Many Voices, One Plan. Daryl Hockley, SRK Consulting Gary Coulter, Teck Resources Limited

Transcription

1 Many Voices, One Plan Daryl Hockley, SRK Consulting Gary Coulter, Teck Resources Limited

2 Red Dog Mine

3 Red Dog Mine

4 1 Km Red Dog Mine

5 Four Processes Analysis Information Sharing Feedback & Evaluation Approvals

6 Technical issues Analysis ARD &water management Tailings dams, pit walls Waste rock reclamation

7 Analysis Technical investigations Waste rock and tailings ARD Soil cover studies Reclamation studies Tailings options and stability of final structures Site wide water and contaminant balances Ecological risk assessment Cost estimates

8 Analysis Comprehensive review of closure methods Mine Area Tailings Area

9 Tailings Area Options Water Cover Clean Pond Dry Cover Wet Cover Analysis

10 Analysis Mine Area Options Base Case Simple Cover Complex Cover Geosynthetic Liner Waste Rock Relocation

11 Information Sharing Overall objective: Get stakeholders comfortable with technical matters so that they could contribute to the evaluation of options Two year period of consultation Over 30 meetings (Summary table in paper) DVD When Red Dog Closes Tour of reclaimed sites for 16 community leaders Different levels for different stakeholders

12 Information Sharing NANA Region KIVALINA NOATAK RED DOG AMBLER NOORVIK KOBUK KOTZEBUE KIANA SELAWIK SHUNGNAK DEERING BUCKLAND NANA Region

13 Information Sharing Affected communities

14 Information Sharing Traditional lifestyles

15 Modern economy Information Sharing

16 Next generation Information Sharing

17 Information Sharing Subsistence Committee

18 Information Sharing NANA Board and Staff

19 Feedback & Evaluation Two workshops held in April and June 2006 Similar agenda Discuss only the first workshop here

20 60 Participants NANA Board and Staff Subsistence Committee Teck staff Communities Noatak Kivalina Health agencies State NGO s Technical Consultants April 2006 Workshop

21 Day 1 Background review Days 2-4 Group evaluation of: 5 mine area options 4 tailings area options Day 5 Individual evaluations Limit 5 hours per day April 2006 Workshop

22 Group Evaluations Seven tables Communities Subsistence Committee NANA Board and staff Teck staff State and USACE NGO s Technical consultants

23 Group Evaluations Each option four steps: 1. Quick review of option (15 min) 2. List pro s and con s together (15 min) 3. Evaluation at each table (30-60 min) 4. Tables report back to everybody (60 min) Each option 2-3 hours

24 Perspective Mapping

25 The option protects water quality Statement 1

26 The option ensures physical and chemical stability Statement 2

27 The option provides technical certainty Statement 3

28 Statement 4 The option protects the health of the local and regional people

29 The option protects subsistence uses Statement 5

30 The option protects local and regional economic benefits Statement 6

31 Evaluation Form Protects water quality Provides physical & chemical stability Provides technical certainty Protects subsistence uses Protects health of local & regional people Protects local economic benefits

32 Each group addressed different statements Communities & Region Subsistence Committee NANA Board & Staff Teck Cominco State & UASCE NGO s Consultants

33 Communities & Region Subsistence Committee NANA Board & Staff Teck Cominco State & USACE NGO's Technical Consultants Group Evaluation Results Mine Area Option 5 Move all waste rock into pits A This option protects water quality Disagree Disagree Agree B C1 C2 D E F1 F2 This option provides physical and chemical stability The proposed methods are proven The proposed methods are reliable over the long term This option protects subsistence uses This option protects the health & safety of local and regional people This option protects the local and regional economic benefits resulting This option from controls current future and future liabilities to local and regional Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree

34 Communities & Region Subsistence Committee NANA Board & Staff Teck Cominco State & USACE NGO's Technical Consultants Communities & Region Subsistence Committee NANA Board & Staff Teck Cominco State & USACE NGO's Technical Consultants Communities & Region Subsistence Committee NANA Board & Staff Teck Cominco State & USACE NGO's Technical Consultants Communities & Region Subsistence Committee NANA Board & Staff Teck Cominco State & USACE NGO's Technical Consultants Group Evaluation Results Base Case Water Management Complex Covers A This option protects water quality Strongly This option protects water Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree A quality Disagree Agree Agree B This option provides physical and Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly This option provides physical Strongly chemical stability Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree B Agree and chemical stability Agree Agree The proposed methods are Strongly Strongly Strongly The proposed methods are Strongly C1 Agree Agree proven Agree Agree Agree C1 Agree proven Agree Agree Agree The proposed methods are Strongly Strongly Strongly The proposed methods are C2 Disagree Disagree reliable over the long term Disagree Disagree Disagree C2 reliable over the long term Agree Agree Agree Agree D This option protects subsistence Strongly Strongly Strongly This option protects subsistence Strongly Disagree uses Disagree Disagree Disagree D uses Disagree Neutral Disagree E This option protects the health & Strongly Strongly This option protects the health & Disagree Disagree safety of local and regional Disagree Disagree E Disagree safety of local and regional Neutral Agree people This option protects the local and people This option protects the local F1 Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree F1 regional economic benefits and regional economic benefits Agree Agree Agree resulting This option from controls current future and future Strongly resulting from current and future F2 Disagree liabilities to local and regional Disagree Disagree Strongly This option controls future Disagree F2 liabilities to local and regional Agree Agree Agree people people Simple Covers Geosynthetic Covers A This option protects water quality Neutral Agree Neutral A B This option provides physical and chemical stability Agree Agree Neutral Disagree B The proposed methods are Strongly Strongly C1 Agree Agree proven Agree Agree C1 The proposed methods are C2 reliable over the long term Agree Disagree Neutral Disagree C2 D This option protects subsistence uses Disagree Disagree Agree D E This option protects the health & safety of local and regional Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree E people This option protects the local and F1 regional economic benefits Agree Agree Agree F1 resulting This option from controls current future and future F2 liabilities to local and regional Agree Agree Neutral F2 This option protects water Strongly quality Agree Agree Agree This option provides physical Strongly Agree and chemical stability Agree Agree Agree The proposed methods are proven Neutral Agree Agree Agree The proposed methods are reliable over the long term Neutral Agree Agree Agree This option protects subsistence uses Disagree Neutral Disagree This option protects the health & safety of local and regional Disagree Neutral Disagree people This option protects the local and regional economic benefits Agree Agree Agree resulting This option from controls current future and future liabilities to local and regional Agree Agree Agree

35 Group Evaluation Results Why did the Subsistence Committee prefer complex soil covers to simple soil covers: When caribou migrate, they move in long columns of many animals and they make deep ruts in the ground. Over many years, the ruts could go right through a thin soil cover

36 Day 5 Individual evaluations Ranking Preference

37 Colored tags Individual Ranking

38 Individual Preferences Water Cover This is my favorite option This option is not my favorite, but it s okay I think this option is not acceptable Clean Pond Dry Soil Cover Wet Soil Cover

39 Individual Ranking Results Individual Ranking of Mine Area Options Base Case Simple Cover Complex Cover Geosynthetic Cover First Second Third Fourth Fifth Relocation 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

40 Individual Preference Results Tailings pond choice came down to two options Individual preferences showed strength of disagreement: Clean Pond Dry Soil Cover My preferred option Not my favorite but still okay Unacceptable

41 Individual Preference Results State participants were outliers Traced back to technical disagreements about option effectiveness Further analysis resolved the disagreements: Clean Pond Dry Soil Cover

42 Workshop Results - Mine Area Complex Cover Option - Two-layer soil cover on all waste rock - Contaminated seepage collected for treatment

43 Workshop Results - Tailings Area Clean Pond Option m water year round m covered beach at Main dam

44 Approvals Plan needed to be approved by: Red Dog Management Committee NANA Board State Agencies

45 Conclusions Consultation process led to a Closure and Reclamation Plan that is widely supported by all Red Dog s communities of interest Other benefits: Consensus building Shared learning

46 Conclusions Why did the overall process work well? Clear roles Communities of interest generally have clear areas of input and authority Commitment to information sharing Schedule and topics changed to meet requests Use of different media Commitment to consultation Willingness to take risk all options on the table

47 Conclusions Why did the workshops go well? Respectful of cultural differences in how options are discussed and opinions communicated Structured feedback process that allowed each group to address the issues of most concern to them Participation of all groups allowed different perspectives to be understood by others

48