Issues of Concern Over the proposed Prosperity Mine
RENEWING THE FIGHT TO SAVE FISH LAKE / TEZTAN BINY FROM TASEKO'S 'NEW' PROSPERITY MINETaseko Mines Ltd. is proposing once again to develop the Prosperity mine, an open pit gold and copper mine. The proposed 'New Prosperity' mine is still located in south central British Columbia, deep within the traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in Nation and approximately 125 km southwest of Williams Lake. Below is a list of reasons created by the Tsilhqot'in Nation as to why the New Prosperity bid will fail.
The New Prosperity mine’s main features include the Open Pit, Waster Rock Stockplies, Primary Crusher and overland Conveyor, the Plant site and the Tailings Storage Facilityi to be located on an alpine plateau close to the Nemaiah Valley, Ts’yl-os Provincial Park, and the ?Elegesi Qayus Wild Horse Preserve.
Significant environmental and social impacts were already considered by the Environmental Assessment Panel in the first assessment, and the mine was rejected November 2, 2010.
Now Taseko MInes Ltd. is pushing to have a second environmental assessment done, on a proposal that was rejected in the first go around as worse that the original plan. Taseko itself admitted (and the CEAA panel agreed) that what was then known as "Mine Development Plan 2" was more environmentally destructive than the plan they put forward.
But Option 2, now dubbed "New Prosperity" is being touted by Taseko Mines Ltd as an acceptable option because the price of gold and copper has increased so it can now afford to go with this plan, which supposedly saves Fish Lake. However closer inspection of Taseko's statement that not draining Fish Lake "saves" the lake shows it to be untrue. Fish Lake will be an isolated bodey of water surrounded by the second largest open pit gold and copper mine in Canada; it will be closed to First Nations (and everyone else) for 33 years. Taseko's Vice-President of Engineering has stated: "You might be able to delay [deterioration of water quality] by moving the tailings facility farther away to FIsh Cree South. You may even be able to minimize that, reduce it by mitigation measures that could be applied. But eventually that water quality will change."
Option 2/New Prosperity will destroy Little Fish Lake (Nabas), Fish Creek and significantly effect the entire Nabas region as a viable , functioning ecosystem. It will eliminate 81% of Fish Lake's trout spawning habitat. There is no mitigation mentioned as to the impact on the threatened interior dry land grizzly, nor is that possible. (This was a huge concern to the CEAA panel.)
Furthermore, at the end of the proposed life of the mine in 21 years, 50% of the gold and copper will still be in the ground, much of it under Fish Lake. At that point, Fish Lake will have to be destroyed to get at this ore, and then this will become a 33 year mine as they themselves said last year: "As commodity prices increase, as the potential pit increases, it increases out, radially out towards the lake. So that as commodity prices increase... you reach a point where you actually impact Fish Lake and you lose Fish Lake....And then maximizing the extraction of the resource, you've lost the lake." ~ Scott Jones, V.P. Engineering, TML.
The mine is in a proven rights area of the Tsilhqot'in people. Government has an obligation to protect those rights. The mine will destroy the ability of the Tsilhqot'in to exercise those rights.
British Columbia: Ten Reasons Why the New Prosperity Mine Bid Will Fail
Investors hoping to cash in on Taseko Mines Ltd’s second Prosperity Mine bid should think back a year. Despite assurances from the company and its president that it would proceed, the company’s original bid was soundly rejected by the federal government and share prices plunged. Once again, there is a proposal before the federal government’s Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the company’s president is saying he is confident it will be approved.
And once again the federal government has no choice but to reject it.
Here are 10 reasons why:
1. The company knows its new option is worse than the one that was rejected last year. Here are just two quotes that show it knows it cannot save Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) – only prolong its death throes:
``Developing Prosperity means draining Fish Lake. We wish it were otherwise. We searched hard for a different way. A way to retain the lake and have the mine. But there is no viable alternative. The lake and the deposit sit side by side. It is not possible to have one without the loss of the other.” - Brian Battison, V.P. Corporate Affairs, Taseko Mines Ltd. Opening Presentation at the CEAA Review Panel Hearings, March 22, 2010
“What happens to the water quality in Fish Lake, if you try and preserve that body of water with the tailings facility right up against it, is that over time the water quality in Fish Lake will become equivalent to the water quality in the pore water of the tailings facility, particularly when it’s close.” Scott Jones, V.P. Engineering, Taseko Mines Ltd. Panel Hearing Transcript, CEAA Reg. Doc#2253, v.29, p. 5450
2. The CEAA review panel report was not almost the same as the BC EAO rubber-stamp decision. Not even close. The CEAA review panel report found immitigable, devastating impacts to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly populations, and to the existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot’in and its youth. The problems were so serious that then Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice described the report’s findings as “scathing” and “probably the most condemning I have ever read.”
3. This is not a new proposal and does not address the issues. It is Mine Development Plan 2, which the company reject lasted year, and which the federal review panel rejected in its report: “The Panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.” Federal Review Panel Report, p. 65
4. TML states on page 20 of its new project description that it is submitting the previously rejected second alternative. Quote: “Option 2 is the basis for the New Prosperity design …The concepts that lead to the configuration of MDP Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently being proposed.”
5. The new $300 million in spending is not for previously unheard of mitigation to make this alternative acceptable. TML states in its Project Description: “The new development design, predicated on higher long term prices for both copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in capital costs of $200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the tailings dam and to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in direct extra operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task.”
6. The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect First Nations, which have been found to be under serious threat in this case, and is internationally committed to do so under the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This resubmitted plan places even more onus on the federal government to live up to these duties.
7. To approve this mine would show the EA process is meaningless, and would demonstrate that governments are ignoring their obligations - as the Assembly of First Nations made clear this summer in a national resolution of support for the Tsilhqot’in.
8. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project since it was first raised in 1995. It soundly rejected it again last year. It has no reason to support it now, nor does the Ministry the Environment, which, as the federal Panel report notes, found last year that Option 2 would be worse than the original bid.
9. In our view, the project cannot get federal approval. The question is will it be rejected on Nov. 7 when CEAA announces next steps, or will be first have to go through a pointless, costly and divisive new review.
10. Natural Resources Canada estimates there are $350 billion - $500 billion worth of potential projects on lands that involve aboriginal Title, claims and rights. It makes no sense for governments, industry and investors to back this bad, confrontational proposal and rebuff efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system.
Source: Tsilhqot’in Nation
i) Environmental Impact Statement/Application March 2009, Tassel Mines Limited, Volume 1 p.7-4 Prosperity Gold-Copper Project
