1

Condition and Hazard Evaluation of Crown Owned Inactive Mine Sites in Manitoba

Caius Priscu, Ph.D, P.EngAMEC Earth & Environmental, Winnipeg, MB

NOAMI Workshop, 26-27 October 2006 Winnipeg, Manitoba

2

Outline of Presentation

IntroductionProject Scope and ObjectivesMethodology and ApproachSelected ExamplesProject StatusDiscussion

2

3

Introduction

Manitoba: over 230 mine sites (estimated)– Orphan or abandoned– Approx. 180 – reverted to the Crown

Limited number of sites were inspected in the pastExact Location ?Size ? Condition? Liabilities?Project initiated by the Mines Branch (MB STEM) in 2005

4

Objectives of the Project

Conduct full inspection of the mine sitesReview and asses their conditionEvaluate hazards and liabilities – screening level

– Public safety– Environmental impact

Evaluate approximate costs for rehabilitationPrepare databaseIntegrate with Provincial and Federal databases

3

5

Background Information

Manitoba: 650,000 sq. kmThree major geological subdivisions:

– Precambrian Shield • Churchill Province and Superior Province

– Paleozoic Hudson Bay Basin– Paleozoic and Mezozoic Williston Basin

Precambrian Shield = 60% and is the only subdivision that hosts gold depositsTotal MB gold production (1996) : 6.2 M ozOther mines: Ni, Cu, Zn

6

Geological Subdivisions and Domains

4

7

Methodology

Manitoba map subdivided in mining areas (or sheets)Database managementConcentration of sites

8

5

9

Methodology

Review of information available -Mines Branch

– Archive reports– Publications– Old inspection reports– Maps and pictures– Sketches and drawings– Discussions with mining and

exploration companies– Aerial photography– Anecdotal information

10

Methodology (cont’d)

Logistical aspects and challenges– Site access

• Truck, ATV, Boat, Floatplane, Helicopter, and…hiking (lots!)

– Timing (season) for accessing the site– Equipment– Safety – Critical!

Preparation of a template / form for field inspection and data gathering (Excel)

– Uniformity in data input and presentation– Ease of manipulating data (import data to GIS, etc)

6

11

Methodology (cont’d)

Hazard assessment criteria:– Fairly subjective in nature– Based on knowledge and experience– Specific to Manitoba sites and conditions – Best alternative: prepare a point-based assessment for

each mine site in each category (safety & environmental) that would allow ranking of the sites and prioritize sites that need immediate action

Hazard levels:Low Moderate High

12

Methodology (cont’d) – Hazard Assessment

PUBLIC SAFETY– Accessibility– Closure status– Physical stability (waste

rock dumps, tailings)– Condition of buildings

and foundation– Presence of scrap

materials– Terrain morphology and

stability

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

– Proximity to water bodies (lakes or streams)

– Water accumulations or discharges

– Scrap material and hazardous substances

– Hazard to wildlife– Ecological impact

7

13

Methodology (cont’d) – Hazard Assessment

General criteria– Any mine openings left uncapped triggered a High

hazard rating– Only openings deeper than 1.5 m were considered– Proximity to public settings (towns, parks, leisure

activities, camp grounds, etc.) triggered increase in assigned points

– Water bodies present – on site analytical testing of water quality – screening level only

• pH, As, Cu, Cy, Fe, Ni, Pb, Zn

14

Examples

A total of 155 sites were inspectedLimited to Crown owned sitesLiterature review & preparation: Nov. 2005 - May 2006Field work: May to November 2006Report preparation: December 2006 (final report)

Three examples presented here

8

15

Example #1:Jowsey Island (Sheet 20)

Gods Lake

Jowsey Island Gold Mine

16

Example #1:Jowsey Island (Sheet 20)

9

17

Example #1:Jowsey Island (Sheet 20)

Field record

18

Example #2:Cryderman Shaft (Sheet 25)

Air photo

10

19

CydermanShaft

Hwy 304 to Bissett

Shesheep Lake

20

Example #2:Cryderman Shaft (Sheet 25)

11

21

Example #2:Cryderman Shaft (Sheet 25)

Field record

22

Example #3:Poundmaker Shaft (Sheet 24)

Air photo

12

23

Gold Cup Shaft

Gold Field Shaft

Gold Standard Shaft

Big Four Shaft

Emperor Shaft

Poundmaker(Luleo) Shaft

24

Example #3:Poundmaker Shaft (Sheet 24)

13

25

Example #3:Poundmaker Shaft (Sheet 24)

Field record

26

Example #3: Field Inspection Form

Used the identical form for all mine sitesSimplicityImport to GIS using subroutinesSame fields, comparison and hazard assessment based on same criteriaFairly comprehensive for a screening – level review

14

27

Example of Field Inspection Form

Based on Example #3Preliminary (work in progress)

28

15

29

Project Status

Finalizing field recordsHazard evaluation – ongoingPreliminary:

– 10 to 15 High hazard– 20 to 30 Moderate hazard– Over 100 Low hazard

Cost estimates for rehabilitation measures – ongoingReport to be completed by December 2006

30

Acknowledgements

AMEC team members:– Wing Keat Wong– Jason Plohman– German Ciro– Larry Markwart– Lee Keong Tan

Mines Branch personnel– Ernie Armitt– Ben Edirmanasinghe– Mike Fedak– Ray Garvey– Dale Wride

Manitoba Labour – Mines Inspection Branch

– Ron Casson– Ted Hewitt– Jim Haines

Dana Johnson –Department of Geological Sciences, UofMAll our guides

16

31

End of Presentation

Thank You!Merci!