Mining

MINING

Chapter 2: The Environmental Effects of Strip Mining

 THEENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS OFSTRIP MINING

All mining operations have a disruptive effect on the environment, but the sheer

volume of material involved in strip mining makes the impact on the environment especially acute. Surface mining (another name for "strip mining") can severely erode the soil or reduce its fertility; pollute waters or drain underground water reserves; scar or altar the landscape; damage roads, homes, and other structures; and destroy wildlife. The dust and particles from mining roads, stockpiles, and lands disturbed by mining are a significant source of air pollution. In order to participate effectively in controlling the abuses of strip mining, it is important to understand the basic techniques of surface mining and the types of environmental damage that can result.   The Mechanics of Strip Mining

This section describes the five main types of surface coal mining techniques: area mining, open pit mining, contour mining, auger mining, and mountaintop removal. Underground mining is also considered in this section. Terrain, economics, and custom generally dictate which technique an operator chooses.

All surface or strip mining first removes the overlying vegetation, soil and underground rock layers in order to expose and extract coal from an underground seam or coal deposit. Responsible surface mining attempts to limit the side effects of this removal through several basic steps:

1. First, the surface vegetation (trees, bushes, etc.) under which the coal seam lies is scalped or removed.

2. Next, the operator removes the topsoil, usually by bulldozers or scrapers and loaders. The operator either stockpiles the topsoil for later use or spreads it over an area that already has been mined.

3. The exposed overburden is then usually drilled and blasted, and removed by bulldozers, shovels, bucket wheel excavators, or draglines, depending on the amount of overburden and the type of mining.

4. After removing the overburden, the exposed coal seam is usually fractured by blasting.

5. The operator then loads the fractured coal onto trucks or conveyor belts and hauls it away.

6. Next, the operator dumps the overburden or spoil that was removed during the mining process on a previously mined area and grades and compacts it. (Special handling may be necessary if any of the overburden contains toxic

materials, such as acid or alkaline producing materials.)7. Any excess overburden that remains after the mined area is completely

backfilled (Eastern mines generally have substantial excess spoil) is deposited in a fill.

8. Finally, the operator redistributes the topsoil and seeds and revegetates the mined area.

 While these basic steps are relatively consistent, the environmental impacts of the five main techniques vary significantly. 

Area Mining

Area mining is the technique most often employed in the flat or gently rolling countryside of the Midwest and western United States. Area mines excavate large rectangular pits, developed in a series of parallel strips or cuts which may extend several hundred yards in width and more than a mile in length. Following scalping of the vegetation and topsoil removal, area mining begins with an initial rectangular cut (called the box cut).

Area strip mining with concurrent reclamation.

The operator places spoil from the box cut on the side away from the direction in which mining will progress. In large mines, huge stripping shovels or draglines remove the overburden. After extracting the coal from the first cut, the operator makes a second, parallel cut. The operator places the overburden from the second cut into the trench created by the first cut and grades and compacts the spoil. The backfilled pit is then covered with topsoil and seeded. This process continues along parallel strips of land so long as the ratio between the overburden and the coal seam, called the stripping ratio, makes it economically feasible to recover coal. Mining may cease in a particular area, for example, where the coal seam becomes thinner or where the seam dips further below the surface.

When the operator reaches the last cut, the only spoil remaining to fill this cut is the overburden from the initial or box cut. Yet, since the box cut spoil may lie several

miles from the last cut, the operator generally finds it cheaper not to truck the box cut spoil to the last cut. Instead, he may decide to establish a permanent water impoundment in the last cut. These last cut lakes are commonplace in the coal regions of the Midwest but may pose environmental and land use problems. A later section of this handbook describes strategies for challenging these last cut lakes. 

Open Pit Mining

Open pit mining is similar to area mining. The technique is common in the western United States (and other parts of the world) where very thick — 50 to 100 foot — coal seams exist. Open pit mines are usually large operations. Production levels may exceed 10 million tons of coal per year.

The thick coal seams found at these large mines ensure that the amount of land disturbed for each ton of coal produced is much smaller than for most Eastern and Midwestern mines. Nonetheless, the sheer size and capacity of these mines necessitates substantial surface disturbance. In open pit mining, the operator first removes the overburden to uncover the coal seam. The overburden may be placed on adjacent, undisturbed land, or it may be transported by belt or rail to the other end of the same mine or to an exhausted mine that needs to be backfilled. Typically, several different pits, at various stages of development or reclamation, are being worked at any given time on a single site.

Typical open pit mining method with thick coal seam.

Large machines remove the overburden in successive layers until the coal seam is reached. The operator then extracts the coal and transports it to a power plant or to a rail line for shipment to a power plant. Next, the operator backfills the pit with previously extracted overburden and grades it. Topsoil that either has been saved or transported from the ongoing operation is spread over the spoil, and the area is seeded.

The thin overburden and thick coal seams that are frequently encountered with

open pit mines may result in insufficient spoil material to reclaim the mined land. SMCRA provides an exemption from the "approximate original contour" or AOC requirement for operators confronting this situation.[1] 

Contour Mining

The contour method is used almost exclusively in the steep Appalachian region of the United States, where coal seams outcrop from the sides of hills or mountains. Contour mining makes cuts on the slope where the coal seam is located, to remove first the overburden and then the coal itself. Overburden from adjacent cuts is used to fill previous cuts. The operator continues making cuts until the ratio of overburden to coal becomes uneconomical. The operation then continues along the contour of the mountain until the coal resources, or the operator's resources, are exhausted.

Contour mining uses small earth-moving equipment such as power shovels, backhoes and bulldozers — similar to equipment used for many other kinds of construction activities. Contour mining is therefore a favorite technique of small, often undercapitalized operators in Appalachia. Persons in the construction business, for example, can easily move in and out of the mining business as market conditions change.

In contrast to open pit operators, contour operators frequently have too much spoil after mining is completed. This results from a phenomenon called the swell factor. When overburden is removed it breaks up and loses some of the compaction that occurred over the thousands of years that it laid undisturbed. Even after replacement and mechanical compaction, the volume of the material increases by up to 25%.[2] The pits left after extracting the relatively thin coal seams of the East are often not large enough to hold this added volume. As a result, most contour miners must dispose of their excess spoil in another fill or disposal area. The most common disposal areas are at the heads of valleys, called valley fills or head of hollow fills. The construction of a fill means that additional land beyond that required for mining must be disturbed in order to accommodate that mining. The harmful effects of valley fills are discussed further under the section on mountaintop removal.  

Auger Mining

Auger mining usually takes place in conjunction with a contour mining operation. Once the contour operator reaches the point where the height of the highwall makes it uneconomical to remove further overburden, the operator may choose to extract further coal, before beginning reclamation, by drilling into the face of the highwall with a mining auger.  Large diameter drill bits, which can be broken into relatively small lengths, may bore as much as 200 feet into a coal seam, thereby extracting as much as 60 percent of the coal resources. Because auger mining removes support for the materials above it, care must be taken to fill the auger holes after extracting the coal. Failure to fill auger holes may cause tension cracks

and other problems on the surface. 

Mountaintop Removal

The final method of surface coal extraction to be described here is aptly called mountaintop removal. Using this technique, operators remove entire mountaintops to reach the coal seam lying underneath it. Mountaintop removal requires more capital and engineering skill than the contour mining method, but it allows the operator to extract virtually the entire coal seam. Mountaintop removal, which is used increasingly in Appalachia, became possible only after technology evolved and the economics of mining changed to allow greater stripping ratios. Today it is economical to remove as much as 1,000 feet of mountain to reach a sizable coal seam.[3]

Mountaintop removal method.

Mountaintop removal is a controversial mining method that generates an enormous amount of spoil, and unlike every other technique, none of the mined area is backfilled. What used to be the top of the mountain becomes a large, flat plateau. Because steep mountain grades make restoring the natural contour of the landscape impossible, SMCRA provides an exception to the normal rule that post-mining land must be restored to its approximate original contour.[4] Typically, the operator places the spoil in a fill in an adjacent valley or hollow. The massive fills constructed in Appalachia appear generally stable. Fewer than twenty slope movements have been reported out of the more than 6,800 fills built from 1985 to 2003.[5] However, the fills bury streams that flow through Appalachian valleys,[6] and the deforested mine sites cause flooding, even after revegetation efforts are complete. Rivers and streams are polluted. The mining process itself causes dust, noise, and fires. Subsidence cracks the foundations of nearby houses and disrupts the operation of nearby wells.[7] The change in topography is startling.[8]

Mountaintop removal mining has an immeasurable effect on wildlife.[9] The areas most suitable for mountain top removal fills are the narrow, V-shaped, steep-sided hollows that are sometimes inhabited by endangered or rare animal and plant species. Streams buried by mountaintop spoil or polluted by heavy metals contain endangered and threatened aquatic species.  Fish migration routes are cut off. Of course, removal of mountaintops may also damage the aesthetic quality of an area.

Mountaintop removal mining is occurring more and more frequently, and citizens’ efforts to stop it through litigation have proven largely unsuccessful.[10] [11] During the debate over SMCRA, citizen groups in Appalachia tried to persuade Congress to ban mountaintop removal completely. After heated discussions, Congress allowed the technique, but only under special conditions which are described later in this handbook.

After Mountaintop Removal.  

Underground Mining

Despite its title, SMCRA's provisions apply not only to surface mining, but also to the surface effects of underground mining.[12] As a percentage of all coal mining, underground coal mining has been declining for many years, but in 2007 it still accounted for approximately 31 percent of coal mining, as compared with 69 percent surface mining.[13] An underground coal mine usually begins much like a contour mine, with a cut into the side of a hill. Indeed, many abandoned surface mines serve as the face for the underground mine. The bench created by the cut often houses the mine office and equipment storage. Several portals are usually dug into the coal seam at the base of the highwall. These portals serve both as entryways for the mine and for ventilation.

Underground mining can take various forms. Traditionally, operators used a room-and-pillar method whereby large pillars of coal were left in place to hold up the roof and protect the miners. In retreat mining, operators return to the mine after it was otherwise completed to rob the pillars, or extract the coal pillars and allow the roof to subside while retreating toward the coal portals.

In recent years, the majority of underground mines have moved to a process called longwall mining.  In contrast to more traditional techniques, longwall mining uses powerful coal extraction machinery and hydraulic lifts to remove the entire coal seam during the initial mining operation. A cutting machine shaves coal from the face of the seam while hydraulic lifts support the roof near the working face. When the hydraulic lifts move forward, the unsupported overburden collapses behind it, causing the ground surface to subside. This collapsing of the surface above the mine is called planned subsidence. Because of the nature of the machinery that is used, longwall mining is only practical where the coal seam is of relatively

uniform thickness.

Unless the mine workings have been backfilled to support the overburden, any surface area lying above a spot where coal has been mined by underground methods may subside at any time in the future. Sinkholes from room-and-pillar mining develop unpredictably 20 to 50 years after mining takes place. The advantage of planned subsidence is that the damage occurs relatively soon after mining occurs, and the operator is readily available to mitigate any damage that results. Nonetheless, the environmental effects of planned subsidence may be unacceptable in certain circumstances. For example, structures above the mining, including buildings, roads and pipelines can be seriously damaged. Also, subsidence cracks may drain or dewater streams, ponds, wells and groundwater aquifers above the coal seam. These events can cause an irreversible adverse impact on the hydrologic balance.

Despite these problems, SMCRA does not forbid mining methods that involve planned subsidence. It does, however, set standards to control subsidence and other forms of surface damage caused by underground mining. 

Environmental Effects

 Unless proper precautions are taken, any of these mining techniques will significantly harm the environment. The older mining areas of Appalachia testify daily to this reality. In Appalachia alone, thousands of square miles of mountainous terrain have been scarred by strip mining and left unreclaimed. For 25 years, operators simply pushed overburden downslope from the mountain mines, causing landslides, erosion, sedimentation, and flooding. The remaining unstable highwalls, often 100 feet high, crumble and erode, disrupting drainage patterns and causing massive water pollution.Erosion increases dramatically when the protective plant cover is removed and the remaining soil is not stabilized. Studies show that water flows from selected mines carry sediment loads up to 1,000 times greater than flows from unmined areas.[14] In a 1979 analysis, the Department of the Interior found gullies greater than one foot in depth on more than 400,000 acres of mined land.[15]  High sediment loads and erosion also increase the likelihood and severity of floods, fill lakes and ponds, degrade water supplies, increase water treatment costs, and adversely affect the breeding and feeding of certain fish. Not all strip mining damage is as dramatic as mutilated mountainsides with highwalls exceeding 100 feet. SMCRA has helped eliminate many of these more obvious abuses. But long-term damage to the soil, water and wildlife continues despite Congress' efforts to control it. 

Damage to Land Resources

Long-term damage to soil resources from strip mining may be masked when

intensive, short-term land management gives a false impression that reclamation has been successful. Strip mining eliminates existing vegetation and alters the soil profile, or the natural soil layers. Mining disturbs and may even destroy the beneficial micro-organisms in the topsoil. Soil also may be damaged if reclamation operations mix the topsoil with subsoils, diluting matter in the surface soil.

Strip mining also may degrade the productive capacity of adjacent land. Spoil placed on adjacent land that has not been properly prepared may erode and thereby cover topsoil or introduce toxic materials to the soil.

Mining also may alter the natural topography of the area in ways that prevent a return to the previous land use, such as farming. Returning the soil from the mined area to full productivity is especially important in the Midwest, where some of the world's most prime farmland is now being mined for the coal that lies beneath it.

In the western United States the arid or semiarid conditions of that region may increase the damage to soils caused by mining. Once the natural vegetation is removed, erosion may increase dramatically. One of the most persistent problems at western mines is establishing a "diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover... capable of self-regeneration and plant succession at least equal...to the natural vegetation of the area,"[16] Native vegetation in the West has adapted to the arid climate to provide maximum soil stability during drought periods. Moreover, diverse native species provide forage for animals throughout the year. But because revegetation using native species is often difficult and expensive, many operators choose non-native species, which stabilize the soil over the short-term. Often, however, these species are not suited for forage and they may not be capable of long-term self-regeneration as required by SMCRA. 

Water Resource Damage

Irresponsible strip mining can pollute streams and disrupt water supplies. SMCRA was intended to prevent these problems. Sometimes water pollution is easy to spot. Clear water often turns reddish-orange if it contains a high concentration of iron. However, other types of pollution are harder to detect. A highly acidic stream may look no different than a clean one unless you notice that it has no fish in it.

Water discharged from strip or underground mines must meet pollution standards for four major pollutants: pH, iron (inapplicable during rainstorms and during the reclamation phase), manganese and suspended solids (i.e., sediment). Let's briefly look at each of the major pollutants and problems they cause:

• pH — pH is a measure of the relative acidity of liquids. A pH of 7 is considered neutral. Liquid with a pH below 7 is acidic; liquid with a pH above 7 is alkaline. Each number on the pH scale represents a 10-fold increase or decrease in acidity. Thus, a pH of 3 describes a liquid that is 10 times as acidic as a liquid with a pH of 4.[17]

The law requires that the pH of water released from a mine be between 6 and 9.[18] Although the more common problem associated with mining operations is acid drainage (low pH), alkaline drainage (high pH) is less common but can also cause problems. Alkaline mine drainage or runoff is most common in the West, where alkaline overburden may be exposed to water during mining. Acid drainage is typically caused when pyrite (fool's gold) or marcasite in the overburden is exposed to air and water during the mining process. Rainwater mixes with the pyrite to form sulfuric acid which is washed into streams and ponds below the mine.

Acid is one of the most damaging pollutants. It kills fish and other aquatic life, eats away metal structures, destroys concrete, increases the cost of water treatment for power plants and municipal water supplies, and renders water unfit for recreational use. Acid also may leach-out highly toxic metals or cause them to be released from soils. These toxic substances kill aquatic life and can contaminate water supplies causing serious adverse human health effects. Thousands upon thousands of miles of streams have been degraded by acid mine drainage and runoff. Exposed acid material may continue to leach acid for 800 to 3,000 years.

Iron— (Iron hydroxide, sometimes called "yellow boy") Increased amounts of iron in streams which result from mining activity can be toxic to aquatic life and contribute to the "hardness" of water.

Manganese[19] — Manganese is a metal that is soluble in acid once it has been unearthed by mining activity. It pollutes water supplies and corrodes other metals.

Suspended solids[20] — Also referred to as “TSS” (Total Suspended Solids) or sediment, suspended solids are solid material, both mineral and organic, that has been moved from its place of origin by air, water, ice, or gravity. Removing vegetation, blasting the overburden and using heavy equipment create erosion and introduce sediment into streams. Sediment loads are particularly high in mountainous and hilly terrains. Suspended solids reduce light penetration in water and alter a waterway's temperature. Fish production is hindered; spawning grounds are destroyed. Sediment increases the burden on treatment plants, and streams filled with sediment lose some of their capacity to carry runoff following storms, thus making the stream more prone to flooding. A sediment-laden stream flow can fill up a reservoir and severely reduce its useful life span. Finally, sediment may act as a carrier for other pollutants such as pesticides, heavy metals and bacteria.

A mining operation that discharges or deposits overburden or spoil into a body of water, including streams and wetlands, must obtain a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 regulates any discharge of any dredged or fill material, including overburden from mining activities as well as material deposited in a water body for construction purposes. A permit under SMCRA does not release a mining operation from the obligation to obtain a CWA section 404 permit.   

Section 404 applies to all “navigable waters” in the United States, which until

recently the Army Corps of Engineers (“COE”) has defined to include almost any river, lake, stream, pond, wetland, or other body of water, including some streams that may not flow year round.[21] Section 404 requires that the mining operator provide alternative proposals evaluating the discharge effects of overburden disposal on different streams within the permit boundary.[22] It also requires that the discharge of fill does not jeopardize threatened or endangered species, [23] does not violate state or federal water quality standards,[24] and does not contribute to the significant degradation of waters of the United States.[25] Clean Water Act permit requirements are discussed further in Chapter 5. 

Mining activity can also affect the quantity and quality of groundwater supplies. In many coal fields, the coal beds themselves serve as aquifers — underground supplies of water. The water in these aquifers flows — although when compared to surface water streams, groundwater flows at a very slow rate. The fact that groundwater flows, however, allows it to recharge or replenish many surface water systems. Surface mining operations will necessarily cut through the coal aquifer and also any aquifer above the coal seam that is being mined. Blasting activity and subsidence from underground mining may break up the impermeable layers of rock that hold water in these aquifers, even where the overburden is not being extracted.

These aquifers may be the source of water for many wells. Flow patterns in such aquifers may be changed, thereby adversely affecting water pressure in wells. Portions of aquifers and surface systems may be dewatered, reducing the availability of water for other uses, and perhaps interfering with prior existing water rights. Even where water losses from existing aquifers do not affect other users, disposal of excess water from those aquifers may cause environmental damage.

It has yet to be demonstrated that a groundwater system destroyed by mining can be permanently restructured. If not conducted properly, coal development — especially in the West — may leave behind barren landscapes vulnerable to continual erosion and disrupted groundwater systems.  As a result, the value of these areas for agriculture and other uses may be greatly diminished.

Wildlife Damage

Wildlife often suffers severely as a result of strip mining. In the short term, all species are either destroyed or displaced from the area of the mine itself. Mining also may have adverse, long-term impacts on wildlife, including impairment of its habitat or native environment. Many animal species cannot adjust to the changes brought on by the land disturbance involved in coal mining. In cases where an important habitat (such as a primary breeding ground) is destroyed, the species may be eliminated. Unique habitats like cliffs, caves, and old-growth forests may be impossible to restore.[26] Larger mines, such as those in the West, may disrupt migration routes and critical winter range for large game animals.

As previously noted, strip mining exposes heavy metals and compounds that can alter the pH or acid balance of runoff and leach into streams. Such pollution can

impair the habitat of fish and other aquatic species, thereby reducing population levels. Even where species survive, toxic materials can lower reproduction and growth rates. Strip mining also causes increased turbidity and siltation of streams and ponds, greater variation in stream flow levels and water temperature, and stream dewatering, all of which contribute to the endangerment of aquatic species.[27]

When fill material is replaced following a strip mining operation, it is heavily compacted to prevent it from eroding or sliding. As a result, easily-planted grasses out-compete tree seedlings, whose growth is slowed by the compacted soil, and complete reforestation is unlikely. More effective reclamation techniques now exist and must be promoted.[28]

The Appalachian Mountains, where northern and southern species converge, contain an incredible diversity of unique plants and animals. Appalachian ecoregions are home to one of the richest salamander populations in the world as well as increasingly rare forest types, all of which are threatened by the region’s heavy mining activity.[29] 

Proper compliance with SMCRA’s reclamation requirements can help minimize the environmental harm associated with strip mining. Reclaimed land can reconnect fragmented wildlife habitats, and properly replaced soil can encourage re-growth of high-value trees like the American Chestnut. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), SMCRA effectively protects endangered species through provisions designed to minimize direct impacts on wildlife[30]-- but only when properly enforced. The indirect impacts, or “incidental take,” such as increased human access to endangered species created by mining roads, long-term changes in land use, and invasions by new species, are impossible to quantify.[31]

Furthermore, FWS’s proclamation that SMCRA can adequately protect endangered species from the dangers of coal mining is now under attack. Conservation groups are petitioning FWS and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), demanding that more effective measures be taken to protect at-risk species.[32]

More than 31.5 billion tons of coal has been mined under SMCRA as of July 2009.[33] The chapters that follow describe the major provisions of SMCRA and the opportunities for citizens to ensure that the law is fully implemented and enforced. 

Environmental impact of coal mining and burning

The environmental impact of coal mining and burning is diverse.[1] Legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1990 required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a plan to alleviate toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants. After delay and litigation, the EPA now has a court-imposed deadline of March 16, 2011, to issue its report.[citation needed]

Contents[hide]

1 Effects of mining 2 Effects on water 3 Effects on wildlife 4 Loss of topsoil 5 Coal seam fires 6 Fly ash spills 7 Historic things 8 Aesthetic effects 9 Socioeconomic effects

o 9.1 Mine collapses 10 Burning

o 10.1 Radiation exposure o 10.2 Studies about coal phase out and climate change o 10.3 Mercury Emissions

11 By country o 11.1 Australia o 11.2 China o 11.3 South Africa o 11.4 United States

12 See also 13 References 14 External links

[edit] Effects of mining

Release of methane, a greenhouse gas causing climate change. Waste products including uranium, thorium, and other radioactive and heavy metal

contaminants Acid mine drainage (AMD) Interference with groundwater and water table levels Impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land-uses Dust nuisance tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure Rendering land unfit for the other uses

Coal mining causes a number of harmful effects. When coal surfaces are exposed, pyrite (iron sulfide), also known as "fool's gold", comes in contact with water and air and forms sulfuric acid. As water drains from the mine, the acid moves into the waterways, and as long as rain falls on the mine tailings the sulfuric acid production continues, whether the mine is still operating or not. This process is known as acid rock drainage (ARD) or acid mine drainage (AMD). If the coal is strip mined, the entire exposed seam leaches sulfuric acid, leaving the subsoil infertile on

the surface and begins to pollute streams by acidifying and killing fish, plants, and aquatic animals which are sensitive to drastic pH shifts.

Coal mining produces methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane is the naturally occurring product of the decay of organic matter as coal deposits are formed with increasing depths of burial, rising temperatures, and rising pressures over geological time. A portion of the methane produced is absorbed by the coal and later released from the coal seam and surrounding disturbed strata during the mining process.[2] Methane accounts for 10.5% of greenhouse gas emissions created through human activity.[3]

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a global warming potential 21 times greater than that of carbon dioxide on a 100 year time line. While burning coal in power plants is most harmful to air quality, due to the emission of dangerous gases, the process of mining can release pockets of hazardous gases. These gases may pose a threat to coal miners as well as a source of air pollution. This is due to the relaxation of pressure and fracturing of the strata during mining activity, which gives rise to serious safety concerns for the coal miners if not managed properly. The buildup of pressure in the strata can lead to explosions during or after the mining process if prevention methods, such as "methane draining", are not taken.[2]

Wherever it occurs in the world, strip mining severely alters the landscape, which damages the values of the natural environment in the surrounding land.[4] Strip mining, or surface mining of coal completely eliminates existing vegetation, destroys the genetic soil profile, displaces or destroys wildlife and habitat, degrades air quality, alters current land uses, and to some extent permanently changes the general topography of the area mined.[5] The community of micro organisms and nutrient cycling processes are upset by movement, storage, and redistribution of soil.

Generally, soil disturbance and associated compaction result in conditions conducive to erosion. Soil removal from the area to be surface mined alters or destroys many natural soil characteristics, and may reduce its productivity for agriculture or biodiversity. Soil structure may be disturbed by pulverization or aggregate breakdown.

Removal of vegetative cover and activities associated with construction of haul roads, stockpiling of topsoil, displacement of overburden and hauling of soil and coal increase the quantity of dust around mining operations. Dust degrades air quality in the immediate area, can have adverse impacts on vegetative life, and may constitute a health and safety hazard for mine workers and nearby residents. The land surface, often hundreds of acres, is dedicated to mining activities until it can be reshaped and reclaimed. If mining is allowed, resident human populations must be resettled off the mine site, and economic activities such as agriculture or hunting and gathering food or medicinal plants are displaced, at least temporarily. What becomes of the land surface after mining is determined by the manner in which mining is conducted.

Surface mining can adversely impact the hydrology of a region. Deterioration of stream quality can result from acid mine drainage, toxic trace elements, high content of dissolved solids in mine drainage water, and increased sediment loads discharged to streams. Waste piles and coal storage

piles can yield sediment to streams, and leached water from these piles can be acid and contain toxic trace elements. Surface waters may be rendered unfit for agriculture, human consumption, bathing, or other household uses. Controlling these impacts requires careful management of surface water flows into and out of mining operations.

[edit] Effects on water

Flood events can cause severe damage to improperly constructed or located coal haul roads, housing, coal crushing and washing plant facilities, waste and coal storage piles, settling basin dams, surface water diversion structures, and the mine itself. Besides the danger to life and property, large amounts of sediment and poor quality water may have detrimental effects many miles downstream from a mine site after a flood. Overall, it will cause a lot of pollution in drinking water. Open Cut Coal Mining requires large amounts of water for the operation of Coal Washing processes as well as the suppression of dust. To meet this requirement Mines acquire and remove Surface or groundwater supplies from the nearby agricultural or domestic pursuits which greatly reduces the productivity of these operations or effectively halts them. These water resources once separated from their original base pursuits are rarely returned after Mining, creating a permanent degradation to agricultural productivity. Underground Mining has a similar but lesser effect due to a much lower need for dust suppression water but still requires sufficient water to operate washery processes.

Ground water supplies may be adversely affected by surface mining. These impacts include drainage of usable water from shallow aquifers; lowering of water levels in adjacent areas and changes in flow directions within aquifers; contamination of usable aquifers below mining operations due to infiltration or percolation of poor quality mine water; and increased infiltration of precipitation on spoil piles. Where coal or carbonaceous shales are present, increased infiltration may result in increased runoff of poor quality water and erosion from spoil piles; recharge of poor quality water to shallow groundwater aquifers; or poor quality water flow to nearby streams. This may contaminate both ground water and nearby streams for long periods. Lakes formed in abandoned surface mining operations are more likely to be acid if there is coal or carbonaceous shale present in spoil piles, especially if these materials are near the surface and contain pyrites.

Sulphuric acid is formed when minerals containing sulphide are oxidised through air contact, which could lead to acid rain. Leftover chemicals deposits from explosives are usually toxic and increase the salt quantity of mine water and even contaminating it.

[edit] Effects on wildlife

Surface mining of coal causes direct and indirect damage to wildlife. The impact on wildlife stems primarily from disturbing, removing, and redistributing the land surface. Some impacts are short-term and confined to the mine site; others may have far reaching, long term effects. The most direct effect on wildlife is destruction or displacement of species in areas of excavation and spoil piling. Mobile wildlife species like game animals, birds, and predators leave these areas. More sedentary animals like invertebrates, many reptiles, burrowing rodents and small mammals may be directly destroyed.

If streams, lakes, ponds or marshes are filled or drained, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and amphibians are destroyed. Food supplies for predators are reduced by destruction of these land and water species. Animal populations displaced or destroyed can eventually be replaced from populations in surrounding ranges, provided the habitat is eventually restored. An exception could be extinction of a resident endangered species.

Many wildlife species are highly dependent on vegetation growing in natural drainages. This vegetation provides essential food, nesting sites and cover for escape from predators. Any activity that destroys this vegetation near ponds, reservoirs, marshes, and wetlands reduces the quality and quantity of habitat essential for waterfowl, shore birds, and many terrestrial species. The commonly used head of hollow fill method for disposing of excess overburden is of particular significance to wildlife habitat in some locations. Narrow, steep sided, V shaped hollows near ridge tops are frequently inhabited by rare or endangered animal and plant species. Extensive placement of spoil in these narrow valleys eliminates important habitat for a wide variety of species, some of which may be rendered extinct.

Broad and long lasting impacts on wildlife are caused by habitat impairment. The habitat requirements of many animal species do not permit them to adjust to changes created by land disturbance. These changes reduce living space. . Some species tolerate very little disturbance. In instances where a particularly critical habitat is restricted, such as a lake, pond, or primary breeding area, a species could be eliminated. The wide range of damage that could be done is severe.

Large mammals and other animals displaced from their home ranges may be forced to use adjacent areas already stocked to carrying capacity. This overcrowding usually results in degradation of remaining habitat, lowered carrying capacity, reduced reproductive success, increased interspecies and intraspecies competition, and potentially greater losses to wildlife populations than the number of originally displaced animals.

Degradation of aquatic habitats has often been a major impact from surface mining and may be apparent to some degree many miles from a mining site. Sediment contamination of surface water is common with surface mining. Sediment yields may increase 1000 times over their former level as a direct result of strip mining. Permanent Regulatory Program Implementing Section 501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

Preferred food and cover plants can be established in these openings to benefit a wide variety of wildlife. Under certain conditions, creation of small lakes in the mined area may also be beneficial. These lakes and ponds may become important water sources for a variety of wildlife inhabiting adjacent areas. Many lakes formed in mine pits are initially of poor quality as aquatic habitat after mining, due to lack of structure, aquatic vegetation, and food species. They may require habitat enhancement and management to be of significant wildlife value.

[edit] Loss of topsoil

Removal of soil and rock overburden covering the coal resource, if improperly done, causes burial and loss of top soil, exposes parent material, and creates vast infertile wastelands. Pit and

spoil areas are not capable of providing food and cover for most species of wildlife. Without rehabilitation, these areas must go through a weathering period, which may take a few years or many decades, before vegetation is established and they become suitable habitat. With rehabilitation, impacts on some species are less severe. Humans cannot immediately restore natural biotic communities. We can, however, assist nature through reclamation of land and rehabilitation efforts geared to wildlife needs. Rehabilitation not geared to the needs of wildlife species, or improper management of other land uses after reclamation, can preclude reestablishment of many members of the original fauna.

Surface mining operations and coal transportation facilities are fully dedicated to coal production for the life of a mine. Mining activities incorporating little or no planning to establish postmining land use objectives usually result in reclamation of disturbed lands to a land use condition not equal to the original use. Existing land uses such as livestock grazing, crop and timber production are temporarily eliminated from the mining area. High value, intensive land use areas like urban and transportation systems are not usually affected by mining operations. If mineral values are sufficient, these improvements may be removed to an adjacent area.

[edit] Coal seam firesMain article: Coal seam fire

Fires sometimes occur in coal beds underground. When coal beds are exposed, the fire risk is increased. Weathered coal can also increase ground temperatures if it is left on the surface. Almost all fires in solid coal are ignited by surface fires, caused by people, or by lightning. Spontaneous combustion is caused when coal oxidizes and air flow is insufficient to dissipate heat, but this more commonly occurs in stockpiles and waste piles, rarely in bedded coals underground. Where coal fires occur, there is attendant air pollution from emission of smoke and noxious fumes into the atmosphere. Coal seam fires may burn underground for decades, threatening destruction of forests, homes, schools, churches, roadways and other valuable infrastructure.

[edit] Fly ash spills

Aerial photograph of Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill site taken the day after the event

The burning of coal leads to substantial fly ash sludge storage ponds. These can give way, as one did at the Kingston Fossil Plant in 2008.

[edit] Historic things

Adverse impacts on geological features of human interest may occur in a surface mine area. Geomorphic and geophysical features and outstanding scenic resources may be sacrificed by indiscriminate mining. Paleontological, cultural, and other historic values may be endangered due to disruptive activities of blasting, ripping, and excavating coal. Stripping of overburden eliminates and destroys all archeological and historic features unless they are removed beforehand.also is really bad for health.

[edit] Aesthetic effects

Extraction of coal by surface mining disrupts virtually all aesthetic elements of the landscape. Alteration of land forms often imposes unfamiliar and discontinuous configurations. New linear patterns appear as material is extracted and waste piles are developed. Different colors and textures are exposed as vegetative cover is removed and overburden dumped to the side. Dust, vibration, and diesel exhaust odors are created, affecting sight, sound, and smell. Some members of local communities may find such impacts disturbing or unpleasant.

[edit] Socioeconomic effects

Due to intensive mechanization, surface mines may require fewer workers than underground mines with equivalent production. The influence on human populations from surface mining is therefore not generally as significant as with underground mines. In low population areas, however, local populations cannot provide needed labor so there is migration to the area because new jobs are available at a mine. Unless adequate advance planning is done by government and mine operators, new populations may cause overcrowded schools, hospitals and demands on public services that cannot easily be met. Some social instability may be created in nearby communities by surface coal mining.

Many impacts can be minimized but may not be eliminated entirely by use of best mining practices either voluntarily or to comply with government regulatory programs. Financial incentives to minimize costs of production may minimize use of best mining practices in the absence of effective regulation. Some temporary destruction of the land surface is an environmental price we pay for utilization of coal resources. The scale of disturbance, its duration, and the quality of reclamation are largely determined by management of the operation during mining.

Mountaintop removal to remove coal is a large-scale negative change to the environment. Tops are removed from mountains or hills to expose thick coal seams underneath, and the soil and rock removed is deposited in nearby valleys, hollows and depressions, resulting in blocked and sometimes contaminated waterways. In some areas of the world, remediation is often delayed for decades.

One of the legacies of coal mining is the low coal content waste forming slag heaps. In addition, all forms of mining are likely to generate areas where coal is stacked and where the coal has significant sulfur content, such coal heaps generate highly acidic, metal-laden drainage when exposed to rainfall. These liquors can cause severe environmental damage to receiving water-courses.[6] Coal mining releases approximately twenty toxic release chemicals, of which 85% is said to be managed on site.[citation needed]

[edit] Mine collapses

Mine collapses, or mine subsidences, have a potential for major effects above ground, which are especially devastating in built-up areas. German underground coal-mining, especially in North Rhine-Westphalia, has damaged thousands of houses, and the coal mining industries have set aside many millions in funding for future subsidence damages as part of their insurance and state subsidy schemes.[citation needed]

In a particularly spectacular case in the German Saar region, another historical coal mining area, a suspected mine collapse in 2008 created an earthquake of force 4.0 on the Richter magnitude scale, causing some limited damage to houses. Previous smaller earthquakes had been increasingly common. Coal mining was temporarily suspended in the area.[7]

[edit] Burning

The combustion of coal, like any other fossil fuel, is an exothermic reaction between the fuel source and usually oxygen. Coal is made primarily of carbon, but also contains sulfur, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. During combustion, the reaction between coal and the air produces oxides of carbon, including carbon dioxide (CO2 - an important greenhouse gas), oxides of sulfur, mainly sulfur dioxide (SO2), and various oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Because of the hydrogen and nitrogen components of coal, hydrides and nitrides of carbon and sulfur are also produced during the combustion of coal in air. These could include hydrogen cyanide (HCN), sulfur nitrate (SNO3) and many other toxic substances. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.[8] Further, acid rain may occur when the sulfur dioxide produced in the combustion of coal, reacts with oxygen to form sulfur trioxide (SO3), which then reacts with water molecules in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid (see Acid anhydride for more information). The sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is returned to the Earth as acid rain. Flue gas desulfurization scrubbing systems, which use lime to remove the sulfur dioxide can reduce or eliminate the likelihood of acid rain.

However, another form of acid rain is due to the carbon dioxide emissions of a coal plant. When released into the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide molecules react with water molecules, to very slowly produce carbonic acid (H2CO3). This, in turn, returns to the earth as a corrosive substance. This cannot be prevented as easily as sulfur dioxide emissions.

Coal and coal waste products, including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag, contain many heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.[9][10] While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released.[9]

[edit] Radiation exposure

The radioactive trace impurities mentioned above expose plant operators to radiation levels above background levels but below that experienced by nuclear power plant operators. John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D, (Professor Emeritus of Medical Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-discoverer of Uranium-233) compared the radiation dose per megawatt-year from operation of a nuclear generating unit to the radiation dose from operation of a coal fired unit and found that the dose from natural nuclides associated with nuclear power would be 35-81 times higher than the dose from coal.[11] When comparing the radiational impact of coal and nuclear plants on the surrounding environment, however, coal plant wastes are more radioactive than waste generated by nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy. Plant-emitted radiation carried by coal-derived fly ash delivers 100 times more radiation to the surrounding environment than does the normal operation of a similar-productive nuclear plant. [12]

[edit] Studies about coal phase out and climate change

Main article: Fossil fuel phase out

In 2008 James E. Hansen and eight other scientists published "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?"[13] calling for phasing out coal power completely by the year 2030.

In 2008 Pushker Kharecha and James E. Hansen published a peer-reviewed scientific study analyzing the effect of a coal phase-out on atmospheric CO2 levels.[14] Their baseline mitigation scenario was a phaseout of global coal emissions by 2050. The authors describe the scenario as follows:

The second scenario, labeled Coal Phase-out, is meant to approximate a situation in which developed countries freeze their CO2 emissions from coal by 2012 and a decade later developing countries similarly halt increases in coal emissions. Between 2025 and 2050 it is assumed that both developed and developing countries will linearly phase out emissions of CO2 from coal usage. Thus in Coal Phase-out we have global CO2 emissions from coal increasing 2% per year until 2012, 1% per year growth of coal emissions between 2013 and 2022, flat coal emissions for 2023–2025, and finally a linear decrease to zero CO2 emissions from coal in 2050. These rates refer to emissions to the atmosphere and do not constrain consumption of coal, provided the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Oil and gas emissions are assumed to be the same as in the BAU [Business as Usual] scenario.

Kharecha and Hansen also consider three other mitigation scenarios, all with the same coal phase-out schedule but each making different assumptions about the size of oil and gas reserves and the speed at which they are depleted. Under the Business as Usual scenario, atmospheric CO2 peaks at 563 parts per million (ppm) in the year 2100. Under the four coal phase-out scenarios, atmospheric CO2 peaks at 422–446 ppm between 2045 and 2060 and declines thereafter. The key implications of the study are as follows: a phase-out of coal emissions is the most important remedy for mitigating human-induced global warming; actions should be taken toward limiting or stretching out the use of conventional oil and gas; and strict emissions-based constraints are needed for future use of unconventional fossil fuels such as methane hydrates and tar sands.

In the Greenpeace and EREC's Energy (R)evolution scenario,[15] the world could eliminate all fossil fuel use by 2090 [16][17][18]

[edit] Mercury Emissions

Mercury emissions from coal burning are concentrated as they work their way up the food chain and converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound[19] that harms people who consume freshwater fish. In New York State, winds bring mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. The mercury is consumed by worms, who are eaten by fish, and then by birds, including bald eagles. As of 2008, mercury contamination of bald eagles in the Catskills had reached new heights.[20] Ocean fish account for the majority of human exposure to methylmercury; the sources of ocean fish methylmercury are not well understood.[21]

Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer.[22]

[edit] By country

[edit] Australia

Main article: Coal mining in AustraliaMain article: Effects of global warming on Australia

[edit] China

This section requires expansion.

Coal provides most of China's current power, both for residential electricity and industry. China is hoping to move to nuclear power as it is cleaner and can deliver large amounts of power with a small amount of input fuel.

See also: Coal power in China

[edit] South Africa

Main article: Coal in South Africa

[edit] United States

Main article: Coal power in the United States

By the late 1930s, it was estimated that American coal mines produced about 2.3 million tons of sulfuric acid annually. In the Ohio River Basin, where twelve hundred operating coal mines drained an estimated annual 1.4 million tonnes of sulfuric acid into the waters in the 1960s and thousands of abandoned coal mines leached acid as well. In Pennsylvania alone, mine drainage had blighted 2,000 stream miles by 1967.

In response to negative land effects of coal mining and the abundance of abandoned mines in the USA, the federal government enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which requires reclamation plans for future coal mining sites. Reclamation plans must be approved and permitted by federal or state authorities before mining begins.[5] As of 2003, over 2 million acres (8,000 km2) of previously mined lands have been reclaimed in the United States.

Emissions from coal-fired power plants represents one of the two largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions, which are the main cause of global warming. Coal mining and abandoned mines also emit methane, another cause of global warming. Since the carbon content of coal is higher than oil, burning coal is a serious threat to the stability of the global climate, as this carbon forms CO2 when burned. Many other pollutants are present in coal power station emissions, as solid coal is more difficult to clean than oil, which is refined before use. A study by

the Clean Air Task Force claims that coal power plant emissions are responsible over 13 000 premature deaths annually in the United States alone.[23] Modern power plants utilize a variety of techniques to limit the harmfulness of their waste products and improve the efficiency of burning, though these techniques are not subject to standard testing or regulation in the U.S. and are not widely implemented in some countries, as they add to the capital cost of the power plant.[citation needed] To eliminate CO2 emissions from coal plants, carbon capture and storage has been proposed but has yet to be commercially used.

The effects of sediment on aquatic wildlife vary with the species and amount of contamination. High sediment loads can kill fish directly, bury spawning beds, reduce light transmission, alter temperature gradients, fill in pools, spread stream flows over wider, shallower areas, and reduce production of aquatic organisms used as food by other species. These changes destroy the habitat of some valued species and may enhance habitat for less desirable species. Existing conditions are already marginal for some freshwater fish in the United States. Sedimentation of these waters can result in their elimination. The heaviest sediment pollution of a drainage normally comes within five to 25 years after mining. In some areas, unrevegetated spoil piles continue to erode even 50 to 65 years after mining.[5]

The presence of acid forming materials exposed as a result of surface mining can affect wildlife by eliminating habitat and by causing direct destruction of some species. Lesser concentrations can suppress productivity, growth rate, and reproduction of many aquatic species. Acids, dilute concentrations of heavy metals, and high alkalinity can cause severe wildlife damage in some areas. The duration of acidic waste pollution can be long term. Estimates of the time required to leach exposed acidic materials in the Eastern United States range from 800 to 3000 years.[5]

Surface mining operations have produced cliff-like highwalls as high as 200 feet (61 m) in the United States. Such highwalls may be created at the end of a surface mining operation where stripping becomes uneconomic, or where a mine reaches the boundary of a current lease or mineral ownership. These highwalls are hazards to people, wildlife, and domestic livestock. They may impede normal wildlife migration routes. Steep slopes also merit special attention because of the significance of impacts associated with them when mined. While impacts from contour mining on steep slopes are of the same type as all mining, the severity of these impacts increase as the degree of slope increases. This is due to increased difficulties in dealing with problems of erosion and land stability on steeper slopes.

Mining operations in the United States must, under federal and state law, meet standards for protecting surface and ground waters from contamination, including AMD. To mitigate these problems, water is continuously monitored at coal mines. The five principal technologies used to control water flow at mine sites are:

diversion systems, containment ponds, groundwater pumping systems, subsurface drainage systems, subsurface barriers.

In the case of AMD, contaminated water is generally pumped to a treatment facility that neutralizes the contaminants.

The Environmental Protection Agency classified the 44 sites as potential hazards to communities, which means the waste sites could cause death and significant property damage if an event such as a storm, a terrorist attack or a structural failure caused a spill. They estimate that about 300 dry landfills and wet storage ponds are used around the country to store ash from coal-fired power plants. The storage facilities hold the noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution.[24]

Environmental impact of mining

The environmental impact of mining includes erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. In some cases, additional forest logging is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available room for the storage of the created debris and soil.[1] Besides creating environmental damage, the contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affect the health of the local population.[2] Mining companies in some countries are required to follow environmental and rehabilitation codes, ensuring the area mined is returned to close to its original state. Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health effects.

Erosion of exposed hillsides, mine dumps, tailings dams and resultant siltation of drainages, creeks and rivers can significantly impact the surrounding areas, a prime example being the giant Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea. In areas of wilderness mining may cause destruction and disturbance of ecosystems and habitats, and in areas of farming it may disturb or destroy productive grazing and croplands. In urbanised environments mining may produce noise pollution, dust pollution and visual pollution.

Contents[hide]

1 Issues o 1.1 Water pollution

1.1.1 Acid Rock Drainage 1.1.2 Heavy metals

o 1.2 Coal mining o 1.3 Deforestation o 1.4 Oil shale o 1.5 Mountaintop removal mining o 1.6 Sand mining o 1.7 Subsidence o 1.8 Tailings and spoil

2 Mitigation 3 Specific sites 4 Film and literature 5 See also 6 References

[edit] Issues

[edit] Water pollution

Acidic lake wastewater at the abandoned Northland Mine in Temagami, Ontario, Canada.

Mining can have adverse effects on surrounding surface and ground water if protective measures are not taken. The result can be unnaturally high concentrations of some chemicals, such as arsenic, sulfuric acid, and mercury over a significant area of surface or subsurface.[3] Runoff of mere soil or rock debris -although non-toxic- also devastates the surrounding vegetation. The dumping of the runoff in surface waters or in forests is the worst option here. Submarine tailings disposal is regarded as a better option (if the soil is pumped to a great depth).[4] Mere land storage and refilling of the mine after it has been depleted is even better, if no forests need to be cleared for the storage of the debris. There is potential for massive contamination of the area surrounding mines due to the various chemicals used in the mining process as well as the potentially

damaging compounds and metals removed from the ground with the ore. Large amounts of water produced from mine drainage, mine cooling, aqueous extraction and other mining processes increases the potential for these chemicals to contaminate ground and surface water. In well-regulated mines, hydrologists and geologists take careful measurements of water and soil to exclude any type of water contamination that could be caused by the mine's operations. The reducing or eliminating of environmental degradation is enforced in modern American mining by federal and state law, by restricting operators to meet standards for protecting surface and ground water from contamination. This is best done through the use of non-toxic extraction processes as bioleaching. If the project site becomes nonetheless polluted, mitigation techniques such as acid mine drainage (AMD) need to be performed.

The five principal technologies used to monitor and control water flow at mine sites are diversion systems, containment ponds, groundwater pumping systems, subsurface drainage systems, and subsurface barriers. In the case of AMD, contaminated water is generally pumped to a treatment facility that neutralizes the contaminants.[5]

[edit] Acid Rock DrainageMain article: Acid mine drainage

[edit] Heavy metals

Dissolution and transport of metals and heavy metals by run-off and ground water is another example of environmental problems with mining, such as the Britannia Mine, a former copper mine near Vancouver, British Columbia. Tar Creek, an abandoned mining area in Picher, Oklahoma that is now an Environmental Protection Agency superfund site, also suffers from heavy metal contamination. Water in the mine containing dissolved heavy metals such as lead and cadmium leaked into local groundwater, contaminating it.[6] Long-term storage of tailings and dust can lead to additional problems, as they can be easily blown off site by wind, as occurred at Scouriotissa, an abandoned copper mine in Cyprus.

[edit] Coal mining

Main article: Environmental effects of coal

[edit] Deforestation

With open cast mining the overburden, which may be covered in forest, must be removed before the mining can commence. Although the deforestation due to mining may be small compared to the total amount it may lead to species extinction if there is a high level of local endemism.

[edit] Oil shale

Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry

[edit] Mountaintop removal mining

[edit] Sand mining

[edit] Subsidence

House in Gladbeck, Germany, with fissures caused by gravity erosion due to mining.

[edit] Tailings and spoil

Tailings Slag heap Spoil tip

[edit] MitigationSee also: Responsible mining and Restoration ecology

To ensure completion of reclamation, or restoring mine land for future use, many governments and regulatory authorities around the world require that mining companies post a bond to be held in escrow until productivity of reclaimed land has been convincingly demonstrated, although if cleanup procedures are more expensive than the size of the bond, the bond may simply be abandoned. Since 1978 the mining industry has reclaimed more than 2 million acres (8,000 km²) of land in the United States alone. This reclaimed land has renewed vegetation and wildlife in previous mining lands and can even be used for farming and ranching.

Appalachian Mountains in the United States Tui mine in New Zealand Stockton mine in New Zealand Northland Mine in Temagami, Ontario, Canada Sherman Mine in Temagami, Ontario, Canada Ok Tedi Mine in Western Province, Papua New Guinea Some examples of areas affected by acid mine drainage are the Berkeley Pit, and the Wheal Jane

Mines.

The Regulatory Climate for Mining in the Philippines *

Philippine laws on natural resources are based on the Regalian Doctrine. Under this principle, the Constitution states:"All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State." It follows that the exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources fall under the supervision and control of the State.

The Constitution grants the State the option to directly undertake mining activities or to enter into the different modes of mining agreements with Filipinos or 60% Filipino-owned corporations. This provision is interpreted as giving preference to Filipinos in the grant of mineral rights, privileges and concessions. For large-scale mining, the Constitution grants the government the option to enter into an agreement for either financial or for technical assistance from a foreign corporation.

The Mining Act of 1995

Under the Mining Act, all public and private lands are open to mining operations. It states:"all mineral resources in public or private lands, including timber or forestlands... shall be open to mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreement applications."

This provision has led to critics' contention that the law has virtually opened up the entire country to mining operations. The law declares areas covered by existing mining claims or that are deemed ecologically crucial as closed to mining operations. The latter includes old growth forests, watershed forest reserves, mangrove and mossy forests, national parks, bird sanctuaries and marine reserves, among others. But upon the consent of the government or other concerned parties, areas barred from mining operations can still be mined. These areas include military reservations, areas covered by small-scale mining and ancestral lands.

The Mining Act allowed three major kinds of mining rights that would govern access to mineral resources and for which an interested investor may apply. These are the Exploration Permit (EP), the mineral agreement and the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA).

An Exploration Permit grants the right to explore a specified area for a period of two years. If a mineral deposit is found and has potential commercial viability, the permit holder has the right to enter into any type of mineral agreement or financial or technical agreement with the government.

A mineral agreement grants the contractor the right to conduct mining operations within a specified contract area for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. There are three modes of mineral agreements: the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA), the co-productin agreement and the joint venture agreement.

The three modes differ in the extent to which the government is involved in the mining operation. In an MPSA, the government merely grants the right to the mineral resources whereas the contractor provides the financing, technology, management and personnel for the implementation of the agreement. In a co-production agreement, the government contributes other resources in addition to the rights. A joint venture agreement requires the government and the contractor to organize a joint venture company in which both parties have equity shares. In all three cases, the mining contractor should be either a Filipino citizen or a corporation having at least 60% Filipino equity.

For large-scale mining operations, the government may opt to enter into a Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with either a Filipino or foreign corporation. The Act defines the FTAA as a contract involving either financial or technical assistance for the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of mineral resources. As this provides foreign mining companies to have full equity and control of mining projects throughout the country, it has become the focus of opposition against the law. For a minimum investment of US $50 million (or its equivalent in pesos for a Filipino corporation), the mining firm is granted 81,000 hectares of land for mineral exploitation for a period fo 25 years per contract, renewable for a maximum of another 25 years.

Indigenous communities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have questioned the legality of the FTAA provision. According to them, the Act and its Implementing Rules and Regulations allow foreign companies not only both financial and technical assistance but also total control of mining operations.

They contend that while the Constitution allows the government to enter into financial or technical assistance agreements with foreign-owned corporations, it is an agreement for mere assistance, which is either techincial or financial. They assert that the Constitution does not allow foreign corporations to actually control, manage or engange in full mining operations.

Aside from the generous contract terms above, the law also provides auxiliary rights that will ensure that the mining rights are exercised unhampered. These auxiliary rights include the right to enter private lands, the right to build necessary infrastructure on private lands as well as water and timber rights within the mining area as necessitated by the mining operations.

The law also provides a host of financial incentives that will guarantee returned investments and profitability to the mining contractor. These include a 100% repatriation of investments in dollars, a 100% remittance of earnings in dollars, freedom from expropriation, and double acceleration of depreciation costs, among others.

The collection of the government's share in the financial or technical assistance agreement, consisting of corporate income tax, excise tax, and other duties and fees, shall commence only after the mining operator has fully recovered its pre-operating expenses. When the mining contractor starts commercial production, a revenue sharing scheme begins wherein the government will receive 60% of the net profit from the

operation while the contractor receives 40%. However, all corporate taxes, excise taxes, duties and fees, payable by the corporation will be counted against the government's 60% share.

As of December 1996, 100 FTAA applications and 1454 MPSA applications have been filed before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Mines and Geosciences Bureau (DENR-MGB). Of the FTAA applications, 99 were filed by foreign-owned mining corporations and only one was filed by Filipino mining company Benguet Corp. which is nonetheless partly foreign-owned.

It is also interesting to note that of these FTAA applications, 52 were filed before the approval of the Mining Act, while 14 were submitted before the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Act were finalized on August 15, 1995. The total area of the application covers approximately 12.2 million hectares of the land area of the Philippines. If all FTAA applications and MPSAs were approved, 40.65% of the country's total land area will be covered by mining claims.

The DENR-MGB, however, quickly points out that not all applications will be approved and that the grant of 81,000 hectares for mineral exploration is subject to a progressive reduction or relinquishment where the mining contractor returns to the government areas that have low mineral potential. The DENR-MGB stresses that the law allows a contractor a maximum of only 5,000 hectares for actual mining or commercial production that will commence after the sixth year of the contract period.

NGOs and indigenous communities point out that while relinquishment does significantly reduce the land area open to mining activities, 5,000 hectares is still a huge land area, especially in a country where landlessness remains a perennial problem.

Indigenous peoples and environmental groups also raise concern over the potential environmental effects of more large-scale mining activities should these be allowed to commence. With the 1996 Marcopper mining disaster in Marinduque and the ravages of open pit mining in Benguet as examples of the potential impact, these groups believe that mining operations of the FTAA scale could wreak havoc on the country's environment.

Another key feature of the Mining Act pertains to the issue of ancestral lands of indigenous communities. The Act deems ancestral land as closed to mining operations without the prior consent of the indigenous cultural community concerned. The Act defines prior consent as referring to "prior, informed consent" obtained, as far as practicable, in accordance with the customary laws of the indigenous peoples concerned. The process of arriving at an informed consent should be "free from fraud, external influence and manipulation".

The DENR-MGB says that this requirement of prior informed consent strengthens government's cognizance of indigenous peoples' rights to their land. Indigenous peoples and their advocates, however, are critical. While they concede that the provision gives

indigenous peoples the wherewithal to approve or reject a mining application in their communities, they also ask whether, in conditions of deprivation and in the absence of genuine development alternatives, they are being given any option at all.

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

As a law that concerns the rights of indigenous cultural communities, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) touches significantly on the country's fundamental laws and principles governing natural resource ownership and use. To that extent, IPRA impinges on the Mining Act of 1995.

Enacted into law on October 29, 1997, IPRA (Republic Act 8371) implements the Constitutional provisions regarding the rights of indigenous cultural communities. As stated in the Constitution, the State "recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development". Furthermore, the State, "subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being."

In line with these and other Constitutional provisions, IPRA spells out the right of indigenous peoples to their ancestral domains, their right to self-governance and empowerment, their social and human rights, and their right to cultural integrity. IPRA also allocates for the administrative bodies, mechanisms and funds to implement its provisions.

The passage of the law immediately drew vehement opposition from the mining companies, and at best, mixed reactions from NGOs and indigenous communities. Although many NGOs had been involved in the formulation and passage of the law, the final version fell short of their expectations and of government's rhetoric about tis supposed commitment to "recognize, protect and promote", indigenous peoples' rights. While some have called for the rejection of IPRA as a whole, others have held the view that the law, despite its deficiencies, poses opportunities to further the indigenous peoples' struggles. But whatever the indigenous peopels' and NGOs' stances vis-a-vis IPRA, the mere passage of such a law represents a milestone in the long struggle for the recognition of indigenous peoples' rights.

Among the more controversial provisions of IPRA are its definition of ancestral domains (Sec. 3(a)) and Existing Property Rights Regimes (Sec. 56).

Section 3(a) provides an expanded definition of the concept of ancestral domains, which goes beyond those set forth in earlier laws on indigenous peoples rights.

Subject to Existing Property Rights Regimes (Sec. 56), Section 3(a) includes within the concept of ancestral domains not only areas such as ancestral lands, forests, worship areas, hunting and burial grounds, but also pastures, residential and agricultural lands,

bodies of water and mineral and other resources. Including mineral resources within the scope of ancestral domain is significant as it qualifies the Regalian Doctrine, embodied in the Constitution, which puts all mineral and natural resources under the control and disposition of the State.

But Section 56, which states:"property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected," excludes lands that are privately owned from the scope fo ancestral domains. This has the effect of practically negating the progressive definition of ancestral domains contained in Section 3. Mining companies have taken this provision to further their interests, interpreting "vested rights" as including mining concessions. Thus, under such interpretation, mining concessions already existing prior to the effectivity of IPRA are excluded from the scope of ancestral domains. MGOs and indigenous communities ahve taken a strong stand against such interpretation. To include mining concessions within the purview of vested rights could open the floodgates to exclusion from the scope of ancestral domains sizable lands that are now under timber concessions and permits to operate commercial tree farms.

But even without including mining concessions within the concept of vested rights, Section 56, as it is, already excludes from the ancestral domains vast tracts of lands all over the country. These include the mineral lands of large mining companies in the Cordillera and teh fertile lands owned by agri-business companies in Mindanao.

Mining companies were quick to register their opposition against IPRA. In position papers and statements, they claimed that the law violates the Regalian Doctrine and certain provisions of the Mining Act. They said the enactment of IPRA is sending confusing signals to foreign mining companies wanting to invest in the Philippines, and had the effect of dampening enthusiasm for investment opportunities created under the liberalized mining law.

But all the debates on the pros and cons of IPRA have been rendered futile, as of the moment. In September 1998, or barely a year after its enactment, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court questioning the legality of the law. Acting with undue haste, the Court reach a decision in record time ordering the temporary deferment of the implementation of the law. It took only a few days to strike down what indigenous peoples have taken years of struggle to gain.

The People's Small Scale Mining Act

The People's Small Scale Mining Act or Republic Act 7076 stands in stark contrast with the Mining Act of 1995. Passed into law on June 27, 1991 and its implementing rules finalized in July 1992, it was enacted with very little public consultation. While the Mining Act liberalized the mining sector to attract capital investments into the industry, the general framework of the People's Small-Scale Mining Act seemed to stifle the development of small-scale mining, regulate and control the industry, and deprive small-scale miners, particularly indigenous communities, of an age-old economic activity.

The act defines small-scale mining as mining that relies heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods that does not use explosives or heavy mining equipment. It also makes a distinctino between small-scale miners and traditional small-scale miners. Traditional small-scale miners are defined as:"Filipino citizens who have a distinctive socio-economic cultural tradition with a subsistence base focused on small-scale mining," and who live in stable sedentary communities, and employ physical separation methods for the extraction of minerals or metals from the ore.

Small-scale mining takes place in over 30 provinces in the Philippines and involves as many as 200,000 people. Small-scale miners account for a significant volume of the total gold production in the Philippines. In 1994, they produced almost half, or 46% of the 27,059 kilograms of gold produced in the country.

The People's Small-Scale Mining Act stresses its regulatory intent through the following major provisions:

Small-scale miners must organize themselves into a cooperative and register with the Provincial or City Mining Regulatory Board which shall serve as the implementing arm of the DENR.

They are to identify the area to be declared as a People's Small-Scale Mining Area which should not exceed 20 hectares and get the consent of the mining claimant or holder of the mining right over the area.

After securing the required consent, they should apply for a permit from the Provincial or City Mining Regulatory Board to mine the People's Small-Scale Mining Area for a period of two years, renewable for another two years.

Whatever ore they extract should be processed in a centralized custom mill and the gold sold to a centralized buying station authorized by the Central Bank.

That the law favors large-scale mining operations can be gleaned from the provision on the contract term of two years alloted small-scale miners, which contrasts with the 25-year contract allowed Filipino and multinational corporations under the Mining Act. Small-scale miners are allowed to mine only within a maximum 20-hectare contract area compared to the 81,000 hectares granted to an FTAA holder under the Mining Act.

NGOs and small-scale miners' organizations contend that the initial two-year contract period is barely enough time for small-scale miners to develop their mine and recover their investments. They also express apprehension over the scenario that if small-scale miners were to discover mineral lands of high-grade ore, these could be transferred to multinational corporations a the end of the initial two-year lease.

The small-scale miners are required to process their ore in a centralized processing mill and sell their gold to a centralized buying station under the supervision of the Central Bank. This imposes strict and burdensome government taxation at many stages of the mining process from ore processing to marketing. These requirements differ markedly from the generous incentives, including possible tax-free holidays, offered through the FTAA schemes for large mining corporations.

Of significant concern, however, especially for traditional small-scale miners, is the requirement that they, in applying for a mining area, recognize prior or existing mining rights or claims over the area and acquire the mining claimant's consent. NGOs and indigenous peoples' organizations see a subtle prejudicial intent within this law, one that can be used to drive away indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands. By seeking approval, traditional small-scale miners acknowledge that the land and its resources are not theirs in the first place to control. Recognition of the law would imply that the indigenous peoples are surrendering their legal and moral claims over their ancestral lands.

Opinion: Can the value of the Philippines’ mineral resources be fully realised? — filed under: Issue January | February 2009, Global Mining by Australian Journal of Mining — created Mar 25, 2009 03:57 PM

In 2008, there was a “minerals rush” in the Philippines caused by strong demand from China and a mining labour problem in Africa. This has slowed somewhat in the current global economic crisis.

Didipio mine site owned by OceanaGold

By Isidro C. Valencia*, based in the Philippines

However, the Philippines remain a strategic source of gold, silver, manganese, chrome, iron, nickel, copper and cobalt ores. The freight cost advantage ranges from USD7.00 to P15.00/mt as compared to other Asian and Latin American countries, if delivery is to China or India.Mitchell Hooke, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) was quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer as saying that the region has estimated reserves of mineral deposits valued at around US$850 to USD$900 billion. Australian-based stock brokering financial outfit Macquarie affirmed the figure of USD840 billion.Filipinos boast about the country’s valuable ores which, if extracted, some claim could pay the Philippine foreign debt of US$40 billion, and perhaps help the Americans to solve their present economic woes.But the big question remains, is the Philippines ready to extract these resources considering factors such as the intervention from religious sectors and environmentalists; corruption and Government bureaucracy; lack of technical know how; absence of clear cut-policy or vague implementation of regulations; and, importantly, lack of investment capital?

Have your say | Add Comment

Environmental issues and religious groupsThe mining industry has been under attack from various sectors in the Philippines, most notably from the dominant religious group represented through its highly politicised organisation of bishops known as the Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).The CBCP is openly campaigning against the “negative effects of mining on the environment”. It has issued a pastoral letter condemning the “uncontrollable plunder of the country’s resources” in which “no material gain can equate with the value of life.”However, a bishop in Nueva Vizcaya in the North, while opposing the operation of Didipio Mine owned by OceanaGold, was less strident and admitted that it is still the Government’s will which will prevail.There have been allegations by the local people in Nueva Vizcaya, where the project is located, that one of the reasons for OceanaGold putting the mine into care and maintenance, in December, was due to disagreement on “certain money” between OceanaGold and Government officials.OceanaGold said in a statement that it is not aware of these allegations. It said the primary reason for the move was the effect of the global economic crisis.OceanaGold has spent approximately US$75 million on the project thus far. Previous expenditures by Climax Mining (1990-2005) prior to the merger with OceanaGold in 2006 which would include exploration costs, feasibility studies, total approximately US$70 million.Darren Klinck, vice president for corporate and investors relations said that OceanaGold continues to work closely with its key stakeholders including the local community, local Government units in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces as well as Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Jose Atienza’s office and Mines Geoscience Bureau.Environmentalists have also complained about the effects of mining in the Philippines. They claim that clear cutting of new and old growth trees has destroyed animal and floral habitats; and mine tailings containing poison have resulted in the death of marine life, destroyed marine habitats and affected the livelihood of fishing communities.They also claim that Marcopper, a mining firm in Southern Luzon has failed to rehabilitate fully the damage caused by massive tailing spillages.One of the most devastating effects of mining is flash flood to low lying barrios/barangays, enhanced by the high rainfall in the region.

Corruption in the GovernmentA survey has ranked the Philippines as the second most corrupt nation in the world. A well known joke says that Filipinos must have bribed the organisation that comes up with the rankings, to move it from number one to two.There have been eyewitness accounts of corruption in Visayan Island, where it is alleged a Governor’s representative directly asked for the amount of US$212,000 from a chrome ore’s trader to facilitate the release of a mining permit; and another US$10.00 per metric ton for the release of an Ore Transport Permit (OTP).It is a customary practice in the Philippines that a trader makes advance payments for mining operations including costs for “securing and releasing” of mining documents.In Luzon, there is another account alleging that an Environmental Management Bureau employee negotiated with a small-scale mining project for the release of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) in exchange for US$4,555.

David “Datu Maghuhukum” Puspus, president of Manobo Tribal Foundation Philippines has complained about non-remittances of revenues generated from mining operations in land covered by the Indigenous People’s Right Act of 1997 and rampant illegal mining. This organisation represents about one million members of “lumads” or mountain people.He has also questioned who has rights for different kinds of mining activities and holders of permits, claiming that many of these people are either previously or currently connected with the Government, lawmakers, cabinet officials and military officials.The European Council recently offered technical and financial support to the Philippine Government to fight corruption. A Mines GeoScience Bureau official said that the Bureau has been coordinating well with the National Bureau of Investigation to fully implement the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and investigations are ongoing against officials involved in corruption in the mining industry.

Financial capabilities and foreign capitalPhilippine Mines and Geo Science Bureau (www.mgb.gov.ph) responding to controversial social issues against mining in the context of globalisation affirms that the country must compete for investment funds to sustain a mining industry as embodied in the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. The Bureau is tasked to administer and dispose mineral lands and resources, conduct geological, mining, metallurgical, chemical and other related research including geological and geophysical surveys.Reported foreign investment in the Philippines mining sector from 2004 to 2008 (third quarter) was around US$1.9 billion.Mining figures from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Mines GeoScience Bureau show that the value of Philippine metal production as of November 2008 (precious and base metals) was US$1.1 billion.To date, the Philippine Government has affirmed that seven of the 63 priority mining projects will proceed into production in 2009, namely:. Carmen Copper Corporation’s Carmen-Toledo Copper Project. OceanaGold’s Didipio Copper-Gold Project. Coral Bay Mining Corporation’s Palawan HPAL Nickel (Nickel-Line 2) Project. Filmenera Resources Corporation’s Masbate Gold Project. Platinum Group of Metals Corporation’s Iligan Ferronickel Smelter Plant and Manticao Ferronickel Smelter Plant. Philsaga Mining Corporation’s Banahaw Gold Project.The total investment in these projects is estimated at US$737 million.Despite the lacklustre growth of investments in the mining sector, the Philippine Government continues to attract foreign mining investments by enhancing its policies particularly on environmental safeguards, community consultation and development programs.Recently, the Philippine Congress formulated a provision to allow land ownership by foreigners through constitutional amendments that could provide incentives to foreign capital investment. Congress has indicated it will amend that part of the constitution provided it is focused on economic development.Much more needs to be done in developing the mining industry in the Philippines - approximately 12.2 million hectares or about 40.65 per cent of the Philippines’ total land area is prospective for minerals.There are some problems in governance and laws but prospective investors should also consider

the prevailing professionalism particularly from the country’s Mines Geoscience Bureau, and development of world-class projects to date.

* Isidro C. Valencia is general manager of Growlandtech Corporation, engaged in trading minerals and producing activated carbon made of coconut shell.

Gold (and other mineral) diggers: DENR's mining dilemma

Gold (and other mineral) diggers: DENR's mining dilemma Monday, 05 July 2010 01:00 PM Joel Saracho

o

Even before the Aquino Cabinet started working, skepticism met the appointment of Ramon Paje as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), one of the most contested units in the executive branch.

Environmentalist group Kalikasan-People’s Network for the Environment denounced the appointment of Paje, calling him “one of the mining czars of the Arroyo administration in promoting and implementing mining liberalization in the country.”

Paje served as Undersecretary to former Secretary Horacio Ramos, and was in charge of forestry research. In addition, he served as Presidential Assistant on Mining and Executive Director of the Minerals Development Council (MDC), and was also part of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

Pesante-USA, an organization allied with Kalikasan, described Paje’s appointment as “a bad omen for the incoming regime.” According to the militant group, Paje's appointment as DENR secretary indicates that the Arroyo administration's policies and “revitalization” programs will continue, which is potentially against the interests of indigenous peoples and local miners, as Paje used to facilitate the privatization of mineral-rich lands and mining facilities.

Raw material, additional income

Interestingly, mining was DENR’s showcase under the previous Arroyo administration. In his report prior to the takeover of the new government, former Secretary Ramos boasted that mining investments in the country reached USD2.8 billion (P130.37 billion). Ramos said the revitalization program initiated by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo through Executive Order 270 (EO 270) or the National Policy Agenda on Revitalizing Mining in the Philippines was a major factor to the increased inflow of investments.

Arroyo was even conferred the “Ang Minero” Award by the Philippine Mine Safety and Environment Association (PMSEA) for her “unparalleled leadership and support in bringing enlightenment to government agencies and private companies to review and align their ways alongside the principles of sustainability and responsible mining, opening the door to equitable growth and enlightened investment,” much to the consternation of anti-mining activists.

Mineral extraction is one of the country's most lucrative enterprises, and according to the Philippine Economic-Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting (PEENRA), the country is one of the world's richly endowed countries in terms of mineral resources.

In its 1 st Quarter 2010 report , PEENRA said that mining and quarrying is the third largest contributor to the growth of national industry (0.57 percentage points), following manufacturing (14.1 percentage points) and construction (0.61 percentage points).

Mining and quarrying grew by 7.4 percent from 19.2 in 2009, “largely contributed by the increased production of coal, other non-metallics and nickel,” the PEENRA report said. In addition, “other non-metallics” extraction went up by 13.1 percent from 35.7 percent, copper mining grew 45.1 percent from 60.7 percent, and nickel mining rose to 134.2 percent from 64.8 percent.

Social cost

Mining has always been a contentious industry, especially in the light of growing ecological and sociological concerns.

Alyansa Tigil Mina national coordinator Jaybee Garganera cited a 1998 study saying that 53 percent of all ancestral domains nationwide are affected by mining permits issued by the government. This translates to 25 million hectares, Garganera said.

A year after the new mining code was approved (the chief sponsor being then-Senator Arroyo) the Marcopper disaster in Marinduque happened, considered the worst environmental disaster in Philippine mining history.

More than three million tons of mine waste spilled out of a drainage tunnel into the Boac River, causing flooding in the island, and prodding then-President Fidel V. Ramos to declare the whole of Marinduque a calamity zone.

Kasama, a publication of the Solidarity Philippines Australia Network, published in its last quarter 2004 report the result of two case studies of mining in the Philippines. The report read in part:

“(W)hile companies express their commitment to high environmental standards and good relations with their host communities, the communities themselves tell of the repeated violation of environmental standards and their human rights by companies and their employees. Given the negative experiences of the past, locals fear for the future: they express openly their lack of confidence that either mining companies or the government will do enough to protect them from mining’s worst effects….

“Foreign and domestic investment in mining has been encouraged by successive administrations, with the backing of influential international organisations such as the World Bank. But the Philippine government is following policies that are hurting some of its poorest citizens.”

This is the same sentiment shared by anti-mining activists who argue that a rights-based approach to development should give premium to human rights and sustainable development over what they consider to be destructive and short term measures like mining.

In a recent development, the provincial government of South Cotabato passed an environmental code banning open pit mining in the province.

Daisy Avance-Fuentes, until very recently the provincial governor, said she signed the environmental code “to protect the welfare” of her constituents and “ensure the sustainability of their environment.” Fuentes, who was a former congresswoman, voted for the approval of the mining act in 1995.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Fuentes defended her shift of position saying the ban is necessary because open pit mining might pollute or dry up water assets crucial to South Cotabato.

“Our concerns as a local government may seem small at the macro level, but we have to protect ourselves and our environment because the impact will not be felt somewhere far away. We will experience it ourselves,” the newspaper quoted Fuentes as saying.

However, the controversial code is up for review by newly-elected Governor Arthur Pingoy, who said that he will only implement the code if it is proven to be legal, because according to representatives of multinational mining company Xstrata, which is set to operate in the area via local affiliate Sagittarius, the said code supersedes the Mining Act of 1995. With reports from Ivy Jean Vibar