Iqaluit technical review puts spotlight on Nunavut’s Mary River iron mine project

Here you can see a map (shown May 1 at the technical meeting in Iqaluit) of the transportation corridor that Baffinland Iron Mines Ltd. wants to build to ship iron ore from its proposed iron mine at Mary River on northern Baffin Island to a port at Steensby Inlet.

As a last step before the Mary River iron ore project moves into final hearings, representatives from Baffinland Iron Mines Corp., the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and various government agencies are talking to each other during a three-day public technical meeting in Iqaluit.

Their goal: to narrow the final issues still up for discussion.

At the Navigator Inn, they’re working towards the final hearings scheduled for this July in Iqaluit, Igloolik and Pond Inlet.

“So everyone enters into final hearings knowing what to expect,” Nunavut Impact Review Board executive director Ryan Barry said May 1.

“We do want to develop the Mary River project, but we want to do it in the best possible manner. We want to see the project as a benchmark for environmental management in the Far North and a safe working environment for all,” Oliver Curran, Baffinland’s vice-president for sustainable development, told the Iqaluit gathering in his opening remarks.

The infrastructure that Baffinland wants to build on northern Baffin Island will position Canada as a major Arctic nation with “significant expertise,” he said.

Baffinland, a private company under the control of ArcelorMittal, the European steel-making giant, and a private investment firm, Iron Ore Holdings LP, wants to transport about 18 million tonnes or more of iron ore from Mary River to Steensby Inlet for markets in Europe and Asia over a period of least 37 years — and some predict up to 100 years.

The project, Curran said, is basically a “transportation project,” which requires moving that high grade ore directly to markets.

Curran spent some of the first morning of the Iqaluit meeting, which was devoted to “alternatives assessment,” defending Baffinland’s choice of Steensby Inlet as their port of choice.

Steensby Inlet was the only economically and technically viable port, he said, noting that no company would invest billions in a mine project like Mary River otherwise.

The overriding consideration for that choice: the reliable and consistent delivery of iron ore to customers and the reliability and security of money flowing into Baffinland.

Baffinland did look at other Baffin Island port locations, at Milne Inlet, Nanisivik, Nuvuit and Iqaluit.

But while the Iqaluit option sounds good on paper, it wouldn’t work, Curran said, due to the costly and technically difficult construction of a 1,000-kilometre-long railway over mountains and glaciers, and the necessary storage facilities.

And “significant ice formations” on the north and northeastern coast of Baffin Island form barriers to safe transportation there during up to two months of the year, he noted.

Shipping from Nuviut, to the south of Steensby Inlet, also presented some technical disadvantages, such as unstable ground, a need for additional facilities and a mid-rail airstrip, stream crossings, rock cuts, bridges and more tunnels.

And the port there would take two more years and a lot more money to build. Due to its greater distance from the mine site, it would require seven trains instead of three, more rail spurs and lead to more signaling, higher fuel consumption and operational safety concerns.

Steensby Inlet has the edge because it’s much closer to the mine site and has a deeper port, Curran said.

“These realities must be understood in the overall assessment of environmental and socio-economic effects,” he said. “Given the significantly more difficult ice conditions at the north Baffin sites at present and in the future our recommendation is to pursue shipping through the Foxe Basin.”

Based on evaluation of technical, economic and environmental criteria, Steensby Port is “an essential feature of the proposed project.”

Otherwise, Curran repeated, there is no project.

And, when asked about the possibility of stopping shipping for a period every year, Curran said that’s out of the question. If the company absolutely has to, it will stop operations for repairs or to deal with some emergency, but not for environmental concerns, which its final environmental impact statement hasn’t found to be a problem, he said.

Seasonal shipping would also cost 50 to 60 per cent more in capital costs, he said, because the company would need more tankers , a larger port and some warehouses to store ore. So that also makes seasonal shipping a project-stopper — a “no-go.”

After looking at issues such as air quality, fresh water, soils, and related mitigation and monitoring programs, Baffinland headed into a defence of its railway, facing questions about emergency preparedness and Inuit involvement.

Baffinland wants to build a 149-km railway to carry iron ore from the Mary River mine site to a port at Steensby Inlet

But the company faced little questioning, and the first day of the technical meeting wrapped up an hour ahead of schedule.

The May 2, discussion, which is open to the public, continues with discussions of marine shipping, marine environment, marine wildlife, ballast water and fuel spill modeling and marine wildlife monitoring and mitigation.

The dates for the final hearings into the Mary River project are:

• July 16 to 20, final hearing in Iqaluit;

• July 23 to 25, final hearing in Igloolik; and,

• July 26 to 28, 2012, final hearing in Pond Inlet.