Huge coal mine planned for Beaverhill Lake area

Well, here we go again...In the midst of big controversy about the level of industrial activity in Alberta, the planning of another huge industrial project is well along and there's very little awareness of it. Sherritt is planning to create a huge coal strip mine south of Beaverhill Lake. See this website:
www.sherritt.com/Operations/Dodds-Roundhill_Project.html. Who's heard about this?

The mine will take up over 3 townships of land in the Beaverhill Lake watershed. Not a big deal though, Alberta's a big place, so what's 3 townships of farmland, anyway? There's lots of that. Isn't that why we have Saskatchewan? It's not like there's much wildlife habitat in that cropland anyway. Besides, it will be reclaimed, right? What, you're worried about water? Don't worry about water, the mine won't use or divert that much surface or groundwater. I know Alberta Environment has already allocated over 100% of the water flow in the affected systems, but that's just theoretical. Beaverhill has lots anyway, right? Didn't I read something about Beaverhill Lake and area being some of the most valuable waterfowl habitat in Alberta? Well, that's OK, I'm sure that will be taken into consideration. And the farming heritage in that area? Well, they're just poor farmers. A wad of cash should help them out. Maybe they're ready to sell their tractors anyway.

Don't worry. It's all good...right?

Sorry, gotta go tuck my kid in and tell him stories about the land his daddy knew.

Sorry if you don't agree but thats a lot better spot than many of the current proposals by other companies. If its any condolence you'll probably end up with a few more lakes in the area (pit lakes). The reclamations technology these mines have now is amazing and it's a lot easier to make an area with limited relief look normal again as opposed to something in the mountains. I can see why some would be really upset if it's in their backyard, i would be too.

By the way, Alberta has 70% of Canada's coal reserves, hence all the mines.

I agree it's a pity it's gotta be so close to home and perhaps disturb a natural area.....my opinion is since everybody wants a big truck and everybody wants a big house and everybody wants all the toys...well the wood has got to come from somewhere and the oil has got to come from somewhere..same with the steel and the coal and all the other stuff to make the big trucks and the nice houses and all the toys, unfortunately some of the raw materials has to come from good ole Alberta and some of it has to come from right underneath our feet.
I agree with jrs, I'm quite sure they will reclaim the land and perhaps even make it better then before .....and we get our trucks and homes and toys....

jrs, do you think that the other proposals your refer to won't get approved because they're not in "better spots"? I have little faith in either reclamation technology or land use planning in Alberta. It seems to me that the word "no" is never spoken here. I also have little comfort that the public will be as well informed of the costs, environmental and social, of this project as they will be about the "benefits".

What we'll wind up with is mines in better and worse spots, and we'll have to suck it up, 'cause in Alberta, what's under the ground is given more value than what's on it.

Unfortunately this is the price we have to pay to live in a modern world. We all complain about loss of habitat with these projects but we all keep driving big trucks, living in bigger houses than we need, bigger yards than we need, and buying more toys than we need.

If we wanted to stop big bad oil, power companies etc, we need only stop consuming what they are producing. I'm sure we would all say the environment is very important to us, but how many of us drive a bigger vehicle than we really need, or live in a bigger house than we need??

I lived in that world world , It was called the fifties ...

fogetaboutit.... Go big or Go home >>>>

Obviously nobody wants to live next to a coal mine, but unfortunately these projects have to go somewhere and no matter where they are someone is always going to be upset. The physical location of these deposits was predetermined long before any of us were around to worry about it. Don’t get me wrong, if it was going to be built in my favourite hunting area I’d be ripped off too. But take a look out the window this morning, snow in mid April. We live in a climate that is not conducive to throwing up a tin shanty with no heat or power and living in it. These resources have to be extracted one way or another and people have to work. For the short term it sucks. Strip mines are ugly and no one wants to look at them, but the reclamation technology these companies use is quite advanced, and 50-100 years later you’d probably walk through the area and never know it was once a mining area. Just my thoughts.

I've spent a good portion of my time in and around the Beaverhill watershed.

The lake itself was once body of water that teamed with life. However, from the beginning of the area inhabitation, it was under pressure as far as a wildlife sanctuary. Between increased drainage, herbicide accumulation, shoreline grazing, and reduction of it's sanctuary status, this watershed is a skeleton of it's once signifigant stature.

I personally believe that coal development south of the lake would be boost for booth the lake and the area as a whole.

"jrs, do you think that the other proposals your refer to won't get approved because they're not in "better spots"? I have little faith in either reclamation technology or land use planning in Alberta. It seems to me that the word "no" is never spoken here. I also have little comfort that the public will be as well informed of the costs, environmental and social, of this project as they will be about the "benefits"."

I know it sucks and where your coming from but coming from a habitat and reclamability standpoint, its a lot better than some current proposals. When the big developement was proposed for Crowsnest Lake i did my best to fight it as well, i don't like that stuff in my backyard either. I would rather have a coalmine take up 10X the land base as opposed to the 2000 condos going in a small part of my favorite part of Alberta. At least the mined area can be used again, tourists never go away. I feel for you and agree Alberta rarely says no, i can't say no to energy extraction. I use power and drive a truck. Write your letters if your concerned though, mitigation measures can go along ways to helping the general area and your recreational pursuits.

Wow....so we just give up?

I am actually amazed at the attitudes posted here. There is more of a fight to stop an interview for your PAL than losing 3 townships of land.

There are other sources of energy in the world other than coal now a days...I guess Albertans just don't want to change.

Saskatchewan has made huge steps this week to go towards only using green energy. Yes it's it will mean increase in taxes but we are using a lot of tax dollars on the coal industry as well (roads, tax breaks) Their environment ministry wants to move forward, with modern thinking and problem solving...something our alberta Government might want to do sometime.

www.saskatchewan.ca/green

www.econet.sk.ca/solutions/energy/renewable.html

Frankly, I think Alberta should be using it's money to go nuclear. Cleanest energy source on the planet. Plus we could help our Saskatchewan neighbours. And we could also develop it and sell our surpluses to the Americans.

We could also start a nuclear weapons program. Just in case Canada ever decides to invade. :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

Rug.. You just may get your wish. Keep watching the papers.

Jamie

Just east of the Alberta border from Ft McMurray in Saskatchewan, oilsands exploration and developement is taking place by a company called Oilsands Quest Inc. listed BQI on the AMEX and head quartered in Colorado, USA. Check out the website. BQI holds a huge amount of lease in Northern Saskatchewan that is almost equivalent in size to the entire Athabasca oilsands. This will be the next big oilsands project in Canada. Power will be required for this mega project and we will see more activity in the uranium mines in this area. I don't believe for a single second that any government is green, it is just a show to get the votes. As for coal it is the most abundant source of fuel and we will need coalmines, uranium, gas, and oil to maintain our current lifestyles in our new cars, houses and other luxuries.

Nuclear makes sense. Canada has a good reputation for nuclear energy Can-Du reactors etc. Not sure what our current status is on up to date technology but if the French can manage a nuclear program shouldn't be too hard.

We have good supply of uranium in Sask. I say go for it. Practically zero air pollution as I recall.

The Chernobyl incident was apparently a comedy of errors and was precipitated by one screw up after another as only communist Russia was capable of at the time.