Red Lodge Clearinghouse

While environmental groups point out that the very nature of mining means it cannot be completely sustainable -- once the resource is mined, it is gone forever from that source -- many recognize improvements being made in the industry.

Salt Lake City-based Copper King Mining Corp. announced last month it had hired a public relations company to convey its "decision to go green."

"We basically want anybody that knows we're here to know we're doing the best job we can to protect the environment we live in and create as many jobs as possible," said Mark Dodson, Copper King's president. "We're in the desert, so we put out [water] troughs so wildlife has something to drink. Our facility is designed so we'll recycle and reuse every drop of water we can so we don't deplete the resource. We're using the most environmentally friendly reagents we can so we leave no footprint."

Meanwhile, Montana-based Stillwater Mining Co. has implemented a "good neighbor agreement" under which it negotiates with the local community protection plans for water resources. The company has gone so far as to hire a third party to verify that it is meeting its commitment.

And Denver-based Newmont Mining Corp. has independent teams evaluate its responsible mining practices because the company wants to be the "gold company of choice," according to Omar Jabara, senior director of communications at Newmont. "We're positioning the company to be a leader in the industry because we understand that governments and communities have choices about who develops natural resources in the area ... and we want them to choose Newmont," he said.

Jabara said the company already managed direct local environmental impacts through measures such as monitoring groundwater quality and putting in place redundant safety measures to ensure chemical releases do not happen. In addition, he said, Newmont is looking forward to better managing broader global challenges that affect everyone, including biodiversity and climate change.

"It's important to note that the products we produce are products that we all use," Jabara said. "[Gold] is used in everything from electronics to medical equipment. People have to understand that human activities have impacts on the environment. Some like to single out mining because it is very visible, [but] because there is a demand for the products we create to support a standard of living, our goal is to ensure the benefits of mining are applied to local communities where we operate as well."

'Greenwashing'

This drive to create more socially and environmentally responsible mining policies has received praise, albeit cautious praise.

"There are definitely companies trying to be good operators," said Dan Randolph, executive director of Great Basin Mines Watch, a Reno-based advocacy group for local mining reform.

However, despite the increased attention to more environmentally responsible practices, the desire for reform has not infiltrated deeply enough to risk the bottom line, Randolph pointed out.

"In general, it feels to me that the majority of the effort has been on greenwashing," Randolph said. "Companies are realizing they have to deal with local communities to get their projects permitted, so to the extent that they're having to win the fight in public opinion, they're reaching out to the various communities where they are trying to operate."

But, he said, "our overall experience is that they do what they have to do to stay in business and they don't go further. When push comes to shove, they're trying to minimize costs, so if they can get away with something, they will try to do so."

Randolph said proof that the industry still has a way to go is that the change talked about in the corporate culture for the most part has not yet reached the ground.

"It all boils down to when we see change on the ground in substantive ways. When a company says it will not go into a project because of potential harm or because of opposition from the local community -- when we see those changes -- then we'll think we're making progress," he said.

Payal Sampat, campaign director for Earthworks, agreed that more responsible mining was still in the early stages. "There are a handful of examples, but it's not a widespread trend," she said. Achieving the kind of change she and other advocates are pushing for will require leadership from within the mining industry to "raise the bar on environmental and social standards," she said.

"It's going to be unchartered territory, but it has the potential for such leaders in the mining industry to bring about the change that's really needed," Sampat said.

Creating an industry standard

Advocates for mining reform believe a standard to which mining companies are held accountable is critical to ensuring that companies practice the same objectives and policies they tout. This, they believe, is the next step toward more responsible mining.

"The dialogue has changed somewhat, with companies embracing the concepts of trying to improve their environmental track record," Sampat said. "What really counts is the changes on the ground, so there's a need for an independent, third-party verification ... of standards for responsible mining. If a company says it is not having an impact on a sensitive area, others need to know that is actually happening."

Various stakeholders in the industry, including mining companies, consumers and jewelry companies, have begun working together to develop such a standard for the industry. The Framework for Responsible Mining is a roundtable involving the different sectors with the goal of establishing "a set of environmental and social principles, standards and criteria against which a mining operation can be tested."

Sampat said for any certification standard to be successful, the bar needs to be raised on mining practices so that it does not end up being a verification of existing practices.

Testing the law

But Mark Dodson, president of Copper King, said he thinks a third-party verification system is overkill because most credible mining companies are actively engaged in responsible mining, in part because of the heavy regulations imposed at both the state and federal level.

"Anyone that's a responsible operator -- and most mining companies today are -- are going to comply with the permits and do everything in their power to be responsible, because if they shut down, they're going to lose everything," Dodson said. "There's a lot of nonsense floating around about what mining companies are or are not doing. It's true that mining companies in the early days did a lot of things they shouldn't have done and I don't condone that, but you can't keep making everyone pay for that."

Carol Raulston, senior vice president of communications, agreed that mining companies in the United States are required by law to ensure that maximum protection is given for environmental safeguards, since miners must comply with the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and other environmental statutes.

"The laws here are very comprehensive, so we have a lot of protection for air and water resources and wildlife," Raulston said.

Not everyone agrees that the current laws are sufficient to regulate the industry, given the track record of environmental protection, Randolph said. He pointed to the 1872 mining law that governs the permitting of mines in the United States on public lands as a reason why mining laws need reform (see related story and E&E Daily, Jan. 22).

"The laws are antiquated," Randolph said. "The test of laws is: Are they actually effective in preventing harm? The resounding answer with regard to existing regulations on mining is no. There continues to be an enormous number of modern mines that cause harm that will occur for centuries to water quality and the land. Obviously the laws aren't enough, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing this."

The mining law states that mining is the 'best use of the land,' which means that as long as a mining company can convince the regulating agencies it will not pollute water or violate other environmental statutes, it is given the right to proceed.

But Raulston argued that because the mining law was intended to govern the legal framework for mining on federally owned land and not how to mine, the environmental statutes in place are sufficient to protect natural resources.

'Cautiously optimistic'

There are signs that the bottom line could end up responding to more responsible mining, which gives many critics hope for stronger mining regulation in the future.

Companies are recognizing that the risk of mining disasters directly affects operations, as regulatory agencies slow down or halt the permitting processes and communities demand more protections for their resources.

"There is a lot of credibility attached to your record," Raulston said. "A history of being a responsible member of a community is a more authentic representation of what you're going to do going forward."

A four-year-old campaign, called "No Dirty Gold," is aimed at improving the way mining is carried out around the world by setting standards to ensure that areas of ecological significance are not affected by mining. So far, 28 companies have endorsed the campaign's "Golden Rules," which seek to ensure that gold is mined without threatening fragile ecosystems, damaging crucial waterways or violating human rights (Land Letter, Feb. 14).

As more attention is focused on mining companies and their impacts, Randolph said companies may begin to have less chance of getting away with certain harmful practices. "I'm cautiously optimistic even though there is still a long way to go," he said. "[Companies'] ability to keep things out of sight is decreasing. We've got to change the bottom line, and we do it by making it where 'operations as usual' doesn't work or costs them a project."