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.

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.

Alaskans tired of living under the threat of B.C.’s poorly regulated mines are taking the matter to the state’s House Fisheries Committee in an effort to escalate an international response to ongoing issues such as the slow leakage of acidic waste from the deserted Tulsequah Chief Mine in northwest B.C. into the watershed of one of the richest salmon runs in the B.C./Alaska transboundary region.

On Thursday the committee will assess a resolution sponsored by several House Representatives “urging the United States government to continue to work with the government of Canada to investigate the long-term, region-wide downstream effects of proposed and existing industrial development and to develop measures to ensure that state resources are not harmed by upstream development in B.C.”

Although Tulsequah is a catalyst, concerns go deeper as B.C. is handing out permits for a clutch of proposed new mines close to the Alaskan border, including the KSM mine, the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America.

Chris Zimmer, Rivers Without Borders Alaska campaign director, said Alaskans are troubled by B.C.’s lack of enforcement of mining regulations — underlined by the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse and its $40 million taxpayer funded cleanup — and the alarming practice of accepting bonds from companies that do not cover reclamation costs.

“If B.C. can’t ensure that the Tulsequah Chief is cleaned up, why should Alaskans have any trust that much larger mines like KSM won’t pollute our waters?” Zimmer asked.

‘B.C. Can’t Continue Saying it is World Class’ in Mining

A brief spark of hope that B.C. would act on Tulsequah flared after Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett visited Southeast Alaska in 2015 and was, reportedly, shocked by leakage from abandoned mine works and sludge ponds.

“I think B.C. is going to have to find a way to rectify it sooner rather than later and I think it is a most legitimate criticism of us by those folks in Alaska that don’t like it,” Bennett said at that time.

Since Bennett’s 2015 visit, B.C. government contractors have moved the pipe, so water runs into a containment pond before overflowing into the river, and cleaned up leaking fuel tanks and improperly stored chemicals, Zimmer said.

However, last fall, Chieftain Metals Corp., the latest owners of the mine, declared bankruptcy after running a water treatment plant for only six months and Bennett then appeared to backtrack on the promise of a full-scale clean up.

Bennett, who is not running in the May provincial election, did not return calls or emails from DeSmog Canada.

No provincial money has been publicly earmarked for the Tulsequah clean up, which David Chambers of the Center for Science in Public Participation estimates would cost about $3.8 million in Canadian dollars.

Total annual water treatment costs, which would have to be continued in perpetuity, would be about $3.4-million, according to Chambers’ study.

“And that’s just one tiny little mine,” Zimmer said.

Even if a new company takes over, there is no assurance it will clean up Tulsequah because, unlike Alaska, which estimates a realistic reclamation figure and then demands full payment up front, B.C. has no such guarantees, Zimmer said.

“The polluter-pay principle doesn’t work if the polluter goes bust.”

But in B.C. there is no assurance that the polluter will pay even if the company does not go bust, said Heather Hardcastle of Juneau-based Salmon Beyond Borders.

“The notion that reclamation sureties are not adequately assessed in B.C and companies don’t have to put up full reclamation sureties up front, as they have to do in Alaska and many other countries in the world, means B.C. can’t continue saying it is world class in terms of their mining sector,” she said.

Alaska sets the amount of the bond as part of the environmental assessment process, with public input, meaning that the bond is usually a realistic calculation of the cost of reclamation. The state then demands cash or bonds up front before the project can proceed.

In contrast, in B.C. the Chief Inspector of Mines has complete discretion in setting the amount of the bond, meaning it is not a transparent process. The figure is generally set much lower than in Alaska and the entire amount does not have to be paid up front.

B.C., unlike Alaska, will also accept guarantees, rather than insisting on cash or bonds.

Compared to Alaska B.C.’s Mines Represent Massive Taxpayer Liability

A glaring example of the differences is illustrated in a brief that independent economist Robyn Allan is presenting to the Alaska State Legislature.

Teck Resources Ltd. operates the Red Dog Mine in Alaska, which is expected to require water treatment in perpetuity, a cost that has been included in the reclamation estimate of $558-million.

Teck has fully funded its liability obligation at Red Dog by posting a bond of $558-million with the State, said Allan, a former ICBC president and senior economist for B.C. Central Credit Union.

Just across the border in B.C., Teck, the largest mining company in the province, is responsible for 13 mines — six operating and seven closed — and the province has estimated reclamation liability at $1.4-billion, but has required only $510-million in bonding, according to Allan’s brief.

“The $1.4-billion reclamation estimate excludes significant requirements for ongoing water treatment, such as those at Teck’s coal mining sites in the Elk Valley. Teck’s in perpetuity liabilities are likely underestimated by hundreds of millions of dollars,” she said.

Teck Resources is the largest donor to the B.C. Liberals, contributing $1,502,444 to the party since 2008.

Since 2010, Norman Keevil, Teck board chair, has personally donated $65,585 and DeSmog Canada revealed last month that political donations to the Liberals made under the name of a Teck Resources lobbyist were actually made by the company and were registered in error.

B.C.’s Mining Sector ‘Dysfunctional’

Allan, in her brief, says environmental assessment, monitoring and compliance of B.C.’s mining sector is dysfunctional.

“It places the environment and the public on both sides of the Canadian and U.S. borders at serious long-term risk,” she wrote.

A recent report by the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre found B.C.’s mining rules have created a profound crisis of public confidence and should be investigated through a Commission of Public Inquiry.

“Mine reclamation liabilities in B.C. are underestimated and most mine operators are not required to provide full funding for the reclamation obligations that are estimated,” she said.

If B.C. adopted the Alaskan model of reclamation estimation and bonding, it would result in a more comprehensive and robust approach, according to Allan, who added in her brief that such changes could be made through policy adjustments rather than legislation.

Neither Alaska nor B.C. have an industry-funded pool for cleaning up accidental environmental damage or for paying compensation to those affected by mining accidents and companies are not required to have adequate insurance to cover accidents.

That begs the question why the mining industry is treated differently from other high-risk industries such as oil and gas, said Hardcastle, who believes the cross-border problem should be referred to the International Joint Commission, which operates under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.

Allan agrees that both federal governments need to work together to develop measures to ensure mines do not affect downstream resources and that there should be an industry-funded pool for reclamation costs and compensation not met by mine operators following an unintended environmental accident.

However, there first needs to be accurate and transparent reclamation cost estimates and full security posted before a permit is issued, she said in her brief.

“Regrettably, the province of B.C. does not intend to enhance the requirements of its subpar system despite recommendations in recent reports released by the B.C. Auditor General and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,” she wrote.

B.C. should also look at recent reforms Quebec made to its financial requirements for the mining sector, recommended Ugo Lapointe, Mining Watch Canada program coordinator.

Quebec requires 100 per cent financial assurance, with 50 per cent payable before the mine opens and 50 per cent in the first two years of operation, making it the strictest system in Canada, Lapointe said.

In contrast, B.C. remains one of the most problematic mining jurisdictions in the country, 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.

British Columbia’s environmental review process simply isn’t strong enough to protect Alaskan communities and rivers from the province’s mining boom, Jill Weitz, American campaigner with Salmon Beyond Borders, recently told a panel reviewing Canada’s environmental assessment process.

Weitz, who works to protect Alaska’s wild salmon runs, traveled to Prince Rupert to tell a trio of experts appointed by the federal government how a more robust federal environmental assessment process could help address transboundary concerns arising in the wake of B.C.’s major push for new mines.

The federally appointed panel is currently reviewing the environmental assessment process managed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency which is responsible for reviewing major development projects including pipelines, oil and gas development and mines. Changes made under the previous federal government excluded major mines in British Columbia from the federal environmental assessment process — a legislative change Weitz and others say left Alaska in an uncomfortable position.

The transboundary region traversing the border of northwest B.C. and southeast Alaska is home to three major salmon rivers, the Taku, Stikine and Unuk. The rivers flow into Alaska from an area in B.C. that is home to 10 new mines either proposed or already under construction.

Weitz said one of those mines, the controversial KSM mine, is the largest open pit mine in North America.

Despite living directly downstream from the mine, Alaskans were frustratingly prevented from meaningful participation in the project’s environmental review, Weitz told DeSmog Canada.

“The project would be located 22 miles upstream from the Alaska border,” she said. “The environmental assessment process determined there would be no significant environmental impacts.”

Weitz said this assessment was made despite the fact that the term ‘environmental impacts’ was not precisely defined and there was a problematic lack of the basic information needed to measure those impacts going forward.

“Not only is the B.C. process flawed in terms of identifying whether KSM would have significant environmental impacts but the baseline data needed to say that — it doesn’t exist.”

Weitz said Salmon Beyond Borders began campaigning on the issues of transboundary watersheds and the KSM mine after Alaskans from many different backgrounds start voicing their concern about the project.

A 2014 tailings pond collapse at the Mount Polley mine raised serious concerns about B.C.’s mine management and permitting process.

Many Alaskans representing fishing, tourism and indigenous groups voiced fears that something similar to the Mount Polley disaster, which left the pristine Quesnel Lake watershed contaminated with 24 million cubic metres of mining waste, could happen in U.S. waters.

The KSM tailings pond is projected to entail a massive 239-metre tailings dam, perched above the Bell Irving/Nass watershed in B.C. near the Sulpherets Creek, which runs into the Unuk River.

“We continue to push on the notion that there needs to be further transboundary watershed management in a shared way,” Weitz said.

In her presentation to the environmental assessment review panel, Weitz made the case that legislative changes made under the former Harper government that narrowed the purview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act increased the threat felt by southeast Alaskans.

Projects that have immediate implications for transboundary watersheds should automatically trigger federal environmental assessments, Weitz argued, saying the provincial process in B.C. is not comprehensive enough and does not consider cumulative impacts of industrialization in the region — a top concern for many scientists and conservation groups.

Weitz said although B.C. invited the participation of Alaskans in the KSM mine assessment, she felt like their input was ultimately ignored.

Provincial approval of the KSM mine in 2014 angered many Alaskans. Fifteen federally registered native tribes, as well as a number of non-governmental organizations, made formal requests for a joint provincial-federal review of the project’s approval.

That request was denied.

“There is no equity in this process,” Weitz said.

Nikki Skuce, who also presented to the panel on behalf of the Northern Confluence initiative out of Smithers, B.C., said even British Columbians feel the provincial review system is inadequate.

“Some of us here in the northwest have participated in some really faulty review processes,” Skuce told DeSmog Canada.

“In some cases it’s clear the decision on the project is made even before the process begins so these processes feel very tokenistic and often rely entirely on information from industry.”

Skuce said a serious review of Canada’s environmental assessment process should take into consideration how domestic projects can affect cross-border communities.

“For folks in southeast Alaska, if we’re going to consider impacting a water or airshed upstream, there should be a federal review where there is greater opportunity for those downstream or down-air communities.”

Skuce said Canada’s federal review process should honour international commitments, like Canada’s pledge to engage in a bilateral process to manage transboundary waters.

Skuce says improvements to the federal environmental assessment process could help restore public trust in the review system.

“This process should prioritize indigenous rights that Canada has promised to honour under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” Skuce said.

She added an emphasis on independent science is key to restoring trust in the process.

“We need to delineate the project proponent promoter from the project regulator,” she said.

“Right now you have the regulator cheerleading for the project. That needs to be taken out, separated out to help regain public trust.”

Skuce said she is feeling optimistic about the review of the federal environmental assessment process. The panel has worked hard to engage meaningfully with presenters, she said.

“With so many mining projects proposed in the northwest and given the potential transboundary impacts we need federal engagement,” she said.

“This is a good opportunity to look in-depth at cumulative impacts of development and at our bilateral agreement obligations with Alaska.”

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.

Alaska’s fishing industry and lifestyle are under threat from mines on the B.C. side of the border and a non-binding cooperation agreement between B.C. and Alaska, signed last week, does not provide sufficient protection, the Alaska State House Fisheries Committee was told this week.

The committee held a public hearing because of persistent concerns from fishermen, business owners, municipal and Tribal leaders about the proliferation of B.C. mines near the headwaters of salmon-bearing rivers such as the Taku, Unuk and Stikine, which start in B.C. and flow through Southeast Alaska to the ocean.

About 10 mines are in the planning, exploration, construction or production stages in the area close to the border.

“I believe legislators received the message loud and clear that this is a very urgent situation and much, much more needs to be done immediately, beyond the B.C./Alaska Statement of Cooperation,” said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders.

The agreement between B.C. and Alaska establishes a bilateral working group and provides for Alaska to have input into environmental assessments and permitting for mines. It also formalizes requirements for B.C. to notify Alaska if there is a spill or accident that could affect Alaskan waters.

But the agreement falls short as there are no enforceable measures to protect the water and fisheries and no requirement for bonds to provide financial compensation in case of an accident, speakers told the committee.

“Alaska should require some kind of compensation for catastrophic accidents,” said Dave Chambers, geophysicist and president of the Center for Science in Public Participation.

Mining companies are under pressure to increase production because of falling metal prices and rising costs and that is leading to an increasing number of tailings dam failures, Chambers said.

Requirements for a surety would put pressure on operators to do a better job, Chambers said.

Earlier this year, B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer, in a scathing report that criticized B.C.’s weak mining liability regime, estimated that there was a $1-billion shortfall in financial assurance policies, which are supposed to ensure mining companies pay for both catastrophic events and mine site reclamation.

Bellringer’s report was followed by an even more blistering assessment by economist Robyn Allan, who, in a report commissioned by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, concluded there is more than $1.5-billion in unfunded liability.

“A regime to ensure mine owners have sufficient financial resources to pay for environmental damage and third-party losses from unintended mine accidents is non-existent,” Allan wrote.

A common theme at the Fisheries Committee hearing was a push for state leaders to formally request the involvement of the U.S. and Canadian federal governments.

“In order to have binding commitments that protect habitat, by encouraging the highest standards of environmental protection, elevation to the International Joint Commission through the Boundary Waters Treaty seems to be a necessary action,” said Chip Treinen, United Fishermen of Alaska board member.

So far, B.C.’s Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have shown little interest in referring the issue to the International Joint Commission, the body established to deal with boundary water disputes.

Last week Bennett said that “We’ve proven with this agreement and all the work we’ve done over the last three years there’s no need for the International Joint Commission” and that neither B.C. nor Alaska want to get their respective federal governments involved in an issue they can manage themselves.

At the hearing, Hardcastle said Bennett is “flat-out wrong” in his assumptions.

“The State Legislature and the State of Alaska need to formally counter Bennett’s statement and be explicit with the U.S. federal government that this is an international matter in which the State of Alaska does want and need the critical involvement of the federal government,” she said.

Bennett and Energy and Mines Ministry spokespeople did not respond to questions Friday from DeSmog Canada.

Bev Sellars, chairwoman of First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining and Chief of the Xat’sull First Nation in Soda Creek, B.C., warned Alaska’s legislators not to put all their trust in the B.C. government, pointing to a bad track record, and urged them to ask the International Joint Commission to become involved.

“Try to get a solid country-to-country agreement on paper,” she said.

“I haven’t eaten fish from the Fraser River in years — that is a loss of our culture. When I hear about B.C. mines I worry about your culture too,” she said.

The spectre of the 2014 Mount Polley disaster, when the tailings dam collapsed spilling 24-million cubic metres of waste and sludge into nearby lakes and rivers, weighs heavily on Alaskans.

“We’re terrified that that’s what is going to happen here and that we’re going to share their fate,” said Richard Peterson, president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

“We couldn’t sustain our traditional way of life. We couldn’t sustain our economic way of life if that happened.”

A recent study by the McDowell Group concluded that the Taku, Stikine and Unuk rivers account for U.S. $48-million in annual economic activity and the value of the three watersheds is just under $1-billion over a 30-year timeframe.

Chambers said he questions B.C.’s mine safety enforcement.

“Presently the B.C. government is not putting safety before economics as recommended by the Mount Polley Expert Panel, Chambers said.

“Moreover, B.C. is not implementing other key recommendations of the Mount Polley Expert Panel — a body appointed by the province to determine what went wrong at Mount Polley and how to avoid similar tailings dam failures in the future.”

The hearing was chaired by Rep. Louise Stutes, who said the committee is likely to hold more hearings to assess the possible effects of the mines.

In an interview with the Cordova Times, shortly before the public hearing, Stutes said: “The United States and Canadian federal governments need prodding to secure enforceable protections and financial assurances for our transboundary rivers.”

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.

Taxpayers are being put at serious financial risk by gaping holes in B.C.’s mining regulations that allow companies to underfund mine remediation or disaster costs, says a new report by economist Robyn Allan.

The report, funded by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, describes financial assurance policies for mine site reclamation as “woefully inadequate” and estimates there is more than $1.5-billion in unfunded liability — meaning taxpayers are on the hook both for mine site reclamation, when a company leaves a contaminated site, and for catastrophic events when a company is unable to pay.

“A regime to ensure mine owners have sufficient financial resources to pay for environmental damage and third-party losses from unintended mine accidents is non-existent,” wrote Allan, former CEO of ICBC and former senior economist for B.C. Central Credit Union.

The UBCIC report comes on the heels of a scathing assessment of B.C.’s mining practices by B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer and renewed pressure from U.S. politicians to have transboundary mines along the Canadian/U.S. border come under the scrutiny of an International Joint Commission.

Bellringer estimated a shortfall in financial security deposits of $1-billion, but Allan said the Ministry of Energy and Mines had $1.3 billion in site reclamation costs not funded by mine operators by March 2014 and the province has assumed responsibility for reclaiming abandoned mines which will cost another $275-million.

The costs could be higher today, but exact figures are not known as the province no longer makes the figures available, Allan said.

In theory, B.C.’s rules are based on polluter-pay principles, but, as there is no effective system of financial assurances to hold parties liable, B.C. residents and First Nations are picking up a burgeoning bill for mining-related environmental harm, Allan said in the report.

“The province’s failure to ensure that whenever polluters pollute, polluters pay, represents an obvious cost to taxpayers because taxpayers end up bearing the burden instead. If the cost does not fall to taxpayers, then it falls to society along with much of the clean-up, compensation, remediation and/or reclamation going unattended,” she said.

To make matters worse, provincial policies increase the risk of disasters as, with no clear liability, some companies cut corners and flout safeguards, according to Allan.

“In contrast, when a mining operator is unequivocally held financially responsible for its environmental impacts, positive outcomes result,” she said.

Under B.C.’s rules there are few inducements for companies to invest in techniques such as dry-stacking tailings that lower reclamation costs and reduce the risk of spills because the operator may never be held accountable if disaster strikes, Allan said, adding she wants to see companies post full security bonds for reclamation costs.

Other recommendations in the report include requiring companies to hold sufficient financial assurances to meet the full costs of environmental damage and third-party losses from mine accidents — with companies annually providing proof of those financial assurances — and creation of an industry-funded pool to cover catastrophic events if a polluter is unable to pay.

A claims process, independent from the mining company, should be set up for those who suffer environmental damage or losses and companies should publicly report every year on their reclamation plans, risk assessment and amount of security posted, Allan recommended.

Currently the province relies on reclamation estimates by mine operators and, despite the risk presented by the increasing number and growing size of tailings storage facilities, there is no requirement for mining companies to undertake an environmental risk assessment, says the report.

“Neither is there a requirement that companies provide proof to regulators that access to sufficient financial resources, including insurance, exists to meet obligations if an environmental harm event occurs.”

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs president, said B.C. is enabling a dangerous disregard for environmental monitoring and protection by letting mining companies off the hook.

“Other industrial sectors treat accident insurance and security deposits as a routine and fundamental cost of doing business and, if a warehouse catches fire, a pipeline bursts or a factory has to be shuttered, companies have money set aside to respond effectively and immediately,” Phillip said.

Instead of following the lead of jurisdictions such as Quebec and Alaska that insist on full funding for reclamation — something that creates a powerful incentive for companies to focus on safety and best practices — B.C has placed taxpayers at huge financial risk, Phillip said.

“Factor in the poor performance, lack of enforcement capacity and muddled political direction of the ministries of energy and mines and environment and the failure to ensure all mines are safe and held accountable and British Columbians have a great number of reasons to mistrust the mining sector,” he said.

UBCIC is calling on the B.C. government to adopt Allan’s and Bellringer’s recommendations.

After Bellringer’s report was made public, Mines Minister Bill Bennett said he accepted most of the recommendations, except for creation of an independent mining compliance office, and he agreed that the province’s compliance and enforcement regime needed improvement.

Bennett has also committed to acting on many recommendations that followed the collapse of the Mount Polley tailings dam in August 2014 — a disaster that spilled millions of litres of sludge and mine waste into Quesnel lake and surrounding waterways in central B.C.

The ministry did not respond to questions from DeSmog Canada on the Allan report in time for publication.

The report is underlining concerns of Southeast Alaskans who have watched a proliferation of mines along the B.C./Alaska border and, as an example of the lack of enforcement in B.C., they point to continued pollution, stretching over decades, from the Tulsequah Chief mine where rusty, acidic water is draining into a tributary of the Taku, one of Alaska’s major salmon producing rivers.

The report underscores existing grave concerns about the lack of financial assurances, said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders, who wants to see an adequate bonding system in place.

“We are demanding that the state, the province and both federal governments come up with a mechanism to make sure we will be protected downstream,” she said.

“This is why we need an international solution to an international problem. The money has to be set aside to adequately cover a catastrophe that most likely will happen.”

The Allan and Bellringer reports are timely as the issue is gaining increasing traction with both federal governments, Hardcastle said.

Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders said the reports are significant because mines in the Taku, Stikine and Unik watersheds will have long-term acid mine drainage and water treatment needs that are not currently funded.

“It’s now more important than ever that Secretary (John) Kerry work with the Canadian federal government to ensure Alaska’s water and salmon are not harmed by mining in B.C.,” he said.

Image: Tulsequah Chief mine on the banks of the Tulsequah River, a tributary of the Taku/Rivers Without 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.

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.

A hard-hitting report by B.C.’s auditor general that concludes the government’s mines monitoring and inspection program is woefully inadequate and does not protect the province from significant environmental risks, is increasing alarm in Southeast Alaska about B.C.’s mining practices.   The report, delivered this week by Carol Bellringer, is also sparking renewed calls for transboundary mine development to be referred to the International Joint Commission — an independent body designed to resolve disputes over the use and quality of boundary waters — and raising questions about a cooperation agreement under negotiation between B.C. and Alaska.   On the B.C. side of the border there has been a rush of mine development close to the headwaters of the Taku, Stikine and Unuk rivers, Southeast Alaska’s major salmon rivers, with one mine already in operation and about nine others in various stages of permitting and exploration.

“We do feel this report further validates what we’ve been saying all along, including that our concerns about financial guarantees, monitoring in perpetuity and cumulative effects need to be addressed by an independent joint U.S./Canada body,” said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders.   A Salmon Beyond Borders news release adds that B.C. is systemically unable and unwilling to address the risks mining poses to downstream resources.   “The ongoing pollution at the Tulsequah Chief mine in the Taku watershed, the opening of Imperial Metals’ Red Chris mine in the Stikine watershed months after (Imperial’s) Mount Polley mine disaster and the approval of North America’s largest open-pit mine, Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) in the Unuk watershed, 19 miles upstream from the border, are more than enough justification for Alaskans to demand immediate federal action,” says the release.

"Decade of Neglect" 

Bellringer, who conducted a two-year investigation, found major gaps in planning, resources and tools and that compliance and enforcement program expectations in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment were not met after a “decade of neglect.”   Her major recommendation is for B.C. to create an independent agency to manage enforcement and compliance, a suggestion that has not been embraced by government.   Bellringer said that, to reduce the risk of “unfortunate and preventable incidents like Mount Polley,”compliance and enforcement should be separated from the Energy and Mines Ministry because the ministry’s role to promote mining development is diametrically opposed to compliance and enforcement.   “This framework of having both activities within MEM creates an irreconcilable conflict,” she said.   “Because compliance and enforcement is the last line of defence against environmental degradation, business as usual cannot continue,” said Bellringer, who added she is disappointed in government’s resistance to the recommendation.   Government has not ruled out the suggestion, but indicated it was likely unnecessary and instead has offered to establish a mining compliance and enforcement board to ensure greater integration between ministries.   During Bellringer’s audit the topic of mines oversight took on greater urgency because of the failure of the Mount Polley tailings dam.   “These risks became a reality and disaster occurred when the tailings dam at Mount Polley failed — releasing approximately 25 million cubic metres of wastewater and tailings into adjacent water systems and lakes. It may be many years before the financial, environmental and social implications are fully known,” she wrote.   In another criticism — that has long been a sore point for B.C.’s Alaskan neighbours — Bellringer said mining companies have not provided adequate financial security deposits to cover reclamation costs if a company is unable to pay.

The True Cost of Mining 

The fund is more than $1-billion short — meaning taxpayers could be left picking up the bills, especially as “major mines . . . will likely require long-term or perpetual water treatment.”   Chris Zimmer, Alaska campaign director for Rivers Without Borders, said it is apparent the B.C. system does not cover the true costs of mining.   “That’s why we need U.S. federal engagement to develop enforceable standards and protections that minimize risks to Alaska’s water, fish and jobs and provide compensation for any harm Alaskans suffer from B.C. mining,” Zimmer said.   The Mount Polley disaster was a wakeup call for Alaskans and the audit confirms their concerns are valid, said Zimmer, who is urging the Alaskan government not to sign the final Statement of Cooperation with B.C. until problems identified in the audit are fixed.   “The Auditor General notes the critical need for enforcement given the scale of mining in B.C. and the potential for long-term negative effects on water and salmon, but also finds the environmental risks of mining are increasing, while compliance and enforcement are decreasing,” Zimmer said.   “How can we have any trust in the B.C. processes?”

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. and Alaska signed a pact Wednesday designed to give Alaskans more say on Canadian mine approvals in transboundary watersheds through a high-level joint working group.

The agreement follows an unprecedented outcry this summer from Alaskan fishing groups, U.S. politicians, aboriginal and environmental groups, worried about the effect on salmon bearing rivers of a surge of mine development in B.C.’s northwest corner.

Concerns about B.C. oversight and mining rules escalated after the Mount Polley tailings pond collapse in August that sent 24-million cubic metres of mine waste, water and silt rushing into nearby lakes and rivers. A subsequent investigation concluded the spill was largely due to an inadequately designed tailings pond.

The disaster underlined Alaskan fears that a similar incident or leaching of toxic chemicals in mines close to the border could wipe out salmon runs in rivers such as the Stikine, Unuk and Taku. Outrage intensified after the B.C. government gave the go-ahead last fall to the Red Chris mine, owned by Imperial Metals, the company that also owns Mount Polley.

There are currently 10 advanced mining projects planned for near the B.C.-Alaska border. Image: Salmon Beyond Borders.

The memorandum of understanding, signed by Premier Christy Clark and Alaska Governor Bill Walker “provides for greater involvement and collaboration on proposed mine development in either jurisdiction,” says a provincial news release.

The bilateral working group will develop a joint water quality monitoring program and create opportunities for government representatives and scientists to be involved in environmental assessments and permitting on both sides of the border.

The group, which will be overseen by Alaska Lt.-Gov. Byron Mallott and B.C. Energy Minister Bill Bennett, will also come up with a program to allow groups such as Alaskan Tribes and B.C. First Nations to provide input on transboundary developments.

“This MOU provides for more collaboration and cooperation to ensure the conservation and enhancement of our shared environment,” said Premier Clark.

Read DeSmog Canada's in-depth series on transboundary mining: Transboundary Tensions: B.C.'s New Gold Rush Stirs Controversy Downstream in Alaska

Bennett, who has made two visits to Alaska over the last year, told Canadian Press that the agreement signifies a willingness to work together and “be better neighbours in the future.”

However, the agreement has infuriated members of Salmon Beyond Borders, a coalition of sport and commercial fishermen, community leaders, business owner and Tribal and First Nations representatives who say the pact is worthless because it is non-binding.

“(It) offers no visible means of holding Canada or the mining companies accountable for mitigating our losses should accidents like the one at Mount Polley occur in the region,” said Dale Kelley, Alaska Trollers Association executive director.

Salmon Beyond Borders and many other Alaskans have been pushing for concerns about upstream mining to be referred through the Boundary Waters Treaty to the International Joint Commission.

“We are very disappointed that the Governor is apparently ignoring the near consensus here in Southeast Alaska in support of federal involvement and the IJC,” said Chris Zimmer of Rivers Without Borders.

The U.S. State Department would have to refer the matter to the IJC, but, so far, there has been little federal interest on either side of the border.

Alaskan groups are also disappointed that the agreement was signed with B.C. despite being asked during the last week for input on a draft statement on transboundary mining cooperation.

“It’s hard not to feel blindsided by this news," said Salmon Beyond Borders director Heather Hardcastle.

Like our stories? Sign up for the DeSmog Canada newsletter.

Image: Brucejack mine via Pretium Resources

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.

Water quality in a tributary of one of Southeast Alaska’s prime salmon rivers will improve once a new mine opens on the B.C. side of the border according to spokesmen for Seabridge Gold Inc, the Toronto-based company planning to open the Kerr-Sulpherets-Mitchell (KSM) mine.

The copper, gold and molybdenum mine, 65 kilometres northwest of Stewart and 30 kilometres from the Alaska border, received federal and provincial environmental assessment approvals last year and the company is now seeking a joint venture partner for the $5.4-billion project.

But the prospect of a massive mine close to a tributary that runs into the Unuk River has alarmed Alaskan fishing, First Nations and environmental groups who say the risk is unacceptable and are pushing for transboundary mining issues to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

“The long term risks of KSM far outweigh any short-term improvements to water quality the mine may create,” Chris Zimmer, Rivers Without Borders Alaska campaign director, said.

The KSM tailings pond, with a massive 239-metre tailings dam, will be built in the Bell Irving/Nass watershed in B.C., but the mine operation will be close to Sulpherets Creek which runs into the Unuk River.

“The open pits and waste rock piles are located in (the Unuk) watershed,” Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders said.

“They’re essentially using the Unuk, all the way up to the border as a mixing zone.”

However, Brent Murphy, Seabridge Gold vice president environmental affairs, in an interview with DeSmog Canada, said water quality in the creek is already bad because of natural erosion of copper, iron and zinc deposits.

“The acidity will basically eat your boots off,” he said.

Federal and provincial regulators agree there will not be any impact in Alaska from the mine, Murphy said.

“The operation of the KSM water management system will, in fact, improve the overall water quality,” he said, pointing to company photos of discoloured creek water.

“We will treat the water that comes into contact with the mine site and improve the water running into Sulphurets Creek and ultimately the Unuk River,” Murphy said.

But Alaskan groups say the photos are misleading and point to a 2014 report by Skeena Wild Conservation Trust that concluded KSM would release metals into the Unuk watershed that would exceed levels known to have serious impacts on salmon.

“I am especially concerned when people make statements to the effect that they can improve natural systems. Seems the height of hubris,” said Guy Archibald, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inside Passage waterkeeper coordinator.

“There is more complexity in a mud puddle than science will ever understand and a massive intervention such as the KSM mine will no doubt have massive unforeseen negative consequences.”

Following the 2014 collapse of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam there has been increased concern about earthen tailings dams and the expert panel looking into the disaster recommended that mining companies should adopt best available technologies and consider dry stacking tailings when possible.

However, Peter Williams, Seabridge vice-president of technical services said location is the paramount concern when choosing how to dispose of tailings and, after considering dry stacking, it was decided the KSM site was ideal for wet tailings, with a lined tailings pond to ensure no discharge into the environment.

“We have put it into a valley and most of the walls are valley walls, so they are very strong,” he said.

“It makes this location very safe.”

The u-shaped valley will have gently-sloping dams at either end, constructed of sand from the tailings, Murphy said.

That is very different from the Mount Polley dam which consisted of a steeply-sloping ring dyke constructed of locally-sourced till material, he said.

“Most importantly, after treatment, water from the proposed KSM facility will be discharged on an annual basis, preventing the build-up of any water within the facility as occurred at Mount Polley where there was no treatment of water for discharge,” he said.

Zimmer, who emphasized that Alaskan groups are concerned about the effect of the mine on any rivers, whether Canadian or Alaskan, said one of the major worries is what happens over time.

“What happens after 250 years? What if the water treatment fails or doesn’t work as proposed — Seabridge has no contingency plans for this,” he said.

Williams said there should be no concerns after closure as, after the tailings are topped and revegetated, there will be minimal water flow.

During the six-and-a-half-year review process, Seabridge held numerous meetings with Alaskan groups and regulators, including a public meeting in Ketchikan, Murphy said.

There was also a detailed assessment by independent federal regulators so there was no need for a panel review — as requested by Alaskans — because it would duplicate work already done, Murphy said.

Neither would a referral to the International Joint Commission be the correct process, Murphy believes.

“In our opinion [the IJC] is a political dispute resolution process and we are continuing to support efforts of the B.C. and Alaska governments who are working on increasing cooperation between the two governments on transboundary projects and we encourage them to work towards a memorandum of understanding,” he said.

But Zimmer said most of the meetings were open only to agency and company officials and many questions remain — such as lack of funds to deal with major accidents or proof that Seabridge can treat water for selenium.

“The arrogance demonstrated by Seabridge’s blind faith in their engineering in the face of the forces of Mother Nature and time, is the same arrogance that resulted in the Titanic, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Mount Polley,” 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.

British Columbians share the concerns of Alaskans about risks to the environment from mining operations and most want to see tougher mining laws and regulations in B.C., according to two polls released Thursday.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polls, commissioned by SkeenaWild in B.C. and Salmon Beyond Borders in Alaska, found 75 per cent of more than 800 British Columbians polled were concerned about a tailings dam break and 54 per cent felt, that under current rules, B.C. mining poses risks to health, the environment, fishing and tourism.

“These results show that the people of B.C. are not willing to give mining companies social licence to proceed with projects if they feel salmon, water and wildlife are at risk,” Greg Knox, SkeenaWild executive director, said.

The support for rule reforms was driven by concerns that existing land use rules, such as the Mineral Tenure Act, are pro-mining and threaten the province’s natural beauty.

More than 85 per cent said they would like to see the Mineral Tenure Act changed to give other uses the same priority as mining.

Thirty-nine per cent said the jobs and economic benefits of mining outweigh those risks, but many of those agreed that reforming B.C.’s mining laws would protect jobs by ensuring other key industries were not affected by a mining spill. Only 17 per cent said reforming mining laws would cost jobs and provincial revenues, meaning taxes would increase.

When asked about Northwest B.C., where a mining boom is underway, 68 per cent said conservation should be a higher priority than development because of the importance of salmon-bearing rivers and populations of animals such as grizzly bears.

Less than half approved of how the provincial government is regulating and monitoring mines. Suggested changes include ensuring mining companies have fully-funded plans for cleanup, closure and long-term management of tailings before approval is granted, a mandatory, industry-funded clean-up fund for projects in watersheds shared by Alaska and B.C. and mining no-go zones in sensitive areas such as key salmon watersheds.

The 2014 Mount Polley tailings pond dam collapse, which sent 24-million cubic metres of waste surging into lakes and waterways from the mine owned by Imperial Metals, has focused attention on the need for reforms, Knox said.

“Greater financial assurance from mining companies, stronger government oversight and monitoring and establishing certain areas, like key salmon habitat, off-limits to mining will go a long way to avoid opposition from First Nations and local communities,” he said.

The B.C. government is accepting public submissions on reform of rules dealing with mine tailings until Oct. 16.

In Alaska, where, in the wake of Mount Polley, there has been growing concern about B.C.’s mining regulations because of mines opening close to salmon-bearing rivers running into Southeast Alaska, the poll shows overwhelming support for increased protection.

Almost three-quarters of 500 Alaskans polled were concerned about a mining waste spill affecting shared watersheds. That number jumped to 86 per cent for those living in Southeast Alaska.

More than 75 per cent of respondents want Alaska to have a seat at an international table to address concerns about B.C. mining in transboundary watersheds and 45 per cent said their vote for a member of Congress would hinge on the candidate pushing for a seat at the table.

“This provides a clear mandate for significant action by government and industry to ensure B.C.’s mining development doesn’t harm salmon, water quality, jobs and way of life downstream,” said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders.

The B.C poll is subject to a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20 and the Alaska poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 per cent 19 times out of 20.

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.