Press Release, CoalWatch Comox Valley, October 20, 2010

Two respected geologists with expertise in coal mining are raising serious concerns about the feasibility of the proposal for a large underground coal mine in Comox Valley.

At a media briefing today, geologists David Hughes and Herbert Sullivan said that the data currently available indicates the mine will produce less coal and more toxic waste that initial proposals suggested. They said a great deal more data is required to determine whether or not the mine is economically and environmentally feasible.

“This is very alarming for the people in the mid Vancouver Island area,” said John Snyder, President of CoalWatch Comox Valley. “More toxic waste and less coal means even greater risks to our water supply, and to the shellfish industry which employs hundreds of people in this area. There is also greater risk that the mine will not be financially successful, which raises large questions about who will clean up the mess if it fails.”

In a submission to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hughes wrote that the quality of coal will result in “a very large volume of rejects from the washing operation for surface disposal, hence public concerns about groundwater contamination and acid drainage.”

Hughes, a coal geologist, is the author of the principal document used to calculate the quantity of coal resources for the proposed mine.

In his submission to CEAA, Hughes wrote that four factors – structural complexity of the deposit, mining method, higher waste volumes and the mine proponents lack of corporate experience with coal – “combine to question the recoverable resources on which the mining proposal is based and the potential viability of the mine over its proposed life.”

His submission concluded that there are many outstanding questions about the viability of the mine “that can only be answered with a proper feasibility study and the acquisition of a lot more data.”

In a separate submission, Sullivan also raised questions about the feasibility of the mine.

“The coals of the Raven area have a high sulphur and ash content ... By industry standards it is a dirty coal,” wrote Sullivan, who wrote his Ph.D on the chemistry and petrography of coals.

“The volume of non-coaly sediment extracted from the mine and dumped at the surface will greatly exceed the predictions contained in the reports submitted by Compliance Coal Corporation,” he wrote. “The surface accumulations will be high in sulphur and acid-producing minerals and have the potential to create the dual risk of spontaneous combustion and a run-off of toxic compounds infiltrating the soils and watercourses of the area.

“The contaminated waters laden with heavy metals will eventually drain into Baynes Sound and pose a lethal threat to the shellfish aquaculture that currently thrives in the bay.”

At today’s media briefing the two geologists said the feasibility of the mine cannot be determined without the completion of a credible feasibility study which will require considerable data.

“All of this highlights our serious concerns about the proposal and points to the need for comprehensive mapping of the region’s aquifers and a full independent expert review panel with public hearings before this proposal is given any further consideration,” said Snyder.

To read the full submissions from the two geologists, or to find out more about the proposed mine, visit www.coalwatch.ca

‐30‐

For more information please contact John Snyder 250‐335‐2246

Click here to download the complete media package