Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake

obvious Child · Jun 23, 2009

WASHINGTON – A mining company was given the go-ahead by the Supreme Court on Monday to dump waste from an Alaskan gold mine into a nearby 23-acre lake, although the material will kill all of the lake's fish.....

The 2005 permit was issued three years after the Bush administration broadened the definition of fill material so that waste, including some contaminated materials, can be dumped into waterways.

Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake - Yahoo! News

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailings]Tailings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

While I understand the basis of their opinion, redefining arsenic as filler material and then allowing it to be dumped into lakes where it will kill all most life is pretty nuts.

CrusaderRabbit08 · Jun 23, 2009

obvious Child said:
While I understand the basis of their opinion, redefining arsenic as filler material and then allowing it to be dumped into lakes where it will kill all most life is pretty nuts.

I like Palin's assessment that it was "great news for Alaska" and said it "is a green light for responsible resource development."

Unreal.. she's totally clueless about the planet, but still a good little Republican lackey. She'll go far in party politics.

PeteEU · Jun 23, 2009

They should dump it in every Republican's swimming pool instead starting with Palin's.

B L Zeebub · Jun 23, 2009

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I like Palin's assessment that it was "great news for Alaska" and said it "is a green light for responsible resource development."

Unreal.. she's totally clueless about the planet, but still a good little Republican lackey. She'll go far in party politics.

Most Lickspittles do

Don't Tase Me Bro · Jun 23, 2009

I can't believe they would rule that way. WTF?

Middleground · Jun 23, 2009

You'd be surprised at what some companies get away with. We don't hear the half of it. And this instance, it just sickens me, especially because gold is a useless metal. All it does is provide bling.

NDNdancer · Jun 23, 2009

The 2005 permit was issued three years after the Bush administration broadened the definition of fill material so that waste, including some contaminated materials, can be dumped into waterways.

This is the problem that allowed this to happen. We protested these rules changes when it happened realizing that it stripped vital EPA protection of waterways. But, at that time, Bush et al were hell bent on stripping rules and regs to make way for his oil, mining, coal buddies.

The lengthy trial journey prevented it from happening for 4 years. Now, it's time for Obama to step up to the plate and reinstitute EPA protection of our waterways based on science, NOT corporate interests. He has the ability to not only roll back these rules, but to also retroactively enforce them. He won't though. I don't have any faith in him right now.

obvious Child · Jun 23, 2009

Don't Tase Me Bro said:
I can't believe they would rule that way. WTF?

Rationally, it makes little sense, but from a legal perspective as what constitutes filler material as defined and expanded by the previous administration, it follows the rules. Therefore, the permits should have been allowed as tailings was added to the filler material list.

The sick part about this is that tilling material is full of highly toxic chemicals. As for Palin, I'm willing to bet she doesn't understand the issue, particularly exactly what tailings often contain.

Here's a list of chemicals commonly found in tailings:

* Arsenic - Found in association with gold ores
* Barite
* Calcite
* Fluorite
* Radioactive materials - Naturally present in many ores
* Mercury
* Sulfur - Forms many sulfide compounds / pyrites
* Cadmium
* Hydrocarbons - Introduced by mining and processing equipment (oils & greases)

sazerac · Jun 23, 2009

Maybe 6 supreme court justices and the governor know more about this than we do by reading an article about it.

OxymoronP · Jun 23, 2009

What dort of waste

Redress · Jun 23, 2009

obvious Child said:
Rationally, it makes little sense, but from a legal perspective as what constitutes filler material as defined and expanded by the previous administration, it follows the rules. Therefore, the permits should have been allowed as tailings was added to the filler material list.

The sick part about this is that tilling material is full of highly toxic chemicals. As for Palin, I'm willing to bet she doesn't understand the issue, particularly exactly what tailings often contain.

Here's a list of chemicals commonly found in tailings:

* Arsenic - Found in association with gold ores
* Barite
* Calcite
* Fluorite
* Radioactive materials - Naturally present in many ores
* Mercury
* Sulfur - Forms many sulfide compounds / pyrites
* Cadmium
* Hydrocarbons - Introduced by mining and processing equipment (oils & greases)

If it is based on what is considered filler material under the law, can we not change the definition as the Bush administration did and undue this?

NDNdancer · Jun 23, 2009

Redress said:
If it is based on what is considered filler material under the law, can we not change the definition as the Bush administration did and undue this?

Yes, but, and this is the stickler. Obama would not only have to change the rule, but make it retroactive. I really don't think he'll do that. They are reviewing all the EPA regs, the ones Bush relaxed to allow crap like this. This was one of the worst rules that will allow other corporations to basically dump anything that can be suspended in a liquid into pristine waterways like this lake.

apdst · Jun 23, 2009

* Arsenic - Found in association with gold ores
* Barite
* Calcite
* Fluorite
* Radioactive materials - Naturally present in many ores
* Mercury
* Sulfur - Forms many sulfide compounds / pyrites
* Cadmium
* Hydrocarbons - Introduced by mining and processing equipment (oils & greases)

These are all naturally occuring, and in the case of the oil and grease, they could possibly be biodegradable. If the lubricants aren't biodegradable, then that's an obvious problem. The oil and gas industry has been using biodegradable lubricants for a couple of decades, now.

RightinNYC · Jun 23, 2009

obvious Child said:
Rationally, it makes little sense, but from a legal perspective as what constitutes filler material as defined and expanded by the previous administration, it follows the rules. Therefore, the permits should have been allowed as tailings was added to the filler material list.

The sick part about this is that tilling material is full of highly toxic chemicals. As for Palin, I'm willing to bet she doesn't understand the issue, particularly exactly what tailings often contain.

Here's a list of chemicals commonly found in tailings:

* Arsenic - Found in association with gold ores
* Barite
* Calcite
* Fluorite
* Radioactive materials - Naturally present in many ores
* Mercury
* Sulfur - Forms many sulfide compounds / pyrites
* Cadmium
* Hydrocarbons - Introduced by mining and processing equipment (oils & greases)

In what concentration?

obvious Child · Jun 24, 2009

sazerac said:
Maybe 6 supreme court justices and the governor know more about this than we do by reading an article about it.

You should read Ginsburg's dissent. While she does make note that the law does support the permits, it does not, in her view, allow circumvention of environmental laws.

obvious Child · Jun 24, 2009

Redress said:
If it is based on what is considered filler material under the law, can we not change the definition as the Bush administration did and undue this?

Only if the law was made to be retroactive. Permits applied for under the old system generally aren't considered under the new laws.

Baralis · Jun 24, 2009

apdst said:
These are all naturally occuring, and in the case of the oil and grease, they could possibly be biodegradable. If the lubricants aren't biodegradable, then that's an obvious problem. The oil and gas industry has been using biodegradable lubricants for a couple of decades, now.

Just what I was going to say. All of these are natually occuring and may not have lasting harmful affects on the area (I didnt dive into it). But even if it is harmful (which Im always agaisnt) how is this any different then any other waste product we produce? Nearly every single things we use today pollutes the earth in one way or another yet it does not stop us from continuing to use them. It all ends up in one place, our planet. If we dump it in a lake or bury it in the ground, hundreds of years later its still on our planet.

obvious Child · Jun 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
In what concentration?

Don't know. That largely depends on the geographical conditions of the mine. Some will produce higher concentrations. In some mines, arsenic concentrations in ores can hit 1000 mg/kg arsenic. Remember that the maximum concentration in drinking water is 0.010 mg/L (or 10 parts per billion). Arsenic Rule | Arsenic | Safewater Home | Water | EPA Home

. At the Kelly mine, 0.5 M tons of mill tailings and an equal amount of waste rock have arsenic concentrations averaging 1500 ppm and 2000 ppm, respectively. Breaches in the tailings pond have released tailings into “Red Mountain Wash” and Cuddeback Lake, 15 km from the mine site. Tailings from the Yellow Aster and adjacent gold mines have similarly high As levels, (3,800 - 13,000 ppm) and tailings have migrated from a breached tailings pond into Fiddler Gulch and Fremont Valley, 20 km from the mine site. Wind-blown tailings have formed dune fields up to 6 feet high (As concentration 4,000 ppm). On the Kelly mine tailings, a surface crust cemented by Mg-Al- and K-Al sulfate, gypsum, and barite, serves to mitigate wind dispersal

ARSENIC CONTAMINATION FROM THE KELLY SILVER AND YELLOW ASTER GOLD MINE TAILINGS, CALIFORNIA; A POTENTIAL HEALTH CONCERN IN THE NORTH-CENTRAL MOJAVE DESERT

But that may be on the high side.

obvious Child · Jun 24, 2009

Baralis said:
Just what I was going to say. All of these are natually occuring and may not have lasting harmful affects on the area (I didnt dive into it).

In small amounts, which is not generally associated with mining. Historically, some tailings have concentrations well in excess of anything safe. As noted in the article, the amount of tailings and associated chemicals is likely to kill off all live in the lake. There are safer, less damaging ways to disposal. Merely because we are lazy and cheap does not equate to a right to destroy the planet.

But even if it is harmful (which Im always agaisnt) how is this any different then any other waste product we produce?

Because we have actual laws that require rational disposal? Well, we did under the last, last administration.

If we dump it in a lake or bury it in the ground, hundreds of years later its still on our planet.

But that does not mean we jump for the lazy method that is being done here.

obvious Child · Jun 24, 2009

apdst said:
These are all naturally occuring, and in the case of the oil and grease, they could possibly be biodegradable. If the lubricants aren't biodegradable, then that's an obvious problem. The oil and gas industry has been using biodegradable lubricants for a couple of decades, now.

How do you defend dumping Arsenic, Mercury and Cadmium into lakes?

RightinNYC · Jun 24, 2009

obvious Child said:
Don't know. That largely depends on the geographical conditions of the mine. Some will produce higher concentrations. In some mines, arsenic concentrations in ores can hit 1000 mg/kg arsenic. Remember that the maximum concentration in drinking water is 0.010 mg/L (or 10 parts per billion). Arsenic Rule | Arsenic | Safewater Home | Water | EPA Home

ARSENIC CONTAMINATION FROM THE KELLY SILVER AND YELLOW ASTER GOLD MINE TAILINGS, CALIFORNIA; A POTENTIAL HEALTH CONCERN IN THE NORTH-CENTRAL MOJAVE DESERT

But that may be on the high side.

That seems pretty concerning on its face, though I wonder what the concentration would be after dilution in the lake.

As you point out, the legal question is different from the policy one. The legal result seems fine, though the policy one is more iffy. There's an intrinsic revulsion toward the idea of dumping anything in a lake, but it isn't clear (to me at least) that such a policy would be that much worse than the alternative:

This plan would require filling about 100 acres of wetlands, and the tailings pile would eventually be about 150 to 200 feet high and about 1200 to 2000 feet wide on each side.

ABA Division for Public Education

Interesting case either way.

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 24, 2009

Middleground said:
You'd be surprised at what some companies get away with. We don't hear the half of it. And this instance, it just sickens me, especially because gold is a useless metal. All it does is provide bling.

Gold is pretty useful outside of bling.

It's used for dental crowns and bridges and it is an excellent conductor as well.
Overall its some pretty cool stuff.

I used to make crowns and bridges with it in a dental lab.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold]Gold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Oftencold · Jun 24, 2009

obvious Child said:
While I understand the basis of their opinion, redefining arsenic as filler material and then allowing it to be dumped into lakes where it will kill all most life is pretty nuts.

This is Alaska; a 23 acre lake is a puddle, put 50 of them together and you have an ornamental pond.

Don't all of you have environmental problems in your own (tiny) States that need your attention?

Oftencold · Jun 24, 2009

You do grasp that all of that came out of the ground, right?

Middleground · Jun 24, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
Gold is pretty useful outside of bling.

It's used for dental crowns and bridges and it is an excellent conductor as well.
Overall its some pretty cool stuff.

I used to make crowns and bridges with it in a dental lab.

Gold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It dosen't. Some crowns and bridges are made from gold, so people can bling their smiles. But, other things can be used that perform as well or better.

I have no idea what gold conducts. Since gold mining has begun, we have collected no more than would fill a football stadium. So tell me, what do we use it for other than bling???

From a great article in National Geographic:

No single element has tantalized and tormented the human imagination more than the shimmering metal known by the chemical symbol Au. For thousands of years the desire to possess gold has driven people to extremes, fueling wars and conquests, girding empires and currencies, leveling mountains and forests. Gold is not vital to human existence; it has, in fact, relatively few practical uses. Yet its chief virtues—its unusual density and malleability along with its imperishable shine—have made it one of the world's most coveted commodities, a transcendent symbol of beauty, wealth, and immortality. From pharaohs (who insisted on being buried in what they called the "flesh of the gods") to the forty-niners (whose mad rush for the mother lode built the American West) to the financiers (who, following Sir Isaac Newton's advice, made it the bedrock of the global economy): Nearly every society through the ages has invested gold with an almost mythological power.

As for it's impact on the environment:

Gold mining, however, generates more waste per ounce than any other metal, and the mines' mind-bending disparities of scale show why: These gashes in the Earth are so massive they can be seen from space, yet the particles being mined in them are so microscopic that, in many cases, more than 200 could fit on the head of a pin. Even at showcase mines, such as Newmont Mining Corporation's Batu Hijau operation in eastern Indonesia, where $600 million has been spent to mitigate the environmental impact, there is no avoiding the brutal calculus of gold mining. Extracting a single ounce of gold there—the amount in a typical wedding ring—requires the removal of more than 250 tons of rock and ore.

All that for bling. Not worth it, IMO.

Please read the rest of the article. It's an excellent and informative read.

The Real Price of Gold — National Geographic Magazine

Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake

Equal Opportunity Hater

Active member

2-Lipped Beaver!

Well-known member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Girthless

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Girthless

2-Lipped Beaver!