Another Man's Poison

Thirty years ago, the U.S. gold mining industry was hanging on by its fingernails. Save for one great mine, the Homestake, most production was coming from copper smelters such as Kennecott and Magma. Even Homestake itself was under great pressure from rising costs and a fixed price for gold. The outlook was dim, to say the least. Today, as it has for most of the past decade, the American gold mining industry stands among the world leaders in production, and in the development of mining and mineral processing technology. What caused this dramatic change? Obviously, the freeing of the gold price was a major factor, as was the decline in South African production, but these events alone could not have created the U.S. strength we see today. It was technology, investment, and the determination of miners to build an entirely new industry that were the indispensable ingredients. The U.S. Bureau of Mines, with great foresight, had begun the research that led to heap leaching before the gold price began to rise, and Newmont had committed to build a small mill at Carlin, a move then considered quite risky. From that point, the U.S. gold mining industry was placed on lower-grade ores then being found in Nevada and elsewhere, but it was soon apparent that we would have to develop new technologies to deal with more refractory ores, carbonaceous as well as sulfide-bearing. This is now being done with considerable success. Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, the gold mining industry has come under pressure from various groups who characterize their activities as motivated by "public interest." The public interest they refer to properly include the health and safety workers and impacted communities, as well as protection of the environment, and with these concerns we miners have relatively little argument. In fact, we consider health, safety and the environment among our highest priorities, and not just because regulations may require us to do so. The argument, however, is not about the regulation of a viable mining industry, it is about a well-organized movement to attack and condemn mining in the media and to misrepresent its importance to the Nation and its willingness to accept responsible regulation. Once largely local or regional, the interest groups to which I refer are now quite large, national in scope, and even becoming international. This trend, taken together with finances raised from their dues and contributions, would make the interest groups formidable adversaries for mining, but their grip on the media enormously magnifies their influence. Unfortunately, it also makes possible the wide dissemination of incomplete, incorrect or slanted information. I am not here to "bash" the interest groups. On the whole, I believe that many of them have made positive contributions to society. As conservationists, however, I question their authority to make, or foster, decisions about which American industries and communities live and which die. To illustrate, I would like to present for your consideration the problem of cyanide, one of the issues over which the gold mining industry is most threatened. CYANIDE-POISON OR MIRACLE SOLVENT? Let me get this out of the way right up front: cyanide in most of its chemical forms is toxic. In some forms it is also listed as a carcinogen. These are adverse characteristics cyanide shares with a considerable number of industrial chemicals, including some that are widely used without the stringent regulations already in place for the mining uses of cyanide. In these uses, by the way, the risk to humans comes from direct ingestion of cyanide or cyanide-bearing solutions, or from the accidental acidification of solutions leading to release of hydrocyanic acid gas. That these risks are under control in mining can be seen from the fact that, in modern U.S. practice, there has never been a documented fatality attributed to cyanide! Because of its toxicity, cyanide cannot enter and be accumulated in the food chain. It can, however, be a threat to birds and animals that ingest cyanide-bearing solutions. Protection against this is, quite properly, a responsibility of individual mining operations, and considerable sums are spent each year to prevent or reduce bird and animal exposures. It should be evident, though, that many human activities, including highway traffic, windmills, use of pesticides and the like, result in bird and animal losses. Mining's use of cyanide, and the measures taken to protect birds and animals, should be considered in context. Cyanide must be kept out of surface streams and groundwater, and existing regulations mandate this. Any cyanide residues left in leach heaps, waste dumps and disused facilities must be eliminated, and we have proven technologies to do this now, just as we have means to detoxify tailings prior to disposal. The gold mining industry decries those rare instances when irresponsible operators fail to deal with contamination, and agrees that they should be held responsible. We do not agree, however, that the great majority of responsible companies should be punished, in advance, for accidents that have never happened. So much for the poison, what about the "miracle solvent?" Is that an overstatement? Well, consider the fact that gold has been called "noble" from earliest times, because it does not oxidize under atmospheric exposure, and that it appeared to the ancients to be utterly insoluble. Later generations of scientists did discover that it could be dissolved, but only by a combination of acids so potent that it became known as aqua Regia. Later still, it was found that chlorine would also dissolve gold, and attempts were made to base commercial processes on this, without a great deal of success. It remained