Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

B.C. rejects mine at headwaters of Skeena
B.C. rejects proposal for copper and gold mine

Only the second time in B.C. history that a mine has been denied certificate

The B.C. government has denied an environmental assessment certificate for a proposed mine for only the second time in the province's history.

The planned Morrison mine, a proposed copper and gold operation in northwest B.C., was scuttled after the government announced Monday there was concern the project could endanger salmon in the Skeena River.

Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. had proposed the mine at Morrison Lake, a 15-kilometre-long lake surrounded by Crown land near Smithers.

The lake is at the headwaters of the Skeena River, which produces the second-largest number of sockeye salmon in B.C.

"This is a part of the province that has a genetically unique species of salmon that could be put at risk," said Environment Minister Terry Lake.
Lake said there were many factors about the proposal that took him and Mines Minister Rich Coleman out of their comfort zone, including a five-square-kilometre liner of the mine's tailings pond.
"This one simply had too many risks associated with it. We didn't have a high enough confidence level to give it a 'Yes'," Lake said.

30,000 tonnes a day
Pacific Booker had planned to dig out 30,000 tonnes of copper and gold ore from the site each day over 21 years.
The proposal included a processing plant, mine facilities, sewage and waste water management facilities, explosive and fuel storage and a tailings storage facility.

The B.C. government has faced heavy pressure recently to reveal its stand on the environmental impacts of the proposed Enbridge pipeline between Alberta and B.C.


Lake said one had nothing to do with the other and each project is judged on its own merits.
"It would send a very negative message to the investor community if we were to pick things to say 'No' to just to make a point."

A federal environmental panel hasn't yet issued a decision on Pacific Booker's project, but Lake said the provincial government considers the current mine proposal finished. If the company wants to continue to pursue the mine, it would have to reapply and start the process over again with a new proposal.
"Obviously it would have to look substantially different than this one in order to provide the confidence that it could work."

First Nations concerns
Lake said several of the nearby First Nations had also raised concerns about conservation of habitat and fish in the area if the mine was approved.

The B.C. Liberals made speeding up the permitting process for new mines part of their jobs strategy announced last fall. The government said then that it had a goal of giving eight new mines the go-ahead by 2015, however, the operations were not named.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark said Monday the rejection shows the province has a rigorous environmental process.
"I hear our critics talking about how our environmental process approves everything and that's just simply not true."

The only other mine project rejected through the environmental assessment process was the $8 billion Kemess mine proposal five years ago.

© The Canadian Press, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/01/bc-mine-project-denied-certificate.html

[Sandy]

news release from the company.

http://www.pacificbooker.com/NR2012-10-01.htm

[dnibbles]

Nice! This is great news for wild salmon!

[clarki]

You know, people are quick to wax indignant online, or fire off emails or petitions of outrage, when there is a threat (real or perceived) to salmon stocks. I wonder if those same individuals will feel an equal urge to write the government a letter of thanks for this decision. Probably not... It's human nature to complain more than to show appreciation.

[Sandy]

Clarki, good point !

If we want to take back control of our combined destiny we must hold the politicians accountable; tell em when they are right and tell them when their wrong.


should point out that some years /decades ago I was heavily involved in this project, from running lines doing Geophysical surveys to logging core at the drill. I can tell you that the relatively few folk that were running or raising funds for the project had a tough time financially.

What is needed is a tenure process that identifies areas of significant risk to wildlife and graded with say a 10 closed to exploration, a 9 explore but know you have little chance , 5, 50/50 chance what can change those in balancing risk is innovation . we need the product, jobs, tax base, reasonable royalties (net smelter)we have to satisfy ways to do this in all but the extreme situations.
This way junior mining companies don't sell illegitimate shares in projects that have little or no hope, or have at least some heads up on potential proffit/investment returns warning.

thoughts??

[VAGAbond]

What is needed is a tenure process that identifies areas of significant risk to wildlife and graded with say a 10 closed to exploration, a 9 explore but know you have little chance , 5, 50/50 chance what can change those in balancing risk is innovation . we need the product, jobs, tax base, reasonable royalties (net smelter)we have to satisfy ways to do this in all but the extreme situations.
This way junior mining companies don't sell illegitimate shares in projects that have little or no hope, or have at least some heads up on potential proffit/investment returns warning.

That would be ideal but think of the cost to government and the complaining about micro-sites  that might not the a problem within a large swath of land or minerals that are not a problem.   It might not be a good idea to mine sulphurous copper ore but no problem with a pumice quarry.

Mining proponents have to maintain a realistic perspective on what is an acceptable proposal and sometimes they don't seem to.

[alwaysfishn]

Clarki, good point !

If we want to take back control of our combined destiny we must hold the politicians accountable; tell em when they are right and tell them when their wrong.


should point out that some years /decades ago I was heavily involved in this project, from running lines doing Geophysical surveys to logging core at the drill. I can tell you that the relatively few folk that were running or raising funds for the project had a tough time financially.

What is needed is a tenure process that identifies areas of significant risk to wildlife and graded with say a 10 closed to exploration, a 9 explore but know you have little chance , 5, 50/50 chance what can change those in balancing risk is innovation . we need the product, jobs, tax base, reasonable royalties (net smelter)we have to satisfy ways to do this in all but the extreme situations.
This way junior mining companies don't sell illegitimate shares in projects that have little or no hope, or have at least some heads up on potential proffit/investment returns warning.

thoughts??

Good points!  The investors in this company lost 70% of their investment when the announcement came out.   http://www.google.ca/finance?cid=694880