Grassy Mountain mine poses a threat to environment
By Lethbridge Herald on November 30, 2024.
Editor:
On Nov. 25, 1,957 of the 6,007 eligible Crowsnest Pass residents voted in favour of Northback’s Grassy Mountain coal mining project. This non-binding referendum excluded the 2,416 taxpayers who do not live there full-time. The result will be used by the Crowsnest Pass MD to lobby in support of the mine though it is proposed for the next municipality, not theirs.
In 2021, the UCP Government canvased provincially with 72 per cent of 25,000 respondents saying “No” to coal mining; it would have a detrimental impact on water and the environment. 62 per cent said that, economically, coal industry revenues for the province didn’t warrant the probability for environmental damage.
Also in 2021, the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Alberta Energy Regulator concluded that the project would contaminate the Oldman watershed with selenium and other heavy metals.
The project was not approved. With complete disregard, in 2022, Premier Smith stated that her government would support the mine if Crowsnest Pass residents supported the mine.
Clearly, 1,957 “Yes” voters for a proven environmentally damaging project should not hold much sway over something that will negatively impact the water quantity and quality for downstream aquatic and terrestrial life and for over 200,000 Albertans for a very long time.
This is a decision for all Albertans to make. Premier Smith would do well to respect this.
I attended “Water 2.0,” a public information forum in Nanton on Nov 5. where a panel of four people, well versed in pro and anti coal development matters, made presentations and fielded questions. Here’s a link to that event (https:// app.frame.io/presentations/f3c0cda4-5d02-46b3-876a-6251b14fdeb4).
> Toxicologist Mandy Olsgard, M.Sc., P.Biol., presented her findings from literature, review and references to studies indicated a strong correlation between air-born coal dust and increased rates of mortality and illness from cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and birth defects in humans.
Her study predicted similar risks could be expected from particulate matter as well as chemical deposition on nearby ranch lands and pasture with potential adverse effects in livestock.
Among various gas emissions associated with coal mining, nitrogen dioxide is most concerning as a key component in the generation of acid rain and the related acidification of water and soil. Farmers, ranchers and fishermen won’t be too happy with this prospect!!
Selenium is often the most discussed pollutant associated with coal mining. Though an essential element as a micro-nutrient, selenium concentrations released from coal mining are often very toxic, particularly for aquatic species. In aquatic systems, the allowable pollution concentration is just 2 micrograms/ltr while live-stock and humans are more tolerant with allowable release concentrations of 40-50 micrograms/litre.
Northback may claim the ability to remove 95-99 per cent of the selenium, which sounds great but even at 99 per cent removed, the coal mine effluent can still exceed aquatic guidelines by 5-10 times!
Currently, the lowest concentrations selenium treatment technologies can attain are 3.5 micrograms/litre (in saturated rock fill) and 11.4 (active water treatment) as reported from the treatment facilities at the Elk Valley Teck (Glenco) Mines.
In 2021, they were fined $60 million for their selenium and nitrate pollution of the Elk and Fording Rivers and since have faced millions in fines despite spending over $1.2 billion in state-of-the-art water treatment measures!
The fact is there is no technological fix for removing selenium to lawful (and safe) levels anywhere in the world.
Selenium bio-accumulates which means that when it enters a system or organism, it stays and accumulates, drastically increasing the harm rendered.
So we know that immediate releases of selenium are likely to be toxic to aquatic life from the start and as time passes and selenium pollution continues to accumulate, travels hundreds of kilometres downstream, and will eventually be toxic in a matter of decades to livestock, wildlife and us. Selenium pollutes ground water as well. About 30 kilometres from Elk Valley Resources in Sparwood, since 2022 Fernie has measured hazardous levels of selenium in their drinking water wells.
Coal mining consumes a lot of water. A 2021 University of Calgary, Faculty of Law assessment of the proposed water demands submitted by Benga Mining Limited (now Northback) for the Grassy Mountain Mine determined that it was a significant under-representation based on consumption rates from comparative coal mining operations and concluded “the impact of mining in this region is expected to place a new stress on the already stressed water resources of the Oldman River Basin.
And this stress will be most acute during times of drought, when the potential for conflict between on-site water demands and between water license holders will be elevated“
Simply put, there currently isn’t enough water for coal mining and we will likely be getting less in the future.
Smith’s government must not use a mere 1957 pro-coal votes to support such as destructive industry.
I don’t blame these residents wishing for a better future; I just wish the government would divert their pro-coal resources into developing a sustainable local economy for the deserving people of Crowsnest Pass.
Peter Jowett
Fort Macleod
26-25
Yes, but will Smith and her minions read and listen ?
Can it only be imagined, if, this mine would go ahead, water designation drops for the thousands of irrigated agriculture acres downstream, and the hue and cry starts, including from the significant UCP rural voting base? Does Danielle Smith, et al, just assume that no matter what, the rural vote support will be a given?
Suggest you all move to Fernie, up stream from the mine.
not sure of your point, although i see it as a tongue in cheek entry.
as we know, or should know, fernie’s water was awfully affected by teck’s “responsible” approach to mining coal.
moreover, we are well past the need for coal as an energy source, anyway. not sure what is going on with all the stored natural gas that abounds, but it is my understanding there is much. while not perfect by any means, it is a bit better than coal overall.
mind you, as with too much of resources that big corp mines and steals away from the masses, not only do we ever get the short end in wealth, we also get short-ended in terms of ruined and degraded land and water and eco-systems, as govts allow them to mine with too little to no responsibility.
Good comments Peter wouldn’t it be a lot smarter to create a solar power manufacturing business rather than putting our water supply of being destroyed by coal mining pollution. Lougheed’s protection on it should never have been ignored.