Citizens Allied to Stop Fanny Bay Raven Coal Mine Disaster

A New Coal Mine for the Comox Valley? A new disaster for the environment?

---

Phil Carson, Oceanside Star, April 1, 2010

John Tapics' talents seem more suited to fantasy writing than to being CEO of a proposed coal mine on Vancouver Island: "The $100-$150 million mine he envisions must first pass the test of a feasibility study a consultant is preparing for the firm by the fall, he said. If that proves positive, they can officially begin to raise the capital required."

I hope his investors aren't as naive as the rubes he imagines the folks on Vancouver Island to be. The three million tons of carbon dioxide that the coal from his mine will produce is curiously absent from the Oceanside Star's March 25th front-page article. By coincidence, that is almost exactly the same amount of CO2 that the $500-million gas tax the citizens of BC fork out at the pumps is projected to remove from the atmosphere.

Sorry Mr. Tapics. Don't deceive your investors or yourself with your fantasy scenarios. There will be no new coal mine opened on Vancouver Island.The vast majority of Vancouver Islanders recognize the extreme threat that continual increase in coal production presents to our atmosphere, weather, acidification of our oceans, and the very fabric of global civilization. It is an ethical and moral imperative to the health of our planet that British Columbia resolve the contradictions between our green rhetoric and the reality that our greenhouse gas production not only continues to expand but, when you count in the greenhouse-gas-producing exports of coal, our contributions are obscene.

Phil Carson,

Qualicum Beach

---

Are the jobs worth the pollution?

Oceanside Star poll
March 18-24, 2010

Reject coal mine proposal

David and Carol Freeman, Comox Valley Echo

Published: Tuesday, March 23, 2010

A letter to Don McRae, MLA Comox Valley:

Re: Compliance Coalmine, Vancouver Island

What hypocrisy! The British Columbia Government touts itself as progressive with respect to climate change; a government, which promotes BC as a leading force in reducing greenhouse gases; but it is in fact North America's leading exporter of the dirtiest fuel, coal.

The B.C. Government while imposing the carbon tax on consumers is allowing and planning to export coal off shore to pollute other parts of the planet. The latest proposal is to build a coal mine on Vancouver Island, just two kilometers from Baynes Sound, a unique body of water with the most productive shellfish beaches in B.C.

The Compliance Company proposal will pollute air and water including still uncharted aquifers, will add the emissions of machinery and of 70 large trucks every day on their trip to and from Port Alberni, and will destroy the headwaters of salmon and cutthroat trout streams in the Tsable River watershed. The inevitable seepage of contaminants into Baynes Sound will threaten the shallow waters in which clam, oyster and scallop propagation currently provides 500 jobs in this region, not to mention the reputation of the shellfish industries providing some of the world's best. And what will be the fate of the herring in Baynes Sound?

It is not enough to claim that this fuel will not be burned here; the world already knows that greenhouse gases affect all of us, wherever produced. This proposal has not yet harmed any citizens or any of our natural resources.

We urge you, as our representative, to do whatever it takes to reject this proposal immediately.

David and Carol Freeman

Denman Island

Coalwatching - The Raven Coal Mine on Vancouver Island, BC

Arthur Caldicott

Ten years ago Beanstalk Capital Corp. was a new company with nothing more than a listing on the TSE Ventures Exchange. Today it is Compliance Energy Corp., and its Raven Underground Coal Project is a proposal to mine 44 million tonnes (2.2 million a year) from a coal deposit near Fanny Bay on Vancouver Island
The Comox Joint Venture (CJV) - 60% owned by Compliance and 20% each by two Asian trading companies - owns about 29,000 hectares (ha) of coal on the Island, 3,100 ha of which are targeted for the Raven mine. The surface workings, which include a coal preparation and wash plant, storage and loading areas, and waste storage, would occupy about 200 ha. The two minority partners have put up $11 million to acquire the coal, and to explore and validate the Raven project.

Raven became public last August, when the CJV submitted a project description to the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), and began building its consultation record by talking to various groups in the Comox Valley.

An increasing number of people are concerned. By November, enough momentum had built that a public meeting in the 200 seat Fanny Bay Community Hall had to turn people away.

Enter CoalWatch

CoalWatch Comox Valley hit the ground running at that meeting - with more public meetings in Courtenay, Denman Island, and Qualicum Beach; a film night; and as the beneficiary of a series of hip hop awareness and fundraising benefits in Courtenay.

"People are concerned about salmon, shellfishing, trucks, noise, dust. Acid drainage is a big worry, especially with high sulphur coal like this and the deplorable record at the Quinsam mine," says Campbell Connor, the first chair of CoalWatch.

"Coal mining has huge impacts on water. Enormous quantities are removed from the mine, it is used to wash the coal, and it is all returned to the environment."

Connor's issues form the tip of an iceberg of environmental impacts. CoalWatch is studying those impacts, and is informing the public through its meetings and website. And it plans to have an impact of its own, in the environmental assessment.

"Any week now we expect a comment period to be announced by the EAO," says John Snyder, who has taken over as chair from Connor. "It will be the only chance the public gets to ensure a complete list of issues is considered by the company in its application."

No Strangers to Coal

Eight of the nine coal mines in BC are open pit operations, located in the East Kootenay and the Peace River areas, producing metallurgical coal which is exported for steel production. The Quinsam Mine in Campbell River produces thermal coal, sold for cement production and electricity generation.

And that's a perplexing thing about the Raven project - it is being pitched as a metallurgical coal operation, even though Vancouver Island has only ever produced lower rank thermal coal. To get metallurgical grade coal out of the Raven Deposit, up to 70% of the "run-of-mine" ore will be discarded. The reject pits will be filled with waste rock, low grade coal, ash, sulphur, and other toxins - most of it potentially acid generating material. A coal mine exacts a high environmental price.

It's the high dollar being paid for metallurgical coal that makes Raven attractive to the CJV, and which explains the six other mines in the queue at the EAO, and the three more which have received approval in the last five years.

Carbon Hypocrites

With BC producing so much coal, and so many new mines being proposed, a glaring problem can no longer be ignored - coal is mostly carbon, and when used as intended, all that carbon will end up in the atmosphere, exacerbating the global climate crisis. The greenhouse gases (GHGs) which result from BC's coal production are roughly equivalent to all the other GHGs which are produced domestically: 60-70 million tonnes per year each.

The BC government has set a goal to reduce domestic GHG emissions by 33% by 2020. No such expectation is being placed on domestic coal production.

It is an irreconcilable hypocrisy, and many people are saying that it's time to stop - that this is the time, and Raven is the mine.

Planting beanstalks - now that would be a capital beginning.

***

See www.coalwatch.ca

Arthur Caldicott is a writer and activist on energy isues and a frequent contributor to the Watershed Sentinel.

News Release, CoalWatch Comox Valley, February 15, 2010

The risk to salmon habitat, water quality and hundreds of shellfish jobs were among the chief concerns expressed in Courtenay Thursday night at a packed public meeting about the controversial plan for a new coal mine in Comox Valley.

“Public concern is growing rapidly as more and more people realize there really could be a large underground coal mine in the heart of the Baynes Sound watershed,” said Campbell Connor of CoalWatch Comox Valley, a citizen’s group that organized the meeting.

More than 200 people attended the meeting at the Florence Filberg Centre, where energy researcher Arthur Caldicott provided details about the proposal and the environmental and health risks associated with coal mining.

He stressed that it is essential to have complete and comprehensive aquifer mapping in order to assess the long-term impact of a coal mine on the watershed.

Another guest speaker, Jack Minard of the Tsolum River Restoration Society, said the experience of the Mount Washington copper mine provides an important lesson about what can go wrong with mining.

That mine, which started in 1964 and operated for just four years, contaminated the river and devastated salmon stocks. Taxpayers have paid far more for the ongoing clean-up than the value of any copper that was extracted.

Minard said the experience highlights the need for the public to speak out and remain vigilant whenever a mine is proposed. “If had not been for the dogged determination of ordinary citizens it is doubtful anything would have been done,” he said.

People in the audience expressed many additional concerns, including coal dust, the impact on air quality, and the contribution coal mining and processing makes to climate change.

The proposed mine would be situated on Cowie Creek in Fanny Bay. The proposal is a partnership between Compliance Energy and two trading companies from Japan and Korea.

If approved, the mine would remove 2.2 million tonnes of coal per year for 20 years. Two thirds of the coal would be transported to either Campbell River, Port Alberni, or Duke Point for shipment to China; the rest would remain as mine wastes.

CoalWatch Comox Valley is a citizen’s group that was formed in November, when more than 200 people attended a meeting at the Fanny Bay hall to ask questions and raise concerns about the proposed mine.

For details, visit www.coalwatch.ca. Follow CoalWatch activities and notices on twitter.com/coalwatchcv.

Islands Trust writes to Premier Campbell

The Denman Island Local Trust Committee, chaired by Peter Luckham, wrote on December 22, 2009 to Premier Campbell and Ministry of Environment Minister Barry Penner with respect to the inappropriateness of permitting a new coal mine in BC when local governments are being charged with reducing carbon emissions. And the Islands Trust itself asked the Raven people to be included in the list of interested stakeholders for consultation purposes.

December 21, 2009

The Honourable Gordon Campbell

Premier of British Columbia

PO Box 9041 Stn Prov Govt

Victoria, BC V8W 9E1

Dear Premier Campbell:

I am writing this letter as Chair of the Denman Island Local Trust Committee in the hopes that your government, in concert with the Ministry of the Environment, will evaluate the global impact of allowing Compliance Coal Corporation to extract 44 million tonnes of coal over twenty years, as unacceptable.

This proposed mine is located in the Comox Valley Regional District, a few miles west of Baynes Sound, which separates Denman Island from Vancouver Island.
Denman Island is the northern most island within the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. The mandate of the Trust, to preserve and protect the environment for the people of British Columbia would be seriously compromised if such a mine was approved. The document, Raven Underground Project – Project Description, prepared for Compliance Coal Corporation (August 2009) identifies a number of potential impacts including air quality, noise/vibration, water related impacts, selenium mobilization and toxicity, acid rock drainage, human health and terrestrial impacts.

It is inconceivable that our Provincial Government, which just recently charged local governments to incorporate GHG reduction targets and the means to those reductions within their respective Official Community Plans, would, at the same time, consider allowing another coal deposit to be removed, processed and shipped across the Pacific to be used in the production of steel.

At present the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 385 ppm (parts per million). Before industrialization it was about 280 ppm. Analyses of air contained in ice from the Antarctic ice cap show that there is far more CO2 in the air today than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent assessment report concludes that the average temperature will continue to rise, but that the extent and the duration of this rise, and the severity of its consequences, depend on how quickly and how effectively emissions of greenhouse gases can be restricted and, over time, reduced.

Burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil and gas, increases the amount of CO2 and other gases and particles in the air. These gases and particles affect the Earth’s energy balance, changing both the amount of sunlight absorbed by the planet and the emission of heat (long wave or thermal radiation) to space. The net effect is a global warming that has become substantial during the past three decades.the past three decades.

Global warming from continued burning of more and more fossil fuels poses clear dangers for the planet and for the planet’s present and future inhabitants. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air.

In 2007, global steel production stood at 1.34 billion tonnes; producing one tonne of steel can release up to one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Industrialized nations are under pressure to cut back even more on emissions of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases, while major developing countries such as China and India are being pressed to rein in their emissions growth.

Environmentalists and poorer nations say richer countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent or more by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, to avoid serious climate damage.

As I write this letter, the Copenhagen Climate talks have come to an end. Industrialized nations are being asked to take leadership roles in reducing carbon emissions. The world looks to Canada for signs of this leadership.

The benefit of creating a few jobs pales when compared to the environmental costs. The green economy is poised to create far more sustainable jobs in the near future. Please let us not continue to do “business as usual”.

Sincerely,

Peter Luckham,

Chair, Denman Island Local Trust Committee

---

A New Coal Mine for the Comox Valley?

company unable to answer questions about how much water it would take to wash metallurgical coal, or where the company plans to get the water.

---

The Cold Comfort of Coal - by Ray Grigg

The Raven Underground Coal Project, a joint venture between Compliance Coal Corporation and its Japanese and Korean partners, could extract up to 100 million tonnes of metallurgical coal in the Tsable River watershed near Fanny Bay. This is cold comfort for the environment.

Pride and confidence exude from the developers who could potentially remove from this one mine double the historic quantity of coal removed from Vancouver Island during the heyday of the old coal barons. The proportion is in keeping with the scale of industrialization that has expanded the global economy 15-fold in the last 50 years, and is causing an environmental impact of corresponding proportions. Accordingly, nothing is as simple and innocent as it used to be. And the environmental damage of mining coal cannot be disguised with comfortable assurances, careful marketing and benign-sounding names.

"Compliance" seems like an agreeable company ‹ unless we ask what it is in compliance with. And this "metallurgical" coal is "rare" ‹ qualities that are not necessarily advantageous to the Comox Valley region. The coal is also "clean" ‹ an attribute hiding the fact that this fossil fuel is the dirtiest source of energy on the planet. And placing the coal extraction "underground" implies that the project minimizes pollution ‹ until we realize that the coal will be brought to the surface, washed, stored, transported through communities, then shipped to the other side of the planet to be burned. The 3,100 hectare area will only create a surface "disturbance" on 200 hectares ‹ suggesting that the mountain-levelling practices in West Virginia will not occur here so complaints are unjustified. And, since everyone washes, the "coal washing" seems benign ‹ until we ask about the amount of water used, its source, and how, where and in what condition will it be returned to the Tsable watershed. For perspective on this mining project, we should remember the continuing pollution from nearby Quinsam Coal and the litany of environmental headaches it has created in its watershed.

As the proponents for the Raven project proudly attest, "We're extremely lucky in the fact that [with] this location... we're sitting on the doorstep of all the infrastructure that we need." This comment contains an implicit compliment to the community ‹ with the suggestion that the two are so compatible that denying coal mining would be tantamount to resisting destiny. But, besides roads, railways, shipping ports and a water source, this "infrastructure" also means large coal trucks could be using public highways and dusting families, children and homes with coal dust.

The proponents are also proud to note that the mine would be located six kilometres west of Fanny Bay, over a ridge and in a valley that's away from any sight or sound pollution for nearby residents. But the lesson we are sadly learning on Spaceship Earth is that it has no "away". Every place is "here". Each part is connected by links sometimes too indirect for us to notice. We can't mine coal in one location and take it "away" to be burned. Chinese smog is found in Tofino's air samples. Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in Tokyo or Seoul affects the weather in Iqaluit and Mogadishu.

And how much carbon dioxide would be added from the potentially 100 million tonnes available to be mined in the Raven project? Assume that high quality coal is composed of 90% carbon, and this carbon is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when the coal is burned. The molecular weight of carbon is 12 and oxygen is 16, so CO2 weighs 12 + (2 x 16) = 44 mass units. Now multiply 90% of 100 tonnes of coal by 44/12, the ratio of the molecular weights of carbon dioxide to carbon. The result is 330 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or 3.3 times the weight of the coal.

In the new global world of environmental realities, we can no longer afford to allow a new coal mine without considering the ethical implications of adding potentially 330 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to an atmosphere already overloaded with this greenhouse gas. And consider the carbon costs of extracting and shipping the coal long-distances. How will the coal be burned on site? Is it the best fuel for the purpose? Will the carbon be captured and safely sequestered? (Permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide is still a technological oxymoron.) Should anyone be selling coal to a buyer whose pollution standards are less than adequate or if the purchasing country is not cooperating with the international community on constraining greenhouse gas emissions? Should British Columbians be accessories to the environmental "crime" of global warming by mining and selling coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels? In a wholly interconnected global ecology without an "away", does access to a polluting resource such as coal obligate us to mine it and thereby be excused from an ethical responsibility for that coal?

The old simplicities no longer apply in the new world of environmental awareness. In their stead are layered complexities of issues that supersede traditional economic considerations. The mere financial viability of a coal mining project is no longer justification for it to proceed. Given the deepening crisis of global warming and all its ominous effects on climate, oceans, species and food production, should anyone even be mining coal?

As Compliance Coal Corporation considers a mine near Fanny Bay, its most searching consideration should not be financial viability but ethical responsibility.

---

See Coal Mine Proposal Information at Watershed Sentinel Hotspots