This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury.
A Norfolk delegate’s proposal to ban the use of cyanide in metal mining operations has gathered unanimous support at the committee level, but another measure that would require public notice for exploratory mineral drilling is proving more controversial.
Both measures from Del. Shelly Simonds, D-Norfolk, stem from concerns by Buckingham County residents after Canadian-based mining company Aston Bay Holdings announced the discovery of gold there in 2020. The following year, the General Assembly rejected a proposal to temporarily ban gold mining in Virginia but authorized a study of its potential impacts.
The study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found the state’s regulatory framework for gold mining was inadequate.
Simonds has said her House Bill 85, which would ban the use of cyanide in mineral mining or processing in Virginia, is needed to protect the state’s water supply. While Virginia hasn’t mined gold on a large scale since 1947, the state has a stretch of gold deposits known as the Virginia Gold-Pyrite Belt that runs from Fairfax County to Appomattox County.
Cyanide is used in some large-scale mining operations elsewhere, including at the Haile Gold Mine in South Carolina, to separate gold from surrounding ore. Haile’s owner has been repeatedly fined for exceeding limits on cyanide discharges into local waterways.
“To be clear, no company has a permit to mine with cyanide at present” in Virginia, said Simonds. “But we need this bill in case a company decides to start mining.”
Simonds proposed a similar bill to ban the use of cyanide in mining last year. But while that legislation made it out of committee, House Republicans killed it on the floor over concerns its impacts would be too broad. This year, Democrats have majorities in both chambers, and the measure made it out of committee on a unanimous vote with no debate.
However, lawmakers were more split on Simonds’ House Bill 84, which would require companies conducting exploratory mineral drilling to notify local governments and property owners within 500 yards of their site of their activities. It would also require the publication of a notice about the drilling in a local newspaper for two weeks.
Currently, Virginia doesn’t require public notification for the drilling of test holes because the practice can be done with minimal impact unless heavy machinery is used, said Larry Corkey, manager of policy and planning for the Virginia Department of Energy.
Jessica Sims, Virginia field coordinator for nonprofit Appalachian Voices, said last week that the notification requirement was recommended by NASEM in its report. In Buckingham County, Sims said, a church’s well had dried up around the same time exploratory drilling had begun.
“We appreciate that this bill tries to let neighbors know what is happening in their backyard,” said Sims.
The Virginia Transportation Construction Alliance, which represents over 90% of nonmetal mining operations in the state, also voiced support for the proposal after it was amended to specifically note it wouldn’t apply to “materials extracted for the primary purpose of building and road construction.”
But Republicans worried the notification requirements could impose too heavy of a burden on businesses simply trying to determine if minerals are on a property.
“I don’t understand the compelling reason of the state to interfere in the private property rights of this,” said Del. Chris Runion, R-Rockingham.
The Virginia Department of Energy is also opposing the bill, which agency spokeswoman Tarah Kesterson said “carries significant concerns for the industries the agency regulates and for exploratory activities underway in Southwest Virginia.”
Simonds said she had listened to the agency’s concerns and made the bills specific to mining, not geological work.
“I can’t really speak for what the administration will do if Democrats decide to pass this bill,” said Simonds.
