BC Hydro officials and members of Premier Christy Clark and Energy Minister Bill Bennett’s offices were all involved in a coordinated attempt to discredit DeSmog Canada’s reporting on the $8.8 billion Site C hydroelectric dam, according to documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests.

The documents detail a flurry of e-mails following a DeSmog Canada story that quoted former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen saying that Site C was proceeding without due diligence, would lead to escalating hydro rate increases and was “scheduled to become a big white elephant,” a story later referenced by the New York Times.

BC Hydro officials were concerned that major B.C. media would pick up on the DeSmog Canada story, based largely on a BC Hydro progress report to the B.C. Utilities Commission. That report noted that Site C had fallen behind on four out of seven key milestones and outlined project risks and reasons why Site C had spent more money than anticipated by the end of last March, while saying that the project’s overall forecast still remained on track.

“This is expected to generate media interest,” Craig Fitzsimmons, BC Hydro’s manager of communications and issues management for Site C, flagged in e-mails to the Premier’s office and Bennett’s office, informing them that numbers in the article came from the Crown corporation’s own report.

The Premier’s office directed BC Hydro to respond to the article immediately even though it was the start of the Canada Day long weekend, a sign of the top priority Clark’s team has placed on controlling the story line on the Site C dam, the most expensive publicly funded project in B.C.’s history.

Two days later, internal Hydro e-mails show, BC Hydro CEO Jessica McDonald took aim at an opinion editorial that had been published more than one month earlier in the print and online editions of The Province newspaper.

The opinion piece was based entirely on a DeSmog Canada story published the previous day about BC Hydro’s ongoing civil law suit against some of the Peace Valley farmers and First Nations members involved in the Rocky Mountain Fort winter camp, which delayed Site C clear-cutting of a B.C. heritage site for two months. The piece quoted the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association who called the lawsuit, which seeks financial damages for BC Hydro from individuals, a matter of “grave concern” because of its potential to curtail freedom of expression.  

McDonald, saying erroneously that the opinion piece had changed a month after publication and now contained “commentary that is even more misleading than before” asked top staff if it were possible to “dust off” a one-month-old unpublished BC Hydro letter to the editor of The Province and “create a new piece that hits back.”

“I feel this is really important as we head into the Paddle for the Peace which is focused on the Boon’s property next weekend and will be very focused on stopping the federal authorizations based on our supposed unfairness,” wrote McDonald.

McDonald was referring to Ken and Arlene Boon, two of the Peace Valley farmers named in Hydro’s civil law suit, whose third-generation farmland and home were expropriated by BC Hydro in December for a Site C highway relocation. At the time the e-mail was written, BC Hydro was waiting for federal authorizations for Site C that were subsequently granted by the Trudeau government, even though First Nations leaders had requested that the permits be withheld.

According to the internal Hydro e-mails, McDonald said she wanted a statement drafted to say that information in the opinion piece was “inaccurate.” She also wanted her staff to make sure BC Hydro was “closely monitoring” some DeSmog Canada articles and to flag when there were updates.

McDonald wanted it to be made clear that BC Hydro supports freedom of expression and is taking legal action only to prevent people from physically blockading work on the project. But the documents also suggest that BC Hydro wanted to do more.

“I talked to Jessica and she would like to hit Sarah Cox hard for never contacting us for an interview on the issue, continuing to ignore our input, and then ramping up the rhetoric,” said an e-mail written by Danielle Van Huizen, a senior business advisor in McDonald’s office.

That prompted a quick reply from BC Hydro’s Site C spokesperson Dave Conway, who informed colleagues that Hydro had indeed been contacted for comment three times over a five-day period, by e-mail and phone.

Screenshots of documents obtained through Freedom of Information legislation indicating BC Hydro President Jessica McDonald would like to hit DeSmog Canada contributor Sarah Cox "hard" for her writing on Site C. 

“We will have to be careful what we write and be sure legal has a look at it,” advised Van Huizen in another email.

Two days later, BC Hydro issued a news release, approved by Bennett’s office and including text from a letter to the editor approved by the Premier’s office, saying there were “inaccuracies” in the five-week old Province opinion piece, and also saying that the piece had been “posted” more than one month later than its actual publication date.

That followed closely on the heels of a BC Hydro news release, approved by both the Premier’s office and Bennett’s office, which attempted to discredit DeSmog Canada’s story about Hydro’s progress report to the utilities commission, saying it contained “inaccurate statements.” 

BC Hydro President Jessica McDonald would like to hit DeSmog contributor Sarah Cox “hard” for her writing on #SiteC https://t.co/4GNzCYzNyG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 17, 2017

At that point, DeSmog Canada sent a registered letter to Simi Heer, Hydro’s manager of media relations and issues management, asking BC Hydro to identify any factual inaccuracies so that they could be corrected. Heer, who later left BC Hydro, did not respond to the letter, or to e-mails and a phone call. BC Hydro has never contacted DeSmog Canada directly to request any story corrections.

Dozens of pages were redacted from BC Hydro’s 1,600-page FOI response on the grounds that they “were penned for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.” Other pages, including parts of e-mails written by McDonald about the opinion piece, were redacted on the grounds that releasing the full e-mails would constitute an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The FOI documents also reveal how top officials in the Premier’s office and Bennet’s office control other media relations regarding the Site C dam, as reported by the Vancouver Sun last week based on a DeSmog Canada FOI to the Premier’s office that is now publicly available.

Construction of the Site C Dam on the Peace River. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

The Premier’s office and Bennett’s office directed the timing of various Site C announcements, including an announcement about the completion of a temporary bridge across the Peace River, which Bennett did not want BC Hydro to make too close to an April increase in hydro rates.

Both offices were also involved in the timing for an announcement about the completion of the $470 million lodge for Site C construction workers, which cost BC Hydro customers almost as much as Clark’s pre-election pledge to spend $500 million on affordable housing projects to help alleviate the Lower Mainland’s housing crisis.

The offices also vetted a BC Hydro press release, which included quotes from Clark and Bennett, announcing that a $470 million contract had been awarded to Voith Hydro Inc. to supply turbines and generators for the Site C dam.

According to Luc Bernier, a Canadian expert in Crown corporations, BC Hydro should have more independence from the government to ensure that sound decisions are being made.

Bernier said it is not unusual for governments to be kept apprised of developments on large publicly funded projects like Site C, and to control and to supervise these projects to a certain extent, because they are highly visible.

But directing day-to-day communications can lead to decisions being made for political reasons and not because they are in the best interests of the Crown corporation, said Bernier, who holds the Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management at the University of Ottawa and is the former head of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. 

“For the proper functioning of Crown corporations it should be more independent. We do put these organizations further away from politics to make sure the main reason to exist — in this case to produce electricity — is not done for political reasons.”

Public sector management expert David Zussman said the question of how independent Crown corporations should be from governments is a contentious issue right across the country.

“In recent years in particular there’s been a distancing of the Crowns from the government,” said Zussman, a former dean of the University of Ottawa’s School of Management and previous commissioner of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

“The trends today I would say are for greater independence of Crown corporations.” Hydro Quebec, for instance, is a far more independent entity than it was 30 years ago and Zussman said to the best of his knowledge it has “almost nothing to do with the government” today.

To achieve good governance, Zussman said Crown corporations “should operate independently from government on a day to day basis,” adding that what exactly that means is open to interpretation.

The FOI request to the Premier’s office also asked for e-mails and documents related to Site C’s most recent budget and timeline, but that information was not forthcoming. Fourteen pages of the response were redacted.

Screenshot of a consent order compelling BC Hydro to release documents requested by DeSmog Canada via Freedom of Information legislation.

One internal Hydro e-mail from Michael Savidant, BC Hydro’s Site C commercial manager, addressed Site C project risks outlined in Hydro’s progress report and referenced in DeSmog Canada’s story. But Savidant’s points were not included in Hydro’s news release about the story or in BC Hydro’s list of key messages, vetted by Bennett’s office, for any other media inquiries about the report.

“On the potential for cost overruns — yes if those things happen there will be cost increases,” Savidant wrote to Fitzsimmons and Chris Sandve, Bennett’s former chief of staff who is now BC Hydro’s director of policy and reporting.

“Those risks exist on any project. We disclosed them in the Business Case and at the JRP [Joint Review Panel hearings on Site C]. The key is to highlight that we have contingency to cover most items, and a project reserve to cover the rest.”

The internal e-mails also detail BC Hydro’s concerted efforts to craft messaging for any members of the media who expressed interest in following several DeSmog Canada stories about Site C, including a story about Hydro’s $175 million plan to truck at-risk bull trout upstream past the dam for 100 years when up to 40 percent of the fish are expected to perish in the dam’s turbines while migrating back downstream.

One internal Hydro document with a weekly Site C public affairs summary listed Freedom of Information requests as one of the “on-going risks” to the project. “The Project continues to get a lot of Freedom-of-Information Requests related to various issues. The FOIs can be expected to end up in the public realm, usually through media reports,” the document noted.

BC Hydro only responded to the FOI request, made last August, after a complaint was filed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) when the Crown Corporation missed a legal deadline for delivering the documents.

The commissioner issued a consent order, compelling BC Hydro to release the information.

Image: Premier Christy Clark, flanked by BC Hydro President Jessica McDonald and Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, at a Site C contract announcement. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr  (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

There are a few unarguable truths about mine tailings, the pulverized rock, water and sludge left over from mineral extraction — mining is a messy business, the leftovers have to be dealt with forever and it’s impossible to guarantee against another tailings dam failure such as the Mount Polley catastrophe.

In B.C., there are 98 tailings storage facilities at 60 metal and coal mines, of which 31 are operating or under construction and the remaining 67 are at mines that are either permanently or temporarily closed

That means communities throughout B.C. and Alaska are looking nervously at nearby tailings ponds, which sometimes more closely resemble lakes, stretching over several square kilometres, with the toxic waste held back by earth and rock-filled dams. The water is usually recycled through the plant when the mine is operating, but, after the mine closes, water, toxins and finely ground rock must continue to be contained or treated.

It’s the realization that tailings have to be treated in perpetuity that worries many of those living downstream, especially as the Mount Polley breach happened only 17 years after the dam was constructed.

“The concept of forever boggles people minds. In one thousand years is the bank account still going to be there? These people are going to be dead,” said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“There are time-bombs up there without a plan to deal with them. Are they going to be able to build a mine that’s going to keep its integrity forever?"

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

It raises the question of whether there should be any mining in an area that is vital to five species of salmon and sustains the livelihoods of so many Alaskans, said Heather Hardcastle, a Juneau fisherman and coordinator of Salmon Beyond Borders.

“This is why this region of the world is so globally significant and why we care so much,” said Hardcastle, who is among those pushing for the issue to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

Two B.C. Tailings Dams Expected to Fail Every Decade: Expert Panel

The unease is heightened by the expert panel report on the Mount Polley dam failure, which concluded that, without significant changes to current mining practices, two tailings dams could be expected to fail in B.C. every 10 years.

Karina Brino, Mining Association of B.C CEO, said the association is aiming for a zero failure rate with members committed to implementing the panel’s recommendations for best practices.

But no one controls nature, Brino warned.

“I don’t think anyone can say this will never, ever happen again. It would be irresponsible to say that, because these are man-made structures that may be affected by natural causes,” she said.

Mining experts say that, with proper management, the ponds are safe.

“Different accidents happen, but is a plane safe? There are more accidents with planes than tailings dams. It depends on how you maintain them,” said University of B.C. mining professor Marcello Veiga.

Reclamation is a long-term commitment and communities need to be reassured that there are systems in place to look after the facilities, he said

It’s a claim met with skepticism by those battling for better safeguards for watersheds and an international assessment of the new-age gold rush on the B.C./Alaska border.

“Proposed Canadian mining and energy development on several headwaters within this region pose a major threat to fisheries and local communities downstream,” says a letter from Irene Dundas, Ketchikan Indian Community council member and former president.

“Our concern about Canada’s rush to develop this extraordinary region is compounded by recent legislative initiatives that have weakened Canadian environmental assessment standards and oversight.”

Mine Inspections Have Dropped Dramatically

According to the Chief Inspector of Mines annual reports, the number of mine inspections dropped dramatically from 2,021 in 2001 to 1,496 in 2002, after the B.C. Liberals came to power. The low was 494 in 2011 and in 2013, the latest figure available, there were 904 inspections. Mount Polley had 14 inspections, the highest of all mines.

First Nations land is ground zero for many of the dams and a June report by the B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council, which looked at 35 tailings ponds in northern B.C., found that 8,678 kilometres of streams, rivers and lakes, 33 First Nations communities and 208 cities and settlements would be in the path of contaminants if those dams failed.

Copper, a common contaminant in acid rock drainage, is acutely toxic to salmon and the First Nations Mining Council is calling for protection of river, lake and wetland ecosystems from industrial activities, protection for rivers with high numbers of migratory fish and better funding for problems that might arise after a mine closes.

Red Chris, KSM Mines to Use Tailings Ponds Despite Expert Recommendation

However, in northwest B.C., the two newest mines, Red Chris and KSM, are both close to important salmon rivers that flow into Southeast Alaska and both will use tailings ponds — despite a recommendation after the Mount Polley disaster that companies look at other methods, such as dry stack tailings, a method that involves filtering out water and piling dry tailings.

Several other mine proposals in the province’s northwest also specify the use of tailings ponds. The exception is the recently approved Silvertip project, owned by JDS Silver, which will use dry stacking and underground storage, despite the extra expense.

Red Chris, owned by Imperial Metals, which also owns Mount Polley, is close to the Iskut River, in the Stikine watershed. In June, Red Chris was handed its final operating permit by the province, following an evaluation of the tailings dam.

The dam is different from Mount Polley and has no lacustrine clay layer in the foundation – something that was instrumental in the Mount Polley breach — said Energy and Mines Ministry spokesman David Haslam.

“The Red Chris tailings storage facility has been the subject of three independent reviews done to assess seepage and design considerations,” he said

The province has been assured that Red Chris and its consultants have done extensive reviews of the site’s hydrogeology and made the necessary adjustments, Haslam said.

B.C.'s Push for New Transboundary Mines 'Astonishing'

But the decision to approve the Red Chris tailings pond has horrified Alaskan groups, who call the decision ill-conceived.

It is reckless for B.C. to permit a new mine with the same type of tailings technology that failed so catastrophically at Mount Polley, said a statement from Salmon Beyond Borders and the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group.

“It’s astonishing to me how B.C. is dead set on getting these transboundary mines operating at all costs — even when their own experts say that current mining technology will fail,” said Rob Sanderson Jr., co-chair of the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group.

Seabridge Gold’s KSM mine, which will stash its tailings behind a 239-metre high dam, making it among the highest in the world, is located in the Unuk River watershed, which drains into Alaska’s Misty Fjords National Monument.

Each mine has to be looked at individually and, for some, water management of tailings continues to be sound technology, Brino said.

“Dry stack is not new technology. It has been around for a long time and it’s more appropriate for dry climates and small operations because a lot of material needs to be hauled to the site,” she said.

“B.C. has a very wet climate and most are very large tailings facilities,” she said.

One of two mines operating in Southeast Alaska, Greens Creek, an underground silver and gold mine, uses dry-stacking and Pretium’s Brucejack, an underground mine in the Unuk watershed, recently approved by the province, plans to backfill waste underground or in lakes.

The province is moving to a requirement to have all mines with tailings ponds establish Independent Tailings Dam Review Boards, something Red Chris already has in place and a requirement that will apply to KSM, Haslam said.

Some additional requirements will not apply to those two mines as they have already received environmental assessment certificates, but, any changes to the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines, following a review this summer, will also apply to Red Chris and KSM, Haslam said,

No Compensation for Downstream Losses in Case of Tailings Dam Failure

Hardcastle, looking at the risks Southeast Alaska is facing, wants B.C. to take on more of the onus with an adequate bonding mechanism.

“There’s currently no mechanism for compensation for downstream losses when pollution occurs,” she said.

Security deposits the province requires from companies to ensure reclamation have gone from $10 million in 1984 to more than $791 million by the end of 2013, according to the Chief Inspector of Mines annual report.

The province currently holds $12 million in reclamation securities for Red Chris and $19 million for Mount Polley. The securities, which will be returned only when the sites are reclaimed, may change over the life of the mining operations.

However, the securities do not include cleaning up after disasters. Imperial Metals, which last year estimated the cleanup costs for Mount Polley at $67.4 million, is raising $100 million through debentures to cover the mop-up .

That should make all Alaskans feel insecure about corporate promises, said Zimmer, who has seen companies walk away after going bankrupt.

Photo: Cariboo Regional District

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Whether it was an act of God or the fault of negligent mine operators, the cause of Mount Polley mine spill — the worst mining disaster in Canadian history — remains officially undetermined, leaving local residents in a frustrated state of limbo.

One year ago this week the Mount Polley mine tailings impoundment collapsed, sending a catastrophic 24 million cubic metres of contaminated mining waste down the Hazeltine Creek and into Quesnel Lake, a local source of drinking water and in peak years can host up to 60 per cent of the province’s sockeye salmon run.

The province of B.C. says the Mount Polley Mining Corporation, owned by Imperial Metals, is still under investigation although some fear a January report that found glacial silt responsible for the instability of the collapsed tailings pond may take culpability away from the company.

Kanahus Manuel, a local indigenous activist and member of the Secwepemc First Nation, said the province’s decision to approve a partial re-opening of the Mount Polley mine last month signals to the media and the public that the company is without blame.

“The province giving the permit to Mount Polley was very irresponsible,” she said. “Mount Polley still under investigation and they haven’t cleaned up this disaster.”

Manuel doesn’t believe the reason for the tailings pond collapse was due to the presence of glacial silt.

“According to the people who worked here at the mine it was negligence. The dam wasn’t built properly and the company was not giving workers the proper material, the rock material, they needed to stabilize it.”

“That needs to be addressed,” she said. “They’re getting away with it."

Long-term Impacts of Mount Polley Spill Unknown

Manuel said she marked the one-year anniversary of the spill at a protest at the entrance to the mine with about 100 other individuals from as far away as Vancouver and Montreal.

“It’s very distressing to us as salmon people,” Manuel added, saying local fishermen attended the gathering to feed participants salmon.

“People still have these emotions about the disaster, not knowing what the cumulative impacts and the impacts on the salmon will be in years to come.”

Manuel said she is concerned about the movement of the mining waste through the food chain. “You’ve seen it, the sediment is pulverized into tiny particles. Those are the particles that are going into the food chain and will bioaccumulate in our bodies.”

Fine waste material from the tailings pond on the author's boots, August 11, 2014. Photo: Carol Linnitt.

Sam Albers, manager at the Max Blouw Quesnel River Research Centre, is studying the long-term impacts of the spill on aquatic species and said the effects of the spill will take time to show up in the data.

Albers said the spilled material contains heavy metals like copper and selenium but some of the metals are likely still bound up in rock material. The question is how effectively the metals are dissolving in the water and how that will affect fish over the long term.

"The big concern is that copper and salmon really don't mix all that well,” he said.

"Specifically, dissolved copper and salmon don't mix well. It can get into their olfactory system — so the fish equivalent of a nose — and really mess with their ability to utilize their ecosystem properly."

Albers explained the one-year anniversary of the spill is significant for scientists collecting data, because it allows for "more comparing apples to apples."

"We can now compare August sixth data from this year to August sixth data from last year. That will help us develop that longer-term time series which is critical to being able to comment on the impacts."

Sediment-laced water can be seen flowing into Quesnel Lake at the base of the rebuilt Hazeltine Creek. Photo: Farhan Umedaly.

Fisheries biologist and local resident Richard Holmes said he is also concerned about the impact of the spill on fish species.

“I think the impacts will be long-term but we just don’t know how severe they will be,” he said.

“Especially for the fishery resources, the biggest concern for Quesnel Lake is the sockeye salmon.”

No Disaster Relief for Victims of Spill

Holmes said he is glad attention is being paid to the environmental impacts of the spill although he said he is “disappointed” the company and the province were so eager to get the mine up and running again. The Ministry of Environment approved a permit for the mine to partially restart operations in June.

Holmes said the mine and the province acted “like they’d just won the lottery.”

“I was insulted, actually.”

“They’ve forgotten completely about the social impacts and the cultural and economic impacts on the people in the community,” he said.

He added that a recent flood in Cache Creek has received much more immediate attention from the province which stepped in with disaster relief funds for the community.

“That has never been offered here,” he said.

The province did provide $50,000 to the Likely Chamber of Commerce after the spill occurred but Holmes said that amount was inadequate. “That works out to $143 per person for a year of dealing with this disaster.”

Richard Holmes near his home in Likely, B.C. Photo: Carol Linnitt

He said because the investigation into the Mount Polley spill is still ongoing, the community is struggling to stay afloat without compensation.

“The government can’t have it both ways. Either there is somebody to blame who must pay. Or if nobody is to blame then the government needs to step in,” he said.

Local eco-tourism operator Gary Zorn also expressed frustration at the lack of compensation for Likely residents and business owners.

“What’s the difference between here and what happened here and in Cache Creek?” Zorn said.

“Cache Creek has a huge disaster, a natural disaster, and the government rushes there and gives everybody there up to $300,000 and here we have a massive mining disaster and the government gives them a start up permit.”

Zorn and his wife Peggy said their eco-tourism business, which offers grizzly-watching adventures, lost hundreds of thousands of dollars the day the Mount Polley disaster occurred.

“How come the government doesn’t say, ‘hey you guys, you created some real issues here, there’s some businesses you really did dirt to, you really hurt them. You straighten that mess out too.’”

“Or is the government to blame too?" Zorn said. "I mean, what’s going on here. How do you keep passing the buck and promising lies and lies and lies?”

“Who Will Pay the Bill?”

The province is currently conducting two investigations into the Mount Polley mine spill through the Conservation Officer Service and the Chief Inspector of Mines.

“We will ensure that those responsible are held accountable,” a spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment said.

Ugo Lapointe, Canada program coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, said it doesn’t make sense to restart the mine with two investigations pending.

“The ongoing investigations could lead to serious civil and criminal charges against Imperial Metals or its contractors, which in turn could lead to severe or very costly sanctions or litigations,” Lapointe said. “This critical information should be made publicly available before even thinking of reopening the mine.”

In a video released by the province to mark the one-year anniversary of the spill, Steve Rothman, senior inspector of mines from the Ministry of Energy and Mines, said, “the province would like to see the mine back in operation and in a safe and environmentally-conscious program that takes all the workers back to work and helps support the community.” 

But Lapointe echoes the concerns of the community: “Again we seem to be repeating the same mistakes as before by prioritizing the company’s economic interests over safety and the environment. This is really about getting Imperial Metals back to profitability.”

“We are very concerned of the lack of detailed assessments of the costs and damages caused so far by this massive failure onto the local environment, communities, and businesses, as well as onto First Nations’ right and livelihoods in the area,” Lapointe said.

“Who will ultimately compensate and pay the bill for all of those damages? The persistent blanket of silence on this issue is very worrisome.”

Image Credit: The reconstructed base of the Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake. Photo: Farhan Umedaly.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Long-held perceptions of Canada as a country with strict environmental standards and B.C. as a province that values natural beauty are taking a near-fatal beating in Southeast Alaska, where many now regard Canadians as bad neighbours who are unilaterally making decisions that could threaten the region’s two major economic drivers.

Fishing and tourism — each billion-dollar industries — are the lifeblood of Southeast Alaska, where glaciers sweep down into rivers home to five species of wild salmon and massive snow-covered peaks tower over fertile wetlands.

Tourism accounts for 10,900 jobs in the Alaska Panhandle and salmon fishing employs 7,300 people.

Air and water are the only ways into communities such as Juneau, the state capital, and almost seven million hectares, or three-quarters of Southeast Alaska, are within the Tongass National Forest, where industrial activity is limited.

But, upstream, in northwest B.C., there is a new-style gold rush with an unprecedented number of applications for open-pit gold and copper mines, some made viable by construction of the Northwest Transmission Line and all requiring road access.

Alaskan politicians, tribes, fishing organizations and environmental groups have come together in a rare show of unity to condemn B.C.’s push to approve mines close to major transboundary salmon rivers, such as the Stikine, Taku and Unuk, which run from B.C. into Alaska. Tensions are running so high the groups are asking the International Joint Commission, designed to resolve Canada/U.S. water problems, to step in.

Canada is increasingly viewed as a “bad actor,” whose record — most recently illustrated by the Mount Polley mine tailings dam collapse — shows that the province’s environmental regulations and oversight is not strong enough to protect downstream communities.

“It’s the new wild west,” said Heather Hardcastle, a commercial fisherman and co-ordinator of Salmon Beyond Borders, pointing out that, even though Alaska has nothing to gain and everything to lose, Alaskans are being denied meaningful input into mine decisions.

10 Advanced Mining Projects in Northwestern B.C.

The new mines include Imperial Metals’ Red Chris, a copper and gold mine operated by the same company that owns Mount Polley, and Seabridge Gold’s massive KSM (Kerr-Sulpherets-Mitchell) mine, 30 kilometres from the U.S border and Misty Fjords National Monument, which will open up mining of the largest undeveloped gold reserve in the world. KSM has provincial and federal environmental assessment approval and is waiting for permits.

According to B.C.’s Ministry of Energy and Mines there are 10 advanced projects in the northwest corner of B.C. and numerous others in exploration phases.

Graphic: Salmon Beyond Borders

They include Kitsault (under construction), Silvertip (provincial permit granted in June), Tulsequah Chief (construction started, but project delayed), Brucejack (Mines Act permit application under review), Kutcho and Schaft Creek (both in the environmental assessment pre-application stage).

In comparison, there are only five operating mines in Alaska, of which two are in Southeast Alaska and one of which uses dry stack tailings, the method of dealing with acid-generating mine waste favoured by the expert panel that investigated the Mount Polley dam collapse.

The Canadian system appears to aim “to get to yes fast,” without consideration of other values when it comes to resource extraction, said Jev Shelton, a commercial fisherman and former member of the Pacific Salmon Commission, the joint Canadian/U.S. regulatory body designed to protect salmon stocks.

“It is certainly triggering a fair bit of anger,” Shelton said.

B.C. Moving 'Full Speed Ahead'

The pace and scale of development is huge, said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

“B.C. is going full speed ahead without any brakes. It looks as if they’re trying to move as fast as they can before Alaska puts up hurdles.”

There is growing indignation that B.C. is not listening to Alaskan concerns and that additional input, promised in May after Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett met with Alaska’s Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott, amounts to little more than window-dressing.

“We were a bit stunned by Bill Bennett giving us the table scraps and saying Alaska can come in at the final stages of permitting — they’re saying we will involve you when the final decision has been made to build the mine,” Zimmer said.

Alaskan Concerns Ignored

Gillnetter and fisheries consultant Lindsey Bloom agrees that Alaskan questions are being ignored.

“Since I started working on this issue, the disregard of Canadian officials towards us is concerning,” she said.

While Mallott and Bennett were meeting in B.C., a group of Alaskan tribal leaders, fishing industry representatives and environmental advocates met with high-level provincial government staff.

However, it was an exercise in frustration because of the lack of answers or acknowledgement of downstream concerns, according to several people who attended the meeting.

“We tried to explain we don’t want more say in the permitting process, we want something to put us on an equal footing with B.C.,” Hardcastle said.

B.C. government staff appeared to think their task was to explain the process instead of listening to concerns and suggestions, said several members of the Alaskan delegation.

Mallott, who is leading an Alaskan transboundary waters working group, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada, that, during their meeting, Bennett was amenable to the notion of more Alaskan involvement and he has been invited to Alaska to continue the conversation.

Staff who have looked at B.C.’s technical permitting and assessment of mines believe the rules in B.C. and Alaska are generally equivalent, said Mallott.

“But there are significant differences. Whether the entire range of environmental assessment and permitting is robust enough to protect both B.C. and U.S. and Alaskan interests is still something we all need to be made more comfortable with,” he said.

“We would want Alaskan officials at the table when decisions are made in such areas of permitting that it is possible that catastrophic events could take place.”

Mount Polley Tailings Dam Collapse Stokes Fears Downstream

The pace of development and the cumulative impacts of the mines in B.C. are alarming, but it is the failures that haunt Alaskans.

The image of 24-million cubic metres of mine tailings and waste water sweeping down from the Mount Polley tailings dam is etched into memories, but there are others such as the constant irritant of the ongoing acid drainage from the Tulsequah Chief mine.

“It underlines the Canadian government’s lack of commitment to what happens in the river,” said commercial fisherman Len (Pete) Peterson.

The copper and gold mine, near the confluence of the Tulsequah and Taku Rivers, has been leaking acid since Cominco stopped mining in 1957. Since 1989, there have been numerous remediation and pollution abatement orders from the B.C. government, but the leakage continues.

Earlier this year the province gave Chieftain Metals Corp., the latest owner, permission to re-open the mine and the company is currently trying to obtain financing. However, hurdles include opposition from the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. In an attempt to circumvent the problem, the company is proposing a barging system, instead of an access road, but that is likely to be a problem for Alaskan gillnetters.

At Johnny Mountain, close to the Iskut River, operations ceased in 1993 and the company attempted to burn and bury equipment. Although there has been some soil remediation, what threat remains of acid rock drainage from the underground operation is unclear.

“They shoved (the equipment) into the mountain and blew it up,” said miner Joe Bradley, who recently flew over the area.

The test of B.C.’s process is how it is carried out and the “real world” results, Zimmer said.

“Alaska understands the B.C. process. Where has it gotten us? Mount Polley disaster, Tulsequah Chief and five decades of acid mine drainage, renewed talk of Taku River barging, a total lack of involvement on the evaluation of the Red Chris mine, a denial of Alaska’s request for a KSM panel review,” Zimmer said.

Photo: Chris Zimmer

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

One of British Columbia’s most effective climate regulations is at risk.

Even though fuel providers make more profit off drivers in B.C. than anywhere else in Canada, industry is requesting the province review low-carbon fuel standards, which require vehicle fuels to become cleaner.

As energy experts recently wrote in an op-ed for the Vancouver Sun, B.C.’s policy has been effective at cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vehicles without people even noticing a change in their lifestyle.

Most British Columbians don’t even realize their fuel is becoming cleaner. By all accounts, the clean fuel rules have been a quiet success story.

And yet, those rules have come under threat.

Fuel providers in B.C. are asking the provincial government to review its ‘renewable and low-carbon fuel regulations.’

According to John Axsen, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University, some fuel providers “want the B.C. government to weaken [the policy].”

But fully one-quarter of B.C.’s recent success at reducing climate pollution is due to ramping up the use of low-carbon fuels.

In fact, each year low carbon fuels have kept roughly 900 kilotonnes of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere. This has reduced the province’s GHG impact by the equivalent of 190,499 passenger vehicles or all passenger vehicles in the city of Vancouver.

Yet, certain fuel providers claim the rules are uneconomic and are requesting the provincial government review the low-carbon policy.

B.C. pays more for fuel than anywhere else in Canada

Critics have been quick to point out the oil and gas industry is especially profitable in British Columbia:

As the chart above demonstrates, the petroleum industry makes more profit from Vancouver drivers than drivers in any other city in Canada — almost double the national average.

B.C. consumers would have saved $905 million since 2010 if oil companies in B.C. had made the Canadian average profit (for both refining and selling gasoline and diesel) according to data gathered from Statistics Canada.

Despite gaining nearly a billion dollars since 2010 in “extra” profit in B.C., industry is still lobbying against B.C.’s clean fuel rules.

According to Matt Horne, B.C. associate regional director with the Pembina Institute, a clean energy consulting and advocacy group, the province held a workshop with industry representatives around one year ago to discuss the fuel regulations.

“There were lots of concerns expressed that companies weren’t able to comply with the policy,” he said.

“To the extent I’ve looked at it, the concern as I understand it is that it’s not economic to comply with the policy.”

Horne says representatives with the province and with low-carbon fuel providers have argued the policy is in fact economic and works well as it’s intended: as a long-term strategy.

“This policy gives B.C. the ability to plan going forward. It’s a long-term policy, it has a ten-year time stamp and it has a lot of flexibility,” Horne said.

“There are lots of ways to comply with the policy as long as companies get their carbon down.”

He added B.C. has committed to the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy.

“The province made a pretty clear commitment to Washington, Oregon and California that it’s going to stay committed to its low-carbon commitment and I think it will stick to that.”

“I think Washington, Oregon and California are expecting the same,” he said.

Industry pushback

According to B.C.’s Ministry of Energy and Mines spokesperson David Haslam, “petroleum suppliers have expressed concerns regarding their ability to comply with existing standards given options currently available.”

Haslam told DeSmog Canada the review is intended to “identify how to best enable and support compliance.”

”This past spring, the province conducted a thorough consultation process to review the ability of fuel suppliers to comply with existing standards,” Haslam said, “given the options currently available for generating low-carbon fuel credits.”

He said the province will release a report and recommendations based on consultation “shortly.”

Industry can’t afford clean fuels?

The oil and gas industry in B.C. is suggesting it cannot afford low-carbon fuel rules or that such rules are unrealistic, following a pattern of pushback already seen in both Oregon and California.

In fact both the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) launched legal challenges against the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard in 2012, calling renewables “phantom fuels.”

The API even sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over a minimum renewable fuel requirement in the U.S. transportation fuel supply.

Canadian oil industry groups have also pushed back against mandatory low-carbon and renewable fuel requirements. In 2011, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) criticized the federal government’s biodiesel requirements as ‘unfeasible.’

The Canadian Fuels Association maintains “new fuel standards and specifications should be based on sound science and credible cost-benefit analyses,” indicating a strong concern with profitability for industry. When it comes to renewable fuels such as biodiesel, they state “wishful thinking will not get us there.”

It’s worth noting a full 75 per cent of the emissions avoided in B.C. due to the fuel standards resulted from the use of biofuels.

Member companies of the Canadian Fuels Association, which include Husky Energy, Imperial Oil, Shell and Chevron, overlap with both the API and AFPM, which are active in fighting low carbon and renewable fuel standards in the U.S.

Oil industry controls access to markets

Only five companies control 85 per cent of crude refining capacity in Canada. Those companies include Suncor, Imperial Oil, Irving and Shell.

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach summarizes the ways to deal with this “oil-igopoly:”

“If you want to decrease refinery margins, the only guaranteed ways to do it are by increasing the elasticity of gasoline demand through more public transit, denser communities, more flexible work environments, or by deploying alternative energy sources for means of transportation.”

This last point, “deploying alternative energy sources for … transportation,” is exactly the purpose of the clean fuel rules that are now under threat.

This summer, the B.C. government announced the province met its 2012 climate targets, reducing greenhouse gas pollution even as the economy grew — challenging claims that putting a price on carbon weakens the economy.

Overwhelming public support for clean fuels, climate action in B.C.

Luckily in B.C., good economic management and public opinion agree.

Fully 88 per cent of British Columbians support the clean fuel rule and in a succession of recent polls, a strong majority of British Columbians think hitting the province’s GHG targets is a priority and we should transition off fossil fuels to clean sources of energy.

As for the provincial government itself, not only has B.C. brought in a number of regulations to reduce the province’s contribution to climate change since 2007, it also remains committed to the western states to align carbon pricing efforts and deepen actions to address climate change, including low-carbon fuel standards.

The oil and gas industry has successfully requested the province review the low-carbon fuel standards and elected officials are scheduled to consider the review and recommendations this fall.

Industry is often successful at forcing quiet ‘technical’ changes to important regulations that weaken strong policy.

If B.C. wants to stand behind its climate commitments, it will also have to stand behind its clean fuel regulations.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.