Want your "own private Colorado?" How's $5/acre sound?

Sure there are examples for everything and summitvill is a prime one. Shit happens, I would be willing to bet that in all those instances it was not intentional...

I say we shut down all cyanide mining for five years world wide and see how much metal prices go up... I bet the cost of your computer would double! Hell everyone is whining about $0.30 a gallon for gas... could you imagine if everything with metals went up 50%??? A majority of metals are produced via cyanide leaching. Currently its the only viable way to extract metals from the ever increasingly poor grade mineral deposites. The technology is just not there to make other methods economic.

They make it sound like all mines are out to destroy the envrionment... Mines are inspected monthly... and no notice is given prior to inspection. Fines range in various degrees. Something as little as 5 gallons of oil being spilt on the ground can result in a $10,000 fine! The amount they pay in fines a year doesn't really show anything to me other than what some frign leffty meida fag thinks about it. World class mines that mine harmless industrial minerals pay fines over 100k a year...

If the bonds don't have enough money the feds have no one to blame but themselves. The state department of envromental quality has direct control over the bond put up by a mine. THEY HAVE TO APPORVE IT AND THE CALCULATIONS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CLEAN UP! In most cases the cost has to be calculated every year. They approved the bond now they think it won't be enough money... Who's fault is that? What the fug is the bond for?

I really like it when articles spew the amount of gold or what ever produced and they proceede to say how much the metals are worth on the comodity market... They have no fuggn idea... A lot of mines have contracts with set prices. Some are making $100 an ounce after costs while others are making $10... Its hard to say.

For all the problems that you could find you can find 100 more that operate well within envrironmental standards.
 
Originally posted by ElkGunner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> OD, S.D. -- Mike Cepak stood looking down into a pit at 80 million gallons of acid.

"In the summertime, it's the color of a nice burgundy -- like a Cherry Coke," Cepak said of the then-frozen mess on a cold winter's day.

That's the color of the toxic metals in the lake of acid left here by a Canadian company that dug more than $69 million in gold from once-public land, then left U.S. taxpayers with an expensive nightmare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says cleanup costs could top $40 million.

Cepak, a miner's son who grew up in the Black Hills, was one of the state regulators who gave the go-ahead for this gold mine -- and then watched it quickly descend into environmental disaster.

"We've learned you have to look at what your impacts are environmentally," Cepak says today. "If the mining company isn't doing it, then the state or federal government will be doing that."

The landscape is one of denuded hillsides, hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of waste rock and pits filled with acidic water -- leftovers from a "heap-leach" mine where cyanide was used to extract minute quantities of gold from mountains of rock.

This was public land before it was sold to miners for $5 per acre under terms of the General Mining Law of 1872. In 1988, a Canadian company, Dakota Mining Corp., started mining -- and polluting.

Less than a year after Dakota's subsidiary, the Brohm Mining Corp., started digging, the state ordered mining halted because thousands of gallons of a cyanide solution had leaked. Even when Brohm won permission to start mining again, a decade of environmental violations would follow, including more spills that killed fish in a nearby stream.


"The company always struggled financially," Cepak said. "Despite the state saying, 'You've got to do more, you've got to do more,' they just didn't have the money."

But the company's fiscal fitness was not an issue that state regulators considered in granting permits to mine. Regulators focused on the possibility of a cyanide spill, learning only too late that the much more serious problem would be the acidic drainage generated when rock was exposed to the elements.

The state allowed the mine to open even though it did not have a Clean Water Act permit, which environmentalists insisted was needed. The environmentalists won a court challenge, but not before thousands of gallons of cyanide solution had leaked.

And even after Brohm got the permit, the company repeatedly violated its terms, state citations show. In 1998 alone, seven violations were documented. Twice in 1997, Strawberry Creek ran orange with mine waste. But as many as 75 people kept working the mine, producing 189,000 ounces of gold from 1988 to 1999.

In summer 1998, facing low gold prices and opposition to a proposed expansion onto adjacent federal land, Dakota Mining President Alan Bell told the state the mine would be abandoned.

South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow went to court, seeking to force Bell's firm to maintain the site. But the mine was played out. Dakota Mining filed for bankruptcy.

"By the time they figured out they had a problem, gold prices were heading into the tank," said Bob Mercer, a spokesman for Janklow. "If somebody had a crystal ball, they would not have allowed gold mining there in the first place."

Bell, who was paid $210,000 per year to run Dakota Mining, blames the situation on environmentalists. Had they not repeatedly challenged his plans and delayed his efforts to expand into the Black Hills National Forest, everything would have worked out, he said in a brief telephone conversation when reached at his Denver home.

Dakota "was put into bankruptcy by people in South Dakota who want to put mining out of business," Bell said. He refused to comment further, saying, "I don't want to talk to you about it. I won't get a fair hearing."

Dakota also abandoned the Stibnite gold mine in Idaho's Payette National Forest in 1998, forfeiting an $800,000 bond, far less than an estimated multimillion-dollar cleanup yet to be finished.

Bell last year was appointed to the board of Polymet Mining Corp., which is exploring an area in northeastern Minnesota where it hopes to mine copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, cobalt and gold. In announcing Bell's appointment, the company noted that Bell has raised more than $140 million for mining operations over the years, particularly through "junior" firms such as Dakota, and that he "possesses a unique understanding of U.S. and Canadian financial markets."

Back in South Dakota, state and federal officials are still dealing with 100 million gallons of water more acidic than vinegar and loaded with toxic heavy metals.

"They've got just about every metal you can imagine -- it's like the periodic table," Cepak said.

Like many companies, Brohm Mining did post a bond to cover cleanup. South Dakota has that money now -- $5.6 million, or roughly one-eighth of the expected cleanup cost. South Dakota cannot afford to pay the rest, so at Janklow's request the federal Superfund program will take over.

That means all American taxpayers will share the burden.
Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Until they get some Mining Law reform passed nothing is going to get better. Most of the mining laws were written back in the 1800s.
 
Like I said... every little nit picking thing they get nailed for. If the inspectors showed up at your house I gaurnetee they could find something wrong and hit you with a fine. Open gas container, open oil container some saftey issues and some enviromental isssues, grease spots in your drive way... etc. etc. All they need is an excuse.

Some they catch some they miss. Most every operatoin has an eviromental engineer on staff to try and account for all these problems but its pretty hard to account for everything... Two fines for piddly things that add up to 10k a month is pretty easily atained by these huge mines.

When your operation consists of 600-2000 people thats a lot of grease spots to look after... some of them moving 20-50 million cubic yards a month and operating 100-200 pieces of heavy equipment that all carries over 50 gallons of oil and 200 gallons of diesel... You're bound to have a grease spot or two. You have to relize that a mine is made up of people like you and me. $100k is not all that much in the scheame of a years production when you're talking about a $40+ million dollar budget... The mines know they can't account for every little thing and take that into account.

Think of it this way if you had a police officer sitting right next to you at all times in your car... how many tickets do you think you would get a month? I know I sure as hell would get more than a couple.
 
Originally posted by Bambistew:
Like I said... every little nit picking thing they get nailed for. .... Open gas container, open oil container some saftey issues and some enviromental isssues, grease spots in your drive way... etc. etc.


When your operation consists of 600-2000 people thats a lot of grease spots to look after... some of them moving 20-50 million cubic yards a month and operating 100-200 pieces of heavy equipment that all carries over 50 gallons of oil and 200 gallons of diesel... You're bound to have a grease spot or two

Think of it this way if you had a police officer sitting right next to you at all times in your car... how many tickets do you think you would get a month? I know I sure as hell would get more than a couple.
Click to expand...
Bambi,
You are waaaaaaaaaaay brighter than this post. What happened? These mines are not becoming EPA SuperFund sites (like Stibnite) due to a leaky hydraulic line on some Ore Truck or somebody slopping a gallon of diesel on the ground. You know that, and I know that.

These mines are SuperFund sites because of the mining activity and the ability to walk away, based upon some piddly little bond that was expensed the first day the mine operated. You can do way better than that. Mining may necessary, and you can defend it, but try defending the mining process, and not trying to distract everybody with some tiny safety/oil leak on a pick-up. :rolleyes:
 
Bambistew,

Come on, you arent serious are you?

Heres some info on Zortman:http://www.globalminingcampaign.org/theminingnews/assets/pdf/zortman.pdf

How is leaking several thousand gallons of cyanide a minor detail of mining.

Also, why do you suppose MT voters passed the initiative to ban cyanide heap leach mining???

Because they're bunny huggers? I dont think so, remember MT is heavily a republican run state. It couldnt be because EVERY single cyanide heap leach mine in the state of MT has failed, could it? Thats exactly why the measure passed, because of the crappy track record the gold mining industry brought down on itself.

Also, yeah, the mining happened 30 years ago on some of those, but guess what, we're still dealing with them and will be for a long, long, time...long after you and I are dead.

The willow creek mine in the Ruby was still operating in 93 when I was there, and remediation was still taking place in 2000 when I was working on the Snowcrest Ranch. Funny too that the willow creek mine was the point source for the Ruby being listed as an impaired river by the MTDEQ.

You can carry on all you want, but I think theres already been adequate proof in MT, ID, CO, etc. that points to the problems with cyanide heap leach mining. I'm not in denial about the need for mining, but I'll never support it as long as they continue to create superfund sites and leave the taxpayer holding the bag. The whole while taking their profits to Canada and once again leaving MT a big-assed polluted mess for the locals that live there to clean up and pay for.

Another great compromise. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
I'm not a tree hugger but these mining companys are getting away with murder. They know when they go in... buy the land for nothing, milk it for all it's worth, set up bonds which will "clean it all up" when they are done which the costs triple what they expect ever year they are there and they don't compensate for it. Then they realize( after 10 or more year years) they are a few hundred million short after they are rich as hell and screwed all the hard working people, then file Bankruptcy. They file and turn it over to the tax payers in the "SUPERFUND" which couldn't make a dent in the amount of claims that need to be taken care of right away. So these mines sit in ruins and leak toxic waste as we all sit an bitch about it! It's really sad nobody has really took on this issue and dealt with it. The mining laws of the 1800s wich are still in effect today are a sad way to treat are Wilderness! These people care about nothing other than making money and screwing every tax payer because they know they can get away with it! Is this weird coming from me "A FAT ASS ATV RIDER"? You think we rape the the land? These bastards are a 1,000,000 times worse than what an ATV can do!

[ 04-13-2004, 15:48: Message edited by: Wapiti Slayer ]
 
Track Record of Mining Industry

The following cases are illustrative of the kind of problems being encountered by modern mines in North America and around the world. Prudence demands that emergency disaster funds should be based upon worst cases and that adequate, not modest sums need to be accumulated, early in the life of the projects under consideration. Disasters are not as uncommon as some would have the public believe, and the costs in both human and environmental terms are enormous. In some cases mining companies have simply refused to honor their financial obligations.

Summitville Mine/Colorado

The Summitville Mine disaster is a classic example how a lack of proper bonding or an emergency disaster fund can result in unnecessary public costs. The mine, which operated from 1986 to 1992, closed in 1992 when the partners, Summitville Consolidated Mining and Canada-based Galactic Resources, filed for bankruptcy. Despite the best intentions of the bonding rules developed by the Colorado State legislature, Colorado still suffered one of the biggest mining disasters in history. The bonding requirements proved to be woefully inadequate. Summitville was Colorado's first cyanide heap leach operation.

Cyanide used to process the ore and the acid generated from the tailings were accidentally discharged into the surrounding environment when the tailings liner system catastrophically failed. The Summitville Mine has averaged $30,000 per day in remediation The EPA has spent $130 million on cleanup to date and expects the final bill to top $160 million. The company set aside only $6.7 million, a mere 4.1% of the actual cost for the combined purpose of reclaiming the mine site, water quality protections, treatment of pollution, and monitoring.

The public has so far subsidized 95.9% of the mining company's cleanup. After Galactic Resources declared bankruptcy, the U.S. Department of Justice unsuccessfully attempted to freeze $152 million in assets belonging to former Galactic chairman. Robert Friedland. An Ontario court rejected the freeze in 1997. Now it is unlikely Colorado will ever recover compensation from the mining company.

Stibnite Mine/Idaho

Another example of the problems related to insufficient state bonding or emergency disaster funding requirements leading to disaster is the Stibnite Mine along the banks of Idaho's South Fork River. Stibnite opened in 1982 and was ordered closed by the state in 1994. Only $450,000 was collected by the State of Idaho. This heap leach gold mine began to leak cyanide into local streams in 1988, later spreading into groundwater. State and federal agencies involved hesitated to act because they feared that prosecuting the financially weak owner, Dakota Mining, would only create another taxpayer funded Superfund site.

Stibnite's parent, Dakota Mining Corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May, 1998 for yet another subsidiary, USMX of Alaska, which continues to operate the Illinois Creek Mine. The company has deserted the mine leaving state and federal officials to clean up pools of cyanide contaminated water and waste rock that probably contain heavy metals and arsenic. Presently Dakota has suspended operations at all of its remaining mines. No cleanup has taken place yet at Stibnite, therefore, cost of the environmental damage has not been assessed.

Zortman-Landusky Mine/Montana

The Zortman/Landusky mine, owned by Pegasus Gold Inc., has an extremely
troubled past. Since opening in 1979, scores of leaks and discharges of acid and cyanide have contaminated both groundwater and streams at the site. In one two-year stretch (1982-83), nine cyanide solution spills occurred, including one spill of 52,000 gallons. In September, 1986, Pegasus dumped 20 million gallons of treated cyanide solution over 17 acres of land to avoid a solution pond overflow during heavy rain. T

he mine began to emit acid mine drainage after the company mined sulfide ores, despite not having a permit to do so. The acid drainage problem quickly turned serious; one stream measured in 1993 had a pH of 3.0, more acidic than vinegar. Montana regulators were extremely lax with the company and through 1993, had only fined the company once despite numerous water quality violations.

In 1993, EPA cited Zortman/Landusky for unauthorized discharges of pollutants in seven locations, the state finally filed suit to enforce the Montana's Water Quality Act and charged the company with unauthorized discharges. In 1995, Montana, EPA and the Assinoboine, and Gros Ventre Indian Tribes filed lawsuits over additional violations of the Clean Water Act. A $37.5 million settlement reached between all the parties paid for fines, water treatment and remediation at the site.

Yet this wasn't the end of the story. After posting a $29.6 million reclamation bond in 1996, Pegasus continued mining but filed for bankruptcy in January 1998, placing serious doubt on whether it will be able to continue mining and remediation work. Anticipating the need for more clean ups at the site, the state of Montana attempted to increase Pegasus's reclamation bonding to a total of $38 million, but were recently turned down by the Reno bankruptcy court. Only time will tell whether Pegasus will ultimately honor its obligations at the Zortman/Landusky mine.

Brohm Mine/South Dakota

Pollution remediation costs can be so prohibitive that some mining companies will seek to avoid their responsibilities - risking public health and the environment. In May, 1998 the Brohm Mining Company threatened to abruptly abandon costly water treatment at the Gilt Edge Mine in South Dakota after the parent company, Dakota Mining, declared bankruptcy for Brohm's sister company, USMXS of Alaska, Inc.

The mine operated from 1988 to 1996. Within 48-72 hours pollution would have overtopped holding ponds and entered local streams and drinking water. It took a court injunction to force the company to continue to treat the water to acceptable levels. The state estimates that Brohm's cash bond of $6 million will not even cover water treatment costs for one year.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Wapiti Slayer:
I'm not a tree hugger but these mining companys are getting away with murder. They know when they go in.. buy the land for nothing, milk it for all it's worth, set up bonds which will "clean it all up" when they are done. Then realize( after 10 or more year years) they are a few hundred million short, then file Bankruptcy. They file and turn it over to the tax payers in the "SUPERFUND" which couldn't make a dent in the amount of claims that need to be taken care of right away. So these mines sit in ruins and leak toxic waste as we all sit an bitch about it! It's really sad nobody has really took on this issue and dealt with it. The mining laws of the 1800s wich are still in effect today are a sad way to treat are Wilderness! Is this weird coming from me "A FAT ASS ATV RIDER"?
Click to expand...
Maybe we could ask Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)... :rolleyes:

"I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude many in the environmental community have that jobs just don't matter," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of the industry's strongest defenders.

While Bumpers and others contend that Westerners abuse the Senate process by employing tactics that allow a minority to block legislation, Craig counters that he and others are doing nothing unusual.

The biggest corporate lobbies from 1997 to 2000 included:


Asarco, the copper giant bought by Grupo Mexico, a Mexican company, in 1999. It topped the list of lobbying expenditures with $5.7 million -- more than 25 percent of all money spent on mine lobbyists during the period.


The National Mining Association, which spent $3.3 million.


Cyprus Amax, the copper- and molybdenum-mining company bought in December 1999 by Phoenix-based Phelps Dodge Corp. Cyprus Amax spent more than $2 million, Phelps Dodge $280,000.


Newmont Mining, the gold- and copper-mining firm based in Denver, which spent more than $1.1 million from 1997 to 2000. During the period, Newmont bought Battle Mountain Gold, the recipient of Gorton's aid. Battle Mountain spent $260,000 on lobbying.


Barrick Gold Corp., also known as Barrick Goldstrike. The Canadian gold giant's $1.5 million in lobbying expenditures far exceeded the $362,000 in donations to candidates and political parties it made through a U.S. subsidiary from 1996 to 2000. It is one of Canada's leading contributors to U.S. political campaigns, the Center for Responsive Politics says.

While expenditures for lobbying far outstripped the companies' donations to candidates and political parties, those donations were nothing for a politician to sneeze at: Mining companies doled out contributions at the rate of more than $1,800 a day during the 1990s.

And the rate of giving by metal-mining companies more than tripled during the 1990s, as efforts to reform the mining law gained prominence in the Clinton administration. In the 1991-92 election season, metal-mining corporations and their top executives contributed more than $621,500. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, that had risen to nearly $1.9 million.

Most of these donations went to party political action committees and hard-to-track "soft money" accounts that allow unlimited donations to the parties, which can use them to help numerous candidates.

Of those donations flowing directly to candidates, some of the biggest beneficiaries were members of the Senate Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources committees -- the folks responsible for overseeing mining regulation through policy and budget decisions. Fifty-two current and former members of those committees got a total of more than $750,000 from metal-mining interests in the 1990s. Twelve senators on those committees -- nearly all from the West and nearly all Republican -- shared most of that money.

Idaho's Craig and Nevada's Reid each received more than $70,000. Gorton collected about $44,650. The member of Congress receiving the most mining cash was Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a Republican who represents the sprawling copper mines of the Miami-Globe district of Arizona and who has campaigned for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval of a new copper mine there. He received $96,100.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by ElkGunner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wapiti Slayer:
I'm not a tree hugger but these mining companys are getting away with murder. They know when they go in.. buy the land for nothing, milk it for all it's worth, set up bonds which will "clean it all up" when they are done. Then realize( after 10 or more year years) they are a few hundred million short, then file Bankruptcy. They file and turn it over to the tax payers in the "SUPERFUND" which couldn't make a dent in the amount of claims that need to be taken care of right away. So these mines sit in ruins and leak toxic waste as we all sit an bitch about it! It's really sad nobody has really took on this issue and dealt with it. The mining laws of the 1800s wich are still in effect today are a sad way to treat are Wilderness! Is this weird coming from me "A FAT ASS ATV RIDER"?
Click to expand...
Maybe we could ask Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)... :rolleyes:

"I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude many in the environmental community have that jobs just don't matter," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of the industry's strongest defenders.

While Bumpers and others contend that Westerners abuse the Senate process by employing tactics that allow a minority to block legislation, Craig counters that he and others are doing nothing unusual.

The biggest corporate lobbies from 1997 to 2000 included:


Asarco, the copper giant bought by Grupo Mexico, a Mexican company, in 1999. It topped the list of lobbying expenditures with $5.7 million -- more than 25 percent of all money spent on mine lobbyists during the period.


The National Mining Association, which spent $3.3 million.


Cyprus Amax, the copper- and molybdenum-mining company bought in December 1999 by Phoenix-based Phelps Dodge Corp. Cyprus Amax spent more than $2 million, Phelps Dodge $280,000.


Newmont Mining, the gold- and copper-mining firm based in Denver, which spent more than $1.1 million from 1997 to 2000. During the period, Newmont bought Battle Mountain Gold, the recipient of Gorton's aid. Battle Mountain spent $260,000 on lobbying.


Barrick Gold Corp., also known as Barrick Goldstrike. The Canadian gold giant's $1.5 million in lobbying expenditures far exceeded the $362,000 in donations to candidates and political parties it made through a U.S. subsidiary from 1996 to 2000. It is one of Canada's leading contributors to U.S. political campaigns, the Center for Responsive Politics says.

While expenditures for lobbying far outstripped the companies' donations to candidates and political parties, those donations were nothing for a politician to sneeze at: Mining companies doled out contributions at the rate of more than $1,800 a day during the 1990s.

And the rate of giving by metal-mining companies more than tripled during the 1990s, as efforts to reform the mining law gained prominence in the Clinton administration. In the 1991-92 election season, metal-mining corporations and their top executives contributed more than $621,500. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, that had risen to nearly $1.9 million.

Most of these donations went to party political action committees and hard-to-track "soft money" accounts that allow unlimited donations to the parties, which can use them to help numerous candidates.

Of those donations flowing directly to candidates, some of the biggest beneficiaries were members of the Senate Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources committees -- the folks responsible for overseeing mining regulation through policy and budget decisions. Fifty-two current and former members of those committees got a total of more than $750,000 from metal-mining interests in the 1990s. Twelve senators on those committees -- nearly all from the West and nearly all Republican -- shared most of that money.

Idaho's Craig and Nevada's Reid each received more than $70,000. Gorton collected about $44,650. The member of Congress receiving the most mining cash was Rep. J.D. Hayworth, a Republican who represents the sprawling copper mines of the Miami-Globe district of Arizona and who has campaigned for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval of a new copper mine there. He received $96,100.
Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Craig is worthless! We need someone back like Cecil Andrus or Frank Church! All these assholes now want fame and to move on to bigger money making schemes. Nobody cares about anything unless it's gonna make them money! It's a sad state we are all in and we have to fight like HELL to keep what little we have!

[ 04-13-2004, 08:46: Message edited by: Wapiti Slayer ]
 
First off... I agree with most of you, for the most part. But Mines don't open with the premiss to rape and pillage. They open to extract raw materials to make the world go round for you and I because there is such a huge need for the products... They have to make a profit to support efforts of the next mine. Its called business. If you don't like that part move to china!

I can't argue that mining has had a torbid past but what I can say is the DEQ has come ahead and "seen the light" and now have much sticter standards to make mining companies adhear to.

Many of the problem mines that exist today were grandfathered in under pre SMCRA 1977. Just because a mine goes into opperation doesn't mean thats when it "started". Some properties sit idle for decades before mining actulally starts.

Look at the Crusty Butte mine. If it is a vaiable resource, I'll bet have about a 30% chance of it opeing, due to all the problems that are going to be put out by the "locals" (i.e. pinko greenies
that don't want the mine there, but would rather have the development
. But if it does get aporved I wouldn't look for it to open opperatoins for 15-20 years at the least.

I won't disagree with you about the Canadian Companies either... The international laws just don't alow for us to go after them. A major share of screwed up mines can be directly related to Canadian mining companies... Our laws shelter them more so than their laws do! I think we should seize all canadian assets and turn them over to an american company to hose up :D !

by "BUZZ" You can carry on all you want, but I think theres already been adequate proof in MT, ID, CO, etc. that points to the problems with cyanide heap leach mining. I'm not in denial about the need for mining, but I'll never support it as long as they continue to create superfund sites and leave the taxpayer holding the bag. The whole while taking their profits to Canada and once again leaving MT a big-assed polluted mess for the locals that live there to clean up and pay for.
Click to expand...
A lions share of tax burden is paid for by other mining companies...which is basically just passed on to the consumer... Lefty demo taxation at its finests...but it works http://www.osmre.gov/fundstat.htm

When the lefty meadia fags
start spewing thier shit (not refering to your statement BUZZ but just anti-mining in general) they always seem to conveniently leave out the part about who some of the actual tax payers are...

I do agree with you that mines should be cleaned up by the mining companies and under current law they are required to. There are always going to be exceptoins to the rules and we will unfortunatly have superfund sites to clean up. You can find a hand full out of a hundred that fall under this...

I stand behind my thoughts on the LD mine as well. They had a leak and were shut down... now since the mine is defunct (because they woudn't let them reopen it) the mine is a huge wasteland. Wouldn't it have been better to let them open, post a bond and once it was played out they money would be there to clean up the mess?

What about all the mines that have been reclaimed... Not part of a superfund site but part of the enviroment. Beal Mountain??? Cyanide processing mine... Has been relcaimed for the last 5 years...

by "BUZZ" Also, why do you suppose MT voters passed the initiative to ban cyanide heap leach mining???

Because they're bunny huggers? I dont think so, remember MT is heavily a republican run state. It couldnt be because EVERY single cyanide heap leach mine in the state of MT has failed, could it? Thats exactly why the measure passed, because of the crappy track record the gold mining industry brought down on itself.
Click to expand...
How about a list of EVERY heap leach mine in MT... You make it sound like there is a whole bunch of em!!! I think your list will come back pretty short!

The initiative passed by one of the smallest magins in state history... 49-51%. The only reason it passes was because when it came election time the only people that were alowed to campaign for the bill were the left pinko green fags

MT state law prohibited the use of company funds to directly support campaign issues. How hard do you think it would be to fight a campaign if you can't even tell your side to the sheep? The law was repealed to make an exception for companies that were directly relatated to the issue at hand. That left the mining companies the last 3 weeks before the electoin to try and make the people see their side of the story. But by that time it was to little to late, the sheep had already been fed.

Why don't you go start this argument in Whitehall!!! The golden sunlight mine is fully contained VAT cyanide leaching progam. Since the law specifically outlaws the use of cyanide in the mining process... the sunlight will be shutting its doors down soon and the job base of whitehall will dwindle to half of what it is right now.

The GS had problems with contamination as well in ground water in a few wells about 7 years ago. If I remember right they never showed where it came from and that is a little scary to me... But fortunatly it was only in one small area and nothing more has ever come of it.

Check out the EPA standard is for Cyanide levels in water and then find out what the solution percentage is in the Madison river (which has no mine waste associated with it) and tell me if I'm going to die since I've had my share of drinks form it... mostly unintentional


When ever people hear of Cyanide they automatically think DEATH...

The part I like...
In September, 1986, Pegasus dumped 20 million gallons of treated cyanide solution over 17 acres of land to avoid a solution pond overflow during heavy rain.
Click to expand...
Treated means treated... They dumped it to keep the damn from failing! Consequently keeping the consentrated solution in the pond out of the streams. Another use of the big bad Cyanide word to make it sound deadly... Cyanide degrades over time from sunlight, reaction with ozone, micobial destruction and others. The treated solution they dumped was harmless...

I'm not a tree hugger but these mining companys are getting away with murder. They know when they go in... buy the land for nothing, milk it for all it's worth, set up bonds which will "clean it all up" when they are done which the cost triple ever year and they don't compinsate for it. Then realize( after 10 or more year years) they are a few hundred million short after they are rich as hell and screwed all the hard working people, then file Bankruptcy. They file and turn it over to the tax payers in the "SUPERFUND" which couldn't make a dent in the amount of claims that need to be taken care of right away. So these mines sit in ruins and leak toxic waste as we all sit an bitch about it! It's really sad nobody has really took on this issue and dealt with it. The mining laws of the 1800s wich are still in effect today are a sad way to treat are Wilderness! These people care about nothing other than making money and screwing every tax payer because they know they can get away with it! Is this weird coming from me "A FAT ASS ATV RIDER"? You think we rape the the land? These bastards are a 1,000,000 times what an ATV can do!
Click to expand...
How can I argue with this logic, how about a little reserch before you tell us what you think... :rolleyes:

i.e. rich as hell and then file bankrupsy... WHAT!!!!

I could go on and on...

I will tell you this however that there are a few mines in opperation today that will faulter on their bonds and and the money needed to clean up thier sites will be inadequate. These mines have been in opperation for decades and will go though litigation and some will consequently be sheltered under the law to avoid bankrupsy, if they aren't there all ready.

Unless people, all of us, except maybe a few pinko greenies
give up all technology, then the best we can hope for is that it doesn't happen, and if it does that we have enough emergency money set aside to take care of it. Mining will be around longer than you and I... that is a fact.

The point that I was trying to make is, that the SMCRA is supposed to make "new" mining operations fully bonded and be able to take care of problems that have persisted in the past, and for the most part it has worked. Metal mining HAS to be done, and in almost all instances enough money is put aside to cover the problems and clean up...but its still an evolving proccess. I think the DEQ/EPA/and mostly all the goverment is at just as much fault as the mining companies.
 
Wellllllll; if there were no mines, there would be no ore, no metal, no ATV; ergo, no fat assed ATV riders! (did I win anything??) ;)
 
Bambistew said, "Why don't you go start this argument in Whitehall!!! The golden sunlight mine is fully contained VAT cyanide leaching progam. Since the law specifically outlaws the use of cyanide in the mining process... "

Thats a bunch of BS, plain and simple. All existing operations are not effected by the law passed by the MT Republican voters to ban cyanide heap leach mining. So, the people working in WH wont be impacted by the new law until the company chooses to file bankruptsy, forfeit its inadequate bond, and leave the taxpayers another mess to clean up.

I also like this one, ".e. rich as hell and then file bankrupsy... WHAT!!!!"

This doesnt happen every day? Come on now, I know you dont live in a cave...the question to ask is how much did they make BEFORE they filed bankruptcy. Isnt it also kind of odd how they file bankruptsy, AFTER they make huge profits, about in line with the time cleanup talks begin?

I'm all for mining, as long as its done correctly, doesnt pollute the environment, and as long as there is MORE than adequate bond money to cover the cleanup. I'm personally glad the law passed in MT that bans cyanide heap leaching, and I did vote for the law, and would again in a heartbeat. Either you mine in MY OWN PRIVATE MT correctly or keep your mining company in Canada where it belongs...
 
BUZZ, I said it once and will say it agian go start that argument in Whitehall...you don't have a clue what you're talking about...existing permitts not opperations

You don't have a clue about the Golden Sunlight mine... The company has more than an adequate bond and has already completed a substancial amount of relcamation. The odds of that mine becoming a problem for the tax payers (i.e. coal mine tax on mined coal) is really a very slim to none chance.

The Golden Sunlight will shut down if the law isn't repealed! As of right now the mine is on its last legs before reclamation unless they get a permitt to expand their pit to mine the reserves that are proven to be there... As of right now that mine could close in the next 6 months.

Wouldn't you think it would make sence to just let that mine continue to opperate??? Ya know keep it all in one place??? Golden Sunlight has already reclaimed a monster of a mountain and tailing feild, they will full fill the rest of the package once they know for sure if they can/can't continue mining.

Typical... Your all for mining but don't want it in your back yard. There isn't a thing that we can do as humans that won't pollute somthing in one shape or another.
 
GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE

Location: Near Whitehall in Jefferson County, southwestern Montana

Ownership: Placer Dome owns 100% of Golden Sunlight Mines Inc., which owns and operates the mine. Placer Dome has owned this property since it was obtained in 1958 by Placer’s U.S. predecessor, American Exploration and Mining Co.

Product and Reserves: Gold. Proven and probable reserves as of December 31, 2000, 312, 000 ounces of gold.

Production Rate and Cost: During 2000, 2,347,000 tonnes of ore were mined and milled to produce 212,266 ounces of gold at a total production cost of $243 per ounce.

Type: Open pit mining, cyanide vat leach

Operating Dates: 1983 – ongoing for another 2-3 years

Employment: 75 employees and 25 contract workers

ISSUES:
1) Inadequate Reclamation Plans and Bonding
Since 1988, five organizations (Montana Environmental Information Center, National Wildlife Federation, Mineral Policy center, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Sierra Club) have been engaged in legal battles over the Golden Sunlight Mine over Article IX, section 2 of the Montana constitution that says that “All lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed.” The first action, launched in 1990, was an administrative appeal against the US Bureau of Land Management, as part of the mine was on federal land, for approving a massive pit expansion without an acceptable reclamation plan.

In 1992, the Interior Board of Land Appeals ruled that Placer’s reclamation plan was flawed but only required that the reclamation bond be increased to $433,000. In March 1992, the groups sued the Montana Department of State Lands (now Department of Environmental Quality) in state court for violation of state reclamation laws and the Montana constitution. In September 1994, State District Judge Thomas Honzel ordered Montana’s Department of State Lands to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and declared unconstitutional the section of the state’s reclamation law that exempts open pits from being reclaimed. The EIS was finally complete in April 1998 and found two reclamation alternatives to be feasible, “No Pit Pond” and “Partial Pit Backfill.” The latter was stated by the Record of Decision to be preferable, the former was cheaper for the company and was therefore chosen by Director Mark Simonich.

In September 1998, the groups challenged Simonich’s decision. In February 2000, Judge Honzel ruled against the State and the Golden Sunlight Mine and for the more expensive reclamation option because it would “revegetate more acreage,” “result in less acid mine drainage, further protecting the groundwater reserves around the Golden Sunlight Mine.” The judge noted that a decision should not be made on the basis of “whether a mine operator will make a profit.” Placer responded by having the reclamation statute rewritten (this was the second time Placer Dome had successfully lobbied to have the statute rewritten to thwart legal victories of the group!). The new language prohibited the requirement of backfilling open pits except under limited circumstances that do not apply for Golden Sunlight. The changes were written to apply retroactively, thereby forcing the authorities to choose the “No Pit Pond” alternative for Golden Sunlight. The groups amended their suit again to challenge the changes in the statute.

On Friday March 22, 2002, Judge Honzel upheld the position of the groups that the changes to the statute are not constitutional. This decision is in the process of being reduced to a judgment order.

According to Montana Law, a bond has to cover the full costs of reclamation by a third party contractor as well as administrative and reclamation costs (this statute was improved in 2001). Placer’s bond is currently $58 million, to cover the No Pit Lake alternative. The new bond, to implement the Partial Backfill Option, will have to be increased by U.S. $23.5 to $58 million dollars. This amount does not include bond calculations for perpetual water treatment.

2) Decision to Mine under Water Table at AMD Site
Placer has known for many years that this mine was “one of the top acid generating gold mines in the western United States.” Yet in 1994 Placer Dome decided to mine into the water table, thereby guaranteeing that the mine would need perpetual care and maintenance to treat its toxic water runoff. According to one expert, the mine had been profitable up to that point and Placer could have closed it out at a profit thereby protecting the environment and shareholders from increased liability. It is estimated that Placer will spend approximately US$ 100 million over the next 100 years to provide the capital and operating costs of water treatment at the Golden Sunlight Mine.

3) Spills and Leaks
Golden Sunlight has had repeated spills from broken pipes and leaks from tailings facilities. One spill killed cattle grazing near the mine. In 1983, a retaining wall at one of Golden Sunlight’s tailings impoundments failed. Millions of gallons of cyanide-laced water were spilled. Groundwater was contaminated and the spill ruined wells on two farms near the mine. Placer bought out the two farms at an unknown cost. The contaminated groundwater has not been cleaned up and is expected to result in further environmental damage and costs in years to come.

POTENTIAL UNCOVERED LIABILITY:
Approximately U.S.$ 23.5 to $58 million will be required to increase the current bond to comply with Montana Law and its Constitution. This amount does not include bond calculations for perpetual water treatment. The costs of perpetual water treatment are estimated at US$100 million for the next 100 years. The unresolved issue of cyanide in the groundwater near the mine entails currently unknown costs.

DISCLOSURE ISSUES:
Placer Dome does not have any information on the above issues on its web site or in its sustainability reports.


Catherine Coumans – [email protected]


“one of the top acid generating gold mines in the western United States.” Yet in 1994 Placer Dome decided to mine into the water table, thereby guaranteeing that the mine would need perpetual care and maintenance to treat its toxic water runoff. According to one expert, the mine had been profitable up to that point and Placer could have closed it out at a profit thereby protecting the environment and shareholders from increased liability. It is estimated that Placer will spend approximately US$ 100 million over the next 100 years to provide the capital and operating costs of water treatment at the Golden Sunlight Mine.


[Bambistew Wrote]
How can I argue with this logic, how about a little reserch before you tell us what you think...
Seems like everything is AAAAA ok there! They should be the Model for all mines! And I have researched this subject for a long time, especially on Idaho Mines. Maybe you need to do a little research yourself. Seems what I said holds true with yer GOlDEN BOY mine also! I understand that mining is essential to life as we know it. But if these greedy Bastards aren't held accountable for making HUGE profits and running from the Consequences of obtaining there wealth then to damn bad! There are safer ways to mine today "which cost a lot more" than traditional ways. But with the old laws these people can screw everyone and get away with it! That's where I have a problem with it! As my sig line says, Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining!

Oh and I have read what you are talking about also! But do you really think they will clean everything up and everything will be just great?

Just a couple stories to prove I read yer side of it.
http://www.mt.blm.gov/ea/bps/GSM.pdf

http://www.placerdome.com/operations/goldensunlight/goldensun.html

[ 04-14-2004, 22:24: Message edited by: Wapiti Slayer ]
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Bambistew:

You don't have a clue about the Golden Sunlight mine...

The Golden Sunlight will shut down if the law isn't repealed! As of right now the mine is on its last legs before reclamation unless they get a permitt to expand their pit to mine the reserves that are proven to be there... As of right now that mine could close in the next 6 months.

Typical... Your all for mining but don't want it in your back yard.
Click to expand...
Bambi,
You got me confused. You claim the mine could shut down in 6 months but look at what Placer says...
The Golden Sunlight gold mine is located in southwestern Montana, United States of America. During 2003, a small underground mining operation continued in conjunction with completion of mining from the open pit and stockpiled ore. In September 2003, mining of the Stage 5B pit was approved. As a result mine operations are expanding and employment will be approximately 140 people.


The proven and probable mineral reserves as of December 31, 2003 are estimated at 706,000 ounces of gold (468,000 ounces proven and 238,000 ounces probable).


Download/view tables and notes (171.5K PDF file)

A decision was made in 2003 to proceed with mining of the Stage 5B pit. Mining from this pit had been curtailed in 1999.

2004 Outlook
During 2004 there will be no gold production, as mining operations will be focused on waste rock stripping from the Stage 5B pit. Gold production is scheduled to start in June 2005.
Click to expand...
And why would we want Mining in our back yard? That is about as stupid as drilling for Oil in our back yard. Let's do our mining in Canada and our Drilling in Iraq. IF the Canadians don't like it, we can invade them like we did Iraq. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joelweb
300,000+ Acres of Public Land in Minnesota and Wisconsin Are “Landlocked” By Private Property
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Benfromalbuquerque
Benfromalbuquerque
M
Oil Was Central in Decision to Shrink Bears Ears Monument, Emails Show
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
jryoung
jryoung
M
Drillers snag leases near Bears Ears monument
Replies
14
Views
2K
Deleted member 28227
D
M
Zinke linked to real estate deal with Halliburton chairman
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
3855WIN
3855WIN
?
Buzz Hettick- Walking the Walk
2 3
Replies
54
Views
10K
MTGomer
MTGomer
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,591
Messages
2,026,236
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)

Share this page

Back
Top