Since running an editorial in October 2024 questioning the sustainability of the Record Ridge mine for our community, there have been multiple responses in the paper and via social media criticizing the Save Record Ridge Action Committee (SRRAC) and me personally.
This commentary is also spreading inaccurate information about SRRAC and the proposed project benefits.
This response is to emphasize why an environmental assessment is so important and to set the record straight on who is set to gain from the proposed mine (spoiler: it isn’t us locals).
For starters, being concerned citizens does not make us "anti-mining activists."
SRRAC does not advocate an anti-mining agenda; it is concerned only with the impacts of the proposed Record Ridge mine on our community and environment. Similarly, I am not opposed to mining - I work in the mining industry.
I am part of this discussion because my review of the application documents indicate they are inconsistent, convoluted, and missing the appropriate level of detail to assess long-term impacts to our community, our environment, and even our economy.
A prime example is the company’s commitment to transport ore via the Patterson border versus driving through Rossland.
They have certainly made this commitment, but the amended Mine Plan submitted in September 2024 still states ore will be driven to Trimac in Trail and then shipped by rail to the Tacoma Seaport.
How is the community to believe commitments are being upheld when the most recent documents continue to say otherwise?
What SRRAC is advocating for is government accountability in undertaking an appropriate environmental assessment of this project including assessment of human health risks, and for WHY Resources to address the significant issues in its application; this includes big improvements to their studies of the site which are being used to predict impacts.
Unless it is confirmed that our community and environment will not face undue harm, a permit should not be issued.
Financially speaking, those who support the mine tout great advantages for locals, but the facts indicate otherwise.
The proposed mine is owned by an Alberta company, is outside Rossland city limits and would not pay municipal taxes, and the ore will be shipped directly out of the country.
The proposed project would provide less than 40 seasonal jobs over two years; the majority of these jobs will likely go to workers out of the region given that a cooperative agreement for managing the work has been made with a company from outside the Rossland area.
In contrast, Rossland’s tourism economy, criticized by many mine supporters as not being a valuable economic driver, brought in $32 million in 2023, as reported by Tourism Rossland.
Many tourism businesses are located within city limits, pay municipal taxes and local wages, and reinvest their earnings locally through consumer spending.
During ski season there are approximately 500 tourism jobs in Rossland, with summer tourism becoming more attractive each year.
The impact an open pit mine will have on tourism in our area could be significant and requires expert scrutiny; something not yet attempted.
Compounding these concerns, in September 2024, WHY Resources reduced its proposed ore production by 68 per cent for this two-year pilot project in order to avoid environmental assessment.
The corresponding project footprint was only reduced by around 5% and the proposed infrastructure is still clearly able to support a much larger project.
This matters because BC Regulations allow an existing mine to expand without an environmental assessment, as long as they disturb less than 50 per cent more land area.
If the pilot project is approved without an environmental assessment, WHY Resources will be able to expand their footprint to extract a lot more ore without any environmental assessment being required.
This would allow for potential impacts to our community and environment to occur without proper understanding of the consequences.
Our community deserves to have a thorough understanding of the project and its impacts, before any approvals are granted.
As a public, we must collectively continue to advocate for an environmental assessment of this mine.
We require confirmation that the Record Ridge mine won’t lead to long-term negative impacts on us, while filling the pockets of WHY Resources and its investors.
Elissa Ferguson, M.Sc. is a Rossland resident, parent and environmental scientist working in mine-remediation.
She serves as a director of the non-profit Save Record Ridge Action Committee Society; the society’s efforts are 100 per cent volunteer.
