British Columbia Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett’s response to Alaskans’ growing concerns about the downstream effects of mining in BC has usually been to defend the BC mine permitting process, invite more Alaskan participation in the process and then accuse Alaskans of having an inadequate understanding of the BC mine review and regulatory regime.
Alaskans have rightly bristled at these statements, noting that the BC process has resulted in more than 50 years of acid mine drainage from the Tulsequah Chief and the Mount Polley tailings dam disaster. Alaskans formally asked for a federal Panel Review of the KSM mine proposal, but these requests were ignored. So, it makes sense that Alaskans do not trust the BC process.
And, despite Bennett’s defense of the BC process, there are clear examples of ways to do it better.
Contrast the BC process that approved the KSM mine with the ongoing mine review process of the Casino Mine in the Yukon Territories. Public comments on KSM focused on the large and complex water treatment system, safety of tailings dams, monitoring and maintenance over the very long term and contingency plans for tailings dam failures. Most of these questions are still unanswered. Requests for a more rigorous federal Panel Review were ignored.
The British Columbia environmental assessments have, to date, approved extremely large mines that even the most gung-ho resource developer has to admit will leave a toxic legacy for generations to come. Huge tailings dams are being built upstream of salmon habitat, and when those dams fail, the impacts on the salmon will be disastrous.
The Mount Polley mine tailings dam that failed in 2014 was relatively small, only 115 feet high. Then there is the proposed KSM mine in the Unuk River watershed, and its 784 foot high earthen tailings dam. Casino is proposing a 938 foot high earthen tailings dam in the southwest Yukon, situated on a tributary of the Yukon River.
The Casino Mine tailings would have to contain all the waste rock, process tailings, and process water from the project. The amount of this material is estimated at 1,044 million tons of tailings and 725 million tons of potentially reactive waste rock and overburden materials. The Casino Mine earthen tailings dam, containing all this material, would have to last forever.
The Yukon project assessors, known as the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB), recognized the complexity and the scale of the proposed Casino Mine, and bumped it up to the highest level of assessment. Called a territorial Panel Review, it will take at least 15 months to complete. Agency staff members are asking tough questions about the long-term safety of the Casino tailings dams, and the company is apparently welcoming the questions and the higher level of review.
A Panel Review has never been done before in the Yukon, which goes to show how seriously this project is being taken. The downside to these extensive YESAB reviews is that they are only recommendations.
At the end of the day, the Government can choose to accept, reject or modify the YESAB recommendations. In an extreme case YESAB could recommend that the project not proceed, but the government of the day could reject that and permit the project to move forward.
However, there is an additional level of assessment in the Yukon that is undertaken by the Yukon Water Board. This kind of Board is unique in Canada and certainly does not have an equivalent in British Columbia.
Mines use a surprisingly large amount of water, and that means they have to obtain a water license from the Yukon Water Board, which can be difficult to get. The Yukon Water Board hearings have a reputation for being rigorous. And unlike YESAB, the Yukon Water Board’s decision is quasi-judicial, and cannot be overturned by a politician.
It appears that YESAB is looking beyond just the lifespan of the actual operating mine. They are looking at the legacy the Casino Mine will leave to future generations, and the environmental risks associated with that legacy.
The Yukon has always been somewhat removed from the rest of Canada, at least geographically, and now it also appears to be distinct when it comes to environmentally assessing mines. The Yukon is setting a higher standard and BC should follow; it’s what the land and the people need.
• Lewis Rifkind is a mining analyst for Yukon Conservation Society.
