Spotlight Feature Articles MWH/Stantec Tailings and Waste Management July 16 | Page 3
TAILINGS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
data would permanently reside and remain
connected to the mine rather than the people or
consultants working there. Finally, the limitation
of using net present value (NPV) calculations to
evaluate environmental liabilities including
tailings facilities corrective actions and closure,
was discussed, and there was agreement that
NPV often trivialises future obligations, which
can lead to poor short term decision making.
Using long term gross lifecycle cash flow costs
was considered an equally important decisi on
parameter and more representative of true costs
when evaluating mining projects.
Requirements for qualified persons
The tailings dam at Cerro Corona
understood, management systems that put the
tailing management on par with health and
safety. Environmental management, like safety,
must be top of mind, all the time.
Having tailings management facilities
information that is complete, well organised and
accessible is a key first step to managing risk.
How that information is captured, managed,
protected and shared is an area where, Julien
suggests, the mining industry needs to
fundamentally rethink its game. The NI 43-101
was created to protect investors from false
mineral disclosures in the aftermath of the Bre-X
scandal. The new data disclosure requirements
changed the way geological information is
managed and communicated. Handling TMF and
water information in the same way as the 43-101
geological information is handled means the
info would be centralised and protected from
changes that happen over time.
Importantly, for Julien the mine waste process
cannot operate in a vacuum: it must be linked to
performance of the entire mine using an
integrated Life of Mine (LOM) approach. The
LOM approach requires one to look beyond the
day-to-day and evaluate the design, operation,
expansion and closure of the TMF while
considering the larger system (the mine) within
which the waste processing operates.
Jeff Reinson of Goldcorp defined
sustainability as, “providing safe places to work,
live, learn and play for everyone”, and noted
that water is key to the company’s sustainability
efforts. He challenged the audience by pointing
out that there are 999,972 g of waste for a gold
grade of 28 g/t (in addition to water used to
support the process) and therefore mining is
much more about waste management than
metal production.
The break-out sessions yielded suggestions
on how mining companies can take advantage
of the opportunity to improve disclosure around
tailings. Focusing on business risk means
mining companies will further elevate the
importance of waste management as will
encouraging executives and boards of directors
to become meaningfully involved in the
planning, stewardship and closure of TMFs.
A group led by Ian Hutchison of SLR
Consulting pointed out that mining and tailings
management has a very important people
component to it – and it is people who
frequently make mistakes. Future efforts must
not only focus on the planning and engineering
of mine waste processes, but also on informing,
educating and training those who are
responsible for building and operating the
facilities. Those who manage operations need to
have basic education in the critical aspects of
tailings management, and operators of facilities
need the appropriate training and certification.
Water treatment plant operators are typically
required to be certified, so why not those who
operate tailings dams?
Another idea the group brought forward was
to create a comprehensive information database
for each TMF (particularly the larger ones).
Since owners, operators, designers,
independent reviewers and review boards
frequently change during the life of a TMF,
institutional memory and sometimes hard
information on the design and operations can
get lost. Storing TMF information in the cloud –
a ‘mining cloud,’ so to speak – where facility
Andy Robertson, founder of Robertson
GeoConsultants, spoke on the key attributes
required for a tailings qualified person (QP) –
whether the QP works within a mining company,
as a consultant, or as a government employee
for siting, construction, operation and closure of
water, tailings and waste management. He
parcelled tailings roles under these headings:
n Doers: designers, constructors, operators,
remediators, and monitors
n Checkers: corporate tailings managers;
designer’s reviewers; independent
reviewers; government reviewers for permits
and compliance. The Engineer of Record and
the Dam Safety Inspector
n Checkers of the checkers: corporate
governance responsible persons (technical,
organisational, financial); Independent
Technical Review Boards (ITRBs). Each needs
a technical understanding and relevant
experience to perform reviews required for
the nature and hazard classification of the
facility.
Robertson emphasised the importance of
understanding the breadth and complexity of
technology, operating procedures and
management for tailings as well as the need to
have a high level of skill in the ‘ologies’.
‘Ologies’ include: geology, geotechnics,
seismology, hydrology, hydraulics, hydrogeology,
geochemistry, environmental impacts. Finally he
underscored the importance of specific expertise
in tailings management methods, geochemical
control, water management, and closure
methods as experience needed for a QP.
Todd Martin of Anglo American spoke about
tailings management technologies – thickened,
paste and filtered tailing disposal – indicating
this, along with upstream processes (mining,
JULY 2013 | International Mining