Well this looks pretty bad...

They had warnings, they didn't do anything about it. Assholes..

They applied to MOE multiple times for permits to discharge water (not "sludge") and were refused every time. They were not making,procuring or using the excess water. Of course,politically the mine cannot speak out about this right now,and the media is sensationalizing the consultants reports.

Who is at fault here?

It was a general "they".. not really pointing fingers at any specific people but it's pretty obvious somebody fucked up.

admittedly , not knowing much about the process tackle' , in an interview i heard with kynoch on cbc , he said the water is re-used , as in , a closed system .

and now they've got a former employee in front of a camera spilling his guts about what has been going on . . . multiple warnings not heeded .

Just a thought, why is he a former employee? I know he says he quit because he did not like how things were done. And he may be right. He may be disgruntled too. I know people who have issues with employers a lot. The employer never does things as they should according to these people.

I would be looking at who designed the earthen structure, who constructed it and who operated and maintained the facility. Chances are they all have a role to play in this disaster. I get angry with these kinds of problems as a former geologist because I think mining can and must do better. I also see many remarks from folks who don't have a clue how the industry works and I know there are those in the industry that are complete scam artists. The CEO's that are just trying to make money as opposed to creating a viable mining company.

admittedly , not knowing much about the process tackle' , in an interview i heard with kynoch on cbc , he said the water is re-used , as in , a closed system .

A lot of mines work quite well on a closed system, the problem is the accumulation of run-off increases the volumes of water… eventually that water needs somewhere to go and if they can't get a release permit then they just have to keep raising the damn.

I'm trying to argue that their saying "wahh wahhh we weren't allowed to dump our sludge down river, so it's your fault"(govt or whomever) is just a cop-out, as there are ways to dewater the pond which could have reduced the problem. If a CBA said it was too expensive… well we'll see how that works out. This is exactly like Chev/GM and the ignition issue. (rumours of issues with the pond months ago) Govts just need to grow some balls and bankrupt companies that fuck up and don't learn. Then shareholders will start caring about where they're putting their money.

I can guarantee that dealing with the current situation is FAR more expensive for the shareholders. Curious what you though the other solutions were for dewatering the pond without a release licence.

Interesting.
http://www.campbellrivermirror.com/news/270238391.html

Interesting.
http://www.campbellrivermirror.com/news/270238391.html

Ain't it though?

I'll bet more than a few people at MOE are shitting bricks right now.

Ain't it though?

I'll bet more than a few people at MOE are shitting bricks right now.

All three of them? That ministry has been decimated.

I can guarantee that dealing with the current situation is FAR more expensive for the shareholders. Curious what you though the other solutions were for dewatering the pond without a release licence.

Onsite treatment facility to treat the pond water to drinking water standards = license to release treated water granted. Simple.

Oh wait, that costs money that could go to CEO bonuses.

Interesting.
http://www.campbellrivermirror.com/news/270238391.html

Kynoch said the breach did not occur at the highest point of the tailings dam, where water pressure was greatest, and the pond level was 2.5 metres below the top of the dam at the time.

OK … its been couple of decades since I took a fluid dynamics course, but elementary hydrostatics says the pressure would be greatest at the lowest, deepest point of the dam. Misquoted or WTF?

OK … its been couple of decades since I took a fluid dynamics course, but elementary hydrostatics says the pressure would be greatest at the lowest, deepest point of the dam. Misquoted or WTF?

glad I'm not the only one who was confused by that statement…..I never took fluid dynamics though, so I'm hardly an expert

OK … its been couple of decades since I took a fluid dynamics course, but elementary hydrostatics says the pressure would be greatest at the lowest, deepest point of the dam. Misquoted or WTF?

I suspect by "highest point" he meant "deepest point". In fact, it's kind of impossible to have a higest point in a pond - the whole surface is at the same elevation. I think it was just a poor choice of words to get the point across that the failure didn't occur at the point of highest pressure.

I suspect by "highest point" he meant "deepest point". In fact, it's kind of impossible to have a higest point in a pond - the whole surface is at the same elevation. I think it was just a poor choice of words to get the point across that the failure didn't occur at the point of highest pressure.

I believe he is talking about the highest point / most pressure against the walls. Most dams I have seen, the lowest, deepest point wouldnt be against the walls. But where the walls are the highest (furthest from the beach) the pressure should be highest, no? I know absolutely nothing about fluid dynamics though.

Either way, it is pretty poorly phrased.