Abitibi Metals boosts resource by 62% at B26 polymetallic deposit in Quebec
Indicated resources increased to 11.3 million tonnes from 6.9 Mt.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Friday a new set of financial responsibility requirements for the hard rock mining industry, which main goal is said to be protecting taxpayers from having to carry the weight of expensive clean-up operations.
Under the proposed regulation, companies mining non-coal minerals such as gold, silver, copper or lead would have to demonstrate to the EPA that they can afford clean-up costs once the mine is closed. And they’d have to do so through bonds, insurance, self-insurance or similar.
Firms mining non-coal minerals such as gold, silver, copper or lead would have to demonstrate to the EPA that they can afford clean-up costs once they shut their mines.
“Far too often the American people bear the costs of expensive environmental clean-ups stemming from hard-rock mining and mineral processing,” Mathy Stanislaus, the EPA’s assistant administrator for land programs, said in a statement.
“This proposed rule, once finalized, would move the financial burden from taxpayers, and ensure that industry assumes responsibility for these cleanups,” he noted.
But the American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA), which represents about 2,500 firms involved in prospecting, exploring, mining, and reclamation closure activities, is calling the suggested norm “a job killer.”
“This proposed rule serves no purpose other than to stop investment in America’s mineral supply chain and drive jobs away,” Laura Skaer, AEMA Executive Director, said in a statement. “It provides no discernable environmental benefit, while adding hundreds of millions of dollars of costs and regulatory compliance burdens on industry.”
The National Mining Association also slammed the proposal. “This rule is unnecessary, redundant and poorly constructed, and exemplifies all the problems of rushed rulemaking from an outgoing administration,” president Hal Quinn said in a statement.
While President-elect Donald Trump’s administration may change the tabled guidelines, the environmental agency must comply with a court order to publish a final rule on the subject by December 2017.
EPA will be accepting comments on the proposal for 60 days.
5 Comments
G Man
It is hard to argue there is not a need for something like this… Just how long can some of these hard rock mines stay in Care & Maintenance?
Kenneth Viney
iN MY OPINION THERE MORE PRESSING EPA issues. Spent nuclear fuel dump is only one. This garbage has a 1/2 life of up to 7,000 years while even most open pit reclaim efforts when poorly done have a 100 year self generation to 30% of original except in desert regions.
Charles Driver
Meh…not a problem, the orange haired wonder will gut the EPA, and any profits to be made by mining from the gut job will be made. The real question is are those profits enough to keep mining jobs regardless of all the advancement in robotics. Miners don’t worry about environmental cancer/environmental impact so maybe there is nothing to the argument? Who would know better than a miner who works the earth everyday about what mining does to environment. Never heard them complain one day about what mining is doing to their children but they complain EVERYDAY about what not having a mining job is doing to their children.
fauzan
My opinion there policy of mine is to resource for Oil benefit to resource machine Vehicle, to benefit machine and benefit to factory in distict , Copper for benefit ,silver and gold the next generation resource for Oil, Copper, silver, and gold should need to children and child next to next 5 century, The enviromental impact is smoke, particle of dust, particle substance in mine or particle chemical in mine, because can absorb in bronchitis or lung and maybe cancer
Lois Johnson
Perhaps the American taxpayer should stop using metals and then there would be no need to mine them.