Surface Paste Disposal of High-Sulfide Tailings – Geochemical and Geotechnical Testing

Verburg, Rens; Ross, Cheryl; Dillon, Mark; Newman, Philip R.; Fordham, M

doi:10.36487/acg_repo/663_12

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even within the narrow scope of a single requirement (3.2), there are competing drivers which might pull the solution in different directions. For example, testing on high-sulphide tailings by Verburg and Oliveira (2016) showed that unsaturated filtered tailings present a higher environmental risk than saturated tailings in terms of leachate. Minimising risk to the environment in this case (and in most cases) may not directly align with minimising the volume of water placed in the tailings facility.…”

Section: Competing Drivers and Integrated Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical timelines and pathways: addressing environmental, social, governance and permitting

Kellner¹,

Hall²,

Tanentzap³

2023

Paste 2023: 25th International Conference on Paste, Thickened and Filtered Tailings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for projects to focus on permitting and environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations is increasingly prioritised over the technical and economic aspects of backfill and tailings solutions. This includes not only environmental permitting, but also takes into account public perception and responses to a project, as well as local community engagement and support. To optimise the success of a project, it is essential to incorporate and understand both the mining companies' ESG frameworks and the local and governmental permitting requirements from the beginning.There is a need to pull these more advanced backfill and tailings designs earlier into the process to satisfy permitting requirements rather than the usual execution schedule.Permitting timelines may also lead to temporary backfill solutions such as cemented rockfill until paste backfill can be permitted and implemented.Comparing surface versus underground permitting requirements can lead to a more strategic approach by evaluating alternative solutions for infrastructure placement. For example, some facilities can be located underground if surface is perceived to be contentious. This can also lead to an approach where facility placement that might be better suited underground, but a more conservative approach is to start on surface and move underground as the project progresses.Given the focus on ESG and permitting and the timelines involved, it is more important than ever to provide a narrative which conveys a responsible integrated tailings solution for mining projects, both for permitting and to ensure public support.

show abstract

Section: Competing Drivers and Integrated Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%