In praise of action

The recent demise of the campaign to get an anti-cyanide initiative on the ballot in Colorado is more than just welcome news for the gold industry. It shows that the criticism that the mining industry never fights off its attackers is unfounded. There are many people in our industry, from individuals to associations to companies, fighting behind the scenes to safeguard mining’s role in society.

August 7 was the deadline for proponents of the anti-cyanide issue (a virtual carbon-copy of I-137, the initiative approved by Montana voters in 1998) to file the required number of signatures to get it on the November state ballot. However, the deadline has come and gone without a word, and credit for that should go to mining representatives in Colorado and the rest of the country who stood up and let the environmental extremists know that the industry was not going to give up without a fight.

Much of the battle was waged by South Africa’s AngloGold, which was likely to be the company most hurt by the initiative. Colorado has only one gold mine — the Cripple Creek and Victor joint venture, west of Colorado Springs, operated by AngloGold North America. So when mining opponents thought they could replicate the 1998 Montana initiative, they were, in effect, taking aim directly at Cripple Creek. The initiative, like I-137, would have banned the use of cyanide in new mines and prohibited the issue of new operating permits for existing mines that use cyanide. Colorado had no other gold projects on the horizon, so it was clear from the start that the initiative was designed to stop expansion of Cripple Creek by outlawing the use of cyanide for operations covered by new permits.

Gold exploration and development were effectively stopped in the early 1990s as a result of the botched cleanup at Galactic Resources’ Summitville mine. However, amid the furor over Summitville’s effect on the Alamosa River, the joint venture was able to get permits for its Cresson open pit. No mine in Colorado’s history was given more scrutiny over permitting, and Cresson has since grown into an outstanding operation, contributing more than 240,000 oz. gold annually, with excellent records on environmental compliance, not to mention health and safety.

AngloGold acquired a 66.7% interest in the operation in 1999, and was already looking to the future. The mine has enough reserves for many years to come, plus considerable exploration potential. Cripple Creek provides jobs for 800 in rural Teller Cty. and pays US$30 million in wages and salaries each year.

AngloGold’s response was really no surprise; who wouldn’t fight back when faced with such a threat? What was surprising was that the company received a groundswell of support comparable to that of the anti-cyanide proponents, and they were involved at all stages of the fight — starting back in November 1999, when the Alliance for Responsible Mining filed its proposal for the anti-cyanide initiative.

In Montana, affected companies were barred by law from contributing funds to counter I-137 — a law later overturned by the courts. Not so in Colorado: to fight the action, AngloGold countered with a donation of time, materials and money valued at nearly US$400,000. This was more than just money thrown at a problem; AngloGold helped organize Coloradans Opposing the Unfair Shutdown Agreement (COUSA), whose members understood that fighting the measure early on was cheaper and more effective than waiting until later.

AngloGold, along with the Colorado Mining Association (CMA), was there at meetings of the State title board. Stuart Sanderson, president of the CMA, together with the general manager of the Cripple Creek joint venture and a member of the environmental department at the mine, filed suit in the Colorado Supreme Court, challenging the title board’s decision to proceed with the initiative. In early May, the court upheld the challenge, ruling that the text and the title of the initiative were confusing and sent conflicting messages to voters. The court remanded the initiative back to the title board for corrections.

Prior to the court’s decision, the Alliance for Responsible Mining had, according to press reports, already begun collecting signatures. The organization needed 62,438 valid signatures to get the initiative on the November ballot. However, the court ruling invalidated all the signatures, forcing the Alliance to start all over again.

Sanderson and the CMA kept up the pressure with a second appeal to the Supreme Court in July, while COUSA made ready the next phase in the campaign — going before the public about the issue. The second appeal ultimately failed, though by that time the damage had been done. The public-awareness phase was not necessary because the campaign defeated the measure before it could get off the ground.

The fight isn’t over, though. This has been but a successful skirmish in a larger battle the industry has yet to win. The Alliance can try again in the next general election in 2002, but it will likely be faced with the same aggressive stance by people in the mining industry. That Colorado did not fall victim to the anti-cyanide ban shows that our industry can be proactive and responsive. For renewing and restoring faith in our industry and its organizations, the opponents of Colorado’s anti-cyanide initiative have our thanks.