Topic: Diamond Mining in the Arctic Circle (Read 3151 times)

YZ · « **on:** June 21, 2008, 12:15:52 PM »

Folks,

We've seen protests and activism from environmentalists and concerned people in general about several subjects that have appeared in the mainstream media over time; personal beliefs aside, my position is that the ensuing discussions are a good thing for they may lead to a better understanding of what is important and what is not.

Recently my attention was called to the subject of Diamond Mining in the Arctic Circle; you can see a little bit of it at

http://bhpbilliton.com/bb/ourBusinesses/diamondsSpecialtyPro ducts/ekatiDiamondMine/aboutEkati.jsp

the site belongs to one of the mining companies so it presents their view.

Nevertheless, there we can read things like:

"the mine operates in an area of continuous permafrost"

"there is storage for approximately 90 million litres of diesel fuel on site"

The mining operations are both underground and surface; surface mining of diamonds is similar to the mining of coal: they blow up the ground and create huge craters, then dig in.

So these guys are blowing up permafrost.

And in the process, sending shockwaves to the glaciers, maybe helping those to slide down and break up into the ocean?

I couldn't find any mention of this activity on environment activism sites.

In the same general location (300Km north of Yellowknife) there are a few other diamond mining operations.

{edit} more links:

http://www.diavik.ca/loc.htm

picture of an arctic mining pit, from the same Diavik site:

http://www.diavik.ca/Photos/2007/DSC_0004.html

Another pic (looks very impressive):

http://www.diavik.ca/Photos/2007/DSC_0030.html

What happened to the island?

http://www.diavik.ca/Photos/2006/Diavik%20%201%20004.html

What do you think?

Barry Hufker · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2008, 02:12:41 PM »

I've never understood the notion of wanting to own a diamond (mink coat, chinchilla, etc.). Diamonds are not rare (even tho' the marketing ploy is that they are). They are over-priced rocks often harvested on the backs of lowly paid workers operating in unsafe conditions. They are often used to fund terrorism.

At least when coal mining is performed some "good" can come out of it, such as heating homes or something. But diamonds add nothing to people's lives or the improvement of their condition.

MagnetoSound · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2008, 02:36:02 PM »

Those pictures are truly chilling. At what point do they say 'that's enough'?

johnR · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2008, 03:19:43 PM »

Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 19:12

At least when coal mining is performed some "good" can come out of it, such as heating homes or something. But diamonds add nothing to people's lives or the improvement of their condition.

I agree about diamonds used in jewellery, but don't forget they have many industrial uses too, like in cutting tools and abrasives. Some materials can't be cut or worked without them.

YZ · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2008, 03:23:14 PM »

The mining companies estimate the useful life of their Arctic operations at around 20 years, after which the output decreases below the desired profitability levels.

On the other hand they talk a lot about 'sustainability' and working with the local population.

I wonder how much are they caring for the environment if they know that the enterprise will not last long... all they need to do is buy the complicity of the locals and cover up the story until it is time to leave; let the future take care of the damages.

There are so many things we did wrong in the past that today we say to ourselves "if only we knew better"... well, we know better now.

People worry about the impact of biofuels and so forth, I couldn't find any link to any "tree-hugger" site mentioning Arctic Circle diamond mining.

Could it be because it is really innocuous to the environment?

Does anyone here know better and can clarify this matter?

YZ · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2008, 03:25:45 PM »

johnR wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 16:19

I agree about diamonds used in jewellery, but don't forget they have many industrial uses too, like in cutting tools and abrasives. Some materials can't be cut or worked without them.

I was under the impression that most diamond-enhanced tools used artificial diamonds, which are less costly because they don't look good enough for jewelry but still have the same physical properties.

compasspnt · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2008, 06:44:37 PM »

Those photos are so lovely, I thought I would actually keep them up live.

index.php/fa/9241/0/

compasspnt · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2008, 06:46:08 PM »

compasspnt · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2008, 06:48:41 PM »

Bill Mueller · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2008, 06:51:26 PM »

"Civilization" from the air always looks like an infestation to me.

Best regards,

Bill

E Merrill · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2008, 08:45:00 PM »

YZ wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 15:25

I was under the impression that most diamond-enhanced tools used artificial diamonds, which are less costly because they don't look good enough for jewelry but still have the same physical properties.

Yes. It is difficult and expensive to make a diamond large enough to perch on a finger but simple to manufacture industrial diamonds.

The diamond must be stopped.

PookyNMR · « **Reply #11 on:** June 22, 2008, 01:03:18 AM »

I can understand the shock of such sites, but how is this any worse than any other type of strip / open pit mining for any other number of materials?

I've been to Yellowknife a number of times. I've also known a few different folks who have worked in the mining industry up there. If you're shocked at the level of environmental disaster, you're looking in the wrong spot.

The gold mines in Yellowknife are far worse. Years ago some scientists were finding that the chemicals released in the mining process were making their way through some of the porous underground rock formations slowly tainting the water supply with chemicals like arsenic. Some scientists were fearing that the mess from the gold mines may render the whole area uninhabitable within as little as a generation or two.

Strummer · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2008, 01:08:42 AM »

Diavik mine is inside a cofferdam. When the operation is done the lake will refill.

I'm not justifying that particular operation, I'm only saying that if you look at open pit coal, open pit copper, large operations visible from space, this pales in comparison.

If it's not grown it's mined.

Barry Hufker · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2008, 01:53:33 PM »

You all raise such excellent points...

Much to think about.

YZ · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2008, 03:11:17 PM »

strummer and Pooky:

It seems that you know a bit more than I do about mining, so I ask:

Isn't the Tundra a fragile ecosystem that takes generations to recover from damage? The diamond and gold mines are in the Tundra, aren't they?

Mining uses explosives; being so close to the glaciers, wouldn't the detonations affect the glaciers, contributing to their breakup and slide into the sea?

They've built an 'ice road' to keep a supply line during the winter; from what I've seen they have thousands of heavy trucks traveling back and forth between Yellowknife and the fringe of the arctic circle in a season where everything used to be very quiet; doesn't that impact the local ecosystem?

The Arctic and Antarctic regions were probably the only untouched parts of our planet, where everything was kept as 'original' as it has ever been; wouldn't such intrusions have a negative effect?

I did not think about the gold mining operations there, silly me, I believed that they've ended after the 'Yukon Fever' era.

Guest · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2008, 03:19:46 PM »

Strummer wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 22:08

If it's not grown it's mined.

This is a good point. Diamonds can now be grown using one of two methods: the "Chemical Vapor Deposition" process or the "High Pressure High Temperature" process.

These are "real" diamonds and identical to traditionally mined diamonds except for their method of production. They are commonly called cultured diamonds, similar to cultured pearls.

Besides being conflict free, the diamonds are also much more eco-friendly, because they are not displacing such large amounts of earth or using as much energy.

Jason

Strummer · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2008, 05:05:13 PM »

I should have stayed out of this.

I commented only on Diavik, of which I know a little. I had an opportunity to participate in site prep and I declined for several reasons.

Mining is a big word. It's underground and surface. It's metal, mineral, and non-metal (primarily rock and stone for road and building construction).

I can't comment on specific environmental effects of mining in the Arctic, but yes it concerns me, one of many reasons I didn't go. Someone posted pictures, I did comment but didn't state clearly enough that someday an aerial view of that site will show little evidence of mining. I understand the tundra is fragile. I live in a fragile desert and see how long flora and fauna takes to repair themselves. Using proper methods we can vastly speed that up.

Are there environmental effects from the project? No doubt. Are they long term or permanent to the environment? I don't know.

EDIT: Removed one obviously redundant word.

PookyNMR · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2008, 05:12:50 PM »