The internet allows you to readily search corporate financial and regulatory documents, but The Union has done a poor job of researching the filings when it comes to reporting on whether to reopen the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley.
Instead, they just paraphrase the mine’s CEO, letting him provide the “spin.” One example: The water discharged into Wolf Creek will be of “drinking water” standards.
Emgold detailed some changes to its Idaho-Maryland mine project in a regulatory filing this past week:
“The Company is currently working on a revision to the project description for the project. The revision will include elimination of discharge into the South Fork of Wolf Creek from the New Brunswick site and elimination of the water treatment plant at the New Brunswick site.
“Instead, a raw water line will be constructed under East Bennett Road and water will be pumped from the New Brunswick site to the Idaho-Maryland Site and to the water treatment plant located there.
“Water will then be discharged into Wolf Creek after treatment. The revision will also include the clean-up of historic tailings on site which was not included in the scope of the Draft EIR.”
There’s a big difference between stating that you’re treating the water versus bringing it to “drinking water standards,” a highly subjective analysis not backed up with facts.
In addition, regulations could impact the permitting requirements down the road.
“In particular, potential legislation from the California Air Resources Board and the Federal EPA related to carbon emissions and potential cap and trade rules may have an effect on mining operations in the U.S.,” it reads.
The filing also shows parent Emgold has spent more than $80,000 on community relations so far.
The filing is here.
The community needs to demand more when it comes to helping them make a decision on whether to reopen the mine.
The extreme right likes to point fingers at the left for having made up their mind on the project, but they’re just as guilty — if not more so. The Union management already has tipped its hand on supporting the project, before an EIR is complete.
Exit question: Will Dan Miller be Mayor when the project comes up to the City Council for approval?
Filed under: Uncategorized
As a resident of Mill St. bordering Wolf Creek, I’m interested in Emgold’s claim that it will bring the water level up to 90% of floodstage for a year to de-water the mine. Right now,today, I’d say the creek is at about 95% and looking pretty mean. I wouldn’t want to put up with that amount of water for a year, not to mention the erosion it would cause.
Hey Bob, any chance of getting some pics or video of the creek in high water? It would be a good thing to have for the upcoming hearings. Be careful, and wear a life jacket!
Sorry, John, the wife has the camera and she’s not here. Anyone who is so inclined can view the creek anywhere in GV. It looks the same as it is here.
We’ve been lucky, so far. The storm has been hitting us in spurts, rather than a continuous downpour. Every time it looks like the creek is going to come up over the bank, it quits for an hour and the water level goes down a foot or so. The last time we had serious flooding was New Year’s Eve five years ago. The water surrounded our house for about half a day and flooded the furnace. Everybody’s garbage cans moved downstream three addresses and it took two weeks to clean up the muck.
If you really want to see it from my perspective and you’re upstream on Banner Mountain, just hop in your raft. I figure you’ll be at my house in about three minutes.
Jeff:
Good points, except for this one, to which I take mild exception:
“The extreme right likes to point fingers at the left for having made up their mind on the project, but they’re just as guilty — if not more so.”
No one — “right” or “left” — who has studied this issue conscientiously for the last several years, should feel guilty about already making decision.
Rather, those who have either (1) not taken the time to study the copious material and analysis available on the city’s website, on research websites such as that of CLAIM-GV and on blogs such as yours and mine, or (2) have made a decision without doing the requisite study … should feel guilt.
Personally, if I knew nothing more about Emgold’s IMM project than the single incontrovertible and unmitigatable fact that it will worsen air quality in Nevada County I would — and do — have enough information to oppose it. That’s a classic deal killer.
Don.
Jeff,
Thanks for keeping the info on this matter flowing . . . the local rag will only continue it’s overt support.
I have no guilt about my NO decision on this proposed plan – my personal submission on DEIR faults was 20+ pages – and nothing, not even a worsened economy, would change my mine – I mean mind.
I agree that people need to be better informed – I am skeptical that too many will take the initiative to really delve into the details.
Emgold and Watkinson will keep playing the “Jobs” vs. “Environment” or “Radical Environmentalists” bunk dichotomy. At the very least the truth about the possible jobs needs to be under the microscope – that and Emgold’s piss-poor finances. If one can’t pay their bills, should they be entrusted with responsibility for toxins or massive destruction of Earth?
I’m curious about Dave Watkinson’s response to Jeff Ackerman’s recent editorial asserting that the mine is a lost cause.
Also curious about the reaction to Jeff Ackerman’s editorial by Greyson Howard, who wrote the quasi-pseudo-semi-parafactual front page article about the mine just a few days prior. Wouldn’t that come as a slap in the face after just putting in the effort to write that article?