As an environmentally conscience investor, one who loves recreational fishing and detests industrial damage to our clean flowing natural waterways, I'd like RBY to give us more information ASAP regarding this supposed issue; "potential impact of tailings pond overflow/leakage on fish populations". Is this in fact the real issue and the only issue the FNs are after RBY over? Does the independent environmental councel we've paid for consider the problem legitimate? Are we doing enough to remedy it? Where is our evidence of this - is it in a "revised closure plan"? Let's see it. And so forth... Where's RBY IR and Public Relations on this right frigin now?!?!?!
Don't get me wrong. I get it. FNs issue is a bump in the road but seems could be a legitimate issue that can delay us at a time when we investors can no longer afford to delay some sign of a return on their investment! Timing is the issue. Get this thing addressed immediately and then let’s move on!
And any talk of drilling deeper to 1000 is more delay and won't be tolerated. GIve us some production - NOW!
The FN suit is part of the "Idle No More" protests...the tailings pond thing is spurious because the FN are located upstream of Phoenix, therefore not in the path a highly theroretical "leak" from the pond (which won't happen)
Sentiment: Strong Buy
btw... i agree with you crosscut, I think it is spurious.. imo Rubicon's mention as part of this whole WFN thing is also a convenient guise for a favorable economic sharing agreement more so than having specific environmental issues with Rubicon.
crosscut... I did some research and found 2 different opinions on the direction of flow out of red lake... one that said Red Lake outflow is towards the WFN fishing lakes, and one that said the WFN fishing lakes from the SW flow into Red Lake. Do you know for certain which way it does flow?
As far as liner systems go, depending on the permeability factors of a clay liner system and how many layers of HDPE (or other plastic material) are incorporated, there is always a theoretical leakage rate through a liner system. Its just a matter of how many gallons of leakage over time are deemed acceptable to the environment by government standards. JP Giroud is considered the guru on this topic and according to him all liner systems have a theoretical leakage rate due to acceptance of flaws (pinholes) etc. in the plastic liner fabrication and welded seams of the sheets of plastic.
Again, this isn't a specific issue to be concerned with regarding Rubicon's pond design, this is an established and acceptable standard set by the Canadian government for environmental protection that Rubicon must follow as a minimum standard to obtain a permit.
kg... there is nothing really for Rubicon to address specifically concerning a potential environmental issue with their tailings pond. Their closure plan and environmental remediation/monitoring of the tailings pond has included the necessary engineering safety factors to satisfy the Canadian/Ontario government such that Rubicon has received permits for them. Any dam associated with a tailings pond is designed and engineered with a safety factor according to standard engineering practice for mines. The liner system that underlies the tailing pond is also designed to prevent leakage and has monitoring wells to determine if a liner is leaking... this too is standard practice.
Hopefully I didn't scare you with the technical talk about tailings ponds, but it really is a standard mining feature that most, if not all mining companies have to deal with as part of their mine design.
I'm assuming that Goldcorp also uses a similar tailings pond treatment method next door as well... if anything, modern design of ponds, materials used, environmental codes, etc. have most likely improved substantially if and when Goldcorp's closure plan/tailings pond was approved of and permitted several years ago.
I'd call the company directly if you have questions about how the pond was designed and to what Canadian environmental codes it was designed to.
If WFN has an issue with the tailings pond beyond the opinions their own independent engineer that reviewed the plan (and Rubicon also incorporated into the closure plan), well that issue is no longer with Rubicon specifically, but with the environmental protection codes of Canada and how projects are reviewed and approved... Rubicon is a 3rd party to that complaint if this is the case, as having a permit in hand indicates that the Canadian government is satisfied from an environmental protection perspective with what Rubicon has submitted and the safety factors that Rubicon consultants have engineered things to.
Thank you mries for explaining this. Yes, initially I was scared about the "technical talk about tailings ponds" as it appeared the only think FNs could be filing there claim for. But your explanation has satisfied me for now that at least we're not in danger of contaminating someone's watershed... kg
Mries, I completely agree with your assessment RBY's tailings pond. Simply put, if when they we're applying for their permit and there were significant environmental impacts associated with this pond they would have had to of listed satisfactory environmental mitigation measures in order for RBY to receive their permit. Not only that, but once the draft permit was issued, I'm sure all interested parties were notified via a newspaper or special mailing list and probably had 30 or so days to make comment on this draft permit if they had an issue. If they did not comment on it at that time, which I don't think they did because the permit was issued, they don't have standing and cannot comment now, at least the provincial level, perhaps at the Canadian federal level, if they all of the suddend felt blindsided, but it sure does seem like a weak case, if that were in fact it and not a much more major global issue. Califmale
Tailing pond is the only issue that could somehow affect Wabauskang well-being and so it is included to plaintiff’s claim, i.e. without this the lawsuit (against RBY) could not proceed at all. In other words, it is something to start the process and, once it started and goes to judicial consideration, it loses technical actuality. I am pretty sure that tailing pond was designed in proper way, technically.
If legal things go in “regular” way (quirks are always possible) then lower court will use this “tailing thing” as an excuse to issue injunction (it is my opinion only) and appeal court will do the same to overturn it (another opinion). What company can do about this process? It can only pay lawyers to accommodate legalities. In other words, it cannot be addressed immediately and, moreover, it is substantially beyond company control.
On the contrary, shafting issue is in company’s control and needs to be addressed.
Thank you sincerely for sharing your knowledge on this “tailing thing”. As you can see I am interested in it both as a RBY captive shareholder as well as a concerned environmentally conscience citizen. I'd hate to see an investment I've made do something wrong (if that be the case) and/or try to minimize, fight it, or not fix it satisfactorily in a timely manner. Of course, on the other hand, if this 'FN's thing' is nothing but BS to get more stuff, either from RBY now or in the future or some other bigger cause, then shame on the 'FNs'! And if this turns out to be the case and there's a negative impact on the shareholders investment, then RBY should countersue!
The '1000' shaft thing is of course going to get buried in long bunny trails going to nowhere discussing forever the Pros & Cons, all the while, we shareholders just continue being sheep or sell, lose big and lump it. I say we voice what we want as investors and let RBY hear us loud n clear! This message bd is just one more vehicle to do that.