Skip to Content
View site list

Profile

Pre-Bid Projects

Pre-Bid Projects

Click here to see Canada's most comprehensive listing of projects in conceptual and planning stages

Government

Taseko Mines sues government over project decision

JOC Digital Media
Taseko Mines sues government over project decision

Taseko Mines Limited announced that it has filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court against the Canadian federal government.

The claim seeks damages in relation to the February 25, 2014 decision concerning the New Prosperity Project, a multi-billion dollar gold-copper deposit in B.C.’s Cariboo region

The lawsuit claims the Government of Canada and its agents failed to meet the legal duties that were owed to Taseko and that in doing so they caused and continue to cause damages, expenses and loss to Taseko.

"Given the conduct of the Government of Canada and its agents we have no other choice but to defend the interests of our shareholders and to protect their assets," said Taseko’s president & CEO Russell Hallbauer.

Taseko is being represented by John Hunter QC of Hunter Litigation Chambers.

Taseko acquired the property in 1969 and exploration drilling continued in the 1970’s and 1980’s under option agreements with several mining companies. Hunter Dickinson acquired Taseko in 1991 and proceeded with extensive drilling, engineering, metallurgical and socioeconomic programs. The work carried out in the 1990’s succeeded in delineating a bulk tonnage porphyry gold-copper mineral resource at Prosperity.

By 1998, Taseko had advanced the project to the pre-feasibility and feasibility stages. However, in 2000 prevailing metal prices – copper price ranging from US$0.60 – $0.80 per pound and gold price ranging from US$250-300 per ounce – and a poor outlook for price performance resulted in the decision to put the project on hold.

In 2006, with gold and copper prices strengthening, Taseko re-started work on the project. A feasibility study was completed in 2007 and in 2009, using metal prices that better reflected a bullish outlook for gold and copper, Prosperity’s mineral reserves were doubled.

2010 marked the culmination of the federal and provincial government review process for Prosperity. The development application was reviewed under both the British Columbia and Canadian Environmental Assessment Acts.

Following these reviews, B.C. granted Taseko the right to proceed with development, however, the Federal Government decided the project could not be justified as proposed and invited Taseko to submit a new design to address their concerns.

Both the Federal and Provincial Governments concluded in 2010 that the Prosperity Gold-Copper Project was not likely to have any significant adverse effects on: air quality, surface or groundwater quality, wildlife, vegetation, including old growth forest, grasslands and wetlands, fish in the Taseko river, water quality in Onion Lake, human health, traffic, biodiversity, noise emissions, archaeological resources, or mule deer and moose habitat.

Taseko submitted a new project description to the Federal Government in June of 2011. In November 2011, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) announced that the new plan named "New Prosperity" would be assessed by a Federal review panel. The New Prosperity gold-copper project proposal is a revised plan that builds on the core strengths of the original Prosperity proposal.

Taseko Attempted to address environmental concerns in the redesign at an additional cost of $300 million over the originally designed project.

In 2012, CEAA reviewed New Prosperity under a new Review Panel. A three member independent panel appointed by the Federal Government was assigned to review the project, to conduct public hearings and write a report to be submitted to the Canadian Minister of Environment.

In February 2014 the Government of Canada announced it will not issue the federal authorizations necessary for the New Prosperity Project to proceed. The Company stated that it fundamentally disagrees with the federal government’s decision and believes they based their decision on a panel report which contains "serious flaws."

Recent Comments

comments for this post are closed

You might also like