By Gabriel Caplett
Humboldt Township, MI – Callahan Mining Company purchased the Humboldt Mill facility from Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company (CCI) in the early 1980s. Callahan began milling gold ore from its Ropes Gold Mine in 1985. The company permanently closed both the mine and milling operations by 1991, citing a decline in the price of gold, mine flooding and “ground control” issues that caused serious worker safety problems. A 1989 “compliance review” found that high levels of copper, nickel and cyanide were leaving the Humboldt tailings pit and entering the local water supply. The site is considered one of few known major sources of toxic selenium release in the Upper Peninsula.
Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill plans and promises have much in common, historically, with Callahan’s operation decades ago:
Like Rio Tinto, Callahan promised a high percentage of local jobs at its mine and mill sites (“90 to 95 percent”), as well as a significant local economic investment (more than $20 million).
In June 1984, the Marquette Mining Journal editorial board reported that “the 75 or so jobs provided by the gold mine and the processing plant may seem insignificant to some. But let’s face it, jobs are jobs and investment is investment.”
In April 2008, the Marquette County Board of Commissioners expressed support for Rio Tinto’s version of the mill project. According to Chairman Gerald Corkin, the project would “possibly create 50-plus dditional jobs plus additional tax base” for the county and Humboldt Township.
Both Rio Tinto and Callahan assured residents that ground and surface water contamination are unlikely to occur as waste material is disposed of underwater, in an old mine pit. Both companies claimed to be using “a time-tested process.” For Callahan, the technology used was over 80 years old. Now, more than 20 years later, Rio Tinto is promoting the same technology Callahan employed, saying that it has been successfully utilized for over 100 years.
Both companies expressed a serious interest in utilizing the mill to process ore from future mine sites.
For Callahan, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approved its tailings disposal and milling process. A DNR water quality specialist, Ron Raisinen, assured residents that the process “will not hurt the environment any more than it has already been hurt with the milling process. They will be using a site that is already in place and they will be helping with employment in the area.” According to Raisinen, “it’s a good process and I have a positive feeling about the operation.”
Now, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is reviewing applicable permits for the company, and providing assurances for the public.
While Rio Tinto racked up worker violations at operations from Utah to Namibia, Callahan acquired its own poor labor rights record during its short tenure at Ropes and the Humboldt mill.
On June 13, 1987, a drill worker was seriously injured when a large rock crushed the lower half of his body. Two days prior, the company was cited for failing to report a June 4 cave-in at the mine that almost seriously injured a mine worker. Anonymous employees that expressed concerns regarding Callahan’s lack of commitment to worker safety reported the cave-in. County Mine Inspector Bill Maki accused Callahan of using inadequate machinery Said Maki: “I think they could stand a little more safety.” According to Maki, Callahan management had previously told him that the proper equipment would be “too costly.”
In September 1987, another mine worker was injured while attempting to stabilize the roof of the mine when a 1,000-pound rock crushed both of his feet and caused back injuries. According to the worker, he told his partner, “I don’t care if they fire me…I’m putting one more [roof] bolt in and no more.” The mine’s General Manager, Ross Wayment, chastised workers for airing their concerns to the public, rather than to mine management. One anonymous worker replied that “morale is not that high” at the mine and that workers had continually told mine management that the mine’s roof was unstable.
The Ropes Mine even had a somewhat similar design to Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine, consisting of a “spiraling series of declines” that allowed truck access to the blasted ore, considered more economical than a vertical shaft design. Ropes, like the proposed Eagle Mine, had persistent structural issues.
The operation also had major pollution issues associated with the mining and milling of gold ore. The mine contaminated nearby Deer Lake with mercury while Callahan’s state-permitted tailings disposal created extensive ground and surface water contamination surrounding the Humboldt site. The federal government now considers Deer Lake to be one of the most toxic sites in Michigan. Over 50 years of mercury-containing discharges from Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company contributed to the extensive mercury pollution.
LSMN
Eve Divine
doncorvette
Mine A cannot be compared to Mine B as far as in-mine conditions go, so to compare Ropes to Eagle won’t fly. Conditions changes every blast underground and need to be flexible in support, especially as large areas are opened up during extraction. Depth is an important factor and both mines were relatively shallow. Because both used a ramp access system is irrelevant.
Safety issues are difficult when talking to state safety officials and miners. Local unions tend to stir the pot and a couple angry employees can sour the discussion. Mine safety issues are best taken care of through the supervision chain and management needs to allow miners doing ground support to use their own judgement. Many times the top and bottom of the system don’t know what is going on so communication is key. Action is just as important and is often lacking too, from both areas. Miners need technical support when encountering difficult conditions and management needs to give that support and needed resources to solve problems. Reporters and investigators need to do more digging than to listen to a couple sources, which are often attention seeking whiners that have hidden agendas ie union certification. So, take the above info with a grain of salt.
Underground mining is dangerous and takes continued education and surveillance. Tough economic conditions don’t help management provide workers the needed reseources to do their job either. If it can’t be done safely work should be stopped until it can. Knowing when that point is reached, is often a difficult judgement.
Water treatment technologies of even 20 years ago cannot be compared to present day, as they have inproved tremendously. It is hard to simplify in a few sentences what is proposed in the mining permit, but needless to say it is quite complicated. Leave it to the DNR experts and consultants before saying the sky is falling.
Mining is a unique occupation which is not understood by the general public and especially by non-technical journalism majors. If they did comprehend they would have been engineers, it pays better. It is very difficult to understand mining issues in the first place, much less distill and communicate to the reader, who is also ignorant of the subject. That is the reporters calling, to bridge that knowledge gap. It is a challenging task but if you can’t do it justice don’t start.
Chris Pritchard PE, MS
Research Mining Engineer
MTU grad
Chris,
Thanks for the comment, although the tone seems a little unecessary and some of your information is off.
Of course Ropes can’t entirely be compared to Eagle. However, comparison is very useful when discussing mining operations, just as it is useful in any field or in everyday life. E.g. when Gibbons compared the British Empire to the Roman Empire he certainly wasn’t insinuating identical situations, just as comparisons between the Romans and the American empire.
A useful example would be when Dr. David Sainsbury compared the Athens Mine to Eagle, when he concluded that Kennecott’s conclusions regarding Eagle’s crown pillar were “not defensible” and did not utilize “industry best practice.” While his references to Athens were dutifully ignored by the state, they are very relevant, despite the two mines having many things not in common.
I certainly hope that you have learned the importance of comparison. At Ropes, the way they milled the ore and dumped their waste is very similar to what Kennecott proposes in Humboldt. More striking is the lack of enforcement at the state level then, as now, and the amazing similarity in the rhetoric used by both companies is promoting their milling plans (by your argument, you, not being a linguist or in the writing field, would not understand).
Also, most of the information in the above article comes from the State of Michigan and the mining companies. It is not pulled from whiny union workers, as you suggest, although they had much to say about Callahan’s safety record.
Also, the tired mantra that mining can’t be comprehended by the general public or journalists doesn’t make much sense. Geology doesn’t only belong to mining companies and in the laboratory and a great many non-technical people likely understand a great deal more about certain aspects of the industry than you do. Additionally, journalists aren’t engineering drop-outs. Many enjoy the profession and find it rewarding; many are high-paid and the highest paid journalists get paid far more than mining engineers.
But thanks for the comment.