Miners want a 211-mile road in remote Alaska, through one of the wildest national parks. It pits President Biden's climate agenda against his conservation plan.

A proposed copper mine near two national parks is turning into a test of values — how to protect wilderness while supplying critical minerals

  • abff08f4813c@kbin.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    The cost to bore tunnels would be extreme, and likely would deter investors.

    I don’t have an obvious solution for that, but no one said park preservation and tackling global warming would come cheap.

    On top of that, where do you put the waste rock, which can be metal leaching or acid generating.

    I don’t know much about this, but as the tunnel is built, use it to truck out the waste rock, which can then be shipped outside of Alaska to be processed and handled in the usual processing plants in the US (or even pay to handle it overseas). Again, costs, but same answer as above.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      1·
      1 year ago

      Re: waste rock. Usually waste rock is placed in piles. During operations, they have a series of collection ditches to manage contact water and pump it to the tailings pond or an exhausted pit, until an impermeable cover and growth media are placed over top. The cover prevents aeration, which causes the ML/ARD issues I mentioned in the other post. 211 km of waste rock is a lot of additional cost and env risk, and work to offset that risk. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do this, but I’m saying it isn’t likely unless they are mandated to do it and have a well developed plan to do so (more time delays and cost)

      They are doing underground hauling of waste rock at one mine I know about, but it’s because the mine is already underground and they have the route established, and the mine itself is expanding.

      There is so much to consider in mining if you want to do it the right way