There's a lot of coal mine related news today. The big issue is the announcement that Montana has been invited by British Columbia to participate in the environmental review process for the Lodgepole mine, as well a broader discussion of the need to obtain accurate water quality data for the transboundary watershed.
Also significant is a late breaking news posting in the Missoulian this evening concerning plans for the Lillyburt project. Although mentioned in passing before, this is the first explicit discussion of the Lillyburt mine proposal in the general press.
From the Thursday, February 23, 2006 online edition of the Missoulian . . .
Another company is interested in mining coal in southeastern British Columbia, an area watched closely by Montana officials concerned that industry north of the border will harm the state's environment.
Western Canadian Coal has the province's permission to drill 13 exploratory holes each 39 feet deep, Bill Bennett of British Columbia's Legislative Assembly said Thursday. The exploration to help gauge coal resources would be within 6 1/2 miles of where Canada's Cline Mining Corp. wants to mine coal, Bennett said.
The proposed Cline project, north of Montana's Glacier National Park, caused a stir in the state because of concerns about possible effects on the transboundary Flathead River Basin. In an effort to smooth relations, provincial officials this week invited Montana to join the environmental review for that mine.
Western Canadian Coal's chief financial officer, Fausto Taddei, said Thursday that the company is collecting information about its Flathead property called Lillyburt, and whether to proceed with drilling has not been decided.
Read the entire article . . .
From the Thursday, February 23, 2006 online edition of the Daily Inter Lake . . .
Cline Mining Corp. is proposing a major project for site near Foisey Creek
The British Columbia provincial government has invited Montana to participate in the environmental review for a mine in the headwaters of the Canadian Flathead and to jointly pursue a “comprehensive review” of environmental data and research in that basin.
John van Dongen, the provincial Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, announced Wednesday that Montana can participate in the environmental assessment review process for the Lodgepole coal project proposed by the Cline Mining Corp.
Read the entire article . . .
From the Thursday, February 23, 2006 online edition of the Missoulian . . .
Montana finally has a seat at the table where the future of Canadian wildlands immediately north of Glacier National Park will be determined.
“British Columbia and Montana are actively working together,” said John vanDongen, “to share information on natural resource development proposals.”
The international cooperation, he predicted, will “build confidence and trust between our jurisdictions.”
VanDongen is minister of state for intergovernmental relations in British Columbia, and Wednesday he extended a formal invitation for Montana to join in discussions about energy development in the Canadian Flathead.
Various development proposals have emerged over the past 30 years, mostly centered around coal deposits located north of Glacier National Park. Downstream interests - and not a few Canadians - have long opposed mining in the Flathead's wild headwaters.
Read the entire article . . .
From a Wednesday, February 22, 2006 online posting by CBC News . . .
British Columbia has invited Montana to join the environmental review of a coal mine proposed for the southeastern area of the province, a project that caused a stir in Montana because of possible effects on the transboundary Flathead River Basin.
"British Columbia and Montana are actively working together to share information on natural resource development proposals in order to build confidence and trust between our jurisdictions," John van Dongen of the province's intergovernmental relations office said Wednesday.
"This is an important step forward in our efforts to have a better understanding of transboundary issues in the Flathead watershed and work effectively with each other."
Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Montana "looks forward to working with British Columbia as we move forward with the review process."
A frequent critic of the province's handling of environmental matters, David Thomas of the City Council in Fernie, B.C., praised the idea of an environmental review involving both the province and the state. Rather than restricting the review's scope to the mine's footprint, Thomas said, British Columbia is interested in a broader approach. That is an "enlightened step," he said.
Read the entire article . . .
In a February 19 email, Steve Thompson of the National Parks Conservation Association passed along the following information on some discouraging developments concerning the Lillyburt coal mining project . . .
"I earlier... informed you [see 'Lillyburt, another open-pit threat'] about a joint venture by Western Canadian Coal and the Australian-based Wasabi Energy to develop another open-pit coal mine in the Canadian Flathead, this one in the valley bottom not far from the Flathead River on the eastern side, within the historic floodplain. The companies have now applied for a provincial exploratory permit to move some earth."
"It is called the Lillyburt project. This one is 15-20 miles [24-32 kilometers] north of the border. It's an absolutely gorgeous spot similar to the Big Praire area of Glacier just north of Polebridge." [See site photo.]
"The Flathead Basin Commission will be briefed by British Columbia this week..."
"The Lillyburt coal deposit already is probably better documented than Foisey Creek was when Cline got its exploratory permit last year. Lillyburt has been seen as a speculative play, which Shell Canada and perhaps Elk Valley Coal evaluated and walked away from in the past. The coal is accessible, but the infrastructure costs to develop this very remote prospect will be considerable. However, the Asian market for metallurgical coal has become more lucrative iin the last couple years. And perhaps they see the Cline mine as an opportunity to share costs and leapfrog further into the Flathead Valley. They could use the same access road over Harvey Pass, although it may also be feasible to extend a rail line from Elk Valley Coal's Coal Mountain mine, just a mile or so north of the Flathead hydrologic divide. Either way, it would fundamentally and irretrievably change the North Fork, even more directly than the Foisey Creek mine..."
All the more reason for a big-picture, binational dialogue about the appropriateness of industrializing the wildest valley vs. an alternative vision of transboundary conservation. This merry-go-round [has] gone round too many times... Are far-flung companies from Germany, Japan and Australia going to determine the future of the transboundary Flathead?
From the Thursday, February 2, 2006 online edition of the Missoulian . . .
Conservative Party victories in Canada's Jan. 23 federal election “are almost certainly a setback for any short-term progress in protecting the Flathead.”
So said David Thomas, a former city council member from Fernie, British Columbia, and board member of the transboundary Flathead Coalition. According to Thomas, incoming Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government - backed by newly re-elected local member of parliament Jim Abbott - is unlikely to pursue expansion of Waterton Lakes National Park, which shares a border with Montana's Glacier National Park.
In addition, he said, conservationists now worry the new national government will give over federal lands to British Columbia for resource development.
Canadian politics have been closely watched by international neighbors on both sides of the Montana border, as the two countries work to resolve a longstanding debate over how best to manage wildlands immediately north of Glacier Park.
Over the past three decades, several plans have emerged to develop energy reserves in the Canadian Flathead, a river drainage that crosses the border to form Glacier's western boundary.
Downstream residents - and not a few Canadians - have fought those proposals, though, arguing coal and coalbed methane projects could taint international waterways and impact both fish and wildlife.
Read the entire article . . .