How many billions of dollars will billionaire Gina Reinhart sue Canadians for if she doesn’t get her way?
|The Final Nail in the Coffin of the Grassy Mountain Coal Project? by Dr. Ian Urquhart, August 8, 2021, Alberta Wilderness Association|
|On Friday, August 6th Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson released the federal government’s decision on the Grassy Mountain Coal Project. Minister Wilkinson concluded “the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” and the federal government “has determined those effects are not justified in the circumstances and therefore, the project cannot proceed.”|
Is this the final nail in the coffin of Gina Rinehart’s Grassy Mountain Coal Project? I will wager it is.
On the one hand, Minister Wilkinson’s announcement was surprising. After all, the June 17th Joint Review Panel report made it very clear a federal decision wasn’t required. As the decision-maker for the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), the Panel rejected Benga Mining’s applications for the permissions needed for the mine to proceed. Without those permissions, the project couldn’t go ahead. Ottawa could have remained silent.
For now, we don’t know if Minister Wilkinson’s announcement is related at all to Benga Mining’s decision to seek permission from the Alberta Court of Appeal to appeal the AER ruling. Did the Minister think a judge of the Court of Appeal would accede to Benga’s faint hope request? Did Minister Wilkinson think that, if the Court of Appeal actually agreed to hear an appeal, Benga would win? It’s impossible for me to answer yes to those questions. I expect the feds saw the risks of Benga/Australia billionaire, Gina Reinhart, getting whatever she demands from UCP and Alberta judges. I think AER is in on Benga asking permission to appeal, knows they’ll get permission and win their appeal, and why AER granted Benga water licences after rejecting the project.
But, the federal cabinet’s decision should make Benga’s desperate legal gambit pointless. Even if Benga’s dreams of success at the Court of Appeal are realized, Ottawa now has rejected the project. Legal victories at Alberta’s Court of Appeal won’t change this fact. Without Ottawa’s approval, the Project cannot proceed. It appears to me to be just that simple.
Electoral politics may help to explain the Minister’s decision to put this nail in Benga’s coffin. With this announcement the Minister offers further evidence that the federal Liberals will take a very hard line on any plans to strip-mine the Canadian Rockies and Foothills for coal. Arguably important electoral advantages flow from that position and what it may signal for issues like climate change.
For the time being AWA, on behalf of ourselves and our Grassy Mountain Coalition partners – the Grassy Mountain Group, intends to offer financial support to the Livingstone Landowners Group if LLG participates in the hearing regarding Benga’s application for permission to appeal the AER’s rejection of Grassy Mountain. AWA doesn’t see any advantage in appearing as a separate party in that application. Unless Benga withdraws its application in light of Minister Wilkinson’s decision, that case likely will be heard in September.
The news release from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is here.
The decision statement from Minister Wilkinson is here.
If you would like to write to Minister Wilkinson to congratulate him on his decision here are his addresses:
The Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson,
Minister of Environment and Climate Change,
House of Commons
(No postage required)
IMPORTANT INFO FROM Ian Urquhart posted to ASRG:
Unlike Alberta’s Responsible Energy Development Act I don’t believe the CEAA 2012 has a provision allowing a party either to appeal a ministerial/cabinet decision or to apply to a court for permission to appeal a decision. So I believe Wilkinson’s announcement may well be, as advertised in the title of his news release, a “final” decision https://www.canada.ca/…/the-government-of-canada….
Even if a judge of the Alberta Court of Appeal gives Benga permission to appeal the AER panel’s decision (and even if a resulting appeal was successful) Wilkinson said that the federal government will not give Benga the federal permissions needed for the project to proceed.
But… my suspicion is that the certainty of Benga’s death still is contingent on the relationship between two things. One of those is the upcoming federal election. If the Conservatives miraculously win a majority, I don’t believe there would be anything stopping Benga (other than time and money) from submitting a revised application for Grassy Mountain. That application could try to address the failings noted in the Review Panel’s report. The second thing is the rejection, in one form or another, of Benga’s efforts to appeal the AER decision. If Benga is denied permission to appeal then Grassy is dead. As the Grassy Panel noted, if the AER won’t give the mine the needed approvals then there is no recourse to the federal government. If a judge of the Court of Appeal gives Benga permission to appeal, then if the subsequent appeal fails Grassy stays dead as well. Again, without the provincial approvals it doesn’t matter what a government of any political stripe in Ottawa thinks about the project.
In light of Wilkinson’s announcement I think if Benga decides to continue to seek permission to appeal the Grassy Mountain decision, it’s doing so based on the hope of a change in government in Ottawa. I also think Wilkinson sent an election message yesterday. Although there was no need for him/cabinet to reject the project given the June decision – he did so anyways. This was likely to get his party in position to argue that they are on the right side of climate change, water quality, species at risk, and First Nations.
All the best, Ian
Grassy Mountain: A Just Result, A Just Transition by Kevin Turner, Aug 5, 2021, The Crowsnest Journal
Late Friday afternoon in a letter to Benga Mining/Riversdale Resources federal environment minister, Johnathan Wilkinson announced the Governor in Council decision that the, “significant adverse environmental effects that the Designated Project is likely to cause are not justified in the circumstances”.
This, the final word on this specific proposal provides a just result for all that walks, crawls, roots, swims or flies in the Oldman’s long-ravaged headwaters. It also provides an opportunity for deeper systemic change and a just transition away from an often destructive industry which has held abusive sway over the region and the community of Crowsnest Pass for over a century.
The attached images taken in 2019 prior to the federal/provincial Joint Review Panel’s tour of the historic mine site and area in September of that year, remind us of the remaining pockets of biodiversity and beauty within the Gold Creek Valley and on Grassy Mountain, pockets which would have been lost to the new mining proposal.
Previously mined and far from pristine, the area ought now become a focal point for remediation efforts which can then be expanded through the watershed to facilitate a move to a sustainable economy in local communities which serve all interests without creating significant new liabilities and heartaches.
Unlike previous project reviews in Alberta under the direct control of the Alberta Energy Regulator, the JRP’s federal component ensured decades of dysfunction, negligence, and nepotism in the provincial process would not predetermine the outcome as many expected would be the case with the Grassy Mountain proposal.
The proponent’s approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment reflected this regulatory history in its minimalist and perfunctory addressing of the salient concerns surrounding species-at-risk, water protection, and First Nations engagement with RR/BM filling in the blanks through addenda as repeatedly instructed by JRP responses.
Many in the mainstream conservation community also provided a weak responses to the myriad complex concerns prior to 2019 when public awareness began to increase after the purchase of RR/BM by Australian iron ore magnate, Gina Rinehart and the rise of the United Conservative Party to power in Alberta.
The delay in robust response by both regulators and project opponents led directly to other Australian firms attempting to capitalize on the situation through both Australian stock markets and other potential developments facilitated by the new Government of Alberta’s rescinding of previous policies meant to protect Alberta’s eastern slopes mindful of our most precious resource, water.
The delay in response also served the proponent’s interests in regards to significant release events into both Gold Creek and Blairmore Creeks which flow from Grassy Mountain’s east and west flanks during the exploratory phase of the proposal. While federal agencies did what they could to protect water courses, Alberta dysfunction won the day and to this writing, little has been done to mitigate the stream damage or to remove deposits of coal and other substances from public and private lands.
Having thrown its support behind the project as early as 2013, Crowsnest Pass mayors and councils went on to form dubious relationships with RR/BM. Battle lines now drawn in the minds of those within the local power structure of Crowsnest Pass and citizens in support of the prospect, many went on to employ the same divisive, destructive tactics so often observed in our society by those who place their desire and financial interests above the rule of law and the greater good.
There is perhaps no better example of this erosive line of thinking and resultant actions than the behaviour of the proponent and project supporters following the June announcement of the JRP ‘s recommendation to reject the proposal in its entirety.
Attacking the review process proper and the rule of law, RR/BM filed an application in Alberta court seeking the right to appeal the JRP decision. Two First Nation Band Council’s, one led by Chief Grier of the Piikani Nation, have filed similar concerns.
In addition, the Coal Association of Canada led by former Alberta environment minister, Robin Campbell has launched a smear and charm campaign in an effort to legitimize not only this proposal, but those of other Australian penny-players including Montem Resources and Atrum Coal.
Local resistance to the JRP decision was led by the owner of the community’s print media, Lisa Sygutek who also sits on Crowsnest Pass Council and has involved herself extensively in both the federal and provincial conservative riding associations in the area. Much of the discomfort and frank anger now being felt by residents in favour of the proposal can be traced back to disinformation streams and industry talking points originating in or promoted by, the Crowsnest Pass Herald.
Certainly the rejection was a mighty blow to the dreams of those in Crowsnest Pass who remain captive to the lure of the mine or see the coal industry as a chance to improve the quality of their family’s life. Many residents of the area work at the Teck Resources’ metallurgic coal mines on the British Columbia side of the Continental Divide making good wages and appear unable or unwilling to absorb and understand the different circumstances and regulatory requirements of coal development in Alberta.
Understandably, several Facebook pages were crafted in support of the proposal which quickly became silos for the furtherance of the disinformation streams and industry talking points born of the above. Unable or unwilling to address the salient concerns directly, blanket denials, manufactured realities, and personal attacks quickly became the stock in trade creating new heartaches and potential liabilities while deepening community divisions.
Like the dozens of legacy coal-mining liabilities remaining in the Oldman’s headwaters, these heartaches and liabilities are net result of the politics of hate, of industrial and corporate greed, of broken-by-design regulatory systems, of the mainstream conservation industry’s inability to evolve, of apathy within the general public, of placing personal desire above the greater good, and of the grotesque failures in leadership by folks on all sides of the equation from the corporate boardroom to the conservation fundraiser to the family dinner table.
Beyond the increased public awareness and action, when one considers it all from the perspective of the lands and streams there is little to celebrate here except the opportunity provided for deep systemic change and a just transition towards a brighter, more ethical and sustainable future for all that walks, crawls, roots, swims or flies in the Oldman’s long-ravaged headwaters.
We can do this too fellow Albertans, and do it well. Thanks again to all who ethically raised their voice in defence of the headwaters, our shared humanity, and the greater good.
‘Good Stuff’ it most certainly is.
Take good care out there, folks.
Mainstream media report from the CBC, “Federal Government Rejects Grassy Mountain Coal Project in Alberta:- https://www.cbc.ca/…/federal-government-grassy-mountain…
Johnathan Wilkinson’s letter to Riversdale Resources/Benga Mining through the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada project webpages:- https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/140985
Ps, The above overview was written as much as an outline for future CNJ articles as to report on the Friday afternoon announcement which I’m sure most folks are already aware of. Our task now is to prevent relapse while addressing the underlying concerns which resulted in the destructive folly in the first place.
As resources allow, upcoming CNJ reports will drill down into each concern in the hope of facilitating and supporting just transitions on every file impacting the watershed and the greater good including dubious regulatory oversight, the dysfunction of mainstream conservation in Alberta, coal mining concerns past and present, cattle ranching and grazing leases, clear-cut logging, off-highway vehicle concerns, and of course, the playbook of the International Democratic Union still being forcibly installed in the province by the UCP under Jason Kenney.
These upcoming articles will also form the basis of formal reports to regulatory and professional bodies and of criminal complaints related to my work on the files. I trust that in concert with the ethical work of others on the noted files, a return to the past dysfunction and destruction can be avoided as we craft a new day and recover from past deficiencies and derelictions.
Federal government rejects Grassy Mountain coal project in Alberta, Environment minister says ‘significant adverse environmental effects’ likely with mine by Joel Dryden with files from Robson Fletcher, CBC News, Aug 06, 2021
The proposed Grassy Mountain coal project in southwestern Alberta has been rejected by the federal government nearly two months after a review panel denied a provincial application for the project.
On Friday, federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he had rejected the project in light of the review panel’s report and after a review of additional available information.
“The Government of Canada must make decisions based on the best available scientific evidence while balancing economic and environmental considerations,” Wilkinson said in a release.
“It is in Canada’s best interests to safeguard our water ways for healthy fish populations like the westslope cutthroat trout, respect Indigenous peoples’ culture and way of life, and protect the environment for future generations.”
Review panel decision
In June, a review panel for the Alberta Energy Regulator denied the provincial application for the coal project, ruling it was “not in the public interest” and advising the federal government to reject the project
Following that decision, the Australia-based Riversdale Resources said it was “reviewing its options,” estimating the project could produce up to 4.5 million tonnes of steel-making coal annually over a 23-year mine life. It said the operation would generate $1.7 billion in taxes and employ 400 people.
- Australian coal companies not giving up on southern Alberta mines in wake of Grassy Mountain rejection
In a release, the federal government said the project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects to:
- Surface water quality, including from selenium effluent discharge.
- The threatened westslope cutthroat trout and its habitat.
- The endangered whitebark pine.
- The physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.
In a statement issued in June, Riversdale said it would engage with the relevant authorities to “better understand the reasons for the decision to obtain assurance that the process has been fair and transparent, has accorded sufficient weight to recognized experts and established industry practices, and that the decision is not effectively an anti-development decision.”
It added at the time that it had also engaged with First Nations and Métis communities in the region at the earliest stages of the project.
Grassy Mountain was the first of a number of projects proposed for the area.
Two other companies with coal leases in the area — Montem Resources and Atrum — said in the wake of the review panel’s decision in June that they would press on with their mining plans.
Last year, the provincial government revoked a 1976 policy that protected the eastern slopes of the Rockies from open-pit coal mining.
In April, the province said it would suspend coal exploration activity in lands classified as “Category 2” under the policy until an ongoing public consultation concluded.
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for Energy Minister Sonya Savage referenced a statement made in June and attributed to Savage and Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon.
“As outlined in the statement, Alberta’s government respects the recommendation of the joint review panel,” Margeaux Maron said in an email.
A few of the comments:
more manilla envelopes will be required.
Al Millar Reply to @Kenneth Hewer:
I thought the Conservatives moved up to brief cases
Federal government says proposed coal mine in southwestern Alberta can’t proceed by The Canadian Press, Aug 6, 2021, The Globe and Mail
The federal government says the proposed Grassy Mountain coal project in southwestern Alberta cannot proceed.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson made the announcement in a release Friday.
He said while mining is important to the economy, coal can include significant adverse environmental effects.
Mr. Wilkinson said the decision was based on information including the findings of a joint review panel report.
He said the project would have likely caused harm to surface water quality, to species including the threatened westslope cutthroat trout and endangered whitebark pine trees, and to the physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.
Benga Mining Ltd. has said the proposed metallurgical coal mine in the Crowsnest Pass area would create hundreds of jobs and produce up to 4.5 million tonnes of coal a year over a mine life of approximately 23 years.
“The Government of Canada must make decisions based on the best available scientific evidence while balancing economic and environmental considerations,” Mr. Wilkinson said in the release.
“It is in Canada’s best interests to safeguard our waterways for healthy fish populations like the Westslope Cutthroat Trout, respect Indigenous peoples’ culture and way of life, and protect the environment for future generations.”
Katie Morrison, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, applauded the federal government’s decision.
She said it reinforces the Alberta Energy Regulator’s earlier conclusion that the significant environmental effects of the open-pit mine would outweigh any potential benefits.
“This is another win for clean water, fish and wildlife and for the many Albertans who have been worried about the negative effects of new coal mines on their communities,” she said in an e-mail.
“It’s great news that the Grassy Mountain coal project has now been officially denied at both the federal and provincial level.”
When asked for comment on the federal decision, the Alberta government said a statement made in June by Energy Minister Sonya Savage and Environment and Parks Minister Jason Nixon, when the joint review panel denied an application for the mine, still stands.
In that June statement, the ministers said, “the Alberta government respects the joint review panel’s recommendation, which is the result of a rigorous review process carried out by the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.”
The ministers acknowledged that the panel determined the project would result in adverse environmental effects on surface water quality – particularly on westslope cutthroat trout and their habitat.
“All proposed coal projects are subject to stringent review to ensure development is safe, environmentally responsible and meets all requirements. In this case, the process worked as it should.”
Officials at Benga Mining Ltd. could not immediately be reached for comment.
Last month, Benga filed a request to appeal the decision by the review panel that rejected the project as being not in the public interest.
In the court filing, Benga said the June 17 decision by the panel, including the Alberta Energy Regulator, contains errors of law and procedural fairness that warrant the granting of permission to appeal.
Later in July, two Alberta First Nations also filed separate requests to appeal the June decision.
The Stoney Nakoda Nation said the panel did not properly assess the impact that rejecting the project would have on Stoney Nakoda Aboriginal and treaty rights and economic interests related to the accommodation of those rights. The Piikani First Nation filed a similar request.
The Government of Canada Releases its Final Decision on the Grassy Mountain Coal Project From: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada News release by Impact Assessment of Canada, August 6, 2021
The Government of Canada recognizes the mining sector as an important economic driver in Canada. However, the mining of coal can include significant adverse environmental effects—leading to impacts that matter to Canadians.
Today, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister responsible for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, issued a Decision Statement under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project.
After careful deliberation and review of available and relevant information, which includes the Joint Review Panel’s Report, the Minister concluded the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects under CEAA 2012. The Government of Canada has determined those effects are not justified in the circumstances and therefore, the project cannot proceed.
The Minister concluded the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects to:
Surface water quality, including from selenium effluent discharge;
Westslope Cutthroat Trout, listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act, and its habitat;
Whitebark Pine, listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act; and
Physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.
In addition, the Minister concluded that the project is likely to contribute to existing significant adverse cumulative effects to:
Westslope Cutthroat Trout and its habitat;
Little brown bat; and
Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and physical and cultural heritage of the Kainai, Piikani and Siksika First Nations.
The Government of Canada appreciates the constructive dialogue it has had with Indigenous communities throughout the assessment process. The relationships that have been formed reflect the Government of Canada’s commitment to meaningful engagement and reconciliation. The comments received from all participants throughout the environmental assessment process, including the robust scientific advice received from various experts, was invaluable and allowed the Government of Canada to make well-informed decisions.
“The Government of Canada must make decisions based on the best available scientific evidence while balancing economic and environmental considerations. It is in Canada’s best interests to safeguard our water ways for healthy fish populations like the Westslope Cutthroat Trout, respect Indigenous peoples’ culture and way of life, and protect the environment for future generations.”
— The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Benga Mining Limited was proposing to construct and operate an open-pit metallurgical coal mine near the Crowsnest Pass, approximately seven kilometres north of the community of Blairmore, in southwest Alberta. As proposed, the Grassy Mountain Coal Project’s production capacity would have been up 4.5 million tonnes of processed coal per year, over a mine-life of about 25 years.
Consultations with Indigenous communities throughout the environmental assessment were extensive, with 14 groups participating in the process, and allocated funding of $714,704 provided to support their participation in the various steps of the review.
An independent Joint Review Panel, established with the Alberta Energy Regulator, conducted the rigorous and science-based federal environmental assessment process. Experts from many federal departments participated in the process by providing advice and technical expertise throughout the project’s review. These departments include: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Health Canada.
The Joint Review Panel conducted extensive public consultations throughout the review, including a 29-day virtual public hearing. Over 100 individuals, including members of the public, representatives from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, municipal governments, expert witnesses, legal counsel, and federal and provincial experts actively participated in the virtual hearing.
Thousands of comments were received from individuals and groups throughout the environmental assessment, and this valuable input was carefully reviewed and taken into account in the development of the Joint Review Panel Report.
The Government of Canada is particularly concerned with deleterious substances associated with coal mining. Effluent from coal mines in Canada can be a source of pollution that harms aquatic life and specifically fish and fish habitat. As such, Environment and Climate Change Canada is developing the Coal Mining Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act. These proposed regulations will establish effluent quality standards for deleterious substances of concern, including selenium, nitrate and suspended solids.
Minister’s Environmental Assessment Decision Statement (Canadian Impact Assessment Registry)
Joint Review Panel Report (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada)
Basics of Environmental Assessment (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada)
Office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Follow us on Twitter: @IAAC_AEIC #GrassyMountain
Benga Launches Legal Appeal of Joint Review Panel’s Conclusion on Proposed Grassy Mountain Steelmaking Coal Project News Release by Benga Mining Limited, Jul 19, 2021, CNW
CROWSNEST PASS, AB, July 19, 2021 /CNW/ – Benga Mining Limited (Benga) today announced that it has commenced a legal appeal process following the decision of the Grassy Mountain Joint Review Panel (JRP), in its capacity as the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), dated June 17, 2021, to deny the Grassy Mountain Steelmaking Coal Project (Project). Benga has filed an Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
“After careful and thorough review of the JRP’s report, Benga believes that the AER’s conclusions and reasons contain material errors of law and contraventions of procedural fairness,” said John Wallington, CEO of Benga. “Among the reasoning in its report, the AER dismissed the full support of the relevant First Nations without consultation, demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the provincial royalty regime, and gave preference to non-expert layman analysis over expert, science-based evidence. These errors must be addressed to not only deliver fairness to Benga and the Indigenous groups adversely affected by the decision, but to provide future guidance to any company considering an investment in Alberta and Canada, any participants in AER and JRP review processes, future AER and JRP panels, and Indigenous groups that support projects and can benefit economically and culturally from their approval.”
Benga’s Application for Permission to Appeal is based on a number of errors made by the JRP in its capacity as the AER, each of which raise a question of law or jurisdiction. These errors include:
Failing to engage with, consult with, or suggest consultation with affected Indigenous groups when contemplating the rejection of the Project. As a result, the JRP did not properly assess the impact of the rejection of the Project on Indigenous rights and economic interests. Should it proceed, the Project would create hundreds of jobs and generate economic benefits for nearby Indigenous groups.
Denying Benga procedural fairness by finding that Benga submitted insufficient information in its application, after informing Benga prior to the hearing that the “content of the EIA report and addenda meet the Alberta Energy Regulator final terms of reference”.
Ignoring relevant evidence from Benga, or misconstruing that evidence related to topics such as surface-water quality, Westslope Cutthroat Trout and their habitat, and Project economics.
Improperly relying on layperson or non-expert and unfounded opinions that lacked science-based support, rather than on science-based evidence presented by Benga.
Finding that Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program – which is overseen by the government itself – was inadequate for Benga to rely on to address long-term water treatment costs.
Each of these errors was fundamental to the JRP’s finding that the Project is not in the public interest and require the JRP to reconsider Benga’s application to approve the Project.
Benga believes it is unprecedented for Alberta’s energy regulator to deny a project after a public hearing. Since 2009, 11 oil sands and coal mining projects have gone through Alberta’s energy regulator oral hearing process, with eight being approved, three withdrawn, and none denied.
“The JRP could have addressed any valid concerns with the Project by making an approval conditional on strict conditions. This well-established and proven approach ensures any development can only proceed with adequate protections in place. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to us, the JRP imposed a decision that is based on a number of errors of law, leaving Benga no choice but to take the steps we announced today,” said Wallington.
Benga will file an Affidavit and a Memorandum of Argument in support of its Application for Permission to Appeal in the coming days and weeks.
The Grassy Mountain Project is a proposed steelmaking coal mine in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta. The Project holds a Category 4 land use classification; nearly 25% of the Project sits on previously mined (legacy) land, which was mined over 60 years ago and never properly restored. Benga’s plans incorporate industry-leading practices to manage water use, protect wildlife and accelerate reclamation.
The proposed capital expenditure for the Project is approximately $800 million, and approximately 500 jobs would be created during construction and 385 full-time site positions at full production. Over the life of mine, the Project would be expected to generate $1.7 billion in provincial and federal income taxes and royalties.
SOURCE Benga Mining Limited
Nikiforuk: Who saved Alberta’s mountaintops and precious clean water? Albertans. “Coal Bullshit” Grassy Mountain project is dead. No thanks to Kenney Gov’t or regulators. annie_fiftyseven: “What a bloody circle-jerk.”
AER says no to Grassy Mountain Coal Mine. Must be the “F*ck You Kenney, Mountains Not Mines” mugs going around, reporting by Andrew Nikiforuk, thousands of Albertans yelling “NO!” and study by Brad Stelfox et. al. because “Public Interest” is nowhere in REDA or AER’s mandate.