Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to the suggestion by Dr Mark Harris at the Northern Caribbean University, of using gypsum and other substances in combination to vegitate the bauxite waste deposits.
The suggestion is a laudable one. However in light of other options that are currently on the table, I do not think it is the appropriate way to go. If all we were looking at was a nuisance, potentially polluting aquifers and sending toxic dust into the surrounding communities, then this may have been a viable option. However there are alternatives on the table.
First the gypsum to be used is not just sitting idle waiting to be used. We do have deposits in the hills north of Bull Bay and elsewhere. However, these have to be mined/quarried, with all the negative effects associated with this. You only have to ask the folks just south of the current gypsum operations, of the effects it has on their communities.
In addition, the gypsum is currently used by both the cement plant at Rockfort in the production of cement and for export. If portions will need to be diverted to the bauxite waste, then we have to consider the effects on the current users.
The second obstacle relates to the possibility of reprocessing the waste to extract commercially viable minerals. At the moment we have the pilot project to extract rare earth elements from the waste. However, there are also significant quantities of other minerals/metals including iron and titanium. By reprocessing the waste to remove all these other minerals, we will not only be able to deal with a significant hazard, but we will also be able to earn desperately needed revenue and reduce the volume of waste that is left behind.
In the end, I think that there are other (perhaps even more benign) ways of dealing with the bauxite waste than potentially inconveniencing even more the folks in eastern St Andrew to remedy the nuisance we have created in the central portions of the island.
Ricardo Smalling
smalling@queensu.ca
Not the best way to go
-->
This letter is in response to the suggestion by Dr Mark Harris at the Northern Caribbean University, of using gypsum and other substances in combination to vegitate the bauxite waste deposits.
The suggestion is a laudable one. However in light of other options that are currently on the table, I do not think it is the appropriate way to go. If all we were looking at was a nuisance, potentially polluting aquifers and sending toxic dust into the surrounding communities, then this may have been a viable option. However there are alternatives on the table.
First the gypsum to be used is not just sitting idle waiting to be used. We do have deposits in the hills north of Bull Bay and elsewhere. However, these have to be mined/quarried, with all the negative effects associated with this. You only have to ask the folks just south of the current gypsum operations, of the effects it has on their communities.
In addition, the gypsum is currently used by both the cement plant at Rockfort in the production of cement and for export. If portions will need to be diverted to the bauxite waste, then we have to consider the effects on the current users.
The second obstacle relates to the possibility of reprocessing the waste to extract commercially viable minerals. At the moment we have the pilot project to extract rare earth elements from the waste. However, there are also significant quantities of other minerals/metals including iron and titanium. By reprocessing the waste to remove all these other minerals, we will not only be able to deal with a significant hazard, but we will also be able to earn desperately needed revenue and reduce the volume of waste that is left behind.
In the end, I think that there are other (perhaps even more benign) ways of dealing with the bauxite waste than potentially inconveniencing even more the folks in eastern St Andrew to remedy the nuisance we have created in the central portions of the island.
Ricardo Smalling
smalling@queensu.ca
Not the best way to go
-->