News & Articles

Does “environmentally friendly copper mining” exist?
I did a Google search on the phrase “environmentally friendly copper mining”.  I received a large variety of references, some of them enthusiastic about the process, some very skeptical of its “environmentally friendly” results.
“In-Situ Recovery”, Excelsior Mining
http://www.excelsiormining.com/index.php/in-situ-recovery

This process consists of drilling sets of holes to push an acidic solution down a central hole and then pulling it back up with four nearby holes.  The acidic solution dissolves the minerals.
This process requires fracturing and must be below the water table.  It supposedly can be permitted in 18 months and built in a year.  At the end, wells are flushed and then filled with cement.
This article enthusiastically states, “The San Manuel copper mine, owned by BHP Billiton, was a successful operation…”  However, BHP Billiton admits, “The water quality of the future lake is expected to be affected by spent process solutions that remain in the former open pit mine as a result of in situ mining on the benches. . . . the pit lake pH is expected to approach 5.0, and dissolved metals will still be present in the water.”
http://protectourwaterourfuture.com/index.php/2011/03/18/report-isl-operations-comparable-to-curis-project/
“Copper and Sustainability”, Copper Development Association
http://www.copperinfo.co.uk/environment/sustainability.shtml
Mostly about the usefulness of copper.  Small nod to recycling.
“Copper Mining In A Cotton Field? The Florence In-Situ Mine” by John Kline, the environmental project manager at BHP Copper’s Florence site
http://www.copper.org/environment/impact/casestudies/cottonfield.html
Reprinted from “On CU”, January - March, 1997, Vol. 1, No. 2.
“On CU” is the quarterly publication of BHP Copper, a business group of The Broken Hill Proprietary Corp., Ltd.
This article is very positive about in-situ mining.  For example, “Its hard to imagine putting a sulfuric acid solution into the ground, and protecting the environment. But the permitting process makes sure the environment is protected.”
On the other hand, we have “Proposed Florence In-Situ copper Mine a Bad Idea”, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition,
“Working to ensure mining is done responsibly to protect communities and the environment in Arizona.”
http://www.azminingreform.org/content/proposed-florence-situ-copper-mine-bad-idea
In 2011, fourteen years after it was proposed, this mine still had opposition, including changing the zoning of a residential area and complaints that the mine will contaminate groundwater.  See also “Underground acid mining threatens Florence communities”, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/08/28/20110828florence-con29.html Dan Steuter, conservation chair of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Arizona Republic, 2011-08-28.  As of January 2014, the project had not been fully started.  See “Florence Copper Project”. http://www.florencecopperproject.com/s/Home.asp What was that about 18 months to obtain all necessary permits?
The Saskatchewan Eco Network offers several steps to reduce the need of mined products and to minimize the impact of mining.
http://econet.ca/issues/mining/whatyoucando.html
“Is green mining possible?”
http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/green-mining-possible Max Mallet, Green Living.  The article is undated but the page copyright is 2014.  He wrote that a “good mining company” “is actually a recycling company”.  He stated that mining companies have too much “secrecy in reporting toxic mining waste”.  “[T]he industry has a long way to go before it can even be considered remotely green.”
Microbiology students at Kenyon College wrote a paper on the use of bacteria to leach copper from ore: “Copper Mining Using Acidothiobacillus”
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Copper_Mining_Using_Acidothiobacillus.  The process has been used in Chile and Uganda.  Their conclusion is that “Biomining has proved to be a cheaper, more efficient, and more environmentally-friendly alternative than non-biologically mediated techniques for copper mining…” This is a relative statement; is no harm done or less harm done than in other processes?
“Copper-mining: A boom too far? Why mining’s comeback fails to thrill some residents of “Copper Triangle”, The Economist, 2012-04-14 http://www.economist.com/node/21552595.  This article presents many views, especially in the comments.  Some praise the prosperity mines bring, others doubt the area will be the same after the mines close down.
“Environmentalists oppose Arizona copper mine: A proposed copper mine in the US state is causing deep divisions between industry, local people and environmentalists” http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/environmentalists-oppose-arizona-copper-mine, Alan Fisher, AlJazeera, 2013-03-05
Fisher covers a lot of pros and cons; the comments are worth reading also.  They range from we don’t trust mining to we need mining for our national prosperity.  One repeated complaint in this and other articles was that the mining companies were all foreign companies.
United Mines Inc. http://www.unitedmines.com/ claims to be “America’s Eco-Friendly Miners”.  However, its stock is trading around five cents.  According to Yahoo! Finance, the last financial summary was in 2012: $132,000 in assets and $243,000 in liabilities.  Compare this with PolyMet’s assets of $93,215,000 and liabilities of $136,920,000. What’s this about government should live within its means?  Neither of these companies appears to be living within their means.  Will they have the means to pay for any damages they might cause?  How long will it be before they have sufficient revenue to balance the books?
How would $132,000 or even $93,215,000 provide for cleanup after the mine was closed up, even for a year much less 200 to 500 years?
“At other mining sites in Arizona and across the country, environmental remediation intended to address soil and groundwater contamination resulting from decades of mining activity has been delayed or neglected altogether due to lack of funding. Inadequate financial assurance obligations, corporate bankruptcies, and corporate buyouts can lead to such orphaned sites.” – “Get the Facts”, Protect Our Water Future
http://protectourwaterourfuture.com/index.php/get-the-facts/
“Both mechanical and non-mechanical treatment would require periodic maintenance and monitoring activities. Mechanical water treatment is part of the modeled NorthMet Project Proposed Action for the duration of the simulations (200 years at the Mine Site, and 500 years at the Plant Site)”
- Executive Summary, “NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange”, Supplemental Draft  Environmental Impact Statement, November 2013, Executive Summary, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Forest Service
The link to the PDF file can be found at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/environmentalreview/polymet/index.html
So, would $93,000,000 protect the water for 200 years?
Adam Smith’s warning about those who live by profit is still appropriate after 200 years:
“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
See “The Invisible Adam Smith”
http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-invisible-adam-smith.html
If you would like to comment on the PolyMet copper mining project, submit your comments before March 13, 2014 to http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/environmentalreview/polymet/comments.html

You can find more of my musings and memories at http://magree.blogspot.com