October 10, 2012 – To Whom it May Concern, It is understood that the CEAA is aware of the exploration activities that are being conducted by Compliance Coal Corporation (The Proponent) including the Bear deposit, which is located approximately 10 km northwest of the proposed location of the proposed Raven Underground Coal Mine (proposed project).
The approved AIR/EIS for Raven Coal created by Compliance Coal Corporation does not include the scope and development of the Bear Coal deposit which, based on evidence supplied below, is a connected action as determined by the company proposing this coal mine.
At minimum, the Bear coal deposit is not mentioned anywhere throughout the document even as part of the cumulative effects assessment, taking into account the information that is available with respect to the final project as a whole (i.e. all the phases, Raven; Bear; Anderson)
This is a concern because Subsection 15(3) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act provides that an environmental assessment of a physical work shall be conducted in respect to every “construction, operation, modification, decommissioning, abandonment or other undertaking” in relation to the project, and it is my understanding that the proponent is reaching oneof the final stages in this review and is working on submitting an application for the Raven coal project.
Subsection 16(1) of the Act requires every federal environmental assessment to include consideration of the environmental effects of a project, including “any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out” as in the case of Bear coal.
In that the Bear deposit is a reasonably foreseeable action, as determined by the corporation’s financial statement ending June 30, 2012 [below], it is required [at minimum] that it be considered in the cumulative effects assessment of the currently proposed Project, as outlined in the CEA Agency’s Operational Policy Statement entitled “Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act” (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=1F77F3C2-1).
RE:
CEC FINANCIAL STATEMENT ENDING JUNE 30, 2012 ( PAGE #8 )
a) Comox Joint Venture (“CJV”)
In 2009, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with I-Comox Coal Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ITOCHU Corporation; and LG International Investments (Canada) Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of LG International Corporation to explore and develop the Bear and Raven Coal Projects located on Vancouver Island BC.
In January 2012, the Company and its joint venture partners agreed to modify the terms of their joint venture such that a joint venture participant can elect not to participate in cash calls and take dilution instead. The joint venture agreement is in the formal process of being amended. A cash call of $6,164 was made in January 2012. The Company and LGI participated but I-Comox did not and suffered dilution.
This information reiterates previous information submitted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency regarding the Bear deposit and it’s relation to the entire scope of the proposed project and future actions as dependent utilities:
Compliance Energy Corp. Expands MOU With ITOCHU Corporation and LG International Corporation
Compliance Energy Corp. announced that it has expanded the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was originally signed with ITOCHU Corporation and LG International Corporation (the Parties) on January 31, 2008. The expanded MOU includes additional lands, outlines specific joint venture participating interests, and increases the financial consideration. The original MOU, which provided for the development of the Raven Coal Project encompassing approximately 3100 hectares, has been expanded to include the Bear Coal Project, and the remainder of the West Fraser Mills Ltd. (WFM) option lands on Vancouver Island (Comox Basin Holdings) for a total of approximately 29,000 hectares. Under the terms of the expanded MOU, the Parties have agreed to increase their financial contribution. They will now fund up to $12.0 million to earn a 40% interest in the Comox Basin Holdings subject to the favourable outcome of ongoing due diligence and the execution of final agreements. Of this total, $600,000 has already been paid to secure exclusivity. The remaining $11.4 million will be utilized to fund: all the activities necessary to reach a production decision on the Raven Coal Project including public consultation, additional drilling, environmental assessment and transportation studies, and a feasibility study; and payments to WFM to secure the transfer of title to the option lands.
This published information is solid evidence, indicating the Proponent is continuing to mention their foreseeable intensions to develop the Bear deposit (June 30, 2012) as part of the Raven Underground coal mining proposal therefor is the proponent not required to submit all of the necessary information to support the environmental assessment of the combined projects?
I understand as well that the Act assumes that the project will be represented in its entirety and, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada, were a proponent to engage in “project splitting” by representing part of the project as the whole, or proposing several parts of a project as independent projects, the responsible authority might have to include all parts of the project in the scope of the project to be assessed.
Has the proponent attempted to submit the development of the Bear deposit in the cumulative effects assessment or has the proponent submitted a project description for the mining of the Bear Coal deposit? Has the CEAA attempted to request the proponent submit the details for the development of Bear coal in the cumulative effects assessment, including a project description? If not, please help me understand by explaining why…
Has the federal government considered the environmental assessment requirements of the Bear coal deposit development by the proponent? For example, has the CEAA considered how the additional component of the Bear deposit is linked to the Raven project?
Is it not conceived, based on the financial statement above, that Raven and Bear are connected actions?
For instance: where the Bear deposit will be automatically triggered by the Raven deposit development; where the Bear deposit was described on the company’s website, that it will be preceded by the Raven deposit development; and where both Raven coal and Bear coal are part of a larger whole as mentioned again this year in the company’s financial statement as seen above; and that they have been considered separately with no independent utility and that because of this, the project scope should be expanded to include the Bear deposit as an additional component?
I would appreciate your insight into the requirements of the Act in conjunction with the actions of the proponent and the CEAA as it relates to Bear coal and the proposed Raven coal project proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Stacey Gaiga
Coal Free Alberni
Port Alberni, BC
250-723-1243