It wasn’t long ago that the idea of a zero-emissions electric vehicle silently cruising the streets sounded like something out of The Jetsons. According to the International Energy Agency, there are now more than seven million electric cars on the roads and there could be as many as 245 million by 2030.

But each of those cars relies on a battery to get from point A to point B. And those batteries are made with minerals like lithium, graphite, cobalt and nickel — all of which are mined. 

Mined materials are also necessary to make wind turbines and solar panels. This demand is creating something of an environmental conundrum.

Research shows that mining waste has increased more than 300 per cent in some regions in the past decade and mining is responsible for up to 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. With the push for more renewables, those numbers are set to increase. According to the World Bank and independent studies, by 2050 the energy transition is expected to increase the demand for certain minerals 30- to 800-fold.

Yet experts warn that the inevitable increase in mining activity is unsustainable under existing laws and regulations that aren’t adequate to ensure the transition to renewable energy is safe and just.

“We’re trading fossil fuel extraction for mineral extraction,” Jamie Kneen from MiningWatch Canada told The Narwhal in an interview. “We have to change the rules. Action has to be much more comprehensive and committed.”

Last November, nearly 200 experts, academics, researchers and activists from around the world met in Ottawa to discuss what it would take for mining to have a positive role in the transition to a low-carbon future. 

Here are their key recommendations, as compiled in a new report by MiningWatch Canada.

Reduce demand for energy and mined materials

The simplest way to reduce the demand for mined materials is to reduce the demand for energy. 

A reduced demand for energy is necessary to reduce the impact of mining on communities. But it’s also necessary because the earth’s mineral resources are actually finite. 

According to a 2019 report by Earthworks and the Institute for Sustainable Futures, the projected mineral demand for renewable energy would consume all of the cobalt, lithium and nickel on the planet.

That Earthworks report also found improving manufacturing efficiency and implementing recycling policies could reduce demand for certain primary minerals by up to 40 per cent.

Electric vehicles are expected to be the main drivers of the increased demand for mined metals. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

According to the MiningWatch report, battery storage for electric vehicles is projected to be the main driver of the increased demand for mined metals in the energy transition. As a result, the report said systemic changes are needed in urban design and transportation systems to “massively reduce the number of cars, not just build zero-emissions vehicles instead.”

The MiningWatch report also found the greatest opportunity to reduce the need for battery metals is to simply recycle used batteries.

Companies like Tesla are already operating in-house recycling facilities. But Kneen said industry-led initiatives are not enough and governments should be encouraging and supporting recycling initiatives.

While B.C. has created legislation to ensure 100 per cent of new vehicles sold in the province are electric by 2040, it doesn’t include rules or guidelines around recycling. 

Protect water from mining waste and disasters

The MiningWatch report stresses the importance of prioritizing environmental protection and preventing contamination and toxic mine waste disasters. 

“If lithium is the new ‘white gold,’ water is our ‘blue gold.’ It must be protected above all else,” Rodrigue Turgeon, a spokesperson for the Citizen Committee Protecting the Esker, a grassroots organization in northern Quebec, said in the report.

Landscapes in northern B.C. are littered with warnings of what can happen if mine waste is inadequately managed. 

In 2014, the Mount Polley mine spilled 24 million cubic metres of toxic waste into creeks, rivers and lakes when its tailings dam broke. And for more than 60 years, the abandoned Tulsequah Chief mine has been leaking contaminated waste water into a salmon watershed. These disasters illustrate the need for “no-go zones” — places where mining is prohibited.

Water contaminated with acid mine drainage flows into a containment pond near the Tulsequah River. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

The MiningWatch report suggests establishing participatory, community-based processes to identify no-go zones, supported by local, national and international legal frameworks.

One of the no-go zones highlighted in the report is the ocean floor, where the extraction of minerals could cause irreparable damage to ecosystems. 

Kneen said the challenge of protecting ecosystems where mining should not take place boils down to who has the final say.

“People are going to have to choose and it’s really a question of who gets to choose,” he said. “Is it the First Nation or the community? Or is it the government on behalf of society at large? Or is it just a corporate feasibility study?”

Respect Indigenous Rights and human rights

The right to say “no” to mining projects, however, is missing from most jurisdictions, including B.C. 

The report notes that, to be sustainable, mineral extraction must “require the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and the consent of local communities prior to any mining exploration or developments.”

But in B.C., the out-of-date Mineral Tenure Act allows anyone with a computer and a few dollars to stake a claim without asking permission. And even when First Nations are consulted through the environmental assessment process, a vital part of Indigenous Rights is still missing. 

Experts warn we may run out of the mined metals required to make enough solar panels to meet the growing demand. Photo: Science in HD / Unsplash

“The problem we’re having is that consent doesn’t seem to include no,” Kneen said. “There’s a clear imbalance of power. When the mining company shows up, they’ve got their teams of technical people and lawyers and what have you. And then you’ve got the community people — they’re just outgunned.”

And when environmental disaster happens, Indigenous communities are often left with devastation to the natural ecosystems they rely on for food and culture.  

“We’ve seen the disasters of Mount Polley’s massive mine waste spill and other failures worldwide grossly impacting Indigenous communities, the land and watersheds they protect,” Loretta Williams, one of the founding members of the First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining, said in the report.

The conference participants agreed that protecting basic human rights and respecting Indigenous sovereignty is vital as mining activity steadily increases. “Breaking from the pattern of colonial and capitalist exploitation has to be part of a just transition,” the report said. 

Improve government policy, regulations and legislation

Legal reforms are also going to be necessary to ensure mining activity for renewable energy doesn’t cause more environmental harm than good.

In B.C., activists and responsible mining advocates have been calling for reforms to provincial laws for decades. One of the key reforms needed, critics say, is a law that ensures the polluter pays. Mining companies are required to pay deposits to the province before extracting any minerals to cover the costs of cleanup and closure in case the company goes bankrupt. But as The Narwhal recently reported, those deposits often aren’t enough to cover cleanup costs. B.C. is short more than $1 billion for cleanup and that deficit could ultimately be shouldered by taxpayers. 

A recent poll by the BC Mining Law Reform network and Northern Confluence showed that 90 per cent of British Columbians surveyed want mining companies to be responsible for the environmental damages they cause. 

Following the Mount Polley dam failure, an independent panel reviewed the incident and presented recommendations to the government to prevent similar disasters from happening. According to a recent report by the B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council, those recommendations still haven’t been adequately addressed by the province.

And the Tulsequah Chief has shown just how challenging cleaning up and closing a mine can be. The province, despite making a commitment to clean up the long-standing environmental damage, has been hamstrung by legal restrictions caused by the bankruptcy of the mine’s owner.

Quesnel Lake was once considered one of the cleanest bodies of water in B.C. Since the Mount Polley spill, many residents fear drinking the water. Photo: Louis Bockner / The Narwhal

The MiningWatch report notes laws and government policies need to reflect the importance of minimizing social and environmental damage. “Legal protections need to be strengthened, developed and implemented to prevent harm, establish real accountability — including through supply chains — and respect Indigenous territories and governance.”  

Kneen said the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance is a significant step in the right direction. Similar to the Forest Stewardship Council, the independent organization audits mines and rates them based on social, environmental and operational benchmarks. A mine automatically fails if it doesn’t meet certain requirements, such as not using child labour. The idea is if a mine has the certification, buyers can trust that the minerals were sourced responsibly.

Manufacturers and retailers can also become members, which commits them to sourcing from certified mines. In January, BMW committed to sourcing its raw materials to produce its fleet of electric vehicles from certified mines. 

The program’s first audits have just wrapped up and while it remains to be seen how successful the program is, advocates are hopeful.

“They’re recognizing that there’s no mine in the world that’s ever going to get 100 per cent … but you work your way towards that,” Kneen said.

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.

It’s been five years since the Mount Polley tailings dam burst and spilled 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into critical salmon habitat in the Fraser River watershed, but B.C. hasn’t learned its lesson, according to a new report released on Tuesday.

If another mining accident happened today, B.C. taxpayers would still be at risk of paying the clean-up bill according to the report released by the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, which calls on the B.C. government to compel mining companies to provide funds for cleanup.

“The lack of financial assurance for mining disasters is a serious policy gap in British Columbia — one that increases the risk of another Mount Polley,” said report author and economist Jason Dion. “By implementing smart financial assurance requirements, B.C. can better protect the public while still ensuring a thriving mining sector in the province.”

The cost of cleaning up B.C.’s abandoned mine sites was pegged at more than $500 million in 2016.

Financial assurance is a system of ensuring funds are available to pay for a cleanup even if a company goes bankrupt. It screens out companies that can’t afford the risk of their own projects.

British Columbia currently relies on a phased system of financial assurance, in which companies do not have to put up the full estimated clean-up cost up front; companies can rely in part on the value of the untapped commodities in the ground, an approach that is vulnerable to commodity swings, company bankruptcies and technological innovations at competing mines elsewhere in the world, Dion says.

Two tailings dam failures expected each decade under current regulations

The expert panel that reviewed the cause of the Mount Polley mine disaster warned B.C. can expect two dam failures every 10 years unless mining laws are updated. Nearly five years later, no fines and no charges have been laid against the mine’s owner Imperial Metals, which is now on precarious financial ground. One economist has estimated that British Columbians are on the hook for a $40 million clean-up bill for the Mount Polley disaster.

“B.C. has a polluter-pay policy under its Environmental Management Act, but that’s not the reality on the ground,” said Allen Edzerza of the First Nations Energy and Mining Council.

“By accepting our recommendations, the government would not only ensure that polluters pay when there are disasters, it would also reduce the risk of another Mount Polley by giving mining companies a financial incentive to reduce risk in their operations.”

The recommendations would bring the mining sector into line with other heavy industrial sectors — pipelines, offshore oil and gas production, tanker traffic and nuclear power generation — which must provide financial security against the risk of disaster, in many cases up to $1 billion, according to the report.

A June report from the First Nations Energy and Mining Council found that British Columbia does not need to reinvent the wheel in terms of mining rules. It can emulate other jurisdictions such as Quebec and the United States.

A case in point: in 2013 Quebec tabled legislation requiring all new mines to provide a guarantee sufficient to cover the estimated costs of clean up. A mining operation today must provide a financial guarantee in three separate payments in the earliest stages of mine life: 50 percent of the total amount within 90 days of mining plan approval, with two payments of 25 percent each, made on the subsequent anniversaries of approval.

‘The power exists to do it today’

These changes could be made in B.C. with a stroke of the pen, says report author Dion, a researcher at Ottawa’s Ecofiscal Commission.

“The power exists to do it today,” he says of requiring any new B.C. mine to put up a full clean-up cost with cash or other secure financial instruments. “Under this scenario, only the mines that could afford to clean themselves up would go forward, from now on. This is definitely low-hanging fruit.”

This spring, the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources confirmed it was engaging industry and First Nations on legislative changes to the Mineral Tenure Act, specifically around changes to placer mining and mineral tenure rules. In late July, a spokesperson for the ministry confirmed that there are also plans to change B.C.’s reclamation security policy this year, although details and more specific timelines were not provided.

The Quebec policy shift, part of a wider body of reforms, is noteworthy because a big multinational mining company operating in Quebec today needs to put up full clean-up costs upfront, regardless of how much money it has in the bank. Meanwhile in B.C., mining giant Teck Resources has unsecured reclamation costs of $700 million for its mines.

Tulsequah Chief mine polluting for decades

Emulating the Quebec approach could eliminate the conditions that created the fiasco at northern B.C.’s Tulsequah Chief mine. In that instance, a large company developed the mine and later sold it off, only to be taken over by a succession of small players without the means to clean it up.

The Tulsequah Chief, which has been polluting a shared Alaska-B.C. transboundary salmon river for decades, has not only strained B.C.’s reputation and relationship with Alaska, but B.C. taxpayers are now on the hook to pay for clean-up.

Water pits filled with acid mine drainage at the Tulsequah Chief mine in northwestern B.C. The mine has been discharging waste into the transboundary salmon-bearing Taku River for 60 years. Photo: Chris Miller via CSM Photos

B.C. also gives its Chief Inspector of Mines, an unelected bureaucrat appointed by the ministry, a large amount of discretion in setting the terms of financial assurance, which appears to occur on an ad hoc, mine-by-mine basis without posted guidelines. The province did not facilitate The Narwhal’s request for an interview with Herman Henning, B.C.’s new Chief Inspector of Mines. Henning’s LinkedIn page as of July 24 showed his current occupation as a “self-employed mining consultant.”

Edzerza of the First Nations Energy and Mining Council cautions that more is necessary than simply insisting on full up-front reclamation costs. Mechanisms are also needed to ensure that estimated reclamation costs reflect the real clean-up cost — including when a mine expands beyond the originally permitted size.

‘No negative effect’ from Quebec’s strengthened reclamation policy

In Quebec, political will was required to make the policy changes. Government faced criticism from a wide range of industry-related groups in the lead-up to the changes, including warnings that tougher bonding rules would make the sector internationally uncompetitive.

But more than five years later, the sky has not fallen in Quebec.

“There has been no negative effect on investment attraction,” wrote Sylvain Carrier, a spokesman for Quebec’s Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, in an email to The Narwhal. “This policy change had a positive effect on public confidence, fostering social responsibility, and on mining investment.”

Carrier says that in 2014, the year after the changes were made, total mining investment in Quebec was $2.9 billion; last year, it was more than $3.1 billion.

“We can say with reasonable confidence that [the Quebec changes] haven’t led to the kind of major crash in mining sector investment that some might have predicted when the policy was put on the table,” says Dion. “It might mean less mining investment, but given the risks and costs of remediating some of these mines, if they cannot pay their own costs down the line, that might make sense.”

Dion cites the latest Fraser Institute’s annual survey of mining companies, sent to 2,600 global mining professionals, which ranked Quebec fourth out of 83 mining jurisdictions in terms of “investment attractiveness.” British Columbia came in at number 18.

The Quebec Mining Association (Association Minière du Québec), one of the groups that cautioned about the changes in advance, declined comment for this story.

Should B.C. have a Superfund program?

One approach to paying the massive costs of future disasters, recommended in the June report from the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, is for British Columbia to create something akin to the U.S. federal government’s Superfund program.

Superfund is the name given to 1980 federal U.S./ legislation that empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up contaminated sites, forcing parties responsible to either perform cleanups or pay for government-led cleanup work.

At its outset, Superfund was funded by excise taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries, which makes it a useful model to consider for raising money to deal with future industrial disasters in B.C. Dion says it might be possible to “pool risk” across industrial sectors that are provincially regulated — for example, requiring mining and natural gas fracking companies to pay into a single disaster clean-up fund.

“We think the Superfund [approach] should be looked at closely as a model to replicate,” Edzerza said. “Because as we found out with Mount Polley, you’ve got to scramble to find funds to initially respond, and then to assess [damages] and do restoration work.”

Such an approach creates an industry-wide incentive — a sort of peer pressure — to ensure that all companies across a sector don’t let operations slip, because each company is indirectly on the hook for costs if a disaster occurs.

While this pooled risk approach is commonplace in many sectors, not a single province or territory in Canada currently uses such an approach to pay the cost of mining disasters.

— With files from Emma Gilchrist

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.

Jacinda Mack will never forget the day the tailings pond collapsed at the Mount Polley mine in her nation’s traditional territory, spilling an estimated 25 million cubic metres of contaminated waste into Quesnel Lake.

Once a source of drinking water and home to nearly a quarter of the province’s sockeye salmon, Quesnel Lake is still laden with the toxic tailings that spilled into its depths that August day in 2014. An underwater deposit of tailings, estimated to be about 600 metres long and a kilometre wide, rests on the lake’s floor where local residents worry it may be disturbed by upwelling.

For Mack, the accident marked an irrevocable change to the world she knew and transformed how she saw not only the Mount Polley mine but British Columbia, which she recognized for the first time as under siege by one of the world’s most powerful industrial forces.

At the time of the spill, the B.C. government was on a renewed mission to fast-track permits for new mines — some of which require tailings facilities many times the size of Mount Polley’s to be maintained in perpetuity.

There are lessons to be learned from the Mount Polley disaster that so far have fallen on deaf ears, Mack fears. Those who stand to learn the most from her experience are the small and mostly Indigenous communities currently being courted by mining companies across the province.

For the last several months, Mack, a member of the Xat’sull (Soda Creek) First Nation, has toured across B.C. with the Stand for Water tour, cautioning against the polished story mining companies often bring to rural towns hungry for jobs and economic activity.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: Let’s go back to 2014. Can you talk about what the Mount Polley experience was like for you?

I think for a lot of people who haven’t been to the mine site it’s hard to grasp what the spill meant, but when I heard that the dam had collapsed, I felt sick to my stomach.

I opened up a video from the scene and I was almost physically ill. I started to cry, I was just like, ‘oh my god, what are we going to do?’ ”

I knew about the heavy metals, the processing chemicals, I knew about all of the treated waste and I knew about the force behind that tailings pond and that Quesnel Lake was down below.

It was a shock. All the communities around there when that happened had an emergency meeting. People were crying and talking about it like there had been a death.

We did a ceremony there on the banks of the Quesnel River in Likely. We did a ceremony you do in a time of grief, of great loss and that’s exactly how our communities were all feeling.

An aerial view of the Mount Polley mine disaster, August 2014, shows the mine’s collapsed tailings impoundment, with waste flowing past Polley Lake and right into what was the Hazeltine Creek. Photo: Cariboo Regional District via Youtube

There was this fear of the future…this grieving of the salmon, which were returning home. This should have been the time of year for celebration when the salmon were returning. People would normally have been preparing for that.

It was the complete opposite. Everyone stopped fishing, everything stopped. We weren’t getting information, people were angry and scared and hurt.

They were fearful that nothing was going to happen, that nothing was going to change, that there would be no consequences, there would be no justice.

“Here we are almost four years later and there haven’t been any charges laid by the government.”

I think people were getting really anxious: is anything going to be done or is the mining industry so entrenched, with such deep pockets that they can have a world-wide event — everyone in the world was watching Canada, this hub of mining in the world and this supposedly cutting edge mine has this major disaster — and nothing happens from it.

It’s like, ‘wow, how does that happen?’

Q: How did that experience change your understanding of the mining industry?

I think that the industry is definitely powerful, definitely has deep pockets.

But I also think people are becoming more aware because of Mount Polley. They’re becoming more aware of those connections, more aware of those injustices and more aware of what’s in their watershed.

They saying, ‘oh hey, we’re downstream in southeast Alaska and there’s a proposal for 10 new mines in B.C. and one of them is built by the exact same company that failed at Mount Polley. Maybe we should look into this. Maybe we should be concerned. Maybe we should be asking questions and start talking to our neighbours about what their experience has been.’

That’s how I got drawn into the whole story, especially of tranboundary mines.

It started with me just sharing my experience.

Active, proposed and terminated mining projects in B.C. as of 2017. Click to enlarge. Map via the B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Q: What do you most often find yourself sharing with communities facing mining projects on their lands?

I’m driven by communities needing to be informed about these lifelong, intergenerational decisions that they’re making.

I want them to be able to go in with their eyes open about what it is they’re agreeing to because a lot of time people don’t really understand what that full long-term picture is.

I think anywhere that I’ve spoken where they have a proposed mine development, I bring up a lot of things we’ve experienced that maybe they haven’t thought of because they haven’t had a major mine development in their area before.

I say, ‘make sure you ask about how much water they’re going to use. Make sure you ask about how water is treated because they’re going to be using water that needs to be treated at some point, especially if they’re going to discharge.’

I ask, ‘what are your values around water? Do you have a long-term water plan? Do you have a land-use plan?’

I also talk about something that’s been in the news recently, which are these man camps — these several hundred men that come into the community during construction phase of a new projects and how that shifts things in a community.

There was a report out by the Firelight Group with the Lake Babine Nation and Nak’azdli Whut’en that talked about local communities having to order in 200 rape kits to prepare for a new man camp.

It’s like, wow, that’s the mitigation? Not actually stopping the violence from occurring but just to deal with it with rape kits?

“Man camps really highlight a certain power dynamic at play. You have this often small and remote Indigenous community that’s out there and you have a big project that’s coming in and you’re flooding this area with people who have no connection to this place or these people, who are there short term, who are making a lot of money in an often impoverished place.”

When you’re dealing with rape and sexualized violence in that way it also speaks to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women situation where Indigenous women aren’t valued in the same way as a non-Indigenous woman would be.

It speaks to this power dynamic, it speaks to racism, it speaks to the vulnerability of these small communities coming up against large multinational, multi-billion dollar companies.

And so it shifts your community in ways you don’t anticipate.

I think there really need to be an honest, inclusive conversation with people who are being impacted, with people who are coming forward with solutions for their communities.

Q: You’ve spoken with communities about value clashes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and how that affects the way ‘success’ is spoken about by mining companies. Can you say more about how and where you see those clashes occurring?

Well when it comes to mining I think it’s important to hear a critical voice coming from an Indigenous perspective because there are different values.

It’s getting harder and harder for us to maintain our connection with the land because there is so much development.

Especially in the Cariboo there’s so much exploration, placer mining, there’s hard rock mines and so a lot of times we’re just locked out because of these mineral tenures and licences.

It’s harder to harvest, harder to hunt. We end up going further and further.

Quesnel Lake was our last stronghold and now the lake is being poisoned more and more every day.

And just different values too around what is seen as successful like, for example, having trout survive in a tailings facility. In 2012 I went to the Taseko Gibraltar mine and that was the first time I saw trout in a tailings facility.

Their tailings pond is huge, four times larger than Mount Polley’s. You can’t see from one side to the other.

And we saw all of these massive trout. They said, ‘look at how good our water is, you know, fish are more sensitive to the changes in water than we are.’

I said, ‘well do you eat them?’ And they said, ‘oh God no. We have our tailings facility restocked on a regular basis.’

And I was like, ‘well that’s the whole point isn’t it? That we have a healthy ecosystem that everyone can benefit from?’

I felt really bad for those fish. They’re living in a waste facility to prove a point for a mine rather than being in a natural environment with an opportunity of accessing actual clean water.

Worldview differences.

Jacinda Mack in Victoria to speak with MLAs about mining reform in B.C. Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Q: Do you see government as primarily accountable in setting the stage for industry?

It’s interesting that you say government is ‘setting the stage’ for industry, because that’s what happens now and has actually created a conflict of interest for government.

By that I mean, they’re supposed to be the watchdog but they’re also promoting industry.

Then you have the issue of professional reliance coming into this where you have companies basically watching themselves, doing their own testing, doing their own analysis and reporting and saying, ‘yup, we’re following all the rules!’

Until that whole system changes we won’t see the real accountability we need in communities.

Communities need to be more involved. I think we need Indigenous guardians, having Indigenous people on the land, who know the territory, who know the laws and protocols of their own people, who are then working with government and industry.

“I truly believe if we had Indigenous guardians in our territory and we had them watching Mount Polley, I honestly believe Mount Polley never would have happened.”

Because we would have held them in compliance. We would have reported all their problems.

The mine is only going to look at when they’re there and how much they can make. Their focus is immediate, on getting their resource out as quickly as they can while the markets are good.

We need to have a whole different conversation about how the land is valued, thinking about 20 years post-closure. What will that look like?

What is the highest value we have? In two generations, how will those values be affected?

Should we be looking at cumulative impacts of all of these industries on our water sources?

I think so. I think it’s madness not to look at the cumulative impacts because you’re making decisions completely out of context.

We’re not going to do a system-wide analysis of everything that’s going into this water. It’s very thread by thread with blinders on.

It’s not sustainable and it’s creating chaos.

Q: Right now the B.C. government is reviewing its environmental permitting process for large projects like mines. Do you view this as a significant opportunity for change?

There are definitely some opportunities within the environmental assessment review to look at ways of incorporating some of those social impacts, looking at the values, updating this point of reference, instead of coming at it from the point of view of the gold rush.

Let’s take stock of where we are now: what are the breaking points?

And let’s learn from Mount Polley and how we can prevent something like this from happening again.

Mount Polley is this crisis that is being wasted in a lot of ways. How can we change things for the better?

One change that would make a huge amount of difference is addressing the free entry system. Free entry really flies in the face of supposed ‘good faith’ consultations with First Nations.

The free entry system privileges mining laws over basically any other law.

You could be in treaty negotiations and in the final stages and still getting mineral tenures that are being purchased online by whomever, who’s maybe never been in your territory but they have a credit card and an online connection.

They can just pick up a mineral licence without any conversation or relationship with anybody. It’s just crazy. Zero consultation.

With the man camps, if that’s considered in the environmental assessment process that could be addressed. And we could look beyond just scientific data and models to other situations to say, ‘how can we learn from what has already happened?’

Right now there are no financial assurances to make sure the site is being taken care of over the long-term in a way the community deems as proper.

Every mine should have a disaster response plan.

There shouldn’t be total discretion over every single mine site saying, ‘oh this mine is going to have a $14 million bond but this one is only going to have a $7 million bond.’

The financial assurances piece is really important and land-use planning is really important, so you can get ahead of the curve  — even before a project is developed, you know if a community will support a project or if they consider that a no-go zone.

That’s where you can address Indigenous rights and the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent and support the Indigenous guardians.

These things really need to be considered within the environmental assessment process.

That could change this relationship where industry is monitoring itself to really restoring and balancing that power, giving it back to communities that are impacted.

Q: Do you see Indigenous communities becoming more empowered in their negotiations with resource extraction companies?

I feel like the industry drives at this incredible pace, it’s so fast. It’s hard to keep up to a company that’s got three engineering companies employed, a whole team of lawyers, they’ve got their executives and whatever and you’re one person.

“When I was in Soda Creek I was one person in a community that didn’t receive any funding to address consultation and permitting responsibilities. I felt like a mosquito trying to hold back the tide.”

But now stepping back from the front lines and looking at it from a different perspective, I can see there is a lot of work being done by a lot of people.

There are these intersections between groups that are working to protect clean water, saying water is life.

They want government to follow through with their promises and they want there to be consequences.

We as communities and Indigenous peoples need to get in front of that conversation to say, ‘this is what we mean by Free, Prior and Informed Consent, here is our land plan, here are our guardians.’

To me that would be a really exciting future because it would be inclusive, it would be community-based. There would be more power sharing, more economic opportunity for people.

Maybe I’m utopian in my view but I feel like things would be a lot better if more people had a say and had more ownership over these decisions.

Part of the new story where we are now is talking about this new generation of Indigenous leadership coming up. I am super stoked on this new generation because they’re even stronger, smarter, faster, better than me.

Our identity is shaped by the land and now my genetic line, my children and their children will have to be dealing with the Mount Polley mine for the rest of their bloodline.

But we are not defined by this disaster, we’re defined by how we respond to it and what we do, how we activate others, how we lead and share.

Indigenous communities are connecting, even across borders. I think even a year from now that’s going to be a stronger, a bigger, wider, deeper story.

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.

When it seemed clear the newly minted B.C. NDP government would not pursue charges against Imperial Metals, owner and operator of the Mount Polley mine, for a 2014 tailings pond collapse, one woman decided to take matters into her own hands.

Bev Sellars, former chief of the Xat’sull (Soda Creek) First Nation — in whose territory the tailings pond released an estimated 25 million cubic metres of mining waste into Quesnel Lake — filed a private prosecution against Mount Polley on August 4, 2017, the final day charges could be laid.

Sellars made the case that Mount Polley has violated 15 rules under B.C.’s environmental and mining laws. She brought the private prosecution into play with the hope the province would take over the charges.

But this week B.C.’s Crown Prosecution Service quashed the case, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed.

Sellars said the news came as a shock.

“I don’t understand how they can say there wasn’t enough evidence,” Sellars said. “Anyone can go out there or look online and see there was a spill. And there were consequences of the spill.”

The tailings pond collapse caused a spill that lasted over 12 hours. The massive deposit of mine waste that entered Quesnel Lake, a source of drinking water for residents of Likely, B.C., contained mercury, arsenic, selenium, copper and other heavy metals and remains settled on the lake’s floor to this day. Quesnel Lake is one of the deepest fjord lakes in the world and is home to a quarter of the province’s sockeye salmon population. The long-term effects of the spill and its contamination of fish habitat is still uncertain.

While the time limit has run out for criminal charges to be brought in B.C., federal charges under the Fisheries Act can still be laid for another 18 months.

However, Sellars is worried  federal charges won’t be laid.

“If there are no federal charges, then it’s just a free for all. Go out and pollute. So what if you have breaches of your tailings ponds? There’s nothing anyone can do,” she said.

“This is setting a dangerous precedent.”

ICYMI: Canada Has Second-Worst Mining Record in World: UN

“I think British Columbians and First Nations are rightly horrified that B.C. doesn’t appear to have the political tools or the political will to enforce consequences for the people who are responsible for this disaster.” https://t.co/UvPWhvrFeq

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 3, 2018

ICYMI: B.C. Quietly Grants Mount Polley Mine Permit to Pipe Mine Waste Directly Into Quesnel Lake

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director for the democracy advocacy group Dogwood, said the quashed case presents an opportunity to reflect on B.C.’s ability to effectively regulate mines.

“I think British Columbians and First Nations are rightly horrified that B.C. doesn’t appear to have the political tools or the political will to enforce consequences for the people who are responsible for this disaster,” Nagata told DeSmog Canada.

“That the province would pass off the consequences to the feds reinforces that we don’t actually have the power in our own land to protect local people, freshwater and public health and safety.”

Nagata said there is a separate set of rules for international mining corporations that are well connected and operate in a regime that was designed for the early years of the Canadian colony.

B.C.’s mining laws were written nearly 160 years ago.

“I think it’s time to take a really close look at the rules that govern mines in B.C. and update them to a standard that reflects all the progress we’ve made in this province over the last 150 years.”

ICYMI: B.C.’s 150-Year-Old Mining Laws Are Absurdly Outdated. Guess Who Benefits From That?

Private prosecution cases are reviewed by the Crown counsel and “if our charge assessment standard is met we can assume conduct and prosecute as with any prosecution on behalf of the Crown,” Alisia Adams, spokesperson for the B.C. Prosecution Service, told DeSmog Canada.

If that standard is not met, charges are stayed, she said, adding the service doesn’t generally allow a private prosecution to proceed to trial, but they will take a case over should it proceed.

The B.C. Conservation Service Office is actively investigating the tailings pond collapse, but has missed the three-year deadline to press charges under both the B.C. Environmental Management Act and the B.C. Mines Act.

“I can say that we are aware that there is an ongoing investigation that’s continuing but because of that we can’t speak too much to the specifics of this investigation,” Adams said.

Patrick Canning, legal counsel for Sellars said he was frustrated and disappointed at the decision.

Canning said he supplied plenty of evidence to the Crown prosecutor, such as public investigations and reports filed after the incident, photographic evidence and video statements from several witnesses who were on Quesnel Lake the morning of the spill.

Canning added the Prosecution Service could have sought further evidence, as is common practice when criminal charges are brought from bodies like the RCMP.

The Ministry of Environment also could have directed the Conservation Service Office to share the findings of its ongoing investigation with the Crown prosecutor, he said.

When asked if the B.C. Ministry of Environment had done so, spokesperson David Karn indicated the results of that investigation will be forwarded to federal prosecutors.

“The Public Prosecution Service of Canada will consider all of the information gathered during the course of this investigation should charges be recommended under the Fisheries Act or other legislation,” Karn said in an e-mailed statement.

Ugo Lapointe, executive director of MiningWatch Canada, said B.C. is setting a troubling standard.

“Truly, we are not seeing a clear and strong signal from the Crown in B.C. that they want to enforce B.C. laws.”

ICYMI: British Columbians Saddled With $40 Million Clean-Up Bill as Imperial Metals Escapes Criminal Charges

Lapointe brought a federal private prosecution against Mount Polley and the B.C. government in late 2016. More than 41,000 individuals signed a petition in support of those charges.

The federal prosecution service stayed those charges in the spring of 2017, but can lay new charges or revive Lapointe’s charges until August 2019.

“Let’s contemplate for a moment that a disaster like Mount Polley with clear damage to B.C. water and B.C. forests, clear damage to fish habitat that has been documented in multiple reports — if it’s not possible to bring about charges under B.C. law, what does that tell us about B.C. law?”

Sellars said she is troubled that she does not have the opportunity to forge ahead with her private prosecution now that it’s clear the Crown will not take over her case.

“If they didn’t want to take it forward, that’s fine, but they should have allowed me to do so,” Sellars said.

ICYMI: “They’re Getting Away with It”: Locals Say No Blame Means No Compensation for Mount Polley Mine Spill Victims

Andrew Gage, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, said it’s problematic that B.C. does not allow citizens to carry forward private prosecutions.

“The absurdness of the ongoing B.C. investigation is they’ve had three years and still they couldn’t make the deadline [to press charges]. Yet, here you have someone who made that deadline and they quashed those charges.”

“The reason private prosecutions are sometimes viewed as a check and balance or safeguard to the legal system is because sometimes people don’t trust the government to do all the investigation and prosecution — to do their job, essentially,” Gage said.

“That certainly seems to be the case here.”

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.

A leading credit rating agency’s financial downgrading of Imperial Metals Corp. is sending alarm signals through B.C. and Alaska groups concerned about the future of mines operated by the company.

Moody’s Investor Service has reassessed Imperial Metals’ “probability of default rating,” with financial analysts stating the company is at imminent risk of not being able to pay its debts. The company’s rating is “judged to be speculative, of poor standing, subject to very high default risk and may be in default on some, but not all, of their long-term debt obligations,” according to the service.

Imperial Metals, based in Vancouver, owns the Mount Polley Mine near Williams Lake — the site of the 2014 tailings pond collapse — and the Red Chris Mine, a large open-pit mine near the border of Alaska which uses the same tailings pond infrastructure as Mount Polley.

Operations at a third site owned by Imperial — the Huckleberry Mine, near Houston B.C. — have been on hold since last year because of low copper prices, according to the company website.

The company has seen its stock price plummet over the last year and recently completed a new debt financing plan after lenders granted a waiver to avoid default, according to Bloomberg News. The major shareholder is oilsands tycoon and Calgary Flames co-owner Murray Edwards, who previously helped arrange $150-million in loans for the company.

When asked about its financial situation, a company representative referred DeSmog Canada to an Imperial Metals annual report.

Communities and Taxpayers Left Holding the Bag for Bankrupt Mines

Alaskan and director of Salmon Beyond Borders said Imperial Metals’ shaky finances underline the need for binding protections for everyone living downstream from mines in transboundary watersheds.

“We know (B.C.) needs much greater financial-bonding legislation, so to find out that this company is in a dire financial position is just super troubling. We know there is no money available to reclaim the Red Chris Mine, so if the company goes bankrupt, it would be very, very troubling,” Hardcastle said in an interview.

“We need a robust financial assurances mechanism in these shared watersheds.”

ICYMI: In Photos: The Canadian Mining Boom You’ve Never Seen Before

The 2015 annual report of B.C.’s Chief Inspector of Mines (the most recent year available) shows that, like other mining companies in B.C., Imperial Metal bonds do not cover estimated liabilities.

The total bond for Mount Polley was $23.6 million, but the liability estimate is $35.3 million, for a shortfall of $11.7 million.

And that liability estimate should probably be much higher, said Ugo Lapointe, Canadian coordinator of MiningWatch Canada.

The Huckleberry bond was $37 million and the liability estimate $59 million, for a shortfall of $22 million. Red Chris posted a bond of $12 million with a liability estimate of $18 million, meaning a shortfall of at least $6 million.

So Imperial Metals has $73 million in bonding for a total reclamation estimate of at least $103 million, Lapointe said.

B.C.’s Underfunded Mines Represents Over $1 Billion Taxpayer Liability

Last year, B.C.’s Auditor General Carol Bellringer, who, in a report, slammed the B.C. government for failing to adequately monitor mines, said the fund that is supposed to cover reclamation costs is short more than $1 billion.

Another 2016 report by independent economist Robyn Allan found B.C.’s out-of-date mining regulations allow companies to chronically underfund mine remediation and disaster costs, ultimately leaving the burden to taxpayers. Allan estimates B.C. mines represent an underfunded liability of $1.5 billion.

There are over 84 abandoned contaminated industrial sites in B.C., mostly from mining, that will cost an estimated $508 million to remediate, according to the Crown Contaminated Sites Program. Responsibility for these sites falls to the province because the owners and operators of the projects “no longer exist,” according to the B.C. government.

Between 2014 and 2016 the cost of contaminated sites in B.C. rose 83.4 per cent. The spectre of financially unstable mining companies adds to the growing concern that B.C.’s mining boom along the Alaska border is occurring without regard for long-term cleanup and remediation costs.

Imperial Metals remains responsible for continuing cleanup and remediation around Mount Polley, where 24 million cubic metres of contaminated sludge and mine waste swept into lakes and rivers after the collapse of a 40-metre high tailings dam.

The Red Chris mine, which opened in late 2014 and has a 25-year lifespan, has a tailings impoundment seven times the capacity of Mount Polley.

Locals Fear Repeat of Tulsequah Chief Debacle

But Alaskans can already point to a glaring example of how badly things can go wrong when mine reclamation activities aren’t adequately funded.

The Tulsequah Chief Mine, on the Canadian side of the border, has been leaking acid mine drainage into a tributary of the salmon-rich Taku River for 60 years. After two company bankruptcies and frequent promises to clean up the mess, little has happened.

Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders has a sinking feeling that, if Imperial Metals gets into deep financial problems, Red Chris could be a repeat of the Tulsequah Chief.

“We saw this happen at the Tulsequah Chief where we ended up with an abandoned mine pouring acid mine drainage into the river for 60 years. That was exactly the same process,” he said.

The fears are that either the company could go bankrupt and walk away from the mess at Red Chris or, if they are short of money, they will start cutting corners, Zimmer said.

“The government needs to step in and keep a very good eye on this site and what the company is doing,” he said.

Jacinda Mack, coordinator of First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining and a member of the Xat’sull First Nation, is already keeping a wary eye on Imperial Metals’ finances.

“I am very concerned with this new information about Imperial Metals,” Mack told DeSmog Canada.

“Will Imperial Metals walk away from their Mount Polley Mine and abandon their responsibilities to clean up and treat the pollution from the ongoing disaster — such as what happened with owners at the Tulsequah Chief?”

“They haven’t been very forthcoming at all about this financial situation…It is really frustrating when they are ignoring things like the lake colour changing and algal blooms that never happened before,” she said.

There are many questions that need answers, such as why B.C. is not requiring Imperial Metals to pay the full cost of the Mount Polley cleanup, Mack said.

“What is B.C. going to do to ensure Imperial Metals meets health and safety requirements and their commitment to clean up Mount Polley Mine?” Mack asked.

Hardcastle is also pushing for more oversight of the transboundary mines, which are among the largest in North America.

“We need to know how we can prevent these mines from getting so far along before there are more protections in place,” she said

Alaska Politicians Pushing for Input on Transboundary Mines

The concerns are echoed by Alaska’s congressional delegation and a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, signed by Alaska Governor Bill Walker, Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Dan Sullivan and Congressman Don Young, says U.S. economic interests could be threatened by B.C. transboundary mining and “inadequate financial mechanisms to assure long term management of toxic wastes and redress for damages from potential releases.”

The letter emphasizes concerns about the development of large-scale hard rock mine proposals and operations in B.C. “and their potential catastrophic effects on Alaska’s communities and habitats surrounding the transboundary rivers.”

The Alaskan politicians want the State Department to push Canada for more input on transboundary mine proposals, development of a database to track cumulative effects on water quality and a decision on whether the issue should be referred to the International Joint Commission.

Mallott and Alaska tribal representatives met with B.C. officials in early November and are planning to go to Ottawa next year to hold further talks on transboundary watersheds, Mallott said in an emailed statement. He will also go to Washington in January to meet with State Department officials.

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.

B.C.’s new Minister of Environment, George Heyman, says he identifies with the many British Columbians eager for the outcome of the single ongoing investigation into the Mount Polley mine disaster that sent 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into Quesnel Lake on August 4, 2014.

“I have spoken with the Parliamentary Secretary to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are in agreement that British Columbians deserve a rigorous and independent investigation to determine exactly what went wrong and to ensure any person or company that broke the law is held responsible,” Heyman said in a press statement released Wednesday, two days before the provincial statute of limitations for Mount Polley expires.

As B.C. approaches the three-year anniversary of the incident, British Columbians, including local residents directly impacted by the spill, have expressed disappointment that Imperial Metals, owner and operator of Mount Polley, has received no charges and no fines for the disaster, considered one of the worst environmental incidents in Canadian history.

“A disaster like this should never have happened in B.C., and it must never happen again,” Heyman said.

#MountPolley Investigation Still On, Federal Charges ‘In Play,’ Says BC Environment Minister https://t.co/p5xLwzp1Lr @GeorgeHeyman #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 3, 2017

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, while B.C. has reached the expiration date for provincial charges, the statute of limitations has not run out for federal charges under the Fisheries Act.

While two provincial investigations in the Mount Polley spill have been conducted, neither recommended charges or fines be levied against the company.

Yet one investigation is currently ongoing by the B.C. Conservation Service Office alongside the Department of Fisheries and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Heyman said the current investigation is “complex and thorough.”

Information gathered during the investigation will be brought to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, “should charges be recommended,” Heyman said.

“Potential charges under the federal Fisheries Act remain very much in play and, in fact, potential penalties are more significant.”

Under the Fisheries Act, Mount Polley could face $6 million in penalties for causing harm to fish and fish habitat and an additional $6 million for dumping deleterious substances without a permit into fish bearing waters.

“While the three-year anniversary of the disaster also brings us to the statute of limitations on provincial charges, British Columbians should know the overall objective continues to be ensuring a complete investigation,” he said.

“I have full confidence in the work of these law enforcement officials and I know that many concerned British Columbians join me in looking forward to the outcome of this important investigation.” 

Image: B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman. Photo: Stephen Hui via the Pembina Institute. Used with permission.

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.

Two fish-bearing creeks will be used for 2.3 billion tonnes of toxic tailings from the proposed Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) mine in northwest B.C., wiping out habitat for several populations of small Dolly Varden fish.

Seabridge Gold Inc. has been given federal government approval to use upper tributaries of the North Treaty and South Teigen Creeks, which flow into the Nass and Bell-Irving rivers, for tailings from the planned gold, copper and molybdenum mine 65 kilometres northwest of Stewart and 30 kilometres from the Alaska border.

Once in operation, KSM is set to become the largest open pit mine in North America. Construction is set to begin in 2017.

While the company has pledged to compensate for the loss with development of additional fish habitat in nearby streams and will relocate about 30,000 fish from the affected creeks, Alaskans say they were not consulted, despite a recently-signed Memorandum of Understanding between B.C. and Alaska.

There are also growing concerns on the Alaskan side of the border that Canada is making a habit of allowing fish-bearing streams to be used for tailings.

“This just underscores our frustration about really being shut out of the process,” said Heather Hardcastle of Juneau-based Salmon Beyond Borders, pointing out that fish do not abide by national boundaries.

Seabridge plans to build 23-kilometre tunnels to take the mining waste to the approved watersheds on the Canadian side of the border but the closest watershed is the Unuk River, one of Alaska’s premier salmon rivers.

Rendering of the KSM mine showing the tailings management area. Image: Rivers Without Borders

Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders emphasized that what happens to salmon and steelhead trout in the Bell-Irving and Nass rivers affects Alaska fishermen.

“Tailings are the most toxic of materials and they would be draining into world-class salmon and steelhead rivers,” he said.

Hardcastle and Zimmer question why the Canadian government is handing out amendments to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) to allow fish habitat to be used for tailings.

“These MMER amendments have become almost a de facto process. The extraordinary has become the normal way of doing business,” Zimmer said.

“It seems like this is becoming the standard in Canada and B.C., to authorise the filling-in of fish-bearing water bodies with toxic tailings in perpetuity. We saw the same authority granted at Red Chris last year.”

Red Chris, another B.C. mine close to the Alaska border, is owned by Imperial Metals, the same company that owns the Mount Polley mine, where the tailings dam collapsed in 2014 sending 25 million cubic metres of sludge and tailings flooding into the Quesnel watershed.

After the Mount Polley disaster an expert engineering panel recommended that B.C. move to dry stack tailings, a system of pressing about 85 per cent of the moisture from tailings and then stacking them in a pile.

However, companies say it is too expensive to move to dry stacking and the KSM mine will have a 239-metre earthen dam — one of the highest tailings pond dams in the world — holding back two billion tonnes of tailings.

“Just the fact that they are able to build these massive tailings facilities is really maddening,” Hardcastle said.

Toxic tailings must be treated forever and that is a long time, Zimmer said.

“It’s not as if acid mine drainage stops in 200 years. It’s not as if it becomes magically non-toxic and what bank account is then going to exist to deal with the problems? It’s almost like having radioactive waste dumps,” he said.

Environment and Climate Change Canada media spokesman Mark Johnson said in an emailed response to questions from DeSmog Canada that depositing of “deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish” requires the proponent to come up with a fish habitat compensation plan.

At the KSM site, compensation for the loss of 10.6 hectares of fish habitat will be creation of 18.2 hectares of fish habitat and relocation of the fish.

“Seabridge has developed a fish salvage strategy to ensure that the fish are relocated to suitable water bodies within the Teigen and Treaty creeks watersheds as well as other mitigation measures to monitor the plan,” Johnson wrote.

Mine owners must test the run-off as it is required “that mine effluent not be acutely lethal to fish,” he said.

Since the regulations came into force in 2002, permission has been given for 27 bodies of fish-bearing water, associated with 12 mines, to be used to store tailings, Johnson said.

“The KSM project will be the 13th mine to have an authorized tailings impoundment area in a fish-frequented water body,” he said.

Seabridge looked at 14 alternatives for managing the tailings of which four were potentially feasible, and the creek plan was assessed as the best, Johnson wrote.

Brent Murphy, Seabridge vice-president of environmental affairs, said there will be no significant downstream effects from using the creeks for tailings.

“And there will absolutely not be any effect on the Nass,” he said.

In addition to the assessment by the federal government there has been a public comment period and extensive consultation with indigenous groups and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Murphy said.

“It’s a very rigorous, step-by-step process. These things are not decided willy-nilly,” he said.

However, others, such as Fred Olsen Jr. of the United Tribal Transboundary Working Group, believe that poisoning lakes and rivers for the sake of the mining industry shows remarkable cynicism.

“This is not the world I was promised,” he said.

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.

High-level international action is needed to ensure that southeast Alaskan rivers and fisheries are protected from B.C. mines along the B.C./Alaska border, say Alaska’s federal representatives.

Concerns about the environmental safety of mines in the transboundary region have escalated since the province’s auditor general issued a scathing report earlier this month on B.C.’s mining practices and Alaska’s Congressional Delegation is now pushing for Secretary of State John Kerry to step in.

“We write to express our continuing concerns about the development of several hardrock mines in British Columbia and their potential effects on water quality in the transboundary rivers that flow from Canada into Southeast Alaska,” says a letter to Kerry from the congressional delegation, made up of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Dan Sullivan and Congressman Don Young, all of whom are Republicans.

The group points out that, like most Alaskans, they support responsible mining.

“But Alaskans need to have every confidence that mining activity in Canada is carried out just as safely as it is in our state. Yet, today, that confidence does not exist,” says the letter.

There is a history of Canadian acid mine waste affecting Southeast Alaska, says the letter, referring to the Tulsequah Chief Mine that has been leaking acid waste into the Taku River for decades.

“As Canada continues to consider and approve new mines in B.C. and Yukon, the risk of additional impacts has increased,” says the letter.

“Water quality is an extremely important issue for Alaskans. Accordingly we ask that you and other officials from the Department of State raise these concerns with the governments of Canada and British Columbia.”

The letter points out that the report by Auditor General Carol Bellringer concludes that B.C.’s monitoring and inspection of mines are inadequate to protect from significant environmental risks and there are major gaps in resources, planning and tools.

The delegation wants Kerry to look at whether a referral of the issue to the International Joint Commission would be the best way to determine whether Canadian mines are following best practices in their treatment of waste water and acid-producing mine tailings, especially in light of “the scientific reviews of the causes of the Mount Polley tailing disposal dam failure.”

The Mount Polley dam disaster saw 25-million cubic metres of tailings, sludge and mining waste flood pristine drinking water near Williams Lake, B.C.

Under the 1909 U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, either nation can call for an International Joint Commission to be appointed to adjudicate water disputes.

“If problems do occur, either nation can seek damages against the other for provable economic impacts, provided there is sufficient evidence of damage,” the letter points out.

“Should there be an impact to the transboundary waters that flow from Canada to Alaska, our state’s fisheries, tourism and native peoples could all be hurt.”

About 10 mines are in various stages of exploration and permitting on the B.C. side of the border and an approval that particularly alarmed Alaskans was the Red Chris Mine in the Iskut/Stikine watersheds, which opened in 2015 and is owned by Imperial Metals, the same company that owns Mount Polley.

No response has yet been received from Kerry, but a spokesman for Kerry’s office told DeSmog Canada last year that they did not anticipate a referral to the International Joint Commission at that time and instead wanted to encourage cooperation between B.C. and Alaska.

Last November Alaska Governor Bill Walker and B.C. Premier Christy Clark signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to establish a bilateral working group on the protection of transboundary waters, but critics say that is not sufficiently rigorous to ensure mine safety.

The letter from the congressional delegation is also asking that B.C. officials consider the cumulative effects of mining during review and approval processes and that there should be a more formal consultation process with U.S. agencies.

There should also be support for Environment Canada’s water quality study looking at the impact of mining on transboundary waters and funding for water quality testing on the U.S. side of the border to establish baseline data “so that the U.S. can file for damages in the event of mining-related damage from Canadian mines,” the group suggested.

Heather Hardcastle, campaign director for Salmon Beyond Borders said the letter is a powerful statement that underscores that Alaskans, regardless of political party, want Kerry to step in.

“The danger we’re facing here in Alaska is real and was reconfirmed by the recent B.C. auditor general’s warning,” Hardcastle said.

“We urge Secretary Kerry to stand up for American jobs and seek IJC involvement in this matter so Americans have a say in the protection of our resources shared by the U.S. and Canada.”

Almost 20,000 letters requesting the commission’s involvement have been delivered to Kerry, Hardcastle said.

Frederick Olsen Jr., chair of the United Tribal Transboundary Mining Work Group, agreed an IJC review would help with a long-term approach to the protection of transboundary waters.

“Secretary Kerry has a lot on his plate. He has big fish to fry in our crazy world, but we need him to look over at us. We want to prevent fish from frying in our waters due to B.C.’s mine waste,” Olsen said.

Image: Conrad Beaudin/Salmon Beyond Borders

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.

New mines proposed for north-west B.C., close to the Alaska border, will have tailings dams similar to the one that collapsed at Mount Polley, despite recommendations of an expert panel that companies use other methods of storing waste, says an analysis written for a coalition of Canadian and U.S. non-governmental organizations.   The new analysis, Post-Mount Polley: Tailings Dam Safety in British Columbia, underlines the need for the province to immediately bring in firmer legislation and says it is time B.C. lived up to commitments to make the mining industry safer.   The expert panel report on the 2014 Mount Polley disaster — which sent 25 million cubic metres of slurry and waste water flooding into lakes and rivers surrounding the mine — recommended best available practices and technology be used for tailings storage, including dry stack technology where appropriate.   However, four major B.C. mines in the Alaska/B.C. transboundary region are failing to implement those recommendations, meaning a similar dam breach could threaten the area’s major salmon rivers, says the report released Tuesday.

The paper, written by Dave Chambers of the Center for Science in Public Participation on behalf of 15 groups including Earthworks, MiningWatch Canada, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, says that the KSM, Galore Creek, Red Chris and Schaft Creek mines all require dams two to six times higher than Mount Polley and that the tailings ponds will contain between seven and 27 times the volume of the Mount Polley pond. 

“The mines proposed in the region are far beyond the scope and scale of Mount Polley and the consequences of another tailings dam failure are likely to be far worse,” Chambers said.   All the mines will generate acid waste meaning any failure would put the Unuk, Stikine and Nass watersheds at risk, jeopardising the billion dollar fishing industry.   Red Chris, owned by Imperial Metals — the same company that owns Mount Polley — is the only one of those four mines in production, with the others in various stages of the environmental assessment and permitting process.   But, even though the dam at Red Chris has been completed, changes can be made to make it safer, according to the report.   Energy and mines ministry spokesman David Haslam said tailings storage at Red Chris has been the subject of three independent reviews, including one by experts retained by Tahltan First Nation.   “Our government is leading Canada in making changes to how mining is done and we will continue to work hard to ensure our policies are the best in the world,” he said.   But Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders is sceptical and points to tougher reviews of projects in jurisdictions such as the Yukon.   B.C. seems to be continuing down the same path it has taken before, he said.   “Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results,” Zimmer said.   “But it shouldn’t take an Einstein to figure out that mines using Mount Polley’s mine waste disposal methods risk future Mount Polley-scale mine waste disasters.”   Although B.C. has implemented less important recommendations from the expert panel report, the province appears to be ignoring the most important one, Zimmer said.

“The fundamental recommendation was no more wet tailings. B.C. doesn’t seem to have learned the lesson here,” he said.   One problem is that B.C. seems to be looking at the immediate costs to companies, rather than the immense costs of an accident, according to Zimmer, who does not accept claims that alternative technology is not practical at the transboundary mines.   “From an engineering perspective, this is doable,” he said.   Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett said previously that the provincial government will implement all the expert panel’s recommendations and the province is currently undertaking a mining code review.   “The tailings storage facility portion of the code review is expected to be completed this spring and revisions could be legally in force by mid-2016,” Haslam said.   “Government will also work with industry and professional organizations to ensure recommendations directed at them are implemented. It is anticipated this work will be completed by spring 2017.”   Although the expert panel said, where practical, B.C. should move to best technologies, such as dry stack for tailings storage “the panel also noted that there are circumstances where other technologies are more appropriate, due to the need to neutralize chemicals in the tailings or challenges with dewatering the tailings,” Haslam said.   A strong regulatory framework is needed because companies almost inevitably choose the cheapest option, said Ugo LaPointe of Mining Watch Canada.   Slurry can be made thicker, even if a company cannot change entirely to dry stack tailings, and there are ways to make dams more stable than the design used at Mount Polley, said LaPointe, who wants a fundamental shift in the attitude towards safety in the mining industry.   Bennett said in 2014 that one Mount Polley disaster is one too many, LaPointe said.   “Two years later, it’s time for him to make good on his promise and put these recommendations into policy and practice.”   Last November, with a background of growing Alaskan concerns about the safety of B.C. mines, Premier Christy Clark and Alaska Governor Bill Walker signed a memorandum of understanding that strengthens collaboration on major mine developments on either side of the border.   However, a coalition of Alaskan business owners, fishermen, First Nations and politicians is continuing to call for the issue of development close to transboundary rivers to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

Image: 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.

No charges will be laid against the Mount Polley Mine Corporation, owned by Imperial Metals, for the collapse of a tailings impoundment on August 4, 2014, that sent an estimated 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into the pristine waters of Quesnel Lake.

The incident, considered one of the worst mining disasters in Canadian history, was simply the result of “poor practices,” according to B.C. chief inspector of mines, Al Hoffman, and not due to “non-compliances.”

Hoffman released the results of a yearlong investigation into the tailing pond’s failure Thursday and did not recommend charges be brought against the mine or its parent company.

The Mount Polley mine was operating within existing regulation, Hoffman found, but failed to use best available practices. Hoffman made 19 recommendations to the B.C. government and the mining industry to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future. The recommendations include introducing a “designated mine dam safety manager” to monitor tailings facilities as well as improving records management and transparency around design, construction and operation of mining facilities.

B.C.’s Ministry of Mines currently has no rule in place for levying administrative penalties against mining operators. Upon release of the report, B.C. Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett said he hopes to introduce new legislation this spring that will give his ministry the power to impose fines to encourage compliance.

Despite the promises for stronger mine management and future legislation, the current lack of consequences for the Mount Polley Mine Corporation and Imperial Metals has critics outraged.

“How can so many things be done so poorly, sloppily or haphazardly and result in massive damage without someone being ‘at fault?’” Ugo Lapoint, Canadian program manager with MiningWatch Canada, stated in a press release.

The catastrophic failure of the tailings impoundment, which sent contaminated waste into a major source of drinking water and spawning grounds for, at high times, up to 60 per cent of the province’s sockeye salmon stocks, was “not an ‘Act of God,’” Lapointe said.

“It was poor design, poor practices, poor oversight and misconducts on the part of Mount Polley Mine Corporation.” 

“It makes no sense. Either there were political reasons for the chief inspector to not lay charges against [Mount Polley], or the regulatory system is even more broken then we all thought. Either way, it’s not reassuring for any of the mines currently operating in B.C.,” Lapointe added.

MiningWatch Canada found that although the chief inspector did not lay charges, he made numerous incriminating statements in his recent report.

“It does not add up,” Lapointe said.

Richard Holmes, environmental biologist and resident of Likely, B.C., where the spill took place, said the report is a damning indictment of the province’s regulatory system.

“I think this reflects the weak regulations we have in B.C.,” he said

He added the lack of charges against the company does not come as a surprise.

“I didn’t think the chief inspector of mines would condemn his own ministers too much,” he said.

Holmes said the disaster is the outcome of “a bad combination of weak regulations, no oversight and a company that was hell bent on walking a very fine line in doing what was right and making a profit.”

The province’s push for more mines is troubling given the Mount Polley incident reflects poorly on the government’s ability to manage resources and watersheds, Holmes said.

There are currently 10 new mines planned for northwestern B.C., threatening transboundary watersheds flowing into Alaska. The proposed mines include the Red Chris Mine, owned by Imperial Metals, the same operator of Mount Polley.

“The Alaskans and others have every right to be concerned about transboundary rivers,” Holmes said. “Alaska has its own mining concerns that don’t need to be compounded by a weak B.C. regulatory system.”

Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, said a previous B.C. report put together by a panel of experts found management failures contributed to the collapse of the tailings impoundment.

“We sure would like to see someone held to account for this incident,” Sandborn said.

“B.C. government officials have been telling us for years they have world-class laws, world–class standards when it comes to mining,” Sandborn said. In 2012, Premier Christy Clark told a Calgary audience B.C. has the “highest standard of sustainable mining in the world.”

“So do those laws really provide a remedy when you have one of the biggest mining disasters in the world?” Sandborn said. “The jury is still out on that.”

Sandborn said there are still two Mount Polley investigations pending — one conducted by the B.C. Conservation Office Service and another by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Sandborn said in January a panel of independent experts brought together by B.C. recommended the province eliminate the use of wet tailings impoundments altogether and opt for safer dry stacked tailings — a tailings management technique used in many other mining jurisdictions.

“Most importantly we need to look to the future and accept the recommendations of the government’s own experts and stop ignoring that advice,” he said.

After the Mount Polley incident it was revealed Murray Edwards, owner of Imperial Metals, raised $1 million at a private fundraiser for Clarks’ re-election. The Mount Polley Mining Corporation has donated $46,720 to the B.C. Liberals and mining giant Teck Resources has donated $1.7 million over the last nine years.

“You have to wonder if the B.C. government is constrained because they get so many political contributions from the mining industry, if that is a factor in their policy,” Sandborn said.

Image: Global News 

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.

When B.C. Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett visited Southeast Alaska this summer, his aim was to calm critics of the province’s aggressive push to build at least 10 mines in northwest British Columbia, close to the Alaska border.

“I understand why people feel so strongly about protecting what they have,” Bennett said at a Juneau news conference. “There’s a way of life here that has tremendous value and the people here don’t want to lose it. I get that.”

What led to Minister Bennett taking such a conciliatory tone? An unprecedented outpouring of concern from a powerful alliance of Alaskan politicians, tribes, fishing organizations and environmental groups perturbed by the modern-day gold rush alongside vital transboundary salmon rivers such as the Unuk, Taku and Stikine.

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

Alaskans emphasize they are not against resource extraction, provided there are adequate environmental and financial safeguards, but believe Canada’s record — most recently illustrated by the Mount Polley mine tailings dam collapse — shows that B.C.’s regulations are not strong enough to protect downstream communities.

It’s little wonder Alaskans have difficulty trusting B.C. when it’s known that in the years leading up to the collapse of the retaining wall at Mount Polley, the provincial government permitted substantial increases in mining, beyond the design capacity of the tailings facility. Furthermore, in 2010, the government was told about cracks across the front of the retaining wall.

Yet when Alaskans asked for a panel review of Seabridge gold’s KSM mine, there was no response from B.C. and the mine was approved. That project will have a massive 239-metre high earth dam to hold back toxic tailings.

Subsequently, the Red Chris mine, close to the Stikine River and owned by Imperial Metals — the same company that owns the Mount Polley mine — was given the go-ahead with a tailings dam similar to Mount Polley — despite a recommendation from a government panel to stop using such dams.

When I started writing a 10-part series on these transboundary tensions for DeSmog Canada, I expected to be chronicling differences between environmental regulations in Canada and the U.S. — but I didn’t expect to stumble upon a vast difference in the treatment of media requests.

Over the past four months, I’ve submitted four requests for interviews on the topic with Minister Bennett. Not a single request was granted. Instead, I was provided with prepared statements to be attributed to a ministry “spokesperson.”

Reporters in B.C. are so commonly left trying to untangle this kind of government mumbo-jumbo that we’ve almost stopped complaining about it — which is what made the response I received from Alaskan officials all the more refreshing.

Phone calls to the Alaska government were met with the offer of an interview with Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, who is in charge of the transboundary mining file. The face-to-face interview was chatty and unscripted, giving useful insights into how the problem was viewed by the state and the probable direction of the Alaskan government.

Later, a cold call to Alaska Department of Natural Resources was immediately transferred to a senior manager, who answered all questions, including those on finances, and, unlike B.C. civil servants, could be named in the story.

B.C.’s response to media requests is perplexing given the increased importance for resource projects attaining social licence.

Bennett initially visited Alaska in November and provoked outrage by meeting only with the Alaska Miners Association.

His return visit was an effort to placate critics by suggesting an agreement between B.C and Alaska to give Alaskans more say in the mine approval process. But many remain unconvinced and there is a continued push for a referral to the International Joint Commission and for up-front bonds to cover compensation if Alaskan interests are harmed.

University of B.C. mining professor Marcello Veiga says if mining companies are serious about avoiding conflict they must establish a relationship with surrounding communities and then build up sufficient trust to reassure their neighbours they are not at risk.

If trust is the key to satisfying community concerns about mining projects, providing timely, accurate information and ministerial access would be a good place to start.

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.