Insights on the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Mine

Subscribe Login to CommentRegister MenuInsights on the proposed Grassy Mountain Coal Mine By Lethbridge Herald on February 13, 2026.Lorne FitchFor the HeraldAs Northback provides more information on their proposed Grassy Mountain coal mine, the truth behind their promotional hype gets clearer. This was demonstrated in a public information session hosted by Northback in the Crowsnest Pass recently.Coincidentally, this took place just a few days before the deadline closed for people to comment on the proposed terms of reference for the mine’s environmental impact assessment.First, Northback clearly does not want the federal government to participate in any regulatory hearing. The federal government has shown itself to be less compliant to industry in hearings than the provincial Alberta Energy Regulator, seen by many as a captured agency. A joint federal/provincial hearing ensures there will be the opportunity for an objective review and full participation by those who oppose the mine for environmental, economic, health, and social issues. Our provincial government, through the AER has a habit of excluding all but those who it deems “directly affected.” Typically, downstream water users and drinkers are not deemed “directly affected.”Federal involvement would be triggered by several bits of legislation — the Impact Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, Environmental Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, and arguably Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.Second, it is evident now that Northback never had any intention of meeting the current scientific standards for selenium release from the mine, let alone acknowledging the promises from the premier, the minister of Energy and the environment minister that no mine would be permitted unless there was zero discharge of selenium. Instead, Northback is lobbying for a change in the standard for selenium release, following a tried and true industry strategy of, “If you can’t make the grade, lower the standard.”The limits proposed by Northback are 5-10X higher than current aquatic health thresholds for selenium. These new limits are not science-based standards based on evidence. The coal industry wants a change to what is technologically and economically feasible for industry to operate a profitable mine, not what is required to protect water quality, fish, and the aquatic environment.A contention that background selenium levels from the legacy mine on Grassy Mountain aren’t a problem evaporate when the evidence of high levels in trout flesh from Gold and Blairmore creeks is reviewed. This was documented by Benga, the precursor to Northback.Third, the promise that overburden would not be dumped in stream valleys is acknowledged as untenable. Mine experts point out that at least a third of the excavated volume of waste rock will have to be disposed of outside of the mine pit. This calls into question the already questionable selenium reduction strategy of “layering.” Piles of overburden, subject to wind and water erosion are a source of selenium and sediment, a further cumulative impact on water quality affecting aquatic life and threatened trout species in Gold and Blairmore creeks.Fourth, secrecy surrounds both the ability to control runoff water on the mine site as well as what are the mine requirements for water. The reasons are probably strategic. If the standards for selenium are changed Northback probably thinks it can eliminate a costly water treatment facility and settling ponds. Any assessment of mine water requirements will likely show severe reductions on stream flow in Gold and Blairmore creeks, to the detriment of native cutthroat trout subject to the Species at Risk Act.Northback is employing the same smoke screen of dodge and twist, prevaricate and promise, financial inducements and backroom lobbying, all the while pushing a mine proposal that has unresolved and significant issues. These issues were adjudicated in a previous federal/provincial hearing in 2021.  The panel soundly rejected the mine proposal.As more and more of the “new” mine proposal emerges, it will become increasing evident this is the old mine proposal dressed up to appear different. No one should be fooled.Lorne Fitch is a Professional Biologist, a retired Fish and Wildlife Biologist, and a past Adjunct Professor with the University of Calgary. He is the author of Streams of Consequence, Travels Up the Creek, and Conservation Confidential.Share this story:17 -16 Subscribe LoginNotify of new follow-up commentsnew replies to my comments Please login to comment 1 Comment Oldest Newest Most Voted Inline FeedbacksView all comments IMO 1 day ago It is quite evident that Northback’s letter to Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature, Julie Dabrusin to terminate the federal impact assessment of the Project is a thinly veiled shell game. Unfortunately, she fell for it and agreed the Grassy Mountain is now an entirely “new” project and, therefore, the former federal impact assessment does not apply. In view of Minister Dabrusin’s quick response to Northback’s request, one is left wondering just exactly how familiar the Minister is with this file. 6 wpDiscuz10Would love your thoughts, please comment.x()x| ReplyInsert.lazyload{display:none;}