Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:15:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Alice McCombs <amccombs@igc.apc.org>

Contents

1. Excerpt, GREENLines Issue #541: More Mine Opposition in Wisconsin
2. CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS. The 4th International Interdisciplinary Conference
on the Environment, Washington D.C., July 7-10, 1998
3. RAG RAG
4. Recent mining industry posts from Enviromine
  a. Deep Sea Mining
  b. Publications on Uranium Mining
  c. RE: Reclamation Bonding (Compilation of Responses)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. Excerpt, GREENLines Issue #541: More Mine Opposition in Wisconsin

rfeather                        list.actgreen              6:36 PM  Jan 13, 1998
(at unm.edu)

GREENLines, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 1998 from GREEN,
the GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network,
A project of Defenders of Wildlife
(505) 277-8302 or email rfeather@defenders.org

MORE MINE OPPOSITION:  The 1/13 St. Paul Pioneer Press reported a poll
of Wisconsin residents indicate more than half oppose the proposed
Exxon mining project at Crandon.  Opponents of the mine said the
results offer more proof of the public's opposition to the proposed
copper and zinc mine.  The poll, conducted in October, showed 52.5
percent opposed the mine, 28.3 support it and 19.2 were undecided.
Mine opponents contend the mine will pollute ground water and the Wolf
River.

==========================================================
Roger Featherstone -- Director
GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network
A project of Defenders of Wildlife
PO Box 40046, Albuquerque, NM 87196-0046
(505) 277-8302  fax:(505) 277-5483  e-mail:  rfeather@defenders.org
check out our web page at:  http://www.defenders.org/grnhome.html
==========================================

Back to top

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS. The 4th International Interdisciplinary Conference
on the Environment, Washington D.C., July 7-10, 1998

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:11:29 -0500 (EST)
From: kantard@mindspring.com (Demetri Kantarelis)

CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS. The 4th International Interdisciplinary Conference
on the Environment will be held in Washington D.C., July 7-10, 1998. You
may participate as session organizer, presenter of one or two papers,
chair, moderator, discussant, or observer. The deadline for abstract
submission and participation is January 20, 1998. For more information
please contact Demetri Kantarelis or Kevin L. Hickey through

Regular Mail: IEA/Kantarelis-Hickey
              Assumption College
              500 Salisbury Street
              Worcester, MA 01615, USA

Tel: (508) 767-7557 (Kantarelis), (508) 767-7296 (Hickey),

Fax: (508) 767-7382

E-mail:
  (Kantarelis) dkantar@eve.assumption.edu
  (Hickey) khickey@eve.assumption.edu

or the World Wide Web at:
http://www.assumption.edu/html/academic/conf/iicecall.html

Back to top

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. RAG RAG

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:12:40 -0800 (PST)
From: rags@ran.org (Marika Holmgren)
Sender: owner-rags-rap@igc.apc.org

Wanna be famous?  Get published in the RAG RAG!

Seeking submissions for the RAG RAG - a newsletter of the grassroots
environmental movement.  Please send articles and/or photos from recent
actions, events, or goings-on for inclusion in the newsletter.

Send articles via email and photos as attached document on email or via
snail mail.

Deadline Friday, January 30.

Thanks!

Marika

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marika Holmgren, Grassroots Coordinator

RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK
221  Pine,  5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 398-4404        Fax: (415) 398-2732
rags@ran.org            www.ran.org

Rainforest Action Network works to protect the Earth's rainforests and
support the rights of their inhabitants through education, grassroots
organizing, and non-violent direct action.

T O    S U B S C R I B E  T O  T H E  R A G S  E M A I L   L I S T
Send a message to <majordomo@igc.apc.org> with only the following in the body:
subscribe rags-rap
Note: You must send from the account at which you wish to receive messages.
_____________________

T O    U N S U B S C R I B E
Send a message to <majordomo@igc.apc.org> with only the following in the body:
unsubscribe rags-rap
Note: You must send from the same account from which you first subscribed.

Back to top

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4. Recent mining industry posts from Enviromine

a. Deep Sea Mining

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:02:37 -0800
Sender: enviromine_technical@info-mine.com
From: "Durkin, Tom" <TOMD@denr.state.sd.us>

The December 30, 1997 issue of The New York Times has an article in Section
F (Science Times) titled "Undersea Treasure, and Its Odd Guardians - Alien
Ecosystems: Minerals Riches and Strange Forms of Life" by William J. Broad,
complete with some good photos and graphics.  The topic is an interesting
one for Envirominers.

The article references the first mining claims staked over the rich deposits
of highly concentrated minerals located along oceanic rifts that mark
diverging plate boundaries.  These deep, oceanic hot springs ("black
smokers") concentrate valuable minerals as hot metal-enriched water, heated
from underlying magma, rises and comes in contact with the cold sea water.
 During this process, metals are collected as small mineral particles that
build up the chimneys of submarine vents.

In November, Nautilus Minerals Corporation, an Australian organization, won
title to about 2,000 square miles of territorial waters of Papua New Guinea
and is now exploring the area.  The article says the company plans to begin
taking preliminary hauls of 10,000 tons in the next two years and to begin
commercial mining in the next five years if the hot springs turn out to be
as wide and rich as preliminary studies indicate.  Preliminary ore samples
are of bonanza figures by land standards (up to 26% Zn, 15% Cu, 18.6% Fe, 7
oz/ton Ag, about 1 oz/ton Au, etc.), with a value that could run into the
billions.

The article points out that these submarine volcanic hot springs are a dark
oasis that teem with blind shrimp, giant tube worms and other strange
creatures "... sometimes in profusions great enough to rival the chaos of
the rain forests".  Dr. Peter Rona, a marine geologist from Rutgers
University who pioneered exploration of volcanic hot springs and has tracked
the rising interest in mining them, is quoted as saying "The big issues are
environmental, ... That's a very delicate ecosystem and a genetic pool that
we're just starting to understand in terms of the evolution of life.  Each
of these sites is precious."  Studies show that the volcanic rifts could
harbor living riches that could give miners a vested interest in preserving
the deposits.  Unusual microbes that inhabit the hot zones have body parts
that are sought after in the biotechnology revolution and are making some
industrialists rich.  The articles states that these single-celled
organisms, by weight, are worth much more than gold.  Their heat-stable
enzymes are used in polymerase chain reactions, a cornerstone of genetic
engineering.  The harvest of the microbes is speeding up around the world
and may become an issue in New Guinea.

The article points out the attractiveness of these rich underwater mineral
deposits particularly to countries which are resource-deficient in terms of
land.  Earlier efforts in the 1980's to promote the mining of such deposits
did not come to fruition due to risk, speculation, and controversy.  It will
be interesting to see how this renewed interest, in conjunction with
carefully managed extraction procedures, might take advantage of the mineral
and biological resources in a regulated manner.  It would seem to be a good
opportunity for the minerals and biotechnology industries to work on a
mutually beneficial project.

Those interested, may want to seek out the 12/30/97 article at a local
library.  An earlier story also appeared in the 12/21/97 issue of the NY
Times.

Regards,

Tom Durkin
SD DENR, Minerals & Mining Program
tomd@denr.state.sd.us

Back to top

-------------------------------------------------

b. Publications on Uranium Mining

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 07:25:49 -0800
Sender: enviromine_technical@info-mine.com
From: "Durkin, Tom" <TOMD@denr.state.sd.us>

Dear Envirominers - For those of you interested in uranium mining and
decommissioning/reclamation in Europe, please note the announcement below
posted by Stephanie Hurst in Dresden, Germany <hurst@SMU.SMU.sachsen.de>.
Stephanie asked me to forward this to the group.

Tom Durkin
tomd@denr.state.sd.us
 ----------------------
Dear Tom,
In 1996 the European Commission published a report which I just got today.
 Looking through the contents I found it may be also interesting for you or
other oversea people, because it is a pretty compact overview over european
uranium mining sites.

"Decommissioning of old uranium ore extraction and treatment installations"
by: J.P. Hebert et al.
Report EUR 16885 EN
European Commission
nuclear science and technology
ISBN 92-827-6823-6

It has been performed in the framework of the European Atomic Energy
Community's research programme on the decommissioning of nuclear
installations (1989-93), Section C: Studies

Sales for USA            Canada:
UNIPUB                   (Subscriptions only
4611-F Assembly Drive         Uniquement abonnements)
Lanham, MD 20706-4391         Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
Tel. Toll Free (800)2744888        1294 Algoma Road
Fax (301)4590056              Ottawa, Ontario K1B 3W8
                    Tel. (613)7414333
                    Fax (613)7415439

IAEA has also published on the issue "Uranium mining in Europe", e.g.:

IAEA-TECDOC-865: Planning for environmental restoration of radioactively
contaminated sites in central and eastern Europe. 3 Volumes, Proceedings of
a workshop held within the Technical Co-operation Project on Environmental
restoration in Central and Eastern europe in Budapest, hungary, 4-8 October
1993. February 1996

TECDOC's are free of charge. They can be ordered from:
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstrasse  5
P.O. Box 100
A-1400 Vienna, Austria

These three volumes contain more detailed informations about the central and
eastern european uranium mining sites than the EUR, but no informations
about western european sites.

Best wishes for 1998!

Stephanie Hurst

Back to top

----------------------------------------------

c. RE: Reclamation Bonding (Compilation of Responses)

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:52:32 -0800
Sender: enviromine_technical@info-mine.com
From: Rebecca Miller <ramiler@sprynet.com>

Tom,

I was recently conducting a literature search for reclamation costs for
various mines in Canada.  Among other citations, important articles from
the 1997 4th ICARD, Vancouver proceedings were reviewed. Order of magnitude
estimates were provided from US$10,000/acre for facilities with fairly
elaborate capping and reclamation plans to US$100,000/acre for similar
facilities that would need water treatment in "perpetuity".  Through
geochemical modeling, a very interesting point was demonstrated, that by
placing a very restrictive cap on the acidic tailings the metals flux was
reduced (ie by reducing the rate of oxidation and infiltration) to such an
extent that water treatment was not considered to be necessary over the
long term. I don't have the exact reference right on hand but if anyone is
interested I would be happy to look it up.

I'm fairly certain that Canada has provisions for operators to establish
trust funds at the initiation of mining to be used for maintenance and
water treatment for the very long term. I'm not sure who controls these
funds after the mine has been successfully reclaimed and the operator's
bond has been released.

When I was with the State of Montana, I had tried to emphasize the need for
a similar vehicle (trust funds) to enhance reclamation bond requirements.
Does anyone from Canada have better information regarding intitiation of
trust funds for long term minesite maintenance?

Rebecca
ramiler@sprynet.com

At 09:33 AM 12/30/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Thanks to all of you that responded to my request earlier this month for
>information on reclamation bonds (original post at the bottom).  The
>responses, most of which came directly to me, are compiled below.  To
>clarify my original message, we believe reclamation bonds for large scale
>surface mines are best calculated on a site-specific basis (due to
>differences in mine types, geology, climate, terrain, etc.) and not on a
>rigid cost per acre basis.  We will continue to calculate bonds in this
>manner.  However, a local citizens group has used cost per acre figures
>taken from acid generating mines and said that they should apply to non-acid
>mines, claiming that our bonding system is inadequate.  The intent of my
>original post was to get a rough idea of how the SD reclamation bonds
>compare to others in similar settings.
>
>These comments may serve as a platform for additional discussions/thoughts
>on reclamation bonding.  Thanks again.  Happy New Year!
>
>Tom Durkin
>SD DENR, Minerals & Mining Program
>tomd@denr.state.sd.us
> ----------
>Keith Brady <brady.keith@a1.dep.state.pa.us> (Pennsylvania Bureau of Mining
>and Reclamation) wrote:
>
>Here's what we do in Pennsylvania:
>
>    1.  We don't issue permits that we suspect will make acid
>    drainage.  We either require that acid sites be disigned to not
>    produce acid or we deny the permit.
>
>    2.  Bonds are a minimum of $3000 per acre for a highwall height of
>    85 ft or less.  Minimum per acre bond rates increase as highwall
>    heights increase.
>
>    3.  We also require a nonrefundable reclamation fee that goes into
>    a pool to supplement bond (if needed) for mine forfeitures.  This
>    fee is $100 per acre.
>
>    4.  For sites that do have postmining pollutional discharges
>    (accidents do happen), if the discharge can be passively treated
>    we will consider a "bond adjustment" which takes into
>    consideration the cost of maintenance and replacement of the
>    treatment system.
>
>    I hope this helps.  I'd be interested in what other states are
>    doing as well and would appreciate a copy of any type of summary
>    you may produce.  Thanks.
>
>                                -- Keith Brady
> ----------
>Victoria Bryan <VBRYAN@wscgw.osmre.gov> (OSM) wrote:
>
>Tom, contact the following engineers at the Office of Surface Mining
>who calculate bonds for coal mining:  Karen Jass at (303) 844-1456 or
>Eugene Hay at (303) 844-1455.
>
>Victoria Bryan, Bonding Specialist, OSMWRCC
> ----------
>Randy Clouse <ryc@mme.state.va.us> (Virginia) wrote:
>In response to your question about reclamation bonding, I checked with
>our (Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of
>Mineral Mining) permitting section about bonding requirements.  The
>e-mail response is below.  Also for a general summary of state bonding
>requirements, you may want to check with the Interstate Mining Compact
>Commission (459-B Carlisle Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4819; Phone:
>703/709-8654; Executive Director: Gregory Conrad) for a copy of their
>1997 Noncoal Mineral Resources Report.  Page 30 of this document has a
>summary of 30 states bonding fees.  At the end of this report (page 69)
>there also is a list of contacts for each state.
>
>Hope this was helpful.
>
>Randy Clouse
>Orphaned Land NPS Coordinator
> ----------
>Gary Potter (Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of
>Mineral Mining) wrote:
>
>>Our bond rate is $1000 per acre. The law allows a variation between $250
>and
>>$1000 per acre but by policy and practicality we have established the $1000
>>per acre rate as the minimum. The $200 per acre rate was established for
>>mines of 5 acres or less. Over the years our bond forfeiture and orphaned
>>land reclamation costs have averaged around $3400 per acre (since 1985 and
>>not adjusted for inflation). These costs have included shaft closures,
>>fencing of walls, demolition of buildings and straight regrading and
>seeding.
>>
>>After an operator has operated satisfactorily for 5 years he is eligible
>for
>>the Minerals Reclamation Fund. A pool bond type fund. Membership is
>mandatory
>>if eligible and once in the Fund all other bonds held on the site are
>>released. The initial entry fee is $50 per acre disturbed and drops to
>$12.50
>>per disturbed acre annually after the first year. The current fund Balance
>is
>>around two million dollars.
>>
>>I recommend that Mr. Durkin review Code of Virginia Chapter 16 of Title
>45.1
>>Sections 45.1-183 and  45.1-197.8-18 for more detail. (should be on
>internet
>>associated with Virginia Government) It doesnt sound like Virginia will be
>>very comparable to South Dakota. Our law is fairly old ,from 1969, and does
>>not consider some of the more modern and more technical issues. Our water
>>quality regulation is basically from an E&S perspective and the only
>effluent
>>limit is a pH of 6-9. Department of Environmental quality Water division
>>enforces the clean water act and NPDES permitting.
>>
>>Finally as far as rainfall and elevation ranges. Off the top of my head the
>>elevation of the mountain tops in southwest Virginia  are 2600 to 2700 feet
>>to sea level on the east coast. I believe tha average rainfall is 40 to 47
>>inches per year. You may want to verify the rainfall  and I know there are
>>some elevations higher than 2700 feet. I dont think we have very similar
>>operations or physiographic properties.
> ----------
>Dennis Boyles <DBOYLES@cwvgw.osmre.gov> (OSM) wrote:
>
>Tom, this is in response to your request for information about reclamation
>bonds.   West Virginia has site-specific reclamation bonds that are
>capped at $5,000 per acre (CSR 38-2-11.6).   The bond amount varies
>based on such site-specific factors as:   method of mining, fill
>construction, type of mining, permit acreage, spreads of equipment,
>overburden analysis, slope steepness, ancillary facilities, mine life,
>violation history of operator, remining, wetland development,  reclamation
>awards by operator, etc.
>
>West Virginia has an alternative bonding system.   Under this system,
>unlike a conventional bonding system, it is recognized that the
>performance bond will not cover the full cost of reclamation if it is
>forfeited.   To supplement the bond in the event of forfeiture, West
>Virginia relies on its Special Reclamation Fund.  Revenues for the Fund
>come from the forfeited bond, civil penalties and a special reclamation tax
>of 3 cents per ton on coal mined in the State.
>
>West Virginia does not bond for water treatment.  The average bond in
>West Virginia is $3,800 per acre.   Most of these bonds do not cover the
>costs of land reclamation, especially for underground mines and coal
>refuse disposal sites.  As mentioned above, if the State has to complete
>the reclamation or treat water after forfeiture, the money comes from the
>Special Reclamation Fund.  West Virginia currently estimates its water
>treatment liability for 80 sites to be about $27 million.  It also has
>approximately 200 other forfeited sites that are not fully reclaimed.
>
>If you need additional information about West Virginia's bonding program,
>contact Sandy Humphreys, WVDEP, (304) 759-0510.
>
>Dennis Boyles, OSM, Charleston Field Office.
> ----------
>Karen Jass <KJASS@wscgw.osmre.gov> (OSM) wrote:
>
>Well...... you probably won't like my answer particularly.  However, I think
>you should understand the rational for my opinion in having dealt with
>this.  I have done coal mine bond calculations and evaluations for longer
>than I care to admit.  However, the one consistency I can vouch for in all
>these (thoughout the west - KS, MO, WY, WA, MT, AZ, NM) is that there
>are TOO many variables - even for mines within the state or region. ...
>
>Granted doing a cost/acre basis is easiest and if conditions are
>consistently similiar, may warrant basing a bond on a specific figure.
>However, perhaps being of a skeptical nature, I would rather do a
>thorough line-item evaluation before I would consider doing a cost per
>acre.  Then adding on specific costs - inflation, monitoring, mitigation,
>etc.
>
>What happens if there is an anomoly or something comes up later - such
>as metals in the OB or iron in a rider clay seam, or major faulting where
>the mine follows the seam?  How do the long-term and short-term
>monitoring, backfilling or infinite treatment or mitigation costs get
>calculated in or added on when doing a cost/acre estimate.    Food for
>thought.  KJass
> ----------
>Gene Hay <GHAY@wscgw.osmre.gov> wrote:
>
>I work for the U.S. Dept of Interior's Office of Surface Mining.  We require
>all coal mines to post a reclaation bond before mining begins.  Because
>of that we developed a bond cost estimating hand book and a small
>computr program to assist in the calculation.
>
>Because the coal mines vary so much from mine to mine we have found
>that estimating bond costs on a per acre basis is not very acurate.  Our
>hand book is based on basic earth moving estimation factors the same
>as if a bid was being prepared for any other earthwork project.
>
>If you would like additional information or a free copy of out handbook
>please contact me at 303-844-1455.
> ----------
>Gene Hay (OSM) further wrote:
>Tom, I went through our bonds calculated by this office and came up
>with the following information.  These are all surface coal mines.
>
>McKinley Mine, Gallup, NM final pit length 3,300 ft; pit depth 125 ft; Acres
>dist. 4,400; Bond amount $79,519,000.
>
>Navajo Mine, Farmington, NM- Final pit length 49,700 ft; pit depth 125 ft;
>Acres disturbed 3,500; bond amount $90,123,000.  This mine has almost
>totally backfill the final pit to get it to drain.
>
>Black Mesa/Keyenta, Kayenta, AZ, pit length 103,700 ft; pit depth 100 to
>150 ft; Acres dist. 10, 300; bond amount $114,398,000.
>
>John Henry, Black Diamond, WA, pit length 1,000 ft; pit depth 250 ft;
>acres disturbed 300; bond amount $5,500,000.
>
>Centralia Mine, Centralia, WA, pit length ??, acres dist. 10,000, bond
>amount $101,102,000.
>
>The method used to calculate these bonds takes into consideration the
>difficulty of reclamation, indirect costs for a third party contractor to
>complete thee work and is based on standard earth moving methods of
>cost estimating.  Each bond is calculated based on site specific
>conditions.  OSM has a specific set of regulations which the reclaimed
>area must meet before the bond can be release.
> ----------
>EPA's Orville Kiehn <KIEHN.ORVILLE@epamail.epa.gov> (via Ken Wangerud
><WANGERUD.KEN@epamail.epa.gov>) wrote:
>
>     A State of Colorado reclamation bond for the Cripple Creek & Victor
>     Gold Mining Company-Cresson Project is described in a 33 page document
>     "Summary of Amendment 6 to Permit M-80-244". Background details may be
>     obtained from Mr. Bruce Humpheries at the State of Colorado Division
>     of Minerals and Geology 303-866-3567. The site is advised to be
>     "situated in low acid-generating terrains". The amount of financial
>     warranty "is calculated to be $18,270,246 (plus $210,000 for other
>     requirements at previously disturbed areas for a total of
>     $18,480,246). This is, of course, for third party reclamation and
>     includes the surcharge of OMLR management of a reclamation contractor.
>     This surety amount has been developed in detail for both total
>     reclamation and for phased incremental additions of financial surety.
>     The financial warranty for the Project through the first phase of the
>     valley heap leach is similarly calculated to be $14,082,839 (plus
>     $210,000  as above) for a total of $14,293,839)".
>
>     Details on two bonds for the Pegasus Zortman-Landusky State of Montana
>     reclamation and the court-ordered in-perpetuity water management-water
>     treatment sites can be obtained from the Montana Department of
>     Environmental Quality in Helena, MT. A suggested contact is DEQ's
>     Peter Werner, Engineer,(406-444-2468) who with Mark Spencer, Mining
>     Engineer, worked with EPA, Region 8, and the mining company to design,
>     calculate, run iterations and finalize the water management-water
>     treatment bond portion of the total reclamation and water
>     management-water treatment bond. Two water treatment facilities, one
>     for each (adjacent) mine complex, were evaluated. The approximate
>     magnitudes of the two bonds are +/- $70MM for reclamation and +/- $34
>     MM for in-perpetuity water management-water treatment.
>
>Via the MT DEQ we were advised of existence of a document of mutual
>     interest, "Review of Hard Rock Mining Reclamation Bond Requirements"
>     dated December 3, 1997 and is a legislative request # 98L-36.
>     Available either from DEQ or the Legislative Audit Division, nine
>     pages.
>
>     Orville Kiehn
> ----------
>Kathy Viskocil <LThomp8985@aol.com> (Pintail Systems, Inc.) wrote:
>
>Pintail Systems, Inc is a small bioremediation firm in Colorado specializing
>in remediation of cyanide heap leach pads and associated ponds.  Costs are
>always site specific.  We have found that our bioremediation technology
>generally costs 25-30 percent of the total cost of conventional treatment to
>remove cyanide.  We have also observed biomineralization during our
>detoxification which reduces soluble-metals loads to local ground and
>surface
>water.
>
>Kathy Viskocil
>Pintail Systems, Inc.
>bugladyx@aol.com
> ----------
>My original post ...
>
>>From: enviromine_technical
>>To: Multiple recipients of list
>>Subject: Reclamation Bonding
>>Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 7:19PM
>>
>>
>>We are comparing reclamation bond requirements for surface mines in our
>>state to requirements elsewhere.  For most mines (i.e., mines that are not
>>acid generators), it seems appropriate to compare reclamation bonds on a
>>"monetary amount per acre" basis.  At non-acid generating surface mines in
>>South Dakota, reclamation bonds average between about $2,700 and $3,500 per
>
>>acre.  These mines are in a cool temperate climatic zone at elevations
>>between 5,500 - 6,000 feet (1,675 - 1,830 meters) above sea level.  They
>>receive about 25 - 28 inches (63 - 71 cm) of precipitation per year.  Can
>>anyone supply similar comparisons elsewhere?
>>
>>At the two acid-generating mines in our state, the figure is naturally
>>higher.  At acid-generating Mine A, the reclamation bond is $10,880,000 for
>
>>206 acres (83 hectares) of disturbed land.  At acid generating Mine B, the
>>reclamation bond is $10,700,000 for 320 acres (130 hectares) of disturbed
>>land.  We believe that reporting reclamation bonds at acid generating mines
>
>>on a "per acre" basis does not reflect as true a picture when comparing
>>reclamation costs among different mines.  This is because of differing
>costs
>>of water treatment plants, capping, etc. that are not necessarily based on
>a
>>per acre cost.  For this reason, please indicate whether the mine is acid
>>generating or non-acid generating.  Specific information on water treatment
>
>>and/or capping costs would be helpful.  Referring to the mines as Mine A,
>B,
>>C, etc. is preferred.  We would like to know the state or country name.
>>
>>Lastly, for cyanide heap leach operations, information on costs to detoxify
>
>>leach pads and process ponds would be appreciated.
>>
>>Please note that this request is specifically geared toward "reclamation"
>>bonds, but any information on environmental or post-closure bonds is
>>welcome.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any assistance.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Tom Durkin
>>South Dakota DENR
>>Minerals & Mining Program
>>tomd@denr.state.sd.us
>

Rebecca A. Miller
Principal
Minekeepers
933 East Keim Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
voice (602) 264-1663
fax (602) 264-1663
email ramiler@sprynet.com

Back to top

Disclaimer

EarthWINS Daily is a project of EarthWINS.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, material in this issue of EarthWINS Daily is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **

The articles in EarthWINS Daily are PHOTOCOPIES for personal informational purposes--please seek reprint permission directly from the source listed. You are encouraged to utilize this information for personal campaign use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

If you distribute information contained in EarthWINS Daily, please:

(1) Copy the information in its exact form,
(2) Cite the author, publisher, and date of the information.
(3) Include this subscription information for EarthWINS Daily - 

To subscribe to EarthWINS Daily send an email to 
EarthWINS-Daily-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe to EarthWINS_Daily

EarthWINS P O Box 573 Shawano, WI 54166 Ph: 715-524-5998 FAX (call first): 715-524-9958 EarthWINS-Daily@earthwins.com www.earthwins.com

Please sign my guestbook

Back to top