Good read. The central issue seems to be that while Loss of Fish Lake would be offset by Prosperity Lake, the Loss of Fish habitat from the destruction of various streams is not offset, thus creating the majority of the "net loss of fish habitat". Beyond that there are some concerns as to whether the compensation plan could function without constant human intervention etc...
Sounds like Taseko will need to revise their plan to ensure no net-loss of fish habitat. I hope they do rather than 'gamble' that it would gain approval as is.
Thanks dercel for this posting.
It appears that the DFO have serious misgivings about the affect on the surrounding environment of Prosperity Lake. Also without constant human intervention the sustainability of Prosperity Lake and feeding tributaries is also some thing that needs to be addressed.
I hope TGB takes this part serious for two reasons. 1. The DFO holds the approval ability and could deny the permit and 2.TGB could be required to constantly intervene to shore up Little Fish Lake, Prosperity Lake and the Tribuataries for many years to come. This could affect profits and as a result our investments.
Maybe this is not the best example, but we have seen what happens almost every time there is a lot of rain along the Mississippi River in the USA, and the waters rise. Because of mans changing the environment near the river ie building dikes and diversion streams and communities devastating floods have been the result. Now when ever there is a disaster flood there many people are forced from their homes and federal, state and many other agencies are forced bail out the areas residents at great cost. When in reality they should not have been there in the first place.
The cost for things like this to happen with TGB and Prosperity Lake could be enormous and very damaging to their profitability.
Wow. I am new to the board and new to DFO reviews, but I can't imagine a mining company receiving a worse environmental impact review on the plan's fishery impact. If the company has a better plan to offer they should have offered it in place of this disaster of a plan.
I was looking at the stock for possible purchase but this DFO report sure looks like a deal killer to me. I will allow that Canada may be much less stringent than in the U.S., but it can't be willing to buy off on this plan and I can't help but believe this plan poisoned the well for future revisions. Am I missing something here?
So don't buy the stock if you don't like the fish plan. It's your call. Go ahead and short it if you wish.
<<I was looking at the stock for possible purchase but this DFO report sure looks like a deal killer to me>>
Hey Maqua....This is all about the BEJAMINS....don't let anyone fool you. This will be approved because 95% of the people in the region want it approved and the reigning politicians in power want it approved.
The only thing everyone on this panel has to do is to make sure they get as much as they can from Taseko to limit environmental damage. They will sell this to the other 5%.
IMHO This stock will hit $7-$8.00 if approved. I think it is a good Bet!
You say you're new to the board and to DFO reviews yet you've decided that this is a 'deal breaker' and that the current plan 'poisoned the waters for future revisions'.
Are you also new to mining stocks? The one guarantee you have is that the permitting process will never be a smooth ride. This is just another bump in the road. TGB will make the necessary changes to their plan and the DFO will be happy again.
It looks like the DFO means what they say.
Even the FN lawyers are anticipating a major rework/additional conpensation of the fish habitat to the extent that they asked the CEAA Panel Chairman that there should be an additional 30 day public comment period when/if a revised fish compensation plan by Taseko is presented to the DFO before/during the Technical Sessions that will be held during the latter part of these public hearings.
The Panel Chairman had a wait and see kind of attitude to another 30 day delay. See March 24th hearing transcripts for the details.
Maybe the best thing for Taseko to do is to clean-up other damage left by other closed mines to restore more fish habitat acreage. (This is acceptable per the DFO. It is option 4) This way Taseko does not have to redo the Fish Lake/River design.
Time will tell...