Barranca June 16, 1989 The Honorable Dale Bumpers United States Senate Dirkson Office Building, Room 229 Washington, D. C. 20510 Re: Legislative hearing, Bill S. 1126, June 7, 1989 Dear Senator Bumpers: These remarks are intended to amplify and clarify comments I volunteered in response to your question about the danger of cyanide used in the processing of low-grade gold ores. You wondered how it could be lethal and yet not a threat to the environment. Please accept this for inclusion in the hearing record. Cyanide (CN) is made up of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), two common elements in the earth and atmosphere. It occurs naturally. The bitter taste in seeds from apricot pits owes to the presence of cyanide compounds. "Tobacco smoke is probably the most important daily source of cyanide exposure to the general public. Cigarette smoke contains 1,600 parts per million of cyanide."1 The principal lethal gases of cyanide are cyanogen (C2N2) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), also known as "hydrocyanic acid." This is the compound I had difficulty correctly articulating and believe I called "hydrocyanic gas."2 The cyanide of commerce is sodium cyanide (NaCN). Its principal uses are for extracting gold and silver from ores, electroplating, case hardening of steel, and for fumigation. Its utility in the extraction of precious metals comes from cyanide's attraction for gold and silver. When sodium cyanide (NaCN) is dissolved in water it separates into two ions, the cyanide ion (CN-) and the sodium ion (Na*). Gold (Au), for example, combines to form a gold cyanide (Au(CN)2) which is insoluble. So long as the solution is 1 2 NSF, 1983, Cyanide from mineral processing: Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by NSF, USBM, & industry, Salt Lake City, Utah, p.4-15. It becomes a gas at 78°F. 1418 Pike Street Golden, Colorado 80401 U.S.A. (303) 278-1292 The Honorable Dale Bumpers June 16 1989 Page 2 kept alkaline, with pH of 11 or greater, absolutely no hydrogen cyanide HC can form Cyanide concentrations in precious metal leach solutions are in the range of 0 3 to 610 parts per million 3 Compare these values with the concentrations in cigarette smoke noted above. Solutions used in the leaching of low-grade gold ores contain free cyanide ions (CN) If water containing these ions is ingested by a warm blooded animal, the acid in the animal's stomach combines with the cyanide ion (CN-) to form hydrogen cyanide (HCN) which is toxic The industry is currently taking precautions to ward off birds and other wildlife. Because the toxicity of cyanide is well known, treatment of cyanide wastes is standard practice. It is widely known that the movement of cyanide in soil is usually quite limited because it either forms insoluble complexes with trace metals or is metabolized by various mircoorganisms *Numerous studies have shown that bacterial, fungal, and algal species can convert cyanide to carbon dioxide (CO) and ammonia (NH) which is then [harmlessly] released to the environment 4 This means that in low concentrations, such as might possibly escape to the environment, cyanide becomes lunch instead of being toxic. When cyanide ion (CN) is exposed to sunlight, it rapidly oxidizes to form nitrous oxide (NO) and carbon dioxide (CO2), both atmospheric gases. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is oxidized to form carbon dioxide (CO) and ammonium ion (NH;-), both common atmospheric gases I hope I have shown why, in the context of your questions, cyanide in this use is simply not a threat to the environment. Thank you for this opportunity to clarify my remarks. Very truly yours, 9. Snow Geoffrey G. Snow, Ph.D. 3 NSF, 1983, Cyanide from mineral processing: Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by NSF, USBM, & industry, Salt Lake City, Utah, table 1.2. 4 NSF, 1983, Cyanide from mineral processing: Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by NSF, USBM, & industry, Salt Lake City, Utah, p.4-5. Senator BUMPERS. Senator Domenici. STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank you. I am not a member of this subcommittee, and I obviously do not want to delay matters but I do have a New Mexican who will be appearing on behalf of our mining association, Mr. Charles Roybal, the Executive Director of the New Mexico Mining Association. I wanted to, with your permission, say to him that he is welcome and I am delighted that he is here. From my standpoint, just to make an early statement before your activities move up to the full committee, I want to say that it has been my impression that this law of 1872 is very old. Looking at where America was and where we have been and how far we have come in terms of our mineral development and mining, I think it just has to have served us well. Obviously, from time to time we have to look at it, and perhaps there are some areas we ought to repair and reform. A few come to mind; obviously, just little pieces like patent fees which may be inadequate to bear the costs, and perhaps something ought to be done about acquiring land for uses other than mining through some circuitous route of using this Mining Law. But I just want to go on record early on that I do not think the problems we have, be they environmental, be they attitudinal on the part of our bureaucracy or whatever, justify scrapping this law; and certainly I do not think it justifies substituting a whole unknown, untried system for the American mining industry, large and small. I have gone through in my state the rise and fall of the uranium industry three times in my short life. I have watched copper go from the most vibrant industry in the state to almost dead and through a lot of good things, including mining industry doing some exciting things. They are back alive. They might survive. They are doing well. I watched potash go from the most important potash mining in all of this United States to almost a state of demise, and they are back alive, but we had to work at it. So I think we have to be awful careful. We surely ought not take an axe to this law. We ought to take a very sharp knife and do some pruning and improving. Our future is still tied to mines and mineral extraction in this country, and I do not think we have learned enough about new things to say we do not need that. Frankly, I think the public domain has to remain open, other than where currently precluded, to the exploration of excited people so long as we are not going to jeopardize and violate our other environmental laws. We have no way of measuring what that vitality brings to this system for people, individuals and companies large and small, to know that they can go look and that they can perhaps find. Frankly, that kind of thing is frowned upon by much of society today, and yet we want more production out of everybody. So I come here to compliment the Chairman and ranking member for having the hearings and to put my two cents in from the standpoint of the law and its service to or people and our country and the desire not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Senator Domenici. Gentlemen, thank all of you for being here with us today. Our next panel will be the mining dialogue: Mr. Putnam Livermore, President, Public Resource Associates in California; Mr. Lynn Greenwalt, Vice President for International Affairs and Special Assistant to the President of the National Wildlife Federation; and Mr. Russell Babcock, Director of Exploration for British Petroleum. We will take a five-minute recess while you gentlemen are taking your seats. [A brief recess was taken.] Senator BUMPERS. The committee will come to order. Mr. Livermore, your name is the first one on my list, so please proceed. STATEMENT OF PUTNAM LIVERMORE, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES Mr. LIVERMORE. Thank you, Senator. Senator BUMPERS. Just a minute. We do not yet have order in the committee room, Mr. Livermore. Please proceed. Mr. LIVERMORE. I am Putnam Livermore, an attorney and President of Public Resource Associates, Senator. Public Resource Associates is an independent nonprofit organization that studies issues relating to the American land and its natural resources with particular emphasis on problems arising in the west. We would like to emphasize research, public education and consensus building on issues. The principals of Public Resource Associates have had a long background in law, hardrock mining and land conservation, but we represent no mining company or environmental organization, just ourselves. We want to thank you for this opportunity to be here today and testify. We have had a lot of divergent views on this 1872 Mining Law, and our group has emphasized its consensus. A little more than a year ago we became involved in a dialogue group on the law, and among the members of the dialogue group were Russell Babcock, to my left, a representative of a mining company, and to my right, Lynn Greenwalt, a representative of an environmental organization. The challenge as we see it, Senator, is to develop a legal framework that preserves miner's incentives to explore and mine in a manner that is compatible with contemporary standards for multiple use land management, environmental protection and economic efficiency. While seeking the correct balance of values, we have to realize we are not writing on a clean slate here. This is an old law and has served the country well. We think the basic structure of the law should be retained and perhaps updated and improved. Any effort to change the law, we think, should be guided by a commitment to assure continuity of practice for both administrators and miners, stability in the industry and the smoothest possible transition for all concerned. In our dialogue efforts, we have identified the nine salient issues, some of which have been mentioned here today, and our discussions revolved around these nine issues. They are: self-initiation; claim location; security of tenure; diligence; scope of patent; fees and charges; surface management and environmental protection; land use planning; and the grandfathering of rights. Through our discussion of these issues, we have come to agree on a key set of principles around which we believe consensus can be developed. They are: One, retain the self-initiated claim location system; Two, establish secure tenure by eliminating the discovery requirement for unpatented claims and make the requirements for patent reflect actual industry concepts of economic feasibility; Three, replace the present surface and mineral patent with a patent of the minerals only; Four, impose a true diligence requirement as the price of tenure; Five, assure environmental protection, including reclamation, bonding and improved land planning; and Finally, provide for fair payment for the use of the land. We continue to be optimistic about our prospects for reaching agreement in our dialogue group. As to the bill before us, at the outset I have to say that it would be difficult for this bill in its present form-and I emphasize in its present form-to be a basis for the consensus we have been seeking. The mining community, looking at the bill, is likely to think it is extremely severe from their point of view. To illustrate, a modest holding of, say, 10 claims, which is about the minimum for a feasible operation these days and thus the relevant unit for comparison with the single claim of 1872, would cost about $12,000 in the first year in fees and annual labor or in-lieu payments as compared to $1,150 under current rules. This level of expenditure would likely prove prohibitive for the small miner in most cases. Large operators for their part will tell you that an 8 percent royalty on top of existing severance taxes and payments to claimholders would stifle the incentive to mine in this high cost business. In addition, the bill's treatment of existing claims is harsh. Its terms may make sense for the unique circumstances of oil shale where the less disruptive transition is called for with respect to hardrock. The bill does have many positive features, however. It is built on the basic framework of the self-initiated claim which from our point of view is essential for any proposal to be workable. It makes diligence the basis of tenure and substitutes a mineral patent for the existing surface and mineral patent. It adopts the concept of a uniform claim located where possible by legal subdivision, which is a most useful change. In addition, it provides sensibly for the use of ancillary lands for activities in support of development and production. We view this |