Richard Gleeson
Northern News Services

Yellowknife (Dec 15/99) - Government experts are currently studying the daunting problem of dealing with the more than a quarter million tonnes of arsenic trioxide-bearing dust stored underground at Giant mine.

Last month, Yellowknifer asked four long-time Yellowknifers with mining and environmental experience what should be done.

Wayne Bryant, Bob Bromley, Robert Spence and Dave Nickerson were asked to prepare a brief analysis of the problem which we published last Wednesday. The analyses were circulated to each participant and the four assembled for a discussion of the solutions and the problem.

The following is a summary of that discussion.

Yellowknifer: Why don't we start off with the basic question, do we leave the arsenic underground or take it out?

Bryant: My professional opinion as an environmental engineer is the arsenic trioxide should be removed from underground in an engineered way ... leaving it underground for perpetuity, I don't think that's on.

Spence: Clearly, when we started burying that stuff it was thought that any water that got in would be a small amount, especially in view of the permafrost and the seals they put in the openings.

Now it seems as if we were all wrong. But there is arsenic stored underground in Cadillac and at one of the Red Lake Mines, and nobody talks about that.

Yellowknifer: You also mentioned it was a comparatively small amount of arsenic.

Bryant: It's 100-times less.

Spence: The amount is not the thing we should concern ourselves with. Any amount of arsenic trioxide is hazardous.

Bryant: When the decisions were made back in the early '50s, late '40s, at the time, putting it into underground vaults was a real sound decision compared to what they initially did at Negus and Con, where they put it in surface catchment basins.

What Con and Negus did was fortuitous in that it was on the surface and they did something to clean up their arsenic trioxide ponds and put it in the autoclave, recovered some gold and silver, purified their arsenic trioxide and shipped all of it down and, I don't know, even made a little profit.

Nickerson: They never treated anywhere near the total amount. They're still running stuff that was to be treated in the crystallization plant through the autoclave now. It wasn't a successful commercial operation. To get those crystallizers to work was more of an art than a science.

Bryant: But they were able to sell it, to get it out of here.

Nickerson: They had 40,000 tonnes originally. I don't know how much they got through the plant, an eighth or a quarter of that.

Yellowknifer: I get the feeling, Dave, that you're maybe not as convinced as other people here that removing the arsenic from the vaults is the right thing to do.

Nickerson: If you have a process, if you know what you're going to do with it, then, obviously, you have to re-mine it, and put it through that process.

Re-mining is not going to be a simple process. It's going to be expensive, it's going to be dangerous, and to get the last little bit out is going to be extremely difficult.

I've worked in old stopes trying to clean out the ore ... it's a terrible goddamned job. To get that last little bit out is almost impossible. You might be able to get 90 per cent of that stuff out fairly easy, but there will always be some left in there.

Everybody would like to see it out of there, taking it out now and leaving it somewhere else for a long time might not make sense. You might be able to stabilize it somehow underground, so you reduce arsenic-water contact.

I'm certain that some day that will be a valuable resource. You don't want to do something to it that precludes it from every being used. That would be a very wasteful thing to do.

Bryant: They've looked into different procedures (for mining the arsenic trioxide dust), including a pneumatic method, sucking it out.

Bromley: But so far they don't know which one will work ... they've talked about robotics, having to come up with new technology. They don't know what form it's taken, they know how much water has gotten in to some of the stopes.

They've actually measured down to the 1,500 (foot) level some precipitous from the vaults, which are between 75 and 300 feet. So they know there's water getting in there and bringing it down.

It's captured right now through the water treatment and pumping system. But that's the dilemma. It's already down to the 1,500-foot level and the water (table) is at 2,500 or 2,600.

The other unique thing with this deposit it's so terribly close and accessible to Great Slave Lake.

Nickerson: It looks like any arsenic coming out of the mine is going to end up in Baker Creek and then into Great Slave Lake right by Yellowknife. A little bit might go somewhere else.

Bryant: Another scheme I know science has looked at is diverting Baker Creek so it doesn't come anywhere near the buried vaults. That would be expensive, but it won't be that bad. That's do-able.

The open pits have been a significant factor in why there is this environmental issue with water contact with buried arsenic trioxide. There are 12 open pits and... there are about 24 openings to the mine. Most of these openings have not been properly sealed off.

These open pits and these openings over the years have changed the permafrost regime, so you don't have the permafrost protecting the contaminants.

Spence: Consider when they found potash on the Prairies they had a real problem to get through a certain layer. And they solved it by freezing it. Here we thought the permafrost would do it at first. Why can't we do that here? It would be costly, but it would be effective.

Nickerson: There are two things you have to look at. First, if you keep the pumps running there's one circulation system. There's water that comes in through the open pits, water that comes in through fractures beneath the northwest tailings pond. A lot of water is just being recirculated. It's being pumped up into the tailings pond and going back down.

That's one hydrogeological regime.

When they pull the pumps -- and this will happen some day -- and the mine floods, the hydrogeological regime will be quite a bit different. This is something that hasn't been worked out. Will the water come from Great Slave Lake into the mine or will it flow the other way?

The thinking right now is that it will re-enter the environment via Baker Creek. But how much water will be involved, exactly what the routing of it will be -- we don't know those types of things.

It would be nice to get a best estimate ... we don't have the basic numbers.

Bromley: One thing we do know is the land is already terribly polluted from the mine and, in fact, the sediments in the bottom of the lake are also terribly polluted from the mine.

Nickerson: Most of that was airborne contamination.

Bromley: That's right, although we don't know how much was water. Baker Creek is known as the most polluted creek in Canada.

Nickerson: I've seen worse ones than that.

Spence: Before you guys came, Sig (Sigvaldason) was citing some statistics he had from the late '30s indicating Baker Creek was very polluted, and hardly everybody lived here then.

Bryant: I've heard from old-timers there was a good run of pickerel up Baker Creek. Even to this day, I'll take guests to where the sailboats are stored at the mouth of the creek.

Often times you can get some nice pike. But the actual water is not drinkable at Baker Creek and, I agree with Bob, I'm sure the sediments in Back Bay are heavily contaminated.

Nickerson: At certain times of the year the Coppermine River has so much copper in it that, according to all the books and rules and regulations, all the fish should be dead. But they manage to survive one way or the other.

Bromley: One of the things I went on about in my 300 words was whether it was economic or not. And it clearly wasn't economic. But the way we were raised and learned to think about economics we see it as being economic. In fact, the costs have been huge to us through taxes and health and all these sorts of things.

We'll see changes happening in the future as we come to realize what the real costs are.

For example, the roads that are built. The mines wouldn't be here without the roads and yet the public is paying for those.

Nickerson: The mines were here before the roads.

Bryant: The mines pay taxes, too.

Bromley: The taxes do not come anywhere near paying for these. The roads are just one form of transportation infrastructure. The airports are another incredibly subsidized one and fuels are also subsidized by the citizen taxpayer.

I did a quick calculation. About seven million ounces of gold came out of that mine. I came up with about $1.4 billion. They're already talking about $250 million to a billion dollars to resolve this particular problem.

These are only direct capital costs. The GNWT has already spent $750,000 on this, almost a million dollars. We haven't heard anything about what the feds have spent on this.

I'm not against mining, but we need a much more careful and realistic accounting when we get into these things ... we cannot keep depleting the capacity of the environment.

This isn't new stuff. We're seeing it more and more. It's why polar bears can't get out on Hudson's Bay and why we've got this silly weather -- I mean, hell, I didn't even wear a hat or gloves today and it's just about December.

These are huge energy-intensive things that have huge costs. That's why the diamond mines will be looked upon in the future as a totally irresponsible thing that we as a society should have known about.

Bryant: You're seeing diamond mines as a major assault on the environment? I don't know if that's been proven.

Bromley: No. That's the way we think. Do you know what the energy consumption of the mines is? We're supposed to reduce our CO2 output by six per cent from 1990 levels.

Bryant: The Northwest Territories will not be able to contribute that kind of cut.

Bromley: There you go -- that's exactly the sort of thinking that gets us to where we're going.

Bryant: But, Bob, the mine does create wealth, it creates jobs and economic well-being. It can also be used for environmental well-being.

Bromley: This is exactly what we've been taught to think, but studies are proving that, in fact, no, they don't create wealth.

Spence: This is sounding more like religion to me, and I am not a religious guy at all. Since Ecology North said, 'No more mines in the North' I said, 'Piss on you, I'm not contributing to you anymore. Not ever.'

Bromley: People will give their lives for their kids, but we're not asking for your life, we're asking for you to drive less, consume less...

Spence: It's all new religion to me, I'm afraid. I don't understand it, I don't believe it, and I don't know what the point of it is.

You know, I started mining 50 years ago and I thought I was doing a good thing for everybody.

Bromley: And I actually appreciate all the work you did, Bob.

Spence: (To others) When he (Bromley) was in knee pants he argued with me.

Bromley: I'm not attacking you personally or anything like that. We didn't know then what we know now ... I am not in any way condemning what was done, I'm trying to raise the issue of what we can do better in the future, starting now.

Spence: I thought the problem we are dealing with is what we're going to do with the quarter million tonnes of arsenic at Giant.

Nickerson: You seem to concentrate on how the economy should be structured and how human society should be structured and what things are really necessary.

Of course gold rings and diamond jewelry are not, and neither are symphony orchestras and fine art.

Neither are private automobiles, but people like these things and want them.

Most people don't subscribe to your way of thinking. Most people like to drive fancy cars and Ski-Doos and boats. Until you can persuade the vast majority of people they shouldn't drive cars and want these other things, until that happens, we're in the mining business.

Bryant: What are the economic values up here? Is it better to mine the arsenic trioxide or have another new diamond mine or gold mine?

I look at it like this: mining the arsenic trioxide is going to create jobs, it will reduce environmental threats down the road, somebody might recover gold from the arsenic dust.

To me that has more worth at this time than if the government had to subsidize a new mine.

Bromley: I'm not saying we shouldn't be mining, but we have to learn how to do it better. We know how to do it better -- we have to start demanding that it is done better.

Bryant: But that's happened, Bob. BHP, that's a pretty clean little operation.

Bromley: Again, I start to talk about ecological overshoot. That's the capacity of the earth to absorb the wastes we produce and turn them back into resources.

What happens is, just like your bank account you can have an overdraft but if you keep spending, eventually you declare bankruptcy.

That's what's happening to the earth today. It's not something I'm making up. It's not debatable. You guys may debate it, but it's a known fact -- we're in overdraft.

We will be paying the cost, there's no question about that, but we can lessen the cost we're going to have to pay. I'm not pushing to give up vehicles, that will be pushed on us. I agree you can't tell people 'You can't drive,' but I have no doubt that will be dictated to us.

Yellowknifer: I think we're encountering that rift that has probably existed in Yellowknife since environmentalists came along. It's two completely different modes of thinking, and a little animosity between the two sides.

Nickerson: There's people who have bridged the gap, like Bill MacDonald, after whom the school was named. He was renowned in both fields.

Spence: He was a naturalist before he was a geologist. My mentor, when I started work, was another Bill, Bill Brown. He became a renown Ontario ornithologist. He was an adjunct curator at the Royal Ontario Museum. After he'd recorded all the birds he could find, he started into butterflies.

Bromley: Bill Mac told me the reason he became a geological engineer is because the University of Alberta still didn't have a biology program.

Spence: Sam Otto was a renown prospector but was also a renown naturalist.

Bromley: We're being forced to come together in our thinking, is my impression. Originally the problems were clear, the questions were simple and the answers were simple. But now, although the questions may still be simple, the answers are a lot more complex, they involve everything -- economics, social values and the environment.

Nickerson: Most professionals in the mining business now want to (be environmentally responsible) -- they live there on the mine site. They're as concerned as anyone else with environmental things. They know it's expected of them. They go to a third world country and, if it's a BHP or a Rio Tinto, they'll use North American standards because they know if they don't they'll be in trouble with their shareholders and everyone else.

When I went to school the environmental things were just beginning to come in, it was just tacked on to the existing studies of engineering and surveying and geology and everything else.

But now I'm sure in university the environmental aspects of engineering and particularly mining engineering are first and foremost. It's changed.

Bryant: It's not like environment was the last lecture of chem-engineering 300 or something.

Bromley: You guys are talking about environment separately.

Nickerson: But it's integrated into everything else.

Bromley: You can't just say it is. BHP goes down to South Africa and gets people mining. It takes people off the land and they are no longer raising their own food and they get used to importing food.

Nickerson: That's precisely what we do in North America...

Bromley: -- and all of a sudden their currency crashes and the mines leave and they're left without their skills and so on.

Nickerson: Oh, come on, you're exaggerating.

Bromley: No I'm not, Dave!

Nickerson: People in Africa want the same standard of living we have.

They see how we operate our agriculture in North America. We have two per cent of the world population producing enough for the other 98 per cent, plus themselves, plus an exportable surplus and they say, 'Why can't we do things like that? Why can't we work in factories and make cars and all these good things that the North Americans do?'

They don't want a subsistence living. They have the same ambitions we have. They see us on TV now.

Bromley: Absolutely, it's all part of globalization. That's why these transnational corporations are subsidizing TV, so they can get this guy in rural Africa wanting just what you and I have.

But the earth can't support it. We're selling them a false message. Not only are we necessarily going to be reducing our standard of living, but we're going to have to raise theirs.

Nickerson: What's the solution? Do you and I go and live in tent in the bush again?

Bromley: That's the starting point. There's more than one way forward and it's not necessarily the way we've been charging. The separation --

Spence: This is a very philosophical discussion. It has bugger all to do with (arsenic at Giant).

Bromley: No. It is very, very relevant.

Nickerson: I think it has to do with preventing this from happening again, and --

Spence: Oh well, I'm too old.

Yellowknifer: Well, get us back on track.

Spence: I think this is a solvable problem. It just needs to be approached with some straight-thinking people with experience and training.

I don't know the solution and I don't think any of us here know it.

But I think it's solvable. I think we could freeze it, but to keep it frozen might not be that easy.

Yellowknifer: Do you think there's any time pressure to come up with a solution?

Spence: Not as along as someone's willing to keep the pumps going.

Nickerson: And they're going to be mining there on a reduced scale for the next little while, so that will happen.

Who knows in economics what happens. If the price of gold doubles, as it could do, then it changes the picture. It might be profitable to re-mine the stuff and get the gold out.

Who knows what's going to happen? They might find a new use for arsenic. It might be in demand and the price might go up. Right now you can't give the goddamned stuff away.

Anything could happen.

Bromley: One thing for sure is it's going to cost.

Spence: And it's going to take activity on the part of guys like us who say, 'Damn the ecology and full speed ahead' because the job's got to get done.