isua iron ore project oil and chemicals and...

ISUA IRON ORE PROJECT

ANNEX 6 OF THE EIA

OIL AND CHEMICALS AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

OF SPILLS

JULY 2012

Orbicon A/S

Ringstedvej 20

DK 4000 Roskilde

Denmark

Phone + 45 46 30 03 10

Version 1.5

Date 27. July 2012

Prepared MMAC, SDAH

Annex 6 to the EIA of the Isua Project 2/53

Preface

This document is Annex 6 to the EIA of the Isua Iron Ore Project.

Annex 6 deals with the impact of potential spills of fuel and chemicals on land or in Godthåbsfjord.

This annex documents the quantities of fuel and chemicals handled in the project, the potential spill

scenarios and likely impacts in case spills occur. Framework for contingency plans and mitigating

measures are described. Issues related to disturbances due to regular shipping traffic in

Godthåbsfjord are dealt with in Annex 3.

The main results and conclusions from this Annex 6 are included in the EIA main report.

Annexes of the EIA

Annex

no.

Report title

1 The natural environment of the study area

2 Caribou population in the study area

3 Marine mammals and sea birds in Godthåbsfjord

4 Air quality assessment

5 Noise assessment

6 Oil and chemicals and assessment of potential impacts of spills

7 Water management assessment

8 Geochemical characterisation and assessment of mine waste management

9 Hydropower Development – Preliminary Study

10 Environmental Management Plan (EMP)


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 6

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Project description ............................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Project natural settings ...................................................................................................... 11

3 Project Fuel- and Chemical consumption ..................................................................... 13

3.1 Main project consumption and overview ........................................................................... 13

3.2 Oil products handled in the project .................................................................................... 14

3.3 Chemicals handled in the project ...................................................................................... 16

3.4 Explosives.......................................................................................................................... 19

3.5 Slurry ................................................................................................................................. 19

4 Risks and Responsibilities of Oil and Chemical Spills ............................................... 20

4.1 Conceptual risk assessment.............................................................................................. 20

4.2 Responsibilities and contingency plans ............................................................................. 21

5 Potential Impacts of Spills .............................................................................................. 24

5.1 Potential spill agents and their effects ............................................................................... 24

5.2 Habitats potentially affected .............................................................................................. 26

6 Potential Impacts of Spills on Land ............................................................................... 29

6.1 Scenarios for land spills ..................................................................................................... 29

6.2 Soil and subsurface contamination ................................................................................... 30

6.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 31

6.4 Terrestrial animals and birds ............................................................................................. 32

6.5 Rivers and lakes ................................................................................................................ 32

7 Potential Impacts of Marine Spills ................................................................................. 33

7.1 Scenarios for near shore – off shore spills ........................................................................ 34

7.2 Seabirds and marine mammals ......................................................................................... 36

7.3 Fouling of coastal areas .................................................................................................... 37

7.4 Sensitivity of marine features to oil spills ........................................................................... 37

8 Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................... 38

8.1 Phrases and methodology ................................................................................................. 38

8.2 Impact assessment - land.................................................................................................. 40

8.3 Impact assessment - marine ............................................................................................. 42

9 Environmental Management and Monitoring ............................................................... 46

9.1 Conceptual framework for contingency plans ................................................................... 46

9.2 Conceptual framework for mitigating measures ................................................................ 48

9.3 Conceptual framework for monitoring ............................................................................... 48

References ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 1 – Process Flow Diagrams ............................................................................................ 51


Appendix 2 – Pipelines and Dump pits Technical information ..................................................... 52

Appendix 3 – Material Safety Data Sheets on Reagents and Fuel ............................................... 53

List of figures:

Figure 2.1 Map showing the Isua EIA study areas and their placement in relation to the

Godthåbsfjord system. ................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.2 Map showing the mine site at Mount Isua. .................................................................. 10 Figure 2.3 Map showing the port site at Qugssuk Fjord. .............................................................. 11 Figure 3.1 Total yearly projected consumption of fuels during constructional (Con.) and

operational (Op.) phases. ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 3.2 Principles of fuel handling in the mine project, with approximate percentages

represented by the thickness of the lines. .................................................................... 14 Figure 4.1 Reduction of risk can be achieved through prevention and/or protection

measures ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4.2 Internal Waters (colored area) and the EEZ 200 nautical miles limit line ................... 22 Figure 5.1 Summary of sensitivity mapping in the Godthåbsfjord from NERI (2000).

The ranking is in decreasing order: red coastline, yellow coastline, green

coastline, blue coastline. .............................................................................................. 27 Figure 5.2 Capelin spawning and important fishing areas in the Godthåbsfjord system.

Source: Nielsen et al. 2000. ......................................................................................... 28 Figure 6.1 Vegetation map of the lands around and to the north of the Godthåbsfjord

(Map and data source: DMU Technical report no. 664). .............................................. 31 Figure 7.1 Godthåbsfjord (June 2008) with the Innajaattoq Mountain to the right. The

position of the photo standpoint is East of the mouth of the Qugssuk Fjord. ............... 33 Figure 7.2 Variation in water level near Taserssuak Bay in the period June 2010 – July

2011. ............................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 8.1 Example of impact table. ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 8.2 Impact assessment of fuel and chemical spills in connection with unloading

and storage on land. ..................................................................................................... 41 Figure 8.3 Impact assessment of fuel and chemical spills in connection with transport

by road and pipeline on land. ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 8.4 Impact assessment of operational fuel and chemical spills in connection with

the marine environment. ............................................................................................... 44 Figure 8.5 Impact assessment of accidental fuel and chemical spills in connection with

the marine environment. ............................................................................................... 45 Figure 9.1 Under ice spills behave differently depending on oil types and local

conditions (Source: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) .......................... 46


List of tables:

Table 3.1 The distribution of Arctic diesel requirements (yearly average). ................................. 14 Table 3.2 Specification of Arctic Diesel Fuel (Source: BFS, Power Plant Emissions

Doc no.505076-0000-47ER-0001) ............................................................................... 15 Table 3.3 Specifications of Jet A-1 fuel (Source: ExxonMobil Aviation: World Jet Fuel

Specifications and MEPetroleum Jet Fuel Specifications). .......................................... 16 Table 3.4 Reagents expected to be used in Isua Project. Data provided by SNC

Lavalin (Doc no. 3200-49EB-C0001). Note * : Quantity only when sulphur

flotation is operating ..................................................................................................... 18 Table 7.1 Bunker fuel capacities of ship types likely to be servicing the port at

Taseraarssuk. ............................................................................................................... 35


1 SUMMARY

This report assesses the handling of chemicals and fuel on land and off shore for the

proposed Isua Iron Ore Project, as well as assessing the potential impacts of spills in

the terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems surrounding the project area. The

report compiles existing knowledge in the field of oil spill impacts on Arctic ecosystems

as well as chemical spills and proposes mitigating actions to minimize potential im-

pacts.

Arctic diesel fuel and reagents will be imported for consumption at the Isua project

sites. These will arrive at the port site by ship and be distributed by road and pipeline

to the process plant and mine site. Arctic diesel fuel is transported in large quantities,

but mitigation measures built in the pipeline design and storage will mean that large

spills are not likely. Chemicals are generally transported in discrete packaging con-

tainers, and many reagents are transported in dry form, so potential spills are limited

in extent, by the number of ruptured containers.

The seasonal variations in the Arctic mean that the time of year has a large influence

on the vulnerability of environments and on the ease with which spills can be cleared

up. Most habitats see intensive use in the short summer, and are therefore most vul-

nerable at that time. The low temperatures and long darkness of winter can make

work hard for cleanup crews, but the frost can help stop spills from spreading.

Terrestrial spills are likely to be localised and fairly easy to combat, although the envi-

ronmental effects can last for decades in slow growing Arctic ecosystems. Freshwater

spills can have larger impact areas and are more difficult to combat, but the through-

flow of successive melting seasons means spills are not likely to impact the environ-

ment for long periods of time. Marine spills can potentially be very large and be com-

plex to treat as weather and ice may obstruct recovery work.

Ship transport likely carries the largest risk, as the biggest accidents are possible

here, and environmental factors such as ice and weather can cause events leading to

spills. The most probable events are operational spills, but of limited magnitude. The

largest spill consequences are likely to occur as results of accidental spills, as quanti-

ties can be large. Godthåbsfjord and Qugssuk Fjord are large bodies of water, with

some sensitive coastlines interspersed between areas of lower sensitivity. Some are-

as along the shipping route are considered capelin spawning grounds and are thus ex-

tremely sensitive /Nielsen et al., 2000/.

Monitoring programs are suggested to keep track of ongoing impacts of oils and

chemicals on the environment.

This report concludes that fuel and chemical spills in Arctic ecosystems can potentially

have large impacts, which are long lasting compared to temperate ecosystems. How-

ever, if the listed mitigating measures are followed, the overall risk of large scale eco-

logical impacts is deemed to be low.


2 INTRODUCTION

This report summarises main components of fuel and chemical handling within the

proposed Isua Iron Ore Project, and the potential risk of spills and subsequent impacts

on the external environmental.

In the far north of Canada, Xstrata’s Raglan nickel mine has been operating since

1997, BHP Billiton's Ekati diamond mine since 1998 and Rio Tinto's Diavik diamond

mine since 2003. These mines all have to transport, store, handle and use reagents

and hydrocarbons and explosives as part of their mining operations. Elements such as

prevention, detection, containment, response and mitigation are key elements in the

mines’ Hazardous Materials Management Plans. So, there exists a large knowledge

base of how to conduct mine operations safely and efficiently in cold Arctic regions,

including the transportation of oil in pipelines in Alaska.

It is on the basis of this experience and know-how, that the engineering of the ISUA

facilities integrates a comprehensive set of measures and equipment, whose function

is specifically aimed at the following:

Prevention and control of accidental spills;

Detection of accidental spills;

Recovery of accidental spills;

Collection and treatment of oily waters from truck maintenance and washing

areas;

Prevention measures at fuel storage and distribution areas.

In general, the technical design of all fuel and chemical related installations and

transport modes in the Isua project are foreseen to follow the most up-to-date interna-

tionally recognized standards and practices for handling fuel and chemicals in Arctic

mines.

The report is based on comprehensive technical considerations and assessments as

they appear in the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS), prepared for London Mining by

SNC Lavalin. Orbicon A/S has prepared the Environmental Impact Assessment, in-

cluding this fuel- and chemical handling assessment.

The purpose of the EIA, including this document, is to present a broad overview. In

subsequent phases of the planning and implementation of the project, details in health

and safety procedures, degrees of preparedness and contingency plans will be elabo-

rated and will be part of obtaining building permits according to § 86 of the Mineral

Resources Act.

The purpose of this Annex 6 to the EIA is as follows:

To present the measures and equipment which are integrated and built-in by

the design for management of fuel and reagents. To this end, the annex in-


cludes appendices with Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and consultant‘s de-

scriptions of the pipelines, which show the project areas where fuel and rea-

gents management is required, together with the technical description of

management systems, measures and equipment.

To assess possible impacts after an accidental spill is controlled and recov-

ered, and identify applicable mitigation measures.

To assess other potential risks associated with maritime transport of fuel and

reagents in the fjord.

Provide reference to the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in terms of

surveillance, chain of responsibility and reporting in case of accidental spills.

These procedures will in particular be relevant for avoiding any unintended events un-

der handling of fuel and chemicals.

2.1 Project description

The Isua Iron Ore Project is proposed by London Mining Greenland A/S, a subsidiary

of London Mining Plc. The project is located 150 km northeast of Nuuk in West Green-

land, see Figure 2.1. The Isua ore deposit is located at the edge of the Greenland in-

land ice sheet at about 1100 m elevation.

Figure 2.1 Map showing the Isua EIA study areas and their placement in relation to the Godthåbsfjord system.


The project is designed to extract iron ore from the deposit and process the ore into a

high-quality iron concentrate final product for transport to market by bulk carrier ships.

The main components of the project are the mine, primary crusher, processing plant,

104 km pipeline and access road, dewatering and storage plant and a deep-water port

site on the Qugssuk Fjord branch of Godthåbsfjord. The project design production ca-

pacity is 15 million tonnes iron concentrate per year (15 Mtpa) with a 15 year lifetime.

The iron ore body on Mount Isua is to be excavated as an open pit mine using explo-

sives and power shovels, see Figure 2.2. The shovels will load blocks of ore into 250

ton haul trucks for transport to the primary crusher. Waste rock and ice will be trucked

to deposit areas outside of the mine pit. The crushed ore is transported 3½ km on a

conveyor to the processing plant. In the plant, the coarse ore is ground down to fine

particles in water slurry. The iron is separated from the non-iron tailings in a series of

mechanical, chemical and magnetic processes. The non-iron tailings are pumped to a

nearby tailings pond (Lake 750) for permanent underwater disposal.


Figure 2.2 Map showing the mine site at Mount Isua.

The iron concentrate slurry is pumped from the processing plant through a 104 km

pipeline to a dewatering plant at the port area, see Figure 2.3. Water is removed from

the slurry at the dewatering plant and the dry concentrate is stored in an enclosed

storage building. The iron concentrate is loaded into bulk carrier ships by a system of

conveyors and bulk loaders. The ships will sail in and out of Godthåbsfjord, to and

from international ports.

Other components of the project include worker accommodations, administrative and

maintenance facilities, diesel power plants and fuel storage at both the processing

plant and port area. An explosive plant and explosives storage will be located near the


mine. An optional airstrip is located near the access road, about halfway between the

processing plant and the port area, and there will be heliports at the process plant, air-

strip and port area.

Figure 2.3 Map showing the port site at Qugssuk Fjord.

Supplies will arrive at the port on container ships. Containers will be transported be-

tween the port and mine areas by trucks travelling in convoy. Detailed specification of

the project components are given in the Bankable Feasibility Study (SLII 2011). All as-

sumptions in this annex are based on the Bankable Feasibility Study as well as publi-

cally available information from reliable sources on the Internet.

2.2 Project natural settings

Stretching over such a large area, the project settings span environments from near

the Greenland Ice Cap, through lake country and valleys, to the shore of Qugssuk


Fjord, a branch of the Godthåbsfjord. In connection to this annex, it means that spills

of fuel or chemicals can potentially affect a wide range of environments.

In the upper reaches, near the mine site, the environment is harsh and, to some ex-

tent, barren. The high altitude lakes are heavily influenced by turbid runoff from the

glaciers. Nearer the airstrip, the road and pipelines transverse a series of low broad

valleys containing vegetation, marshes, rivers and streams. This area seems to be

used extensively by local herds of caribou. The shores at the port site are generally

rocky and exposed, but to the north of the port site is an estuarine area with softer

sediment, which can have local ecological importance.

As all imports and exports of the project pass through the Godthåbsfjord system to

reach open seas, this fjord system also has to be included when considering potential

spill impacts.

The Godthåbsfjord penetrates more than 150 km inland and the main fjord branch is 5

- 8 km wide with an average depth of about 260 m and a maximum depth of 620 m.

The distance through Godthåbsfjord from Nuuk to the port area is approximately 70

km. The western part of Godthåbsfjord is usually without fast ice year around, but ice-

bergs and growlers are common throughout the year, but especially in late spring and

summer, when they drift from the five glaciers in the inner parts of the fjord

The shipping is destined for the port site in Qugssuk Fjord. This branch of the main

fjord is ice free for large parts of the year, and most icebergs and growlers drift past

the entrance. However, southerly and southwesterly winds can potentially push ice in-

to Qugssuk Fjord. Based on information (SNCL, 2011a) it is also estimated that the

head of Qugssuk Fjord (i.e. the area of Taseraarssuk Bay) freezes over each winter.

In normal or cold winters, fast ice up to 0.6 m thick develops in the northern part of the

area. Sea ice of this thickness can be broken by ice-classed tugs.


3 PROJECT FUEL- AND CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION

3.1 Main project consumption and overview

The Isua Iron Ore Project is a large scale project and will annually consume some 210

million liters of fuel for power supply, mining equipment, vehicles and explosives man-

ufacturing (Figure 3.1).

The consumption among various activities can be seen in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1.

The fuel will arrive by ship and is subsequently pumped from fuel storage facilities at

the port site and distributed through a 104 km fuel pipeline to storage facilities at the

process plant site.

There will also be a minor storage of jet fuel at the air strip.

Figure 3.1 Total yearly projected consumption of fuels during constructional (Con.) and operational (Op.) phases.

Various reagents are planned to be used at the process plant to concentrate the iron

ore product. Reagents are to be transported from the port site to the processing plant

site by truck.

Time wise, the project is divided into three phases:

i) a construction phase planned for the period 2012 – 2015

ii) an operational phase for 15 years (2015 – 2029) or more

iii) mine closure phase (after 2030)

0

50.000.000

100.000.000

150.000.000

200.000.000

250.000.000

Co

n. Y

ear

1

Co

n. Y

ear

2

Co

n. Y

ear

3

Op

. Ye

ar 1

Op

. Ye

ar 2

Op

. Ye

ar 3

Op

. Ye

ar 4

Op

. Ye

ar 5

Op

. Ye

ar 6

Op

. Ye

ar 7

Op

. Ye

ar 8

Op

. Ye

ar 9

Op

. Ye

ar 1

0

Op

. Ye

ar 1

1

Op

. Ye

ar 1

2

Op

. Ye

ar 1

3

Op

. Ye

ar 1

4

Op

. Ye

ar 1

5

Fue

l co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

L)

Projected fuel consumption


In terms of handling fuel and chemicals, the vast majority of the quantities used are

during the operational phase. Therefore, the operational phase is the focal of subse-

quent sections.

Figure 3.2 Principles of fuel handling in the mine project, with approximate percentages represented by the thickness of the lines.

3.2 Oil products handled in the project

Mining, comminuting and processing are energy demanding processes. Virtually all

energy consumption of the Isua project will rely on imported Arctic diesel fuel.

The fuel consumption can be divided into various activities/categories. Around 78 % of

the consumption is for power generation and 22 % is for various types of mining oper-

ations (mine site trucks and excavators, drilling, etc.) and transport (Table 3.1).

Fuel requirements at the Isua Iron Ore project

(operational phase year 1-15, annual average)

liters/year %

Mining equipment 34 945 360 17

Explosives 1 077 669 1

Site mobile equipment 3 620 767 2

Port mobile equipment 3565 855 2

Delivery corridor mobile equipment 5 259 400 3

Helicopter service 21 474 0

Power plants (130 MW + 25 MW) 162 338 160 78

Total 210 828.685 100

Table 3.1 The distribution of Arctic diesel requirements (yearly average).


The annual operational consumption is estimated to around 210.8 million liters per

year (as average in 15 year lifetime). The figure is in the same order as the yearly

Greenlandic import of liquid fuel, estimated to be an average of 251 million liters per

year1 /Statistics Greenland, web Nov 2011/.

In comparison, the ship transport of fuel through the Godthåbsfjord to the Isua project

will amount less than 0.1 % of the quantities of oil and chemicals shipped through in-

ternal Danish waters yearly2 /Forsvarsministeriet 2007/.

Arctic diesel fuel is part of the overall term “gas oil”. In the EU regulatory language,

“gas oil” is used to describe a wide class of fuels, including diesel fuels for on-road ve-

hicles, fuels for non-road vehicles, as well as other distillate fuels. Within the gas oil

classification, fuels for on-road vehicles (typically with sulfur content below 0.05%) are

referred to as “diesel fuels”, while fuels for non-road mobile machinery (typically with

sulfur content up to 0.2%) are referred to as “gas oils intended for use by non-road

mobile machinery (including inland waterway vessels), agricultural and forestry trac-

tors, and recreational craft”. The specification for Arctic diesel fuel is seen in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Specification of Arctic Diesel Fuel (Source: BFS, Power Plant Emissions Doc no.505076-0000-47ER-0001)

To provide options for different climates, the EN 590 standard specifies six tempera-

ture climate grades of diesel fuel (Grade A...F) and there are five Arctic Classes of

diesel fuel (Class 0...4) characterized by different properties.

Small quantities of jet fuel will be used during both constructional and operational

phases. Aircraft expected to service the future airstrip are Bombardier Q200 (Dash 8)

class fixed wing aircraft. As standard procedure it is assumed that the aircraft will have

sufficient fuel to return to the original destination without re-fuelling at the air strip.

1 According to Statistics Greenland the average for the 8 year period 2002 – 2009 is 251 million liters of liquid fuel (Arctic

gas oil, motor gas oil, diesel fuel Arctic, Jet, petrol). 2 Annual shipped transport of oil and chemicals through the Danish Straits are estimated to 220 million tones

/Forsvarsministeriet, 2007/


The helicopters are assumed to be the Bell 212 class type. Jet fuel is assumed to be

the same grade as used by local commercial carriers (Air Greenland). This is Type Jet

A-1, following DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications,

see Table 3.3.

Specifications Jet A-1

Flash point Min. 38 °C

Auto-ignition temperature 210 °C

Freezing point −47 °C

Open air burning temperatures 260-315 °C

Density at 15 °C 0.804 kg/L

Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg

energy density 34.7 MJ/L

Acidity, Total (mg KOH/g) Max. 0.015

Aromatics (vol %) Max. 25.0

OR Total Aromatics (vol %) Max. 26.5

Sulphur, Total (wt %) Max. 0.30

Sulphur, Mercaptan (wt %) Max. 0.0030

Table 3.3 Specifications of Jet A-1 fuel (Source: ExxonMobil Aviation: World Jet Fuel Specifications and MEPetroleum Jet Fuel Specifications).

Other oil products besides arctic diesel fuel and minor quantities of jet fuel are

Various greases, lubricants and sealants will be used for machinery, pipelines

and handling facilities.

Hydraulic fluids, many of which are mineral oil based, are used in vehicles,

excavation and mining equipment.

Bunker oil will be carried by the ships servicing the mine. Depending on the

ships, several different bunker fuels will likely be used. Bunker oil is thus not

directly consumed by the project, but the bunker capacity of calling ships is

discussed under potential marine spills.

3.3 Chemicals handled in the project

In order to increase the quality of the iron product, a flotation process is part of the

process plant activities. Through flotation processing, impurities of sulphur, silica and

aluminum can be reduced. The flotation process requires various chemical reagents to

enhance the process e.g. adjusting pH and creating froth.

The sulphur content varies between different parts of the ore body. When processing

ore from parts with a sulphur content below a certain level, sulphur flotation will not be

used.


After processing, the product passes a thickener, which increases the product to 65 %

solids, before the resultant slurry is pumped through the 104 km slurry pipeline. At the

port, the slurry is filtered through plate filter presses and the product is stored. The fil-

tered water (i.e. the filtrate) is processed with a flocculating agent in a thickener, in or-

der to meet the discharge limits.

Various reagents foreseen to be used, and approximately quantities consumed, are

summarized in Table 3.4. The mode of transportation is indicated and also whether

the reagent is transported as liquid or in dry form (pellets/powder).


Reagent Used for Purpose Transport

mode Average

monthly

quantity, T

Average

yearly

quantity, T

Annual con-

sumption

range T

Sulphuric Acid –

93% (H2SO4) Sulphur

flotation To reduce pH Liquid in

isotainers of

20-29 t capaci-ty

1,133*

Only when sulphur

flotation is

operating

13,594* 0 – 25,000*

Xanthate (Potassium Amyl Xanthate or chemi-

cally similar

equivalent product)

Sulphide

flotation To float the iron sulphides,

hence separate these from the

iron fraction.

Dry form in 1 t

bags 378*

Only when sulphur

flotation is

operating

453* 0 – 7,000*

Frother

(Methyl Isobutyl

Carbinol, other alcohols or polygly-

col ethers)

Sulphide flotation

Reduce bubble size and increase froth stability in the

flotation process.

Liquid in 1 m3 tote tanks

63*

Only when

sulphur flotation is

operating

755* 0 – 1,000*

Amine (Flotigam EDA,

Ekafol or chemical-ly similar equiva-

lent product)

Silica flotation.

To float the silica, hence separate this from the iron

fraction.

Liquid in isotainers

20-24 m3

101 1,208 750 – 1,500

Hydrated lime (Calcium hydroxide

Ca(OH)2 )

Silica flotation

pH increase Dry form in 1 t bags

Alternately bulk material

in 20 t contain-

ers

459 5,513 5,000- 10,000

Caustic Soda (NaOH)

Silica

flotation pH increase Dry form in 1 t

bags

Alternately

bulk material in 20 t contain-

ers

346 4,154 2,000 – 5,000

Corn Starch Silica flotation

Depressant – prevents iron from floating

Dry form in 1 t bags

Alternately bulk material

in 20 t contain-

ers

692 8,307 5,000-10,000

Flocculant (CIBA

Magnafloc 338AA

or chemically similar equivalent

product)

Tailings

slurry Flocculants (thickener) for

tailings. To promote particle

sedimentation - so that clear overflow water can be recy-

cled in the process.

Dry form in 1

m3 bulk bags

Alternately

bulk material

in 20 t contain-ers

67 802 600-1,200

Flocculant (CIBA

Magnafloc 1011 or chemically

similar equivalent product)

Product

slurry Product

filtrate

Flocculants (thickener) for

concentrate product. To promote particle sedimenta-

tion so water can be recycled

/ discharged.

Dry form in 1

m3 bulk bags

Alternately

bulk material in 20 t contain-

ers

6 74 50-200

Table 3.4 Reagents expected to be used in Isua Project. Data provided by SNC Lavalin (Doc no. 3200-49EB-C0001). Note * : Quantity only when sulphur flotation is operating

All reagents used in the area will be shipped to the port from overseas. The reagents

will be transported in containers and be hauled by truck from the port site to the pro-

cessing plant site.


3.4 Explosives

The explosives used are ANFO and emulsion, which are both ammonium nitrate/fuel

oil based explosives. Explosive reagents will arrive as ammonium nitrate and be

mixed with fuel oil at a separate facility close to the mine site. On average, about

17,000 tonnes per year will be detonated.

3.5 Slurry

The export product of the mine is fine grained iron concentrate which is mixed up with

water for pipeline transportation down to the port site as slurry.

Slurry consists of 60-70% iron ore and the rest is water. Traces of heavy metals can

be disregarded according to geochemical test described in Annex 8 of the EIA.

Slurry is transported by pipeline. As part of shutdown procedures for the pipeline, and

to prevent freezing (and therefore plugging) of slurry in the pipelines, the following

emergency dump pits are planned along the route: one pit at the port (volume of

18,000 m3); one pit at the process plan (volume 6,000 m

3) and an additional 6 emer-

gency dump pits along the pipeline (volumes 1,600 – 6,100 m3)

, where respective sec-

tions of the pipeline can be emptied into.

The inner diameter of the slurry pipeline is 0.51 m (20”) from the plant to the Kugssua

River (River Crossing 1) and 0.46 m (18”) on the stretch from Kugssua to the port. The

slurry volume per kilometre is consequently 204 m3 and 166 m

3, respectively.


4 RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF OIL AND CHEMICAL SPILLS

This section contains a short introduction to ‘how to understand risk’ and risk assess-

ment and the existing responsibilities in combating spills.

An overall project related risk assessment and management has been carried out by

SNC Lavalin and summarised in Chapter 24 of the BFS main report /BFS 2012/.

Environmental risks are included in a compound Health, Safety and Environment risk

management strategy. As this does not deal with individual areas of environmental

concern, such as those dealt with in this report, it can be beneficial to apply a concep-

tual risk assessment on the risk of spills, here.

4.1 Conceptual risk assessment

The risk of spills can generally be perceived as the product of the probability of an ac-

cident and consequences of said accident, viz.

Risk = Probability x Consequence

Thus, reduction of spill risks can be pursued through:

Prevention: diminishing the probability of spills (e.g. through separation of

shipping lanes, use of pilots, double hull tankers, leak detection systems, sec-

tioning of fuel pipelines and learning from failure programmes, etc.).

Protection: diminishing the consequences of spills (e.g. damage reduction

through protective procedures and structured damage control through design

and preparedness).

Sensitivity analysis and ranking, involves structuring damage reduction in advance of

any spill of chemicals or oil. It is an important tool for spill combating and an aid for

clean-up organisations in the event of a spill occurs.

In this context, it should be noted that an oil spill sensitivity mapping of Greenlandic

coastal areas already exists, including the Godthåbsfjord, see Chapter 5.2.

The concepts of reducing risks through prevention and/or protection are illustrated in

Figure 4.1.


Figure 4.1 Reduction of risk can be achieved through prevention and/or protection measures

4.2 Responsibilities and contingency plans

The responsibility of combating spills at sea in Greenland is described in a contingen-

cy plan developed by Island Command Greenland (in Danish: Grønlands Kommando)

under the Defence Command of Denmark (Beredskabsplan for Grønlands Kommando

til bekæmpelse af forurening af havet med olie og andre skadelige stoffer i farvandet

ud for Grønland 2007).

In open sea, from the Outer Territorial Sea limit to the EEZ (200 nautical miles from

the Territorial Sea Baseline), the responsibility rests with Island Command Greenland,

see Figure 4.2.

The Greenland Self-Government and individual municipalities have the responsibility

of combating oil spills and chemical spills along the coastal areas (Internal Waters),

including the 3 nautical miles from coast out to the Territorial Sea Baseline – in practi-

cal terms all fjords and inlets, including harbours.


Figure 4.2 Internal Waters (colored area) and the EEZ 200 nautical miles limit line

Combat of spills caused by private enterprises, like offshore installations and pipe-

lines, rests with the owners. The owners shall further develop contingency plans to be

approved by the BMP.

Denmark (and thus Greenland) has signed and ratified the MARPOL 73/8 convention:

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships including An-

nex no. I - VI.

Greenland is also part of global cooperation and regional cooperation agreements in-

cluding the OPRC Convention (International Convention on Oil Pollution Prepared-

ness, Response and Co-operation) as well as a Nordic agreement and the CANDEN

agreement between Canada and Denmark, entered into in 1983.


All spillage combat preparedness by Island Command Greenland as well as the

Greenland Self-Government (Naalakkersuisut) relies solely on mechanical combating,

with containment of the oil or chemicals on the surface and subsequent mechanical

removal. The effective capacity is 20 m3 of spills, within individual local areas. Larger

spills require transport of material from other local centres in Greenland, from Den-

mark or from elsewhere overseas.

The Directorate of Environment and Nature (DMN) has staff and equipment stored in

12 areas along the coast, including Paamiut, Maniitsoq and the city of Nuuk.


5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SPILLS

While marine oil spills of catastrophic dimensions like the Sea Empress Accident

(1996 - 72,000 tonnes) and the Exxon Valdez (1989 – 37,000 tonnes) are rare, they

nonetheless require measures far beyond every normal capability of preparedness of

the responsible organisations.

However, by far most marine oil spill events involve small to medium quantities, often

in the range of 1 - 20 tonnes, which are usually well within the capacity range of local

oil combat equipment.

When they occur, oil and chemical spills are caused either by purely accidental events

(groundings, ship collisions, fires and explosions, road accidents, rupture of pipelines,

etc) or ‘operational’ events, such as malfunctions or failures when emptying bilge and

ballast water, leaking valves and spills in loading/unloading situations – typical events

in harbours and near industrial installations.

The impact of a spill is dependent on spreading, degradation and short- and long term

environmental effects, which are again dependent on the quantity and type of agents

spilled and the sensitivity of habitats affected.

5.1 Potential spill agents and their effects

Material and safety data sheets for reagents are included in Appendix 3 of this annex

and are the basis for the qualitative impact.

Arctic diesel is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons. Its exact composition depends on

the source of the crude oil from which it was produced and the refining methods used.

Being a relatively light fuel, it evaporates fairly quickly, and does not usually remain in

the environment for more than a few days. The toxicity of diesel can kill plants and an-

imals. Oil coating of birds and other aquatic life is also a potential short term hazard.

Jet fuel spills into local water systems, can likewise pose a short-term hazard through

water soluble compounds (such as benzene and toluene), including potential toxicity

to aquatic life. In case of spills on land, lighter factions will tend to evaporate fairly

quickly.

Greases, lubricants and sealants are a broad category. Some contain bases or addi-

tives that can pose a hazard to the environment if they are not properly disposed of.

Hydraulic fluids are not consumed in large quantities. Some are based on mineral oils

and contain additives that may be toxic.

Heavy fuel oils are not used in mine operation, but are expected to be used by ship-

ping transport of product. In the Arctic heavy fuel oils are potentially very problematic,

as the oils’ high viscosity coupled with low ambient temperatures means spilled oil

does not readily dissolve or evaporate. Burning of heavy fuel oil also creates air pollu-

tion, namely in the quantity of soot emissions.


Sulphuric acid is very corrosive and could cause burns to any plants, birds or land an-

imals directly exposed to it. However, sulphuric acid dissolves readily in water, and

has only moderate toxicity on aquatic life. Small quantities of sulphuric acid will be

neutralised by the natural alkalinity in aquatic systems. Larger quantities may lower

the pH for extended periods of time.

Potassium amyl xanthate (PAX) and sodium ethyl xanthate (SEX) used in sulphide flo-

tation are considered highly toxic to aquatic life, and may form complexes with heavy

metals, increasing their uptake (i.e. fish may accumulate heavy metals more readily).

If discharged to waterways, xanthates are reported to persist for some days, before

hydrolysing slowly in the natural environment. Under Isua conditions, however, degra-

dation is considered to be quite slow, with half-lives of ~80 days. Xanthates are not

considered to bioaccumulate /Sun and Forsling 1997; Datasheets: Logichem 2010/.

Amine (Flotigam EDA) adsorbs tightly onto quartz particles in the conditioning stage of

the reagent with the solids particles; desorption is expected to be ~5% (by analogy

with another amine reagent) /Sandvik and Dybdahl, 1979/. Flotigam EDA is biode-

gradable at the concentrations assayed in industrial effluents, but data is not consid-

ered directly transferable to Isua conditions. LC50 toxicity assays have demonstrated

high toxicity in freshwater invertebrates /Peres et al. 2000/.

Frother Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol (MIBC) is not considered a cause of environmental

effects. 94% is biodegraded within 20 days. MIBC is not likely to accumulate in the

food chain (bioconcentration potential is low) and is practically nontoxic to fish and

other aquatic organisms on an acute basis /Datasheet: DOW 2009/.

Hydrated lime reacts with carbon dioxide or carbonate ions, forming sparingly soluble

calcium carbonate (calcite). Any excess hydrated lime in the environment is naturally

converted to harmless minerals. /Datasheet: Cemex 2011/.

Caustic starch contains sodium hydroxide and corn starch. Sodium hydroxide in large

amounts will affect pH and harm aquatic organisms. There is no degradation of sodi-

um hydroxide in waters, only loss by absorption or through chemical neutralization.

The product may affect the acidity (pH-factor) in water with risk of harmful effects to

aquatic organisms. Corn starch is readily biodegradable in the natural environment.

Magnafloc 338AA is an anionic polymer of acrylamide. Some toxicity has been

demonstrated in aquatic invertebrates (daphnia). According to data sheets from the

manufacturer no tests are found on aquatic flora or microorganisms and data on bio-

degradation is not available.

Magnafloc 1011 is considered to have same effects as Magnafloc 338AA.

Ammonium nitrate will be imported for making ANFO mining explosives. Ammonium

nitrate is an inorganic plant fertilizer; however, large spills can kill vegetation. Spilling

large quantities into local waterways may cause acute toxicity in aquatic organisms

and cause eutrophication of connected ecosystems.


5.2 Habitats potentially affected

Habitat areas that could be affected by a spill are marine, limnic and terrestrial. The

Godthåbsfjord system can be affected by spills occurring along the shipping route and

at the port site in Qugssuk Fjord. Lakes, rivers and other water ways, as well as ter-

restrial areas, can potentially be affected in proximity to the operational sites and

along the access road and pipelines. Being situated in the Arctic, these habitat areas

undergo seasonal variations, where environmental factors render them more vulnera-

ble at certain times of the year.

The terrestrial habitats impacted by the project stretch from the stark areas in proximi-

ty to the Greenland Ice Cap, through valleys and lake country to the shoreline at

Taseraarssuk Bay.

Marine and coastal habitats potentially affected occur in proximity to the port site and

along shipping lanes to and from here. As marine spills have a much greater capacity

to spread to large areas, the habitats potentially affected cover most of the

Godthåbsfjord system.

There already exists an Environmental Oil Spill Sensitivity Atlas for the West Green-

land Coastal Zone. This comprehensive study of 18,000 km coastline to oil spill sensi-

tivity was carried out in 2000 /NERI 2000/. A calculated ranking value is assigned to

each coastal area based on a number of assumptions (and the information that was in

hand in 2000). The ranking value integrates various indicators, such as community

scores/human use scores, special status area scores, resource use scores, archaeo-

logical site scores, fish and bird presence, and Oil Residence Index (ORI). The rank-

ing is thus not to be considered as ‘scientific’ evidence of sensitivity, but as a rough

tool to differentiate a very long coastline with numerous islands, skerries and coves.

The sums of the ranking values for an area are divided into terms of: ‘extreme’, ‘high’,

‘moderate’ and ‘low’ sensitivity and indicated on maps. Ranking extracts from the four

maps covering the Godthåbsfjord system are summarized in Figure 5.1. From this fig-

ure and the NERI (2000) assessment it can be concluded that:

The coastline near Nuuk and some 20 km into the fjord is considered ‘ex-

tremely’ sensitive to oil spill (red line along the coast). The most important fea-

tures in this part is the high ranking of the human use of the coastal area (e.g.

Nordlandet), and the presence of scallops and capelin.

The southern half of the Qugssuk Fjord area is considered ‘moderate’ sensi-

tive to oil spill (green line along the coast). The most important features are

stated to be human use, archaeological sites near the shore, and the pres-

ence of capelin and Arctic char.

The inner part of the Qugssuk Fjord is considered to be ‘extremely’ sensitive

to oil spill (red line along the coast). The heaviest weighted score in the rank-

ing is the presence of capelin, followed by human use, archeological sites,

and the presence of lump sucker and scallops.


The shorelines of the islands in Qugssuk Fjord (Qeqertasugssuk) are consid-

ered to be ‘low’ in sensitivity to oil spills (blue line along the coast).

According to NERI (2000), the marine mammals and birds in these parts of the

Godthåbsfjord do not add to the sensitivity ranking.

Figure 5.1 Summary of sensitivity mapping in the Godthåbsfjord from NERI (2000). The ranking is in decreasing order: red coastline, yellow coastline, green coastline, blue coastline.

An interview survey on shallow water fisheries resources in West Greenland reports 6

capelin spawning sites and 18 important fishing areas in the Nuuk area, see Figure

5.2. Four important fishing areas and two spawning areas are along the likely shipping

routes.


Figure 5.2 Capelin spawning and important fishing areas in the Godthåbsfjord system. Source: Nielsen et al. 2000.


6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SPILLS ON LAND

This section contains an overview of potential spills of fuel and chemicals on land and

a discussion of potential consequences on the environment in various land habitats.

The assessment is based on literature including NERI Technical report No. 415.

6.1 Scenarios for land spills

The following scenarios are considered the most likely events leading to a spill:

Unloading fuel and chemicals from ships to land based storage

Fuel storage tank ruptures or leaks

Spills of chemicals and oily products under transport

Spills from pipelines

Spills from fuelling mobile equipment at tank farms

Unloading. Yearly, about 210,000 m3 of fuel will arrive by tankers. Arctic diesel and jet

fuel unloading arms at the port are used to unload the supply ships which carry up to

30,000 m3) per shipment. The fuels are then pumped through short stretches of pipe-

line (300 mm and 510 mm) to storage tanks at the port.

Storage. At the port, diesel fuel is stored in two tanks of 30,000 m³ capacity each, at

the process plant site there are four storage tanks of 2,500 m3 each. Furthermore

there is a 1000 m3 jet fuel storage tank at the port site, and a 1000 m

3 diesel storage

tank at the mine site. All fuel storage tanks are designed with geotextile containment

berms that can contain a full spill in case of total storage tank rupture.

Chemicals are stored in the transport vessels noted in table 3.3. Most are stored (and

transported) in dry form in protected 1 m3 bags, while sulphuric acid and Flotigam

EDA are kept in 20-24 m3 isotainers.

Access road transport. Tank trucks supply jet fuel to the helicopters and airplanes at

the air strip. Chemicals are transported in tank trucks or carried by truck in their trans-

portation vessels. The number of truck convoys hauling jet fuel and chemicals will be

in the order of 15 a month, and low operational speed limits of 50 km/h will reduce the

likelihood of accidents.

Pipeline. Most of the diesel is pumped 104 km through a diesel fuel pipeline to the

process plant area. The 150 mm diameter steel pipeline runs parallel to the slurry

pipeline. In relation to the access road, the fuel pipeline is located on the far side of

the slurry pipeline. The pipeline runs above ground supported by sleepers. The pipe-

line is not insulated or heat traced.

The pipeline has its own monitoring and control system, connected to the port and

plant central control systems. Along the pipeline, several pressure transmitters and

temperature transmitters are installed and connected to the pipeline control system.


The control system provides a leak detection alarm and identifies the approximate lo-

cation of the leak. Furthermore, block valves are provided at all river crossings, up-

stream and downstream of each bridge. Block valves are also provided approximately

every 10 km along the pipeline. The volume in between block valves will be less than

180 m3.

Tank farms. Fuelling of mobile equipment (mine trucks, excavators, etc) takes place

on impermeable tank farms pads. Temporary fuelling sites used in the construction

period will be established following general safety requirements and good practice.

Use of spill trays locally (day tanks) is part of good practice.

6.2 Soil and subsurface contamination

Land based spills of fuel products and chemicals will typically not affect large areas,

unless seepage into nearby waterways occurs, or steep slopes at the spill site causes

the spill to spread downhill.

In the upper parts of the transportation route, bedrock and local permafrost will stop

spills seeping far into the ground.

Practically no study has been conducted on Greenland soil microorganism responses

to oil contamination. However, results from Canada indicate that microorganisms can

degrade spilled hydrocarbons, but that low ambient nitrogen is a limiting factor. There-

fore treatment with fertilizer can help with soil degradation of fuel spills. However, the

secondary effects of introducing inorganic fertilizers to the Arctic soil environment are

unknown.


Figure 6.1 Vegetation map of the lands around and to the north of the Godthåbsfjord (Map and data source: DMU Technical report no. 664).

6.3 Vegetation

Effects on the dry Arctic vegetation will likely be localised, but as Arctic flora has very

slow growth rates, effects can be long lasting, stretching into decades. Experiments in

East Greenland has shown that even eleven years after application of Arctic diesel to

major plant communities less than 1% of wooded plant species, herbs and graminoids

had recovered /Bay 1997/. Dry habitats were found to be more vulnerable than wet,

and mosses growing in soils with high water content showed substantial recovery /Bay

1997/. A study of vegetation recovery after a crude oil spill in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska

showed that fertilizers containing phosphorous significantly enhanced regrowth

/McKendrick and Mitchell 1978/.

Wetland vegetation is also very sensitive, and potential for contaminating larger areas

is more evident here. As can be seen in Figure 6.1, the areas of significant Arctic veg-

etation along the oil and slurry pipelines only occur on the lower half, from the port site

to approximately the future potential airstrip. In upper reaches, mosses and lichen are

prevailing, both of which are very sensitive to spills of diesel fuel.


6.4 Terrestrial animals and birds

As terrestrial spills likely only will affect relatively small areas, it will be relatively easy

to prevent terrestrial mammals coming into contact with the spills. It is also unlikely

that terrestrial bird populations will be significantly impacted. Local effects may be ob-

served, but most likely, no or only small effects on population levels of mammals in-

cluding caribou and terrestrial birds will occur.

6.5 Rivers and lakes

The largest river crossed by the pipelines and the access road is the Kugssua River.

Four other larger waterways are crossed by bridges, 23 streams are crossed by a

combination of culverts and road depression sections and 85 are crossed by a combi-

nation of rockfill drains and road depression sections. Furthermore, there are many

lakes and waterways close to the supply route.

Spills into freshwater ecosystems can cause an impact on diversity and abundance of

invertebrates, plants and fish. Also water birds such as divers, mergansers, duck and

geese that breed at lakes and rivers could potentially be impacted by an oil spill. The

largest lakes are situated along the stretch from the airstrip to the mine site. These are

generally in a higher elevation and are affected by meltwater. Some are interconnect-

ed into waterways. The biota in the high elevation lakes is generally quite scarce, due

to harsh living conditions in these habitats.


7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF MARINE SPILLS

Spills of light oil (e.g. Arctic diesel) will disperse, degrade and evaporate faster than

crude oil or heavy oil types. Due to strong currents in Godthåbsfjord, spills will be

transported over long distances in short time, and the narrow fjord will make shoreline

contamination likely. Impacts have therefore to be considered as potentially causing

both marine and shoreline fouling.

Figure 7.1 Godthåbsfjord (June 2008) with the Innajaattoq Mountain to the right. The position of the photo standpoint is East of the mouth of the Qugssuk Fjord.

Tides are pronounced in the Godthåbsfjord system, including Qugssuk Fjord. The

maximum and minimum water levels registered over a year at the monitoring position

near the planned port site were +2.8 meters above mean sea level and –3.0 meters

below mean sea level. The daily variation is seen in Figure 7.2.


Figure 7.2 Variation in water level near Taserssuak Bay in the period June 2010 – July 2011.

The tides create strong oscillating currents throughout the fjord. Wave heights in the

inner part of Qugssuk Fjord, in the area of Taserssuak Bay, are moderate due to the

sheltered character of the fjord, but can presumably be higher in the main branch of

the Godthåbsfjord, depending on wind direction.

7.1 Scenarios for near shore – off shore spills

Shipping through Godthåbsfjord has a number of potential hazards. The hazards are

however not different from other ship routes in Arctic coastal areas, including routes to

a number of Greenlandic towns and settlements.

The most likely scenarios leading to spills are considered to be:

Unloading and operational spills

Accidental collisions (ship-ship, ship-icebergs) and groundings.

Unloading and operational spills. Most spills from tankers result from routine opera-

tions such as loading, discharging and bunkering which normally occur in ports or at

oil terminals. The majority of these operational spills are small, with some 91% involv-

ing quantities less than 7 tonnes /ITOPF statistics/. Particularly by the service wharf,

there is a risk of spillage directly into the fjord. Loss of chemicals into the fjord can also

occur through unloading accidents, although the discrete packaging and unloading will

limit the amount spilled.

Accidental causes, such as collisions and groundings, generally give rise to much

larger spills. In this type of accidental tanker incidents, at least 88% involve quantities

in excess of 700 tonnes /ITOPF statistics/. Accidents involving ships transporting

chemicals can also cause chemical spills. For the chemicals transported in discrete


packaging units, the quantity released into the environment might be limited, if pack-

aging units retain their integrity.

The iron product will generally be transported in vessels ranging from Panamax to

Capesize. For economics Panamax size vessels are considered the lower limit of ves-

sel size. London Mining has identified the recommended vessel size based on the

throughput and storage requirements, and have recommended a 250,000 DWT vessel

as the maximum design ship for the Isua development. However, given that ships of

this size are rare and generally associated with specific projects, the largest size of

ship that will likely call at the Taseraarssuk berth is the Large Capesize classification

with a DWT of 180,000 tonnes.

For other shipping requirements (such as consumables, spare parts, etc.) it will be as-

sumed that general cargo will be transported in 10,000 DWT vessels. Delivery of fuel

will be in 25,000 DWT tankers.

Ship type Approximate ton-

nage (DWT) Typical bunker

capacities (tonnes) Average bunker capaci-

ty (tonnes)

Handy Size 10,000-35,0000 900-1600 1200

Panamax Size 60,000-80,000 2000-3000 2500

Cape Size 150,000-200,000 2600-4700 3600

Large Cape Size 200,000 + 5000-7000 6000

Table 7.1 Bunker fuel capacities of ship types likely to be servicing the port at Taseraarssuk.

Apart from the Arctic diesel transported by tankers, the bunker fuel of all calling ships

must be considered in relation to possible spill scenarios. Bunker fuels are often heav-

ier fuel oils, which can have large impacts in the Arctic. In case of total foundering, the

amount of bunker oil that could potentially be released is large. See Table 7.1 for typi-

cal bunker capacities of ship types likely to call at the port. It should be noted that the

European Parliament is calling for a ban on heavy fuel oil on ships in the Arctic, like

the ban for Antarctica that came into effect on August 1st, 2011 /European Parliament

resolution 2011/.

Tankers and bulk carriers servicing the port terminal will be chartered vessels, and are

responsible for their own spill response arrangements while in transit to and from the

Isua site. London Mining will have specific terminal requirements to ensure vessels

coming to and from the facility will be in compliance with the Danish and International

Shipping Regulations.

Due to the special navigational conditions in Greenland, a safety package covering

special Greenland topics has been issued by the Danish Maritime Authorities (cf.

http://www.dma.dk/Ships/Sider/Greenlandwaters.aspx). The safety package includes

the following orders and recommendations relevant for the EIA:

Danish Maritime Authority Order no. 417 of 28. May 2009: “Order on technical

regulation on safety of navigation in Greenland territorial waters”.

http://www.dma.dk/Ships/Sider/Greenlandwaters.aspx


IMO recommendation A.1024(26). “Guidelines for ships operating in polar wa-

ters”.

A special agreement has been entered between BMP and the Danish Maritime Au-

thority regarding “Guideline on investigation of navigational safety issues in connection

with mineral exploitation projects in Greenland as basis for navigation in the opera-

tional phase” (2011). The guideline specifies the content of a navigational safety in-

vestigation to be carried out prior to exploitation activities.

Vessels appointed for the operations shall be ice classed and fulfill all maritime regula-

tions for transport in the area. Furthermore, ships entering Greenlandic waters have

captains and crews familiar with navigating in arctic areas.

The release of all oil in case of a total shipwreck will consequently not be of exorbitant

quantities and cannot be compared to wreckage of crude oil tankers (e.g. the Exxon

Valdez accident)

7.2 Seabirds and marine mammals

Birds are extremely vulnerable to oil spill in the marine environment. Most fatalities fol-

lowing oil spills are due to direct oiling of the plumage, but often many birds also die

from intoxication, hypothermia, starvation and drowning.

Marine mammals such as seals and whales are generally less sensitive to oiling than

many other marine organisms. Oil can irritate the eyes and to some extent the skin of

marine mammals. As they breathe in close to the surface, oil droplets and vapors can

cause respiratory effects, and in high concentrations even narcosis – with resultant

risk of drowning. The thick blubber layer of adult marine mammals will protect them

from the hypothermia effects of oil spills. Feeding might be suppressed in case of oil

spills, and ingestion can cause sublethal effects /NRT 2004/.

Diesel and most varieties of fuel oil float on water and affect animals that spend their

time on or at the surface of the water. Consequently seabirds which rest and dive from

the sea surface, such as black guillemots, sea duck, cormorants and divers are poten-

tially more exposed to floating oil, compared with birds which spend more time flying,

such as gulls.

Many seabirds aggregate in small and limited areas for certain periods of their life cy-

cles. Such high concentrations of seabirds are found around the colonies in the

Godthåbsfjord system during the summer months and in shallow sounds and bays

where large number of sea duck winter. Even small oil spills may cause very high mor-

tality among birds in such areas. The seabird species most vulnerable to oil spills are

those with low reproductive capacity and correspondingly high average lifespan i.e.

low population turnover /Boertmann & Mosbech 2011/.

In the context of the Godthåbsfjord system such life strategies are found only among a

limited number of the breeding seabirds, such as the black guillemot. However, the

large numbers of common eider (mainly from breeding areas outside the fjord system)

which winter in the fjord also have relatively low population turnover and do not breed


before 3 – 4 years of age. These sea ducks are therefore also very vulnerable to adult

mortalities caused, for example, by an oil spill.

Larger spills of the chemicals transported can have adverse affects, depending on the

toxicity and bioaccumulation of the spilled chemicals. However, the quantities released

will likely be quite small, and the large volume of the fjord would mean that dilution and

dispersal would likely mitigate the effects.

7.3 Fouling of coastal areas

Most of the Godthåbsfjord shoreline is rocky and the intertidal organisms found here

are commonly exposed to the scouring effects of sea ice. As wave action can clean

away spill residues, wave-exposed shores are not all that sensitive to oil spills. How-

ever, sheltered rocky shores will be in contact with spills for longer, and effects on in-

vertebrate fauna can potentially affect the ecological balance of the shore. In the con-

fines of estuaries, even relatively small oil spills can wipe out whole populations of cer-

tain organisms, thus upsetting the food chain there for years to come. The fine silty

shorelines and marshes are also much more difficult to clean properly /Yoshioka and

Carpenter 2002; Oberrecht 2004/.

7.4 Sensitivity of marine features to oil spills

Some areas in Qugssuk Fjord are considered capelin beach-spawning grounds. West

Greenland capelin do not migrate far to spawning grounds in very shallow water (0-10

m), but are from summer to winter well dispersed in deeper parts of the fjords and

bays and along coasts and over banks /Friis-Rødel and Kanneworff 2002/. The

spawning grounds are very sensitive to oil spills as crude oil spills resulting in concen-

trations of 40μg/L of PAH’s or 55μg/L pyrene in the seawater significantly increases

embryonic mortality rates and decreases hatching success, indicating that a potential

oil spill in the vicinity of capelin spawning grounds may cause significant impacts

/Frantze et al. 2011/.


8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Many mitigating measures have already been incorporated into the Isua Project de-

sign. See Appendix 1 to this annex for Process Flow Diagrams containing mitigation

elements in the design.

The following summarised impact assessments take these measures into account,

and suggest further mitigations, if applicable.

8.1 Phrases and methodology

The information is summarized in an ‘Impact Assessment Table’ (see example in Fig-

ure 8.1). The impact table identifies (1) the phase of the mine operation in which the

impact could occur, (2) the spatial extent (size of area) of the impact, (3) the duration

and reversibility of the impact, (4) the significance to the environment, (5) the probabil-

ity that the impact will occur, and (6) the confidence by which the assessment has

been made.

This is followed by a list of proposed mitigating measures (if relevant) and a bar with

an assessment of the spatial extent, duration, significance, probability and confidence

when mitigation has been taken into account.

For the purpose of this EIA study the following terminologies are used in the Impact

Assessment Table:

Spatial scale of the impact:

Project area; that is within the footprint of the mine project, i.e. confined to the ac-tivities per see, the infrastructure itself and the very close vicinity hereof (few hun-dreds of meters away),

Locally; within a few km from the activity (about 0 - 5 km), including the road-pipeline corridor,

Regional; within a distance up to 50 – 75 km from the project area and along

Godthåbsfjord coastline.

Duration (reversibility)

Duration means the time horizon for the impact. The term also includes the degree of

reversibility, i.e. to what extent the impact is temporary or permanent (i.e. irreversible)

Short term; the impact last for a short period without any irreversible effects

Medium Term; the impact will last for a period of months or years but without per-manent effects or definitely without irreversible effects

Long term; the impact will be long lasting (> 15 years) e.g. cover the entire lifetime of the operational phase. Permanent and close to irreversible effects might be as-certained.

Permanent; the impact will last for many decades and have irreversible character.

Significance of the impact:

Very low; very small/brief elevation of contaminates in local air/terrestrial/freshwater/marine environment by non-toxic substances (when con-


cerning emissions) and decline/displacement of a few (non-key) animal and plant species from mine site and/or loss of habitat in the mine area (when concerning disturbance)

Low: small elevation of contaminates in local air/terrestrial/freshwater/marine envi-ronment by non-toxic substances (when concerning emissions) and de-cline/displacement of a Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC) that is a key animal and/or plant species and/or loss of habitat in the project area (when concerning disturbance)

Medium: some elevation (above baseline, national or international guidelines) of contaminates in local or regional air/terrestrial/freshwater/marine environment in-cluding toxic substances or decline/displacement of VECs such as key animal and/or plant species and/or loss of habitat at local level.

High; significant elevation of contaminates (above baseline, national or interna-tional guidelines) in local and regional air/terrestrial/freshwater/marine environment including toxic substances or decline/displacement of VECs such as key animal and/or plant species and/or loss of habitat at regional level.

Probability that the impact will occur:

Improbable (i.e. less than one event per 100 years)

Possible ( i.e. in the order of one event per 10 – 100 years)

Probable (i.e. event will occur from time to time with a 10 year horizon)

Definite (i.e. constantly or with certain defined frequencies)

Confidence that the assessment is correct:

Low - data are weak.

Medium - data from Greenland or other parts of the High Arctic (in particular Can-ada) points to the conclusion.

High – data from similar experiences in arctic regions and statistics are conclusive.


Impact during phases of the life of mine

Construction Operation Closure Post-closure

Importance of impact without mitigation

Spatial extent Duration Significance Probability Confidence

Regional Short term Medium Definite High

Mitigation measures

During detailed design and sighting of infrastructure avoid as far as possible areas

with continuous vegetation. This can be done by fine-scale mapping of sensitive

areas around the power plant, access roads and port.

Importance of impact with mitigation


Local Short term Low Possible High

Figure 8.1 Example of impact table.

In this example, the dark shaded bar would indicate that the impact is mainly applicable to the construction phase of the mine project with minor applicability during operation (light shading) and no applicability at closure and post-closure (no shading). Without mitigating the activity will have a Regional impact, a short term duration and have Medium impact on the environment. It is further definitive that the impact will take place and the confidence of this assessment is high i.e. it is based on robust data. With mitigation in place, the activity will have only Local impact, short term duration and have Low impact.

8.2 Impact assessment - land

Spills of oil products or chemicals can occur along the land transport routes, from un-

loading from supply ships to fuel tanks at the mine site. However, the areas of the

highest spill probability are considered to be at either end terminal, where immediate

action can be taken to mitigate the effects.

The minor volumes of individual chemical containers and tank trucks will limit the po-

tential impacts of accidents during truck haulage. Furthermore, many chemicals are

transported in dry form which, unless spillage is into local water ways, will reduce

spread of spills.

Ruptures of the oil pipeline are unlikely. If they do occur, block valves every 10 kilome-

tres and fast control system response times will mean that any fuel spills will be less

than 180 m3. Ruptures of the slurry pipeline are also unlikely, and the slurry can delib-

erately be diverted into controlled dump pits along the route. See Appendix 2 to this

annex for technical details of the pipelines.

Large scale ruptures of storage tanks are unlikely, and containment berms will prevent

spills spreading.

Overall, the likelihood of a major spill occurring on land or into local fresh water re-

sources is not high, but contingencies need to be worked out. Lesser operational spills

are more likely to occur, but the effects are likely to be localised, and comparatively

easy to combat.


In case of fuel spills on land, the most obvious way of dealing with it will be mechani-

cal removal, possibly in combination with either natural or accelerated in situ degrada-

tion.

In conclusion: The environmental impacts of chemical of fuel spills on land are as-

sessed to be confined to the project area or to a narrow corridor of a few km around

the project activities (i.e. local scale). Spills affecting rivers courses in summer periods

with high flows might spread downstream the spill location and increase the affected

area if no mitigating measures are in place.

Effects of spills on soil, subsurface vegetation, animals and birds might be observed

and some effects might be of long term or medium term duration before full or partial

recovery is obtained. The effect will not - or only to a minor extent - impact animals or

birds on population level.

The overall environmental assessment of spills on land is condensed into Figure 8.2

and Figure 8.3.

Theme: Fuel and chemical spills in relation to unloading and storage on land





Project area Long term Low Probable High

Mitigation measures

Prepare contingency plans in collaboration with appropriate authorities. Efficient

combat organisation in place. Proper equipment readily available.

Possible treatment of smaller oil spills with fertilizer to accelerate microbial oil

break down.



Project area Medium term Low Probable High

Figure 8.2 Impact assessment of fuel and chemical spills in connection with unloading and stor-age on land.


Theme: Fuel and chemical spills in relation to transport by road and pipeline on land





Local Medium Term Medium Possible High

Mitigation measures

Prepare contingency plans in collaboration with appropriate authorities. Efficient

combat organisation in place.

Maintaining rapid response abilities along the road/pipelines. This could include re-

sponse materials prepacked in containers and kept at project sites, which are

ready to load onto trucks, or be airlifted by helicopter.

Contingency for transporting contaminated snow and ice back to port site for melt-

ing and passing through water/oil separators and/or incineration.

Working out differentiated spill procedures for spills in various habitats, such as

mechanical removal of contaminated snow/ice in winter, and ground in summer.



Local Short term Low Possible High

Figure 8.3 Impact assessment of fuel and chemical spills in connection with transport by road and pipeline on land.

8.3 Impact assessment - marine

The marine sensitivity to oil spills depends on the oil types as well as the off shore/

near shore and coastal area conditions.

Recalling that the overall risk of an oil spill is:

risk = likelihood x consequences

the consequences of a large oil spill caused by a shipping accident can be very high,

particularly if a tanker spills a large quantity of Arctic diesel fuel, or if a large bulk carri-

er spills a large portion of its bunker oil. In respect to the latter, it should be noted that

ships will not arrive with fuel quantities equal to their full bunker capacity, as they will

already have consumed parts in transit to Godthåbsfjord.

If all maritime regulations are followed, and shipping lanes are well placed, the likeli-

hood of a full scale accident happening is deemed to be very low and phrased as ‘im-

probable’.

In contrast to spills caused by ship accidents, the likelihood of spills caused by opera-

tional events is higher, although the quantities of spilled oil are usually smaller than in


spills caused by shipping accidents. The causes can be human failures, malfunctions

of valves, rupture of hoses, etc. This calls for mitigating measures targeting operation-

al spills.

In conclusion: A marine spill in Godthåbsfjord will be subject to pronounced oscillating

tidal currents. Therefore, oily surface layers will spread over considerable distances

and shoreline contamination is likely. The effects of chemicals spilled in the marine ar-

ea are probably less severe due to the considerable volume of the fjord and the re-

sultant dilution potential.

The time horizon for severe effects of arctic diesel fuel spills will be fairly short com-

pared to heavy bunker oil types used by approaching bulk carriers. A spill of bunker oil

might last for many months especially if the oil has fouled sheltered and shallow areas

or spilled in periods with fast ice.

In general, effects of oil spills on seabirds and marine mammals are well documented.

In Godthåbsfjord, a few seabird species are assessed to be particular vulnerable to

spills due to low reproductive capacity (e.g. black guillemot and common eider). These

species are however common in many Greenlandic waters and not exclusively seen in

Godthåbsfjord. Marine mammals (seals and whales) are common in Godthåbsfjord but

the fjord is not specifically considered a focal area of these species.

The overall environmental assessment of spills in the Godthåbsfjord is condensed into

Figure 8.4 and Figure 8.5.


Theme: Operational fuel and chemical spills in relation to marine environment





Regional Short term Medium Probable High

Mitigation measures

Prepare incident- and season-dependant contingency plans including efficient com-

bat readiness training.

Allocate properly dimensioned equipment to cope with operational spills from un-

loading operations at the port area

Consider deploying precautionary containment booms around all larger berthed

ships, or only around ships unloading environmentally hazardous products.

Having extra booms and skimmers ready

Having procedures for operational spills in sea ice

Having procedures for detecting operational spills



Local Short term Low Probable High

Figure 8.4 Impact assessment of operational fuel and chemical spills in connection with the ma-rine environment.


Theme: Accidental spills of fuel and chemicals in relation to marine environment





Regional Medium term High Possible High

Mitigation measures

Prepare contingency plans in collaboration with appropriate authorities, including

efficient combat organisation collaboration and contingencies for incident-

dependant import of proper dimensioned equipment to cope with large scale spills

Conduct navigational safety survey

Impose navigational speed restrictions

Compulsory pilotage

Separating shipping lanes

Iceberg and growler surveillance by sending a helicopter or high speed vessel to

scout the shipping lane in advance of larger ships.

Having contingency plans for spills of the size possible in relation to the project.

Having sufficient materials for some response options, e.g. a helitorch for igniting

oil spills, while other response options may require subsequent import of equip-

ment, e.g. large scale deployment of skimmers.



Regional Medium term Low Improbable High

Figure 8.5 Impact assessment of accidental fuel and chemical spills in connection with the marine environment.


9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

9.1 Conceptual framework for contingency plans

Present contingency plans for Greenland will likely not be sufficient for dealing with all

spills that could arise as a consequence of the Isua Project. It is therefore suggested

that new contingency plans are drafted, which take into account the large quantities of

fuel and chemicals handled in the project. This includes determining how much spill

combating equipment and materials should be kept on site and be incorporated into

rapid response training – including, but not discussed further here, personal safety

equipment. Areas for which such contingency plans especially need to be drafted are

the port area and the fjords connected with shipping routes as well as on-land combat

and contingency plans.

Several oil combating methods can be used in case of spills, but response options for

both large and small spills in Arctic environments vary depending on seasonal ocean-

ographic and meteorological environments. Each season presents different ad-

vantages and drawbacks for spill responses /U.S. DIMMS 2009/.

Open water spills in Arctic regions are treated the same as in temperate and tropical

climates. The only differences are the temperature of the water, associated safety is-

sues, and the remoteness of the region.

Drifting ice and limited site access during freeze-up and break-up restrict the possible

response options and significantly reduce recovery effectiveness.

Fast ice provides a stable cover that not only naturally contains the oil within a rela-

tively small area but also provides a safe working platform for oil recovery and

transport.

Figure 9.1 Under ice spills behave differently depending on oil types and local conditions (Source: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme)


Generally spills in ice tend not to spread as much as open water spills. However,

when spills are hidden under ice sheets they can be difficult to locate and map, see

Figure 9.1. Ground Penetrating Radar is a useful operational tool to reliably detect and

map oil trapped in, under, on, or among ice. In the case of spills under or on fast ice,

there is a range of effective countermeasure options that can result in very high re-

covery effectiveness. Countermeasures to deal with spills in moving pack ice are

much more limited and will likely result in highly variable recovery values depending

on a variety of natural conditions, logistical constraints, and the type of oil spilled.

The available oil combating options have their strengths and weaknesses:

Nets and other collection devices can be used if the pour point of spilled oil is 5 to 10

degrees above the ambient water temperature, as this means the oil can solidify. This

will not be the case for Arctic diesel, but might be applicable for heavier bunker oils.

Mechanical removal of non-solidified oil typically involves skimmers. Two main types

of mechanical removal are adhesion- and suction skimming. They work by letting oil

adhere to an oleophilic surface, and scraping it into a collector, or by using vacuum

suction to suck only from the surface where oil is naturally gathered. Skimmers work

relatively well on ice free water, and has low environmental side effects. However,

skimmers do not function well in ice filled waters.

In situ burning of spills can be carried on the surface, if it does not pose a threat for

the vessel or port site. A spill of weathered oil or diesel needs a slick thickness of 2-5

mm and wind speeds under 10-12 m/s and will therefore not always be possible. Burn-

ing removes most of the spilled oil, leaving a little solid burn residue. Burning produces

1-3% soot, which causes some air pollution. Burning is considered a viable option in

the Arctic, as low ambient temperatures do not pose problems once ignition is accom-

plished, and efficiency can be very high.

Dispersants work by dispersing the oil into smaller droplets which can enter the water

column and biodegrade faster. The active parts of dispersants, the Surface Active

Components, are compounds also used in cosmetics and food industries because of

low toxicity and high biodegradability. While dispersants remove oil from the surface

and enhance overall biodegradation, the resultant underwater plume increases con-

centrations of oil in the water column. This may impact marine organisms, such as fish

and marine invertebrates, which respire through gills, and increase the uptake of toxic

water soluble oil factions by these animals. Before using dispersants the following

must be considered:

Expected effectiveness of the dispersant on the particular oil type and weath-ering degree

Natural resources threatened by the drifting surface oil slick (e.g. bird/seal habitats)

Natural resources affected by the dispersed oil plume before being diluted (e.g. fish spawning grounds)

Is the existing water depth and water circulation sufficient for rapid dilution of dispersed oil?


Dispersants provide an invaluable third response option when strong winds and sea

conditions make mechanical cleanup and in situ burn techniques unsafe and/or inef-

fective.

Apart from this, other obvious mitigating measures that could minimize the likelihood

of failures, includes having alarms for spills and enacting contingency plans for various

spills, which should be well prepared and rehearsed in fast response training.

9.2 Conceptual framework for mitigating measures

Many mitigating measures and precautions are already incorporated into the Isua Pro-

ject’s design, such as leak detection systems and block valves on the pipelines, oil

separators on the storm water drains, containment berms around storage tanks, etc.

Other mitigating measures are mentioned in the impact assessment summary tables.

9.3 Conceptual framework for monitoring

Technical monitoring of pipelines is expected to be conducted through the projects

control systems. Reagents and fuels handled in smaller quantities will likely not be un-

der scrutiny of the control systems, but are expected to be kept track of through inven-

tory monitoring.

It is suggested that spill specific monitoring programs are implemented following any

larger accident scenarios on land or into freshwater sources.

Furthermore, in the marine areas most likely to be affected, such as the port site, it is

suggested that baseline levels of PAHs, PCBs and POP’s (Persistent Organic Pollu-

tants) in sediments and selected marine organisms are determined prior to the Isua

project, and that biological monitoring of these and other key parameters is carried out

yearly throughout the duration of the project. Spill specific monitoring programs are

suggested in case of larger marine spills in connection with the Isua Project.


REFERENCES

AMAP 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. Xii+859 pp.

Asuenco PSI report/presentation

Banks D., Yonger P.L., Arnesen R. Iversen E.R., Banks S.B., Mine-water chemistry:

the good, the bad and the ugly. Environmentla Geology 32 (3) 1997, pp.157-173

Bay, C. 1997. Effects of experimental spills of crude and diesel oil on arctic vegetation.

A long-term study on high arctic terrestrial plant communities in Jameson Land, cen-

tral East Greenland. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark. 44 pp. –

NERI Technical Report, no 205.

BFS, 2012. Isua Iron Ore Project – 15 Mtpa Bankable Feasibility Study, prepared by

SNC Lavalin for London Mining Plc. 2012

Boertmann, D. & Mosbech, A. (eds.) 2011. Eastern Baffin Bay - A strategic environ-

mental impact assessment of hydrocarbon activities. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish

Centre for Environment and Energy, 270 pp. - Scientific Report from DCE – Danish

Centre for Environment and Energy no. 9.

DMU Technical report nr. 664. Johansen P, Aastrup P, Boertmann D, Glahder C, Jo-hansen K, Nymand J, Rasmussen LM and Tamstorf M. 2008. Amuminiumssmelter og vandkraft i det centrale Vestgrønland. 110 p.

EPA spill reports. http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2011 on a sustainable EU policy for the High North (2009/2214(INI)) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0024&language=EN&ring=A7-2010-0377

Frantzen M, Falk-Petersen IB, Nahrgang J, Smith TJ, Olsen GH, Hangstad TA, Ca-

mus L. Toxicity of crude oil and pyrene to the embryos of beach spawning capelin

(Mallotus villosus). Aquat Toxicol. 2011 Oct 8. [Epub ahead of print]

Friis-Rødel E., Kanneworff P.2002. A review of capelin (Mallotus villosus) in Green-

land waters. Journal of Marine Science 59. Pp. 890-896.

Forsvarsministeriet: Risikoanalyse Olie- og kemikalieforurening i danske farvande. 2007. Udarbejdet af COWI.

GINR and NERI, 2010. Poster: “Caribou and Vegetation” prepared by Josephine Ny-mand (GIRN), Poul Johansen (NERI) and Peter Aastrup (NERI), Alcoa project, 2010

Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D.Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Envi-

ronmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service,Water Resources Divi-

sion, Fort Collins, Colorado.

http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=en&procnum=INI/2009/2214

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0024&language=EN&ring=A7-2010-0377

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0024&language=EN&ring=A7-2010-0377

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Frantzen%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Falk-Petersen%20IB%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Nahrgang%20J%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Smith%20TJ%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Olsen%20GH%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hangstad%20TA%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Camus%20L%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Camus%20L%22%5BAuthor%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22037118


ITOPF statistics: http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-

statistics/statistics/#causes

McKendrick JM and Mitchell WMM. 1978. Fertilizing and seeding oil-damaged Arctic

tundra to effect vegetation recovery Prudhoe Bay. Alaska. Arctic Vol. 31, No. 3,

Pp.296-304.

NERI Technical report No. 415. ‘Potential environmental impacts of oil spills in

Greeenland. An assessment of information status and research needs. (2002). Editor:

Mosbech, A. National Environmental Research Institute. 118 p.

Nielsen SS, Mosbech A and Hinkler J. 2000. Fiskeriressourcer på det lave vand i Vestgrønland. - En interviewundersøgelse om forekomsten af lodde, stenbider og ør-red - Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. Arbejdsrapport fra DMU nr. 118 NRT 2004. National Response Team Pamphlet: What are the Effects of Oil on Marine Mammals?. ( http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/resources/RRTIV-Pamphlets/$File/4_RRT4_Mammal_Pamphlet.pdf) Oberrecht K. 2004. Oil Pollution in Estuaries. Oregon Government Website.

http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/SSNERR/docs/EFS/EFS16oilpoll.pdf?ga=t

Peres, A, Agarwal, N, Bartalini, N & Beda, D. 2000. Environmental impact of an etheramine utilized as flotation collector. - Proceedings, 7th International Mine Water Association Congress: 464-471, 2 tab.; Ustron. http://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2000/IMWA2000_42.pdf

Sandvik KL, Dybdahl BA. 1979. Upgrading og taconite concentrate to direct reduction

specifications by flotation. Presented at AIME-University of Minnesota Symposium in

Duluth, Minnesota, January 10-12, 1979. P.17.

Sun Z and Forsling W. 1997. The degradation kinetics of ethyl-xanthate as a function

of pH in aqueous solution. Minerals Engineering Vol. 10 Pp. 389-400.

UNIS Arctic Technology-207 course material.

U.S. DIMMS, 2009: Arctic Oil Spill Response Research and Development Program: A

decade of achievement. 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Mangement

Service.

(http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/arcticoilspillresponseresearch.htm)

Yoshioka G, Carpenter M. 2004. Characteristics of Reported Inland and Coastal Oil

Spills. ICF Consulting.http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss02/carpenterpaper.pdf

http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/resources/RRTIV-Pamphlets/$File/4_RRT4_Mammal_Pamphlet.pdf

http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/RRTHome.nsf/resources/RRTIV-Pamphlets/$File/4_RRT4_Mammal_Pamphlet.pdf

http://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2000/IMWA2000_42.pdf

http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojectcategories/arcticoilspillresponseresearch.htm

http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss02/carpenterpaper.pdf


APPENDIX 1 – PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS

Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) showing mitigating measures already implemented in

project design for handling hydrocarbons and reagents.

PFD Document Number Description PFD source PDF

Page

505076-1100-49D1-0001_01 Mine dewatering SNC Lavalin 1

505076-1300-49D1-0001_01 Diesel fuel storage and distribution at mine SNC Lavalin 2

505076-3400-49D1-0013_01 Reagents (sheet 1 of 4) SNC Lavalin 3




505076-3600-49D1-0004_01 Plant utility, seal & fire water treatment &

distribution

SNC Lavalin 7

505076-3800-49D1-0001_01 Plant diesel fuel storage SNC Lavalin 8

505076-3800-49D1-0002_01 Plant power generation plant & heat recov-

ery

SNC Lavalin 9

505076-3800-49D1-0004_01 Process plant infrastructure oily water

treatment

SNC Lavalin 10

505076-6800-49D1-0001_01 Port diesel & jet fuel receiving diesel pipe-

line

SNC Lavalin 11

505076-6800-49D1-0002_01 Port power generation plant & heat recov-

ery system

SNC Lavalin 12

505076-6800-49D1-0003_01 Port waste water treatment SNC Lavalin 13

505076-6800-49D1-0004_01 Port infrastructure oily water treatment SNC Lavalin 14

505076-3500-49D1-0001_01 Product thickening SNC Lavalin 15

505076-3500-49D1-0002_01 Tailings thickening SNC Lavalin 15


APPENDIX 2 – PIPELINES AND DUMP PITS TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Information from the pipelines subcontractor Ausenco PSI on location and type of slur-

ry pipeline dump pits; pressure-temperature monitoring locations; operations control;

as well as project risks & mitigation.

Document page number Description Source PDF

Page

20 Dump pits, map Ausenco PSI 1

21 Dump pits, location table Ausenco PSI 2

23 Dump pits, example diagram Ausenco PSI 3

29 Pressure-temperature monitoring locations Ausenco PSI 4

30 Project risks & mitigation Ausenco PSI 5

31 Project risks & mitigation Ausenco PSI 6

36 Slurry pipeline operations & pipeline control Ausenco PSI 7


APPENDIX 3 – MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS ON REAGENTS AND FUEL

Data sheets on reagents and fuel products are gathered from a world marked gross

list of potential suppliers and producers and shall not be considered as pre-selected

supplier.

Data sheets are considered indicative for the various products that might be used in

the Isua Iron Ore Project.

Fuel type - Reagent Used for Material Safety

Data Sheet source

No. of

pages

Arctic Diesel Fuel Fuel used in power plant, mobile equip-

ment, explosives

Irving 3

Jet Fuel A-1 Aviation turbine fuel Irving 9

Bunker C / Fuel no. 6 Ship fuel (cargo ships, etc). Other type of

bunker fuel might also be used

HESS 9

Sulphuric Acid Sulphur flotation – pH reduction Acinor AS 6

Xanthate (PAX-Potassium Amyl Xan-

thate;Potasium Isoamyl xanthate)

Sulphide flotation Flottec LLC 6

Xanthate (Sodium ethyl Xanthate) Sulphide flotation CoogeeChemicals 5

Amine (Flotigam EDA) Silica flotation Clariant 4

Frother (Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol –

MIBC)

Throughout flotation steps reducing bubble

size, etc

Haltermann 4

Hydrated Lime (Calcium hydroxide) pH increase in silica flotation Cemex 10

Caustic Soda (Sodium hydroxide) pH increase in silica flotation ReAgent 4

Corn Starch Depressant used in silica flotation Casco Inc 3

Flocculation agent – Magnafloc 338 Thickener used in tailing slurry BASF 6

Flocculation agen – Magnafloc 1011 Thickener used in product slurry and filtrate BASF 6

Ammonium nitrate (blasting) Explosives used in open pit mine for blast-

ing

Sciencelab

Terra

6

9

isua iron ore project oil and chemicals and...

Documents