, there’s very likely better ways – probably cost more, and will eat into profit margins, but end of day, if there is a way to profitably extract a resource in a more environmentally favorable method, that should be done. That’s not what they’re asking for.

The protection of entire river, lake, and wetland ecosystems from industrial activities and impacts; THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM – PROTECTED – IMPOSSIBLE. JUST THE FACT A PULPMILL HAS TO BE NEAR A RIVER MAKES THIS A NON STARTER.

Renewed focus on establishing headwater-to-mouth watershed protected areas for river systems with full complements of migratory fish to compensate for freshwater habitat and biodiversity lost and impaired in other watersheds; IF THEY GET THE FIRST ITEM, THIS IS REDUNDANT.

Protected areas that encompass watersheds and waterways to ensure rivers remain intact and hydrological flows are unimpaired; AGAIN, REDUNDANT.

Mining companies and governments to ensure that impacted communities secure lasting, long-term economic benefits that enhance community health and sustainability; THIS IS HYPOCRITICAL – IF YOU MANAGE TO FIND A WAY TO DO IT, WE WANT A SHARE OF THE CASH.

Communities and the public to be protected by funding mechanisms for unanticipated post mine-closure impacts or financial burdens for clean-up and remediation. MORE HYPOCRISY – IF YOU CLOSE YOUR MINE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER, WE WANT YOU TO FUND THE COMMUNITY FOR LOST REVENUE – IN SPITE OF THE FACT YOUR BUSINESS HAS PROBABLY FAILED.

Maybe I’m just dense, but I see this as just impractical. It’s like the weight loss diet that says you can eat whatever you want as much as you want – just can’t happen.

You quote Socredible – who I can’t find a comment on this thread – was it deleted? but he often makes the point that we’ve set up a system that requires ever increasing expanding money supply and consumption, and is ultimately unsustainable, and this is the root of the problem, ever increasing demand requires every increasing activity to meet that demand.

Ski51; most of my previous comment was in response to Sparrow’s comment, socredible was mentioned in error.

Agreed on the use of more environmentally favourable methods in resource extraction. As for the Report, it does mention protection, and protected areas, a lot doesn’t it? One has to wonder; would our First Nations be so concerned about the protection of lakes, rivers, streams and waterways, if the Harper government had not made all those changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in 2012?

Before the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act; over 2 million lakes and 8,500 rivers were protected in Canada. After the Harper government got through with it; only 97 lakes and 62 rivers remain protected in Canada. First Nations calling for the protection of rivers, lakes, streams and waterways, that were previously protected, does not seem unreasonable, or “radical” to me.

With an absence of environmental laws and acts that protect our lakes, rivers, streams, and waterways, coupled with a Provincial government that seems to be asleep at the wheel, why should we not be surprised First Nations are concerned about protection issues? Someone has to step up and take some responsibility for our environment, the mining companies won’t, and our federal and provincial government are not, so who else but First Nations to ensure some kind of protection measures are in place within their traditional territories?

I believe we are living in unprecidented times; one of the largest tailing pond spills in the world happened, and no one seems to care?! Where are we now? We are at the point where the Mining Company responsible for that mess, basically saying; oops… sorry, can we open again now?

I don’t mean to change the subject, but I had an email today from Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) that states they are going to OVERFILL the reservoir empounded by the Kenney Dam by 7.2 inches to try to minimize the flooding downstream. Do I hear bells ringing, does this sound familliar. Who is responsible for the inspections of this 60 plus year old embankment along with all the “mini” embankments that hold the water back.

So tired of hearing the reason why the breech took place was because the walls were put on an unstable base and I will call BS on this one. The wall blew out and not the base. The reason the wall blew out was because they exceeded the maximum height and the pressure of the water was too great. It is my understanding that they were warned that the wall needed more support. Take for instance a wooden rain barrel what do they do to support it? They wrap metal bands around it. The walls should have been supported with cement ,re-bar or whatever it takes. Full responsibility of this disaster rests on the shoulders of the Liberal government and the mining company.

I don’t see your comment as changing the subject poor old miner, although it is quite disconserting. Some of us who live near the Nechacko and Fraser Rivers may not sleep too well over the next few night, but what the hay, we really shouldn’t worry, we just need to trust the company and our government. What’s the worst that could happen?

Perhaps 250news could follow up with a story about your letter?

Sophic Sage:= “socredible states; “The inspections themselves are more going through the paperwork to ensure everything detailed in the permits is being done. The actual on site work is carried out under the direction of company geotech staff and firms who have the required expertise. The government inspectors may do site tours but are not involved in any way with the hands on inspections.”
—————————————————————————————–
I haven’t stated anything on this thread, Sophic, so you’ve got me confused with someone else. Or perhaps you’re just plain confused.

BTW, when we’ve done everything you ‘greenies’ advocate and reversed global warming and all its supposed deleterious effects, and we’re back on our way towards having another Ice Age, what do you supposed the effects of that are going to be? Just imagine a hundred foot high wall of glacial ice scouring everything out of its way as it creeps southwards. Consider that, and then put the tailings pond breech in perspective. If we, and all the other species of flora and fauna around today survived an Ice Age, I hardly think what happened
at Mt. Polley is going to do us all in.

Mt Polly one of the worlds largest environmental disasters! A simple google search will discount that but hey that wouldn’t be sensationalism now would it. Page or Peeps you got to get past sensationalist main stream media.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act did not remove protection, oversite and protection is still in the hands of provinces. Misinformation by you.

Sparrow seems to blame the failure on Glen Clarke. I didn’t realize he was a geotech engineer and signed off on every project at the time. What about the company that missed the underlying weak layer.

Oldman it was the weak layer that blew out from the bottom. I hear there where crop circles in the area. Rebar, did you know the Bennett dam is earth as are most of the 4000 thousand dams in BC.

Rather, seamutt, it was my simple Google search that did the opposite yesterday, and I refer to the Mount Polley tailings pond spill as one of the worst in the world, because it is!!!

Posted on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 @ 5:22 PM by seamutt
Actually Sage it is not the huge enviromental as first forecast by the irrational green blob.

If an expert said you where dying would you not consult with another expert.

Posted on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 @ 6:29 PM by Sophic Sage
@ seamutt;

http: //globalnews.ca/news/1498222/mount-polley-mine-tailings-pond-breach-is-one-of-the-worst-in-the-world-experts/

Out of shear curiosity, how does one sustainably mine a non-renewable resource? As a non-renewable, by definition it is not sustainable. Once an ore body is depleted, the mine cannot be sustained.

I am a proponent of resource extraction. It’s a way of life in Canada and BC. First Nations did it in their own ways before Europeans came here, and history says they did not use sustainable practices which was part of the reason for being nomadic cultures. If we examine Canada’s (and BC’s) record for environmental management of resource extractive industries, we do a pretty good job compared to other major jurisdictions like Africa, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, etc. We can still improve but it has to be in small steps. Massive steps will make the Canadian/BC industries non-competitive and shift supply to less well managed jurisdictions. In effect, it does the exact opposite of intention. If we slowly champion Canadian companies to make incremental improvements in the their Canadian and International operations, it slowly shifts the world focus too.

There is a small, very vocal minority, in my opinion, that are against any kind of industrial development anywhere for any reason. There is also a similar small, very vocal minority, also in my opinion, that deeply believe that any government or corporation is inherently corrupt. I’m not convinced that these vocal minorities are correct nor, if there was overriding evidence that they were incorrect, would they change their opinions anyway. Unfortunately, I believe their loudness of messaging and methods have spilled over into the more moderate large majority opinion and tarnished the ability to have real conversations that don’t become instantly polarized. If you speak to improving environmental management you’re a lunatic greenie. If you speak to supporting business, you’re a morally corrupt person that should be publicly attacked and shamed. The noise is creating problems that don’t exist and making it neigh on impossible for responsible people to have constructive conversations that lead to long term beneficial results.

Should Mt. Polly be allowed to reopen? I have no idea on the technical merits but I want it to. If we punish the company for mistakes that happened more than a decade ago and then compounded by ongoing skewed decision making processes by permanently shutting down the operation, then we have done worse than allowing them to restart as a more careful operation. We have diverted the need for their supply to other jurisdictions that may be riskier from an environmental perspective. We end up punishing ourselves which just compounds the errors that caused the failure in the first place. It’s shortsighted. If we do that, we don’t deserve to pat ourselves on the back for being an evolved society.

WOW Irritated! Very well said! The true voice of reason!!

Has “Irritated” posted here before, because his / her comment contains all the pre-requisite elements, and style, of a paid Liberal Government digital influencer? Is this our hard earned tax dollars at work here? Digital influencers are paid to attack citizens’ views online that don’t match up with the Liberal point of view, and obviously my point of view is not Christy Clark Liberal friendly.

In response to your comment; yes, there are two resources in BC that are non-renewable, minerals and fossil fuels. No scientific field study has ever captured two pieces of rock pro-creating togeather to give birth to pebbles. On this, yours is a moot point Irritated. As for your next point; “BC. First Nations did it in their own ways before Europeans came here, and history says they did not use sustainable practices which was part of the reason for being nomadic cultures.”

Sorry, First Nations nomadic culture was partly attributable to NOT staying in one place and deplete local resources, rather, moving would “lessen” their impact on local resources. May I make a correction? Semi-nomadic culture, is more accurate than your use of the term “nomadic”, as most First Nations had permanent wintering places. Ironic that I mentioned winter, as this was the other reason First Nations were semi-nomadic, pre-contact. The other reason was due to, you guessed it, the changing of the seasons which triggered the natural migration patterns of their food sources; caribou, moose, deer, salmon, etc.

Irritated states; “If we examine Canada’s (and BC’s) record for environmental management of resource extractive industries, we do a pretty good job compared to other major jurisdictions like Africa, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, etc.” Correction Irritated, we did do a pretty good job of environmental management, until the Harper government made changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, read my earlier comment on this discussion thread; posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2015 @ 5:41 PM. The resulting lack of environmental protection laws, acts, and regulations, has dropped us down to the level of the five (5) specific countries you compare Canada and BC to. But here is the real kicker Irritated, why did you not include the USA and Alaska in your comparison of environmental management quality? Refer to my comment; posted on Wednesday, June 3, 2015 @ 10:51 AM. We should all be asking ourselves this one question; why is Alaska so dammed concerned about our mining standards in British Columbia, if we are operating at such a “world class level” Irritated? I could go on, taking the rest of your comment apart, but it’s late… so until next time, because we both know there will be a next time, Good night.

Uh….Peeps. You and your many aliases on here sure make it look like its a full time paid position for you on 250 News. Where do you work Mary ? CSFS ?

All I have to say is wow. And that is why I rarely post here. The noise is just too loud.