EDITORIAL — Anti-mining initiative on ballot — Straight Talk

Montana is cowboy country, where common sense and straight talk are still hailed as home-grown virtues. It’s mining country too, with the Stillwater operation noted for being the only primary producer of platinum and palladium in North America. While numerous mines have operated in the state over the decades (Montana Tunnels, Golden Sunlight and Kendall being a few examples), the industry hasn’t been the same since President Bill Clinton helped broker a deal to mothball the New World gold-copper project near the small town of Cooke City.

Anti-mining forces cheered when Clinton rode up on a white horse, taxpayer-funded chequebook in hand, to save the Yellowstone eco-system from greedy Canadians out to mine gold and wreak environmental havoc. They cheered again when the Canadians went home, taking their Toronto Blue Jays baseball paraphernalia with them, leaving New World as an idyllic paradise for birds and animals, trees and plantlife.

The victorious vigilantes told local folk looking for jobs and a reason to stay in the old home town that a mining opportunity missed is a tourism opportunity gained. And they gave nary a thought, nor any credit, to the mining company’s offer to remediate environmental damage from previous mining, which dates back to the turn the century. In fact, had the old-timers driven one of their adits about 100 ft. more, they would have hit the underground motherlode the Canadians hoped to mine. As it stands, the deposit is still there, partly developed, a monument to anti-mining sentiment. And it will likely sit there for decades to come. As cowboys well know, you can’t bring a dead horse back to life.

New World may be history, but whether mining still has a role to play in the state’s economy is less certain. In fact, in November of 1996, the voters of Montana rejected an anti-mining initiative put on the ballot in the middle of the New World brouhaha, suggesting that most citizens are not ready to prohibit mining or forgo its economic benefits.

But the anti-mining forces have not abandoned their efforts either. A few weeks ago, an anti-cyanide gold and silver mining initiative was qualified to be placed on the ballot in Montana for the November 1998 election. If 1-137 is passed, new gold and silver mines and expansions to existing mines that use cyanide in the treatment and recovery process would be barred from development.

The use of cyanide in gold mining has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. The breach of a tailings dam at the Omai gold mine in Guyana and the recent cyanide spill in Kyrgyzstan have prompted environmental groups to decry mining practices worldwide. Anti-mining forces in Montana can also point to environmental problems, albeit minor ones, at several operations in the state. It is not easy to debate an emotional issue such as this using scientific facts when images of dead fish and panicked villagers pack a better punch. Nor is it easy to convince voters that mining companies deserve the chance to show that they can meet or exceed the most stringent environmental guidelines in the world.

It may not be easy, but it is not impossible. The mining industry should face these issues head-on and reassure voters of its committment to the environment. The industry needs to inform and educate voters about cyanide, specifically why it is used in mining and how it reacts to the environment.

Cyanide is a naturally occurring substance that needs to be de-mystified if mining is to survive. The public needs to know the benefits, as well as the dangers, of cyanide use before it can make an informed decision.

Straight talk about cyanide is what the mining industry needs to produce now.