Op-ED: We should treat the Casino Mine’s economic promises with skepticism
Written by Malkolm Boothroyd | January 17, 2026
Read the full editorial as published in the Yukon News on January 17th, 2026
Whether or not to approve the Casino Mine, the massive mining project proposed northwest of Carmacks, will be an immensely consequential decision. The scale of the project is staggering. Casino Mining Corporation claims it would bring billions of dollars in economic activity, and extract billions of pounds of copper and millions of ounces of gold. The project would stack millions of tonnes of ore onto a heap leach. The mine would also leave behind nearly a billion and a half tonnes of tailings and waste rock, left there in perpetuity, all held behind the tallest tailings dam on earth. The Casino Mine poses a long list of issues for the Yukon to weigh. On one hand, we are living through a tumultuous economic period, and the Casino Mine promises the kind of headlining industrial project that the federal government wants to see happen across the country. The Casino Mining Corporation says it will provide thousands of jobs, add millions of tonnes of copper to the global supply, and bring billions of dollars in investment to the Yukon. On the other hand, the project comes with serious risks: from compromising the health of the Klaza caribou herd, to adding more strain to the housing shortage in the Yukon, especially in small communities. There is the risk of bankruptcy and the risk of the mine being abandoned. There is the enormous toll should the mine fail—including fears of another heap leach failure, or the collapse of Casino’s tailings dam.
It’s still early, but it’s already clear that these contrasting views of the Casino Mine are being presented in very different ways. Fears of another mining disaster are stated with qualifications. The nightmare scenario is Casino’s tailings dam or heap leach collapsing, and unleashing hundreds of millions of tonnes of tailings or cyanide-laced ore into the Yukon River Watershed, but we speak of that risk in hypothetical terms. It would sound alarmist to say that approving the mine would culminate in a disaster. Somehow, it sounds normal when the project’s proponents speak about the economic benefits of the mine as if they are inevitable. Casino Mining Corp states the mine “is expected to deliver significant, multi-generational economic benefits” to the Yukon. The company says the project “is expected” to bring over a billion dollars a year to the Yukon’s economy, and provide over 11 billion dollars in taxes and royalties over the project’s life. The risk of a catastrophic failure may be low, but there are more mundane ways the mine could fail. There are falling metal prices, unforeseen operating conditions, higher than expected costs. It is routine that mines under perform. A study of mines in British Columbia found that over the last three decades, these projects only delivered half of the production and employment targets they initially promised. A review of 800 mines in Australia found that most closed prematurely, with negative repercussions. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the Yukon public is on the hook for Casino, as with the string of failed ventures that came before it.
The Yukon’s history with major mining projects is not a story of economic windfalls. Yukon Zinc went bankrupt amidst falling metal prices. The company abandoned the Wolverine Mine, leaving behind underground chambers flooded with contaminated water, and the Yukon public with $45 million in liabilities, as of 2024. Before the mine was built, the company proclaimed the project would have “minimal impact on the local environment,” and its CEO told the Yukon News that the Wolverine Mine “would be quite profitable right down to some fairly low metal prices.” Victoria Gold made similar claims about the vitality of the Eagle Mine. Victoria Gold’s CEO predicted the mine would provide “well-paying jobs in the Yukon for more than a decade, and most likely for much longer.” During its environmental review, Victoria Gold assured YESAB that it had “eliminated or reduced the risk” of most negative environmental impacts “to a level that would not be of concern.” The company also claimed it was “very unlikely that cyanide solution will be released into the environment during the life of the project.” Victoria Gold did spend hundreds of millions of dollars to construct the mine, but then of course, the heap leach collapsed. Victoria Gold laid off most of its employees on the spot, left over $40 million unpaid to contractors, and the Yukon public with a clean up bill that is $220 million and counting. Casino Mining Corp has been adamant in distancing itself and its heap leach from Eagle Mine disaster. They are different mines, with different designs, run by different people. Of course, but every mine is a distinct project. The story of Yukon Zinc was unique. The same is true of Pembridge Resources, the company that brought the Minto Mine back into production, before going bankrupt too. The Yukon’s long history with failed mines gives good reason to be skeptical of Casino’s economic promises.
Casino is a new project, but it is operating within the same outdated regulatory system that presided over Eagle, Wolverine and Minto. The Yukon is long overdue for an overhaul of its mining laws. Modern day mineral legislation can address the flaws in the Yukon’s system for assessing the financial risk of mining projects, and collecting security from the companies behind them. New laws could also help protect the Yukon from mining projects that are underpinned by feeble economic math, or backed by high risk companies. Recent mining failures show that these projects expose the Yukon public to huge financial risks, and that our laws are not a good enough safeguard. If the Casino Mine goes ahead, then we had better hope this mine will be an exception.


Step 2
Step 3









