Sustainable development principles for the disposal of mining and mineral

processing wastes
Daniel M. Franks
a,n
, David V. Boger
b,1
, Claire M. C ote
c,2
, David R. Mulligan
d,3
a
Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
b
The University of Melbourne, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
c
Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, The University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4072, Australia
d
Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, The University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 June 2010
Received in revised form
10 December 2010
Accepted 10 December 2010
Available online 11 January 2011
JEL classication:
L72
N50
O19
Keywords:
Sustainable development
Tailings
Waste management
Policy
Mining
a b s t r a c t
This paper examines the minerals industrys response to sustainable development in the area of waste
disposal and argues that leadership and guidance are still needed to forge collective agreement on norms
and standards of practise. To encourage further debate, the paper develops a set of sustainable
development principles for the disposal of mining and mineral processing wastes, and discusses the
implications for current and future practise. In practise, the principles can guide waste disposal decisions
through the consideration of what risk and magnitude, in any given local context, a particular
management solution poses to their application. The sustainability challenge in the management of
tailings and waste rock is to dispose of material, such that it is inert or, if not, stable and contained, to
minimise water and energy inputs and the surface footprint of wastes and to move toward nding
alternate uses. Future trends in mining and processing may compound the challenges of waste
management, as lower ore grades increase the ratio of waste produced for a given unit of resource,
and emphasise the urgency and need for the industry to adopt new approaches. New technologies and
innovations, such as thickened tailings, dry stacking and paste backll, have greatly increased the waste
disposal methods available to meet the future challenges to sustainable development.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Incidents of poor waste management practise are amongst the
most conspicuous features of the global minerals industry. Tailings
spills, dam failures, seepage, unrehabilitated sites and cases of
direct discharge into waterways can result in severe and long-term
environmental and social consequences (Van Zyl, 1993; ICME and
UNEP, 1998; Hart, 2007; Franks, 2007; Spitz and Trudinger, 2009;
Fourie, 2009). Mine and mineral processing wastes have the
potential to leave environmental, social and economic legacies
for thousands of years (Kempton et al., 2010), as evidenced by sites
such as the Rio Tinto estuary in Spain, where surface water
contamination is still present from historic mining as early as
4500 years ago (Leblanc et al., 2000).
The legacy of poor waste management continues to dispropor-
tionately shape the reputation of the minerals industry, the will-
ingness of governments and communities to support new
operations, the approach of governments towards their choice of
policy instruments, and the calculations of risk made by nancial
institutions and investors (Boger, 2009; Boger and Hart, 2008).
Exploitation of lower ore grades and the associated increase in
waste per unit resource (Mudd, 2010), and competition over water
and other resources (Kemp et al., 2010), have the potential to
compoundthe future challenges of waste management. While poor
waste management can lead to substantial liabilities for the public,
it can also impose costs on mining and minerals processing
companies by eroding share value, increasing the risks of tempor-
ary or permanent shut down, exposure to compensation, nes and
litigation costs, lost future opportunities and increased remedia-
tion and monitoring, to name a few.
Despite these risks, there remains a lack of consensus amongst
companies, peak industry bodies, investors, international nancial
institutions, civil society organisations and governments on how
waste management practices canmeet the challenge of sustainable
development (MMSD, 2002). For example, some resource compa-
nies, suchas BHP Billiton, have nowruledout the practise of tailings
disposal directly into waterways (see BHP Billiton, 2009), while
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol
Resources Policy
0301-4207/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.12.001
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3346 3164, fax: +61 7 3346 4045.
E-mail addresses: d.franks@uq.edu.au (D.M. Franks),
dvboger@unimelb.edu.au (D.V. Boger), c.cote@smi.uq.edu.au (C.M. C ote),
d.mulligan@cmlr.uq.edu.au (D.R. Mulligan).
1
Tel.: +61 3 8344 7440, fax: +61 3 8344 6233.
2
Tel.: +61 7 3346 4012, fax: +61 7 3346 4045.
3
Tel.: +61 7 3346 4050, fax: +61 7 3346 4056.
Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122
others continue to utilise such techniques. The Norwegian Pension
Fund Global has divested froma number of operations based on an
assessment of their tailings disposal techniques, including cases of
direct disposal (Government PensionFund Global, 2008, 2009). The
issue of direct disposal is contrasted by the increased use of paste
and thickened tailings technologies which have the potential to
dramatically improve the waste management outcomes with
respect to sustainable development (Nguyen and Boger, 1998;
Sofra and Boger, 2002; Jewell and Fourie, 2006; Boger et al., 2006;
Boger, 2009; Fourie, 2009). The diversity of perspectives reects, in
part, the individual circumstances faced by different governments,
companies and investors and the local contexts in which they
operate. However, it also arises as a consequence of an absence of
clear policy guidance on the conditions that need to be met to
ensure responsible waste disposal and the lack of a policy response
by international institutions and peak industry bodies.
While the management of mining and minerals processing
wastes encompasses a broad array of issues across the waste
hierarchy (reducereuserecycletreatdispose), this paper
focuses on the issue of waste disposal. The reduction, reuse,
recycling and treatment of mining and minerals processing waste
are increasingly receiving greater research and development
attention for their contribution to improving the sustainability of
the minerals industry (see, for example, vanBeers et al. (2007)). The
reuse of mining and minerals processing waste, if inert, can offset
the impacts that would have been generated by the replaced
material, and reduce the amount of waste produced per given unit
of resource. Reprocessing of waste has the potential to provide an
economic opportunity to rehabilitate historical sites into stable
landforms. Improved processing efciency can provide the means
for ore minerals to be recovered fromhistoric mining and minerals
processing waste, and an economic incentive for rehabilitation.
There is, however, also muchto be gained frombetter management
of wastes, which continue to be produced in high volumes in most
contemporary and foreseeable mineral developments.
This paper asks the questions: (1) what does the responsible
disposal of mining and minerals processing waste look like in light
of the sustainable development agenda? And (2) what policy
guidance is available to the industry to help navigate the suitability
of various waste disposal methods to their local context? To answer
these questions, the paper traverses the various sustainable
development initiatives of the global minerals industry, including
the Global Mining Initiative, the World Bank Extractive Industries
Reviewandthe International Council onMining andMetals (ICMM)
with respect to the issue of waste disposal. In light of this analysis,
the paper distils a set of principles to guide responsible disposal of
mining and minerals processing wastes and discusses the implica-
tions for past, current and future practise.
Waste and the minerals industry response to sustainable
development
Sustainable development is a concept which attempts to shape
the interaction between the environment and society, such that
advances in wellbeing are not accompanied by deterioration of the
ecological and social systems whichwill support life into the future
(WCED, 1987). Due to the importance of mineral resources to
contemporary society, debates about mining and sustainability at
the global and national level have focussed on the issue of renew-
ability, resource access and endowment, consumption rates and
appropriate use (Hilson and Murck, 2000). At the local scale, the
issue of renewability is less relevant. While it is true that mineral
resources are not readily renewable, due to the slow timescales by
which bio-geophysical systems replenish ore bodies, it is also true
that minerals targeted for extraction are less fundamental to the
function of ecosystems supported above them than the way that,
for example, timber is fundamental to a forest.
Instead, much of the sustainable development debate at the
scale of a mining or mineral processing operation is necessarily
focused on the challenge of if, where, and/or how, the development
might proceed without signicantly disturbing the ecosystems,
communities and economies overlying and surrounding mineral
deposits and processing sites and the issues that need to be
considered to make such a determination.
The management of mining and minerals processing wastes is
therefore a fundamental sustainable development issue. The ele-
ments and compounds uncovered and liberated through mining
and processing, which are not usually part of the ecological
systems (in such a form or concentration) have the potential to
alter the receiving environment to its detriment. Most mining and
minerals processing wastes contain minerals which are formed at
higher temperatures and pressures at the geological depth. When
exposedtosurcial conditions, or as a result of processing, minerals
may breakdown releasing elements from their mineralogical
bindings which may not be easily absorbed by unaccustomed
ecosystems without impact. It is precisely, because these elements
did not interact with the overlying ecosystems before mining
that they may pose issues to ecosystems and communities post-
mining.
Following the release of the Brundtland Report by the UN
World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 and
the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de
Janeiro in 1992, the minerals industry undertook a series of con-
sultations to better understand the relationship between resource
extraction and sustainable development. Through such fora as the
Global Mining Initiative (19992002), the World Banks Extractive
Industry Review (20012004), and the International Council on
Mining and Metals (formed in 2001), the industry has sought to
position itself as a positive contributor to the sustainable develop-
ment agenda.
As part of the Global Mining Initiative, the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development and the International Insti-
tute for Environment and Development undertook a review of the
sustainability of the minerals industry called the Mining, Minerals
and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD). The nal report,
Breaking NewGround, proposed a series of principles of sustainable
development for the minerals sector, among them to promote
responsible stewardship of natural resources, to remediate past
damage and to minimise waste and environmental impacts along
the supply chain (MMSD, 2002). The report urged that mining and
minerals processing should not leave unacceptable legacies and
long-term damage, should shoulder the costs of remediation, and
should exercise prudence, where potential impacts are not known.
With regard to the waste management, the report emphasised the
need to ensure physical and chemical stabilities of the disposed
waste, avoid the release of elevated metals and residual chemicals
into the environment and minimise the water consumption.
Finally, the report recommended:
Large-volume wastethe International Council on Mining &
Metals (ICMM) and other appropriate convenors such as UNEP
should initiate a process for developing guidance for the disposal
of overburden, waste rock and tailings and the retention of water.
Marine disposalindustry, governments andNGOs should agree
on a programme of independent research to assess the risks of
marine and, in particular, deep-sea disposal of mine waste.
Riverine disposala clear commitment by industry and govern-
ments to avoid this practise in any future projects would set a
standard that would begin to penetrate to the smaller compa-
nies andremoter regions, where this is still anacceptedpractice.
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 115
Capacitya source of technical expertise and advice must
be made available to government, insurers, communities,
companies and others to ensure that they can build their
capacity for the best practice (MMSD, 2002).
The World Banks Extractive Industries Review (EIR) generated
similar recommendations, urging the cessation of disposal of
mining waste into rivers and caution in the application of sub-
marine tailings disposal (World Bank, 2004).
The ICMM was established in 2001 and is responsible for
carriage of the MMSD recommendations. ICMM has developed
an industry code of practise for member organisations. The only
specic reference to waste in the code is to rehabilitate land
disturbed or occupied by operations in accordance with appro-
priate post-mining land uses and to provide for safe storage and
disposal of residual wastes and process residues (ICMM, 2008b).
Principle six of the code is to seek continual improvement in an
environmental performance. The principle commits members to:
assess the positive and negative, the direct and the indirect and the
cumulative environmental impacts of newprojectsfromexplora-
tion through closure; implement an environmental management
system focused on continual improvement to review, prevent,
mitigate or ameliorate adverse environmental impacts; rehabili-
tate land disturbed or occupied by operations in accordance with
an appropriate post-mining land uses; provide for safe storage and
disposal of residual wastes and process residues; design and plan
all operations, so that adequate resources are available to meet the
closure requirements of all operations (ICMM, 2008b).
The ICMM has developed position statements and guidance in
support of the industry code, including a guide on mine closure,
although has yet to produce a specic position statement or
guidance document on mine waste management in the nine years,
since the MMSD recommendations. The centrality of mining and
minerals processing wastes to the sustainable development agenda
and the disproportionate impact tailings has on community
perceptions of the industry are important reasons why such
guidance is necessary. The difculty of achieving industry con-
sensus notwithstanding, guidance on mining and minerals proces-
sing waste disposal could forge collective agreement on norms and
principles and set standards for practise. In the absence of an
industry position, the environmental guidelines of international
nancial institutions have become the de facto standards for the
industry.
4
These guidelines demonstrate a preference for conven-
tional tailings storage facilities, although are only relevant for
projects seeking assistance from the particular funds (Hart, 2007).
The ICMMorganisational website has a number of case studies on
tailings facility failure. The ICMMguide Planning for Integrated Mine
Closure makes reference to the need to cap and cover tailings storage
facilities, and to monitor sites post-closure for their chemical and
physical stabilities, but does not explore mining and minerals
processing waste disposal issues in depth (ICMM, 2008a). A recent
ICMM and Euromines guidance document has been produced on the
classication of ores as hazardous substances with reference to the
European Union REACH initiative (ICMM and Euromines, 2009).
In 2005, the ICMM, in partnership with the International
Commission on Large Dams, launched the information portal
Tailings:good practice to provide resources on tailings manage-
ment, as part of a broader website on sustainable development in
the mining and metals sectors. At the time of writing the site is no
longer available. The site referred readers to the literature, includ-
ing the Australian Government leading practice guidelines on
Mine Rehabilitation, Tailings Management and Managing Acid
andMetalliferous Drainage
5
(Department of Industry, Tourismand
Resources, 2006, 2007a, 2007b), the International Council on
Metals and the Environment and the United Nations Environment
Programme Case studies on Tailings Management (ICME and
UNEP, 1998), the Mining Association of Canadas, 1998 Guide to
the Management of Tailings Facilities and various other research
reports predominantly concentrating on the topic of tailings
storage facilities. The site did not host any reports on the particular
issues faced by direct disposal of mine waste or with advice on the
selection of mining and minerals processing waste management
techniques.
In summary, mining and mineral processing wastes are recog-
nised both inside and outside of the industry as issues of signicant
consequence that disproportionately affect the industrys perfor-
mance and shape the industrys reputation, and that still demand
leadership and guidance. The following section draws from the
analysis and resources listed above to distil principles relevant to
decision makers in the industry and government.
Sustainable development principles for the disposal of mining
and mineral processing wastes
In the absence of an international consensus, this paper
proposes a set of principles to guide the disposal of mining and
mineral processing wastes. The question that directs the choice of
principles is what characteristics must a given waste disposal
solution exhibit, in the context of local conditions, for mining and
mineral processing to proceed, without signicantly disturbing the
ecosystems, communities and economies overlying and surround-
ing ore deposits and processing facilities? The principles are
applicable to the various techniques currently applied to manage
wastes and the different types of solid wastes produced by mining
and minerals processing, including overburden, tailings, waste
rock, heap leach piles and in-situ leached rock. The principles
provide a set of ideals. In practise, the principles can guide waste
disposal decisions through the consideration of what risk and
magnitude, in any given local context, a particular management
solution poses to their application.
Stable
Principle 1. Mining and mineral processing wastes should be man-
aged, such that it remains physically, geographically, chemically and
radiologically stable.
The techniques adopted to dispose mining and mineral proces-
sing wastes should aim to ensure the stability of waste over the
long-term. Geographic and physical stabilities refer to the ability to
withstand environmental and climatic changes, such as earth-
quakes, storms and erosion. Chemical stability refers to the
decomposition of minerals over time and the propensity to release
elements (commonly as acid and metalliferous drainage) and
organic compounds (DITR, 2007a). Radiological stability refers to
the propensity for atoms to decay over time and release radiation
(Lottermoser and Ashley, 2006; Mudd, 2008).
4
The academic literature is similarly thinonpolicy guidance, with, for example,
only one article (Mudd, 2007) published in resources policy which contains the
words tailings or mine waste in its abstract, title or keyword.
5
The leading practice Tailings Management guide only covers tailings storage
facilities as direct disposal into waterways is not permitted by the Australian
regulations (Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007a).
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 116
Inert
Principle 2. Mining and mineral processing wastes that interact with
the environment should be inert, i.e., equivalent (in form, concentra-
tion, location, volume, time and rate) to material and chemicals
already within the same ecosystem.
Principle 3. Mining and mineral processing wastes that are not inert
should be isolated, be as inert as practicable, and in a form that is
compatible with the adopted waste management technique and the
sensitivity of the ecosystem and social context.
Mining and mineral processing wastes that are incompatible
with their environment can present major social and ecological
risks and should be isolated in a form that limits interaction and
subsequent mobilisation. Uncontained waste that interacts with
the environment should be inert and must not interact in such a
way as to have signicant adverse effects onanecosystemfunction,
species or ecological and social communities, such as those
resulting from processes such as dust mobilisation and surface
water and/or groundwater seepage (DITR, 2007a). The rate,
volume, form, location and timing of waste disposal can be as
important as concentration. Moreover average values may mask
ecologically signicant short-term spikes. Isolated wastes should
be as inert as possible and, in addition to managing/minimising the
availability and exposure risks to heavy metal contaminants,
potentially toxic elements and compounds arising from the
chemical additions in the process plant, should also be minimised.
Isolated wastes should be managed consistent with their toxicity.
For example, highly toxic material should not be stored using a
technique which has a possibility of failure, or in a location of
ecological or social sensitivity or risk.
Contained
Principle 4. Mining and mineral processing wastes should be con-
tained, i.e., geographically bounded, exhibit a minimal footprint in a
location of acceptably low ecological and social values and be in
physical and chemical forms, given local conditions, that limits
interaction with the surrounding environment.
Wastes should be contained in a geographical position which is
small and bounded. Geographically bounded refers to the natural
barriers which reduce opportunities for environmental interaction
over the long-term. The footprint where wastes are located should
be environmentally and socially acceptable to the communities
that value the location. While such a determination is locally
specic; in most cases, this means that the footprint should not
signicantly disturb ecosystem and social functions and values.
Local context and continuous improvement
Principle 5. Mining and mineral processing wastes should be man-
aged in a manner consistent with the environmental and social
conditions of each location. The determination of acceptability of
the disposal technique should include the views of stakeholders.
Principle 6. Mining and mineral processing wastes should be man-
aged to minimise active post-closure management, inputs (such as
water and energy) and the volume of wastes generated per volume of
an extracted ore.
Principle 7. Mining, mineral processing and waste management
technologies which offer improved environmental and social perfor-
mance and a smaller surface footprint should be preferentially
adopted. Opportunities for re-use of waste material should be pursued
when practicable.
Finally, waste management should minimise inputs such as
water and energy. Mining and mineral processing wastes have the
potential to generate long-term, even perpetual risks (Kempton
et al., 2010). As such rehabilitation should be designed to avoid the
need for active post-closure management. Waste management
should be consistent with the local context, in which the waste is
situated. The physical and chemical nature of the tailings, site
topography and/or bathymetry, climatic conditions, production
rate and mine life, location of mine processing facilities, socio-
economic factors, baseline conditions, community and ecosystem
sensitivities and values can all signicantly inuence mine waste
management outcomes. The views of stakeholders should be
canvassed to determine the acceptability of the disposal method.
Stakeholders disproportionately affected should have a greater
inuence on the decision making.
Mining, processing and waste management technologies that
offer improved environmental and social performance should be
preferentially adopted. For example paste, thickening technologies
andthe use of backlling can reduce the surface footprint of mining
and mineral processing wastes improve water recovery and aid
rehabilitation efforts through greater solid density (Boger, 2009).
Declining ore grades and the associated increase in waste per given
unit of resource (Mudd, 2010) emphasise the urgency and need for
the adoption of such techniques. Improved mine planning can also
address contamination and waste management issues (Napier-
Munn et al., 2008); for example, by targeting the extraction of ore
such that the ratio of mine waste stripping as a function of ore
extraction is improved. Geological mapping of the distribution of
potential contaminants and gangue mineralogy can assist mine
planning and decision making during feasibility studies (Kwong,
2009).
Discussion: implications for current and future practise
The implications of the principles for common waste disposal
techniques, including waste storage facilities (conventional tailings
dams, paste and thickened tailings, overburden and waste rock
dumps, and heap leach piles) and direct discharge of mine waste
(river and submarine tailings disposal, and in-situ leaching) are
now discussed in light of the principles outlined above. The
suitability of each technique to the principles will depend on the
context of each local situation. The following discussion is by no
means exhaustive, but provides a picture of how the principles
might be applied in practise to guide waste management decision
making. Further resources can be found in Salomons and F orstner
(1988), Vick (1990), Jewell and Fourie (2006), Dixon-Hardy and
Engels (2007), Spitz and Trudinger (2009) and Boger (2009).
Conventional tailings dams
Conventional tailings dams are the most common form of
mineral processing waste management utilised by the minerals
industry. Tailings dams isolate the waste material from the
surrounding ecosystems through storage and containment. Tail-
ings are most commonly piped into dams as a wet slurry with the
dam wall progressively built as the volume of waste material
increases. Tailings dams may utilise topographic depressions (such
as valley impoundments) or be entirely engineered (such as ring
dykes; Vick, 1990; Dixon-Hardy and Engels, 2007). Conventional
tailings dams are best suited to semi-arid and arid environments,
where precipitation does not exceed evaporation. In wetter envir-
onments, where sub-aqueous deposition is often practiced as a
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 117
means of reducing oxidation of potentially acid-generating wastes,
high precipitation may lead to excess water that requires discharge
and treatment and increase the risks relating to the physical
stability of the dam and its containment/bunding structures.
Long-termphysical stability can be a challenge for conventional
tailings dams. Tailings dam failures account for most mining-
related environmental incidents. The physical stability of tailings
storage facilities varies with the amount of stored water within the
tailings (Spitz and Trudinger, 2009). Structural failure can result in
destructive ooding and inundation of downstream environments
(Rico et al., 2008). According to ICOLD and UNEP (2001), the main
causes of failure and incidents are lack of control of the water
balance, the lack of control and consistency of construction,
due to the progressive nature of tailings dam construction and
the lack of understanding of the features which contribute to safe
operations. Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, are factors in
only a minority of cases of failure. The stability of tailings reten-
tion structures is improved when they are designed as water
retention structures; i.e., where the embankments are designed
to provide all of the strength and sealing properties of a water
storage dam.
The chemical stabilityof the tailings canalsobe anissue. Erosion
and seepage can present a containment challenge. Water leaching
through tailings dams can accumulate elements at elevated con-
centrations and further break down metal sulphides, commonly
generating acidic conditions (DITR, 2007a, 2007b; Edraki et al.,
2005). The creation of anoxic conditions by keeping tailings under
water (only possible in higher precipitation environments) can
improve chemical stability, but often at the expense of the physical
stability of the dam and the increased risk of seepage into ground
and surface waters. Rehabilitation, revegetation and the capping of
dams can reduce the erosion of tailings at the surface and restrict
water inltration and the subsequent chemical alterations and
oxidation of underlying tailings which can result in the generation
of metal-contaminated groundwater. Tailings dams, however, can
take a long time to consolidate, andthus delay rehabilitationefforts
(Vick, 1990). The recovery of seepage from groundwater may be
required for long periods of time even after mine closure, if
inadequate or inappropriate dam construction has resulted in
groundwater contamination. Kempton et al. (2010), for example,
canvass the necessity for perpetual environmental management at
some sites.
Paste and thickened tailings
Increasingly, paste and thickened tailings techniques are being
used more widely, due to a larger range of thickener technologies,
reduced costs, increased familiarity and access to expert knowl-
edge, and increased water scarcity at some localities (Jewell and
Fourie, 2006; Boger, 2009). Paste and thickened tailings refers to a
continuum of tailings with high solid concentrations and higher
yield stress, due to the greater level of uid removal from tailings
before disposal. Conventional tailings typically range 3050%
solids, thickened tailings 5575% and paste over 75% (solid con-
centrations vary with particle size and shape, clay content, miner-
alogy, electrostatic forces and occulant dosing). Paste and
thickened tailings can require additional capital expenditure but,
over the long-term, thickening techniques may result in decreased
management, lower damconstruction and rehabilitation costs and
signicantly lower water use. Thickened tailings require transport
by centrifugal pumps, while paste tailings utilise positive displace-
ment pumps and high pressure piping (Boger, 2009).
The thickening of tailings waste has the potential to store waste
material in a more stable and inert form, and contained in a smaller
footprint. Stability is improved by the increased density of the
material, steeper beach slopes and the ability to rehabilitate more
quickly, due to the shorter time frame required for sufcient
consolidation to have occurred to allow safe access. The improved
water and process chemical recovery, reduced quantity of decant
water and the reduction of pore water and pore space can assist
the reduction of the volume and potential toxicity of seepage and
result in a more inert residual waste material. Water reclaimed
during the thickening process can be recycled, thus reducing water
inputs (Cote et al., 2009). Paste and thickened tailings occupy a
comparatively smaller storage area, when compared to the con-
ventional techniques. This is particularly the case for dry stacking
techniques, whereby the material is spread onto drying pans, dried
in the environment and layered, and transported for disposal. Paste
may be backlled into mining voids to dramatically reduce the
surface footprint and the demand for storage facilities, improve
structural support and manage subsidence in underground
operations.
Direct disposal
The direct disposal of mining and mineral processing wastes
into rivers, oceans and lakes presents signicant technical, social
and environmental challenges to sustainable development. River-
ine tailings disposal (RTD) is the direct discharge of mine process
tailings into rivers. Overburden is also sometimes co-disposed
during RTD. Riverine tailings disposal is relatively uncommon, but
is still practiced in parts of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (e.g.
Salomons, 1995; Brunskill et al., 2004; Swansonet al., 2008; Bolton,
2009). Riverine tailings disposal is conspicuous and visible and has
come to characterise the industry in the public consciousness. The
technique is often considered in circumstances, where rugged
topography, highrainfall, seismic activity, highgroundwater levels,
the lack of cross-valley locations and the absence of suitable
embankment material preclude the impoundment of tailings. The
method attracts low up front costs, although is clearly a method of
mine waste disposal that has been responsible for cases of serious
pollution (e.g. Plumlee et al., 2000; Lee and Correa, 2005; Bolton,
2009). According to the nal report of the MMSD (2002), the
experiences of RTD are overwhelmingly negative.
It is difcult to envisage circumstances, where RTD could meet
the principles as previously outlined. Direct discharge creates
opportunities for interaction with the environment and rivers do
not create environmental conditions of containment. Mine waste,
particularly tailings, is generally not inert and must be isolated
from interacting with the environment. Sedimentation, process
chemicals such as cyanide, metal mobilisation and acidity can
change the physical andchemical formof rivers, increase the risk of
ooding and dieback of the surrounding vegetation, and may cause
damage to aquatic ecosystems. Finer sediments may impact down-
stream estuaries. Even in circumstances, where waste material is
chemically inert, the volume of waste may overload the capacity of
the river, increasing turbidity and breaching banks (Bolton, 2009).
Engineered solutions to contain wastes with levies may still result
in an unacceptably large sacricial footprint. Uncontained and
potentially toxic waste may continue to erode at accelerated rates
into perpetuity. Communities that rely on rivers may experience
economic, social and health impacts. In such circumstances, the
social and environmental risks to an operation and to communities
in the vicinity of operations dramatically increase. Conict and a
breakdownof social licence to operate may expose organisations to
signicant long-term costs, particularly where downstream
impacted communities are not party to agreements for the mining
project (Boege and Franks, in press).
Submarine tailings disposal (STD) refers to the direct discharge
of mine process tailings into the ocean. There are two distinct types
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 118
of STD.
6
The rst is the disposal of wastes at the ocean surface.
Historical examples of ocean surface tailings disposal are consid-
ered by many to be some of the worst examples of past industrial
pollution in the world with the clear potential for, and/or reality of,
very signicant social, health and environmental effects (Castilla
and Correa, 1997; UNEP, 1997; Plumlee et al., 2000; Lee et al.,
2006). Ocean surface tailings disposal does not provide any
containment of waste material, chemical and physical interaction
with the environment and the potential for contamination is high,
ocean mixing and erosion continues into perpetuity, and highly
productive areas of the ocean can be signicantly modied.
Uncontained beached waste can remobilise by wave, tidal and
wind erosion.
The second type of STDis the disposal of wastes at depth, below
the maximumdepth of the surface mixing layer, the euphotic zone
(the depth reached only by 1% of the photosynthetically active
light), and the upwelling zone. This type of tailings disposal is
known as deep-sea tailings placement (DSTP). DSTP is not that
common (and only certain physical locations around the world
make it an option considered by the minerals industry in the rst
instance), but where it is possible, it is increasingly being con-
sidered in circumstances, where land is restricted in rugged terrain
or islands with little space, or where precipitation exceeds eva-
poration and excess water needs to be discharged from a tailings
dam or there is risk of earthquakes.
Some proponents of DSTP (e.g. Ellis et al., 1995; Jones and Ellis,
1995; Poling et al., 2002; Ellis, 2008) argue that the technique
should be considered where:
tailings can be demonstrated to be non-toxic at their point of
discharge into the marine environment and do not leach metals
and other potential contaminants into the water column;
the proposed site has a low biological resource value;
the transport route has a lowrisk of spilling or upwelling into the
upper photosynthetic zone of the marine environment;
the wastes contain no residual toxic reagents;
coral reefs are protected from sedimentation; and
there is no subsequent dispersal into the upper euphotic zone.
According to Poling (2002), DSTP is a signicant alternative
tailing storage technology that can and is competing successfully
with on-land storage alternatives in a wide variety of political
jurisdictions and environmental sensitivities. The advantages of
the technique are argued to be that tailings may be more stable on
the ocean oor, if in a depression or canyon, than in an impound-
ment; that there are reduced oxidation opportunities in the
submarine environment, thus reducing the breakdown of minerals
to release metals and making the waste more chemically stable; up
front capital and operating costs are lower; the alkalinity of
seawater inhibits mobilisation of metals; there is a lower risk of
contamination of the freshwater systems surrounding mines; and
the technique is more visually aesthetic (Poling, 2002).
There are also signicant disadvantages and risks of DSTP which
are acknowledged by some advocates. All DSTP systems have an
impact on ecosystems. This may take the form of a benthic
footprint, topographic alteration of the sea oor, the release of
leachable toxins and residual chemicals, if present in the waste, or
impacts on sheries and other socio-environmental impacts on
communities which rely on the ocean. According to Poling (2002),
DSTP canpresent the prospect of bothacute and chronic toxicities,
bioaccumulation of metals and habitat alteration. DSTP also
demonstrates higher risks of contamination due to rupture of
the transport system (pipelines are located in high energy envir-
onments and carry abrasive material; Shimmield et al. (2010)),
reduced options for remediation after disposal (material cannot
easily be re-dredged); delays in permitting; lower opportunities for
water recycling; greater baseline and monitoring costs (specialised
ocean studies) and longer monitoring periods, and greater social
risks.
7
The technique is based on the assumption that the waste is
physically contained by the ocean thermocline and will not be re-
mobilised in surface water, chemically contained by the alkalinity
and reduced oxygen of seawater, and is geographically stable after
deposition in ocean depressions or canyons.
Currently, there is a lack of peer-reviewed and independent
scientic studies to verify these assumptions, a situation acknowl-
edged by Poling (2002) and the ndings of the MMSD (2002).
8
In
2010, the Scottish Association for Marine Science published a deep
water study of the ecological and geochemical processes which
accompany DSTP at two sites in Papua New Guinea (Shimmield
et al., 2010). Baseline informationwas also gatheredat another site,
where DSTP is planned. In comparison to reference sites at both
DSTP locations, the study found signicant impacts to the compo-
sition of small sediment-dwelling animals (meiofauna), the
abundance and diversity of larger sediment-dwelling animals
(macrofauna), and elevated metal concentrations in suspended
material and sediment that corresponded to the distance from the
outfall. Sampling undertaken three years after the cessation of
DSTP at one site still demonstrated signicant impacts on the
abundance and diversity of the benthic community. The study
concluded that an ongoing DSTP at one site has a major impact on
the abundance and diversity of animals in deep-sea sediments,
and that where it is incorrectly designed or badly managed DSTP
can also cause serious damage to coastal resources and, potentially,
communities (Shimmieldet al. (2010), 11, 13). The studydeveloped
best practise guidelines should DSTP be chosen as a tailings
management option. Until such a time when there is a greater
understanding of the risks and costs of DSTP, a strong case can be
made that the precautionary principle should apply.
Heap leaching
Heap leaching is a common method for the extraction of metals
from ores for some commodities, such as gold and copper. Heap
leaching consists of the excavation and crushing of ore, placement
on an impermeable membrane and irrigation with a reagent to
promote decomposition of ore minerals and mobilisation and
capture of the desired metal. The residual piles are a form of
mineral processing waste. They may be rehabilitated, but are
sometimes left unrehabilitated in the landscape. Heap leach piles
face many of the same physical andchemical stability challenges as
6
In addition to marine disposal, mining wastes have also been disposed into
lakes (Spitz and Trudinger, 2009).
7
STD has attracted debate, opposition and civil society attention, and has
exposed some organisations to signicant public controversies. In 2004, for
example, in the nal year of operation of Newmonts Minahasa Raya mine in
Indonesia, community members at Buyat beach linked the death of a child to the
DSTP into the bay. The event resulted in international media scrutiny, signicant
reputational damage for Newmont, and the indictment of Newmont Indonesias
President Director on criminal charges of pollution in the Manado District Court (he
was later acquitted in April 2007). This was despite Newmont maintaining that
scientic evidence supported their position that the bay was not polluted
(Newmont, 2006).
8
Proponents of DSTP (e.g. Ellis et al., 1995; Poling et al., 2002; Ellis, 2008) point
to the Island Copper mine, Canada, as a successful example of STD, though the
success of the case is disputed. The mine was the rst to use an engineered
submarine tailings disposal system. Poling et al. (2002) claimthat Island Copper has
demonstrated no effect on sheries and no heavy metal bioaccumulation to any
signicant extent, though there was an observed reduction in the benthic
biodiversity. According to Burd (2002), however, tailings and elevated copper have
dispersed over a 1620 km radius from the outfall.
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 119
conventional tailings dams. There are also stability challenges
unique to the technique, which include increased erosion, due to
the physical form of the material and the often unconsolidated
nature of the waste, the long-termintegrity of membranes and the
contribution of membranes to an increased risk of physical
instability of heap leach piles during earthquakes (Thiel and
Smith, 2004). When heap leach piles are left uncontained and
unrehabilitated, there is an increased risk of chemical and physical
erosions of the waste. The containment of the irrigation reagents
during processing can also present a challenge, particularly for
spray-type systems which can be blown onto surrounding ecosys-
tems or communities (Franks et al., 2010).
In-situ leaching
In-situ leaching (ISL) is a relatively uncommon mining process
technique, whereby reagents are pumped into in-situ ore bodies
with the aim to dissolve desired ore minerals into solution for
extraction and further processing. ISL is most commonly used for
certain types of uranium deposits, but can also be adapted for
particular copper or gold deposits depending on the local condi-
tions and issues.
In-situ leached rock can also be considered as a form of mineral
processing waste. The leached rock has a high physical stability, as
it remains relatively consolidated in its original position (depend-
ing on the extent of articial permeability enhancement). The
containment of potential contaminants mobilised as a result of
leaching into groundwater, however, can be a challenge for in-situ
leaching facilities and a long-term source of contamination.
Remediation of contaminated groundwater has proved difcult
(Mudd, 2001). Techniques to isolate such wastes may provide
opportunities for containment. The return of anoxic conditions
post-leaching can reduce the further decomposition of minerals.
Wast rock dumps and backlling
Overburden and waste rock are typically stored in waste dumps
surrounding mining operations. Open-cut operations, in particular,
generate large volumes of excavated rock that ore deposits overly
(overburden; Mudd (2010)). Some of this rock is non-mineralised
(such as sandstone or limestone), while other rocks can contain
sulphidic gangue minerals, as well as ore minerals at grades not
high enough to be considered ore, and hence not worthy of
processing.
In locations of low rainfall, the risk of erosion and the potential
for geochemical changes which can cause release of toxic elements
may be low and not necessitate additional containment of the
waste material. In such circumstances, waste material may
remain inert and stable. Wind erosion, however can be a signicant
mobiliser of contaminants, at some arid localities (e.g. Lottermoser
and Ashley (2006)). In areas where high rainfall and/or high
intensity rainfall events can occur, erosion may lead to the
interaction of wastes with the environment. Waste rock containing
metal sulphides presents particular challenges for responsible
waste management in such environments. Following excavation
and exposure of sulphide ores to the vastly different surcial
environmental conditions, the minerals can oxidise and produce
undesirable decomposition products. This process is the inevitable
result of the re-equilibration of minerals formed at high tempera-
tures to weathering conditions on the surface. During this process,
potential contaminants can be released and mobilised, particularly
in the acidic environment often created during the dissolution
of the sulphides. This process is commonly known as acid rock
drainage (ARD), acid mine drainage or acid and metalliferous
drainage (AMD) (Akcil and Koldas, 2006; DITR, 2007b). It should
be noted that acidic conditions are not necessarily the only
conditions under which metals in dissolution are mobile. The
neutralisation of the acid by dilution or reaction with, for example,
carbonates (limestone) may not halt the mobilisation of some
contaminants. Apart from those occurring in the driest of environ-
ments, waste dumps usually require techniques, such as capping
and rehabilitation with vegetation, to minimise water inltration.
In those circumstances where deep drainage through mineralised
wastes still occurs, ongoing treatment of seepage by various active
and/or passive methods may be required.
Overburden, waste rock and dried tailings may also be placed
into mining voids to reduce the surface footprint and demand for
surface dumps, a technique referred to as dry backlling (Dixon-
Hardy and Engels, 2007). Dry backll can exhibit high physical and
chemical stabilities and containment in a dramatically reduced
footprint. However, the volume expansion of mined material, the
costs of double handling and transport of the material, the green-
house and energy implications of transport, the remaining poten-
tial for generation of leachate and subsequent containment of
seepage that may arise, andissues relatedto temporary storage, are
all factors which can limit the application of this method. The back
loading of ore haul trucks (where waste is loaded for the return
journey) or the use of conveyers may provide solutions to the issue
of double handling.
Summary of discussion
In summary, conventional tailings dams are the most common
form of waste disposal, although their long-term physical stability
can be a challenge. Tailings dam failures account for most mining-
related environmental incidents. The chemical stability of the
tailings can also be an issue. Erosion and seepage can present
containment problems, particularly over long timescales. Conven-
tional tailings dams best meet the principles when situated in arid
and semi-arid environments, where there is limited interaction
with water. In such environments, however, water scarcity is
motivating greater recovery of water from tailings, and increasing
the use of thickening methods. The thickening of tailings waste has
the potential to store waste material in a more stable and inert
form, and contained in a smaller footprint. Water reclaimed during
the thickening process can be recycled, thus reducing water inputs.
Direct disposal can pose great risks to the achievement of the
principles as outlined here. Direct discharge into rivers and at the
ocean surface does not provide containment of waste material and
establishes inevitable interactions with the external environment.
Mining and mineral processing wastes, particularly tailings, are
generally not inert and must be isolated from interaction with the
environment. Even in circumstances where waste material is
chemically inert, the volume of waste may overload the capacity
of ecosystems. Advocates of DSTP argue that the containment and
stability issues that confront other forms of direct discharge are
overcome if the waste material is discharged in the ocean at depth.
The residual piles fromheap leaching and excavated waste rock,
and spent rock from an in-situ leaching, are also forms of mining
and mineral processing wastes. Heap leach piles present many of
the same challenges as conventional tailings dams in terms of
chemical/geochemical alterations and physical erosion and long-
termstability. Depending on local circumstances, the containment
of the irrigation reagents and mobilisation of potential contami-
nants can be an issue in both heap leaching and in-situ leaching
operations.
The stability of overburden and waste rock also varies according
to the local environmental conditions. Inlocalities where waste has
the opportunity to interact with water it may not remain inert and
canpresent contamination problems. Capping andrehabilitationof
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 120
waste storage facilities with vegetation can minimise water
inltration and physical erosion. Dry backlling presents an
opportunity to improve the containment and stability of tailings,
waste rock and overburden.
Conclusions
This paper has observed industrys response to sustainable
development with regard to the disposal of mining and mineral
processing wastes and argued that further guidance is needed to
forge collective agreement on norms and standards of practise.
Further, presented for ongoing discussion and debate is a set of
principles for the disposal of mining and mineral processing
wastes. These principles can be used to guide future practise by
considering what risk and magnitude, in any given local context, a
particular management technique poses to their application. That
is, the principles are a set of ideals developed from the perspective
of sustainable development. Industry must look beyondshort-term
costs to consider the totality of environmental, social and economic
costs over the long-term. In cases where there is a high risk of the
disposal alternatives signicantly breaching the principles, con-
sideration should be given to alternate waste management stra-
tegies. Where the highrisk cannot be avoidedor reduced, a decision
not to mine in that locationmay present the most preferable option
from the perspective of sustainable development.
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by an Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy Bicentennial Gold 88 Endowment. An
earlier version of this research was presented at the First Inter-
national Seminar on Environmental Issues in the Mining Industry,
(Enviromine), 30 September2 October 2009, Santiago, Chile. The
paper beneted from the comments of anonymous reviewers,
which are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Akcil, A., Koldas, S., 2006. Acid mine drainage (AMD): causes, treatment and case
studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 11391145.
BHP Billiton, 2009. Our Sustainability Framework: BHP Billitons Policies. Standards
and Commitments, Melbourne, Victoria September. 12p.
Boege, V., Franks, D.M., in press Re-opening and developing mines in post-conict
settings: the challenges of companycommunity relations. In: Lujala, P., Rustad, S.A.
(Eds.), StrengtheningPost-conict Peacebuilding throughNatural Resource Manage-
ment, vol. 1, High-Value Resources. The Environmental Law Institute, United
Nations Environment Programme, University of Tokyo, and Specialist Group on
Armed Conict and the Environment of the International Union for Conservation of
Natures Commission on Environmental Law.
Boger, D.V., 2009. Rheology and the resource industries. Chemical Engineering
Science 64 (22), 45254536.
Boger, D.V., Hart, B., 2008. Making an unsustainable industry more sustainable. In:
Proceedings of the 11th International Seminar on Paste and Thickened Tailings,
59 May, 2008, Kasane, Botswana, pp. 314.
Boger, D.V., Scales, P.J., Sofra, F., 2006. Rheological Concepts. In: Jewell, R.J., Fourie, A.B.
(Eds.), Paste and Thickened Tailings: a Guide. Australian Centre for Geomechanics
second ed. , pp. 2537 Chapter 3.
Bolton, B.R. (Ed.), 2009. Developments in Earth & Environmental Sciences 9.
Elsevier, Sydney.
Brunskill, G.J., Zagorskis, I., Ptzner, J., Ellison, J., 2004. Sediment and trace element
depositional history from the Ajkwa River estuarine mangroves of Irian Jaya
(West Papua), Indonesia. Continental Shelf Research 24, 25352551.
Burd, B., 2002. Evaluation of mine tailings effects on a benthic marine infaunal
community over 29 years. Marine Environmental Research 53, 481519.
Castilla, J., Correa, J., 1997. Copper tailings impacts in coastal ecosystems of northern
Chile: fromspecies tocommunityresponses. In: Moore, M., Imray, P., Dameron, C.,
Callan, P., Langley, A., Mangas, S. (Eds.), Copper. Report of an International
Meeting, 2021 June 1996, Brisbane. National Environmental Health Mono-
graphs, Metal Series no. 3, National Environmental Health Forum, Australia,
pp. 7180.
Cote, C.M., Moran, C.J., Gozzard, E., Craven, A., Shih, J., 2009. Understanding leading
practice in water management. Australian Coal Association Research Program
Project, Project C16035, January.
Department of Industry, TourismandResources, 2006. Mine rehabilitation, . Leading
Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry. Australian
Government October. 67p.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007a. Tailings management,
Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry.
Australian Government February. 79p.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2007b. Managing acid and
metalliferous drainage, Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program
for the Mining Industry. Australian Government February. 96p..
Dixon-Hardy, D.W., Engels, J.M., 2007. Methods for the disposal and storage of mine
tailings. Land Contamination & Reclamation 15 (3), 301317.
Edraki, M., Golding, S.D., Baublys, K.A., Lawrence, M.G., 2005. Hydrochemistry, miner-
alogy andsulfur isotope geochemistry of acidmine drainage at the Mt. Morganmine
environment, Queensland, Australia. Applied Geochemistry 20, 789805.
Ellis, D.V., 2008. The role of deep submarine tailings placement in the mitigation of
marine pollution for Coastal and Island Mines. In: Hofer, T.N. (Ed.), Marine
Pollution: New Research. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp. 2351.
Ellis, D.V., Poling, G.W., Baer, R.L., 1995. Submarine tailings disposal (STD) for mines:
an introduction. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 13 (1), 318.
Fourie, A., 2009. Preventing catastrophic failures and mitigating environmental
impacts of tailings storage facilities. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 1,
10671071.
Franks, D.M., 2007. Consuming landscapes: towards a political ecology of resource
appropriation. Thesis, Ph.D. Grifth School of the Environment, Centre for
Governance and Public Policy. Grifth University.
Franks, D.M., Cohen, T., McLellan, B., Brereton, D., 2010. Technology futures
discussion paper: technology assessment and the CSIRO minerals down under
national research agship. Prepared for CSIRO Minerals Down Under
Flagship, Minerals Futures Cluster Collaboration, by the Centre for Social
Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
Government Pension Fund Global, 2008. Council on Ethics Recommendation to the
Ministry of Finance Regarding Rio Tinto. February 15. 10p.
Government Pension Fund Global, 2009. Companies excluded from the investment
universe. Ministry of Finance, Norwegian Government. /http://www.regjerin
gen.no/en/dep/n/Selected-topics/The-Government-Pension-Fund/Ethical-Gui
delines-for-the-Government-Pension-FundGlobal-/companies-excluded-
from-the-investment-u.html?id=447122S (accessed 06.04.09.).
Hart, B., 2007. Improving the sustainability of mining waste management. Ph.D.
Thesis. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of
Melbourne.
Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry:
clarifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy 26 (4), 227238.
ICME and UNEP, 1998. Case Studies on Tailings Management. International Council
on Metals and the Environment and United Nations Environment Programme
November. 58p.
ICMM and Euromines, 2009. Ores and Concentrates: An Industry Approach to EU
Hazard Classication. International Council on Mining and Metals and Euro-
mines, London 26p..
ICMM, 2008a. Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit. International Council
on Mining and Metals, London 84p.
ICMM, 2008b. Sustainable Development Framework: A Sustained Commitment to
Improved Industry Performance. International Council on Mining and Metals,
London 18p.
ICOLD and UNEP, 2001. Tailings dams, Risks of Dangerous Occurrences: Lessons
Learnt fromPractical Experiences. International CommissiononLarge Dams and
United Nations Environment Programme, Paris 144p.
Jewell, R.J., Fourie, A.B. (Eds.), 2006. Australian Centre for Geomechanics second ed. .
Jones, S.G., Ellis, D.V., 1995. Deep water STD at the Misima Gold and Silver Mine,
Papua New Guinea. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 13 (1), 83200.
Kemp, D., Bond, C., Franks, D.M., Cote, C., 2010. Mining, water, and human rights:
making the connection. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 15531562.
Kempton, H., Bloomeld, T.A., Hanson, J.L., Limerick, P., 2010. Policy guidance for
identifying and effectively managing perpetual environmental impacts from
New Hardrock mines. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 558566.
Kwong, Y.T.J., 2009. Practical applications of environmental ore deposit models in
mine development with a SEDEX Example. In: Wiertz, J., Moran, C.J. (Eds.)
Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Environmental Issues in the
Mining Industry, 30-September2 October, Santiago, Chile, Gecamin.
Leblanc, M., Morales, J.A., Borrego, J., Elbaz-Poulichet, F., 2000. 4500-Year-oldmining
pollution in southwestern Spain: long-term implications for modern mining
pollution. Economic Geology 95, 655662.
Lee, M., Correa, J., Seed, R., 2006. Asediment quality triadassessment of the impact of
copper mine tailings disposal on the littoral sedimentary environment in the
Atacama Region of Northern Chile. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, 13891395.
Lee, M.R., Correa, J.A., 2005. Effects of copper mine tailings disposal on littoral
meiofaunal assemblages in the Atacama Region of Northern Chile. Marine
Environmental Research 59, 118.
Lottermoser, B.G., Ashley, P.M., 2006. Physical dispersion of radioactive mine waste
at the rehabilitated radium hill uranium mine site, South Australia. Australian
Journal of Earth Sciences 53 (3), 485499.
Mining Association of Canada, 1998. A Guide to the Management of Tailings
Facilities. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. September. 54p.
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 121
MMSD, 2002. Breaking newground: mining minerals and sustainable development.
The report of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development project.
Earthscan Publications, London. 419p.
Mudd, G.M., 2001. Critical review of acid in-situ leach uranium mining: 1. USA and
Australia. Environmental Geology 41, 390403.
Mudd, G.M., 2007. Global trends ingoldmining: towards quantifyingenvironmental
and resource sustainability. Resources Policy 32 (12), 4256.
Mudd, G.M., 2008. Radon releases from Australian uranium mining and milling
projects: assessing the UNSCEAR approach. Journal of Environmental Radio-
activity 99, 288315.
Mudd, G.M., 2010. The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key
mega-trends and looming constraints. Resources Policy 35, 98115.
doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.12.001.
Napier-Munn, T.J., Parbhakar, A., Edraki, M., Bradshaw, D., 2008. Managing ARD
potential through mine planning and mineral processing practice. In: Bell, L.C.,
Barrie, B.M.D., McLean, R.W., Braddock, B (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth
Australian Workshop on Acid and Metalliferous Drainage, 1518 April, Burnie,
Tasmania, pp. 351376.
Newmont, 2006. Letter to Shareholders Regarding Buyat Bay. May 31. 7p.
Nguyen, Q.D., Boger, D.V., 1998. Application of rheology to solving tailings disposal
problems. International Journal of Mineral Processing 54 (34), 217233.
Plumlee, G., Morton, R., Boyle, T., Medlin, J., Centeno, J., 2000. Anoverviewof mining-
related environmental and human health issues, Marinduque Island, Philip-
pines: Observations froma Joint U.S. Geological SurveyArmed Forces Institute
of Pathology Reconnaissance Field Evaluation, May 1219, U. S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 00397, 46p.
Poling, G., 2002. Anintroductionto deepsea tailing placement. In: Poling, G., Ellis, D.,
Murray, J., Parsons, T., Pelletier, C. (Eds.), Underwater Tailing Placement at Island
Copper Mine: A Success Story. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Littleton, Colorado, pp. 116.
Poling, G., Ellis, D., Murray, J., Parsons, T., Pelletier, C. (Eds.), 2002. Underwater
Tailing Placement at Island Copper Mine: A Success Story. Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, Colorado.
Rico, M., Benito, G., Diez-Herrero, A., 2008. Floods fromtailings damfailures. Journal
of Hazardous Materials 154, 7987.
Salomons, W., F orstner, U. (Eds.), 1988. Environmental Management of Solid Waste:
Dredged Material and Mine Tailings. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Salomons, W., 1995. Environmental impact of metals derived from mining
activities: processes, predictions, prevention. Journal of Geochemical Explora-
tion 52 (12), 523.
Shimmield, T.M., Black, K.D., Howe, J.A., Hughes, D.J., Sherwin, T., 2010. Independent
evaluation of deep-sea mine tailings placement (DSTP) in PNG. Final Report.
Project no.: 8.ACP.PNG.18-B/15. Scottish Association for Marine Sciences, Oban,
Scotland, 293p.
Sofra , F., Boger, D.V., 2002. Environmental rheology for waste minimisation in the
minerals industry. Chemical Engineering Journal 86 (3), 319330.
Spitz, K., Trudinger, J., 2009. Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal. CRC
Press 891p..
Swanson, K.M., Watson, E., Aalto, R., Lauer, J.W., Bera, M.T., Marshall, A., Taylor, M.P.,
Apte, S.C., Dietrich, W.E., 2008. Sediment load and oodplain deposition rates:
comparison of the Fly and Strickland rivers, Papua New Guinea. Journal of
Geophysical Research 113. doi:10.1029/2006JF000623 F01S03.
Thiel, R., Smith, M.E., 2004. State of the practice review of heap leach pad design
issues. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22 (6), 555568.
UNEP, 1997. Compendium of summaries of judicial decisions in environment
related cases: ChilePedro Flores y Otros v. Corporacion del Cobre, CODELCO,
Division Salvador. SACEP, United Nations Environment Program, NORAD
Publication Series on Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3. /http://www.
unescap.org/drpad/vc/document/compendium/ch1.htmS (accessed 20.02.07.).
van Beers, D., Corder, G.D., Bossilkov, A., van Berkel, R., 2007. Regional synergies in
the Australian minerals industry: case-studies and enabling tools. Minerals
Engineering 20, 830841.
Van Zyl, D., 1993. Mine waste disposal. In: Daniel, D.E. (Ed.), Geotechnical Practice
for Waste Disposal. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 269286 Chapter 12.
Vick, S.G., 1990. Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams. BiTech Publishers,
Vancouver, Canada 369p..
WCED, 1987. Our common future, World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
World Bank, 2004. Striking a better balance. Final Report of the Extractive Industries
Review, Washington, vol. 1, 77p.
D.M. Franks et al. / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 114122 122