It’s been awhile since my last blog article.   Work and other commitments seem to get in the way.
Smoking… we constantly hear about the negative effects of it.  We all know of people that have died due to lung cancer or other smoking related causes.  However we probably also know of people that have smoked their entire lives yet lived into their eighties.  Regardless of that, there still is a push to get people to kick the smoking habit because it is better for them and their families.  Short term pain for long term gain.
Let’s compare all of that with the concept of fluid tailings storage.
Tailings…those of us in the mining industry constantly hear about the negative effects tailings storage.  We know of numerous mines that have had failures resulting in fatalities and catastrophic damage.  However we also know of many mines that have used fluid tailings their entire operating lives without any incidents.  Given the recent Samarco tailings failure, for me the question has now become whether the mining industry should kick the habit of fluid tailings storage despite no failure in many circumstances.
Quitting smoking requires real effort, some pain, a change in lifestyle, and an overall commitment to quit.   It isn’t easy but generally pays off in the long run when you speak with those who have already quit.  Similarly for the mining industry, moving away from fluid tailings storage requires real effort, some pain, a change in operating style, and an overall commitment to quit.  It wouldn’t be easy but might pay off in the long run by avoiding major tailings incidents, less negative press, and fewer environmental permitting issues.  No longer would the consultants and regulators be disputing factors of safety of 1.3 versus 1.5, when they could be discussing factors of safety of 5 or 10.
Just as quitting smoking brings relief to oneself and family, quitting fluid tailings storage may bring relief to stakeholders, shareholders, regulators, and mine management.  They can all sleep better at night knowing there isn’t a large mass of fluid being restrained simply by a rockfill dam at a factor of safety of 1.5.  Engineers say they can design dams that if built properly will be stable for the long term, and I tend to agree with this statement.  However that is no guarantee for all tailings dams, the proof of which is major incident we seem to see regularly.
My bottom line is that no one wants to sit downwind of a smoker and no one wants to live downstream of a tailings dam.  Perhaps it is time for the mining industry to kick the habit of using fluid tailings storage, regardless of cost and discomfort that it causes. Short term pain for long term gain.
Share

8 thoughts on “36. Fluid Tailings – Time to Kick The Habit?

  1. hardrockminer

    The factors of safety on dams are really only factors of ignorance to protect against unknown issues. If the FOS was increased to say…2.0 then fluid filled dams would not be an issue.

  2. Ken Kuchling Post author

    I don’t know if even a FoS of 2 would cover off the possibilities. There is piping failure due to poor filter construction, higher than expected water levels & phreatic surfaces due to seasonal events, misidentified foundation conditions, etc.. Potentially a lot of things can theoretically can go wrong but most of them would disappear by using a dry stack. Its all the unknowns that are the problem. It will be interesting to see the cause of failure at Samarco in Brazil.

  3. hardrockminer

    A talked with Jack Caldwell about dry stack. He was doing some work on a project in SA. They were having filtration problems that limited their output to (if I correctly recall) 4,000 tpd. Greens Creek is dry stack, but only 2,000 tpd. Trying to run a 50,000 tpd dry stack has never been done as far as I am aware. That is the biggest issue with dry stack. Second biggest is how to manage acid generation.

  4. Ken Kuchling Post author

    My gut feel says if the guys who can design a massive 40 ft 28 MW grinding mill were tasked with designing a large capacity filtering system, they could probably do it. However the impetus must be there for them to do this and it’s up to industry to ask for it. Likely the capex and opex wouldn’t be insignificant, but maybe that’s a new environmental cost the industry will need to start building into their economics in the coming years. Large capacity water treatment plants are now seen as a cost of doing business, something that really wasn’t the norm 20 years ago. Advanced tailings processing may be next.

  5. hardrockminer

    Who says the engineers can design a 40 ft 28 mw grinding mill? The one at Mt Milligan was supposed to process 60,000 tonnes per day but it’s only averaging about 44,000.

    My point is that there is already a lot of risk in building a mine, as is indicated by Mt Milligan. Adding more risk with untested technology is not going to encourage investors to fund new mines. Fluid filled dams have been around in various applications for centuries. The amount of geotech work done for a hydro dam is many times the amount done for a tailings dam. We need to ask why is that? When a P Eng puts his stamp on a design he has to be sure it will work. The designers of the Mt Polley dam should be hauled up in front of the discipline board to explain their design. Someone needs to be held accountable.

  6. hardrockminer

    I was reading yesterday that BC’s Site C hydro dam will be earth filled. That tells me that BC is not concerned with fluid filled earth structures….

  7. Ken Kuchling Post author

    Be interesting to know what factor of safety they design to (versus a tails dam FoS) and what compaction specs they require for the entire dam (versus typical tails dam compaction requirements) to allow someone to make a good side by side comparison.

  8. hardrockminer

    Yes, and also the geotechnical work done prior to construction.

    I recall from a past job that downstream waste is normally compacted by driving on it with the trucks and placed in 5 meter lifts.. SG is normally assumed to be about 2.0. Core was also compacted by trucks, and sometimes by sheepsfoot. Normally laid down no more than 0.5 meters at a time. Also tested via densometer and with instrumentation and removed if it didn’t meet spec. Filter material normally produced onsite to a very tight spec. Lots of it thrown out if it doesn’t meet spec. An engineer or a tech onsite at all times during construction.

Leave a reply

required