Archive for the ‘Mining’ Category

27 Mar

More Fracking Squabbles in Wyoming

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Environmental Enforcement, EPA, Fracking, Mining.

Photo by Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.

Photo by Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.

Natrona County District Judge Catherine Wilking dealt a blow to Wyoming denizens (Wyomingites?) seeking specific information on chemicals currently being pumped into the ground that could be potentially harmful to the environment. Essentially, the court in Casper ruled in favor of the state of Wyoming, which already has the sought-after intelligence about these chemicals (thanks to a 2010 rule in which Wyoming became one of the first states to require fracking companies to disclose their ingredients to the state government) but refuses to share this information with the general public.

A bit of background: the chemicals in question are used by mining companies to lubricate the cracks in the earth created by hydraulic fracturing (fracking), so that loose sand will pour in and hold the cracks open, to more easily access the natural gases beneath. Environmentalists across the globe have grave concerns about the environmental consequences of fracking, as readers of this blog already know. Wyoming itself is already on red alert with the EPA regarding what kind of permanent damage is being done by fracking to its groundwater. So, the demand by environmental groups to publicly release the ingredients of these fracking fluids does not seem inherently unreasonable to me, and yet the court found otherwise, on the grounds that the ingredients are trade secrets that are protected from disclosure under Wyoming’s open records laws. Environmentalists argue that they have strong claims to the information, as it could help prevent irreversible pollution damage.

While environmentalist groups debate taking the case to a higher court, James Fallow, in a fascinating Q&A with the Atlantic, argues that asteroid mining within the next century could save the environment.

15 Mar

Fracking Updates in NY, IL, and MN

Posted by John Renehan in Fracking, Hydraulic Fracturing, Mining.

Probably not the best sand for fracking. Photo by Sharon Mooney, some rights reserved.

A quick update on fracking regulations at the state level around the country: The New York State Assembly passed a two-year moratorium on high volume hydraulic fracturing, which must now go before the Senate, then Governor Andrew Cuomo. The bill also would require the State University of New York to conduct a review of high volume fracking. The Assembly’s bill follows similar moratoria passed in 2010 and 2011 that went nowhere in the Senate; however, the political makeup of the Senate makes the bill’s passage more likely this year.

Governor Cuomo’s administration is awaiting its own health impact study of fracking before proceeding with the Department of Environmental Conservation’s fracking regulations. This regulatory review process has already resulted in what is essentially a five-year ban on fracking. DLA Piper, whose memo gives the details on the moratorium, sees the prospects for shale gas production in New York to be low.

In contrast, Illinois, after five months of negotiations between environmental groups and the energy industry, has worked out draft regulations on fracking. The Natural Resources Defense Council stepped in to ensure that drillers were liable for water pollution and that they disclosed the chemical makeup of fracking fluid, among other safeguards.

The makeup of the fracking fluid that is injected to extract shale gas has been a hot topic recently, but a few Minnesota towns are making news by rejecting Minnesota Proppant’s proposal to open a sand processing and rail-loading facility. The sand near St. Charles Township in southeastern Minnesota is just the right size and strength to wedge open cracks just enough for natural gas to escape. And after St. Charles Township rejected their proposal, next-door St. Charles did the same. Supposedly Wisconsin has been more pro-sand mining in the past, but there is some evidence that it might not be smooth sailing there, either, as the town of Bridge Creek rejected similar plans for a sand mine there.

13 Feb

Protecting Utah’s Red Rocks

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Mining, National Parks.

Photo by frango. Some rights reserved.

Photo by frango. Some rights reserved.

Having never been to southern Utah, everything I know about its natural beauty I’ve learned through second hand reports and the film 127 Hours. Man-eating crevices aside, even a cursory Google image search for “Utah red rocks” make it pretty clear that it’s a special place, full of labyrinthine alien rock formations sculpted over millions of years by wind and rain. However, like all other scenes of extreme beauty, red-rock country in Utah is susceptible to the elements, especially when coupled with heavy tourism.

However, in the great tradition of John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt, Democratic Utah state senator Jim Dabakis has proposed setting aside 1.5 million acres of the red-rock area as under federal government protection. This area is currently adjacent to but outside the jurisdiction of the Canyonlands National Park, which means it’s currently managed at the state level. Mining entrepreneurs have had eyes on this territory for some time, which alarms conservationists who would see this are endure. Hence, Mr. Dabakis’ resolution to protect these lands from any sort of development, save for an unspecified amount of land in eastern Utah that while be used for energy development.

“The recreation people aren’t going to be happy, the drill-baby-drill crowd isn’t going to be happy,” Dabakis said to the New York Times. “But it will be a giant victory with some individual losses.”

28 Aug

Alaska Gold: PBS Frontline on Pebble Mine

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Mining.

Photo by simonmjowitt. Some rights reserved.

Bristol Bay is a beautiful region in Southwest Alaska, home to glacial ponds, mountain ranges, and some of the largest runs of salmon in the world. It’s also home to massive amounts of porphyry copper, gold, and molybdenum mineral deposits.

These natural resources haven’t gone unnoticed. The minerals in the so-called “Pebble deposit” are on land owned by the state of Alaska, but the rights to those deposits are owned by the Pebble Partnership, an Alaska limited partnership formed in 2007 between Anglo American PLC and Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.

The Pebble Partnership is currently in the pre-feasibility and pre-permitting research stage of developing a mine to extract the estimated $300 billion worth of recoverable metals. As part of this research process, a few years ago the Pebble Partnership commissioned an Environmental Baseline Document characterizing the “physical, biological and social environment as it exists today.”

Using their own research earlier this year, the EPA released an assessment of potential impacts to the area from mining operations. The assessment projected a major loss of fish habitat, the high probability of a damaging pipeline break, and the continuous threat of acid mine drainage, but the developers were quick to strike back, calling the study “scientifically flawed, inappropriately timed and politically motivated.”

Such possible environmental impacts make up the bulk of opponents’ concerns. Proponents, on the other hand, see the exploration and development as a chance to create jobs in the area and reduce American dependence on foreign raw materials. To fully explain the controversy of Pebble Mine, however, you’d need a full-length documentary – so I’m handing the reigns over to PBS Frontline, which has taken on the growing battle in Bristol Bay in the documentary Alaska Gold.

 * * *

Alaska Department of Natural Resources has more links to related information.

17 Jul

GAO to SEC: Still No Final Rule on Conflict Minerals? Really?

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Conflict Minerals, Dodd-Frank, Mining.

By now, the SEC’s leisurely pace for adopting the mining & minerals provisions under Dodd-Frank has become almost comical. The final rule for Section 1503 (Mine Safety Disclosure) was published approximately one year after the rule was initially proposed. The rules under Section 1504 (Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers) and Section 1502 (Conflict Minerals) haven’t done any better – the final versions of the rules proposed back in December of 2010 have yet to surface. And folks are getting antsy.

Yesterday the GAO published a relatively neutral-sounding report, “Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule: SEC’s Actions and Stakeholder-Developed Initiatives,” that talked about all the various factors leading to the SEC’s delay in finalizing the conflict mineral rule. Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to issue a disclosure rule for companies using conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold) in their products, and it’s a complicated and controversial subject.

The SEC claims that since July 2010, it has received “a large and steady volume of comment letters […] with over 400 distinct comment letters posted to its website.” (Knowledge Mosaic subscribers can see comments here.) The time to address these comment letters, along with the many meeting requests from external stakeholders have supposedly contributed to the SEC’s delays.

In addition, the GAO says that the SEC has faced a sharp learning curve in “develop[ing] contextual understanding” about “relevant in-region political and economic actors, economic arrangements between these actors, and other evolving issues in these [mineral-rich, war-torn] countries,” and that the Commission has taken on “complex and time-consuming” “rigorous economic analysis” as a result.

The problem is, these delays are more than just a slight professional embarrassment – according to the GAO, various stakeholders have already developed and implemented initiatives that may help affected companies comply with the anticipated rule. Now, “due to the uncertainty regarding potential due diligence and disclosure requirements stemming from SEC’s delay in issuing a final rule, some stakeholders’ efforts to improve their initiatives through expansion and harmonization have been hindered.”

GAO’s recommendations? “GAO recommends that the Chairman of SEC identify remaining steps and associated time frames to issue a final rule.”

For background on the conflict minerals provisions, check out some of our previous posts. And don’t forget to check out the GAO report for more details on the delays.

22 Dec

Two “Big Deal” Final Rules Released: Mine Safety Disclosure and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Dodd-Frank, Mercury, Mining, Particle Pollution, Power Plants.

Photo by Grayskullduggery. Some rights reserved.

December 21st marked a day of great regulatory importance as both the SEC and EPA released final versions of rules that have been in the works for years.

The SEC published Final Rule 33-9286, “Mine Safety Disclosure,” – which implements Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Act – a grandiose 364 days after the proposed version hit the Federal Register. The new rule will dictate how mining companies must disclose information about mine safety and health in certain SEC filings. Now that the rule has finalized (it becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Regsiter), we hope to see examples of this disclosure from more companies than just Monarch Cement Co.

Even earlier in the day came the news that the EPA had revealed its new, finalized rule setting national standards to limit mercury, acid gases and other toxic pollution from power plants. Grist called the rules a “Big Deal,” waxing poetic about how the rules “will make America a more decent, just, and humane place to live.” Grist wasn’t the only one who thought so – we thought they were landmark, too. To read more about the standards, check out the EPA’s “MATS” page.

So go ahead and mark December 21st down in your calendar. It may just go down in history.

4 Nov

Early (very early) Adopters of Mine Safety Disclosure

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Dodd-Frank, Environmental Disclosure, Mining.

They're early - but for what worm? Photo by rabbot. Some rights reserved.

Even though the SEC’s Mine Safety Disclosure rule has been stuck in an adolescent state of proposedness for almost an entire year, it hasn’t stopped some companies from getting a leg up on complying.

Well, one company.

Just a few months ago, Monarch Cement Co, a Kansas-based manufacturer and seller of “portland” cement, became the first – and only so far – company to file an Exhibit 95, “Mine Safety Disclosure,” as part of a quarterly report. All this, even though the disclosure isn’t even required yet.

The SEC proposed rule (which implements Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Act), if adopted, will require “issuers that are operators, or that have a subsidiary that is an operator, of a coal or other mine to disclose in their periodic reports filed with the Commission information regarding specified health and safety violations, orders and citations, related assessments and legal actions, and mining-related fatalities.”

Exhibit 95 is just one of the ways this type of disclosure will be filed. The same proposed rule, once finalized, will also require similar disclosure in a new item of Form 8-K, Item 1.04 (Mine Safety – Reporting of Shutdowns and Patterns of Violations). As of yet, no early birds have filed this item. Once they do, you’ll see Item 1.04 pop up in our list of Items in the 8-K section of knowledgemosaic’s SEC filings search page.

And what you’ve all been waiting for? Monarch’s Exhibit 95 can be found here.

* * *

The Green Mien has been keeping our collective eye on the energy and environmental aspects of Dodd-Frank. Check out our related posts.

22 Mar

Nu-West vs. United States, CERCLA, RCRA, and More

Posted by Hester Serebrin in CERCLA, Environmental Disclosure, Environmental Enforcement, Mining, RCRA.

Photo by Marion Doss. Some rights reserved.

A few weeks ago we reported on a recent Form 6-K filed by Agrium Inc – the parent company of Nu-West Industries – in which they disclosed earlier investigations by both the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and the EPA regarding facility- and industry-wide compliance with CERCLA, as well as possible violations of RCRA and the CAA.

The Form 6-K also revealed that Nu-West had entered into a voluntary consent order with the EPA (signed in 2009), which compelled them to “identify actual or potential human and/or ecological receptors to fully determine the nature and extent of the presence and/or release of hazardous wastes at or from the facility.” The filing goes on to affirm that the company is “working cooperatively with EPA and the IDEQ to implement this environmental assessment.”

The facility in question is a phosphate mine located in Conda, Idaho, but this isn’t the first time Nu-West’s Idaho facilities have come under attack. Nu-West had been leasing land in Idaho from the US federal government for decades when they “discovered” selenium contamination at several mining sites in the1990s. They later claimed that the US had known about the contamination for years without making the information public.

In 2009, Nu-West filed a complaint against the federal government, asserting that once Nu-West found out about the contamination, they “worked diligently to investigate and remediate the Mine Sites,” while the United States “has not cooperated in any fashion.” They went on to argue that “[a]lthough the United States is the landowner and the party most responsible for the selenium contamination at the Mine Sites, the United States chose to oversee the cleanup of the Mine Sites itself and has demanded that Plaintiffs conduct the remediation at their sole expense.”

The complaint sought to recover approximately $10 million in costs incurred by Nu-West in connection with the remediation of the Idaho mine sites, and on March 4, 2011 – just three days before the Form 6-K was filed – the court sided with Nu-West. In the order, the court deemed the United States “an owner, operator, and arranger for purposes of 42 USC § 9607(a) with regard to the CERCLA clean up costs sought in this case.”

What does this mean for the US as landowner? While it’s currently unclear exactly how much the government will have to dish out in this particular case, according to Marten Law, the decision could give the government “a share of cleanup costs on leased property throughout the nation.” For thorough background on CERCLA liability, and the definitions of “owner,” “operator,” and “arranger” thereunder, I recommend reading Marten Law’s recent article on the case.

4 Nov

Making Molehills of Mountaintops

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Administrative Procedures Act, Environmental Enforcement, Mining.

Photo by Stefan Didam. Some rights reserved.

As Green Mien contributor Julia posted previously, following an EPA recommendation that Arch Coal’s mountaintop removal mining project permit be withdrawn, the coal-cuddling West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin threatened legal action against the agency. And action he has certainly taken.

The lawsuit against the EPA was filed October 6, 2010, on behalf of the whole State of Virginia. Specifically, the plaintiffs are challenging the Enhanced Surface Coal Mining Pending Permit Coordination Procedures and the Detailed Guidance Memorandum issued by EPA earlier this year. According to the complaint, “those two documents became effective immediately upon their issuance,” and have been “used as standards by which EPA and the [Army Corps of Engineers] make decisions regarding, comment on, and object to surface (and other) mining permits, including those permits affecting West Virginia.” The complaint goes on to argue that “those agency actions were taken outside of formal rulemaking procedures and amount to de facto substantive rule changes in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.”

In their “Prayer for Relief,” the plaintiffs seek an order vacating the two documents, as well as an order directing the EPA “to process and review all pending surface mining permits pursuant to the properly codified regulatory process and timelines.”

The suit, much like Manchin himself, is not restrained in expressing disdain for the EPA’s “brazen disrespect for the notice-and-comment rulemaking,” calling the EPA “impatient and anxious[…]to take a stand.” The contentious documents are, in the plaintiffs’ eyes, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,” which is probably why the EPA’s actions under them “could sound the death knell for surface coal mining.”

Folks (at least the vocal ones) are worried and angry in particular about effects on the West Virginia economy. According to an article in West Virginia’s MetroNews, since January of 2009 – when “the EPA began implementing new policies and procedures [for] permits for mountaintop mining” – twenty-three permits have been put on hold, including several in West Virginia. The suit accuses these delays of “threatening the economic well-being of the State of West Virginia and its citizens and imperiling the general public interest.” Manchin expressed the same sentiment at a news conference the day the complaint was filed.

What happens next? Read this recent RiskMetrics blog post to see how the 2010 midterm elections could change the course of coal and render some of Manchin’s arguments moot.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 207 other followers

%d bloggers like this: