Tailings Disposal - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 750

TABLE 18.8
Examples of Completed Projects in which STP has been Used - While it is unlikely that such shallow outfall
depths as 10 m or even 45 m will be proposed, let alone approved in the future, all these projects were more or less successful at the
time, although the Minahasa Project proved to be highly controversial. In no case was there any loss of life or catastrophic environmen-
tal damage as a result of STP. This is in contrast to the history of onshore tailings disposal in the same parts of the world

Project Years of Operation Depth of Outfall (m) Tailings Quantity (T)

Island Copper, Canada 1997-1997 45 350 million

Atlas Copper, Philippines 1971-1991 10 365 million

Misima Gold, PNG 1989-1999 118 80 million

Minahasa Gold, Indonesia 1995-2003 82 7 million

Kitsault Molybdenum, Canada 1979-1981 50 15 million

TABLE 18.9
Operating DSTP Systems - DSTP involves discharge of tailings slurry near the seabed in water depths of 100 m or more

Project Year of Operation Depth of Outfall (m) Tailings Quantity (T)

Pechiney Alumina Refi nery,
Marseilles, France

Since 1967 320 60 million

Cayeli Bakir, Black Sea, Turkey Since 1992 350 18 million

Lihir Gold Project, PNG Since 1997 128 24 million (50 million planned)

Batu Hijau, Copper Project,
Indonesia

Since 1999 120 280 million (1.5 billion planned)

to evaluate a site's suitability for STP. The screening criteria include proximity to deep-water
coastlines, severe precipitation or l ooding potential, seismic loading and land use considera-
tions. STP has been employed at more than twenty sites, in the following countries: Canada,
France, Denmark (Greenland), Indonesia, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru and Turkey
(see Tables 18.8 and 18.9 for some examples where submarine tailings placement has been
implemented). The Island Copper Mine in British Columbia, Canada operated its STP sys-
tem very successfully for more than twenty years. STP has not been employed in the United
States, an irrelevant argument often raised by activists opposing STP, as few USA mines are
located close enough to the coastline to consider the feasibility of using STP.
STP is particularly attractive if favourable sub-sea conditions exist close to the mine and
if a land based TSF is difi cult to realize, either due to a lack of suitable disposal areas or
due to unacceptably high environmental risks (e.g. Newmont Minahasa Mine, Indonesia;
Newmont Batu Hijau Mine, Indonesia; and Lihir Mine, PNG). Of course the main poten-
tial environmental impacts of STP schemes are potential negative impacts on the receiving
marine environment. In all cases, STP requires intensive preparation of and consultation
with affected communities to avoid negative community perception often aggravated by
opponents of STP. For a mining operation, perceptions can be just as important as reality,
as reality depends on what members of the community dei ne as real.