Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
For years now, when Andy Murphy has needed to catch a “trophy trout” good enough to win the local fishing derby, he has headed out to Sandy Pond.
Fish from the 38-hectare lake in his hometown of Long Harbour, Nfld., have brought plenty of victories. The water body is teeming with what he says are the best brook trout in the province.
“We always beat ‘em and the majority of the trout came from Sandy Pond,” Mr. Murphy said in an interview.
“I’ve never seen a pond that would compare to Sandy Pond. It’s definitely the best fishing,” he said.
Mr. Murphy’s days of pulling two- and three-pound trout from Sandy Pond will soon be over if Ottawa allows Brazilian mining giant Vale Inco Ltd. to dump toxic waste from its proposed nickel processing plant in the lake.
The company has asked the federal government for permission to contain the so-called residue – some 386,000 tonnes of material per year – in Sandy Pond.
“I hope our federal ministers have got more balls than to do it like this. I know Inco is a big multinational company and it has got a lot of bucks behind it, but if the government will allow a company like that to destroy the environment like this, holy jumps,” Mr. Murphy said.
Using Canadian lakes to dispose of residue from processing plants or tailings from mines in Canada is illegal. But amendments made to federal regulations in April, 2006, have opened the door for mining companies to use fish-bearing natural water bodies for waste.
So far, only one new mine, the Duck Pond mine in west-central Newfoundland, which is now owned by Teck Cominco Ltd., has been granted an amendment to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMERs) of the Fisheries Act allowing it to deposit tailings in a fish-bearing lake.
In another case, Northgate Minerals Corp. gave up on its proposed Kemess North gold mine last year after a joint federal-provincial panel rejected the project’s plans to use a lake for tailings disposal.
Yet this year alone, at least nine other mining companies, including Vale Inco, are seeking a so-called “Schedule Two” exemption to the MMERs designating certain Canadian lakes and ponds “tailings impoundment areas.”
Mining has been making a growing contribution to Canada’s economy in the midst of the commodities boom, helping to offset the downturn in the manufacturing sector.
There have oft been environmental concerns related to the industry, however, and with the increased focus on environmental issues there is a brighter spotlight on conflicts.
Environmentalists are particularly concerned by the Vale Inco proposal because they say it could pave the way for other hydrometallurgical processing plants in Canada to dispose of their waste in natural water bodies.
“They’re actually extending the reach of these regulations and the types of projects in the future that can start looking for lakes,” said Catherine Coumans of MiningWatch Canada, an environmental non-governmental organization.
Vale Inco contends that using Sandy Pond to contain the residue, which will include acid-generating sulphur, will cause the least harm to the environment. It will, however, kill all the fish in the lake including Mr. Murphy’s prized trout.
“We take these issues quite seriously. We’ve done an exhaustive analysis of the alternatives that would be available to us for the residue management. We’ve looked at alternative sites including an excavated structure and on balance, our analysis shows, our best alternative is to use Sandy Pond. It’s something that we looked at very, very carefully,” Vale Inco spokesman Bob Carter said in an interview.
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans agrees. DFO officials have concluded that using Sandy Pond is the best option for the project. They have referred the request to Environment Canada which is heading a process that could see Sandy Pond added to the list of approved tailings impoundment areas.
Environment Canada’s chief of mining and minerals, Chris Doiron, conceded that using lakes for tailings disposal can be an emotional issue for many Canadians. Yet in a few select cases, he says, it the best option.
“As a bottom line it is sometimes what makes the most environmental, technical and socio-economic sense. But it must always be subjected to a very exhaustive environmental assessment process,” he said.
Submerging tailings and mine waste under water is widely considered the best way to prevent oxidization of the material which could release toxic substances into the environment. Most mineral bodies in Canada are sulphides which can create acid-producing waste. Storing tailings or residue on land can lead to acid drainage.
In most cases, mining companies construct tailings dumps to submerge the waste in water. In the case of the Long Harbour plant, which will process ore from the Voisey’s Bay nickel mine, it will be much cheaper for Vale Inco to use Sandy Pond than to dig its own pit and submerge the waste under water.
The company estimates the total construction and operating costs of using Sandy Pond to contain the residue will be $62-million while the cost of constructing and operating a human-made excavated pit would be $490-million.
If it gets the go-ahead, Vale Inco will, however, have to compensate for the lost lake and habitat. When the Duck Pond mine was granted the Schedule Two amendment, new legislation was drafted that required miners to pay for the creation of an equal amount of wildlife and habitat.
DFO has accepted Vale Inco’s plan to create a water body less than half the size of Sandy Pond’s 38 hectares to offset the loss.
“They’ve agreed to a compensation strategy that would see about 18 hectares of compensation occurring,” Mr. Carter said.
The company is awaiting federal and provincial approval of its environmental assessment within 30 to 45 days. Approval for the amendment to allow it to use Sandy Pond for waste disposal could come by April, 2009. Ultimately, it will be up to the federal cabinet to give the final consent.
“In this day and age, I can’t believe that the government is going to allow it,” Mr. Murphy said. The 56-year-old commercial fisherman has become an unlikely environmental activist. He was one of a handful of residents who voiced opposition to the Vale Inco plan at a public consultation in Long Harbour earlier this month.
“If they’re going to change the regulations for the big mining companies because they’ve got the big dollars behind them, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I tell you one thing right now, if they do, there’s going to be one of us chained onto a tree somewhere. I dare say, I’ll have a few more buddies beside me, too. There are a lot of people here who are dead set against it.”
(C) Globe & Mail