Compliance Energy Corp CPYCF

Hydrology and Protecting Water Supply...

[2guys]

Regarding the effects on water, you can get the answers at the Raven Project website;

https://www.theravenproject.ca/qa/

With regards to water protection, here is what will be addressed by Compliance;

Ground and Surface Water

Will the proposed project impact ground and surface water?

The project team will develop the project in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. Engineers and independent consultants are conducting technical and environmental assessments to identify what needs to be done to protect surface and ground water. The results of these assessments will be made available for public review when completed.

What watershed is the proposed project located within?

The proposed project surface infrastructure is located within the Cowie Creek Watershed.

Will there be any impacts to the Tsable River watershed?

There are no surface facilities located in the Tsable River Watershed. Following input from the community, the original surface facilities location was relocated away from the Tsable River Watershed. The project plan to use an existing industrial road for transportation through the watershed.

Coal Washing

What is “coal washing”?

Coal washing refers to the process of separating dirt and non-coal rock material from the coal. This is a water-based process that does not use toxic chemicals.

How much water would be required for coal washing?

It is estimated that 330 to 490 cubic metres of water will be used per day for coal washing. This is equivalent to the amount of water a medium to large hotel uses in an average day.

How will the environment be protected from the coal washing process?

Almost all the water used in the coal washing process (about 99%) is expected to be recycled. Any water released will meet or be better than government water quality standards. A comprehensive water management plan will be implemented to safely and efficiently manage all water requirements.

[chrisale]

That's all meaningless fluff 2guys.  There is no comprehensive aquifer mapping being done (at least there has not been anything identified, we'll see for sure with the AIR).  The whole aquifer needs to be mapped because the concerns stem not just from the above ground mine site itself in the Cowie Creek watershed but also the underground portions of the mine which will extend

[c0lmustard]

Underground water isn't so much of an issue because, unless travelling through underground tunnels, the land acts as a natural filter. https://www.ehow.com/how-does_5584833_water-filtered-nature_.html The geology beneath this deposit is sedimentary - mostly glacial till, which eliminates the possibility of underground tunnels which could be found in something like limestone

[2guys]

Great post C01mustard.    It's one thing to be opposed to coal, but another to be opposed to common sense and responsible mining and mining regulations that have been set up and approved by those more qualified than the minority who are just opposed to coal, and common sense.  atb

[chrisale]

"Calls for the BC government to map underground aquifers is expensive and only stands as an unnecessary delay." This is according to your professional opinion right?  Where do you get off telling anyone any study is "useless"? Does your "people like me" comment include Regional Districts representing tens of thousands of people? Because that's who's

[2girlz]

There is no such thing as common sense.  What makes common sense to one does not make common sense to another.  Common sense is an ethno-centric perception.  If common sense is what is best for humanity then air, water and food are far more important than coal and money.  Responsible mining?  Taxpayers are tired of tax breaks to the mining companies and the additional

[marketwatch2011]

..and with that wonderful post, Happy New Year everyone! Thanks for posting. Best of luck in 2013.

[str8tgoods]

First of all, Happy New Year to all.    Regarding the drinking water, and any study done with aquifiers and so on, wouldn't that have been an issue discussed during the EA process, and isn't it a responsibility of the EA office?  I mean, if the EA office thinks it's necessary to perform the required aquifier study, then why hasn't it been done?   What I would

[2guys]

Str8t, there's more than enough baseline studies being done.  If the EA had any doubt about the quality of drinking water or deficiencies in aquifer mapping it would have been detailed and outlined in the AIR.    All studies that need to be done are either completed or still in progress.   Here's more information from the Raven site.  It's more than helpful in

[chrisale]

(I know this is a partly useless exercise because 2guys has chosen to 'ignore me' but for everyone else) You don't seem to understand how the EA process works 2guys.  The draft AIR, the guidelines, and the final AIR are driven and written primarily by the proponent, CEC, not the Environmental Office. The Envjronmental Office only comes in after everything is done to evaluate

[mokita]

additionally, the ongoing reports of Quinsam Coal Mine arsenic and acid mine pollution from the Campbell River watershed group reveal what we can expect from Raven--that contamination is likely and that the government not only fails to enforce controlling contamination but permits a substantial expansion despite ongoing reports of increased contamination.  The Chief Inspector of Mines ordered

[str8tgoods]

Ok chrisale, but didn't the governing bodies, both at the Provincial and Federal levels approve the content that went into producing the Final AIR guidelines on June 7?  If more was needed, why then didn't they ask for it to be added prior to the approving the guidelines back in June?   https://www.theravenproject.ca/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Federal-and-Provincial

[chrisale]

  Yes indeed they approved the Final AIR Guidelines and those Guidelines also included limited aquifer mapping (detailed in the 2nd part of the guidelines) and will also have monitoring.     However, this is not the full picture that the Regional Districts and stakeholders have asked for.  We will see what the AIR/EIS provides in terms of data, but in terms of what they set out

[mokita]

in the present climate of deregulation of the coal mining industry, corporate needs are addressed and environmental risks ignored or dismissed.  Premier Clark has promised to streamline the permit process and not tie companies up in "red tape."  See scathing audit of the EAO for the effects of deregulation that fuel CEC's move through the permit process.  See the

[2guys]

Last I heard, Canada had one of the best environment, geopolitical, and safety records on this, OUR planet.   Some, who just don't like coal, or traffic in their backyard, or progress that effects their simple lifestyles seem to want to make an example of the Raven Underground Coal Project which has had one of the most publicly scrutinized, and intense Environmental processes on record

[2guys]

Last I heard, Canada had one of the best environment, geopolitical, and safety records on this, OUR planet.   Some, who just don't like coal, or traffic in their backyard, or progress that effects their simple lifestyles seem to want to make an example of the Raven Underground Coal Project which has had one of the most publicly scrutinized, and intense Environmental processes on record

[mokita]

no evidence to back up claims of strong environmental records.  Evidence supports deregulation that puts environment, communities and miners at considerable risk.  United Steel Workers charges government with failure to enforce laws that would protect miners from the increase in black lung disease and cancers due to inhaling diesel fuel; over 5 billion dollars paid to clean up