he Livengood Gold Project is moving back into public focus. International Tower Hill Mines, the company behind the project, told shareholders that it raised approximately US$114 million in January 2026 and plans to use 2026 work to begin a feasibility study, conduct drilling for fresh core, continue metallurgical studies, advance environmental baseline data collection, and conduct community engagement.
NAEC is following this project closely because Livengood is not a small exploration proposal. The company’s own technical filings describe a large open-pit gold mine proposal northwest of Fairbanks, with major implications for water, tailings, waste rock, power infrastructure, reclamation, subsistence, and long-term public oversight.
What is the Livengood Gold Project?
The Livengood Gold Project is a proposed open-pit gold mine located about 70 miles northwest of Fairbanks in the Tolovana Mining District. The project area is centered near Money Knob, straddles the Elliott Highway, and adjoins the Trans-Alaska Pipeline corridor. The company’s technical report states that the property covers approximately 48,300 acres controlled through a mix of patented mining claims, State of Alaska mining claims, federal unpatented placer claims, Alaska Mental Health Trust lease lands, and other leased or partial claim interests.
The nearest community identified in the company’s annual report is Minto, approximately 40 miles southwest by road. The report also identifies Fairbanks as the regional service center, with hospitals, government offices, businesses, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, highways, rail access, grid power, communications infrastructure, and an international airport.
How big is it?
The current technical report evaluates a mine that would process 65,000 tons of ore per day and produce approximately 6.4 million ounces of gold over about 21 years. The proposed configuration is a conventional, owner-operated surface mine using large-scale mining equipment in a blast/load/haul operation. Ore would be processed through crushing, grinding, gravity recovery, and a conventional carbon-in-leach circuit.
The reserve estimate is also significant. The project reports 430.1 million metric tons of proven and probable mineral reserves at an average grade of 0.65 grams per metric ton, containing approximately 9.0 million ounces of gold. To access those reserves, the company’s technical report says approximately 496.1 million metric tons of overburden and waste rock would need to be mined, resulting in a strip ratio of 1.15:1.
What would the mine look like?
The mine plan relies on open-pit mining with drilling, blasting, loading, and hauling. The technical report estimates peak mine fleet requirements of 18 320-ton haul trucks, two 40-cubic-yard hydraulic shovels, two 40-cubic-yard wheel loaders, and five production drills. The mine plan would support average annual production of roughly 317,000 ounces of gold per year over the estimated mine life.
The proposed processing system includes primary and secondary crushing, a SAG mill, a ball mill, gravity recovery, and whole-ore leaching of gravity tailings using carbon-in-leach processing. Because the project would use cyanide-based gold recovery, water quality, cyanide management, tailings design, detoxification, and closure requirements should be central public review issues.
Tailings, waste rock, and water are the core concerns
The company’s technical report describes a Tailings Management Facility designed to store approximately 486 million tons of mill tailings, with the potential to expand up to 529 million tons depending on future modifications. The TMF would be located in Livengood Valley, formed by two cross-valley embankments, and lined with a geomembrane. It would include groundwater drainage and tailings underdrain systems, with collected water and process solutions recycled back to the mill.
The same section states that the east TMF embankment would also form part of a freshwater reservoir, and that excess water captured by the reservoir would be conveyed to Livengood Creek downstream of the TMF west embankment. Non-economic mine waste rock would either be used in construction, including the TMF, or hauled to a waste rock storage facility in Gertrude Creek valley designed for about 105 million cubic yards.
The technical report also identifies geochemical concerns. It states that certain stratigraphic units are potentially acid generating, while several rock types have metal leaching potential, with arsenic, antimony, and selenium identified as primary elements of interest.
These are the types of issues that should receive full public review: acid rock drainage, metal leaching, seepage, groundwater movement, tailings liner performance, dam safety, climate change assumptions, permafrost conditions, post-closure treatment, and who pays for long-term monitoring and maintenance.
A major power and infrastructure footprint
Livengood would also require major supporting infrastructure. The company has described mine shops, process facilities, water and tailings management facilities, power infrastructure, access roads, administration buildings, and camp facilities. The annual report also states that preliminary, non-binding discussions with Golden Valley Electric Association indicated 50–60 megawatts of power could be available and that Livengood would be connected to the local grid by building an approximately 50-mile transmission line along the pipeline corridor.
That means the project’s footprint would extend beyond the mine pit. A full review needs to look at the powerline corridor, grid impacts, road access, construction traffic, wetlands, streams, cultural resources, and the cumulative industrial footprint.
What environmental work has been done?
The company states that environmental baseline studies have been conducted since 2008, including work on surface water and hydrology, groundwater hydrogeology, wetlands and vegetation, meteorology and air quality, aquatic life and resources, wildlife and habitat, cultural resources, rock characterization, and geochemical characteristics.
The technical report also notes that cultural resource surveys have covered nearly 16,000 acres of the project area and 5,000 acres of the powerline corridor, identifying 124 historic features and 21 prehistoric sites to date. These would need review by the State Historic Preservation Office and federal agencies under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act during permitting.
Those studies are important, but they should not be treated as the end of public review. Many baseline studies began years ago, and Interior Alaska has changed since 2008. Any future permitting process should require updated review that accounts for current climate conditions, wildfire patterns, permafrost changes, hydrology, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence use, and community concerns.
What is the permitting status?
The project is not yet through mine-construction permitting. The company’s technical report states that there have been no permit applications submitted for project construction and that actual permitting timelines will be controlled by federal NEPA review and federal and state agency decisions.
However, the company says it currently has permits for exploration, geotechnical, and baseline data collection activities, including authorizations from Alaska DNR, BLM, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska DEC, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
For full development, the technical report anticipates a National Environmental Policy Act process and an Environmental Impact Statement. The report says NEPA must consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, and that the State of Alaska is expected to take a cooperating role to coordinate state permitting with the federal NEPA process.
Where to watch for permitting information
NAEC will be watching this closely, and community members can also track future notices through these public agency pages:
Alaska DNR Large Mine Program
DNR says large hardrock mines require numerous state, federal, and local approvals, and that the Large Mine Permitting Team coordinates the state-agency permitting process and, when appropriate, integrates with federal and local agency efforts. This is one of the main places to watch for future large-mine coordination.
Alaska DNR Public Comment Topics
DNR’s public comment page allows people to submit official comments by selecting an active public notice topic and choosing the “Submit Comment” action. Watch this page for notices related to Livengood, Tower Hill, THM, Money Knob, Elliott Highway, water rights, reclamation, land use, roads, or powerline rights-of-way.
Alaska DEC Public Notices
DEC states that public comments are a protected right, that no special qualifications are needed to comment, and that anyone can submit comments. DEC notices may be important for water quality certification, APDES discharge permits, air permits, stormwater, spill plans, and other environmental approvals.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska Regulatory Public Notices
The Corps will be important if the project requires Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization for dredge or fill in wetlands or waters of the United States. Watch for notices involving Livengood, Tower Hill, THM, Money Knob, Livengood Creek, Gertrude Creek, wetlands, or the powerline corridor.
Search terms to use
When checking public notice pages, search for:
Livengood, Livengood Gold Project, International Tower Hill, Tower Hill Mines, THM, Money Knob, Elliott Highway, Tolovana, Livengood Creek, Gertrude Creek, O’Connor Creek, Alaska Mental Health Trust, TAPS corridor, transmission line, and 230 kV powerline.
What NAEC is watching
NAEC is tracking Livengood because the project raises major questions for Interior Alaska:
- How will tailings and waste rock be managed long term?
- What protections will be required for Livengood Creek, Gertrude Creek, groundwater, and downstream waters?
- How will acid rock drainage and metal leaching risks be addressed?
- What will cyanide management, detoxification, and emergency response look like?
- Are older baseline studies still adequate under current climate, wildfire, hydrology, and permafrost conditions?
- How will subsistence, cultural resources, recreation, wildlife, and community impacts be analyzed?
- What will the 50-mile powerline mean for lands, wetlands, wildlife, and regional energy planning?
- Will reclamation bonding cover the full cost of closure and long-term treatment if needed?
The bottom line
The Livengood Gold Project is entering a more active phase, but the major public permitting process still appears to be ahead. The company’s own filings describe a large open-pit mine proposal with a 20-year operating life, hundreds of millions of tons of tailings and waste rock, a major water management system, cyanide processing, a 50-mile powerline, and a full Environmental Impact Statement still anticipated.
NAEC will continue following Livengood closely and sharing opportunities for public engagement as they arise. Interior Alaska deserves a transparent, updated, and thorough review before any decisions are made.