vti, page-3

personaly I had a little break and enjoyed a few beers lately, LOL

below is interesting reading from http://www.mining-journal.com/MENVMAN/nwindex.htm

in case you wonder what the future holds

nice to see culture is changing and companies are pushed to the wall and forced to act

all VTI needs now is massive Public Relation (acceptence in US could erupt into string of contracts)

==============
US cleanup cost problems

Reuters reports that the US mining industry has asked Congress to ease federal bond requirements for cleaning up toxic chemicals, saying that some mines will be forced to close if they do not get financial relief. It reports that a weak economy exacerbated by the US accounting scandals have made it nearly impossible for mining companies to obtain bonds from insurers required by the Interior Department before mining can begin on public lands. The process aims to ensure that pollution from a new mine will be cleaned up. However, the bonding requirements mean more companies are forced to abandon a project, or post cash or a cash equivalent to meet federal requirements, according to the industry. Environmental groups oppose easing the current rules and it is true that some companies have underestimated cleanup costs.

Chuck Jeannes, senior vice president with Glamis Gold, said the lack of bonds is an "absolute impediment" to the mining business. He was among several industry officials who testified at a House of Representatives Resources subcommittee hearing on the availability of bonds to meet federal mining requirements. In the past decade, the mining industry has seen a jump in the scope of projects being regulated and the amount posted to satisfy bonding requirements. During the 1990s, underwriters were quick to issue reclamation, or surety bonds, but some have filed for bankruptcy and others have been reluctant to take on the risk with the economy struggling. Unable to secure funding, companies are left scrambling to cover the expected bonding amount by paying cash upfront or offering assets as collateral. Obviously, this reduces budgets for exploration and development.

The Bush administration last year approved most parts of a Clinton-era rule that tightened hard-rock mining regulations, including a provision requiring mining companies to post bonds for future cleanups. Environmental groups and others oppose easing the rules. The Mineral Policy Center (MPC), said the mining industry has its own problems of corporate accountability and public disclosure. MPC estimates that the total cost of cleanup in the hard-rock mining industry is under-estimated by as much as $10 billion. "Is this risk being fully and accurately reported to investors, insurers and regulators?" Jim Kuipers of the MPC demanded of the subcommittee. The group opposes an industry proposal to switch from bonds to "corporate guarantees," contending that would make it easier for mining companies to sidestep future costs.

The Surety Association of America, which represents nearly 600 companies that issue bonds, said it is difficult to forecast potential liabilities such as damage to local water supplies 40 years after the project is completed. The Interior Department, which oversees surface and ocean resource exploration, has formed a task force to examine the severity of the bonding requirements. The agency said it will submit a recommendation this autumn (July 19).
============================

also

"The use of Bauxsol technology to treat acid mine drainage at former Mt. Carrington gold mine, Australia"

featured in

July 2002
Volume 10, No. 4.

of the above Mining Journal.

FUnq