Tintina Resources has released a document explaining in detail the facility that they proposed in their permit application for storage of the acid-producing tailings from the Black Butte mine.
Australian mining CEO visits Smith River mine
On Friday, Karl Simich, CEO of Australia-based Sandfire Resources, visited the site of one of his new proposed mines: the Black Butte copper mine near White Sulphur Springs and the Smith River.
Smith River Outfitters Speak Out
In an editorial, a group of Smith River outfitters express their concerns about the proposed Black Butte copper mine, what it could do to their business on the Smith River, and the likely inability of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to prevent a disaster if they approve the mining permit.
Longtime Smith River outfitters Mike Geary owns Lewis and Clark Expeditions; John Herzer and Terri Raugland own Blackfoot River Outfitters; Brandon Bodecker owns PRO Outfitters; and Joe Sowerby owns Montana Flyfishing Connection.
WSJ article highlights repeated mine failures
History is full of mining leaks, spills and downright disasters that have at least impaired and at most wreaked havoc on the streams, wildlife and landscapes around them. Far, far fewer are the stories of “harmless” mines, maybe because they don’t exist.
The problem is that mines bring hazardous material from underground – where they’re safely locked away – to the surface where the companies and taxpayers then have to deal with them. At that point, the wastes are ticking time bombs, waiting to go off when it’s least expected.
University of Montana Student News
It is so great to see young people getting involved in this issue. Read a great piece in the Montana Kaimin, the University of Montana student newspaper, looking at all sides of the Smith River mine issue.
Department of Environmental Quality First Deficiency
On March 14, 2016, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality submitted their first deficiency notice on Tintina’s Mine Operating Permit application.
Tom Livers, DEQ Director said, “The most significant pieces are the couple of pieces where they’re still working on it so we don’t have it in the application they submitted. All the geochemistry work and the ground water model. Both of those are critical pieces for us to have to be able to truly assess impacts.”
Once DEQ receives a response, the review period is only 30 days, as opposed to 90 days for the initial review. The shorter window for review causes concern for DEQ.
“It’s a little tighter, that’s why it’s a little concerning for us. We’ve got these big missing pieces. We won’t have much time once we get those pieces in, in any subsequent cycles to look at them,” Livers said.
Read the March 15 KTVH article on the deficiency findings or the technical deficiency notice released by the DEQ.