Adanac Molybdenum Corporation AUAYF

RE: AUA Newbie

[grumpymonkey007]

"Mr. Sawyer only alluded to a technical , theoretical possibility - he never said there was a postponement " Sawyer said the EA has been bumped to comprehensive study and that "any ongoing site preparation work may be illegal under the federal legislation" I'm sure better informed people shall be able to disabuse me of my notions but here they are as requested * BCEAO has already accepted/certified the Environment Assessment for Adanac Molybdenum's proposed Ruby Creek mine: https://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_document_258_24701.html * It should be noted that the public WAS given the opportunity for input at the BCEAO level: https://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_project_doc_list_258_r_pub.html * However, Red Chris also had an accepted EA at the provincial-level that included the opportunity for public comment: The BCMetals Corp CEO laments "The Company sees this decision as a setback for environmental review of projects in Canada by significantly limiting the ability of Federal and Provincial authorities to harmonize their respective review processes and avoid costly duplication and uncertainty" https://technology.infomine.com/articles/1/1915/legal.gold.canada/red.chris.mine.aspx * It appears from the CEAA website that the Federal Minister For the Environment has yet to make the determination that Adanac Molybdenum's mine requires a comprehensive study, however it should be noted that Prosperity and Red Chris are both presently classified as significant mining projects requiring a comprehensive study: https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/010/compstudies_e.cfm * From CEAA, a comprehensive study is typically required for big stuff but it appears that the ultimate decision is that of the Minister of the Environment: "The majority of federal projects are assessed through a screening; however, some projects require a comprehensive study. These projects are described in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. These tend to be large projects having the potential for significant adverse environmental effects. They may also generate public concerns. Examples of such projects include large-scale oil and natural gas developments, nuclear power developments, electrical-generation projects, industrial plants and certain projects in national parks and others. Early on in the comprehensive study, the Minister of the Environment has to decide whether the project should continue to be assessed as a comprehensive study, or whether it should be referred to a mediator or review panel. If the Minister decides the project should continue as a comprehensive study, the project can no longer be referred to a mediator or review panel." * Can the CEAA rely upon BC's determination? Possibly... Given the potential for overlapping environmental assessments, the Act allows the Minister of the Environment to enter into agreements with provincial and territorial governments relating to the environmental assessments of projects where both governments have an interest. Now, here's the kicker, the Federal agency responsible for classifying the assessment class for Ruby Creek is the DFO. An environmental activist referring to himself as Mike Sawyer has stated that the DFO has determined that a comprehensive study IS required for Ruby Creek. I have not validated his statement: https://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/viewmessage.asp?no=17830220&t=0&all=0&StartDir=O&StartID=17831022&StartDateTime=2008-01-17 So it appears that if Mike is legit that: i. the ball is in the Minister's court as to whether AUA does, in fact, require a comprehensive study ii. the DFO could have used the abridged BCEAO assessment but chose not to iii. that the degree of public involvement is, in fact, ambiguous https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/011/index_e.htm iv. now interestingly enough coverage was initated on AUA last week by MGI Securities that estimates that Ruby Creek won't make it to production until 2010 https://insidegold.com/article/21521/ Cheers, GM