Blogotional

In the late 1980's I did quite a bit of work in Nevada's very large gold mining industry. The "Carlin Trend" near Elko, NV is one of the largest gold deposits in the world. There is little work I have enjoyed more. The long truck rides in the arid Great Basin, occasionally coming into a town, just makes you feel like one of the pioneers of old, a boom-towner. It was really fun, and terribly important work.

So with that background I tore into this NYTimes piece with a relish.


I was met with an article full of prevarications, misdirection, misunderstanding and a structure designed to make the problem seem far worse than it actually is. In the first place, if you can wade through this very lengthy piece, you will find most of the genuine problems they cite are in other, often third-world, countries. I find it truly fascinating that the same kind of people that would loathe our military action in Iraq as sticking our nose in where it does not belong, would advicate so heavily for action in other nations where the same logic would say we do not belong.

But more problematic is the structure of the article where they intermix, almost indiscriminatly, anecdotes from those third world nations with opinions and quotes from American "experts" making it seem like the problem is not only in those third world countries, but also in ours -- something which is simply not true. There is also the simple misapplication of facts.

I am gong to look at just three quotes from the piece to illustrate the kinds of problems present.

Hard-rock mining generates more toxic waste than any other industry in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Fair enough, but the article is about gold mining. It's been a few years since I checked, but the last time I did there were only two hard rock gold mines in the US. Most gold mining in this country is not hard rock mining. But even if we assume that all gold mining is hard rock mining, we should also assume that all copper mining is hard rock mining. For every ton of ore moved for gold mining, there are 10-20 moved for copper mining, so why are we picking on gold miners? Moreover, generating toxic waste is not the issue -- handling toxic waste is the issue.

Cyanide can present long-term problems, too. Most scientists agree that cyanide decomposes in sunlight and is not dangerous if greatly diluted. But a study by the United States Geological Survey in 2000 said that cyanide can convert to other toxic forms and persist, particularly in cold climates.

And just as cyanide dissolves gold out of the rock, it releases harmful metals, too.

Cyanide is used to extract the gold from the low grade ores mined these days. Play close attention to that sentence -- the cyanide associates with the gold to remove it from the ore. Thus the mines seek, very carefully and very thoroughly to collect ALL the cyanide because then they get all the gold. Also note the use of the word "can" - not "does." Nor do they cite evidence of pollution from those "harmful" metals at mines, because those other metals are recovered when the gold is recovered and sold into the open market, though they barely affect the balance sheet of the mine because of the relatively lesser value. I know one mine that produces 10 ounces of mercury to every ounce of gold, but it is still a "gold" mine and every ounce of mercury is recovered and sold into market. Most mines produce at least as much or more silver as they do gold -- again, captured and sold.

But stopping pollution forever is difficult. Even rock piles that are capped, in an attempt to keep out air and rain, can release pollutants, particularly in wet climates.

By the "concerns" raised by that statement we should cease all industrial activity, period. Because, of course, we can never fully guarantee that anything we do will not someday maybe result in a problem.

I could go on, but it would become repetitive. This is one of the worse environmental pieces I have ever read.