Prospects for road access to Chieftain Metals’ Tulsequah Chief Mine dimmed as right-of-way owners Taku River Tlingit First Nation stepped away from an environmental assessment process.
Citing concern over Chieftain’s inadequate planning, difficulty meeting deadlines and the closure of the mine’s water treatment facility (goo.gl/aRNB0), TRTFN said it has pulled back from the road access process (goo.gl/FGtpq) until several questions have been answered.
TRTFN informed British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office (goo.gl/Uft2z) and Chieftain Metals that the first nation planned to pull its technical teams from the Environmental Assessment Office and Northwest Mine Development Review Committee tables on July 16, 2012.
“…due to a combination of critical issues…,” according to a release on TRTFN’s website (goo.gl/1tdU0).
Chieftain’s amended Environmental Assessment application to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office is of “poor quality” and the mining company’s construction plans and start-up activities are delayed — two reasons for TRTFN’s reluctance, according to its web release.
TRTFN has remained engaged in the processes despite the process being “well behind schedule,” according to the release. “However, in light of recent developments, there are simply too many breaches, gaps and questions around the viability of the currently proposed Tulsequah Project for TRTFN to continue on as though we are meaningfully meeting the requirements set out in the agreements and legislation,” according to TRTFN's web release.
Chieftain announced in June that it would shut down indefinitely operation of its water treatment plant at the Tulsequah Chief Mine (goo.gl/9293J). The plant was built to treat historic acid mine runoff. This indefinite closure “is of extreme concern to the TRTFN,” according to its web release.
Chieftain received a discharge permit for its treatment facility in April (goo.gl/Ma2Yg) and announced it would violate that permit less than three months later.
TRTFN list the water treatment facility’s shutdown as another reason to cool its relationship with Chieftain.
Chieftain has said its investors require road access to the Tulsequah Chief Mine site, preferring the mining operation not rely on spotty barge access on the Taku River.
Chieftain Metals contracted from Stantec Consulting Ltd. of British Columbia to complete a construction and operations activities report application to amend British Columbia Environmental Assessment Certificate M02-01, dated June 6. According to the report Chieftain planned to begin road construction in late 2012 or early 2013.
In the last three months Chieftain has dropped from over $4 per share to close Friday at $2.60. The 52-week high was $5.14.
Chieftain Metals did not respond by press time.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (7)
Add commentWell that's too bad
A road from Juneau to the mine would be about 50 miles, and probably a lot easier/cheaper to construct than the fantasy up Lynn Canal.
Another 100 miles and you're on the ALCAN.
Lat, I have some friends who
Lat,
I have some friends who are members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. I'm looking forward to hearing their views on this issue the next time we get together for coffee.
I agree, a road up the Taku is a much better alternative than the stupid pie-in-the-sky bovine fecal matter idea of a road up Lynn Canal.
Between a rock and a hard place.
Between the reluctance of Tlingits to have a road through their land and Alaskans balking at barging up the river, the mine is screwed. The result: continued acid drainage from the old mine. Win - win, don't you think?
And who foots the bill?
So, who's offering to pay for the 50 miles of road construction? That's something on the order 42 miles of road in Alaska and 8 miles in Canada to access a Canadian resource. I'd estimate it would be in the $100 to $200 M range.
Skirkz
Although we sometimes disagree, I always appreciate your comments and ruminate on them for a while, as you do make a lot of good points.
My memory isn't complete on the Tulsequah, but from what I remember, it was initially developed by Red Fern, who eventually declared bankruptcy and left the acid drainage untreated. Later, Chieftan Metals arrived when there was potential to make the mine profitable, which was mostly Red Fern under a new name. When it appeared as though Chieftan couldn't make money on the Tulsequah, they again pulled the plug and consequently let their acid drainage go untreated.
I hear what you're saying in that an operational Tulsequah would better treat acid drainage than an abandoned mine. Do you hear what I'm saying when I say that there's a long history of mines who clean up their waste when the money is good, but when the money dries up, they pull the plug and leave the mess for the public to deal with?
Excellent.
A healthy watershed for a little while longer.
Southeastfood
Red Fern inherited the acid drainage the same way Chieftain did. They acquired the mineral rights (how ever that works in Canada mining laws.). This mine has been leaching for over a half a century from historic diggings owned by neither at the time of operation. Neither has mined the claim that was developed years ago. Neither acquired the property to clean up an ancient mess. They bought the rights speculating to make money pending feasibility. Should they actually work the mine, they would then have to own the impacts. What I see here is a company sinking millions of dollars to build a treatment plant to mitigate the drainage before they even make a mess of their own. Can they walk away from an improvement without being harangued because they run into funding difficulty? The plant is still there built on their dime. Why don't all their critics operate the new water treatment plant on their own dime? The work is already done.