Environment Flashcards
Characterize mining pollution as a negative externality
Negative externality: production or consumption of goods imposes costs on third parties that are not reflected in the market price of those goods.
- external costs include environmental degradation, health impacts, and loss of ecosystem services.
- Copper: the price does not fully reflect the actual cost of that copper because the pollution is going downstream, and no one is held reliable to pay for this pollution from the production
Identify the legal basis of the “right to mine” and clarify how that limits BLM power to limit mining activities
- Under the Hardrock Mining Law: “discovery” is the legal trigger that establishes the right to mine.
- mining is a valid and preferable use of federal lands designated for mineral exploration and extraction. ->bias in favor of mining activities, cant deny permit
- No Authority to Reject Reasonable Mining Plans: BLM can impose conditions to ensure compliance with environmental laws, it cannot reject a reasonable plan simply because it disagrees with mining activities or wishes to limit them.
Review: Characterize environmental regulation before the Environmental Era
No regulations or standards: (no standards)
-No permits required
-No restricted uses to mitigate impacts
-No requirements for reclamation
Identify 3 key laws from the Environmental Era that significantly impact mining activities and explain how
**NEPA **(National Environmental Policy Act)
EIS for all projects
Can use EIS to slow the process since it’s the ‘right to mine’ and makes it more expensive
* FLPMA (Federal Land Policy & Management Act) BLM regulatory authority (issue permits) on all fed/tribal lands
Have to apply and get standards set
* Clean Water Act: Mining requires NPDES permit. Since water is typically the first to get polluted
Identify and describe each the four main provisions of the permitting process that were established by the 80’s
- Marketability test:: Profitability must include cost of environmental regulations. Have to show that it is marketable
- Prudent operator test: Damage can not exceed that which would be created by a prudent operator . Have to do what is reasonable, and if it destroys the environment as long as it was reasonable its fine
- Clean Water Act / ESA. NPDES permit → EPA determines if they get a permit or not, can be denied
- Reclamation Bonds: you have to say exactly what are going to do . Financial guaranteed (bond held by BLM) . The bond is what makes sure the financial guarantee occurs, works as insurance policy
Standards for Revoking a Permit:
NONE
Identify and describe three significant weaknesses in those standards leading to excessive environmental damage and little cleanup
Industry Standard
-industry experts can define “reasonable” practices in a way that justifies environmentally harmful methods.
-operations are deemed acceptable despite using destructive techniques.
-standard becomes a loophole for companies to continue harmful practices, ultimately leading to significant environmental degradation without accountability.
Low bond minimum
-Super low bonds, they do not cover the full cost of reclamation.
-No minimum standard for the ability of the bond to actually cover reclamation.
-when operations cease, there may not be enough funds available to rehabilitate damaged lands, leading to long-term ecological harm and taxpayer burdens if public funds are needed for cleanup.
No fines or revocations for non compliance
-No enforcement/ consequences
- little incentive for companies to adhere to best practices.
-This leads to a culture of negligence, where companies may prioritize profit over environmental standards , resulting in lasting damage to ecosystems and communities.
Explain the main way companies ultimately shed the liability of cleanup altogether (U.S)
U.S. Companies: Selling Unmarketable Wells
- U.S. companies sell off unmarketable or less profitable wells to other entities, often at a low price.
-When company encounters goes bankrupt, the responsibility for environmental cleanup falls on taxpayers.
- problematic because the original company effectively offloads its liabilities without facing the financial consequences of reclamation. -The taxpayers may then be left to fund the cleanup through government resources, creating a burden on public finances and often leading to unresolved environmental issues.
Explain the main way clarify international companies avoid liability (foreign)
Acquisition of a U.S. Company:
-subsidiary: foreign corporation may acquire a U.S. company, which allows them to access mineral rights and engage in extraction activities.
Bankruptcy of the U.S. Subsidiary: If the U.S. subsidiary declares -bankruptcy, foreign parent company no longer responsible for cleanup obligations.
-bankruptcy does not extend liability to the parent company, which means they can walk away from reclamation costs without facing penalties.
Taxpayer Burden:
-costs associated with cleanup fall to taxpayers or government agencies,
Identify how the Biden administration is strengthening the permitting process, clarifying which issues remain unaddressed
Increased the minimum bond (reclamation)
So if companies go bankrupt, there is money to pay for the reclamation (fixing the land)
Issues remain outstanding/unaddressed:
Prudent person test
No fines or revocations for non compliance
Define zombie mines, and identify the main loopholes in the permitting process that companies are using to avoid the costs of environmental cleanup
Definition: mining operations that have declared a “temporary cessation” status. Halt operations during economic busts—when prices are low—while retaining the ability to resume mining when prices recover, a boom.
Loopholes:
Marketability Test:
* No Requirement to Report Remaining Reserves: Prevent regulators from accurately assessing whether the mine still has economic viability, allowing companies to avoid accountability.
* No Proof of Ability to Pay Reclamation Costs: Even if a mine becomes unprofitable, the company may not be required to set aside funds for environmental cleanup.
* Reclamation Bonds: No minimum standards for reclamation bonds, leading to insufficient funds for cleanup.
* Lack of Compliance Verification: aren’t required to prove they’re following environmental regulations while in “temporary cessation,” allowing them to neglect their responsibilities.
* No Official Closure Designation: Mines can be labeled as “temporarily closed” without actually being shut down, which lets companies avoid cleanup indefinitely.
Identify/explain the main legal bases by which mine projects are rejected, and provide an example
Mainly through the Clean Water Act: Act prohibits the discharge of oil in certain ways. Companies can’t put waste the way they want to-> you can’t mine.
Interior department is not allowing for roads that will be harmful to wildlife and communities, not saying no to mining but saying no to the road that’s needed to reach it
Characterize how the Environmental Era and Supply Security Timelines aligned in the 90’s, provide an example reform, and clarify why those reforms were short-lived
- grew alongside the need for resource security.
Key Reforms
Bigger Reclamation Bonds: ensure funds were available for land reclamation after mining.
Increased BLM Authority: (BLM) gained the authority to revoke permits for non-compliance with environmental regulations.
Liability for Parent Companies: Parent companies became liable and cant evade responsibility by declaring bankruptcy.
Permit Rejection Power: BLM granted the power to reject permits if a project posed an irreparable harm to the environment or significant scientific or cultural features
Reasons for Short-Lived Reforms
Executive Orders vs. Laws: executive orders rather than through established laws, making them vulnerable to reversal with changes in administration
Political Changes: As political priorities shifted, eliminate orders, leading to inconsistent enforcement.
Define Critical Minerals, describe the special treatment that they receive in the permitting process, and clarify why the Biden Administration is further streamlining the process for this category of minerals
Critical minerals: important for the US’ economy and national security and the vulnerability of supply chains
Expedited review- faster NEPA process
New rule - 100 day review of US critical minerals supply chains
Cost-benefit analysis: More weight towards benefits of mining
Very generally, explain how environmental engineers are either mitigating or pre-empting AMD in mining projects today
Mitigation: Active Water Treatment
Active Water Treatment: Engineers implement aggressive water treatment systems to remove metals and neutralize acidity from water that may become contaminated.
Pre-emption: Dry Tailings and Oxygen-Free Storage
Dry Tailings: involves managing tailings in a way that prevents moisture from accumulating. By keeping tailings dry, the conditions that promote sulfide oxidation
Oxygen-Free Storage: Engineers bury and compact tailings to limit exposure to oxygen. Prevent the oxidation of sulfides,
Identify/describe the main legal barrier that is impeding the cleanup of AMD from historic mines, clarifying the difference between how point and nonpoint source pollution can be addressed. Explain how Good Samaritan Legislation would help resolve the problem
main legal barrier: Clean Water Act (CWA)
Point vs. Nonpoint Source Pollution
Point Source Pollution: Pollution that comes from a specific, identifiable source, ex: mine shaft.
- Liability: Those who attempt to clean up point source pollution can be held liable for any new discharges that may occur during remediation.
- Types of Technology: Solutions include engineered systems like limestone channels and engineered wetlands, which require more active treatments.
Non-Point Source Pollution: Pollution that comes from diffuse sources, ex: tailings that leach into the environment.
- Liability: There are fewer direct liabilities for moving or burying non-point source pollution, allowing for more flexible remediation strategies.
- Types of Technology: Techniques often include passive treatments like digging up, burying, and replanting tailings to prevent moisture and oxidation, thereby reducing AMD.
Good Samaritan Legislation: aim to alleviate liability concerns for those who want to voluntarily clean up sites.
- By dropping liability for those who take on cleanup efforts, this legislation would encourage more to participate in remediation projects without fear of being held responsible for residual contamination or new pollution
- Types of Technology Supported: passive treatment methods that are often less costly and complex.
