WHAT DOES GORDY SAY ABOUT THIS?
GORDY SAYS... HE'S JUST WRONG.. HOW ELOQUENT HE IS.
PSSTT GORDY? THIS GUY KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. DO YOU?
THIS LETTER ARRIVED IN MY EMAIL ONE DAY. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE IT WITH THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS NO
PROOF THAT THE MINE WILL LEAK.
I SAY THERE IS PROOF--YOU ARE JUST NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT IT.
Top Independent Expert on Adams Mine Condemns Proposal to Put Wastes and
Predicts a disaster for those south and southeast in the Timiskaming region
and beyond, as far as to the mouth of the Ottawa River
Dr Larry Jensen has worked for the Ontario Geological Survey for 30 years and
was responsible for the Kirkland Lake Area. His PhD studies were on the
geology in the Kirkland Lake Area and he followed this up with 30 years of
fields investigation in the Kirkland Lake Area.. He was not included in the
Scoped EA. In his own words:
I worked 4-5 months every summer in the Kirland Lake area from 1965 to 1996
for the Ontario Government. I know the people as well as the rocks, gold,
trees, and water. I did the geology that lead to the development of a new
mining camp 40 km north of Kirkland Lake. It is known as the Harker Holloway
Mining Camp. I had my tent in the wilderness on the ore body. Now it is a
small city. Later, I went on to spent a hell of a lot more time on the Adams
Mine Area to locate additional mineral ore bodies including gold, than I did
on the Harker -Holloway Camp.
In an August 2, 2000 letter to Toronto that was summarily ignored, he expressed
his concerns about the project.
Dear Mayor Mel Lastman
The Adam's Mine Garbage Dump Proposal is a disaster for the not too distant
future, perhaps not for the residents of Kirkland Lake itself, but for all
those people and the wild life to the south and southeast in the Timiskaming
region and beyond, as far as to the mouth of the Ottawa River - an area
hundreds of times larger than Toronto itself.
From 1978 to 1985, I geologically mapped the Adam Mine and all its
surrounding territory from Highway 11 to the Quebec Boundary for the Ontario
Geological Survey as a provincial geologist.
For two to three years I worked closely with Keith Oliver, the mine engineer
(mainly for access to the property which I certainly appreciated). I
continued to study and give guided geological tours of the mine and the area
for years after the mine officially closed. The mine operated from about 5
different pits toward the latter part of its life. The biggest (deepest)
pits were the Central and South Pits. The other pits were the Peria Pit,
and North Pit and a small pit, all of which were not so deep but long and
narrow. The Central Pit and probably the South Pit will be used for the
garbage dump.
When the Central Pit was operating water was entering from the sides
of the pit at most bench levels. At what the rate in volume of water was,
is uncertain, ( Keith Oliver could possibly answer that question), but it
was undoubtedly several hundreds of gallons per day or more. When the pit
was abandoned, the lower 2-3 benches filled rapidly. Then I observed a few
months later, that pit was not filling as fast as one would expect and I
still could study and show features that I expected to be underwater from
the "look out" bench. This indicated to me that water was draining from the
pit before it was even half full as the pit does not narrow that greatly with
depth. i.e.Water was flowing thought the pit, hundreds of feet below its
opening at surface as the pressure of the water from one side (presumably the
northern side) was pushing out the water in the pit, out the other side
(presumably the south side) toward the lower elevated land to the south
(farm land) . (No problem - it was clean water). At what depth was the water
escaping the pit? At any depth, even the bottom, as long as the pressure
was sufficient. After 5 years or more, the pit was far from filled with
water (150 to 200 feet from surface) although one could still see water
entering the pit. To this day, that pit is still not filled with water and
no surface water runs from it no matter how much it rains or snows from year
to year. Water passes through that pit from top to bottom through fractures
in the Precambrian granitoid and volcanic rocks. There are both large and
small porous fractures present, most of which are vertical to subvertical
old slip zones.
I understand that this pit is to be lined with gravel which is very porous.
(It would be nearly impossible to lined it with any material anyway as some
wall rocks are loose). To avoid any water escaping, the pit should be lined
with some impervious material resistant to corrosion. To avoid water pressure
, a pumping system must be built at the bottom of the pit with an drainage
system that can be physically accessed by humans and monitored in all parts
of the pit at its bottom, and similar humanly accessible drainage systems
be established at 20 meter levels as the pit fills to avoid the lateral
escape of contaminated water.
For this type of drainage system a permanent shaft would have to be
constructed, as water must be pushed up by pumps. Water can only be sucked
up 32 feet. It would also mean that someone will have to pay for the pumping
system to maintain it and keep it operating for the next thousand year after
the dump has been abandoned. Or at least until all the cadmium, lead and
other leachates have finally been leached out of the mass. Who will pay for
this? Or will it be a "clean up job" for future tax payers? Even this will
not be a guarantee that the ground water and streams in the Timiskaming
region will not be contaminated, even if there are no major accidents, power
failures or machine malfunctioning or human mistakes.
The other question is how well will the water pumped out of the pit be
purified. It is certainly not enough to just chlorinate the water. Unlike
the clay in Michigan and Southern Ontario, the glacial material south of
the mine is gravely till devoid of any calcium and magnesium carbonate to
neutralize the acidity of the water and help absorb many of the contaminants.
That is why the northern lakes are becoming acid with the acid rain. Who
is going to keep the purification plant maintained and operating for the next
1000 years?
I have remained neutral and out of the argument during the past few years
because I thought that no one would give the proposal a second thought except
for a few mining promoters looking for a quick dollar. Anybody with a bit of
common sense would realize the obvious dangers. But I guess "common sense"
does not have the same meaning that I was taught in school a few years ago.
If I can be of help, I am available for consultation and testimony. I am a
registered professional geologist. I worked with the Ontario Government for
over 30 years in that capacity. I recently took early retirement but I remain
as a registered professional. My PhD thesis was the detailed study of the
rock formations of the whole Kirkland Lake area. The above are my
professional observations and opinions.
Voting for the development of a Toronto garbage disposal site at the Adams
Mine Site which has the high potential to pollute an area many times the
size of Toronto, may be economically expedient but it is morally
unconscionable. Because I have already notified most members of Toronto City Council, of my
professional opinion, copies of this letter will be sent to New Liskard, and
other northern groups to provide a basis of legal action either before or
after pollution starts to affect the ground water in the area if the motion
to relocate the dump in Kirkland Lake passes in the Toronto City Council.
Toronto has been made aware that it will definitely pollute the ground water
following this action. The cleanup will not be peanuts and it will be your
legacy.
Sincerely
Dr. Larry Jensen
Mississauga, Ontario
