Kemess North is located 250 km northeast of Smithers and 6 km north of Northgate’s existing Kemess mine, which is projected to close in late 2008. The project includes development of a new openpit, modification of the existing mill, and related infrastructure.

The panel report’s executive summary concluded that “development of the Kemess North copper/gold project in its present form would not be in the public interest. In the panel’s view, the economic and social benefits provided by the project, on balance, are outweighed by the risks of significant adverse environmental, social and cultural effects, some of which may not emerge until many years after mining operations cease.”

As part of the project plan, ore milling capacity would be increased from the current 55,000 mt/d to up to 120,000 mt/d. Over the life of the project, Northgate estimates that 397 million mt of tailings and 325 million mt of waste rock would be generated. Due to high sulphide content, much of this material would be prone to metal leaching (ML) and acid rock drainage (ARD) processes if not properly managed. To prevent ML/ARD, Northgate is proposing to place most of the waste rock and tailings underwater in a natural water body— Duncan (Amazay) Lake. The Duncan impoundment would be created by constructing three dams to expand the lake’s storage capacity, and would be managed to ensure a pH that is at least neutral, to minimize dissolved contaminants. The potential risks of possible dam failure along with long-term water management and quality, as well as objections from Aboriginal groups in the area, were high on the panel’s list of concerns regarding the project.

In its concluding statement, the report noted that the panel “heard strong views expressed both for and against the project, and there is no broad public consensus on the project to help guide the panel. Federal and provincial government agencies advised the panel that, in most important respects, the project could be implemented in a manner consistent with their respective programming and regulatory objectives.

“While this is an important consideration,” the statement continues, “the panel recognizes that most agencies examine the question of project acceptability primarily from the relatively narrow perspective of their own well-defined mandates. The panel believes that it is also necessary to evaluate project effects holistically, and to incorporate values expressed by the public. In the panel’s view, compatibility with government requirements does not necessarily mean that the project would not cause adverse effects, at least in the view of some interested parties, or would be in the public interest.

“Based on an analysis of the pros and cons of project development, evaluated individually for each of these five sustainability perspectives, and then in combination, the panel has concluded that overall, from a public interest perspective, the benefits of project development do not outweigh the costs.”

Acknowledging that federal and provincial ministers could disagree with the panel’s advice and approve the project despite these objections, the panel presented a list of 32 recommendations, encompassing water management, water quality, fish and fish habitat, terrestrial resources, accidents and malfunctions and aboriginal issues which, in the panel’s view, would enhance project benefits and facilitate efforts to manage and minimize adverse effects, should the project proceed.

As this issue went to press, Northgate said that it was planning to meet with federal and provincial government authorities in late September to discuss the panel’s recommendation.