[Newsbot]

Title: Anger Rises as E.P.A. Increases Estimate of Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine
Category: Environmental
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2015-08-10 07:32:17

[DrCaleb]

Here's anoth er link, for those who can't see the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/million-gallon ... d=32989366

Lead Oxide is yellow when cool.

[BartSimpson]

This is hilarious in a sad way. The EPA violated their own control protocols with the opening of the mine (there were no additional containment structures in place) and then they violated Federal law (The Clean Water Act - which is itself enforced by the EPA) by not immediately notifying downstream water users of the approaching toxic flood.

It's just another example of a Federal government that arrogantly thinks it is unaccountable to the laws they enforce and to the people they're supposed to serve.

I can't wait to hear Donald Trump weigh in on this.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's just another example of a Federal government that arrogantly thinks it is unaccountable to the laws they enforce and to the people they're supposed to serve.

I've been saying for years that any company that uses natural resources should have to return them to the environment in the same condition they took them out. Tailings ponds seem to be the latest of these that cause more economic disaster than the local benefits they created.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I can't wait to hear Donald Trump weigh in on this.

Me too. I don't really care what he has to say, but there is a certain schadenfrude in his saying it.

[Zipperfish]

Probably primarily iron oxide that gives it that rust colour. I imagine most metals are off the charts though, and suspended solids, probably. Fish won't be having much fun in that.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've been saying for years that any company that uses natural resources should have to return them to the environment in the same condition they took them out. Tailings ponds seem to be the latest of these that cause more economic disaster than the local benefits they created.

That's part of the policy in BC, however in practice, the security posted by the mine is nothing close to the unsecured liability. Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for close to $2 billion for the abandoned Faro and Giant mines.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've been saying for years that any company that uses natural resources should have to return them to the environment in the same condition they took them out. Tailings ponds seem to be the latest of these that cause more economic disaster than the local benefits they created.

Well, extracting resources only to return them back to the environment doesn't make much sense. Returning the environment from which the resources were extracted to the same condition it was in before extraction is a noble goal but not often feasible. Say cutting down a mature forest - the best you can do is replant in a similar species mix as was found there originally. But you can certainly minimize the damage so the area can repair itself in a reasonable time span.

All resource industries should have to pay the full freight - ie the air, land and water they are polluting, what is the cost of that. We need to stop subsidizing our resource industries where they offload costs on everybody, share profits only with the shareholders.

Apparently in BC, wet tailings storage are usually the only option, but the dams containing the tailings cane be built to much higher standards than current

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Probably primarily iron oxide that gives it that rust colour. I imagine most metals are off the charts though, and suspended solids, probably. Fish won't be having much fun in that.

The articles listed the contents as "heavy metals, including lead and arsenic, turning the river water into a murky orange and yellow color", which is why I said Lead Oxide is Yellow when cool.



That's gotta be Lead Oxide!

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I've been saying for years that any company that uses natural resources should have to return them to the environment in the same condition they took them out. Tailings ponds seem to be the latest of these that cause more economic disaster than the local benefits they created.

Well, extracting resources only to return them back to the environment doesn't make much sense. Returning the environment from which the resources were extracted to the same condition it was in before extraction is a noble goal but not often feasible.

It's feasible, it's just not cheap. Any chemical bond can be broken, at a high enough temperature. Some just need the right catalysts for it to happen at low temperature. Neither option is really 'cheap', but much cheaper than the environmental cleanup is.

andyt andyt:

Say cutting down a mature forest - the best you can do is replant in a similar species mix as was found there originally. But you can certainly minimize the damage so the area can repair itself in a reasonable time span.

Is that not returning it to the state is was originally in? Most logging permits require this now.

andyt andyt:

All resource industries should have to pay the full freight - ie the air, land and water they are polluting, what is the cost of that. We need to stop subsidizing our resource industries where they offload costs on everybody, share profits only with the shareholders.

My sentiments exactly. The costs of the cleanups and destruction have to outweigh the taxes these companies contribute to public coffers.

[andyt]

Really? I thought you'd get my little joke about the way you phrased things. You going to extract the bitumen out of the earth, and then place it back?

Not sure what you meant about catalysis as far as resource extraction goes? The resource is gone, it's been used up, burned for fuel, used to build houses, smelted into usable metal, etc.

No, a replanted forest is nothing like a mature forest, ecologically. You could not replant, and eventually it will return to a mature forest anyway, just take a lot longer. Or where possible you could selectively log so the forest is always regenerating itself. In either case, you are not leaving the forest in its original state. A managed forest is not the same as a forest left in its natural state. This would be especially true in tropical forests, where most of the nutrients are stored in the plants themselves, rather than the soil.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Really? I thought you'd get my little joke about the way you phrased things. You going to extract the bitumen out of the earth, and then place it back?

No, too subtle for a Monday.

andyt andyt:

Not sure what you meant about catalysis as far as resource extraction goes? The resource is gone, it's been used up, burned for fuel, used to build houses, smelted into usable metal, etc.

The resource is gone, but there are many things left behind. Gold extraction leaves tailings of Cyanide and Mercury for example. There are parts of Ontairo and Quebec that are uninhabitable because of Gold mining and the companies just dumped the tailings anywhere.

There are examples of this story all through the world, and even worse in countries with a 'means justified the ends' mentality on the environment.

andyt andyt:

No, a replanted forest is nothing like a mature forest, ecologically. You could not replant, and eventually it will return to a mature forest anyway, just take a lot longer. Or where possible you could selectively log so the forest is always regenerating itself. In either case, you are not leaving the forest in its original state. A managed forest is not the same as a forest left in its natural state. This would be especially true in tropical forests, where most of the nutrients are stored in the plants themselves, rather than the soil.

Forestry isn't known to emit atmospheric pollutants or leave large tailings ponds though. It will return to 'natural' on it's own, and sooner with replanting. But an oilsands mine won't.

[andyt]

Are you sure about that last sentence? Seems to me it would, just take a long time to do so.

I've seen forestry on Vancouver Island, on private lands, so fewer controls, where they logged up one side of a ridge and down the other, leaving behind bare rock. That will take a very long time to recover. Forestry has done a lot of damage to salmon streams. All resource extraction has it's environmental costs. Replanting with monoculture doesn't make for a healthy forest. And so on.

As for mine tailings, aren't those just concentrations of the natural substances found in the earth? Do they have to be chemically altered, or just stored in a safe place? Mercury you can't alter to a non-harmful substance anyway.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Probably primarily iron oxide that gives it that rust colour. I imagine most metals are off the charts though, and suspended solids, probably. Fish won't be having much fun in that.

The articles listed the contents as "heavy metals, including lead and arsenic, turning the river water into a murky orange and yellow color", which is why I said Lead Oxide is Yellow when cool.



That's gotta be Lead Oxide!

I'm going with iron. Let's put a beer on it!

I've seen more than a few acid rock drainage/metal leaching sites in my day, and this colour is typical. Typically the acid is produced through oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) to ferrous iron (Fe+3) and sulphuric acid (H2SO4).

Although most sites I've seen are usually a little more darker orange than this one, so maybe you're right.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I can't wait to hear Donald Trump weigh in on this.

Me too. I don't really care what he has to say, but there is a certain schadenfrude in his saying it.

That's where I stand. I personally don't want Trump as President but I'm enjoying how he's forcing so many people to face up to issues they'd rather not address.

On illegal immigration Trump has managed to derail Jeb Bush's prospects at the White Hut and for this alone I am deeply grateful to the man!

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm going with iron. Let's put a beer on it!

I've seen more than a few acid rock drainage/metal leaching sites in my day, and this colour is typical. Typically the acid is produced through oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) to ferrous iron (Fe+3) and sulphuric acid (H2SO4).

Although most sites I've seen are usually a little more darker orange than this one, so maybe you're right.

I was just going by what I recall from my mad chemistry experiments, but Pyrite -> Sulfuric acid makes sense too. Just that H2SO4 is water clear . . . But I'd buy you a beer either way.

No matter which, the river is sterilized and little fishies aren't happy.