Nunavut Post

Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Victoria Gold takes Yukon Water Board to court over $74M expansion to mine security

Nunavut

Key takeaways: 

  • The water board instructed the firm to post $104.9M in security after review, up from $30.7M.
  • Victoria Gold is taking the Yukon Water Board to court over a notable increase in the protection for the mine. 

The Victoria Gold Corp. is taking the Yukon Water Board to court over a directive for the firm to pay an extra $74 million in protection for its Eagle Gold mine, on top of the roughly $30.7 million the business has already posted.

Victoria Gold filed a petition to the Yukon Supreme Court on Monday, accusing that the council’s decision was unjust and requesting it to stay pending appeal.

At the core of the lawful action is a June 17 decision from the Yukon Water Board, an autonomous body liable for water licenses. Water licenses are needed for most mining operations and usually come with several situations, which may need to provide a security cash deposit so that funds are available for clean-up and remediation efforts should anything go wrong.

Also read: Yukon’s chief coroner orders inquest into drug-related demises of 2 females

The Victoria Gold Corp. is taking the Yukon Water Board to court over a directive for the firm to pay an extra $74 million in protection for its Eagle Gold mine, on top of the roughly $30.7 million the business has already posted

Victoria Gold had earlier posted just more than $30.7 million in safety for its Eagle Gold mine, located in the Mayo, Yukon, region. 

The Yukon Water Board, however, examined the firm’s latest reclamation and closure plan for 2020 and rejected it due to several concerns, including Victoria Gold’s proposed water treatment processes and associated infrastructure and how the firm calculated inflation. As a result, the board advanced security for Eagle Gold to just more than $104.9 million, giving Victoria Gold 90 days to pay. 

Victoria Gold, in its petition, proclaims the board’s decision was based on no or extraneous evidence. It also alleges it wasn’t given a fair chance to reply to the committee’s concerns, some of which it claims could have been quickly handled without increases in safety. The board hasn’t provided adequate reasons for precisely how it calculated the new security.

Source – CBC News

Show More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.