Mining Takes Second Hit

Thursday, September 27, 2007 04:37 AM

Map shows Red Chris project and site of Kemess interests, ( map courtesy Imperial Metals)

The mining industry in B.C. has suffered two major setbacks in the past ten days.

The most recent was a ruling by the Federal Court which said the federal environmental assessment on the Red Chris mining project was “procedurally incorrect” and should be repeated. In a statement, the company, Imperial Metals, said it sees this decision as a setback for environmental review of projects in Canada by “significantly limiting the ability of federal and provincial authorities to harmonize their respective review processes and avoid costly duplication and uncertainty.”

Imperial took over the Red Chris project after buying bcMetals Corp. in February 2007 for $68.4 million.

A 2004 feasibility study on the Red Chris copper and gold property indicated a 25-year mine life at 30,000 tons per day.

Imperial said development of the Red Chris project into a mine also depended on construction of a power line to service the northwest portion of B.C.

The project located about 18 km south of Iskut in the northwest part of the province.

This ruling comes in the wake of the joint review panel recommended to Government (provincial and federal) that Northgate Minerals Kemess North project not be approved. In his address to the Denver Gold Forum, Northgate Minerals CEO and President Ken Stowe said his company will not proceed with the project. He talked of how the Joint Panel Review had made this project the “sacrifice on the altar of unresolved Land Claims in British Columbia”. It is the first time a Joint Panel has recommended a project not proceed.

With $28 million already invested in Kemess North, Stowe told the forum his company will wait to hear what the federal and provincial government’s decide, but will not take the matter to court “We are not going to spend millions of dollars of shareholders money to fight the un-winnable fight.”

Stowe suggested the decision had little to do with science, and a whole lot to do with land claims “If there had been a land claim for this area, it would have been clearer who we should have dealt with in the First Nations. I think there may have been a different result, unfortunately that isn’t the case.” He offered this advice to delegates to the forum “I think if you’re going to do a project you should probably cut a deal with the First Nations, otherwise, don’t waste your time.” Stowe also said his company will look towards developing projects in “stable jurisdictions” or in jurisdictions his company believes to be stable.

Stowe pointed out that this decision is going to mean a negative impact to a region which call ill afford to lose more industry. He informed the group that the region is already facing a significant economic challenge because of the pine beetle’s impact on forestry, and the Kemess South mine is scheduled to wind down within 5 years. “This mine (Kemess north) would have pumped $3 billion dollars into the region.”

Stowe says the decision is causing some major talk within the industry “I think this sends a strong message and its already been reverberating not only in B.C. but in Canada.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 04:37 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: pisspulper on September 27 2007 7:47 AM

Well well no suprise here. Although i try my best to be enviromentally friendly, it disturbs me to see every business interest fail in BC due to this tree hugging attitude. Is it no wonder nobody cares about the life and times of the people of the northwest? I could go on but why bother, this point has been argued to death. Now i just countdown to the day my resource based job will expire.

Posted by: northman on September 27 2007 7:53 AM

Yup its offical our govt is useless!! 3 billion bucks would have been a nice fall back when the forest industry falls on its ass.

Posted by: giterdun on September 27 2007 7:58 AM

MIGHT JUST AS WELL HAVE THE NDP BACK, THEY BLOCKED MINING ACTIVITY ALSO. THESE DECISIONS DO NOT SEND GOOD VIBES TO THE MINING COMMUNITY. MINING IS OUR WAY IN THIS PROVINCE TO WEEN OURSELVES FROM THE DOMINENT DEPENDENCY OF THE FOREST INDUSTRY. WITHOUT MINING OUR ECONOMY IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. NATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS BUSINESS INCOME AND TAX REVENUE TO SURVIVE. WITHOUT IT WE ARE DESTINED FOR ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on September 27 2007 7:58 AM

Environmental Review Panel's have been strangling resource projects in many different resource sectors for decades now. EPC is a resource dependent growth industry that has not been touched yet.

Funny thing about the Pine Beetle attack is everyone knew it was coming and when it did hit town it was a total eye opener. I wonder how long before the ERP gets hit with a beetle?

Posted by: diplomat on September 27 2007 8:08 AM

Modern technology can overcome many obstacles and reduce the detrimental impacts of mining and manufacturing on the environment by a substantial amount, but those who believe that it can be done with NO impact at all are mistaken.

NO impact means no activity at all, i.e. leaving everything in the ground and refraining from any and all industrial activities.

A no activity policy with no tolerance of any pollution/degradation ought to raise a very important question: Where the monetary wealth (dollars) is going to come from to enable transfers of money to education, healthcare, etc and land claims settlements would be a mystery.

After all, EVERY human being living in Canada expects certain basic modern conveniences to be available to everyone, like electricity, highways, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, dentists, telephones and so forth.

These can be provided only by the workings of our advanced technological age.

Or, its back to the land without any of the things we have grown accustomed to!

Stub your toe on a rock, get blood poisoning and die a painful death.

Posted by: ammonra on September 27 2007 8:20 AM

"sacrifice on the altar of unresolved Land Claims in British Columbia."

Then resolve the land claims! For years government has dragged its feet on this issue, even though the point has been made for decades that unresolved land claims stop companies from investing in projects because of a lack of stability. That is the reason Mr Stowe gives for not going ahaead with the project.

The attitude in this province is just so shortsighted and is a large part of what cripples us economically, with anti-land claim referendums, anti-land claim letters to the editor and forums like Opinion 250, insults about First Nations whenever the subject rises. Surely people can see past the end of their noses, or do they want to continue cutting them off to spite their faces, because that is what the provincial and federal governments are doing by resisting these treaties.

Posted by: diplomat on September 27 2007 8:46 AM

Ammonra: "Then resolve the land claims! "

Last time I checked it takes TWO to tango!

Posted by: Harbinger on September 27 2007 9:54 AM

Gee whiz! The trees are going down the toilet , the mining is following. What to do? I know! Let us go to Ottawa and ask if we can drill offshore. Newfies do it. Britain does it in the North Sea. In the Gulf of Mexico. Whine. Whine. Nag. Nag. Why not us? We are gonna need the dough very soon. So let us start the ball rolling by lobbying the feds. 604 cannot support us up here. That's fer sure.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on September 27 2007 10:10 AM

Resolving land claims will NOT encourage more mining development.
In fact, settling land claims will only creat NEW land claims and NEW native issues.
It will go on and on.
Under the present circumstances,the problems will continue.
Resolving the complete thought pattern of native issues in B.C. by strong leadership just might help.
Right now,the message is that B.C. is not open for new mines and you can blame the provincial government/federal government for that.
And they are going pay for that down the road.
The provincial government in particular is much too busy kissing butt for votes with no family jewels to tell it like it is.
We NEED these mines more than ever, and while nobody actually wants to circumvent sound enviromental process,that is NOT why these mines are being vetoed in many cases.
Native issues are legitimate, but the natives themselves must also develope some concern for our economy in general.
They are a part of that whether they think so or not,and blaming it on unsafe enviromental issues or traditional territories is not always the reason for lack of progress.
Nobody gets all the marbles!
We really DO need an election, and mining in B.C. needs to be a major issue!

Posted by: pisspulper on September 27 2007 11:30 AM

Well said Freeze

Posted by: REALIST on September 27 2007 11:32 AM

Interesting twist that the corporation is trying to blame the first nations when the reality is they don't want to spend the money to do the work in an environmentally sound manner. Guess what Red Chris, I'm not first nations but i think your intention to poison a lake is not acceptable. How insulting is this that this corporation is using a divide and conquer approach to gain public acceptance of their greed. Already we see posts blaming first nations for preventing this so call economic development. Those unable to see how they are being manipulated are following Red Chris's plan of getting the public riled up against 1st nations instead of the real problem; greed based resource extraction verses saving the planet for our children. Nice try corporation. the real issue here is not who thinks they own the land, but who is willing to stand up for our planet.

Posted by: netsurfer on September 27 2007 12:08 PM

Freeze, if we did get an election who would we vote for? The only choice is the Liberals or NDP

Posted by: netsurfer on September 27 2007 12:15 PM

Whoops, sorry for the poor grammer in my last post.

Posted by: diplomat on September 27 2007 12:19 PM

"Let us go to Ottawa and ask if we can drill offshore. Newfies do it. Britain does it in the North Sea. In the Gulf of Mexico. Whine. Whine. Nag. Nag. Why not us?"

Exclude the waters between the Queen Charlottes and the mainland. No exploratory drilling will be allowed, apparently. There is also an attempt to block all planned tanker traffic from and to the port of Kitimat, which is attempting to diversify its economy by building a pipeline terminal and tanker loading facility.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on September 27 2007 1:30 PM

Good point netsurfer!(unfortunately)

Posted by: nunweilerg on September 27 2007 1:32 PM

Enviormentalmania reigns in BC!

Yup the Eco's are wallowing in self hatred. They are feeling guilty because they think they are too successful as an evolutionary species. They think they deserve to be punished for this success. I see they are resorting to their trump card of the threat of offshore drilling in their desperate effort to defend themselves. Offshore drilling? I say bring it on.

Perhaps if the Environmentalists don't want to live on earth, in fear of "upsetting the balance of Nature", they should go to another planet.

It seems once you cross the Rockies heading west in Canada one encounters the likes of David Suzuki who has somehow slid off the map of reality onto the left coast of Canada. Then there is Al Gore, in his California mansion, who slid down to the left coast of USA.

Posted by: giterdun on September 27 2007 3:46 PM

IF THESE POSTS MEAM ANYTHING,THE VAST MAJORITY OF POSTERS ARE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY THROUGH MINING.... 8 IN FAVOR - 2 AGAINST. WHY ARE WE ALLOWING OURSELVES AND OUR ECONOMY TO BE CONTROLLED BY MINORITY SELF SERVING GROUPS.I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THE SILENT MAJORITY TO GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND BE HEARD.

Posted by: REALIST on September 27 2007 4:09 PM

Does the use of capitalization make up for having a small... well you know?

Posted by: northman on September 27 2007 4:18 PM

Make my vote # 9 for in Favor! No futher comments at this time.

Posted by: giterdun on September 27 2007 4:21 PM

REALIST:
THE USE OF CAPITALS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE MY FINGERS ARE TOO BIG TO HIT THE SMALL LETTER KEYS. ALSO YOUR VISION SEEMS TO BE NARROW SO I THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE BETTER LUCK READING BIG LETTERS. MY APPOLOGIES IF AM IN ERROR.

Posted by: REALIST on September 27 2007 4:48 PM

Glad to hear your fingers are big!

Posted by: northman on September 27 2007 5:12 PM

Funny how those against mining and environmental resource extraction reap the benifits from it like everyone else. Copper wire in their house, gold in the mother boards of computers and the rings they wear, steel in vehicles and gas in their tanks. Most universitys that these environmentalits study at are made out of concrete and timbers that were logged from somewhere.We are all living in this consumer resource based economy and the things we consume were extracted from the environment. I think the main thing that is happening here is the "not in my back yard" senerio. Someone some where had to sacrafice a bit of land for economic developent.

Posted by: northman on September 27 2007 7:07 PM

http://www.imperialmetals.com/s/News-2007.asp?ReportID=263034&_Type=News-Release-2007&_Title=Imperial-Reports-on-Federal-Court-Ruling-Regarding-the-Red-Chris-Project

Posted by: pisspulper on September 27 2007 7:56 PM

ok i'm seriously losing it, aren't the letter keys on keyboards the same size? ON ANOTHER NOTE, I BELIEVE WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WANT ETHICAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION PRACTICES. LETS WANDER A LITTLE DOWN THE POLLUTING PATH SHALL WE. YOU AND I AND THE REST OF THE PEASANTS PAY AN ENVIROMENTAL LEVY OR FEE EVERY TIME WE PURCHASE AN ENVIROMENTALLY OFFENSIVE SUBSTANCE. WELL IN MY INDUSTRIALIZED TOWN, I CAN'T DISPOSE OF A DAMN THING THAT I PAY THIS FEE FOR. YES I HAVE TO DRIVE 60 KMS TO DISPOSE OF MY MOTOR OIL AND ANTIFREEZE. OUR VOLUNTEER RECYCLERS DO AN EXCELENT JOB OF TAKING WHAT THEY CAN, KUDOS TO THEM. WOULD I DARE TO INSINUATE SUCH SLANDER AS "TAX GRAB"? THIS ONE I NEED HELP ON. WHY DO WE CONTINUE USING STYROFOAM AS A MAIN PACKAGING FILLER? BILLIONS OF TONS OF THIS STUFF HITS OUR LANDFILLS ANNUALLY. I'D IMAGINE THE POLLUTION FROM MANUFACTURING IS MINIMAL? TREE HUGGERS, TELL ME HOW U WANT TO SAVE THE WORLD, KEEP EVERYONE IN POVERTY SO WE CAN'T AFFORD TO POLLUTE. THIS BIG LETTER TYPING IS FAR BETTER, U SHOULD ALL TRY IT. GO FIRST NATIONS GO.

Posted by: pisspulper on September 27 2007 7:59 PM

SOMEBODY HELP ME!!! MY CAPS LOCK IS NOW STUCK ON AND I CAN'T SPELL ENVIROMENT. SEE

Posted by: Andyfreeze on September 27 2007 10:09 PM

WHY IS EVERYBODY YELLING??...jeez...

Posted by: dow7500 on September 27 2007 10:17 PM

ammonra

we had a potential first nations settlement locally that took 13 years to negotiate.(can't spell or pronouce the tribe) How that is possible with a band under 300 members only you could explain, and guess what, it was rejected by them.
The problem is not just native land claims, it is also the fact there is no incentive for first nations to settle anything when they are fully funded by government(taxpayers). These bands portray themselves as environmental stewards, yet many of us have bought illegal fish from the same natives, who were given the catch for "ceremonial purposes". The hipocracy of the first nations is sickining. Ever driven through a native village? If they showed the same passion and respect for their homes as the do for Duncan Lake, I mean Amazy, the sacred lake, their issues may have some merrit. They know how the system works, or a least their lawyers do. Like the piplines that were hoping to cross their "traditional lands", they weren't happy with a provincial and federal environmental revues, they wanted their own. Fair enough. But they want the company/ government to fund it. Who gains in this? the Indian industry and their band of lawyers and apologists like Ammonra.

Spades a spade.

dow

Posted by: ammonra on September 27 2007 11:14 PM

Yes, a spade is a spade.

I have no idea why the local First Nation declined to approve the treaty, whether internal politics or real dissasisfaction. I do understand that they may try to get another vote approved, and we will see what happens.

However, the negotiating of treaties in BC involves more than one First Nation. The Tsawwassen treaty was approved, for instance, as was the Nisga treaty. Incidentally, I am not aware that they have asked for more since it was signed, as so many posters here always assert will happen, have they?

For many years the Provincial and Federal governments limited the number of treaties that could be negotiated at one time, presumably because they did not really want to sign them. Is that still the case?

Certainly the Liberal government appear to have changed their minds about treaties since their racist referendum, but is the commitment complete? Investment problems will continue until their is certainty across BC regarding who controls specific areas, and that will only come from signed treaties, so get on with it.

I am well aware that some companies and environmental groups may use the issue for their own purposes, making excuses and blaming lack of treaties, but sooner or later the issue has got to be addressed.

It makes no difference whether people like that or not, since First Nations have the Constitution on their side, and have the right to be consulted until such time as a treaty is signed and that right is given up for a particular area. Treaties must be signed sooner or later, so we might just as well get on with it and reach the best agreements possible. At least there will then be certainty. Undoubtedly it will cost, but we just lost $2 billion economic benefit according to the article. How much would a treaty have cost?

Finally, the copper and gold is still there and can be mined at a later date. Perhaps the same or another company will consider the cost of proper treatment of mine waste as reasonable at some time in the future. I most certainly do not want another Flin Flon in BC, with its green wasteland as you enter the town from copper tailings.

Posted by: ammonra on September 27 2007 11:22 PM

I notice you had to resort to an ad hominim attack. How does wanting treaties signed and the issues resolved make me an apologist for First Nations? How precisely do I gain anything by recommending treaties be signed?

Posted by: REALIST on September 27 2007 11:55 PM

I'm all for the mine, as long as they minimize the damage to our (All Canadians) land. We need jobs but, not at the expense of the land because the corporate mining companies don't want to lose a cent to protecting what belongs to us all. I am still insulted at this corporation's deliberate attempt to blame the first nations for their troubles instead of taking responsibility for their refusal to act ethically. Inciting anger at first nations is no substitute for responsibility. Yet once again we see posts here falling for this ploy. I guess there is no sense in changing tactics if the sheep continue to swallow what they are being spoon fed.

Posted by: jonnypg on September 28 2007 12:23 AM

How come we always seem to screw things up in BC?

Posted by: dgdiggler on September 28 2007 1:20 AM

With all the money mining companies are spending, why not mine on the moon? Bet there is alot of valuable minerals there. I don't think it would be too far fetched technologically.......

Posted by: owl on September 28 2007 1:35 AM

"He offered this advice to delegates to the forum �I think if you�re going to do a project you should probably cut a deal with the First Nations, otherwise, don�t waste your time.�

He is bang on. It is, I believe what several are doing. It seems he just learned that now. I think that falls under the term "meaningful input" in the process. In order to "cut a deal" there has to be agreement on both sides to the conditions. In order for there to be agreement, ther needs to be a dialogue.

He seems to have learned the obvious. Amazing how dense some of the most successful people can be.

Just think if his company were to be left to its own devices without government oversight. Our land would be in even more of a mess.

Posted by: northman on September 28 2007 9:12 AM

Have any one of you ever been to Johansen? The mess the native hunting parties leave behind and what they do the wildlife is disgusting!And this is why myself and others are having a hard time into buying their story about protecting the land up there. The area in question is just like the Jasper and Banff areas. This is just a pissing match to see who gets the whole area to themselves for their personal exploitation. If the naitves claim that they are environmental stewards that they then why not apply to have it become a national park. Then it would be closed off to everything but recreation.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on September 28 2007 9:52 AM

Power and control jonnypg...power and control.