A groundswell of concern is beginning to build in the Campbell River about the possible implications of a proposal by Hillsborough Resources’ Quinsam Coal Corp. for an extension to the current coal mine in the Quinsam River watershed, which would run under the river above the federal government Quinsam Salmon Hatchery.
On the leading edge is the Campbell River Environmental Committee which has been raising growing fears about the possible effects of climbing levels of arsenic in the bottom sediment of Long Lake in recent years, and has a new report expected to be received on that in the next few weeks
But there is also considerable concern About the sulphur and sulphides in the coal and especially in the reject material and waste from the coal-cleaning process, which could potentially lead to acid mine drainage. It’s known the proposed new site has higher levels of sulphur, and the 20-year-old coal mine’s seams and waste materials have already displayed signs of potential problems.
Acid drainage in other projects has released fish-killing quantities of copper and other chemicals into downstream rivers, streams and lakes.
And disquiet is swelling among local citizens and various environmental organizations regarding the short time being allowed to the public to review the application materials from the company, which received permission from the BC Environmental Assessment to handle the extension application through amending QCoal’s present operating permits - rather than having to go through a much more costly and extensive Environmental Assessment and Review through the EAO.
The EAO determined that the proposed expansion was not significant enough to warrant a more wide-ranging impact and risk assessment.
That led to the public - including Brenda Leigh as the area director on the Strathcona Regional District board - being told they had just 30 days to review the materials following a public open-house information session on the proposal March 4.
That session was followed the next day by a meeting of the North Vancouver Island Mining Technical Review Committee held in CR, which was attended by Leigh and also representatives of CR City Hall.
Leigh, whose area includes the proposed new waste-disposal settling pond, but not the main QCoal mine-site, which was taken into the city back in about 2001, said she continues to have serious reservations about the new 7-South Mine proposal.
She stated though that she was quite reassured by the level of technical questions raised at the meeting by a female official from MEMPR.
Leigh quoted the apparently-expert official as saying that after viewing the proposal and documents from QCoal as they stood at that point, she felt a considerable amount of further information was needed before she could give any kind of support to the proposal going forward.
And Leigh said the meeting was also told that if there needed to be any major amendments to the proposal as a result of that additional material, then the proposal would need to go back before the public for further scrutiny.
“I went in ‘cold’ and I’m no expert,” said Leigh, “but I do feel that the application is receiving a pretty thorough review by the Ministry (MEMPR) and the Ministry of Environment. They were asking some pretty technical questions I wouldn’t have been able to ask.”
Leigh said the day-long meeting, which also addressed plans by Breakwater Resources for the closure of worked-out parts of its heavy-metals mine near Strathcona Park’s Buttle Lake, was told that an important part of QCoal dealing with the Potential Acid-Generating (PAG) coarse coal rejects (CCR) or waste from cleaning the coal for shipment, to try to ensure against potential problems in future, would be to place it underwater “right away” and keep it there.
In the meantime, a broad spectrum of potential concerns continue to surface in the CR area, not the least of which appears to be the close proximity of the new 8.4-hectare settling pond for the new 7South Mine to No Name Lake and of an new open pit and entry-portal to access the new workings, to the Quinsam River itself.
Both the new 7S pit, entranceway and new, lined CCR pond are to be above the river, while the new 7S underground workings will below it.
Documents reviewed by this writer indicate that as production declines to zero in the current mines, it will pick up in the new one, which has much higher levels of sulphates.
A total of 1.6 million tonnes is to be taken out over about three to four years, declining to zero at the end of that period. First-year projected production is 250,000 tonnes.
In that time, say the documents, the CCR is expected to transition from a classification of non-PAG, to a combination of both PAG and non-PAG, and finally to 100-per-cent PAG.

---Quentin Dodd