Mining: Land Rehabilitation

The impact of mining on the natural landscape has been extreme, especially when old techniques continue to be used without regard for the surroundings. A conventional gold rush in river areas can destroy river banks with hydraulic dredges and high-pressure hoses, while polluting the water with mercury used in processing and silt.

Now all mining teams work closely with environmental engineers and scientists to facilitate minimal impact mining and prospecting methods. Geophysicists and mining engineers have been improving their seismic prospecting techniques to reduce the chances of drilling dry wells, since it is known that the transportation of the machinery required even for this first stage of mine construction can cause significant environmental damage.

Land rehabilitation is now a major issue for all mining companies, and millions of dollars are spent on the correct handling of the closure of a mine. Most companies follow environmental engineers’ advice to restore land to its original condition, and this usually means filling in mines, replanting native flora, and reintroducing native animal species to the area. Usually biologists and other scientists work around the mine site for a few years to monitor the recovery of the land.

In some places, vacant mines have been used to further serve humans. In Manitoba, northwest of Winnipeg, Canada, unused copper and zinc mines were the site of experimental subterranean gardening. It was found that the underground temperature, moisture and light could be controlled cheaply and accurately, from computer systems miles away. The underground gardens thrived, woody plants such as roses being the most successful of all the plant types grown. In such a cold area is this, the underground gardens proved to be more successful than those planted on the surface.

One problem with many geologists and environmental engineers is the prevailing attitude that one can improve upon what was originally there. I have heard geologists proclaiming that these conservationists should see what they have done with a mine once it was closed. What used to be desert, they said, is now green: the mine has been filled with water, and there is grass and trees around; in fact, it is much better than it was to begin with. It is all very easy from a human perspective to think we know what is “better.” The fact that desert species, both flora and fauna, may be displaced by changing the mine site to a flourishing oasis seems lost to many people, who think that what is better, or more pleasant, to us must also be better for the environment.

Obviously, many issues with mining still need to be addressed. Perhaps, with radical changes in thinking, we will one day see a time when mining is all but obsolete. Recycling is not the only way we can reduce mining. Synthetics may well be a contributor to the solution, especially if we find that producing synthetics is less costly both financially and to the environment. Even now, synthetic gems are made to copy the chemical composition of natural stones. The cost of synthetic gems is far lower, one tenth in the case of emeralds. Most dealers and the public accept synthetic stones as legitimate gems. Synthetics are made in Australia, Japan, and Russia, and now that acceptance is increasing, the number of companies producing the jewels may increase.