ethical issues final

Running Head: An Ethical Evaluation of the Extractive Industry 1

An Ethical Evaluation of the Extractive Industry

Jeremy Floyd

Northern Arizona University

An Ethical Evaluation of the Extractive Industry 2

Introduction

Precious minerals, fossil fuels, and thousands of jobs, or poisoned ground water, billions

of dollars in cleanup, and crumpled mountain tops. There are many different perspectives on

what the extractive industry provides to the people. On one hand, extractive industries are

necessary and essential in our day-to-day lives. On the other, they are the cause of numerous

problems that our society is left to deal with once they have taken what they need from the earth

and move on. This paper will present an analysis of the ethical dilemma of the mining industry’s

current practice of declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs, and how this business tactic

affects the general public. We will begin our examination of this ethical dilemma by reviewing

the vital role mining plays in our everyday lives.

The Extractive Industry

The extractive industry, by definition, includes any processes that involve the extraction of raw

materials from the earth to be used by consumers (Extractive Industry, 2014). These materials

can be copper, coal, oil, gas, gold, etc. For centuries mines have operated within the United

States. Although, before the days of public policy and oversight committees, there is little

information available in regards to how mines operated. Little oversight led the federal

government to enact the General Mining Act of 1872.

According to the Government Accountability Office (2011), The General Mining Act of

1872 encouraged the development of the West by allowing individuals to stake claims

and obtain exclusive rights to the gold, silver, copper, and other valuable hardrock

mineral deposits on land belonging to the United States. (pg. 1)


This Act ushered in a new era of mining. Large-scale mining operations and companies were

created, extracting billions of dollars’ worth of material from the ground, and polemic mining

practices were developed.

Modern Day Mining Practices

Currently there are two common practices when extracting ore from the earth:

subsurface mining and surface mining. Subsurface mining, or underground mining, is a

technique where buried ore is reached by digging tunnels through the earth. The ore and

subsequent waste rock are brought to the surface for processing and disposal. Surface mining,

often called strip mining or open pit mining, is the process of extracting a seam of ore by

removing the topsoil and subsequent layers of earth. Once the ore has reached the surface,

regardless of how it was extracted, it has to be processed. There are a few ways to process the

ore depending on what type of mineral it is. Most mines practice a process called leaching.

Leaching dates back to the early 1500s when humans would soak colored minerals and soils in

water and decant the colored liquid for clothing/rug fiber dying (Canar Zanbak, 2012). There are

four types of leaching methods: dump leaching, heap leaching, tank leaching, and pressure

leaching.

The most common method of leaching used today is heap leaching. According to the

website Great Mining, “Heap leaching is an industrial mining method to dig out precious metals

and copper compounds from ore” (Heap Leaching, 2014). To prevent the acids/chemicals from

getting into ground water, a barrier is placed over the surface of the ground in the leach field

area. However, in some states, Arizona included, where the bedrock has been tested and deemed

impermeable, liners are not required (Park, 2014). Next, the mined or crushed ore is then

stacked on top of the leach pad (lined area) and wetted with chemicals to start the leaching


process. The leachate (metal loaded solution) is collected for metal recovery. According to

Daniel Park, Short Range Planner, of Mineral Park Inc. mine, “The sulfuric acid used in our

leaching process gets recycled back into the system for reuse” (Park, 2014). Once heap leaching

is completed, the processed ore stack is generally decommissioned in place (Canar Zanbak,

2012). The mining industry takes many precautions when designing and building these leach

fields and ponds. These precautions include, but are not limited to: storm water ponds, leach pad

liner leak detection systems, heap leach stability considerations, seismic stability assessments,

and liquefaction potential of heaps (Canar Zanbak, 2012). Leach fields are carefully engineered

with the best available techniques to protect both the environment and the workers.

The Benefits of Mining

The extraction of minerals affects nearly everyone. Minerals mined by the extraction

industry are found in almost everything society uses: cell phones, computers, DVDs, and

televisions. They can also be found in hybrid cars and wind turbines (Mineral in Your Life,

2014). Furthermore, coal, natural gas, and oil are used daily by Americans in some way or

another for sources of energy. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “In

2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. About 67%

of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39%

attributed from coal” (What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?, 2013). Think for a

moment about what in modern society requires power, nearly everything. Mining enables the

use of electricity, powering a significant portion of American’s daily lives. A considerable

amount of this energy is also used in transportation.

In addition to the necessary “fuel” function of transportation, there are many different

components in vehicles that are made up of extracted minerals. As previously stated, even


hybrid cars have minerals that need to be mined and processed. So after transportation moves

away from fossil fuels for power, it will still be reliant on processed minerals for the materials

that make up the vehicle. For example, the steel frame in cars and trucks was once iron ore

inside the earth. Mining also affects commercial transportation. The transportation of goods,

people and resources would be greatly altered without mining.

Mining also plays a significant role in technology. Consider the widespread use of

technological gadgets. Without the mined minerals and gases that compose iPhones, computers,

and big screen TVs, technology and it’s impact on modern day society would not be the same. It

is hard to fathom if society would have made the same technological advancements without the

extractive industry. Technology not only impacts individuals, but also has applications in

healthcare, science, and education to name a few. All of these fields would be greatly affected

without the extracted minerals necessary to technology.

In addition to providing necessary resources and power, mining also offers job stability

and income for many Americans. In 2012, mining was directly responsible for 634,600 jobs in

the United States. Indirectly, the mining industry provided 1,268,800 jobs (The National

Mining Association, 2014). These jobs provided income exceeding $118 billion, and with a

mining presence in every U.S. state the positive financial effects can be felt nationwide. The

extractive industry has proved to be lasting and a powerful economic force for centuries, and

looking forward it will continue to have positive financial effects.

Lastly, mining has a rich industrial history to be proud of. The mining process and

extractive industry have a centuries old history in America. While the Hopi Indians first

discovered coal during the 1300s, commercial coal mines did not start operation until the 1740s

(Department of Energy, 2014). Coal mining helped to spur the Industrial Revolution and shape


modern America as its known today. Without the power of coal, there would have been a

significant delay or absence in the major changes in manufacturing, transportation, and

technology that took place during the Industrial Revolution.

With all of the benefits listed, it’s easy to ascertain why the extractive industry has played

such a pivotal role in America’s history and modern day society. Without mining, Americans

would have to create different means to produce sources of energy, the minerals necessary for

technology, and many of the resources of everyday life. And while some of these tasks might be

possible without mining, certainly not all of it. That is why the extractive industry has always

carried a heavy burden to produce many of the materials necessary to everyday life. This burden

has laid way to short cuts in mining practices and cultivated an environment of ethical business

practices. One of the most questionable practices occurs at the closing of a mine.

Closing of a Mine

Mine closure is as much a process as mining itself. A good mine closure will produce a

plan for closure by including all stakeholders. This includes the community that the closure will

affect, not only environmentally but financially as well. According to the National Mining

Association, “Since 1978, more than 2.7 million acres of mined lands have been restored to other

beneficial uses, as well as more than 100,000 acres of coal mines abandoned long ago” (The

National Mining Association, 2014). Before mining operations begin, detailed reclamation plans

must approved by the government. Reclamation bonds have to be secured by mining companies

to ensure reclamation fees are covered. Reclamation includes contouring of land, placement of

topsoil or an approved substitute on the graded area, reseeding with native vegetation, crops

and/or trees, and years of careful monitoring to assure success (The National Mining

Association, 2014). In surface mines, if the topsoil was removed to expose the ore, then it must


be stored and saved so that it can be replaced at the time of the mine’s reclamation. This

ensures that native plants can thrive and survive after they are planted.

Reclamation Bonding

As stated above, before mines can open, they must secure reclamation bonding. These

bonds are designed to guarantee the restoration and cleanup of the mine in the event the mine

were to go bankrupt, or refuse to pay for the cleanup after the mine has closed. Title 30 of the

Unites States Code places this responsibility with each individual state. Title 30 also lists the

minimum bonding requirements that are federally mandated. In these requirements, there are

three avenues for a mining company to secure a bond for permit requirements.

The first avenue is a surety bond. According to the United States Federal Government,

surety bonds are,

An indemnity agreement in a sum certain payable to the regulatory authority, executed by

the permittee as principal and which is supported by the performance guarantee of a

corporation licensed to do business as a surety in the State where the operation is located

(Subchapter J - Bonding and Insurance Requirements, 2014).

Another type of bond is a collateral bond. There are six different ways to establish a collateral

bond. First, the permittee can deposit cash into a federally-insured account that is payable to the

regulatory agency upon demand. The permittee also has the option of handing over the cash to

the regulatory agency up front. Second, the permittee could secure negotiable bonds. These are

bonds of the United States, a State, or a municipality, endorsed to the order of, and placed in the

possession of, the regulatory authority (Subchapter J - Bonding and Insurance Requirements,

2014). Third are negotiable certificates of deposit that have been made payable or assigned to

the regulatory agency. These have to be held by a federally-insured bank. Fourth is an


irrevocable letter of credit of any bank organized or authorized to transact business in the United

States. This letter of credit is payable only to the regulatory authority upon presentation. Fifth

is a perfected, first-lien security interest in real property that the regulatory authority has

expressed interest in. Finally, they can provide “investment-grade rated securities having a

rating of AAA, AA, or A or an equivalent rating issued by a nationally recognized securities

rating service, endorsed to the order of, and placed in the possession of, the regulatory authority”

(Subchapter J - Bonding and Insurance Requirements, 2014). The final type of bond set forth by

the United States is a self-bond. According to the United States Code, “Self-bond means an

indemnity agreement in a sum certain executed by the applicant or by the applicant and any

corporate guarantor and made payable to the regulatory authority, with or without separate surety

(Subchapter J - Bonding and Insurance Requirements, 2014).

As stated above, the bonding requirements set forth by the United States Code are only

recommendations by the federal government. In most cases the state will set the requirements

for permitting and bonding. For example, in Arizona, mining companies are allowed to provide

surety bonds, certificates of deposit, trust funds, letters of credit, certificates of self-insurance,

cash deposits, corporate financial tests, and annuities. In the case of certificates of Self-

insurance, the company must provide financial information showing that they have a net worth

of ten times the estimated cost of cleanup (Arizona Administrative Code, 2014). Self-insurance

bonding is the type of bonding that leads to ethical issues within mining practices. The federal

and state governments are essentially allowing mining corporations to use the honor system

when bonding their mines.


Estimates

Reclamation bonds are supposed to ensure the cleanup and restoration of a mine. The

cleanup and restoration should restore a mine to environmental levels at, or above, those before

the mine was open. The keyword in all requirements, both state and federal, is estimation.

Estimations are used to determine how much work is needed to restore a mine to its original or

better state. According to the state of Arizona, “The amount of financial assurance is based on

the actual estimated costs of reclamation (Bureau of Land Management Arizona State Office,

2011). The State of Arizona has a reclamation bond calculator on its website. The items that

have to be considered and estimated are: covered are roads, road cuts, cleared areas, drill pads,

culverts, waste dumps/spoil piles, shafts, distance to hazardous chemical fill, pits, highwalls,

trenches, adits, water or silt ponds, tailings impounds, water wells, drill holes, concrete slabs,

concrete foundations, asphalt, structures/buildings, septic tanks, trailers, tanks (empty), tanks

(w/liquid), tires, chemical drums, fuel/oil/lube drums, explosives, non-metal trash and scrap,

recyclable metal scrap, mobile equipment & vehicles, distance to the public landfill, distance to

equipment rental, and HAZMAT site assessment testing (US Department of Interior, 2014). This

comprehensive excel spreadsheet then determines the amount of reclamation bond/financial

insurance is needed to open a mine in Arizona. Similar documents are used in different states

and provided by mine bond insurance companies across the board.

This is where the reclamation bonding practice becomes questionable, the mining

company performs the calculations for how much bond insurance required instead of a third

party. The government has cited the lack of resources, as a reason for why this practice is

allowed to happen. It is up to the mining company to provide extensive measurements and

estimates and to secure a bond that will ultimately cost them more money the larger the bond


required. This dubious practice has resulted in reclamation bonds to be 100 times under-bonded

on average (Diamond, 2005). This suggests mining companies are purposely undervaluing the

actual cost of cleanup for the mines. Should the company go bankrupt, or be unable to fund the

restoration, the bond secured to fund cleanup will not be enough to sufficiently fund the

restoration efforts. The only fail safe installed in the United States code for mine restoration is

now rendered irrelevant. This leads to the major ethical issue in mining practices. When this

occurs, how does the mine get restored and who should end up with the bill?

Restoration Efforts

There are as many as 500,000 abandoned mine sites in the United States. The Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is a government agency tasked with the

cleanup efforts of abandoned coal, hardrock, and uranium mines across the United States. Since

1977 the OSM has contributed $4.06 billion in grants to partners in 24 states and three Indian

tribes for abandoned coal mine cleanups (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, 2014). The OSM has reclaimed almost 240,000 acres of high-priority coal-related

problems. In addition, the OSM has eliminated safety and environmental hazards on 315,000

containing coal-related or non-related problems. They have also funded over 161 Watershed

Cooperative Agreements with other organizations totaling $14.1 million (Office of Surface

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2014).

Abandoned hardrock mines are also restored by the EPA, Department of Agriculture, and

the USGS. According to the OSM, “Federal Agencies have informally estimated that they

expend $80-85 million annually on hardrock AML (abandoned mine land) remediation

(excluding OSM’s SMCRA grants to certified states)” (Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, 2014).


Examples of Underfunded Mines/Bankruptcy

The history of hardrock mines being left abandoned dates back to the beginning of

mining in the American West. Once ores had been depleted, miners would leave behind the

mines, structures, safety hazards, and contaminated land and water. According to the

Government Accountability Office,

Even in more recent times, after cleanup became mandatory, many parties responsible for

hardrock mining sites have been liquidated through bankruptcy or otherwise dissolved.

Under these circumstances, some hardrock mining companies have left it to the taxpayer

to pay for cleanup of the mining sites (Mittal, 2011).

Mining Truth is an organization devoted to exposing the practice of bankruptcy as a way of

avoiding cleanup. Their website lists a few mines that have closed and avoided cleanup. A few

examples are the Summitville Gold Mine in Colorado, and the Gilt Edge Mine in South Dakota.

The Summitville Gold Mine is located in the mountains of Southern Colorado. It is an

abandoned 550 acre gold mine that employed conventional underground mining techniques.

From 1986-1992, the final years of the mine’s operation, open-pit, heap leach mining techniques

were utilized. The gold ore was crushed and heaped onto a leach pad that was specially prepared

and lined. The ore was then sprayed with a solution of sodium cyanide. The ore would percolate

and the gold would leach out from the ore. The run off would then be pumped, gold extracted,

and the solution would be reused on more heap piles (State of COLORADO, Plaintiff-

Appellant, v SUNOCO, INC.; Washington Contractors Group, Inc.; Washington Group

International, Inc.; Dennis Washington, Defendants, and, 2003).

These heap leaching operations produced a substantial amount of contaminated water that

was treated by two water treatment plants. The plants were never completely effective and the


water was never released into the environment. To further complicate operations, a leak had

formed on the heap leach pad. To remedy this, the operator decided to continually pump the

runoff water onto the pad and once it would drain, pump it again. Contaminated water, large

amounts of snow, and rain water formed a huge pond with millions of gallons of cyanide and

metal-polluted water (State of COLORADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SUNOCO, INC.;

Washington Contractors Group, Inc.; Washington Group International, Inc.; Dennis Washington,

Defendants, and, 2003).

In December of 1992, Summitville Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. filed for chapter

7 Bankruptcy, leaving the pond and mine abandoned. Knowing that the mine had the potential to

cause serious environmental harm, the EPA and the State of Colorado stepped in and took

control of the site. Bankruptcy and walking away from the mine forced Summitville

Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. to forfeit the bond that was required to open their site. The

$3,000,000 bond covered roughly 2.5% of the estimated cleanup cost of the Summitville Gold

Mine. The rest was absorbed by the EPA, who is funded by taxpayer dollars (Williams, 2014).

Another example of how mines cost taxpayers millions of dollars is the Gilt Edge mine in

South Dakota. This story is similar to the story of the Summitville Gold Mine. In late 1990,

after operating since 1876, Brohm Mining became insolvent and walked away from the Gilt

Edge Mine. In doing so, Brohm Mining left behind 150 million gallons of acid heavy-metal-

laden water distributed in three open pits. In addition, millions of cubic yards of acid-generating

waste rock were left in piles (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2014).

According to Earthworks, “The Brohm Mine in South Dakota threatened to abandon its

site in 1998, leaving the state with only a $6 million bond, which would not even cover water

treatment at the site for one year” (Mining Truth, 2012). In 2012 the EPA reached an agreement


with four mining companies to settle past costs for cleanup of the Gilt Edge Mine. The four

companies agreed to pay $30 million dollars or 29% of the more than $105 million dollars

cleanup costs have reached so far (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). The

rest of the restoration effort will be funded by taxpayer’s dollars.

As in the cases presented above, one such practice is currently taking place in Kingman,

AZ. Mineral Park Mine, located outside Kingman, AZ, started copper production under the

Duval Corp. in 1963. The mine was acquired by Cyprus Mining Co. in 1986, and again by

Equatorial Mining of Australia in 1997. Mercator Mineral Ltd purchased the mine in

2003 (Smith, 2014). Although history on these acquisitions is weak, there can be serious

problems that come from Mercator Mineral Ltd.’s bankruptcy. Mercator’s most recent financial

statement stated, as part of their acquisition, they assume cleanup for Mineral Park Mine.

Mercator states, “The Company estimates its provision for site reclamation and closure based on

its current legal obligations to reclaim, decommission, and restore its Mineral Park Mine site…

the Company estimates that approximately $7.4 million will be payable in 22 to 47 years (2013 –

23 to 48 years)” (Condensed Consolidated Interim Financial Statements , 2014). It is safe to

assume that $7.4 million dollars is not enough to restore 51 years of mining. If Mercator’s

guaranteed funds aren’t enough to fully restore the area, including monitoring water supplies that

could become contaminated from their leech ponds, the taxpayers will be left to foot the bill.

Additionally, it shouldn’t be shocking that $7.4 million dollars was all that was budgeted.

According to the activist website MiningTruth.org, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

estimates that the cost of mine cleanup for sites listed as national priorities is $20 billion. The

most significant cost associated with this cleanup is long-term water treatment and management”

(Mining Truth, 2014).


In the United States, mining companies are held to Title 30 of the US Code in regards to

how they are supposed to operate. However, in section 1259, Title 30 hands over regulation to

the state by stating “the Secretary may approve as part of a State or Federal program an

alternative system that will achieve the objectives and purposes of the bonding program pursuant

to this section” (U.S. Code: Title 30 - Mineral Lands and Mining, 2014). Legislation in Arizona

is considered very mine friendly. Arizona lawmakers argue that Arizona needs the jobs that

extraction industries bring to our state. In order to attract more mining business, they have

weakened laws and weakened oversight. For example, Arizona will allow a company to bypass

the bonding that is required for cleanup and instead allow the companies to make financial

guarantees to secure their operating permits.

Ethical Issue Argument

First and foremost, mining companies are following the law. They are securing permits

with reclamation bonds that are based on their estimations for cleanup and their plans are

approved by the states in which they choose to operate. They also are installing the latest

environmental safeguards as either required by the EPA, or because they believe it is the right

thing to do. Are their actions enough, or should they ethically choose to do more when so little

is required or expected of them? Is it the mines’ fault federal and state governments allow for an

honor system when it comes to reclamation bonding?

While it not be the mines’ fault that an honor system exists, hundreds of mining

corporations have chosen to act unethically when determining the value of their reclamation

bond. What incentive do they have to restore the land, avoid bankruptcy, or keep the cost of

restoration off the backs of the taxpayers? None. The extractive industry has had such a

formative effect on American history and its economy for centuries, and still has many


applications in today’s society, but that does not give this industry a license to shirk their

financial obligations after they’ve reaped the benefits of the land. Many of these corporations

have made undervaluing bonds and filing for bankruptcy standard mining practices. Today 1 in

4 US residents lives within four miles of a site taken over by the EPA for reclamation (Lawrence

& Weber, 2014). That means 1 in 4 Americans lives near a site that is being cleaned up with

their own tax dollars. This is a practice that is unquestionably unethical and needs to be rectified

as soon as possible.

Solutions

The first possible solution to this problem could be to limit the number of mining

operations permits granted at one time. The idea is to not allow multiple operations from one

entity or corporation until they have demonstrated the capacity or ability to properly operate and

close a mine in a way that is not harmful to the environment. If a company dissolves and leaves

the bill for cleanup to the taxpayers, the company will not be allowed to open another mine until

restoration efforts have completed on their current mine. This would motivate the mining

companies to operate their mines with the interests of the community and their business at the

forefront.

A second solution could be to develop a program to establish a minimum amount of

reclamation bonds required. On average, reclamation bonds are 100 times under-bonded and this

should be addressed. Research needs to be conducted and the minimum bond required needs to

be raised to close, or eliminate this gap. Taxpayers should not be the ones to pay for the

reclamation of abandoned mines.

A final solution could be to remove the mining companies during the bond estimation

process. It is a conflict of interest to allow a company to perform an evaluation on a site when


the outcome affects how much they will have to pay. Even though the government claims that

they don’t have the manpower to perform this task, it has to be done. This will protect both the

taxpayer and mining company. Fair and impartial evaluations will ensure the bonds are being

funded at levels that will cover cleanup costs.

Conclusion

The extractive industry provides real value to the lives of many people around the world.

It can be seen in the everyday products that are used; from the cars people drive to the phones

that people use to keep in touch. It can also be seen in the financial security that is felt in every

state with the jobs that it provides for over a million families. However, it can also be felt in the

financial and environmental damage that poor regulation has allowed it to cause. If left

unchecked, the extractive industry will continue to lawfully skirt regulations and pile on the

damage that comes with their practices.


ReferencesArizona Administrative Code. (2014, October 4). Retrieved from State of Arizona:

http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_11/11-02.htmBureau of Land Management Arizona State Office. (2011, May 30). Arizona Mining Permitting

Guide. Phoenix, AZ, United States of America.Canar Zanbak, P. (2012, November). Heap Leaching Technique in Mining. Europe.Condensed Consolidated Interim Financial Statements . (2014, November 14). Retrieved from

Mercator Minerals: http://www.mercatorminerals.com/i/pdf/financial/2014-Q2-FS.pdfDiamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin

Group.Extractive Industry. (2014, November 11). Retrieved from Business Dictionary:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/extractive-industry.htmlHeap Leaching. (2014, October 20). Retrieved from Great Mining:

http://www.greatmining.com/heap-leaching.htmlInternational Council of Mining and Metals. (2008). Planning for Integrated Mine Closure.

London, United Kingdom.Lopez, B. (2007). The Future of Nature. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.Mineral in Your Life. (2014, September 11). Retrieved from Minerals Education Coalition:

http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals-your-lifeMining Truth. (2012). How Corporations Evade Liability for Pollution at Closed Mines. Mining

Truth.Mining Truth. (2014, October 14). Taxpayer Concerns. Retrieved from Mining Truth:

http://www.miningtruth.org/taxpayer-impacts/#.VHoa0csnJhEMittal, A. K. (2011). ABANDONED MINES: Information on the Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of

Cleanup, and Value of Fianancial Assurances. Washington: Government Accountability Office.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (2014, October 14). Abandoned Hardrock Mines. Retrieved from Abandoned Mines: http://www.abandonedmines.gov/wbd_hm.html

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (2014, October 14). What's Being Done. Retrieved from Abandoned Mines: http://www.abandonedmines.gov/wbd.html

Park, D. (2014, October 14). (J. Floyd, Interviewer)Reclamation. (2014, November 1). Retrieved from The National Mining Association:

http://www.nma.org/index.php/land/reclamationSmith, H. R. (2014, September 5). Mineral Park Mine files for bankruptcy protection. Retrieved

from Kingman Daily Miner: http://kdminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=797&ArticleID=62831

State of COLORADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SUNOCO, INC.; Washington Contractors Group, Inc.; Washington Group International, Inc.; Dennis Washington, Defendants, and, 02-1014 (United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit August 5, 2003).

Subchapter J - Bonding and Insurance Requirements. (2014, October 4). D.C., Washington, United States.


The National Mining Association. (2014, September). National Mining Association. Retrieved from National Mining Association: http://www.nma.org/pdf/economic_contributions.pdf

U.S. Code: Title 30 - Mineral Lands and Mining. (2014, November 14). Retrieved from Legal Information Institute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/30

U.S. Department of Energy. (2014, Ocotber 5). A Brief History of Coal Use. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy : http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/coal_history.html

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2014, October 23). 3809 Requirements, Guidelines and Forms. Retrieved from U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/3809.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, October 9). Case Summary: EPA Recovers Over $30 million for Past Costs at the Gilt Edge Superfund Site. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-epa-recovers-over-30-million-past-costs-gilt-edge-superfund-site

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, November 8). Region 8 Gilt Edge Mine. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www2.epa.gov/region8/gilt-edge-mine

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? (2013, June 13). Retrieved from U.S. Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Williams, M. (2014, October 20). Cyanide Leaching Process - Summitville Mine Disaster. Retrieved from University of Colorado Boulder: http://snobear.colorado.edu/Markw/Intro/Summitville/summitville.html

ethical issues final

Documents