Shafter
The state’s environmental agency inspected the Shafter mine site last fall after it received complaints from an adjacent landowner, John Poindexter, of heavy metal contamination and improper storage of hazardous materials from previous mining operations that could impact the neighboring Cibolo Creek.
Soil samples taken by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality inspection team showed elevated levels of metals at several sites directly near former mine operations, but elevated levels of lead on an arroyo that leads to Cibolo Creek in Shafter also were reported. Only one of the samples, however, yielded levels above what’s allowable by TCEQ standards for a commercial site.
“I’m not totally against the reopening of the mine, but the residents of Shafter need to know what all of the implications of the mine’s commencing operations are — environmentally, resource sustainability, and clean-up,” said David Long, a Shafter resident and president of the town’s water district. “We still have trace pollution left over from past mining operations. Runoff could be a serious problem if left unchecked. Many of our residents still depend on the creek as a back-up water supply.”
A TCEQ report showed the inspectors looked at drums holding oil and containers with sodium peroxide, an evaporation pond and various other areas where hazardous materials were being stored or contained.
The complaints were particularly concerned with containment of toxins from tailings, the crushed rock and organic material left when metals or minerals are extracted — often stored in wet ponds or dry piles.
Poindexter owns the Cibolo Creek Ranch resort to the north of the mine and is restoring numerous Shafter buildings to also make it a resort destination. His company recently sued the mining company for not following a first right of refusal to purchase mine property next to his resort that was recently sold to Black Bear Minerals. He also is contesting the mine’s renewal of a wastewater discharge permit.
“The possible restart of the Shafter Mine deserves close public attention,” Poindexter said in a statement. “This is not a political issue, and it is not based on rumors. It is based on environmental issues documented by TCEQ and on a straightforward public request: before the mine’s wastewater permit is renewed, the community should be shown clear evidence that local water, soil, nearby land, and nearby residents will be protected.”
“In an area where arroyos, groundwater, Cibolo Creek, ranchlands, wildlife habitat and community water interests are closely connected, that uncertainty matters. If mine water, stormwater, or runoff comes into contact with impacted soil, fuel, used oil, metals, cyanide-related materials, or other contaminants, the public should understand whether those materials could move beyond the immediate source area through runoff, surface drainage or subsurface flow,” Poindexter added.
Black Bear Minerals, an Australian company, bought the mine from a Canadian company, Aurcana, which briefly operated the mine from 2012-2013. Declining silver prices led to numerous mine shutdowns over the decades, but videos posted by Black Bear Minerals CEO Dennis Lindgren show him optimistic that all-time-high silver prices will lead to a new opening. Lindgren and an attorney for the company did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
“Absence of a proper berm for mine tailings,” reads one of the complaints sent to TCEQ. “There is a risk of toxins and heavy metals from mine tailings contaminating the groundwater and Cibolo Creek.”
Associated with that was a complaint regarding an evaporation pond: “Leaking liner under evaporation ponds. The leak detection system signaled evaporation pond liner failure. This has been ongoing since 2011. The liner is beyond its useful life and should have been replaced in 2021. There is an escalating risk of toxins and heavy metals from the pond polluting the groundwater generally and nearby Cibolo Creek.”
Investigators did not confirm any leaks, but mine representatives there for the inspection noted that they could not say for certain whether a leak detection system was in place. The TCEQ report details its inspection team’s step-by-step evaluation. “West from the evaporation pond, the investigators identified approximately 30 blue poly containers, containing sodium peroxide being stored on top of soil surrounded by a manmade earthen berm.” Mine representatives said the area was unsafe to inspect without proper protective equipment, but they also noted that some of the material had leaked into the nearby soil.
Nine TCEQ soil samples, taken during the inspection, tested for levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium, silver, mercury and cyanide. Only one was above the commercial limit: lead in “tail pipings” that came in at 1,930 mg/kg, above the 1,600 mg/kg safety threshold.
An environmental analyst at Poindexter’s company had concerns about another sample, taken “off-site” of the mine at an arroyo that crosses under Highway 67 and flows into Cibolo Creek downstream from the main town site. That sample came in at 1,420 mg/kg, still under the 1,600 mg/kg threshold, but close. That sample, which also showed other elevated levels of metals, could show that mining activities have washed from on-site to further locations off-site.
That sample location is complicated, however, since it’s reportedly owned by another mining company, Freeport-McMoRan. Additionally, a source familiar with mining operations throughout time emphasized that current contamination in the area could have been caused anytime during the more than 145-year-old history of silver mine operations.
Additionally, as a TCEQ summary report notes for the two off-site samples: “Both off-property sampling locations are within proximity to a highway (where legacy lead contamination can be found from when leaded gasoline was in use), making it difficult to know whether the levels are attributed to lead from the mine.” Furthermore, the report noted that follow-up analysis of samples was done using a process called Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which showed lower levels of contamination and still only one lead level above the “regulatory level” at the “ponding area.”
TCEQ listed requested actions for compliance for removal of the sodium peroxide barrels, labeling of used oil drums, inspections and remediation as necessary of a pond liner, and containment of lead at the one site above safety and regulatory thresholds. Reports show completed removal of the barrels and labeling of the oil drums, but no information for action taken on the liner and lead containment.
“These are practical containment and cleanup issues,” Poindexter said. “The community should be able to see how they were corrected, where impacted material went, and whether any additional sampling was performed.”
TCEQ did not immediately respond for comment to clarify the corrective actions completed.
