I don't quite agree that Teck's recent issue with dumping tailings for about 100 years into a transnational waterway (Columbia River system shared by BC and Washington state) is inconsequential to CUU.

Schaft Creek flows into the Stikine. The Stikine is a transnational waterway. TN waterways are covered under a treaty between the USA and Canada and gives each country a say in how those waterways are managed.

Also, the port of Stewart is at the head of a very long inlet which straddles the USA/Canada border along its length.

Any critics of Schaft Creek being developed by TCK would look at these issues in unison. I think TCK has seen how Enbridge is continuing to fumble the ball wrt social licence and is taking a much higher and well thought out road. See oil leaks, and First Nations for an idea of how not to garner public confidence with our resources and communities.

I think TCK is coming clean and facing it's responsibility in order to provide a basis for the considerable public licence it will need to develop a project like Schaft.

I dont' think it will cost TCK that much money over time to clean up the Columbia. They have spoken for $20 for more studies. Others have said that cleanu-up costs could reach $1 billion. That $1B would be spent over decades so I think that figure would be easily digested.

We saw quite a few posts on the QB2 cancellation and extrapolated that as a positive for CUU. QB2 is a full hemisphere away from CUU. The Columbia River is arguably 'just down the river' (figuratively speaking) from Schaft. If TCK makes a mess of its role in the matter it could seriosly hamper any of its future developments.

jmho