Barrick accepts Environmental Court ruling; Pascua-Lama development project to transition to closure
Barrick Gold Corp. [ABX-TSX; GOLD-NYSE] has accepted the Antofagasta Environmental Court’s decision to uphold the closure order and sanctions Chile’s environmental regulator imposed on CompañÃa Minera Nevada, the Barrick subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion (Pascua) of the Pascua-Lama project.
Barrick said the ruling drew a line under a legal process that started in 2013 and the company would not appeal it. Construction was suspended that year and Pascua would now be transitioned from care and maintenance to closure in accordance with the Environmental Court’s decision.
Following the ruling, Marcelo Ãlvarez, Barrick’s executive director for Chile and Argentina, said Pascua-Lama remained an important project and work is already under way to re-evaluate its potential. This involves a comprehensive internal review of its technical, economic and social aspects as well as different approaches to permitting and development should the ongoing studies deliver a project that meets Barrick’s investment filters. He confirmed that any new project development would comply with current legislation in both Chile and Argentina.
“Barrick is a very different company since its merger with Randgold and we now have a strong focus on establishing good relations with the communities and authorities,” he said.
“Barrick sees great potential in a region that has always encouraged the development of sustainable mining projects, and is committed to further investment in Chile and Argentina and to building productive partnerships with the government, business associates and communities. As elsewhere in the Barrick group, we will ensure that the economic benefits we create are shared equitably with our stakeholders and that our operations are conducted with due care for health, safety and the environment.”
While the project was suspended, Pascua-Lama continued to treat and monitor water quality in order to meet its environmental commitments. The Environmental Court acknowledged that none of the earlier infringements which prompted the closure order had caused irreparable damage.