Promises of jobs, environmental safeguards and a redesigned mine plan from Northback Holdings were met with both cautious interest and deep skepticism during a presentation to Pincher Creek town council on March 23.

As chief operating officer Brad Johnston outlined updates to the controversial Grassy Mountain coal project, residents packed council chambers to hear the company’s latest vision.

While some residents welcomed the economic potential and meaningful improvement, others questioned whether the company’s assurances go far enough, arguing it still relies heavily on assurances rather than proven outcomes.

Company outlines revised mine plan

Johnston, who joined the company in September 2025 and brings decades of experience as a mining engineer, said the company is working toward submitting a new application within the next 12 months.

He described the proposed operation as producing about 2.5 million tonnes of steelmaking coal annually, positioning it as part of the global supply chain for a “Tier 2 premium hard coking coal.”

Framing the project as an economic driver, Johnston said the mine could generate between 300 and 400 permanent jobs, with up to 600 positions during construction, along with broader economic benefits for southern Alberta through taxes, local spending and business opportunities.

“I think of a mine as an economic engine,” he said, adding the company intends to support local businesses and communities if the project proceeds.

A significant portion of the presentation focused on changes made since the project’s earlier rejection following a joint review panel hearing. Johnston said the revised plan includes a roughly 40 per cent reduction in the mine footprint, elimination of waste rock placement in the Gold Creek watershed and increased use of mined-out pits to store material.

He also highlighted the introduction of “progressive reclamation,” which would begin about five years into operations and continue throughout the life of the mine, as well as long-term closure planning tied to Alberta’s regulatory and financial security requirements.

Environmental concerns, particularly around selenium contamination, were addressed through what Johnston described as a “multiple lines of defence” approach, including waste rock segregation, containment methods and water treatment systems designed to operate from the first day of mining.

“We’re going to have an active water treatment facility on Day 1 of operations,” he said, noting the company also plans to divert clean water away from mining areas while capturing and treating mine-affected water.

Johnston emphasized that the operation would not draw water directly from rivers or creeks, instead relying on collected precipitation, runoff and recycled water from within the mine.

Council members raised questions about how such commitments would be enforced and whether residents could be assured reclamation and water protection measures would be carried out as described.

In response, Johnston pointed to the regulatory approval process and Alberta’s mine financial security program, saying detailed plans would form part of the company’s formal application and be subject to oversight.

Concerns about dust and noise, particularly related to a proposed rail loadout facility near Highway 3, were also discussed at length.

Johnston said mitigation strategies would include loading trains below grade to reduce visual and noise impacts, continuous loading to avoid start-and-stop noise, and the use of sprays and additives to limit coal dust during transport.

“There are certain things that a mine has to do, or the railway won’t move the train,” he said, describing industry-standard dust suppression practices.

Additional measures such as ventilation systems, covered loading areas and site housekeeping were also cited as ways to control airborne particulates during operations.

Mayor Wayne Oliver questioned how dust would be managed during high winds, a common occurrence in southern Alberta. Johnston said water spraying on roads and modified waste rock placement methods would help reduce exposure, along with engineering models that suggest impacts can be mitigated.

Residents express divided views

While the presentation outlined technical strategies and projected benefits, reactions from residents following the meeting reflected a clear divide.

Ken Williams, who attended the presentation and has followed similar sessions in other communities, said he found the delivery polished but ultimately unconvincing.

“Central to their presentation is the promise of great outcomes based on the newest and best technologies, which are promises only since there are no material and practical examples of successful coal mining escaping the dire outcomes we’re trying to avoid,” he said.

Williams also questioned projections around job creation and the quality of the coal itself, suggesting both claims conflict with past assessments and broader industry trends.

“This same coal has been referred to as low quality by the Japanese licence holders who after investigation dropped their interests some years ago,” he said, adding that scientist Cornelius Koljin also said at an open house that coal on the Eastern Slopes is low quality.

Others expressed concerns about gaps in the information presented.

Cody Johnson said the presentation emphasized economic benefits while “glossing over” environmental impacts, particularly to water.

“They did not address my key concerns related to water quality and quantity,” he said, adding he remains unconvinced that sufficient water could be sourced and managed in the region’s dry conditions.

Jim Cameron described the presentation as “canned” and said it failed to meaningfully address core issues such as water, dust and the scope of reclamation.

“It makes me wonder if this project was really about starting a coal mine,” he said, questioning both the project’s viability and the broader decision to allow it to proceed.

At the same time, some residents expressed support for the proposal and the direction outlined by the company.

Don McRae said he was encouraged by what he viewed as responsiveness to public feedback, including commitments to reduce environmental impacts and avoid practices such as mountaintop removal.

“Very pleased with how Northback has been listening to feedback of residents and have made big commitments to address environmental issues,” he said, also pointing to plans not to draw fresh water from rivers and to address previously unreclaimed land at the site.

McRae, who worked in the mining industry, said he is interested in learning more about the proposed environmental processes, including a tour of the site offered by the company, and believes perceptions about the project do not always reflect the current proposal.

“Some of the public against the project still think it’s mountaintop removal,” he said.

He also pointed to the potential for job creation, noting the region’s long history with mining and the number of local workers currently employed in British Columbia’s coal industry.

McRae said he would have liked more questions from council related to employment impacts and local benefits, suggesting those aspects are important to residents considering the project.

Austin Koehn, who works at Boulder Metal Industries, said he found the information clear and the company’s responses to questions reassuring.

The potential for job creation was one of the most compelling aspects of the presentation, he said, adding that the mine is a “big opportunity” for the community, especially young people.

Northback has indicated it will continue refining its plans ahead of a formal application, which is expected to be submitted within the next year.