Company warned of potential ‘enforcement action’
The Yukon Water Board and the territorial government are again at odds over licensing requirements.
The Yukon Water Board and the territorial government are again at odds over licensing requirements.
The Department of Energy Mines and Resources maintains the Minto Mine does not need a new water licence nor an amendment to its existing licence before it begins preparation of its next open pit deposit, according to officials.
Government officials have indicated recently the authority to begin stripping overburden at the new site later this month is covered under the Quartz Mining Licence, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Yukon government.
The water board, however, indicated in a letter last Friday to the Minto Mine and the government’s senior mining inspector that it believes the mine does need a new water licence or an amendment before it begins its stripping program.
Mine officials have indicated if they did not begin stripping the new pit later this month, it would lead to the layoffs of the remaining 68 Pelly Construction employees.
On the other hand, if the stripping program proceeds as planned, there could be a recall of 20 or more of the 44 Pelly employees laid off last January when production at the exisiting open pit was cut in half to stretch out ore reserves.
Pelly is the Whitehorse company contracted to do the open pit mining and other heavy equipment work onsite.
Minto Mine officials were out of the office this morning and unavailable for comment.
Spokesman Jessie Devost of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources said this morning government officials and officials from the water board were meeting today to discuss the licensing requirements and arrive at a solution.
“But we do not have any comment at this time, because we do not want to pre-suppose those discussions,” he said.
The Minto Mine wrote the water board last month to inform the board it would begin stripping and preparing the new Minto North deposit later this month once it received the required amendment to its Quartz Mining Licence. It asked the water board for a response.
In its response last Friday following a board meeting last week, the water board wrote: “The board does not agree that the activities you propose can be characterized as not requiring a licence under the legislation.... Should you proceed without a valid licence, you may be subject to enforcement action.”
The Minto Mine applied in July for a new water licence to cover off work at the new Minto North pit, though it’s commonly accepted the process will take a few more months to complete.
The mine was in the same position over two years ago when it began stripping the pit that it’s working today, with the approval of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources under the Quartz Mining Licence.
But when the water board did issue a licence for that new pit several months later in October 2012, it said the stripping work back in April 2012 should have been covered by a new or amended water licence, despite what the Yukon government believed.
A senior government official acknowledged at the time there was a difference of opinion between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the water board, a difference of opinion that may have to be settled in court some day.
Inspectors from the department are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Quartz Mining licences and water licences.
When the responsibility for water inspectors was transferred from Environment Yukon to Energy, Mines and Resources in 2013, there was concern raised by the official Opposition.
Having the same inspectors responsible for mining also be responsible for ensuring water compliance was a natural conflict, it was suggested.
Comments (5)
Up 2 Down 3
Fred Green on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Good comments Wilf. I also think that Minto has made many positive contributions. I think they would also make good corporate citizens if they showed a little more respect with the waters act and complied with the provisions of their water license. There is a balance between E.M.R.’s Mining License and the water license and Minto cannot garner respect if they continue to play one against the other.
Your comment also seems to imply that some comments were negative and as such anti development. Sorry but I don’t agree. I don’t see any negative comments. I do see clarification. Development without regulation and if required enforcement is not positive and can cost the taxpayers a lot more than the contributions provided. Faro and Mt. Nansen are prime examples. This time it won’t be the Federal Government that pays it will be the Yukon taxpayer.
Up 4 Down 1
Wilf Carter on Sep 15, 2014 at 9:16 pm
Minto mines has been operating for years and have complied with government requests. They have provided First Nations, Yukon and Federal Government with millions of dollars. They use Pelly Construction staff from the Yukon with the jobs. Anyone in the opts think they are not positive contributors to the Yukon are anti development for the Yukon. We need good people to use our resources in a respectful matter and create wealth for the Yukon. Wealth creates less poor and provide a self made future for the Yukon. Get on board and stop creating negative messages for anti development or the Yukon will not find its future of financial independence. It is possible we just have to see it and work towards it like other areas in Canada.
Up 8 Down 17
Fred Green on Sep 11, 2014 at 8:20 am
Given E.M.R.’s track record of enforcement on this file, enforcement is not likely. E.M.R. is also the ones who don’t think Minto requires an amendment. It makes one think that it was a huge mistake to transfer enforcement of the waters act from Environment water resources to E.M.R. Letting the fox look after the hen house is never a good idea. The board doesn’t do any enforcement that is left up to E.M.R.’s inspectors. The board does have some tools as they don’t have to issue a license if the applicant is non compliant. They can also cancel a license if there is noncompliance forcing a shut down. The company is taking a huge risk. At the phase IV hearing for amendment 8 they committed to not doing this again after starting the area 2 pit without amendment and here they are once again.
Up 10 Down 9
Josey Wales on Sep 10, 2014 at 9:10 pm
That folks, the first post...is damn funny.
Very much truth in that hilarity.
Thanks for that
Up 27 Down 15
Yukon 2nd Nation on Sep 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm
".... Should you proceed without a valid licence, you may be subject to enforcement action.”
This would actually require someone at the board to do some work, so the odds of this taking place are about as high as my 21 year old husky giving birth to penguins.
The notice would be delivered two years too late, envoking a statute of limitations.