Politicians beat engineers to the punch on the question of lake disposal of mine tailings

It would seem a simple debate with clear answers: to dump tailings into lakes or to build above-grade impoundments.  Canadian politicians are offering clear and opposing opinions.  Maybe it is time for the industry and experts to weigh in?

In a new report from CBC, we read these opposing positions and opinions:

Pro:

Tailing waste produced by mining companies is best stored in water, the federal fisheries minister said Tuesday, defending a planned move by bureaucrats to reclassify 16 Canadian lakes as toxic dump sites.  Toxic mine tailings can be stored either in water or on land, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Loyola Hearn said in the House of Commons, after the Conservative government was accused of putting fish and fish habitat at risk.  “It is much more responsible to store them in water,” Hearn said.

Con:

Opposition MPs and environmentalists, however, say the process amounts to a hidden subsidy of mining companies that could devastate fish habitats and the environment.  “The reality is these Conservatives are giving those mining companies a huge subsidy by allowing them to use freshwater aquatic systems that are fish-bearing lakes as chief waste disposal sites,” Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer said in the house on Tuesday.  What they should be doing is having independent linings and holes filled with water, and put the tailings in those things, free and clear of any natural water system.”

The argument offered by the politicians for in-lake tailings disposal boils down to this:

Hearn said the Conservatives were helping the mining industry progress in order to create jobs in areas where they are badly needed. “Any water that is damaged in any way, there has to be assurance that there is no net loss to either fish or fish habitat. Mitigation has to occur, it always occurs, and when it doesn’t occur, the company does not get a permit to move ahead with the operation,” Hearn said.

And reality glares at us in this acknowledgement:

Ideally, mining companies would build containment ponds for their toxic waste, he said. However, the rugged terrain surrounding many mining operations doesn’t always allow such structures to be built.  “The preferred solution is obviously a man-made structure, but when topography does not allow that, or when in actual fact a surface structure might be more risky … it may not be possible to find an appropriate level area that would allow that to be done,” Peeling said.

These statements are notable for their conciseness and clarity: where there is a need for jobs, where mines can create those jobs, where the mine is in rugged terrain near lakes, where surface impoundments would be inherently unsafe, where mitigation can be achieved,  then, and only then, put the tailings in a nearby lake.

We applaud the politicians (a rare thing for me to do) for this honesty and technical preciseness.  But where are the corresponding statements by the consultants, by the academics, by the engineers and technical experts?  Are the consultants to busy consulting?  Are the academics too busy attending foreign conferences? Are the engineers of too many voices and not in agreement?  Are the technical experts too much in need of high fees to proffer a free service to society on this crucial issue? 

I have made my position known in other postings on this blog.  I repeat:  If it can be done, I prefer below-grade disposal of tailings.  That is the proper and responsible way to avoid long-term geomorphic instability.   Let us face it: any above-grade tailings impoundment in the fullness of time will be Grasberg.