Benga Mining Limited/Riversdale Resources Grassy Mountain Coal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BENGA MINING LIMITED/RIVERSDALE RESOURCES GRASSY MOUNTAIN COAL PROJECT APPLICATION NOS. 1844520 AND 1902073 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE LIVINGSTONE LANDOWNERS GROUP Gavin S. Fitch, Q.C. and Cesar Agudelo Barristers and Solicitors McLennan Ross LLP Solicitors for the Livingstone Landowners Group Suite 1900, Eau Claire Tower 600 3rd Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 0G5 Tel: (403) 303-9120 Fax: (403) 303-1668 File: 191620 00191620 - 4131-9645-3930 v.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF LLG’S POSITION ..............................1 II. STATUTORY SCHEME AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ......................................3 1. Provincial: Consideration and Approval under the Responsible Energy Development Act and the Coal Conservation Act .............................................................................4 2. Federal: Approval under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 ......................................................................5 3. Federal: Species at Risk Act ...........................................................6 4. Federal: Bill C-12 Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act .........................................................................10 5. Precautionary Principle ..................................................................10 6. Role of Interveners .........................................................................12 III. THE LIVINGSTONE LANDOWNERS GROUP AND ITS ROLE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING......................................................................................16 IV. THE PANEL’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE — OVERARCHING THEMES .................................................................................21 1. Significance of the Eastern Slopes .................................................21 2. The Applicant fails to inspire confidence ......................................24 3. Benga’s Application is so high-level and “conceptual” it cannot form the basis for a decision that the project is in the Public Interest ................................................................................26 V. THE PANEL’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE — SPECIFIC ISSUES ..................................................................................................................27 1. Selenium: Out of Pit Waste Rock Dumps.................................................28 (a) Mine Design ...................................................................................28 (b) Ex Pit Rock Disposal Areas ...........................................................30 1. Location .........................................................................................30 2. Design ............................................................................................33 2. Selenium: Saturated Backfill Zones..........................................................36 (a) Overview of the SBZ System ....................................................................39 (b) Features of the SBZ ...................................................................................40 (c) No Evidence of the Efficacy of the SBZ ...................................................40 00191620 - 4131-9645-3930 v.1 (d) No Evidence the SBZ will Attenuate 99% Selenium ................................41 (e) The target of 15 ug/L or 99 percent is convenient, not protective .............42 (f) No Evidence Benga’s SBZ will Compare to Teck’s SRF .........................43 (g) The SBZ System is Poorly Designed and Poses Grave Risk .....................45 (h) In-Pit Design will Create Several Preferential Water Pathways ................46 (i) The In-Pit Dikes .........................................................................................48 (j) SZ1465 Sits Atop old Underground Works ...............................................49 (k) Unknown Groundwater Flows ...................................................................51 (l) Water Flow and Water Containment are Imperative .................................52 (m) Flowback into the End-pit Lake .................................................................55 (n) Benga is Consciously Waiting for Selenium Levels to Rise .....................55 1. Selenium Contamination is Expected ............................................56 2. There is no Trigger Point for Contingencies and Contingencies are Inadequate ........................................................57 3. Selenium: Site-Specific Guideline ............................................................58 (a) The SBZ System and the Proposed Guideline are Incompatible ...............58 (b) The Proposed Guideline is not Supported by Evidence.............................59 (c) Benga Chose A Moving Target .................................................................60 (d) The Proposed Guideline is Contrary to the Precautionary Principle .........62 4. Reclamation and Closure ...........................................................................63 (a) Grassy Mountain has poor reclamation suitability ....................................64 (b) Benga’s reclamation plan is highly simplistic and poorly thought through .......................................................................................................68 1. Reclamation cover depth................................................................68 2. Surface Water Drainage .................................................................71 3. Direct placement of reclamation materials ....................................75 4. End Pit Lake ...................................................................................76 (c) Conclusion .................................................................................................77 5. Air Quality and Dust ..................................................................................78 (a) Failure to Consider Chinook Winds ..........................................................78 (b) Deficiencies in Benga’s Modelling of Fugitive Dust Emissions ...............83 1. Size of Area Modelled ...................................................................84 2. Haul Roads .....................................................................................86 00191620 - 4131-9645-3930 v.1 (c) Control Efficiency ......................................................................................87 (d) Impact of Dust............................................................................................89 (e) Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................90 6. Human Health Risk Assessment ................................................................91 (a) Failure to acknowledge and address complexity .......................................93 (b) Failure to address and acknowledge relevant epidemiological studies ........................................................................................................94 7. Impacts vs Benefits from the Project .........................................................97 (a) The SEIA does not support Benga’s claims about Project benefits...........98 (b) Shortcomings of Benga’s SEIA ...............................................................104 (c) The magnitude of the predicted positive economic effects is lower than originally predicted ..........................................................................110 (d) The economic benefits from the Project, in particular government revenues, are highly sensitive to coal prices ............................................111 (e) Benga has assessed economic and environmental effects based on different coal prices..................................................................................112 (f) Impact of the Project on Tourism ............................................................114 VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................116 APPENDIX “A” ..............................................................................................................................1 00191620 - 4131-9645-3930 v.1 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF LLG’S POSITION 1. This is the closing argument of the Livingstone Landowners Group. The LLG submits that it is no exaggeration to say that the application by Benga Mining Limited to construct and operate the Grassy Mountain open-pit coal mine is precedent-setting. It is critical that the Panel get this right. 2. It is a matter of public record that the Government of Alberta recently rescinded the 1976 “A Coal Development Policy for Alberta” and that this has opened up large swaths of the southern Eastern Slopes to surface development. Not coincidentally, several other companies are actively pursuing coal projects near Grassy Mountain, in the Crowsnest Pass and north along the Livingstone Range. Although the Panel previously ruled that Benga did not have to consider these other projects in its Cumulative Effects Assessment— because they are currently in the exploration phase—there is no doubt that the Panel’s ruling on Grassy Mountain will have major implications for these other projects. It is not just the 15 square kilometre Grassy Mountain site north of Blairmore that is at stake here; it is the future of the southern Eastern Slopes. 3. In view of the high environmental sensitivity and significance of the southern Eastern Slopes, in considering the evidence in this proceeding, the Panel must apply the precautionary principle. The LLG submits, accordingly, that Benga has a high