Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Riversdale Resources Ltd. is appealing a decision of a joint provincial-federal regulatory panel rejecting its proposed Grassy Mountain mine, in southwest Alberta.

The Canadian Press

The company whose application to build a new open-pit coal mine in the Rocky Mountains was rejected last month will appeal the decision, saying regulators ignored evidence and failed to consult with affected Indigenous groups.

Riversdale Resources Ltd. , a subsidiary of Australian mining giant Hancock Prospecting, wanted to build its Grassy Mountain project on the site of an old mine that closed in the 1960s in Alberta’s Crowsnest Pass. But last month a joint federal-provincial regulatory panel rejected the proposal, saying it would likely result in significant adverse effects on the environment and on some First Nations.

Ultimately, it declared the mine was not in the public interest.

Story continues below advertisement

The Grassy Mountain mine was to be operated by Riversdale subsidiary Benga Mining Ltd. It was forecast to produce around 93 million tonnes of metallurgical coal (which is used in making steel) over its 23-year life.

In its application to appeal, lodged with the Alberta courts Friday, Benga argued that the joint federal-provincial review panel had denied the company procedural fairness, and ignored or misconstrued relevant evidence the company put forward regarding project economics, surface water quality, and the habitat of westslope cutthroat trout.

It also said the panel “improperly relied on layperson, non-expert and unfounded opinion evidence lacking any science-based support to unjustifiably dismiss or disregard Benga’s expert evidence.”

Panel says Grassy Mountain coal mine in Alberta Rockies not in public interest

Katie Morrison, a conservation director with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, said that assertion is “an insult” to experts that presented to the panel.

“It’s a little mind-boggling how they could look at all those people with decades of expertise in their field who are academics, who are PhDs, who are presenting evidence on the environmental impact or the efficacy of the mediations, and say that those are laypeople,” she said in an interview. “It’s actually a little bizarre.”

The joint review panel laid out myriad reasons it concluded that the coal mine isn’t in the public interest, Ms. Morrison said, including questions over water quality, species at risk, and Indigenous rights.

“Just because the company participates in the process doesn’t mean that they are guaranteed a favorable outcome,” she said.

Story continues below advertisement

“The process is set up to judge the validity of their work – to get other expert opinions, and really see whether they can do what they’re saying they’re going to do. And in this case, the joint review panel just was not convinced.”

The joint review of the Grassy Mountain mine began in August, 2018. It included thousands of pages of records comprising various technical studies and additional information requests from the panel, and an on-site visit.

The process also included more than a month of public hearings, beginning in October, 2020, which considered submissions from various federal departments and agencies, municipal governments, industry organizations and non-governmental organizations both for and against the project.

The hearings also included Indigenous groups. But in its application to appeal, Benga said the participation of those groups was limited because the communities had entered into agreements that gave them economic interests in the mine.

That included the Piikani Nation, whose elected leadership had been supportive of the project.

In a February bulletin to members, for example, the Chief and council pointed out that Benga had already made financial contributions to a Piikani Nation Trust Account, and various community, social and scholarship programs. The company had also created training and procurement policies to facilitate jobs and careers for Piikani members and businesses, and funded an environmental and community-based monitoring program for the life of the mine.

Story continues below advertisement

In its own application to appeal the panel’s decision, also lodged Friday, Piikani argued the Alberta government’s Aboriginal Consultation Office didn’t do enough to assess the adequacy of consultations with Indigenous groups, particularly when it came to the economic opportunities for the nation.

“These errors were fundamental” to the panel’s finding that the Grassy Mountain mine was not in the public interest, it said, and must be reconsidered.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies