Due care and attention to the environment is a very important aspect of all modern mining projects. In my humble view the mining industry is doing a very good job of protecting the environment despite what many non-government bodies would have us believe. My view is that when the rabid environmentalists are willing to restrict themselves to a single, small, solar powered home and ride a bicycle everywhere I’ll be willing to listen more attentively. Until then they are just another interest group trying to feed themselves and their friends.

But credit given where credit is due. I don’t think any industry would have autonomously adapted itself to environmental preservation without pressure from interest groups. And that, I believe, is a strong argument against the theory of evolution. But this is another topic.

In almost every jurisdiction in the world, proposed mining projects are scrutinized on the basis of their environmental impact statement as well as the feasibility study. It may be technically elegant and make lots of money but if it scars the landscape, kills the fish and darkens the sky it probably won’t get built - and there aren’t too many in the mining community who would argue that it should get built. 

The environmental environmental impact statement (EIS) is an assessment of the impact that the project, as defined in the feasibility study, will have on the environment and what procedures are in place to minimize and/or remediate the impacts. The first thing to do is define the original environmental condition through what are called base-line studies. Next, impacts on the baseline caused from mining are estimated in terms of air quality, water quality and use, noise levels, affect on animal populations and migration routes and near surface seismic impacts. More importantly the final feasibility design must deal with the disposition of the mine and associated facilities at the end of the mine life. All created slopes must be re-graded and seeded, water must be prevented from leaching into the ground and creating acidic zones, tailings ponds must be sealed, covered and replanted, buildings must be torn down and the foundations removed. The end result of the mining activity must be a landscape that is as unobtrusive as possible. Clearly it will be a changed environment but it must be left capable of supporting the same flora and fauna that originally inhabited the area.

The attention paid to the EIS process is such that it consumes a significant portion of any feasibility study budget and normally is the document that must gain government approval prior to the issuance of construction and operating licenses. Government approval means that the environmental “design” must withstand the vigourous attacks of local residents and any interest group from any part of the world who thinks they have a point to make. As a result, mines that are successfully licensed generally improve the environment and leave very small footprints on the landscape. There are exceptions, of course, which usually involve a bet that cleanup technology will ultimately be developed to handle an identified problem. And there is the problem of “orphan” developments that site idle when the owner company goes bankrupt. This is much less of a problem as companies and governments become more sophisticated in the ongoing reclamation of mines but it still exists. My solution is to take the excess profits taxes that governments want to scoop every time there is a good commodity cycle and put those monies into escrow accounts for the cleanup of abandoned properties. But what government has the discipline to not spend this money?

I am sure that you want your company to have a responsible approach to treatment of the environment. I don’t know very many in the mining community who do not share that need and there is an increasing level of pressure being put on from within the mining community to meet stringent targets. Addressing environmental issues is frustrating only when a mining company is being attacked simply for being a mining company. If an interest group has a legitimate concern it will get a fair treatment.

Social development issues are a repeat of the environmental battles fought 30 and 40 years ago. How will these fights turn out?