Mount Poly tailing pond breaches............................

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
Currently we must assume the pondwas built to government standards. We need toknow just why it breached. If it was shoddy construction fine the owners right into bankruptcy and sell the mine to someone that will run it properly. If it was deliberate punish those responsible.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Been going on for as long as man has mined for metal... Hell, there are all kinds of legacy gold mines throughout the Shield that just dumped their milled tailings in heaps on the forest floor or in the creeks
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
All that crud going into Lake Quesnel. Hard to put a value on that.
We better get used to stuff like this happening.

Why? Legitimate investigations and stiff deterrent level penalties can be effective.

Been going on for as long as man has mined for metal... Hell, there are all kinds of legacy gold mines throughout the Shield that just dumped their milled tailings in heaps on the forest floor or in the creeks

Just because it was done before is no excuse to allow it to continue.

People have been murdered in the past as well, should we just throw up our hands and say "oh well" that's just the way it is whenever someone is killed? Of course not. At least with this type of scenario (whether it was shoddy construction or inadequate standards) we stand a hope in hell of eliminating it.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Just because it was done before is no excuse to allow it to continue.

That was not the message.

Surely they will tighten the rules and increase the regulatory framework until the next breech occurs.

On that note, back in the day, that was the accepted practice founded on the height of science and knowledge... Now we know better.. Until next time.



People have been murdered in the past as well, should we just throw up our hands and say "oh well" that's just the way it is whenever someone is killed?

We pretty much have thrown up our hands
 

grumpydigger

Electoral Member
Mar 4, 2009
566
1
18
Kelowna BC
Government allows self-regulation and inspection , and companies will deny problems until a massive disasters happens in order to protect their shareholders financial holdings.

In order for a massive breach like this to happen , the structural integrity of the tailings pond must've been in question for quite a long time.

And kept hidden.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Government allows self-regulation and inspection , and companies will deny problems until a massive disasters happens in order to protect their shareholders financial holdings.

It is in the best interests of any company to keep that kind of infrastructure in top condition... The cost of maintenance and upkeep is far lower than the costs associated with down time, fines, repair/construction, etc... The enviro costs alone will easily eclipse the development of a secure pond.

The company(s) know this and work towards mitigating those liabilities for the above reasons

In order for a massive breach like this to happen , the structural integrity of the tailings pond must've been in question for quite a long time.

And kept hidden.

You don't know this... That is sheer speculation
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
That was not the message.

Surely they will tighten the rules and increase the regulatory framework until the next breech occurs.



On that note, back in the day, that was the accepted practice founded on the height of science and knowledge... Now we know better.. Until next time.

The way I look at it, it's the industries themselves that need to take the lead on safety matters. And the only avenue available to really enforce compliance towards that goal is stiff, and I mean extremely stiff, penalties.

I'm not claiming to have an understanding of the specific industry, nor of the will within the industry to prevent such things from happening. Nor do I mean to imply that no such will exists. But I do understand cost/benefit analysis. And I also know that if the option is there to cut some corners then there will always be those that cut them. If you make the cost of cutting corners excessive enough then that effectively cancels out the option of doing so. The reason people cut corners to save resources, money.

To me increasing regulation just adds more compliance hoops, it increases operations costs (always). Regulation should be as simple as possible but very well defined. Standards are X, and the cost of not meeting those standards results in Y. If Y is excessive enough, they'll make damn sure they meet a solid X, if not better, when performing tasks and operations that can have a huge impact on the surrounding area.

Is that too simplistic? Am I being naive?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
Government allows self-regulation and inspection , and companies will deny problems until a massive disasters happens in order to protect their shareholders financial holdings.

In order for a massive breach like this to happen , the structural integrity of the tailings pond must've been in question for quite a long time.

And kept hidden.

No they don't.

Local residents are calling it an environmental disaster.
In a day or too everything will settle.
 

grumpydigger

Electoral Member
Mar 4, 2009
566
1
18
Kelowna BC
I will guarantee you that a properly inspected tailings pond does not breach and caused a mass environmental accident.

You say I'm just speculating I have no proof.

Tell that to the thousands of people that are going to be affected by this.

When they pulled the government records on this pond. You'll be surprised the last time anyone but a company employee has took a look at it.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
The way I look at it, it's the industries themselves that need to take the lead on safety matters. And the only avenue available to really enforce compliance towards that goal is stiff, and I mean extremely stiff, penalties.

I'm not claiming to have an understanding of the specific industry, nor of the will within the industry to prevent such things from happening. Nor do I mean to imply that no such will exists. But I do understand cost/benefit analysis. And I also know that if the option is there to cut some corners then there will always be those that cut them. If you make the cost of cutting corners excessive enough then that effectively cancels out the option of doing so. The reason people cut corners to save resources, money.

To me increasing regulation just adds more compliance hoops, it increases operations costs (always). Regulation should be as simple as possible but very well defined. Standards are X, and the cost of not meeting those standards results in Y. If Y is excessive enough, they'll make damn sure they meet a solid X, if not better, when performing tasks and operations that can have a huge impact on the surrounding area.

Is that too simplistic? Am I being naive?

Mines are pretty highly regulated. The thing with mines is that they are such big projects that they chnage the landscape on a geological teimscale. So we have a big problem with abandoned mines that will continue to pollute for potentially throusands of years. There are still existing acid rock drainage issues from old Roman mines.

There is a problem when the company just walks away. The two biggest contaminiated sites in Canada (Giant Mine, NWT and Faro mine, Yukon) are due to owners simply declaring bankruptcy and walking away. Taxpayers are the hook for about $2 billion for those two sites. That's not to clean them up; that's just to contain the damage.

A catastropic failure of a tailings pond in North America pretty rare. I'm interested to find out what happened. Looks like it was a sudden breach.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
It was just a settling pond. Rock flour. The water is safe as it is continually discharged into the river.Turbidity is probably the only drinking water issue.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
It was just a settling pond. Rock flour. The water is safe as it is continually discharged into the river.Turbidity is probably the only drinking water issue.

It's reported as the tailings pond. The supernatant is discharged, but the problem will be the the fines and the sludge, which will likely be high in metals.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
The biggest problem short term is turbidity. Fishes gills will plug and fish will die for a few days. Imperial Metals share price will go the way of the tailings.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Government allows self-regulation and inspection , and companies will deny problems until a massive disasters happens in order to protect their shareholders financial holdings.

In order for a massive breach like this to happen , the structural integrity of the tailings pond must've been in question for quite a long time.

And kept hidden.

Mount Polley mine tailings pond breach followed years of government warnings - British Columbia - CBC News

Red flags raised years before B.C. mine-tailings spill, consultant says - The Globe and Mail

Someone may owe you a beer.

Crappy news, and in a year with a huge expected return of Fraser sockeye. Hopefully the effects won't be long-lasting.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Hopefully not. We'll have to see what the geochem of the fines are like. If they aren't acid generating, it would significantly reduce risk. The acid is a problem in and of itself, but it transforms the metals into a dissolved phase making them generally more bioavailable.