The Anatomy of a Mine - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 209

4.7 ANCILLARY FACILITIES

Ancillary facilities are all facilities that are required to support mining, but do not directly
contribute to extraction, benei ciation, and concentrate shipping. Depending on the mine
size, ancillary facilities such as power stations, water supply reservoirs, and ports may be
sufi ciently large to warrant stand-alone environmental impact assessments, and in some
cases this is required. More commonly, however, the impacts of construction and operation
of ancillary facilities are included in the overall EIA for the mining project. While envi-
ronmental impacts of ancillary facilities are generally less signii cant than impacts related
to mining activities, they are important nevertheless. It is risky to attempt to summarize
the wide range of potential environmental impacts that could result from ancillary opera-
tions, but some indications of their levels of importance follow.

While environmental impacts of
ancillary facilities are generally
less signifi cant than impacts
related to mining activities, they
are important nevertheless.

Port
Mines are often located in remote areas, far from major metropolitan communities and
likely end users. Shipment of the i nal mine product, be it unbenei ciated ore, concen-
trate or coal, is often via a designated port, which is also usually the main entry point for
mine equipment and materials ( Figure 4.19 ). The port may be located on the coast or
on the bank of a navigable river. Sometimes as in PT Arutmin's coal operations in East
Kalimantan, Indonesia, barge-loading facilities are constructed on rivers close to the
mines, with subsequent transfer to ships at a major port facility.
A number of environmental issues are related to construction and operation of the sea-
port. Ship movements need to be coordinated with existing local sea trafi c, even though
local trafi c may be a few small crafts. Dredging, if required, will generate its own impacts,
which may be trivial or signii cant, depending on the nature of the local aquatic or marine
environment. Port design needs to accommodate secure storage areas for equipment and
material. Waste management and concentrate dewatering facilities, if required, are critical
to effective environmental management, as is control of potential spillage from material

Ship movements need to be
coordinated with existing local
sea traffi c, even though local
traffi c may be a few small crafts.

CASE 4.6
Transporting Lead Concentrate Stirs Public Fear

In 2000 Magellan Metals
Pty Ltd (Magellan)
obtained approval to
develop an open-cut
lead carbonate mine
and processing facility
approximately 30 kilometres west of the Wiluna townsite
in Western Australia to produce a lead concentrate and
to export the concentrate through the Port of Geraldton.
In 2004 the then Minister for the Environment approved
a variation to export through the Port of Esperance rather
than the Port of Geraldton.

Mining commenced in November 2004 and Magellan
exported concentrate in bulk from June 2005 until
March 2007. The export of bulk lead carbonate concen-
trate through the Port of Esperance was halted by the
Department of Environment and Conservation due to
fugitive lead and nickel dust pollution from the Port of
Esperance. Subsequently, the Magellan Mine was put on
care and maintenance.
In a revised shipment proposal the mine operator
suggested to export containerized lead concentrate through
the Port of Fremantle, currently the only container
terminal in Western Australia capable of handling the

volume and proposed method of transport of lead carbon-
ate. At the mine site it is proposed to seal the lead con-
centrate in approved bulk bags to be loaded into shipping
containers, which are then closed with a steel bolt until
arrival overseas. An accredited, independent, inspector shall
ensure that there is no fugitive lead dust on the outside
surfaces of both the bulk bags and the shipping containers
prior to leaving the mine site.
The population of Fremantle, however, is heavily oppos-
ing the proposal. They argue that a highly toxic, volatile
product would be transported over many years through the
city with a too great inherent risk of an accident.