Hubbry Logo
TailingsTailingsMain
Open search
Tailings
Community hub
Tailings
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tailings
Tailings
Tailings
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Pollution
Air pollution from a factory
Air
Biological
Digital
Electromagnetic
Natural
Noise
Radiation
Soil
Solid waste
Space
Thermal
Visual
War
Water
Topics
Misc
Lists
Categories

In mining, tailings or tails are the materials left over after the process of separating the valuable fraction from the uneconomic fraction (gangue) of an ore. Tailings are different from overburden, which is the waste rock or other material that overlies an ore or mineral body and is displaced during mining without being processed. Waste valorization is the evaluation of waste and residues from an economic process in order to determine their value in reuse or recycling, as what was gangue at the time of separation may increase with time or more sophisticated recovery processes.

The extraction of minerals from ore can be done two ways: placer mining, which uses water and gravity to concentrate the valuable minerals, or hard rock mining, which pulverizes the rock containing the ore and then relies on chemical reactions to concentrate the sought-after material. In the latter, the extraction of minerals from ore requires comminution, i.e., grinding the ore into fine particles to facilitate extraction of the target element(s). Because of this comminution, tailings consist of a slurry of fine particles, ranging from the size of a grain of sand to a few micrometres.[1] Mine tailings are usually produced from the mill in slurry form, which is a mixture of fine mineral particles and water.[2]

Since most of the deposits with the highest mineral concentrations have already been mined, deposits with lower concentrations are now being mined, producing a proportionally larger amount of tailings.[3]

Tailings are likely to be dangerous sources of toxic chemicals such as heavy metals, sulfides, and radioactive content. These chemicals are especially dangerous when stored in water in ponds behind tailings dams. These ponds are also vulnerable to major breaches or leaks from the dams, causing environmental disasters, such as the Mount Polley disaster in British Columbia. Because of these and other environmental concerns such as groundwater leakage, toxic emissions and bird death, tailing piles and ponds have received more scrutiny, especially in developed countries, but the first UN-level standard for tailing management was only established 2020.[4]

There are a wide range of methods for recovering economic value, containing, or otherwise mitigating the impacts of tailings. However, internationally, these practices are poor, sometimes violating human rights.

Terminology

[edit]

Tailings are also called mine dumps, culm dumps, slimes, refuse, leach residue, slickens, or terra-cone (terrikon).[citation needed]

Examples

[edit]

Sulfide minerals

[edit]

The effluent from the tailings from the mining of sulfidic minerals has been described as "the largest environmental liability of the mining industry".[5] These tailings contain large amounts of pyrite (FeS2) and Iron(II) sulfide (FeS), which are rejected from the sought-after ores of copper and nickel, as well as coal. Although harmless underground, these minerals are reactive toward air in the presence of microorganisms, which if not properly managed lead to acid mine drainage.

Yellow boy in a stream receiving acid mine drainage from surface coal mining

Phosphate rock mining

[edit]
Phosphogypsum stack located near Fort Meade, Florida. These contain the waste byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Between 100 million and 280 million tons of phosphogypsum waste are estimated to be produced annually as a consequence of the processing of phosphate rock for the production of phosphate fertilizers.[6] In addition to being useless and abundant, phosphogypsum is radioactive due to the presence of naturally occurring uranium, thorium, and their daughter isotopes. Depending on the price achievable on the uranium market, extraction of the uranium content may be economically lucrative even absent other incentives, such as reducing the harm the radioactive heavy metals do to the environment.

Aluminium

[edit]

Bauxite tailings is a waste product generated in the industrial production of aluminium. Making provision for the approximately 70 million tonnes (150 billion pounds) that is produced annually is one of the most significant problems in aluminium manufacturing.[7]

Red mud

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Red mud.[edit]
Red mud near Stade (Germany)
Bauxite, an aluminium ore (Hérault department, France). The reddish colour is due to iron oxides that make up the main part of the red mud.

Red mud, now more frequently termed bauxite residue, is an industrial waste generated during the processing of bauxite into alumina using the Bayer process. It is composed of various oxide compounds, including the iron oxides which give its red colour. Over 97% of the alumina produced globally is through the Bayer process; for every tonne (2,200 lb) of alumina produced, approximately 1 to 1.5 tonnes (2,200 to 3,300 lb) of red mud are also produced; the global average is 1.23. Annual production of alumina in 2023 was over 142 million tonnes (310 billion pounds) resulting in the generation of approximately 170 million tonnes (370 billion pounds) of red mud.[8]

Due to this high level of production and the material's high alkalinity, if not stored properly, it can pose a significant environmental hazard. As a result, significant effort is being invested in finding better methods for safe storage and dealing with it such as waste valorization in order to create useful materials for cement and concrete.[9]

Less commonly, this material is also known as bauxite tailings, red sludge, or alumina refinery residues. Increasingly, the name processed bauxite is being adopted, especially when used in cement applications.

Coal

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Coal refuse.[edit]
Coal waste in Pennsylvania

Coal refuse, also known as coal waste, rock, slag, coal tailings, waste material, rock bank, culm, boney, or gob, is the material left over from coal mining, usually as tailings piles or spoil tips. For every tonne of hard coal generated by mining, 400 kg (880 lb) of waste material remains, which includes some lost coal that is partially economically recoverable.[10] Coal refuse is distinct from the byproducts of burning coal, such as fly ash.

Coal spoil stones

Piles of coal refuse can have significant negative environmental consequences, including the leaching of iron, manganese, and aluminum residues into waterways and acid mine drainage.[11] The runoff can create both surface and groundwater contamination.[12] The piles also create a fire hazard, with the potential to spontaneously ignite. Because most coal refuse harbors toxic components, it is not easily reclaimed by replanting with plants like beach grasses.[13][14]

Gob has about four times as much toxic mercury and more sulfur than typical coal.[11] Culm is the term for waste anthracite coal.[11]

Economics

[edit]

Early mining operations often did not take adequate steps to make tailings areas environmentally safe after closure.[15][16] Modern mines, particularly those in jurisdictions with well-developed mining regulations and those operated by responsible mining companies, apply waste valorization to reprocessing waste materials, and often include the rehabilitation and proper closure of tailings areas in their costs and activities. For example, the Province of Quebec, Canada, requires not only the submission of a closure plan before the start of mining activity, but also the deposit of a financial guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated rehabilitation costs.[17] Tailings dams are often the most significant environmental liability for a mining project.[18]

Mine tailings may have economic value in carbon sequestration due to the large exposed surface area of the minerals.[19]

Environmental concerns

[edit]

The fraction of tailings to ore can range from 90 to 98% for some copper ores to 20–50% of the other (less valuable) minerals.[20] The rejected minerals and rocks liberated through mining and processing have the potential to damage the environment by releasing toxic metals (arsenic and mercury being two major culprits), by acid drainage (usually by microbial action on sulfide ores), or by damaging aquatic wildlife that rely on clear water (vs suspensions).[21] One example is Cadmium, which is commonly found in zinc ores, can remain in mine tailings and waste water during refining process, causing toxicity to surrounding areas.[22][23]

Tailings ponds can also be a source of acid drainage, leading to the need for permanent monitoring and treatment of water passing through the tailings dam; the cost of mine cleanup has typically been 10 times that of mining industry estimates when acid drainage was involved.[24]

Disasters

[edit]
See also: List of tailings dam failures

The greatest danger of tailings ponds is dam failure, with the most publicized failure in the U.S. being the failure of a coal slurry dam in the West Virginia Buffalo Creek Flood of 1972, which killed 125 people; other collapses include the Ok Tedi environmental disaster in New Guinea, which destroyed the fishery of the Ok Tedi River. On average, worldwide, there is one big accident involving a tailings dam each year.[24]

Other disasters caused by tailings dam failures are, the 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill and the Ajka alumina plant accident. In 2015, the iron ore tailings dam failure at the Germano mine complex in Minas Gerais, Brazil, was the country's biggest environmental disaster. The dam breach caused the death of 19 people due to flooding of tailings slime downstream and affected some 400 km of the Doce river system with toxic effluence and out into the Atlantic Ocean.

Human rights

[edit]

Tailings deposits tend to be located in rural areas or near marginalized communities, such as indigenous communities. The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) recommends that "a human rights due diligence process is required to identify and address those that are most at risk from a tailings facility or its potential failure."[25]

Storage methods

[edit]

Historically, tailings were disposed of in the most convenient manner, such as in downstream running water or down drains. Because of concerns about these sediments in the water and other issues, tailings ponds came into use. The sustainability challenge in the management of tailings and waste rock is to dispose of material, such that it is inert or, if not, stable and contained, to minimise water and energy inputs and the surface footprint of wastes and to move toward finding alternate uses.[21]

Tailings dams and ponds

[edit]
Main article: Tailings dam

Bounded by impoundments (an impoundment is a dam), these dams typically use "local materials" including the tailings themselves, and may be considered embankment dams.[1] Traditionally, the only option for tailings storage was to contain the tailings slurry with locally available earthen materials.[26] This slurry is a dilute stream of the tailings solids within water that was sent to the tailings storage area. The modern tailings designer has a range of tailings products to choose from depending upon how much water is removed from the slurry prior to discharge. It is increasingly common for tailings storage facilities to require special barriers like bituminous geomembranes (BGMs) to contain liquid tailings slurries and prevent impact to the surrounding environment.[27] The removal of water not only can create a better storage system in some cases (e.g. dry stacking, see below) but can also assist in water recovery which is a major issue as many mines are in arid regions. In a 1994 description of tailings impoundments, however, the U.S. EPA stated that dewatering methods may be prohibitively expensive except in special circumstances.[1] Subaqueous storage of tailings has also been used.[1]

Tailing ponds are areas of refused mining tailings where the waterborne refuse material is pumped into a pond to allow the sedimentation (meaning separation) of solids from the water. The pond is generally impounded with a dam, and known as tailings impoundments or tailings dams.[1] It was estimated in 2000 that there were about 3,500 active tailings impoundments in the world.[18] The ponded water is of some benefit as it minimizes fine tailings from being transported by wind into populated areas where the toxic chemicals could be potentially hazardous to human health; however, it is also harmful to the environment. Tailing ponds are often somewhat dangerous because they attract wildlife such as waterfowl or caribou as they appear to be a natural pond, but they can be highly toxic and harmful to the health of these animals. Tailings ponds are used to store the waste made from separating minerals from rocks, or the slurry produced from tar sands mining. Tailings are sometimes mixed with other materials such as bentonite to form a thicker slurry that slows the release of impacted water to the environment.

There are many different subsets of this method, including valley impoundments, ring dikes, in-pit impoundments, and specially dug pits.[1] The most common is the valley pond, which takes advantage of the natural topographical depression in the ground.[1] Large earthen dams may be constructed and then filled with the tailings. Exhausted open pit mines may be refilled with tailings. In all instances, due consideration must be made to contamination of the underlying water table, among other issues. Dewatering is an important part of pond storage, as the tailings are added to the storage facility the water is removed – usually by draining into decant tower structures. The water removed can thus be reused in the processing cycle. Once a storage facility is filled and completed, the surface can be covered with topsoil and revegetation commenced. However, unless a non-permeable capping method is used, water that infiltrates into the storage facility will have to be continually pumped out into the future.

Paste tailings

[edit]

Paste tailings is a modification to the conventional methods of disposal of tailings (pond storage). Conventional tailings slurries are composed of a low percent of solids and relatively high water content- normally ranging from 20% to 60% solids for most hard rock mining. When deposited into the tailings pond, the solids and liquids separate. In paste tailings the percent of solids in the tailings slurry is increased through the use of paste thickeners, in order to produce a product where the minimal separation of water and solids occurs. The material is then deposited into a storage area as a paste (with a consistency somewhat like toothpaste). Paste tailings has the advantage of being more efficient than conventional tailings, as it allows for recycling larger quantities of water. There is also a lower potential for seepage. However the cost of the thickening is generally higher than for conventional tailings and the pumping costs for the paste are also higher than for conventional tailings, as positive displacement pumps are normally required to transport the tailings from the processing plant to the storage area. Paste tailings are used in several locations around the world, including Sunrise Dam in Western Australia and Bulyanhulu Gold Mine in Tanzania.[28]

Dry stacking

[edit]

Tailings do not have to be stored in ponds or sent as slurries into oceans, rivers, or streams. There is a growing use of the practice of dewatering tailings using vacuum or pressure filters, so the tailings can then be stacked.[29] This saves water which potentially reduces the impacts on the environment in terms of a reduction in the potential seepage rates, space used, leaves the tailings in a dense and stable arrangement and eliminates the long-term liability that ponds leave after mining is finished.

Although there are potential merits to dry stacked tailings, these systems are often cost prohibitive due to increased capital cost to purchase and install the filter systems and the increase in operating costs- generally associated electricity consumption and consumables (such as filter cloth) of such systems.[citation needed]

Storage in underground workings

[edit]

While disposal into exhausted open pits is generally a straightforward operation, disposal into underground voids is more complex. A common modern approach is to mix a certain quantity of tailings with waste aggregate and cement, creating a product that can be used to backfill underground voids and stopes. A common term for this is high-density paste fill (HDPF). HDPF is a more expensive method of tailings disposal than pond storage, however it has many other benefits as it can significantly increase the stability of underground excavations by providing a means for ground stress to be transmitted across voids – rather than having to pass around them – which can cause mining induced seismic events like that suffered previously at the Beaconsfield Mine Disaster.

Riverine tailings

[edit]

Usually called riverine tailings disposal (RTD). In most environments, not a particularly environmentally sound practice, it has seen significant utilisation in the past, leading to such spectacular environmental damage as done by the Mount Lyell Mining & Railway Company in Tasmania to the King River, or the poisoning from the Panguna mine on Bougainville Island, which led to large-scale civil unrest on the island, and the eventual permanent closing of the mine.[24]

As of 2005, only three mines operated by international companies continued to use river disposal: The Ok Tedi mine, the Grasberg mine[24] and the Porgera mine, all on New Guinea. This method is used in these cases due to seismic activity and landslide dangers which make other disposal methods impractical and dangerous.

Submarine tailings

[edit]

Commonly referred to as STD (Submarine Tailings Disposal) or DSTD (Deep Sea Tailings Disposal). Tailings can be conveyed using a pipeline then discharged so as to eventually descend into the depths. Practically, it is not an ideal method, as the close proximity to off-shelf depths is rare. When STD is used, the depth of discharge is often comparatively shallow, and extensive damage to the seafloor can result due to covering by the tailings product.[30] If the density and temperature of the tailings product is not controlled, it may travel long distances, or even float to the surface.

This method is used by the gold mine on Lihir Island; its waste disposal has been viewed by environmentalists[who?] as highly damaging, while the owners claim that it is not harmful.[24]

Disposal of tailings in the sea is prohibited by law in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, England, France, Greece, Russia and the United States.[31] It is legal in Indonesia, Norway and Papua New Guinea.[31] In Chile the only such disposal has been Planta de Pellets which disposed its tailings legally in the sea from its establishment in 1978 until 2010.[31] In 2014 Planta de Pellets and Sydvaranger in Norway had the only iron ore tailings disposals into the sea in world,[32] Planta de Pellets had in 2019 however pledged to end this practise by late 2023.[31]

Phytostabilisation

[edit]

Phytostabilisation is a form of phytoremediation that uses hyperaccumulator plants for long-term stabilisation and containment of tailings, by sequestering pollutants in soil near the roots. The plant's presence can reduce wind erosion, or the plant's roots can prevent water erosion, immobilise metals by adsorption or accumulation, and provide a zone around the roots where the metals can precipitate and stabilise. Pollutants become less bioavailable and livestock, wildlife, and human exposure is reduced. This approach can be especially useful in dry environments, which are subject to wind and water dispersion.[33]

Different methods

[edit]

Considerable effort and research continues to be made into discovering and refining better methods of tailings disposal. Research at the Porgera Gold Mine is focusing on developing a method of combining tailings products with coarse waste rock and waste muds to create a product that can be stored on the surface in generic-looking waste dumps or stockpiles. This would allow the current use of riverine disposal to cease. Considerable work remains to be done. However, co-disposal has been successfully implemented by several designers including AMEC at, for example, the Elkview Mine in British Columbia.

Pond reclamation by microbiology

[edit]

During extraction of the oil from oil sand, tailings consisting of water, silt, clays, and other solvents are also created. This solid will become mature fine tailings by gravity. Foght et al (1985) estimated that there are 103 anaerobic heterotrophs and 104 sulfate-reducing prokaryotes per milliliter in the tailings pond, based on conventional most probable number methods. Foght set up an experiment with two tailings ponds and an analysis of the archaea, bacteria, and the gas released from tailings ponds showed that those were methanogens. As the depth increased, the moles of CH4 released actually decreased.[34]

Siddique (2006, 2007) states that methanogens in the tailings pond live and reproduce by anaerobic degradation, which will lower the molecular weight from naphtha to aliphatic, aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and methane. Those archaea and bacteria can degrade the naphtha, which was considered as waste during the procedure of refining oil. Both of those degraded products are useful. Aliphatic, aromatic hydrocarbons and methane can be used as fuel in the humans' daily lives. In other words, these methanogens improve the coefficient of utilization. Moreover, these methanogens change the structure of the tailings pond and help the pore water efflux to be reused for processing oil sands. Because the archaea and bacteria metabolize and release bubbles within the tailings, the pore water can go through the soil easily. Since they accelerate the densification of mature fine tailings, the tailings ponds are enabled to settle the solids more quickly so that the tailings can be reclaimed earlier. Moreover, the water released from the tailings can be used in the procedure of refining oil. Reducing the demand of water can also protect the environment from drought.[35]

Reprocessing

[edit]
See also: Planta Magnetita

As mining techniques and the price of minerals improve, it is not unusual for tailings to be reprocessed using new methods, or more thoroughly with old methods, to recover additional minerals. Extensive tailings dumps of Kalgoorlie / Boulder in Western Australia were re-processed profitably in the 1990s by KalTails Mining.[36] Even though the reprocessing of tailings might deliver additional metal value and decreases in some cases the risk for acid mine drainage, the volume of mineral waste is not decreased significantly.

To remediate this, a valorization of the bulk of the tailings, the gangue minerals, has to be found. A crucial valorization pathway is the use in construction materials, which is the commodity with the highest demand for minerals.[37] Novel technologies are being developed, such as granulation processes for the application as aggregate in concrete.[38] [39]

A machine called the PET4K Processing Plant has been used in a variety of countries for the past 20 years to remediate contaminated tailings.[40]

International policy

[edit]

The UN and business communities developed an international standard for tailings management in 2020 after the critical failure of the Brumadinho dam disaster.[4] The program was convened by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) and the Principles for Responsible Investment.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tailings

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Tailings, also known as mine tailings, are the finely divided materials remaining after the extraction of valuable minerals from through mechanical crushing, grinding, and chemical beneficiation processes in operations. These heterogeneous residues primarily consist of fine particles of ground rock, such as aluminosilicates like and , along with minerals including , and may contain elevated levels of elements such as , , iron, and compared to average crustal abundances. Tailings are typically managed as slurries and stored in engineered impoundments or tailings storage facilities (TSFs) to contain them and prevent immediate environmental release, with practices emphasizing water submersion to inhibit oxidation and multidisciplinary oversight for , , operation, and monitoring. Improper management can lead to significant environmental risks, including the leaching of toxic like , , lead, and into and , as well as the generation of acid rock drainage that contaminates ecosystems. Globally, the industry generates an estimated 10 to 12 billion tons of tailings annually, underscoring the scale of production and the imperative for sustainable handling to mitigate long-term ecological and human health impacts while enabling from legacy sites. Notable incidents, such as TSF s due to structural instability or seismic events, have prompted advancements in and global standards, though empirical data indicate that well-engineered facilities substantially reduce probabilities when adhering to first-principles geotechnical .

Definition and Characteristics

Terminology and Basic Composition

Tailings, also known as mine tailings or simply tails, refer to the materials remaining after the separation of valuable minerals from the uneconomic fraction () of an during and processing. This residue typically emerges as a of finely ground rock particles, , and residual processing , with particle sizes often dominated by - and clay-sized fractions (e.g., over 80% finer than 75 micrometers in many cases). In hydrometallurgical contexts, synonymous terms include leach residue, while broader mining refuse may encompass slimes for ultra-fine variants or general from concentration processes. The basic composition of tailings varies by type, host rock , and extraction methods but generally features minerals such as (SiO₂), silicates, feldspars, and clays as primary solids, alongside minor residual metals, sulfides, or oxides from incomplete separation. Key elemental constituents often include , oxygen, aluminum, iron, calcium, and magnesium, with comprising 40-70% of the initial by weight. additives like flocculants, acids, or cyanides may persist in trace amounts, influencing and potential reactivity. Unlike , tailings contain uneconomic grades of target commodities, rendering them under standard economic thresholds.

Generation and Physical Properties

Tailings are generated during the mineral processing phase of mining, following the extraction of ore from the earth. Run-of-mine ore undergoes comminution via crushing and grinding to reduce particle size and liberate valuable minerals from gangue material, typically achieving a grind size where 80% passes 100-150 μm for effective separation. Beneficiation techniques, such as froth flotation, gravity concentration, or magnetic separation, then separate economic minerals into concentrates, leaving uneconomic residues mixed with process water, reagents, and fine solids as tailings slurry. This slurry is usually discharged at 25-50% solids content by weight, with lower percentages for low-density coal tailings and higher for dense metalliferous types. The physical properties of tailings are determined by the host ore mineralogy, grinding intensity, and separation methods, resulting in a heterogeneous mixture dominated by fine particles. Particle size distribution typically spans sand (0.063-2 mm) to silt-clay (<0.063 mm), with most material finer than 75 μm in flotation tailings due to the need for mineral liberation, leading to angular shapes, high specific surface area, and challenging dewatering. Specific gravity of the solids ranges from 1.5 for coal-derived tailings to 4.0 for pyrite-rich sulfide ores, averaging 2.6-2.8 for common hard-rock deposits like those yielding copper or gold. Slurry densities fall between 1.2-1.6 g/cm³, influenced by fines content and flocculation, which affects rheology and settling rates.

Economic Dimensions

Production and Management Costs

Tailings production arises directly from ore beneficiation processes, where uneconomical mineral fractions are separated, typically comprising 95-99% of the original ore mass processed in mining operations. The inherent costs of generating tailings are embedded within broader milling and processing expenses, but dedicated management—encompassing dewatering, transport, storage, and rehabilitation—represents a distinct economic burden. Industry analyses indicate that upfront capital expenditures for tailings storage facilities (TSFs) constitute approximately 15% of total mine development costs, while ongoing operational costs account for less than 5% of overall mine production expenses. These figures vary by site-specific factors such as ore type, topography, seismicity, and regulatory requirements, with higher costs in seismically active or water-scarce regions due to enhanced engineering demands. Capital costs primarily involve TSF construction, including dam raising, liners, and infrastructure for water management, often ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of USD for large-scale facilities over a mine's life. Operating costs, quoted per dry tonne of tailings, encompass dewatering, pumping, deposition, and monitoring; conventional slurry disposal can cost as little as 0.10-0.20 USD per tonne, while advanced methods like filtration exceed 1.00 USD per tonne due to energy-intensive drying and trucking. Filtered tailings operating costs specifically fall between 1.07 and 2.18 USD per dry tonne, reflecting equipment depreciation and higher energy use. Closure and rehabilitation add long-term liabilities, potentially extending 20-100 years, with expenses amplified by perpetual water treatment needs in cases of groundwater contamination. Comparisons across technologies reveal trade-offs in life-cycle economics, as illustrated in a 2019 conceptual analysis for a Western Australian gold mine processing 10 million tonnes annually over 10 years (AUD per tonne of solids, 10% discount rate):
MethodTotal Life-Cycle Cost (AUD/t)Key Cost Drivers
Upstream Slurry0.90Low dewatering; higher water use
Downstream Slurry1.86Frequent dam raising
Thickened (65% solids)0.85Reduced water recovery costs
Filtered (80% solids)2.32High filtration energy; smaller footprint
Data from Carneiro and Fourie (2019). Thickened tailings minimize operational expenses through lower deposition volumes but incur elevated closure costs from larger footprints requiring extensive rehabilitation. Filtered approaches, despite upfront premiums for plant capital, yield net savings in scenarios prioritizing land constraints or carbon taxes, with emissions as low as 0.13 kg CO₂ equivalent per tonne versus 0.95 kg for filtered. Overall, a unified costing metric in USD per dry tonne, incorporating sustaining capital, underscores the need for transparent reporting to avoid undervaluing TSFs in feasibility studies, as seen in undervalued Chilean copper mine assessments.

Value Recovery Through Reprocessing

Reprocessing mine tailings targets the extraction of residual metals and minerals overlooked or uneconomically recoverable during initial ore processing, leveraging improved separation technologies such as flotation, leaching, and gravity methods to enhance yields. Modern techniques, including bioleaching and advanced hydrometallurgy, have demonstrated recovery rates exceeding 70% for copper from sulfidic tailings after approximately 200 days of processing. Acid leaching applied to tailings has achieved metal recoveries over 90% in laboratory and pilot-scale tests, particularly for base metals like copper and zinc, though scalability depends on mineralogy and acid consumption rates. Case studies illustrate practical value extraction; for instance, at the Smaltjärnen tailings storage facility in Yxsjöberg, Sweden, reprocessing historical tungsten-bearing tailings via gravity separation yielded 48.4% tungsten recovery, producing a concentrate grading 21.6% WO₃ as of 2019 evaluations. In European sulfidic copper tailings, prospective assessments project net economic gains from reprocessing scenarios, balancing recovery of copper and associated by-products against energy and reagent costs, with potential for 50-80% metal extraction depending on tailings age and oxidation state. Another example involves reprocessing old flotation tailings for sulfur, copper, and gold, where optimized circuits recovered up to 85% copper and 60% gold in bench-scale operations conducted in 2024. Economic incentives drive adoption, as tailings often retain significant untapped value; conservative estimates place $10 billion in recoverable gold alone from Canadian mine waste as of recent inventories. Reprocessing extends mine life by accessing low-grade resources without new excavations, reduces long-term storage liabilities, and generates revenue from by-products like rare earth elements in polymetallic tailings. However, viability requires site-specific feasibility studies accounting for tailings heterogeneity, as geochemical variability—such as at the Cantung Mine in Canada—can lower effective recoveries if not addressed through mineralogical preprocessing.
Project/ExampleMetal(s) TargetedRecovery RateSource Year
Sulfidic Copper Tailings (EU)>70%2023
Smaltjärnen TSF ()48.4%2019
Acid Leaching (General)Base Metals>90%2023
Flotation Tailings/85%/60%2024

Types and Industry Examples

Sulfide Ore Tailings

Sulfide ore tailings consist of finely ground waste rock and residual minerals remaining after the extraction of base and precious metals from -bearing ores, such as those containing (CuFeS₂), (ZnS), (PbS), and (FeS₂), through processes like . These tailings typically feature particle sizes ranging from 10 to 100 micrometers, with content varying from 1% to over 5% by mass, depending on grade and processing efficiency. Unlike tailings, they retain reactive sulfides that do not fully dissolve during beneficiation, posing distinct geochemical risks. The primary environmental hazard arises from the oxidation of minerals upon exposure to atmospheric oxygen and water, initiating (AMD) via reactions such as 4FeS₂ + 15O₂ + 14H₂O → 4Fe(OH)₃ + 8H₂SO₄, which generates and ferric hydroxides while mobilizing metals like , , , , and lead. This can reduce drainage to below 3.0, with concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/L and metal loads sufficient to contaminate and surface waters for decades; for instance, unmitigated oxidation rates in tailings can produce acidity at 10-100 kg per ton of oxidized annually under aerobic conditions. Tailings from low- ores may exhibit neutral drainage initially due to buffering, but long-term exposure often leads to net generation as neutralization capacity depletes. Prominent examples include tailings from porphyry operations in and the , where annual global production exceeds 1 billion metric tons, often stored in large impoundments; the Neves-Corvo mine in yields Zn-Cu-Pb tailings dominated by and , with contents up to 20%. In polymetallic , such as at the Sibay deposit in , tailings dumps have generated persistent since the mid-20th century, with cores showing elevated like at 500-1,000 mg/kg. Historical cases, like tailings discharged into Norway's Storavatnet lake from the Stordø Kisgruber operations until the 1970s, demonstrate ongoing contamination and degradation, with pH drops and metal in aquatic ecosystems. These tailings contrast with non-sulfide types by requiring proactive desulfurization or covers to mitigate oxidation, as passive storage amplifies risks compared to inert industrial wastes.

Non-Metallic and Industrial Tailings

Non-metallic and industrial tailings consist of waste materials generated during the processing of industrial minerals and non-sulfide resources, such as phosphate rock for production, preparation, and extraction from . Unlike sulfide ore tailings, these materials typically exhibit low sulfide mineral content, resulting in reduced potential for acid rock drainage, though they pose other environmental risks including , presence, and organic contaminants. Phosphate mining produces phosphogypsum as a primary tailings byproduct during wet-process phosphoric acid manufacturing, where sulfuric acid reacts with phosphate rock to yield gypsum and dilute acids. Globally, phosphogypsum generation exceeds 200 million metric tons annually, with over 85% stored in large surface stacks that can reach heights of 100 meters or more. These tailings contain elevated levels of radionuclides like radium-226 from the uranium decay series naturally present in phosphate deposits, alongside heavy metals and fluorine compounds, leading to concerns over groundwater leaching and atmospheric dusting. Stack failures, such as structural breaches, have released phosphogypsum slurry into waterways, contaminating ecosystems with radioactive and acidic effluents. Coal tailings, derived from washing and beneficiation to remove impurities, comprise fine particles of , clay, and residual , dominated by minerals such as , , and . These tailings often exhibit high water content and low permeability when deposited, necessitating impoundment in or dewatering via for dry stacking to mitigate slope instability. Environmental impacts include potential heavy metal mobilization under alkaline conditions and in exposed piles, though acid generation remains minimal due to negligible pyrite content. Oil sands tailings from in , , form vast ponds holding mixtures of , clay, residual , and process-affected water laden with naphthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and trace metals. These facilities, covering over 170 square kilometers as of recent inventories, experience seepage into and surface seeps, with mature fine tailings consolidating slowly over decades into fluid-like mats that resist reclamation. to aquatic life from naphthenic acids persists, prompting regulatory directives for closure and water capping, though full remediation timelines extend beyond 30 years. Management innovations include polymer-assisted consolidation to accelerate density increases and reduce pond footprints. In and , tailings primarily include salt-rich brines and fine clays from solution or flotation, stored in solar evaporation ponds or injected underground, with risks centered on hypersalinity affecting local aquifers rather than metal leaching. Overall, non-metallic tailings management emphasizes containment to prevent dispersion of site-specific contaminants, leveraging their geotechnical stability for potential reuse in aggregates where leaching tests confirm safety.

Storage and Handling Methods

Surface Impoundments and Dams

Surface impoundments for tailings storage involve constructing embankments or dams to contain a slurry of fine-grained mining waste and water in open-air ponds, where solids settle and supernatant water is decanted for reuse in processing operations. These facilities are typically sited in topographic depressions such as valleys or basins to minimize construction material needs, with impoundments ideally located 4-5 kilometers from the processing plant to balance pumping costs and containment efficiency. The design accommodates large volumes, often exceeding millions of cubic meters, and incorporates liners or natural barriers to limit seepage, though effectiveness varies by soil permeability and tailings chemistry. Embankments are engineered using methods like downstream, upstream, or centerline raising to expand capacity as tailings accumulate. Downstream construction employs stable external fill (e.g., rock or compacted ) for the core and shell, providing higher seismic resistance but requiring more material and time. Upstream raising builds successive beaches of deposited tailings atop a starter dam, offering lower costs and faster implementation—ideal for flat terrains—but posing greater risks of in saturated zones during seismic events. Centerline methods hybridize the two, relocating the crest inward while using upstream beaches for support, balancing stability and economy for ongoing operations. Initial starter dams, often 10-20 meters high, use borrowed materials like clay or , with geotechnical assessments ensuring factors of safety exceed 1.3-1.5 for static stability. Operational handling includes pumping via spigots along the embankment perimeter to promote even deposition and formation, facilitating water recovery through ponds or pipelines that return up to 80-90% of process water. systems manage excess runoff, designed for probable maximum precipitation events, while internal drainage blankets and toe drains mitigate phreatic surface buildup to prevent or . Advantages encompass simplicity, scalability for high-tonnage mines (e.g., handling + tonnes daily), and integration with water management, though disadvantages include substantial land disturbance—often spanning hundreds of hectares—and vulnerability to overtopping if decant capacity is inadequate. Regulatory guidelines, such as those from the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD), mandate probabilistic risk assessments incorporating failure modes like foundation settlement or static , with designs prioritizing no-loss-of-life criteria. In the United States, (MSHA) standards require contour mapping and stability analyses for impoundments over 20 acres or 5 meters deep, emphasizing zoned to segregate permeable zones. Empirical from facilities like those in or operations highlight that upstream-raised dams, while economical, account for a disproportionate share of historical instabilities due to progressive saturation. Post-closure, impoundments may be contoured for revegetation or capped to curb windblown dust, though long-term geochemical reactions can generate acid drainage if sulfides are present.

Thickened and Filtered Techniques

Thickened tailings techniques dewater conventional —typically 20-40% solids by weight—to produce a non-Newtonian paste with 50-65% solids content, using high-rate or high-density thickeners that incorporate flocculants to enhance settling and underflow density. This process recovers process for reuse, reducing the volume of tailings deposited and minimizing the need for large impoundments, with studies showing up to 40% reductions in construction materials and capital costs compared to slurry methods. Paste tailings exhibit yield stress that prevents segregation of coarse and fine particles, enabling deposition on slopes without formation and supporting applications like underground backfill. Filtered tailings extend dewatering beyond thickening, employing or filtration to achieve 75-85% solids content in a stackable cake suitable for dry stacking, where the material is transported via conveyors or trucks, spread into layers, and compacted to form stable, mound-like deposits resembling moist . systems, such as filter presses, remove interstitial under high , yielding a product with levels low enough to eliminate free drainage and reduce geotechnical risks like , while facilitating progressive rehabilitation through and capping. This approach contrasts with thickened tailings by offering superior recovery—often exceeding 90%—but at higher energy and capital costs due to the mechanical intensity of . Both techniques enhance storage stability over conventional surface impoundments by lowering saturation levels, which mitigates seepage, erosion, and failure risks; filtered dry stacks, for instance, demonstrate higher slope stability factors during rainfall or seismic events than saturated slurry dams. Water recovery supports operational efficiency in water-scarce regions, and the reduced footprint—up to 50% smaller for dry stacks—lowers long-term maintenance while enabling earlier site closure. Industry implementations include FLSmidth's filter presses at Buenaventura's San Gabriel gold-silver mine in Peru and Torex Gold's El Limón-Guajes project in Mexico, where filtered tailings enable dry stacking for enhanced safety post-dam failures elsewhere. BHP's Mt. Keith nickel mine in Australia has adopted filtration for tailings management, integrating it into circular economy goals by minimizing waste volumes and environmental liabilities. Low-throughput alumina refineries have long used dry stacking of filtered red mud tailings, demonstrating scalability for non-metallic wastes.

Underground and Subaqueous Options

Underground tailings disposal involves backfilling mined-out voids with tailings to provide , stabilize excavations, and minimize surface storage needs. This method, common in cut-and-fill operations, utilizes materials such as dewatered tailings mixed with binders like to form cemented paste backfill (CPB), achieving compressive strengths typically ranging from 0.5 to 5 MPa for geotechnical stability. Backfill sources include fine-grained tailings from mill circuits, which are pumped underground as slurries or pastes, reducing void volumes and preventing while allowing sequential extraction of adjacent bodies. Advantages include decreased surface tailings impoundments, which lowers exposure to atmospheric oxidation and , and enhanced ore recovery rates by up to 10-15% in some operations through better ground control. Challenges encompass binder costs, which can constitute 70-80% of backfill expenses, and potential hydraulic fracturing if pressures exceed rock mass strength. An example is the in the UK, where underground backfill has been employed since the 1970s to manage tailings, filling voids to depths exceeding 1,000 meters. Subaqueous disposal entails discharging tailings into submerged environments such as flooded pits, lakes, or marine settings to limit oxygen exposure and acid generation from minerals. This technique relies on under water, where particles settle to form consolidated layers, potentially attenuating contaminant release through anoxic conditions that inhibit oxidation. Empirical studies indicate that in neutral-pH systems, subaqueous storage can maintain low metal concentrations, as demonstrated in Canadian assessments since 1988, though dispersion risks persist in dynamic water flows. Environmental impacts vary; while oxidation is curtailed, benthic smothering and bioaccumulation in sediments have been observed, with plume modeling showing dilution factors up to 1:10,000 in deep-water discharges but potential for localized exceedances of aquatic criteria. A from Mandy Lake, Manitoba, involved depositing 73,000 tonnes of tailings subaqueously, resulting in sustained good and minimal ecological disruption over decades of monitoring, attributed to rapid and low reactivity. Conversely, marine applications, such as those reviewed in North American sites, highlight regulatory scrutiny due to impacts, with some operations ceasing discharges after evaluations revealed persistent geochemical remobilization under reducing conditions. Overall, subaqueous methods suit reactive tailings but demand site-specific geochemical modeling to predict long-term stability, as post-depositional behavior influences contaminant pathways more than initial placement.

Risk Assessment and Failure Analysis

Primary Failure Mechanisms

Overtopping occurs when water levels exceed the crest of the tailings dam, often due to intense rainfall, inadequate capacity, or poor freeboard , leading to erosional breaching of the embankment. This mechanism has been a leading cause in historical failures, accounting for a significant portion of incidents where hydraulic loading overwhelms structures. In such events, progressive scour undermines the dam's integrity, releasing slurried tailings downstream. Slope instability represents another dominant failure mode, arising from inadequate in the embankment or underlying materials, exacerbated by surface rise, seismic activity, or construction deficiencies. Analyses of global failures indicate that static or can trigger rotational slides or flow failures, particularly in upstream-raised facilities with loose, saturated tailings. For instance, undrained shear during rapid deposition or foundation settlement contributes to progressive deformation and eventual collapse. Liquefation, encompassing both static and dynamic variants, involves the sudden loss of strength under loading, transforming saturated tailings into a fluid-like state. Static liquefaction typically results from contractive behavior under monotonic stress, as seen in high-density tailings deposits, while dynamic liquefaction is induced by shaking, amplifying pore pressures. This mechanism has been implicated in multiple high-profile breaches, where cyclic loading reduces , leading to rapid embankment flow. Seepage and internal erosion, including , erode dam cores through uncontrolled hydraulic gradients, often due to defective filters, cracks, or embankment heterogeneity. Foundation failures compound this by providing weak, permeable substrates like soft clays or karstic , which fail under the weight of impounded material, initiating sinkholes or differential settlement. These interconnected processes underscore the need for geotechnical assessments prioritizing material stability and drainage efficacy over simplistic height-based metrics.

Monitoring Technologies and Prevention

Monitoring of tailings storage facilities (TSFs) primarily targets geotechnical stability, seepage, settlement, and pore water pressures to detect precursors of failure such as internal or . In-situ instruments like vibrating wire piezometers measure hydraulic heads in and foundations, while inclinometers and shape arrays track lateral and vertical deformations with millimeter precision. Standpipe piezometers provide cost-effective data on levels but require manual readings, whereas automated systems enable real-time alerts. Geophysical methods enhance subsurface characterization; ambient noise using arrays monitors shear wave velocity changes indicative of material stiffening or weakening, as demonstrated at an active TSF where velocity reductions signaled potential instability. (DAS) via cables detects strain, , and acoustic signals along the entire length, offering continuous 3D profiling for early detection of or slides. Ground-based interferometric (GB-InSAR) measures surface displacements at sub-millimeter resolution over large areas, integrating with total stations for hybrid real-time systems that correlate movements with rainfall or deposition rates. Remote sensing complements ground-based tools; unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with and generate digital elevation models to quantify volume changes and surface cracks, with surveys repeatable weekly for trend analysis. Satellite-based (InSAR) tracks centimeter-scale deformations over vast regions, though atmospheric interference limits its resolution compared to UAVs. Data integration via IoT platforms and frameworks processes multi-sensor inputs for predictive modeling, issuing warnings when thresholds like pore pressure ratios exceed 80% of critical values. Prevention emphasizes robust design and operational controls over reactive measures. Upstream-raised dams, prone to , should be phased out in favor of centerline or downstream methods that enhance stability through controlled surfaces. Foundation investigations using geophysical surveys and borings verify competency against seismic or static loading, with underdrainage systems to manage seepage and reduce hydrostatic pressures. Regular visual inspections for , slumping, or vegetation die-off, combined with beach width maintenance exceeding 500 meters for upstream structures, mitigate overtopping risks. Governance frameworks mandate independent audits and emergency action plans (EAPs) with capacities for probable maximum events, as failures often stem from inadequate freeboard or seismic oversight. Filtered tailings deposition, achieving below 20%, minimizes volumes and seismic vulnerability compared to conventional slurried methods. Post-construction , including compaction testing to 95% density, prevents differential settlement, while restrictions ensure evacuation feasibility within 1-2 hours of breach warnings. Empirical from over 50 global TSF failures since 2000 underscore that 70% involved ignored monitoring anomalies, reinforcing the causal link between vigilant surveillance and risk reduction.

Major Incidents and Lessons

Historical Case Studies

The Aberfan disaster occurred on October 21, 1966, in South Wales, United Kingdom, when colliery spoil tip No. 7, containing approximately 297,000 cubic yards of mining waste including coal tailings, collapsed after becoming saturated by underground springs and heavy rain, liquefying and flowing downslope. The debris engulfed Pantglas Junior School and surrounding homes, killing 116 children and 28 adults, with the total death toll reaching 144. Investigations revealed inadequate site assessment, failure to recognize water accumulation risks, and regulatory oversight lapses by the National Coal Board, which had ignored prior minor slides in the area. This event highlighted the seismic-like hazards of unstable waste piles on steep terrain, prompting stricter UK guidelines for tip stability and geotechnical monitoring in mining waste management. On February 26, 1972, the in , , resulted from the failure of three impoundments constructed by the Pittston Coal Company, releasing about 132 million gallons of semi-liquid waste that surged down the valley at speeds exceeding 20 mph. The breach, triggered by overtopping from recent heavy rains and poor dam design without adequate spillways or compaction, demolished 17 communities, killing 125 people, injuring over 1,100, and leaving 4,000 homeless. Federal investigations by the Mine Enforcement and Safety Administration identified root causes in substandard construction using unregulated "coal company special" dams, lacking engineering oversight and permeability controls. The disaster spurred the 1977 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act amendments, mandating stricter impoundment regulations, professional engineering certification, and hydrological risk assessments for coal waste storage. The Fundão tailings dam collapse on November 5, 2015, at the Samarco iron ore mine in Mariana, , released approximately 43 million cubic meters of mud and water, which destroyed the village of Bento Rodrigues and contaminated the Doce River basin over 600 km downstream. The failure, involving a upstream-raised , caused 19 deaths, displaced thousands, and released heavy metals like arsenic and manganese into ecosystems, with sediment deposition smothering aquatic habitats. Official probes by Brazilian authorities and independent experts attributed the breach to from elevated pore pressures, inadequate raise sequencing, and insufficient seismic and static stability analyses despite known surface issues. Samarco's joint owners, Vale and , faced billions in fines and reparations, underscoring deficiencies in self-regulated dam raises and the need for mandatory third-party audits in high-risk jurisdictions. The Brumadinho dam failure on January 25, 2019, at Vale's Córrego do Feijão mine in , , involved the sudden and rupture of an upstream , unleashing 12 million cubic meters of waste that buried administrative buildings and flowed into the Paraopeba River. This resulted in 270 confirmed deaths, with the mudflow's high and velocity preventing escape for workers on site during lunch hour. Geotechnical analyses post-failure identified delayed pore pressure buildup from ongoing deposition and weak foundation soils as primary mechanisms, exacerbated by the dam's post-deactivation monitoring gaps and over-reliance on visual inspections over instrumentation. The incident, following the nearby Fundão event, exposed persistent flaws in Brazilian tailings governance, including approval of risky upstream methods and inadequate enforcement, leading to global scrutiny of similar structures and Vale's temporary suspension of 10 dams.

Causal Factors and Empirical Outcomes

Tailings dam failures often stem from geotechnical instabilities, where undrained loss in saturated foundations triggers static , particularly in upstream-raised constructed with tailings themselves. Seepage-induced internal and , exacerbated by inadequate drainage, represent another frequent mechanism, as classified in comprehensive reviews of incidents since the early . Overtopping from extreme precipitation or rapid deposition rates, combined with seismic shaking, further contributes, with analyses of global data identifying slope instability, earthquakes, and overtopping as the dominant triggers in approximately 60-70% of cases. Human factors, including progressive dam raising without updated stability assessments and insufficient monitoring of pore pressures, amplify these risks, as evidenced in reports on multiple failures. Empirical failure rates for tailings storage facilities exceed those of conventional water dams, with cumulative probabilities around 1.2-1.8% over facility lifetimes based on datasets spanning 1917-2020, though underreporting in non-Western jurisdictions may inflate perceived safety elsewhere. Outcomes manifest in acute human losses, with major breaches like (January 25, 2019), releasing approximately 9-12 million cubic meters of tailings via a basal slip surface , resulting in 270 confirmed deaths and widespread destruction of downstream infrastructure. The Mariana (Fundão) disaster on November 5, 2015, discharged over 43 million cubic meters of mudflow, causing 19 fatalities, contaminating 600 kilometers of the Doce River with like and , and rendering 11 tons of fish unsalvageable in initial surveys. In contrast, the Mount Polley breach (August 4, 2014) in , , involved no direct fatalities but unleashed 25 million cubic meters of water and 8 million cubic meters of solids due to foundation failure in a glaciolacustrine silt layer, leading to persistent and elevations in Quesnel Lake sediments exceeding Canadian guidelines by factors of 10-100 for years post-event. Economic repercussions include billions in remediation—e.g., provisions exceeding $7 billion USD for Brumadinho cleanup and compensation—and operational halts, underscoring causal chains from design oversights to prolonged ecological recovery timelines of decades.
Major IncidentPrimary CauseFatalitiesVolume Released (million m³)Key Empirical Outcome
Mariana (Fundão), Foundation instability and poor impoundment management1943+River basin contamination; biodiversity loss in remnants
Mount Polley, Glaciolacustrine foundation shear failure025 (total )Lakebed metal accumulation; habitat alteration without acute toxicity spikes
Brumadinho, Static post-embankment raising2709-12Immediate velocity >30 m/s; downstream heavy metal
These patterns reveal that while natural triggers initiate many events, systemic deficiencies in and real-time geotechnical surveillance predominate, with outcomes disproportionately severe due to the hyper-concentrated, viscous of tailings flows that propagate farther than floods. Long-term data indicate no inherent decline in propensity absent rigorous enforcement, as cumulative and deposition overloads persist across facilities.

Environmental and Ecological Aspects

Potential Contaminant Pathways

Contaminants from tailings storage facilities (TSFs) can migrate into the environment via multiple pathways, including seepage into , discharge through runoff or overflow, airborne dust emission, and direct infiltration into surrounding soils. These pathways facilitate the release of such as , lead, , and mercury, as well as sulfates and acids generated from oxidation. Seepage represents a primary chronic pathway, where pore water percolates through tailings and any underlying liners or natural barriers, transporting dissolved contaminants into aquifers. Hydrogeological studies indicate that unlined or poorly constructed TSFs can produce plumes extending significant distances; for instance, arsenic-bearing from a tailings has been traced to downgradient, altering hydrochemistry and elevating risks to potable supplies. In one documented case, deposition of 11 million tonnes of tailings behind an unlined resulted in major persisting over decades. of tailings deposits typically limits but does not eliminate seepage rates, particularly under high hydraulic heads during operation. Surface water pathways involve erosional runoff during events or controlled/accidental overflows, which carry and dissolved pollutants into adjacent streams, rivers, and lakes. Acid rock drainage (ARD), arising from the oxidation of minerals in exposed tailings, generates low-pH effluents that mobilize metals, leading to of iron hydroxides and deposition of contaminants in receiving waters. has been shown to infiltrate soils and migrate laterally before entering surface flows, exacerbating downstream sedimentation and toxicity. Airborne dispersion occurs through wind of dry or uncovered tailings surfaces, generating laden with fine particulates containing and radionuclides, which can deposit over wide areas affecting air quality and . This pathway is prominent in arid regions or during dry seasons, contributing to risks and secondary deposition into water bodies. Direct arises from fallout or seepage-induced lateral migration, impairing agricultural productivity and facilitating uptake by vegetation and soil biota. Overall, these pathways underscore the long-term persistence of tailings-derived , with hypoxic conditions in sediments potentially remobilizing sorbed contaminants like into overlying waters.

Mitigation and Natural Attenuation Processes

Engineered for tailings focuses on barriers and treatments to contain contaminants and prevent their migration into ecosystems. Impermeable caps, such as compacted clay or geomembranes, limit water infiltration and oxygen exposure, reducing formation from sulfide oxidation in tailings. Revegetation caps using select soils and further stabilize surfaces, minimizing wind and water erosion of fine particles laden with . employs to extract and sequester metals like and lead from tailings, with studies demonstrating reduced toxicity in contexts. introduces or enhances microbial communities to precipitate or sorb metal(loid)s, addressing non-ferrous tailings where traditional methods falter due to extreme or . These active interventions often integrate with systems, such as constructed wetlands, to neutralize drainage before discharge. Natural relies on passive geochemical, hydrological, and biological processes that diminish contaminant without human intervention. Key mechanisms for metals and metalloids include adsorption onto mineral surfaces, which binds ions like and , reducing their solubility in ; precipitation as hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates, immobilizing species such as iron and ; and dispersion through dilution in aquifers or surface waters. For instance, promote schwertmannite formation in acidic drainage, scavenging up to 90% of dissolved during wet seasons via co-precipitation, though shifts in dry periods can redissolve these minerals and release bound contaminants. applies to radionuclides in uranium tailings, with half-lives determining attenuation rates over decades. Microbial degradation targets organic contaminants, including complexes; indigenous in mine tailings mineralize 85-100% of free (initial concentrations 0-10 mg/kg) within 65-170 days, converting it to and , though metal-bound forms persist longer. Monitored attenuation (MNA) evaluates these processes' reliability through tiered assessments of plume stability, geochemical gradients (e.g., , ), and , as outlined in U.S. EPA guidance from 2015. Effectiveness demands source control to prevent plume expansion; without it, may merely delay rather than eliminate risks, as seen in seasonal reversals where dry conditions halve capacity for elements like and . In contexts, MNA suits stable, contained tailings but requires long-term monitoring to confirm sustained immobilization, avoiding overreliance on transient processes like dilution, which do not degrade contaminants. Combining MNA with enhances outcomes, as natural processes alone often prove insufficient for high-risk sites with ongoing seepage.

Regulatory and Standards Evolution

Global Industry Standards

The Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), launched on August 5, 2020, by the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), (UNEP), and (PRI), establishes a voluntary framework for safe tailings facility management across the mining sector worldwide. Developed in response to high-profile tailings dam failures, such as those at Brumadinho in 2019, the standard applies to all tailings facilities regardless of size, location, or construction method, emphasizing an integrated approach that spans the full lifecycle from design through closure and post-closure. Its core objective is zero tolerance for human fatalities and catastrophic incidents, prioritizing risk elimination over mere mitigation. The GISTM organizes its requirements into six topic areas encompassing 15 principles and 77 auditable elements, including , development, facility design and operation, emergency response, and long-term stewardship. Principle 1 mandates independent expert review of tailings facilities with high potential consequences, while Principle 4 requires design criteria that minimize risks across all phases, incorporating geotechnical, hydrological, and seismic assessments. Operators must maintain a credible integrated , updated continuously, to inform decision-making and enable third-party audits for conformance. ICMM members, representing major mining companies, committed to full conformance by 2025 or closure of non-conforming facilities, with public disclosures required annually from August 2025 onward. Implementation has advanced through supporting tools, such as ICMM's Tailings Management Good Practice Guide, revised on February 19, 2025, which provides detailed guidance on applying GISTM principles to eliminate fatalities and environmental harm. In January 2025, the Global Tailings Management Institute (GTMI) was established as an independent body to oversee conformance assessments, verify progress, and drive adoption beyond ICMM membership. While the standard has influenced over 80% of global and 40% of production through adherent companies, its voluntary nature limits universal enforcement, relying instead on and investor pressure. Complementary guidelines from bodies like the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) address dam safety aspects but defer to GISTM for tailings-specific protocols.

Jurisdictional Policies and Enforcement

In , tailings management is primarily regulated at the provincial level, with federal oversight limited to effluent discharges under the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, which permit controlled deposits into tailings impoundment areas provided they meet water quality standards. Provinces such as enforce requirements through the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code, mandating risk assessments, monitoring, and progressive reclamation for tailings storage facilities (TSFs). requires operators to submit tailings management plans demonstrating compliance with fluid accumulation thresholds under Directive 085, with the Alberta Energy Regulator conducting audits and imposing penalties for non-compliance, including operational suspensions. The Association of Canada's Towards Sustainable Mining protocol, while voluntary for non-members, incorporates independent audits and public reporting, influencing enforcement by linking performance to membership privileges. Australia's framework is state-based, emphasizing dam safety and through acts like ' Mining Act and Dam Safety Act, which classify TSFs by hazard potential and require licensing, regular inspections, and plans. The Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD) guidelines inform design and operation nationwide, with Western Australia's mandating geotechnical stability assessments and worker protocols, enforced by the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety via fines up to AUD 500,000 for breaches. Victoria's Earth Resources Regulation Agency oversees mining work plans under the Mineral Resources () Act, prioritizing filtered tailings and dry stacking to minimize failure risks, with enforcement including site closures for inadequate risk management. In the United States, federal regulation of non-uranium tailings remains fragmented, with no comprehensive national standards for TSF structural integrity; instead, the Agency (EPA) focuses on effluent guidelines under the Clean Water Act, regulating wastewater from but exempting tailings from hazardous waste rules. State dam safety programs handle TSF oversight, varying widely—e.g., requires seismic and stability analyses under its Office of the State Engineer—leading to criticism of inconsistent enforcement and reliance on self-reporting. Uranium mill tailings face stricter EPA standards under 40 CFR Part 192, mandating groundwater monitoring and containment to prevent radon and heavy metal releases. Brazil's policies tightened post the 2019 Brumadinho dam failure, which killed 270 people and prompted a nationwide ban on upstream-constructed TSFs under 14.066/2020, requiring stability declarations and independent audits for all facilities. Enforcement intensified via the National Mining Agency (ANM), which suspended operations at non-compliant sites and levied fines exceeding BRL 1 billion on for the incident, alongside a 2021 settlement mandating BRL 37.68 billion in reparations for environmental restoration and victim compensation. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission actions against Vale for misleading safety disclosures highlight cross-jurisdictional enforcement tied to investor protections. Globally, the 2020 Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), developed by the International Council on Mining and Metals and , mandates consequence classification, accountable engineers, and public disclosures for signatory firms, but enforcement relies on voluntary adoption and investor pressure rather than binding law. Incidents like Brumadinho have driven jurisdictional responses, yet gaps persist in non-signatory regions, with critics noting that industry standards often lag empirical failure rates due to inadequate on-site verification.

Innovations and Future Trajectories

Technological Advancements

Filtered tailings technologies have advanced processes, achieving moisture contents as low as 10-15% through high-pressure systems, which facilitate safer dry stacking compared to conventional methods. This approach, often integrated with coarse particle recovery, rejects fines to produce stackable material with enhanced drainage and reduced risk, as demonstrated in pilots by Anglo American since 2015. Dry stacking minimizes retention in facilities, up to 99% of process and shrinking storage footprints by 50-70% relative to traditional dams, thereby lowering seismic vulnerability and closure costs. Implementations, such as Eldorado Gold's Skouries project operational from 2023, exemplify how hydraulic dry stacking integrates with site rehabilitation for progressive restoration. Reprocessing technologies extract residual metals from legacy tailings via methods like flotation, hydrometallurgy, and , recovering up to 80% of valuables such as or while reducing stored volumes. Advances in sensor-based sorting and automated grinding circuits, as applied by Weir Minerals' Terraflowing systems since 2024, enable efficient separation without full re-mining, yielding economic returns from deposits previously deemed uneconomic. Paste backfill innovations pump thickened tailings underground to stabilize mined voids, with additives improving for 70-80% solids content, as piloted by ICMM members to cut surface disposal by repurposing 20-30% of generated waste. These techniques not only mitigate long-term liability but also support circular resource loops, with global pilots reporting metal recoveries equivalent to new grades in some cases. Real-time monitoring advancements incorporate AI-driven analytics and geophysical sensors, such as automated (ERT), to detect seepage or with sub-daily resolution, outperforming manual surveys in precision. Systems like those from ATC Williams integrate IoT sensors with models trained on historical , predicting stability failures up to 48 hours in advance by analyzing pore and deformation patterns. Deployed in facilities since 2023, these tools enable proactive interventions, reducing false alarms through from drones and , as evidenced in ICMM collaborations achieving 95% uptime in predictive alerts. Emerging and nanomaterial extraction from tailings further diversify applications, converting waste into catalysts or adsorbents via microbial processes optimized for low-grade feeds.

Integration with Circular Economy Principles

Integration of mine tailings into circular economy principles emphasizes resource recovery and waste minimization, transforming these byproducts from liabilities into secondary raw materials through reprocessing and repurposing. This approach aligns with the core tenets of circularity by extending the lifecycle of minerals extracted during primary mining operations, thereby reducing the demand for virgin resources and mitigating environmental burdens associated with tailings storage. Strategies include metal recovery via hydrometallurgical leaching and tailings valorization for construction aggregates or cementitious binders, potentially recovering critical metals like copper, gold, and rare earth elements while repurposing residues. Metal recovery from tailings exemplifies a closed-loop process, where advanced technologies such as or selective flotation extract residual valuables, with global estimates indicating billions of tons of tailings containing recoverable metals equivalent to years of current production. For instance, reprocessing copper mine tailings can yield secondary concentrates, supporting supply chains for and renewables while addressing supply risks for critical minerals. Empirical assessments show economic viability in sites with high-grade residuals, though challenges like variable ore grades and processing costs necessitate site-specific feasibility studies. Material reuse initiatives further embed tailings in circular systems, such as incorporating them into production or mine backfill to stabilize underground voids and reduce surface impoundments. In , Vale's Pico facility, operational since November 2020, manufactures blocks from tailings, diverting over 1 million tons annually from storage and generating revenue through sales to local construction markets. Similarly, tailings from bauxite processing have been tested as aggregates in alkali-activated materials, offering lower-carbon alternatives to with compressive strengths comparable to traditional mixes. These applications demonstrate causal links between tailings integration and reduced use, though long-term durability and leaching risks require ongoing monitoring. Broader adoption hinges on technological advancements and incentives, with industry reports highlighting potential for tailings-derived products to contribute to sustainable . Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that while recovery rates vary (e.g., 70-90% for certain metals via optimized leaching), integration success depends on integrating tailings management with mine closure planning to avoid legacy . Overall, these practices shift from linear extraction to regenerative models, evidenced by pilot projects recovering rare earths from legacy sites via electrokinetic methods, though scalability remains constrained by upfront capital and regulatory hurdles.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9098622/
  2. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/mineral-resources-program/science/science-topics/mine-waste
  3. https://mining.mines.edu/research/tailingscenter/
  4. https://www.metso.com/insights/blog/mining-and-metals/how-to-reshape-the-future-of-tailings/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292714002212
  6. https://www.undrr.org/understanding-disaster-risk/terminology/hips/tl0511
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/mine-tailing
  8. https://www.tailings.info/basics/tailings.htm
  9. https://lod.nal.usda.gov/nalt/en/page/86132
  10. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/12/6/697
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Chemical-Composition-of-Mine-tailings_fig1_351197284
  12. https://globaltailingsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ch-II-Mine-Tailings-Facilities_Overview-and-Industry-Trends.pdf
  13. https://www.smenet.org/What-We-Do/Technical-Briefings/What-are-Tailings
  14. https://blog.fluidflowinfo.com/mine-tailings-transportation-disposal/
  15. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr247/sr247-022.pdf
  16. https://knightpiesold.com/sites/en/assets/File/TMW%25202015%2520-%2520Tailings%2520Mobilization%2520Estimates%2520for%2520Dam%2520Breach%2520Studies.pdf
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420722003087
  18. https://www.ausimm.com/publications/conference-proceedings/seventh-mill-operators-conference/tailings-disposal-costs---the-hidden-design-parameter/
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Major-cost-items-considered-in-the-capital-cost-estimates_tbl1_324537604
  20. https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/d/1910_05_Carneiro/05_Carneiro.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972300654X
  22. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/case-studies/2024/exploring-innovative-technologies-mine-tailings
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375544585_The_Use_of_Acid_Leaching_to_Recover_Metals_from_Tailings_A_Review
  24. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1507097/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  25. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40831-025-01126-y
  26. https://crimsonpublishers.com/amms/fulltext/AMMS.000783.php
  27. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/stories/simply-science/mining-value-waste-potential-game-changer
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420725001850
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666790822001045
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/geochemistry/articles/10.3389/fgeoc.2024.1392021/full
  31. https://i2mconsulting.com/clients/tailings-ponds-research/Geochemical%2520and%2520mineralogical%2520aspects%2520of%2520sulfide%2520mine%2520tailings1-s2.0-S0883292715000165-main.pdf
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3558456/
  33. https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/mining-and-water-quality
  34. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/amd.pdf
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653523008494
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/14/1/23
  37. https://njg.geologi.no/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/250324_Lund.pdf
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10220784/
  39. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04/documents/miningvol1.pdf
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479709000784
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24393595_Environmental_impact_and_management_of_phosphogypsum
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3870874/
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Chemical-composition-of-coal-tailings_fig1_266022826
  44. https://www.jouav.com/blog/mine-tailings.html
  45. https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/technical/mining/tailings-ponds
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479721004801
  47. https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/epa-oil-sands-tailings-and-mine-water-factsheet-20240412.pdf
  48. https://www.tailings.info/disposal/conventional.htm
  49. https://www.tailings.info/storage/containment.htm
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/tailing-disposal
  51. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/b01ca405-ec83-5bd9-aef5-2f8e56a4767a/download
  52. https://damfailures.org/sites/default/files/wp-pdf/Vick_Steven_Planning_Design_Analysis_Tailings_Dams_1990-1.pdf
  53. https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/sites/default/files/references/ancold-2012.pdf
  54. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000EF89.TXT
  55. https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/56e26b5d74eb2.pdf
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795222001429
  57. https://earthworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Safety-First-Safe-Tailings-Management-V2.0-final.pdf
  58. https://www.tailings.info/disposal/thickened.htm
  59. https://fls.com/en/sustainability/missionzero/missionzero-mine/tailings-technologies
  60. https://www.westechwater.com/blog/paste-thickening-optimizes-tailings-disposal-and-water-recovery
  61. https://atcwilliams.com/filtered-tailings-vs-thickened-tailings-a-holistic-view/
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582024007717
  63. https://www.tailings.info/disposal/drystack.htm
  64. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/13/11/1445
  65. https://www.mclanahan.com/blog/dry-stack-tailings-an-alternative-to-conventional-tailings-management
  66. https://okaneconsultants.com/ideas/filtered-tailings-addressing-challenges/
  67. https://atcwilliams.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Fitton-Roshdieh-2013-Filter-vs-slurry.pdf
  68. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1130
  69. https://www.barr.com/insights/tailings-management-in-the-oil-sands-and-beyond/
  70. https://www.tntinc.com/service/dry-tail-stacking/
  71. https://www.e-mj.com/features/how-to-make-filtered-tailings-feasible/
  72. https://www.e-mj.com/features/mining-companies-turn-attention-to-tailings-filtration/
  73. https://www.stantec.com/content/dam/stantec/files/PDFAssets/trade-publication-articles/004/international-mining-filtering-through-tailings-04-2024.pdf
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282307412_A_review_of_underground_mine_backfilling_methods_with_emphasis_on_cemented_paste_backfill
  75. https://www.amcconsultants.com/experience/mine-backfill-a-budgetary-black-hole-or-a-savings-opportunity
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773167723000304
  77. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/13/11/1409
  78. https://pure.unileoben.ac.at/files/2402127/AC12252913n01vt.pdf
  79. https://www.tailings.info/storage/backfill.htm
  80. https://www.tailings.info/knowledge/casestudies.htm
  81. https://mineclosure.gtk.fi/subaqueous-disposal-in-a-waste-management-facility/
  82. https://www.asrs.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/0250-Fraser.pdf
  83. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-019-4336-1
  84. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00017/full
  85. https://mend-nedem.org/mend-report/case-study-assessment-subaqueous-tailings-disposal-in-mandy-lake-flin-flon-manitoba/
  86. https://dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/usbm/ofr/text/ofr089_93.pdf
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883292715000190
  88. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/4159306
  89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365672681_Rates_and_Causes_of_Tailings_Dam_Failures
  90. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/7895880
  91. https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/rates-and-causes-of-tailings-dam-failures
  92. https://www.miningdoc.tech/question/what-causes-tailings-dam-failures/
  93. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/14/6/551
  94. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17480930.2019.1625172
  95. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/208183
  96. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00629-w
  97. https://silixa.com/sectors/mining/dampulse-tailings-dam-monitoring/
  98. https://leica-geosystems.com/en-us/case-studies/monitoring/combining-technologies-for-real-time-tailings-dam-monitoring
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420919302766
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050924002242
  101. https://www.grida.no/resources/11416
  102. https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/sites/default/files/references/icmm-position-statement-2016.pdf
  103. https://www.ghd.com/en-us/insights/five-ways-to-improve-tailings-management
  104. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/ECE_CP.TEIA_26_eng.pdf
  105. https://www.groundprobe.com/the-risks-the-consequences-and-the-solutions-to-preventing-tailings-dam-failures/
  106. https://www.bgs.ac.uk/case-studies/aberfan-1966-landslide-case-study/
  107. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1972/0667/report.pdf
  108. http://www.msha.gov/buffalo-creek-mine-disaster-50th-anniversary
  109. https://www.perspectecolconserv.com/en-fundao-tailings-dam-failures-environment-articulo-S1679007316301566
  110. https://iucn.org/story/202212/fundao-dam-failure
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303243420300192
  112. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01086-9
  113. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cgj-2021-0036
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825222002288
  115. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/stories/2022/lessons-from-disaster
  116. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11143-x
  117. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0133/
  118. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/spills-environmental-emergencies/spill-incidents/past-spill-incidents/mt-polley
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292718300246
  120. https://www.scielo.br/j/read/a/CjQDqqkvQvLqXDXnVVfTs9x/
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352938518301137
  122. https://earthworks.org/files/pubs-others/ChambersHigmanLongTermRisksofTailingsDamFailureOct11.pdf
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972402583X
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479723001299
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229308229_Groundwater_pollution_due_to_a_tailings_dam
  126. https://books.gw-project.org/hydrogeology-and-mineral-resource-development/part/seepage-management-during-operation-of-a-tailings-facility/
  127. https://tos.org/oceanography/article/metal-dispersion-resulting-from-mining-activities-in-coastal-environments-a
  128. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-08030-1
  129. https://cleanairjournal.org.za/article/download/16206/19978/97870
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935123022776
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653520329544
  132. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-04/documents/mna_inorganics_guidance.pdf
  133. https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=Monitored_Natural_Attenuation_%28MNA%29_of_Metal_and_Metalloids
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721054759
  135. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11935195/
  136. https://superfund.arizona.edu/project-5-importance-capping-material-properties-remediation-mine-tailings
  137. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386875858_Assessing_phytoremediation_strategies_for_gold_mine_tailings_a_bibliometric_and_systemic_review
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479724009897
  139. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/our-principles/tailings/global-industry-standard-on-tailings-management
  140. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-industry-standard-tailings-management
  141. https://globaltailingsreview.org/global-industry-standard/
  142. https://globaltailingsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/global-industry-standard-on-tailings-management.pdf
  143. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/news/2020/new-global-industry-standard-on-tailings-management
  144. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/news/2025/icmm-members-to-publish-progress-gistm
  145. https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/media/reports-and-presentations/2025/250805_bhpgistmconformancestatementandpublicdisclosure2025.pdf
  146. https://www.icmm.com/tailings-management
  147. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/new-independent-institute-drive-and-assess-implementation-global
  148. https://www.angloamerican.com/esg-policies-and-data/tailings-summary/our-approach-to-gistm
  149. https://www.barr.com/insights/navigating-the-expanding-landscape-of-mine-tailings-standards/
  150. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/sources-industry/mining-effluent/metal-diamond-mining-effluent/tailings-impoundment-areas.html
  151. https://mines.nrs.gov.bc.ca/tailings-management
  152. https://www.aer.ca/understanding-resource-development/resource-development-topics/tailings/tailings-management
  153. https://mining.ca/our-focus/tailings-management/tailings-guide/
  154. https://www.resources.nsw.gov.au/resources-regulator/mine-rehabilitation/toolkit-and-guidance/tailings-storage-facilities/regulatory
  155. https://www.worksafe.wa.gov.au/system/files/documents/2025-02/MSH_COP_TailingsStorageFacilities.pdf
  156. https://resources.vic.gov.au/legislation-and-regulations/guidelines-and-codes-of-practice/guidelines-for-design-and-management-of-tailings-storage-facilities/Guidelines-for-design-and-management-of-tailings-storage-facilities.pdf
  157. https://www.epa.gov/eg/mineral-mining-and-processing-effluent-guidelines
  158. https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersections/faq/what-are-regulations-mining-activities/
  159. https://damsafety.org/reference/progress-modern-tailings-dam-safety-and-regulation-united-states
  160. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/health-and-environmental-protection-standards-uranium-and-thorium-mill-tailings-40-cfr
  161. https://norrismclaughlin.com/blb/business-operations/sec-brings-enforcement-to-tragedy/
  162. https://conectas.org/en/noticias/five-years-since-the-collapse-of-the-tailings-dam-in-brumadinho-and-the-difficulties-securing-reparations-and-justice/
  163. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/sec-charges-vale-with-securities-law-violations-after-brumadinho-dam-collapse
  164. https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group-v9/PLC/our-stories/innovation-and-technology/innovations-in-tailings-managementhydraulic-dry-stacking.pdf
  165. https://www.eldoradogold.com/news-and-insights/our-stories/skouries-project-dry-stack-tailings
  166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892687524004540
  167. https://www.global.weir/newsroom/global-news/unlocking-wasted-value-through-tailings-reprocessing/
  168. https://www.metso.com/insights/blog/mining-and-metals/how-to-generate-value-from-tailings-with-reprocessing-to-be-future-ready/
  169. https://farmonaut.com/mining/automated-ert-for-tailings-dams-2025-safety-trends
  170. https://atcwilliams.com/using-ai-augmented-engineering-for-tailings-management/
  171. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/research/innovation/2025/from-risk-to-resource
  172. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/12/9/319
  173. https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/case-studies/2024/five-ways-icmm-members-are-embracing-circularity
  174. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44296-025-00049-9
  175. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38456984/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.