Engineer Tim Oliver: It’s fun to blame the EPA, but…

POSTED ON August 12, 2015 BY Tim Oliver
CATEGORY Kinross Gold,

Photo: AP

Via www.TimOliver.us: Sometime around 10:30 a.m. on August 4, 2015, an earthmoving contractor working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broke into flooded underground mine workings along Cement Creek, near Silverton, Colorado. The result was the release of at least three million gallons of acidic water laden with high levels of dissolved and settleable solids. The spill quickly flowed into the Animas River and before long the yellow mess flowed into and through Durango Colorado. This event caused headlines locally and nationally, including a lengthy article in today’s New York Times.

By the way, in case you didn’t read my bio, you should know I am an environmental engineer and I’ve worked in that capacity for several major mining companies including Newmont, Exxon and Phelps Dodge. I even worked up near Silverton early in my career. Also, my wife and I have summer place not far from Durango. We often walk our dog up and down the lovely Animas River path.

I should note that the Animas River is not pristine, especially in the upper reaches close to the mines. However, by the time it flows through Durango, it is a lovely river, popular with rafters, fishermen and old people walking their dogs.

My first reaction to the news was glee. Oh boy I thought, EPA is finally getting a taste of their own medicine. I noted that the incident descriptions progressed in the same manner as spills caused by industry, of which I am way too familiar. First is the minimization of harm. Well, they say, no fish have died, the concentrations of pollutants are very low, etc. Next is the estimate of the volume of the spill, which is always way too low. EPA estimated one million gallons at first, then changed their guess to three million. Who knows what the final number will be?

My second reaction was, wait a minute, what the hell is EPA doing mucking around up there? Haven’t they found a deep-pockets mining company to clean up that mess?

My third reaction was, hey, you have a new blog, and you are qualified, why not kick off the blog with a topical story?

I spent a good deal of time researching the situation and I’ve been in contact with one individual on the ground close to the situation. In my opinion, EPA should indeed be blamed for the spill, along with Kinross Gold Corporation.

This mess was a disaster waiting to happen and neither party was boss. It’s shameful.

Kinross, through their subsidiary, Sunnyside Gold, owns the major mine in the district and the last one to have operated. The Sunnyside Mine operated off and on until 1991. Part of the operation was the American Tunnel. The American Tunnel was built by General Standard Metals in 1960. Here is an excerpt from their 1960 annual report:

The [American] Tunnel was driven in order to provide an economical means for removal of ore as well as drainage. The original schedule for reaching the Washington vein was January 1961. This has been accomplished in spite of a water flow of 3,000 gallons per minute encountered from the 9,000 foot mark. Prior to driving the American Tunnel, the drainage of eight million gallons of water in the Sunnyside mine workings was a potential major problem. Fortunately the tunnel intersected a fault zone with fissures resulting in a gradual drainage of the old workings. The water level has been dropping an average of more than three ft per day in the old Washington Incline [shaft]. At this rate, when the raise is ready for the breakthrough the volume of water remaining in the upper level will be negligible.

At some point either before or after the mine closed, Sunnyside began to treat the discharge from the American Tunnel. From what I can gather, most of the mine water in the immediate district exited through the American Tunnel. The treatment scheme was successful. Fish populations returned to Animas Creek’s upper reaches for the first time in 100 years.

In 1996, Sunnyside cut a deal with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). The deal released the companie’s $5 million reclamation bond. Also, the company was permitted to seal up the mine by installing bulkheads at the portals and within the mine itself, and then to allow the workings to flood. In exchange, the company was to undertake other projects to improve water quality in the Animas basin. This arrangement was formalized in a consent decree which is a sore point with some in the community.

Included with the consent agreement was a complex exchange where the company transferred their water quality discharge permit, and a sum of money, to the owner of the Gold King mine. The Gold King owner was to continue operating the treatment plant. That didn’t happen. The Gold King mine owner flaked out and the treatment plant hasn’t operated for ten years.

Red-Bonita Adit, 2013

Meanwhile, it appears that in the reverse of the way the American Tunnel drained the mountain in 1960, the plugged bulkheads caused the mine water to collect once more in the workings such that the water level rose and began to exit from the Gold King, Mogul, the Red and Bonita adits.

I conclude that the installation of bulkhead plugs in the Sunnyside mine was the reason for the rise in water elevation and subsequent releases, including the one from the Gold King mine on August 4, 2015. Here are the reasons for my conclusion.

Current circumstance show the mountain is full of mine water,
The statement in the 1960 Standard Metals annual report describes the dynamic, and,
A statement by Sunnyside in 1995 describing the route by which the water in the Sunnyside workings might communicate with the rest of the workings in the mountain.

The site has been on EPA’s radar for many years, but it is not a Superfund site–not yet anyway. Rather, in 1994, EPA and local citizens opted for oversight by a stakeholder group called the “Animas River Stakeholder Group (ARSG).” Over the past 20 years ARSG has done a quite a bit of good, but they have not made any significant advances dealing with drainage from the old underground workings.

In my opinion, EPA should have invoked Superfund when the water treatment plant plan fell apart and discharges began from the upper adits. Had they done so, they would have had the legal ability to place financial liability directly on Kinross to pay for the cleanup. Kinross knows this. One consistent theme in Kinross/Sunnyside communications is a desire to avoid this liability. That is proper. I don’t argue with that approach.

However, if a company has a major exposure to potential Superfund action, and the company actively seeks to avoid that liability, then the company needs to get out ahead of the problem and be the boss. Take over the cleanup. Get it done. This is what major mining corporations do. I know I’ve been there.

Rather than taking an active and primary role in the cleanup, Kinross elected to place primary emphasis on liability avoidance by sitting on the sidelines, and hiding behind the consent decree.

This is why the release, in my opinion, is partly Kinross’s fault.

EPA’s failure to invoke superfund is the reason they are to blame. Their breech of the Gold King bulkhead is appalling because they should not have been on the ground doing the work in the first place. That’s Kinross’s job.

Tim Oliver

tim@timoliver.us

Tim Oliver

tim@timoliver.us

Disclaimer:

Readers are advised that the material contained herein is solely for information purposes. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and due diligence, and/or obtain professional advice. Nothing contained herein constitutes a representation by the publisher, nor a solicitation for the purchase or sale of securities. The information contained herein is based on sources which the publisher believes to be reliable, but is not guaranteed to be accurate, and does not purport to be a complete statement or summary of the available data. Any opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. The owner, editor, writer and publisher and their associates are not responsible for errors or omissions. They may from time to time have a position in the securities of the companies mentioned herein, and may change their positions without notice. (Any significant positions will be disclosed explicitly. This article is not intended to meet your specific individual investment needs and it is not tailored to your personal financial situation. Nothing contained herein constitutes, is intended, or deemed to be — either implied or otherwise — investment advice. Thomas Humphreys, Pacific Website Company Inc., and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. We reserve the right to buy and sell such securities or commodities without notice to readers. While the information herein is believed to be accurate and reliable it is not guaranteed or implied to be so. The information herein may not be complete or correct; it is provided in good faith but without any legal responsibility or obligation to provide future updates. Neither Thomas Humphreys, nor anyone else, accepts any responsibility, or assumes any liability, whatsoever, for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from the use of the information in these publications or web site.

Forward-Looking Statements: This article may include certain "forward-looking information" within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include predictions, projections and forecasts and are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek", "anticipate", "believe", "plan", "estimate", "forecast", "expect", "potential", "project", "target", "schedule", budget" and "intend" and statements that an event or result "may", "will", "should", "could" or "might" occur or be achieved and other similar expressions and includes the negatives thereof. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding the potential of the Company's properties are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Forward-looking statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Company's expectations include actual exploration results, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future metal prices, availability of capital and financing on acceptable terms, general economic, market or business conditions, uninsured risks, regulatory changes, delays or inability to receive required approvals, and other exploration or other risks detailed herein and from time to time in the filings made by the Company with securities regulators. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause such actions, events or results to differ materially from those anticipated. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate and accordingly readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements which speak only as of the date of this article. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation, except to the extent required by law, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Always do your own due diligence. We seek safe harbor.