Taseko Prosperity Mine Not a Done Deal

Chief Alphonse Sees Dim Future For Taseko's Prosperity Mine

BY CHIEF JOE ALPHONSE, 

VANCOUVER SUN OCTOBER 5, 2012

Re: New Prosperity will live up to its name, Sept. 20, and responsible mining begins before opening and ends long after closure, Sept. 27

The Prosperity Mine proposal and its prospects are far from a done deal.

First, the proposal is one which the company itself, and Environment Canada, initially claimed would be worse for the environment than the original plan that was soundly rejected by the federal government in 2010.

Since then, the company has tried to revise that claim. Earlier this summer, the company submitted an environmental-impact statement (EIS) which was rejected by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the relevant government ministries. The company received 250 criticisms dealing with major inaccuracies, omissions, failures to address issues outlined for it in February, and poor, often unreadable, drafting.

The above are all matters of verifiable public record.

Mr. Russell Hallbauer, president and CEO of Taseko Mines Ltd., says these issues have now all been addressed, but that claim has been made before and proved wrong. CEAA and other parties will review the new EIS and even if it is accepted as the basis for hearings, it will then have to stand up to public scrutiny. So will its economic claims and feasibility studies. We have analyses raising detailed specific problems with these economic reports, which at the hearings stage will not so easily be dismissed with platitudes.

Signed

Chief Joe Alphonse Tribal chair, Tsilhqot'in National Government

First Nations Too New Age For Taseko Mines?

Taseko Mines Claims Prayer 'Taints' Review Process

Taseko Mines president Russell Hallbauer is getting desperate. He now claims that it's not fair that First Nations get to pray and perform traditional ceremonies at mining review panels. Talk about a clash of cultures!

Mr. Hallbauer makes a lot of money promoting mines. In 2009 he made $2.255 million providing "management and administrative services" to a number of different mines, including Taseko:

Compensation for 2009

Salary	$450,000.00
Bonus	$0.00
Restricted stock awards	$0.00
All other compensation	$0.00
Option awards $	$1,356,550.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation	$225,000.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings	$223,960.00
Total Compensation	$2,255,510.00

Source: Forbes.com 

Hallbauer is playing the underdog card to the Federal Government which, by the way, is moving to strip federal environmental legislation that currently gets in the way of economic progress:

In a letter to federal environment minister Peter Kent, Taseko president Russell Hallbauer complained last November that the “fairness and objectivity” of that the first panel review was tainted by allowing a first nations activist to sit on the panel.

The panel gave “priority status to the interests and perspectives” of first nations by allowing aboriginal prayer ceremonies at the opening of the hearings, he wrote. And science was given short shrift when the panel allowed a group of kindergarten children to present a play “in which the children wore fish cut-outs on their heads, moved around the floor, and then all fall over simultaneously, symbolizing the death of the fish.”   Globe and Mail

Just Trying to Be Helpful

Taseko Mines president Hallbauer made other helpful suggestions as well, including:

• No more aboriginal members on review panels
• No drumming or aboriginal prayer ceremonies
• Spirituality of a place is not an aboriginal right

Hallbauer felt that allowing First Nations to be on panels, drum and be spiritual is just not cricket, and that they had the "effect of giving priority status to the interests and perspectives [of] aboriginal people".

That makes me wonder, if the people of Kamloops stood up and objected the proposed open pit just south of the city, would it be unfair to let them speak at a panel hearing in case it gave their perspectives a priority status?

I thought that was the point of speaking at the hearing, to have your voice heard. This is a democracy and the panel hearings are part of the democratic process. 

Folks who live close to a proposed mine site will obviously feel different effects (effects: acid mine drainage, toxic dust, constant noise, death of a lake, loss of a spiritual place) than the folks who own the mineral claim (effects: maintain membership in Shaughnessy Golf and Country Club and summer home in Gulf Islands).

My view is that aboriginal rights and environmental protection are two basic tenets of Canadian society. The Tsilhqot'in have every right to bring their views to the table and their rights and title to the land do indeed trump the rights of other players.

Not only that, as Stephen Harper drops environmental legislation like a hot potato and David Suzuki is branded a foreign-backed terrorist, First Nations effectively become the only capable protectors of the environment.

You don't have to be rich to be powerful!

Taseko reaches deal with B.C. first nation to conduct tests at site

Taseko reaches deal with B.C. first nation to conduct tests at site

Taseko Mines and the Tsilhqot’in Nation have agreed to a compromise that will let Taseko do some work on the site of its proposed $1-billion New Prosperity mine without interference.
Last October, the province of British Columbia granted Taseko permits allowing it to carry out work on the property near Williams Lake.
The Tsilhqot’in objected to the provincial permits, saying the first nation had not been consulted or accommodated — a legal requirement — before the permits were issued

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Taseko+reaches+deal+with+first+nation+conduct+tests+site/6221462/story.html#ixzz1nkbreZCe

New Prosperity work program to commence February 28, 2012

From PRWeb News Release:

New Prosperity work program to commence February 28, 2012New Prosperity work program to commence February 28, 2012

VANCOUVER, Feb. 27, 2012 /PRNewswire/ - Taseko Mines Limited (TSX:TKO) (NYSE: TGB) (Amex: TGB) ("Taseko" or the "Company") announces that the temporary injunction preventing the Company from undertaking routine exploration work on the New Prosperity site pending a BC Supreme Court Judicial Review, has been vacated by court order.
On February 28, 2012 Taseko will commence a reduced scope of work that will be undertaken for the sole purposes of obtaining information required for the Federal environmental assessment of the proposed New Prosperity Project. On this basis, the parties have agreed not to further pursue existing legal actions.
For further information on Taseko, please see the Company's website www.tasekomines.com.
Russell HallbauerPresident and CEO

Why New Taseko Prosperity Mine Proposal Still Bad Idea

Ten facts that show why resubmitted Prosperity Mine proposal cannot be approved

1. The CEAA review panel process was very different from the BC EAO rubber-stamp decision. Its report found immitigable, devastating impacts to the local fish stocks and endangered grizzly populations, and to the existing and future rights of the Tsilhqot’in and its youth. Then Environment Minister Jim Prentice described the report’s findings as:

“scathing” and “probably the most condemning I have ever read.”

2. The company knows its new option is worse than its first plan. TML’s V.P. Corporate Affairs, Brian Battison, was clear in his Mar. 22, 2010, opening presentation to the CEAA hearings, when he stated:

“Developing Prosperity means draining Fish Lake.  We wish it were otherwise.  We searched hard for a different way. A way to retain the lake and have the mine.  But there is no viable alternative.  The lake and the deposit sit side by side.  It is not possible to have one without the loss of the other.”

3. The point was emphasised by TML’s VP of engineering, Scott Jones, who stated:

“What happens to the water quality in Fish Lake, if you try and preserve that body of water with the tailings facility right up against it, is that over time the water quality in Fish Lake will become equivalent to the water quality in the pore water of the tailings facility, particularly when it’s close.”

 4. This proposal does not address the issues that led to the rejection of the first bid last year. Fish Lake will be affected by the toxic waste and eventually die, and it will be surrounded by a massive open pit mine and related infrastructure for decades.  The Tsilhqot’in people will not have access to their spiritual place, and the area will never be returned to the current pristine state.

It is not even new. It is “Mine Development Plan 2.”  TML states on page 20 of its project submission:

“Option 2 is the basis for the New Prosperity design …The concepts that lead to the configuration of MDP Option 2 have been utilized to develop the project description currently being proposed.”

5. This option was looked at and rejected last year by the company, Environment Canada and the CEAA review panel. For example, page 65 of the review report states:

“The Panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.”

6. The new $300 million in proposed spending is to cover the costs of relocating mine waste a little further away. There is nothing in the ‘new’ plan to mitigate all the environmental impacts identified in the previous assessment. TML states in its economic statement:

“The new development design, predicated on higher long term prices for both copper and gold, would result in a direct increase in capital costs of $200 million to purchase additional mining equipment to relocate the tailings dam and to move the mine waste around Fish Lake to new locations. This redesign also adds $100 million in direct extra operating costs over the 20-year mine life to accomplish that task.” 

In fact, this new spending is actually $37 million less than the company said last year it would have to spend just to go with the option that it and the review panel agreed would be worse for the environment.

7.  The federal government is required under the Constitution to protect First Nations, which have been found to be under serious threat in this case, and is internationally committed to do so under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These duties are every bit as clear regarding this resubmitted proposal.

 8.  Approving this mine would show the Environmental Assessment process is meaningless, and would demonstrate that governments are ignoring their obligations -  as the Assembly of First Nations  national chiefs-in-assembly made this crystal clear this summer in their resolution of support for the Tsilhqot’in.

 9.  The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has opposed this project since it was first raised in 1995. It soundly rejected it again last year. It has no reason to support it now. Nor does Environment Canada, which, as the CEAA report noted last year, also found option 2 to be worse than the original bid.

10.  There are many other more worthy projects to be pursued – the vast majority of which, if not all will require working with aboriginal communities. Natural Resources Canada estimates there is $350 billion-$500 billion worth of such potential projects in Canada.  Governments, industry and investors do not need to go backwards by pushing this confrontational proposal and rebuffing efforts by First Nations to find a way to create a better mining system that would benefit everyone in the long run.TŜILHQOT’IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT