Rare Earth Insights–Denver Mining Club Talk

I recently attended a meeting of the Denver Mining Club (http://www.denverminingclub.com) which featured a talk about rare earth elements. This talk by club member Larry James, (James GeoAssociates, P.C.) was entitled “The Bayan Obo Rare Earth Deposit and Associated Iron Mining (1993): A Geological Snapshot of Autonomous Inner Mongolia (China).” y

This area of Inner Mongolia, originally developed and mined by Mongolians, is now being mined by Chinese. Mr. James visited the area between 1990 and 1995. While he noted that the mining and geologic information may be dated (as were the photos), his numerous photos, and ongoing discussion of the geology, mining and culture was fascinating.

Area Background – Geology and Mining

Larry noted that in the 1990s, this area was mined for its iron ore which was being used to produce steel. These Proterozoic deposits were limestone, altered to iron rich dolomite. The magnetite ore contains concentrations of apatite, fluorite and pyrite. Included in this mineralized zone are concentrations of rare earths such as niobium.

Larry noted that when he visited the area, rare earths did not have the significance they have today. In fact, most of their uses had not been discovered, let alone technically perfected.

The ore from this area was being mixed 2 to 1 with high grade iron ores from Australia. Iron ores high in fluorine are very corrosive in the manufacture of steel. It had to be mixed to reduce the corrosive properties. In fact, only about 66% of the mine’s capacity was being used because of this blending.

Today, the Chinese government is not letting people visit the mine or sharing the production numbers according to Larry. Apparently the rare earth production and concentration from this area is now a “state secret”.

Reflections on a Culture

As a geologist, I found that this presentation was extremely interesting. The mining, geology and technical discussion was excellent. However, upon reflection, in my opinion, there is something much more important in talks like this.

Larry presented photographs of, and talked about the local Mongolian culture. This was every bit as interesting as the mining and geological aspect of the presentation. His stories gave the audience a sense of what it was like to visit a region that might currently have global significance because of its resources.

The people who started mining in this region and who were employed by the mine in the 1990’s were descendants of Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire, founded in 1206. They apparently were not pleased with the Chinese mining and taking their resources. These Mongols conquered much of the known world at the peak of their empire.

Relevance to the Future

As I reflect on this talk and the stimulation which I received from it, one aspect saddens me. I estimate the average age of the group attending this presentation at about 55-60. While I am sure that most of the attendees enjoyed the information as much as I, the lack of people under the age 50 is of concern for more than just the obvious technical reasons (i.e lack of technical expertise).

As an options trader, I am very sympathetic to the financial and lack of opportunity concerns of the “occupy” movement (OWS) being presented by a generation which is on the rise. In this era of political sound bites, and concentrated information, the global experiences of Larry and others in the Denver Mining Club could and probably would be eye opening for a generation that has not, by in large, traveled and experienced other cultures in their native setting.

Young people in the OWS movement could benefit greatly from talking and listening to people like Larry. The young would gain a real sense of the world and its people, as well as a historical perspective not presented in school or by the main stream media, which seemingly is only interested in selling the next greatest “technological thing.” Seniors would begin to understand the perspective of many of the young which seems to be frustration and loss of hope for many reasons, including lack of leadership, jobs and opportunities.

The interface between these two groups would be very beneficial to our society. These two groups, working together could make significant progress in making the political and economic changes necessary to change the direction both of our society and its leadership.

H. Court Young

Solar Islands

WaterWorld, September 2011, ran an article entitled Floating Solar Systems Provide Power, Environmental Benefits. This article noted that “water facilities in several states are taking control of their energy costs by turning to solar photovoltaic (PV) power.”

As a water professional, I found one example presented in that article fascinating. Far Niente winery in Napa Valley, CA wanted to take advantage of solar power and a new technology which conserves valuable land space.

According to the article, SPG Solar, (www.spgsolar.com)  has developed a floating solar  technology  named “Floatovoltaics® .“ This technology floats solar panels on water.

These floating panels both “conserves land space and provides water and environmental benefits while generating clean, renewable and affordable electricity.”  According to the article, the solar panels are mounted on a racking system floating on pontoons and secured by a mooring system.  For durability and longevity, the systems are engineered to keep all metallic components above water, leaving only closed HDPE plastic floats in contact with the water. The floats have been approved for use in drinking water reservoirs. The floating system is engineered to withstand 85 mph winds and change in water levels.

Noted in the article, this system benefits both the solar installation and the water reservoir. The panels are naturally cooled which results in improved power production. The cooler environment also reduces stress on the system, extending the system’s lifespan. The panels shade the water and reduces evaporation, a significant water loss in arid climates, up to 70%.  A three acre storage pond covered with solar panels could save over 4 million gallons per year. This system also reduces algae growth minimizing associated treatment costs.

The system, which covers one square acre of water can generate 500,000 kWh of renewable energy. The winery offsets 100% of its electrical needs with this minimal maintenance floating solar system. This floating solar system is an example of how new renewable energy technology can be developed and implemented to solve both our energy crisis and be very environmentally beneficial as well.

H. Court Young
Author Understanding Water Rights and Conflicts
http://www.hcourtyoung.com

Energy vs. Water

Energy vs. Water - A Long Term Challenge

A recent article entitled "Fracking chemical found in town's aquifer" by Abraham Lustgarten published on www.msnbc.com (11/10/2011) restarted my research into the fracking debate. Energy verses water is a conflict which might be with our society and the world for quite a long time.

I mentioned this potential conflict in a webinar on water which I presented to the Illinois Section of the American Water Works Association in May 2011. I noted that water professionals need to be aware and educated about these issues in order to come up with creative solutions to our increasing need for clean fresh water supplies.

As a geologist, I realize the need for energy supplies in our global economy. Without energy, even our modern water purification systems would grind to a halt. We could not purify or deliver water to millions of customers in the United States and other developed countries. Agriculture, food processing and most industrial development would not be possible.

However, consider the following. Without fresh clean water, many of the products we make, the food we grow and the modern societies we have built up would also not be possible. Life itself is not possible without water. Imagine living in a home and not having any fresh clean water for daily needs. A simple ongoing example of this energy verses water conflict is noted by Mr. Lustgarten.

Residents of the town of Pavillion, Wyoming have complained for a long time that drilling, and presumably the associated fracking, fouled their water. The Environmental Protection Agency found 17 of 19 local wells tested were contaminated. While the EPA has not reached any conclusions as to the source of the contamination, the Pavillion area, a source of natural gas, has been drilled and fracked extensively over the last two decades.

From a January 2010 EPA sampling result paper, the following was noted:

"Overall, 17 of 19drinking water wells sampled in January 2010 show detections of total petroleum hydrocarbons. Additional compounds detected include naphthalene, phenols and methane. EPA’s analysis of samples taken from monitoring wells in Pavillion indicates high levels of petroleum compounds such as benzene, xylene,methylcyclohexane, naphthalene, and phenol. This shallow groundwater is hydrologically connected to the drinking water aquifer. Wyoming DEQ and EnCana have recognized this contamination and have been working to evaluate and address it.

Methane detected in 7drinking water wells was found to be of thermogenic origin, meaning it originated within the natural gas reservoir. One drinking water well showed methane resulting from microbial activity, known as biogenic methane."

Harsh chemicals and compounds such as those noted by Mr. Lustgarten and the EPA, (2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE),phenols, acetone, toluene, naphthalene and diesel among others), are not things any of us want in our fresh water supply. They can make our water unusable and often untreatable.

I am sure the drilling and associated jobs are high paying and bring much needed economic benefits to the local area. My question is how do the economic benefits equate to having a home that is unlivable, because of the EPA warning to residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they shower? While the area's water supply is suspect, many of the homes and businesses are probably unsalable, which means those residents may not be able to escape the situation by moving elsewhere.

The natural gas company that has profited from the area's gas drilling and development, EnCana, a Canadian company, owns the gas wells in the area. While the company has denied responsibility for the contamination, they have supplied drinking water to residents. EnCana has recently agreed to sell its wells in the Pavillion area to Texas based Legacy Reserves for $45 million. EnCana has pledged to continue to cooperate with the ongoing EPA investigation and, according to the EPA, try to develop alternate long term water supply solutions.

One argument I hear for less regulation and environmental control is that such regulation and control hampers private development of jobs. It should be noted that in this area the drilling continued even after the first problems with groundwater contamination had been reported, according to Lustgarten. It seems to me, as a water professional, that a private company which was truly interested in the best and highest use of an area's resources, including the wellbeing of its labor force,would not need to be burdened by regulation and environmental controls. Such a company would work with the local community without the heavy hand of an agency like the EPA. However, this article by Mr. Lustgarten and the example presented seems to argue for just the opposite.

This is the reason energy vs.water may become a very long and challenging issue over the next decades. As population increases, the need for energy expands as does the need for fresh clean water. If we can't look beyond just our economic well-being, then increased regulation and environmental control may be the result to try to insure a balance between having the energy we need as well as clean freshwater essential for our survival.

H. Court Young