A step in the right direction

The Tulsequah Chief project is in a breathtakingly beautiful corner of northwestern British Columbia, and its scenic splendor has worked its usual magic on environmental groups, who want to see it preserved. That sentiment has made it difficult for Redfern Resources to advance the project to production, even though deposits in equally spectacular settings — including the nearby Eskay Creek mine — are operating to the highest environmental standards.

This mineral-rich corner of the province, with its rugged tree-clad mountains and wild rivers, has been the scene of battles between miners and preservationists for much of the past decade. The Windy Craggy copper deposit was the first flashpoint. Vancouver-based preservationist groups mounted a no-holds-barred campaign that drew international attention to their efforts to “save” the Tatshenshini River watershed from “greedy miners.” They forged alliances with American organizations, as well as American politicians opposed to the mine plans.

The province’s New Democratic Party government (then headed by Michael Harcourt) rallied to their cause, and the deposit was expropriated and made part of a park, along with one of the most geologically prospective regions of the province.

The preservationists then turned their attention to other mine projects in the development pipeline, eventually settling on Tulsequah Chief. Here, the going got tough, chiefly because the Tulsequah Valley, in which the project is couched, has a long history of mining. It boasts three past-producers: Polaris-Taku, a gold mine that operated during the 1930s and 1940s, and the Tulsequah Chief and Big Bull mines, which produced base and precious metals in the 1950s.

Redfern Resources has been struggling to revive Tulsequah Chief for more than a decade, only to be opposed by environmental groups at every turn. Some opponents are domestic, while others hail from neighboring Alaska. Some opposition has also come from aboriginal groups, one of which launched a court challenge after Redfern was issued a permit for a proposed mine access road. Last fall, the native group lost an appeal in the B.C. courts relating to their challenge of Redfern’s project approval certificate.

Even though a joint federal-provincial review found that the mine would have no serious downstream effects, preservationist groups cranked up their anti-mining crusade and managed to convince American officials to refer the project to the International Joint Commission. However, the B.C. government recently brought forward an alternative proposal to review concerns related to the potential for impacts to American interest. It invited representatives of the U.S., Alaskan and Canadian governments to a meeting, in which it proposed a bilateral consultation process to resolve American concerns.

Under the province’s proposal, the U.S. would sit on B.C.’s northwest mine development review committee and take part in the provincial land-use planning process for the region. A state-province agreement would create joint mechanisms for ongoing environmental co-operation.

During the recent discussions, all parties agreed on the environmental and resource significance of the Taku River watershed, and the need for the highest environmental standards to be applied to all resource development. Redfern shares this view and has agreed to repair damage caused by past mining.

American officials are studying the B.C. government proposal, which would afford them increased consultation on a variety of trans-boundary matters. We don’t often have cause to applaud the B.C. government for its handling of mining matters, but we must tip our hats in this instance. The government has proposed a thoughtful strategy that could usher in a more co-operative approach to resource development in border regions, not just for Tulsequah, but for other projects in the pipeline.