Taseko is asking federal Environmental Minister Leona Aglukkaq to disregard some aspects of an environmental assessment for its proposed New Prosperity copper and gold mine because the company believes it was incorrectly tabulated.
Last week a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel ruled the mine, proposed for 125 kilometres south of Williams Lake, would cause significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat due to seepage from its tailings pond. But Taseko vice president of corporate affairs Brian Battison said that conclusion was reached based on calculations using the incorrect mine design.
"It's clear that Natural Resources Canada relied on the wrong design in their analysis to advise the panel," Battison said. "Then the panel relied on this wrong information to draw conclusions in their report. So the bottom line here is this calls into questions the validity of the finding made by the panel of significant adverse effect."
Taseko is alleging that Natural Resources Canada failed to take into consideration Taseko's plans to use an engineered soil liner at the bottom of the tailings pond to reduce seepage. Battison said the company is planning to move soil around to ensure its at a minimum consistent depth throughout the tailings area, as has been done successfully at other mine sites in B.C.
Instead the company said the government agency based its calculations for seepage rate on the assumption the tailings pond would simply be built on top of the existing soil structure.
"What they modeled was a different design, a design that did not take into consideration the preparation of that basin," he said. "Using that design, which isn't a design, it's just [the natural environment] as it exists they came up with a seepage rate that is an order of magnitude larger than ours."
A spokesman from Natural Resources Canada was unable to comment on Taseko's claim prior to press time.
Taseko said it was aware as soon as Natural Resources Canada filed its evidence that something was wrong, but it wasn't until Monday that its engineering consultant identified the problem as the wrong design. Up to this point, Taseko had been looking at the model the government used to reach its conclusions rather than the design it was basing its findings on.
The environmental assessment identified many areas where the mine would not have significant adverse effects, like salmon habitat. But it did list fish, fish habitat and First Nations culture practices as areas where adverse effects could occur. It also said if mitigation measures aren't taken, the cumulative effect of the mine and other developments in the region could harm grizzly bears.
It will be up to Aglukkaq to determine whether or not the issues raised in the report constitute an adverse environmental effect. Given the company's findings about seepage, Battison said she should ignore the fish habitat concerns raised in the report.
"I think what a reasonable solution is that this finding of significant adverse, which was founded in this wrong information, is a flawed finding," he said.
.png;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
