Chieftain Metals, LLC has announced it will temporarily cease water treatment at its Tulsequah Chief Mine while it secures funds. The company said cost overruns precipitated the shut down.
The mine is located on the Tulsequah River near where it connects with the Taku River, approximately 40 mile northeast of Juneau on the British Columbia side of the Taku River system (goo.gl/wqjNU).
Chieftain chief operating officer Keith Boyle signed a letter to Inspector Wade Comin with Environment Canada’s Yukon Environmental Enforcement Division, dated June 6.
“In conclusion we cannot continue the (Interim Water Treatment Plant) operations,” according to Chieftain’s letter.
Chieftain said in its letter that it plans to restart its water treatment plant “as soon as process optimization is complete and project funding is secured.”
Chieftain said in a press release Friday that the treatment facility is less efficient than designed “with higher than budgeted operating costs.” The company said it “anticipates a period of limited operations.” Which would increase, Chieftain said, “when project financing is secured and the Tulsequah project gets underway as always contemplated in the project plan.”
Chieftain’s stock (TSX: CFB) ended Friday up slightly.
The treatment plant has operated since December 2011. Before that mine runoff at Tulsequah Chief went directly into the Taku River, creating a 1,000-foot plume of pollution, Chris Zimmer, Alaska campaign director for Rivers Without Borders said. Zimmer said he isn’t as concerned about the immediate danger if Tulsequah’s runoff ends up in the river.
“But what are the chronic affects,” Zimmer said.
In its letter, Chieftain listed four actions in its shut down process. Staff is cut to four before the company beings a staged shut-down of the facility.
Chieftain described the shutdown as, “Planned and orderly,” with “a view to re-starting the plant smoothly and efficiently.”
The shutdown of Chieftain’s $9 million interim water treatment plant results in ”a period of non-compliance with the conditions of Waste Water Discharge Permit #105719.” The permit is part of requirements under Canada’s Capitol Regional District sewer use bylaws.
Chieftain said it continues optimization studies at the treatment facility and plans to pursue a permit to deposit sludge at nearby Rogers Flat.
Juneau’s legislative delegation formed a fact-finding task force in response to Chieftain’s barging efforts on the Taku River (goo.gl/mSwHZ, goo.gl/60dsg, goo.gl/6rwpI, goo.gl/eDvfs).
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (11)
Add commentThere you have it...
... No mine, no water treatment. Operating this mine would be the green thing to do. But, hey! It has been leaching for a half a century.
I wonder if the poor Taku chinook run this year was because returning kings couldn't find their polluted imprint waters.
An easy fix.
Open the mine,asap.
I wonder if Pebble will make the same claim...
Imagine this scenario...
Pebble Mine opens up, and they determine that costs for treating their discharge water were higher than expected which impacts their stock price.
So, they just issue a similar announcement like Chieftain did and say, "Nope. Just not gonna do what were 'sposed to. Too expensive. And we don't like regulations neitherhow."
And their stocks go up, like Chieftain's did! And stockholders get a woody. Then the untreated water makes its way through all the headwater streams of Bristol bay.
Then all the salmon in all the streams affected by the untreated water can't smell their way back to where they were born, and the salmon streams are ruined and so are the lives of hundreds of fisherman.
Nah, it couldn't happen here. And if it does, I'm sure all the temporary mining jobs Pebble would create would offset any inconvenience of the non-returning salmon or the fishermen that depend on them.
skirkz
Hi Skirkz. I have an honest question, not meant to be cynical or patronizing or anything. Just an honest question.
Are you skeptical about water quality monitoring/water treatment at mines constructed on anadromous streams (in this case, the Tulsequah) because you don't believe treating mine drainage is necessary, or because you don't like environmentalists?
@southeastfood
I am not at all skeptical about water treatment and monitoring. The fact that Chieftain built the water treatment plant and operated it at cost to them indicates their willingness to develope this property in an environmentally responsible way. Sure, it was required of them for Canada's permitting process. But, they are not required to build or operate the treatment plant if they do not develope the mine. This mine has been leaching into the river for 50+ years before they even acquired the property. What I AM skeptical about is obstructionists that would stand in the way of responsible development that has ALREADY helped to clean up an existing mess. Environmentalists opposing the mine would prefer the alternative: Let it leach. Sounds hypocritical to me. So, in short, your honest question is based on a preconceived notion that assumes something about me personally that is not true. This causes me to assume that you are the skeptical one.
Thanks Skirkz
Thanks for the response, Skirkz. And nope, I hadn't preconceived much about you, but I do have a bad habit of dichotomizing issues and asking either-or questions. My fault on that.
I will admit to a certain level of skepticism of "responsible development," considering I grew up in the Rocky Mountains where mines did a heck of a job killing watersheds and boom-and-busting small economies, all while talking about how wonderful they were. My family is from Montana, Idaho, and Colorado, states that formerly had robust salmonid fisheries and now have miniscule little stock fisheries as replacements. I have family from Butte, Montana, which formerly boasted the highest number of millionaires per capita in the US, thanks to Anaconda's Berkeley Pit Mine. When the Berkeley busted, it busted not only the economy of Butte, but also everything downstream -- the Clark Fork River watershed -- which subsequently turned into the largest Superfund site in the world (translated: the largest site in the world in which US taxpayers got to pay to clean up the mess of an industrial operation).
I'm admitting my history and my skepticism up front, and yes, that makes me biased when entering into conversations about mine expansions or the development of new ones. But I'm trying to see your side of the story, too, because I'm interested in putting myself in your shoes, or anybody else's for that matter. Which is why I asked you that question, and which is why I appreciate your answer.
southeastfood
I grew up and lived in and around the Rockies for most of my life,as well. I have also worked in the mines, myself. I know all too well that corporations can stope out a resource with as little overhead as they can get away with. Mining companies have certainly given themselves the reputation of raping and pillaging the environment. So have steel mills, fisheries and timber companies. History cannot be denied. Anasazi culture exterminated itself, no doubt, by cutting and burning all the resources available to it's region. But, to shut down resource development because of past mistakes and greed can only be counterproductive. The need for minerals doesn't disappear because past practices have caused damage. It has to happen or we go backwards. And to blame the past on today's industry is akin to blaming modern Americans for slavery. That aside, let me tell you that in the 36 years that I have been close to the mining industry, regulation and oversight has brought the industry leaps and bounds toward "responsible development". I am not against holding mines accountable. They did it to themselves. By all means, watch them. But don't shut down viable economies and ship them overseas because of knee-jerk reactionism and fear-mongering obstructionism. We have resources and we need jobs. Somebody will supply both needs for their part of the world and not as discriminatingly as we will. But, we have to do it together responsibly. And if we can't figure out how to do BOTH, other countries will take OUR jobs at the expense of OUR environment. We just can't draw a boundary on that.
Actually they are required
Actually they are required to stop the discharge of acid mine drainage to the Tulsequah River whether or not they develop the mine. Canadian regulatory agencies have issued a series of cleanup orders going back probably 20 years....yet neither Chieftain or the previous company Redfern have been able to comply.
This is a marginal mine at best.....the economics are standing in the way more than environmental groups. Chieftain isnt gonna get any financing, especially with the local First Nation not in support of the access road.
Best thing to do.....plug up the old mine works, which will stop the movement of water through the mine and put an end to the problem once and for all. Two companies have made a run at this and one has gone bankrupt and the other one is nearly out of cash.
More details
This story is pretty short on details.....for more info see last week's stories from Yukon News, Whitehorse Star, CBC.....Chieftain's feasibility study is way overdue, they are almost out of cash, no investors.....if this was a viable mine investors would have come forward by now.....best to stop wasting everyones time and money and just close this thing down.....BC has plenty of more economical and less controversial mines
fish
The fact that they are suspending operation of the water treatment plant speaks volumes about what they are required to do. The acid drainage preceded both Redfern and Chieftain presences at the site. Neither here nor there. The acid drainage will not stop until an operation exists at the property that can economically mitigate it. PERIOD! I know of no Canadian plans for any superfund type proposals for a cleanup. With the company that made the mess long gone, all the government can do is require any future holder to mitigate the problem as a condition of permitting development. How else could they get it cleaned up? Chieftain can opt to walk away and try to sell off the asset. Albiet with a running sore.
absense of facts
The statement "...all the government can do is require any future holder to mitigate the problem as a condition of permitting development..."is not true.
Canada does have a mechanism for cleaning up toxic messes. It is called the Environmental Damages Fund. Consequently Canada is not reliant on having private parties or corporations relying on capital gains at a particular site to clean up the mess.
Whether or not we are aware of any plans by government is really irrelevant because we really don't know.
At some point humans will understand the insanity of trading naturally occurring food sources for metals and paper money.
The idea that anything less than continued mining at these kinds of environmental costs would '...make us go backward...' has a clear pro-industrial bias to it. And relegates the natural world to something less important than industry.
What I am wondering is, if curtailing mining operations where they are not environmentally cost effective is'...going backwards...' then what do we call it when the environment is damaged to the point that it no longer is functional as a life support system?
I have suspicions that this word should reflect something more grave than 'backward'.
At some point humans will realize that industry is absolutely nothing without a healthy natural life support system.