Search Documents

By L Huang

"Successful rehabilitation of tailings landforms of tens to thousands of hectares in size at base metal mines is critical to mining companies’ ‘social licence to operate’. Rehabilitation technology used is closely related to both the economic sustainability of the mining company and the ecological sustainability of the mined environment. Conventional technology to rehabilitate mine waste landforms is costly and constrained by the availability of soil (to reconstruct root zones) and clay materials (to reconstruct compressed layer). Depending on mine waste properties and site-specific resource availability, it is not uncommon to cost A$0.1–0.5 M/ha for the establishment of conventional cover systems over mine waste domains, which often accounts for large proportion of the total closure costs. This can lead to costs approaching several hundred millions dollars for rehabilitating larger tailings and acidic waste rock using conventional cover systems.The present extended abstract proposes a suite of new technologies to tackle the problems outlined above and discusses critical factors in successful rehabilitation from substrate levels to the whole landform performance, in two key aspects:in situ engineering of tailings soil to offset/reduce materials requiredin situ chemical engineering of massive hardpan layer through alkali-activation and mineral gel cross-linking network mechanisms to encapsulate reactive tailings and achieving sustainable hydro-geochemical stability in root zones.This aims at functionally replacing the roles of the compressed clay layer and capillary breaks in conventional covers. These technologies would improve both the economic and ecological sustainability of mine waste rehabilitation, thus addressing the triple-bottom line of mining and mineral processing industries not only in Australia but other countries.CITATION:Huang, L, 2016. Emerging technology for economic and ecological sustainability in the rehabilitation of metal mine tailings, in Proceedings Life-of-Mine 2016 Conference, pp 128–131 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Jun 28, 2016

The exploration industry generally has a low opinion of the quality of the service supplied to it by government departments. In particular, the academic research-related emphasis of the Bureau of Mineral Resources (BMR) and the relatively low level of explora- tion assistance offered by several Mines Departments are of concern. In a number of areas of geoscience research, the industry perceives a mixup of priorities and a lack of understanding on the part of governments as to its needs. While government's sights are, and should be, set on the future needs of the community at large, the industry doubts that government budget allocations to the BMR and Mines Departments are either large enough or being cost-effectively spent. This is certainly the case for such areas as exploration assist- ance, provision of basic exploration data, and applied geoscientific research. On balance, the exploration industry's perceptions are misguided in a number of respects because of a lack of communication with government. However, this reinforces the need for changes in the manner in which govern- ment departments communicate with industry and, in particular, the criteria upon which research priorities are based. At a time of contracting oil and mineral exploration expenditure, and near-record levels of geoscientist unemployment, the government's role is critical and should be open to question.

Jan 1, 1986

A mining operation can be identified as demonstrating prudent management when a number of vital characteristics are evident.All risks and opportunities that are critical to the on-going success of the operation have been identified and are being effectively managed. All significant tasks and events are plan driven. All levels of management visibly support the policies of the operation through their attitude, behaviour and actions as well as words. Supporting evidence for required activity and the outcomes is readily available. Improvement mechanisms are working to advance the key business processes. Everyone is working towards satisfying the needs of the stakeholders of the operation. When these characteristics are integrated with the satisfaction of all legislative requirements, all industry codes and optionally all relevant international management system standards then an operation is fulfilling all the requirements of a Due Diligence Process. The majority of mining operations do not show all of these characteristics and therefore unnecessarily suffer from missed profit opportunity and constant cost pressure, less than acceptable safety and health and environmental performance and consequent poor relations with employees, unions and regulators. In these operations the characteristics to be observed are quite different.Serious incidents are occurring with no sign of a rate decrease. The operation lurches from one panic ituation to another. Management are absent in their leadership, but very active in developing rules and enforcement methodologies. The operation has no history. Re-inventing the wheel with employees who come and go at an alarming rate seems to be forever occurring. All efforts are directed at controlling the business outputs with a strong emphasis on blame. Everyone is trying to look busy to avoid the ever-present cost reduction threats. To change to more prudent management utilising a Due Diligence Process is not theoretically difficult. However it does take clear direction, focussed efforts, supporting actions with appropriate tools and perhaps most importantly an internal desire and drive to become such an operation. A Due Diligence Process is about doing the important things that have to be done, providing the understanding of why they are important, demonstrating proof of activity and effectiveness, and leading the way through effective management.

Jan 1, 1998