Tailings Contaminate Lake

[Merry]

Here is an article from the Northern Miner (normally a pro mining publication) which notes how all the various stakeholders in incidents such as this often rush to distance themselves from the problem using CYA type damage control.

Engineering firms are usually pretty low-key when it comes to commenting on their clients’ projects, but the extraordinary scale of the Mount Polley breach has prompted both Knight Piésold and AMEC to go public and describe their roles in designing the tailings dam and its later expansions.

Knight Piésold describes itself as the "former engineer of record of the tailings storage facility at Mount Polley," and said that it informed Imperial that it would no longer continue in that role as of February 2011. Knight Piésold commented that during the time it acted as engineer of record, the tailings storage facility at Mount Polley "operated safely and as it was designed," and was subjected to multiple third-party reviews. The firm said that since Feb. 10, 2011, it "has not had any responsibility or knowledge of any aspects of the design, modifications or performance monitoring of the tailings storage facility at Mount Polley. The original engineering done by Knight Piésold Ltd. accommodated a significantly lower water volume than the tailings storage facility reportedly held at the time of the breach. Significant engineering and design changes were made subsequent to our involvement, such that the tailings storage facility can no longer be considered a Knight Piésold Ltd. design." And then the killer lines: "Upon completing all assignments as the engineer of record in 2010, Knight Piésold wrote to Mount Polley Mining Corp. and to the Government of British Columbia’s Chief Inspector of Mines and stated that ‘the embankments and the overall tailings impoundment are getting large and it is extremely important that they be monitored, constructed and operated properly to prevent problems in the future.’ A formal handover of design, construction and monitoring responsibilities was conducted on March 8, 2011, when AMEC Earth and Environmental was acknowledged as the new engineer of record for all future work at the Mount Polley tailings storage facility." And the final washing of the hands: "Knight Piésold Ltd. is not familiar with, and therefore cannot comment on, the details of the incident, or on the design, construction, operations, water-management practices or any other aspects of the Mount Polley tailings storage facility."

While AMEC did not put out a press release on Mount Polley, it has been in touch with media outlets individually and emailed The Northern Miner to distance itself as much as it could from the failure, emphasizing that "while AMEC serves as the engineer of record on the most recent raising of the dam, implementation of the AMEC design has not been completed and some construction activity was still taking place to complete our design. Investigations at or near the breach are currently prohibited due to safety concerns and we are awaiting the results of field surveys by Imperial Metals to determine the status of dam construction at the time of the breach."

And of course, from the get-go, Imperial Metals has described the tailings dam as "an independently engineered structure that operated within design limits and specifications," and Imperial president Brian Kynoch has insisted his company followed the advice of its engineers.

To rework John F. Kennedy’s dictum: A working tailings dam has a thousand fathers, but a failed one is an orphan! –

http://www.northernminer.com/news/edito ... UBitd.dpuf

[Merry]

And here's an article written by Harvey Oberfield which suggests that a Public Inquiry is the only way to ensure the real truth isn't obliterated by the type of CYA damage control that often follows such incidents:

Whenever such a HUGE environmental breach takes place (and don’t let the corporate and government spin doctors minimize it) I believe the primary objective of most of those responsible is NOT to find out what happened, but to cover *bleep*!

Cover the *bleep* of the company; cover the *bleep* of engineers and designers who screwed up; cover the *bleep* of the executives who may have ignored warnings or failed to implement recommendations; cover the *bleep* of provincial bureaucrats who slipped up; and cover the *bleep* of politicians who may have failed in their responsibilities to adequately enforce rules, failed to adequately fund inspection operations; or, failed to adequately pursue actions against any company involved, because of party donations.

We just don’t know what REALLY happened that led at the Mount Polley mine/tailing spill … and ONLY a Judicial Inquiry...where people are FORCED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH on penalty of possible imprisonment for COVER-UPS and PERJURY will get to the truth. Any other kind of investigation, internal inquiry, questioning … especially behind closed doors, but even in the open …will see nothing more, I believe, than a whole lot of cover-our-asses interpretations, explanations and rationalizations.

Let’s keep it real: put yourself in the position of any mine official or government bureaucrat, with a well-paying job, a sizeable home mortgage, kids to raise etc. etc. Would YOU really stick your neck out in any kind of informal questioning or investigation and POINT THE FINGER at YOUR boss and say “He (or She) did it!”

But on the stand, in a judicial inquiry, under penalty of heavy fines, imprisonment or even loss of licences … you would NO DOUBT be much more inclined to tell the truth …the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

It’s the ONLY way to go … if the WHOLE TRUTH about what caused the disaster at Mount Polley and what the REAL IMPACT will be on the environment is to ever come out.

Harv Oberfeld

http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/mount-pol ... l-inquiry/

[neroas]

To neroas ...

You are obviously not one of the many directly and indirectly involved people who depend on this and similar mines to make a reasonable living.

You do not shut down a bus line because one driver had an accident even if people get injured and/or killed. At least figure out who or what was at fault first. IMO the mine holds ultimate responsibility for all aspects of safety, including ecological safety but following the trail of exactly why it happened is needed to clarify the matter.

As Smurf contends, outside investigators are needed if credibility is to be established regarding the findings.

I didn't say shut down the mine, they should shut down the company and let a more responsible company take it over.

[maple leaf]

The Government and Mt Polley Mine fall short on what they are doing and telling us.

Yuct Ne Senxiymetkwe Camp Initial Assessment Report on Imperial Metals Mount Polley Mine Tailings Storage Facility Breach

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238124095/Yuc ... ity-Breach

[Merry]

The Government and Mt Polley Mine fall short on what they are doing and telling us.

I have to agree that I'm surprised at how silent both the Government and the Media have been on this issue over the past week. Considering the size of the breach - the largest Tailings Dam breach in BC's History - there's been very little new information released about what is currently being done to mitigate the disaster.

Given that lack of "official" information, the Government should not be surprised when other groups less sympathetic to the Mining Industry jump in to fill the void.

The report you posted is very informative, and contains much information that needs to be looked into by someone other than either the Government or the Mining Company because, if true, then heads in both those organizations need to roll. But that said, all such reports need to be read with a bit of a "jaundiced eye", because many who contributed to it may have had their own particular "agenda" in mind at the time. Which is why it is so important to have a Public Inquiry into catastrophes such as this, so that all the biases and hidden agendas can be eliminated and the truth can emerge.

The following are a few excerpts from the report that I think are worth highlighting:

The government, the corporation and the media has been focusing on drinking water standards, which are much lower than aquatic life standards.

The totality of the cleanup effort of Imperial Metals Mount Polley Mine 23 days following the disaster has been confined to the aesthetic shoreline clean up of the debris in Likely area. The wood, replete with toxins from the spill, is being collected, some chipped and sold whole for profit. The corporation has not built fences along the 10 km that used to be Hazeltine Creek, once a 1.2 meter wide creek, now a 150 meter wide gorge, to keep wildlife from being caught in the toxic sludge. Neither has the corporation installed silt nets to mitigate the amount of heavy metal laden sediment still pouring into Quesnel Lake or taken any steps towards addressing the ultra fine metal laden sediment now circulating through the Lake.

no substantive clean up is taking place and there are no plans for any substantive clean up. The rate of the pumping out of Polley Lake into Hazeltine Creek and further down into Quesnel Lake is so slow, it would take 6 months to lower the lake's water levels to allow for safe testing. Winter is coming and the rains and heavy snowfall will spread the toxicity further into the surrounding environment and the Fraser Watershed and will also make it increasingly difficult to effectively test, mitigate and contain the dispersal of the toxins.

Up until the publishing of this report, no records or evidence have been seized from Imperial Metals by the RCMP and the Provincial or Federal government has not made any movement towards charges further than mentioning, in passing, at the most recent Likely town hall meetings have indicated that criminal charges may be brought against Imperial Metals and the managers of their Mount Polley Mine.

The final quote is the one that bothers me the most because, if negligence can be proven, then both the Company and the individual Managers responsible for the maintenance of that dam, should be held to account. Although the Company President appeared before the media trying to do "damage control" by saying he'd drink the water once the sediment settles (which I doubt he really would) the actual Mine Manager (the guy who should be on the front line in all of this) has been strangely silent. Yet he is the one, being in charge of that Mine on a day to day basis, who truly bears the responsibility for what happened. The proverbial "buck" stops with him - or at least that's the way it works in most mines. So why haven't we heard from him? Has the Government interviewed him and tried to ascertain what role he played in all this? Was he the one who authorized the increase in waste being sent to that tailings facility? If not him, then who? Was that person aware that the dam was not engineered to handle that amount of waste, and that the necessary changes were not yet complete? If not, why not? And if they were aware, then surely authorizing the additional waste was a criminal act?

In addition to the environmental catastrophe that ensued from such foolish decision making, we ought not to forget that it's a miracle that nobody was killed. And if we allow those responsible to go unpunished, this type of thing WILL happen again.

[erinmore3775]

In addition to the environmental catastrophe that ensued from such foolish decision making, we ought not to forget that it's a miracle that nobody was killed. And if we allow those responsible to go unpunished, this type of thing WILL happen again.

Excellent post and the key words are in the last paragraph. Unfortunately if this disaster is not properly investigated and prevention measures put in place, this event will negatively affect all new resource development in the province. It has already raised questions about the Ajax development. Industry and government need to be working together to solve the problems, not cover them up.

[Merry]

Unfortunately if this disaster is not properly investigated and prevention measures put in place, this event will negatively affect all new resource development in the province. It has already raised questions about the Ajax development. Industry and government need to be working together to solve the problems, not cover them up.

I agree erinmore. Those who want to see the Mining Industry thrive in this Province need to be at the forefront of demanding an open and full investigation into this incident, with appropriate action being taken against any and all who can be shown to have made irresponsible decisions. Because if we don't weed out all the "bad apples" the whole barrel (i.e. the entire mining industry) is going to wind up being tainted. And that's not fair to those who DO play by the rules.

Mines can, and do, operate responsibly, and are a great benefit to us as individuals and our economy as a whole (both Provincially and Federally). But any unwillingness to get to the bottom of what happened in Likely, and hold accountable those who are responsible, will definitely end up causing unnecessary problems for the entire industry.

[flamingfingers]

Have a read here - another group who is outraged at the lack of interest from the provincial government, the federal government and the mining interests (who are one group to lose A LOT) to this fiasco:

http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2014/09/01 ... overnment/

[flamingfingers]

There's more - to the dam(n) break than we originally were led to believe:

Tuesday, September 02, 2014
Mount Polley Disaster ctd...How Big The Spill?
InThisCaseSizeDoes
MatterVille


Well...

Damien Gillis over at the Commen Sense Canadian, using the company's own revised numbers reckons it's almost twice as big as originally estimated.


Compared with earlier estimates of 10 million cubic metres of water and 4.5 million cubic metres of solid tailings, the company is now figuring the following:

-Supernatant water 10.6Mm3

-Tailings Slurry: tailings solids 7.3Mm3; interstitial water 6.5Mm3

-Construction materials 0.6Mm3


So.

If wishes were horses, heavy metals would be snowflakes.

Or some such thing.

http://pacificgazette.blogspot.ca/

[Merry]

The Government should have seized all of the companies records relating to that dam in order to ensure that they couldn't be "tampered" with prior to an investigation. But, unless it's been done on the QT, that doesn't appear to have happened. So I have to wonder whether the Government actually has any intention of conducting a full investigation into this event, or are merely planning some type of a white wash?

[Smurf]

A white wash wouldn't surprise anyone would it. I hope every group possible keeps on them until something is done about this but somehow I doubt it. To nail the company will entail at he very least criticizing themselves and I can't see that happening.
This government will not take responsibility for anything.

[Merry]

After reading on the Net that there is a possibility that the Company is being deliberately slow draining Polley Lake in the hopes that the coming rain and snow will dilute and dissipate everything downstream enough to make for a less expensive cleanup in the spring, I decided to ask a friend of mine who works in the environmental industry what he thought of that comment. And he said he thought it was a fairly valid one.

If there is ANY possibility that the Company is being allowed to "drag it's heels" as a cost saving measure, that needs to be investigated immediately and action taken. However, as the entity that may be allowing such disgusting behaviour is also the entity that regulates and monitors said cleanup activity, it's hardly surprising when Company's wind up getting away with that type of thing.

If the Government won't authorize a Public Inquiry into this incident, then it's time for the RCMP to get involved. Because allowing "the fox to oversee the activities in the chicken coop" simply isn't going to cut it. One way or another we need an independent investigation into this whole sorry mess, because the more I hear the smellier it becomes.

[Merry]

The following excerpt provides some interesting background on Imperial Metals.

The company at the centre of the Mount Polley mining disaster was "in the early stages" of implementing measures to ensure safe operation of its tailings, according to the Mining Association of Canada.

The association's president and CEO, Pierre Gratton, told the Georgia Straight by phone that Imperial Metals Corporation has been a member for only two years.

"Smaller companies tended not to join us," Gratton said from Ottawa. "We tended to represent the bigger companies. What we've put in place through our Towards Sustainable Mining initiative is a system that frankly, only the major companies would ever have the resources to build and implement on their own."

Imperial Metals Corporation's management team has been involved in the operation and/or construction of seven mines over the past two decades, according to the company's website.

Approximately 10 million cubic metres of water containing toxic mine waste leaked from its tailings impoundment into Hazeltine Creek and Polley Lake on August 4. This prompted a ban on the use of local water for residents of the Cariboo town of Likely.

The Mining Association of Canada created tailings guides beginning in 1998. It has characterized its approach as "the global standard

Gratton said this information is made available to smaller companies "to bring them up to a capacity level that they wouldn't otherwise have".

When asked why companies sometimes decide not to join the national association, Gratton responded, "They have to pay."
He then clarified his answer by saying there are other explanations.

"We work at the national level so our mandate is primarily working with the federal government," Gratton said. "So for many years, only companies with mines in multiple jurisdictions tended to join our association. Smaller companies with one or two mines in the same province...would sort of rely on the provincial association to liaise with us and provide them with the federal support they needed."

The Mining Association of Canada has a crisis-management planning guide for incidents ranging from medical emergencies to natural disasters to accidental releases of materials, including tailings-dam failures.

The Straight asked Gratton if Imperial Metals Corporation followed the guide when its CEO publicly stated that he would drink water from the company's tailing pond.

"I'm sure they'll be doing a lessons-learned and, you know, doing an assessment of how prepared they were for something like this," Gratton responded. "Nobody ever thinks this sort of thing is going to happen to you."

He added that it's too early to speculate what caused the dam to fail at the Mount Polley mine.

"Some of what I'm reading now is that the instruments that they had to measure pressure in the dam were showing no change," he said. "There was no indication that there was any pressure on the dam, so it's going to take a while to figure out why."

http://www.straight.com/news/704041/mou ... ssociation

[maryjane48]

He added that it's too early to speculate what caused the dam to fail at the Mount Polley mine.

"Some of what I'm reading now is that the instruments that they had to measure pressure in the dam were showing no change," he said. "There was no indication that there was any pressure on the dam, so it's going to take a while to figure out why."

lol this is a lie they know why it broke, it was over capacity

[Merry]

While I strongly suspect that the increased level of tailings resulting from mine expansion may have been a contributing factor, it really is too soon to know for sure. And regrettably, because most of the evidence has been washed away, it may be that we'll never know for sure (although I hope that isn't the case).

My concern is that when the "stakeholders" all have a vested interest in covering their own rear ends, it can sometimes be hard to determine what really happened. Hence the need for a Public Inquiry, where everyone has to testify under oath.

I know someone who put forward the theory that the breach may have been caused by a small leak from the pipe that was used to discharge to the environment whenever the dam level got too high. Apparently this pipe passed through the dam in an area right next to the breach, and even a tiny leak in that pipe could, over time, weaken the earthen dam. Of course, if the leak was inside the dam, there would be no way of detecting it. But if that story is true, then it calls into question the integrity of all dams that have discharge pipes running through them. Hence the importance of "getting to the bottom" of what really caused this breach.

That said, I still think it's important to look into the overall design and maintenance of this particular dam in order to determine why certain things that happened were allowed to happen, and who was responsible. Because whether or not poor maintenance turns out to be the cause, the point is it COULD have caused such a breach and therefore should not have been allowed to happen. So, if bad design and/or poor maintenance were indeed a problem, then we need to get to the bottom of WHY it was allowed to happen, in order to prevent it happening again anywhere else in the Country.

For example, when you read through the MAC guidelines that are referred to in the article I cited above, there are things that seem to be "no brainers" that I have to wonder why are only "guidelines" and not legislated requirements? (You can find a link to the actual MAC publication in one of my earlier posts).

This Mount Polley incident should be a wakeup call to all of us to demand stricter enforcement of existing regulations and, where necessary, possibly a few new ones. For example, it ought to be a "no brainer" to require companies to carry more than 15 million in liability insurance, because common sense tells us that simply isn't enough when something big like this happens. Heck, most of us ordinary citizens carry 3 million of liability insurance on our cars, so only having 15 million to cover a large company is a bit of a joke in comparison. Having adequate insurance is even more important when we are dealing with a "junior" company such as Imperial Metals, because the larger companies have more money in their coffers to cover emergencies. But ALL companies (not just mining) should be made to carry adequate insurance in order to ensure that taxpayers are not on the hook when bad things happen.