Ivanhoe’s Kipushi zinc mine in DRC officially reopens
The restart marked exactly a century since the mine first went into production.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to invoke a little used provision that may block Pebble Mine from being built.
On Friday the EPA said that it is seeking comment on issuing regulation 404(c) whereby the “. . . EPA is authorized to prohibit or restrict fill activities if a project would have unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas.” The EPA said the provision is used “sparingly” with major projects that have “significant impacts.”
The EPA said it is issuing the proposal “. . . to protect one of the world’s most valuable salmon fisheries, in Bristol Bay, Alaska, from the risks posed by large-scale mining at the Pebble deposit.”
“Science has shown that development of this mine, which is backed by Northern Dynasty Minerals and the Pebble Limited Partnership, would be one of the largest open pit copper mines in the world and would threaten one of the world’s most productive salmon fisheries,” said the EPA in a news release.
The proposed Pebble Mine, 320 km southwest of Anchorage, is within the Bristol Bay watershed.
The company backing the mine said the EPA is jumping the gun.
“While today’s announcement from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 is only a proposal at this time, we are pleased to note the agency has rejected requests to preemptively veto the Pebble Project in favor of imposing specific conditions on future development,” said Pebble Partnership’s CEO Tom Collier. Pebble Partnership is an advocacy group run by Northern Dynasty.
“That said, we believe that EPA does not have the statutory authority to impose conditions on development at Pebble, or any development project anywhere in Alaska or the US, prior to the submission of a detailed development plan and its thorough review by federal and state agencies, including review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).”
Northern Dynasty Minerals (TSE:NDM) dropped 7.69% to 78 cents on Friday.
The EPA is seeking public comment on its proposal from July 21 to September 19, 2014. Public meetings will be held in Alaska from August 12-15.
The EPA explains the background on provision:
The Clean Water Act generally requires a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before any person places dredged or fill material into streams, wetlands, lakes and ponds. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorizes thousands of permits every year, and EPA works with the Corps and developers to resolve environmental concerns so projects can move forward. Under Section 404(c), EPA is authorized to prohibit or restrict fill activities if a project would have unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas.
EPA has used its 404(c) authority sparingly, beginning the process in 30 instances and completing it only 13 times in the 42-year history of the Clean Water Act. EPA use of its authority has typically involved major projects with significant impacts on some of America’s most ecologically valuable waters.
Image of Bristol Bay by Emma Fosberg
7 Comments
Deon
To Pebble Partnership’s CEO Tom Collier, instead of investing all your time and money on making more money, show the world a change in mining thinking. Invest your money on the opposing EPA’s reason by supporting the fisheries.
Matt
Sorry Mr. Collier, I make a living from mining as well, but I think in this case the handwriting is on the wall. The big boys have seen it and walked away because they understand “social licence” is as important as the price of gold. Some areas are just not meant to be mined with conventional technology and the proximity of this mine to the many salmon streams in this earthquake zone is probably one of them. Why don’t you try negotiating for a compensatory piece of ground in a more suitable area?
U308
“Social Licence” is a BS activist term designed to have approval shifted away from regulatory bodies, scientists and engineers and given to those who oppose and scream the loudest.
You sound like you make a living opposing mining actually.
LAMB
The ENGINEERING for this project is badly flawed – rather than a ‘fill’ type of Tailing Disposal, they could have looked at ‘DRY STACK disposal. Yes, it will be more expensive, BUT it will get EPA approval faster if it does not contaminate and compromise a prime Salmon-breeding body of water.
Aurum Minerali
I think part of the point that the folks at Northern Dynasty are making is that they have not even produced the feasibility study yet, so how can anybody draw any conclusion about how this project will move forward. The EPA and the environmental groups are determined to stop this project no matter what
modindustpro
I agree with Matt, not all mining projects are immediately viable. I think the possibility that future remediation technology will mitigate the issue is very good, then it is a better option to mine it. I don’t believe anyone wants the fishery to see damage, especially the mining company.
AuAgCuExplore makes a good point as well, the deposit will eventually see activity someday. The typical argument we make in the mining industry to anti-mining people is that we need minerals in order to keep up with societal demands, ergo the deposit will be exploited for it’s vast store of copper. There is no problem with that as long as it’s done responsibly.
2ndOrion
Without any information on what way the mine will proceed, how can anybody make any decisions as yet. Even Public Opinion would be foolhardy. It could only be a whole lot of don’t do this and don’t do that. -Then Mining may proceed in a totally different way. Only the project planners will figure out the final plan.