Letter to Nat Res NB on Protected Natural Area 150

16 07 2014

To: Paul Robichaud
Department of Natural Resources
Government of New Brunswick
Fredericton, NB

To the Minister of Natural Resources and all concerned:

I congratulate the government for including Protected Natural Area PNA150, situated in the Upper Nashwaak Watershed, in the final schedule of newly protected natural areas. However, I am dismayed by the removal of almost 10% of the area originally proposed for PNA150 in 2012. (see figure 1 of attached document). From information provided it appears that mining interests have greatly influenced the decision to revise and downsize this area, as evidenced by the location of mining claim 6009 owned by Tri-Star Antimony Canada Inc.(See figure 2)

The attached figures show:

  • Figure 1. PNA150 boundaries as proposed in 2012 compared to currently proposed 2014 boundaries.
  • Figure 2. Mining claim 6009 in the Upper Nashwaak owned by Tri-Star Antimony Canada Inc.
  • Figure 3. Tri-Star’s estimate of antimony deposits in the upper Nashwaak roughly showing the area of the estimate impacting PNA150.

Some noteworthy observations about the proponent and claim 6009

  • The proponent invested a grand total of $58,000 in exploration work on claim 6009 in 2011-2012.
  • The proponent appears to have failed to file a mineral report of work for claim 6009 as required in 2013
  • The proponent has again filed a mineral report of work for claim 6009 in 2014 but the report remains confidential until 2016.
  • The average amount of antimony in till and cores on Claim 6009 is 4-9 ppm, well below CCME interim guidelines 20ppm  for acceptable soil amounts, i.e. barely above background amounts
  • There is likely 3-4 times as much lead as antimony (Sb) and 6-10 times as much arsenic as Sb  in the till and cores on claim 6009
  • The arsenic emissions this close to the Nashwaak would be devastating.

The proponent’s own web site states  “In 2013 Tri-Star Antimony Canada INC has reduced the Stanley claim blocks to 16Ha, focusing its efforts on the granite identified in the 2011 Auger Drill program.” See: http://www.tri-starresources.com/projects

It begs the question as to why 500 ha of valuable old growth is to be sacrificed for extremely speculative prospecting. The removal of 500 ha from PNA150 also effectively splits the PNA into western and eastern halves, joined by a fairly narrow corridor, thus compromising its habitat value.

This situation raises serious questions about the expertise and motivation of inter-departmental advice involved in the decision process for PNA selection and delineation.

I strongly urge DNR and the PNA selection committee to return the boundaries of PNA 150 to those as delineated in 2012. Compromising the ecological value of PNA 150 is this cavalier fashion, for an entirely speculative and poor grade ore deposit, is irresponsible and ill informed, both ecologically and economically.

Lawrence Wuest

Lawrence Wuest
P.O. Box 363
Stanley, NB E6B 2K5
<pna150 2012-2014.pdf>



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: