Mining plays a significant role in regional development. It also generates great amounts of waste -- some of which contains toxic chemicals and heavy elements. Yet, additional mining-related pollution does not consist in ores and chemicals.
What are some economic opportunities surrounding the creation of mining waste? Why are they so valuable? For whom?
Furthermore, what knowledge do experts endeavor to produce around negative environmental impacts? Does this knowledge production aim to incentivize companies (or governments) to engage in clean-up efforts or more sustainable mining practices?
Finally, when companies interact with such knowledge, and when experts work to produce it, how do other consequences (e.g., noise pollution) receive attention?
Good question Mateo S. Pimentel
The (re)use of mining waste seem to be an important issue worldwide.
But it has a very local meaning.
From my point of view (civil engineer, academician working as consultant for industry) it is mainly the opportunity to use large amounts of crushed rock (spoil material from the mines) for large infrastructural projects: roads, railways, flood protection systems - dams). We may enumerate following issues:
1. Suitability of the rock (minerals) in therms of its strength and "cleanness".
2. Availability in the right place and at the optimal moment of time.
3. Cost of transport and storing.
4. Environmental cost of preparing for implementation (crushing, sorting, forming of the fill).
The problem is: "How desperate is the mining company to get rid of the spoil material" and "How much the client (usually public) is flexible concerning the use of waste material for construction.
I do not know much about the first dilemma, however all the environmental precautions seem to be crucial for continuing of mining production at least in EU countries (like Poland). The second problem I observed on many building sites where even concrete debris was not accepted for granular fills due to its irregularity. I guess in every country you may find other limitations.
Good question Mateo S. Pimentel
The (re)use of mining waste seem to be an important issue worldwide.
But it has a very local meaning.
From my point of view (civil engineer, academician working as consultant for industry) it is mainly the opportunity to use large amounts of crushed rock (spoil material from the mines) for large infrastructural projects: roads, railways, flood protection systems - dams). We may enumerate following issues:
1. Suitability of the rock (minerals) in therms of its strength and "cleanness".
2. Availability in the right place and at the optimal moment of time.
3. Cost of transport and storing.
4. Environmental cost of preparing for implementation (crushing, sorting, forming of the fill).
The problem is: "How desperate is the mining company to get rid of the spoil material" and "How much the client (usually public) is flexible concerning the use of waste material for construction.
I do not know much about the first dilemma, however all the environmental precautions seem to be crucial for continuing of mining production at least in EU countries (like Poland). The second problem I observed on many building sites where even concrete debris was not accepted for granular fills due to its irregularity. I guess in every country you may find other limitations.
After a few lessons, I have learned that the mining plan needs to address the public and environmental issues, and a substantial performance bond to take care of damages, spills, recovery and mitigation efforts, so these expenses do not fall on the landowner, community or government. A royalty percentage to landowner and local government is also appropriate for putting up with the potential issues. Mining best also in stages, close and rehab an area before opening another. The final mitigation efforts need review and acceptance when fully functional after several years. If a licensed engineer does the final review, it would be on his license and insurance if done prematurely.
I don't think economic incentives are the right approach.
I'm looking at this from a quality of life perspective. Before any mining related activity occurs, the community that is the steward of the land being studied has to establish what their needs are, how those needs are being met, what the symptoms of unmet needs are, and then determine how efficiently and effectively people are able to meet their needs.
By observing the distribution of time use and effectiveness with respect to ecological footprint and biocapacity, the community can predict the relationship between ecological impact and quality of life.
The mining firm coming in has to demonstrate that even with the ecological impacts associated with the development of the resource, the community will have a higher quality of life after the resource is fully exploited than it has currently. That's not impossible, but it is challenging. It likely means the mine will have to minimize ecological impacts and maximize investments in infrastructure and social structures.
By working together, the community and the company can find a mutually beneficial approach to developing the resource that will have long-term positive 'ripples'. By not working together, the community will be left with the negative impacts, and the business will leave once they have taken all possible wealth out of the land.
- Badges
- Science topic