In light of Gabriel Resources press release dated 2. March 2007 entitled 'Independent Expert Panel calls Rosia Montana project \well developed'' ( we allow ourselves to attach a relevant statement released by the Hungarian-Romanian Ad Hoc Group which oversees the Independent Expert Panel. This statement clarifies the nature and purpose of the IGIE report and can also be accessed on Romania's Ministry for the Environment's website in English and Romanian at

For an independent assessment of the IGIE report commissioned by Alburnus Maior access

All three documents are also attached to this message.


Statement of the Hungarian * Romanian Ad hoc expert group on the \Evaluation
Report: Environmental Impact Assessment Study for the Rosia Montana Project'
prepared by Independent Group of International Experts (IGIE)

According to the agreement of the Hungarian and Romanian ministers for environment
and water the Ad hoc expert group of the Hungarian * Romanian Joint Commission on
Environment Protection reviewed the Evaluation Report prepared by IGIE mandated by
the Ad hoc expert group.

The task of the IGIE was the analysis of the chapters of the EIA documentation related to
cyanide process and issues transportation issues TMF construction and management
water cycle management environmental management audits and transparency as well as
closure issues and concerns.

The Ad hoc expert group provides hereby the following statement and makes it together
with the evaluation report of the IGIE available.

The Ad hoc expert group
* states that this evaluation report is a working document and does not form the
official opinions of the Hungarian and Romanian ministries
* draws the attention to the observations of the report which point out deficiencies
and unclarified issues of the EIA document
* on the basis of the report states that some points of query and concerns still
remain open and desire further analysis
* states that as the report * according to the mandate of the experts - analyses only
certain chapters of the EIA documentation and gives opinion only on part of them
general conclusions regarding the whole EIA documentation cannot be drawn on
the basis of the evaluation report of the IGIE.



Res pon ses t o:
Ev a l u a t i o n R e p o r t : En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t A s s e s s m e n t St u d y f o r
the RoAsia MontanA* Project [IGIE].

Pr e p a r e d b y :
R o b e r t E. M o r a n Ph . D .
Michael-Moran Assoc. LLC
Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry
G o l d e n C o l o r a d o U . S. A.
remoran501 At

R e p o r t P r e p a r e d f or :
Al b u r n u s M a i o r
R o As i a M o n t a n A* R om a n i a
F e b r u a r y 1 8 2 0 07



Introduction. In May 2006 Gabriel Resources and their Romanian subsidiary
RMGC (Rosia Montana Gold Corporation) made their Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Rosia Montana Project available for review
by numerous Romanian and E.U. regulatory agencies and civil society. Because
of the political sensitivity of this project and due to significant international
scrutiny the Hungarian and Romanian governments initiated the development of
a group of a**independent expertsa** to review the EIA and to prepare a report of
their findings. That report [Evaluation Report: Environmental Impact Assessment
Study for the RoAsia MontanA* Project] was prepared by the self-titled
a**Independent Group of International Expertsa** [IGIE] dated 30 November 2006.

The following comments are my responses to that IGIE report. My technical
r e v i e w o f t h e I G I E r e p o r t w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d a nd p a i d f o r b y t h e R o m a n i a n N o n -
Governmental Organization (NGO) Alburnus Maior. Because the IGIE report
was made available to me on 15 February 2007 I have only had time to mention
some of the most obvious weaknesses of this a**experta** report. The comments that
follow are thus simply the a**tip of the iceberga** when it comes to discussing the
inadequacies of the IGIE review. More detailed comments are included in Moran
(August 2006) which considering the content and quality of the IGIE report was
apparently not read by the IGIE.

The present comments are based on having read all of the IGIE Report and on
having spent most of August 2006 in Rosia Montana Romania and surrounding
areas observing the proposed project area meeting with RMGC representatives
local citizens Romanian regulatory officials and in reviewing the RMP EIA and
related accessory data and documents. These efforts culminated in the release
of my observations and opinions concerning the RMP EIA:

Moran Robert 2006 Assessment of the Rosia Montana EIA Report Romania:
Prepared for Alburnus Maior; funded by Staples Trust U.K. and Open Society
Foundation Romania. Available at: [Includes summary in Romanian.]

Lastly these opinions are based on 35 years of applied hydrogeological and
geochemical experience much of it gained at hundreds of mining sites in
numerous countries work performed for private investors industrial clients tribal
and citizens groups NGOa**s law firms and governmental agencies at all levels.

G e ne r a l C o m m e n t s :
1--a**Independenta** Expert Group / Secret Process: Given the high international
political profile and criticism of this project it is ironic that the IGIE experts were
chosen via a secret process that is not open to the public. After repeated
requests by Alburnus Maior and other NGOs for information on the details of the
expert selection process (beginning in May of 2006) the important specifics still



remain concealed from the public. That is we do not know: who selected the
preliminary or final experts? [which company or individuals ?]; what criteria were
used to make the selections?; who pays these experts and how much?; were
public or private funds used to pay for these efforts?; and what specific
professional experience have these individuals had with respect to hard rock
mining and environmental activities relevant to the Rosia Montana project?

Simply writing the phrase a**Independent Group of International Expertsa** does not
make them actually independenta**technically or financially. I have had similar
experiences in Peru Guatemala the United States etc. where the actual
a**experta** selection process was controlled by the mining company the regulatory
agencies or the lenders---and the general public inevitably mistrusts the results.
Largely because the process was secret they feel that the a**expertsa** were not
truly independent and they civil society had no role in the process. In addition
the general public is usually proven justified in their skepticism when experts are
chosen without transparency and without public participation.

While little specific information is available on these experts Alburnus Maior has
information indicating that two of the IGIE authors come with significant potential
conflicts-of-interest. The first Mr. Ioan Bica is a professor of Civil Engineering
at the Technical University in Bucharest. This Civil Engineering staff was a
member of the Rosia Montana Project EIA & Design Team responsible for
designing the proposed mine and preparing portions of the EIA (see RMP EIA V.
19 Chapt. 9 Non-Technical Summary p. vii). Secondly Dr. Philip Peck while
being an Associate Professor at Lund University in Sweden is also a member of
a UNDP-UNEP team that has apparently been promised $20000000 U.S. to
implement social and environmental clean-up projects in the RMP area.
(According to sources from within the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre). These
certainly are not linkages that would indicate professional and financial
i n d e p en de n c e .

Page 3 Table 1-1 of the IGIE report states that both versions of the IGIE report
presented to the Ad-Hoc Committee were edited and consolidated by Dr. Peck
and that he was the main author of several report sections and the Executive
Summary. Thus he had the main role in shaping the final language and
e m p h a s es .

2a**Transparency: As stated above the details of the expert selection process
have not been made public. In addition this IGIE report (draft or final) has not
been officially released for public review despite the fact that its
recommendations will play an important part in decision making.

The EIA public consultation and disclosure process has been largely a charade.
It does not reasonably inform the public of options or likely impacts and fails to
allow actual dialogue at the public consultations. This EIA and its related
disclosure process fail to reveal much of the important environmental and health



information preventing a reasonable evaluation of the trade-offs to be made by
the public.

3--Characterization of EIA is Misleading: The IGIE report gives the impression
that the RMP EIA is a large detailed coherent study (see Executive Summary
and p. 1). Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually these descriptions
and other language in the IGIE report suggest that many of the IGIE authors may
have never read all or even most of the RMP EIA.

A n a l t e r na t i v e v i ew o f t h e R M P E I A c a n b e o b t a i n e d by c i t i n g a f e w o f t h e m a n y
comments I presented in Moran (August 2006) p.7:
a** D e s p i t e b e i n g a n e n o r m o us c o m p i l at i o n o f 3 3 v o l u m e s a t l e a s t 4 5 0 0 p a ge s i n
length the EIA fails to truly provide the public or regulators with a technically-
coherent basis on which to judge the adequacy of the proposed project. Most
volumes are poorly organized with numerous sections repeated over and over in
various volumes. Sections figures and tables are often inconsistently arranged
and numbered so that it is difficult to follow the meaning.

There is no detailed Table of Contents for the entire EIA and very strangely the
first attempt to present the reader any sort of overall summary is not to be found
until Volume 19---the Non Technical Summary! In the RMP EIA basic
discussions of water resources are incoherently scattered throughout numerous
volumes with little attempt to integrate the data and concepts. Hence it is
unnecessarily difficult to interpret the validity of the conclusions.

Worst of all the EIA fails to coherently and adequately summarize the most
important data and information regarding specific quantitative baseline
conditions for water resource availability water quality geochemistry health etc.
Instead of focusing on summaries of data and information in simple tables and
figures the EIA compilers have frequently substituted volumes of words often in
the form of predictions promises or computer simulations-- rather than
presenting the actual data. Such an approach is common at proposed mining
sites especially those of the smaller a**juniora** companies where there is no
existing cash flow. Hence the proponents attempt to save money by not drilling
and completing monitoring wells for example. More disturbing is the fact that
c r uc i a l da t a ha v e be e n w i t hhe l d f r om t hi s pu bl i c d oc um e nt or ha v e be e n
misleadingly edited especially with respect to baseline water quality.a**

A n y m e m b e r o f t h e H u n g a r i a n - R om a n i a n A d H o c E x p e r t C o m m i t t e e w o u l d be
appalled if they themselves actually spent even a few hours wading through the
confusing morass of the RMP EIA rather than accepting the misleading
descriptions presented by the IGIE.

4--IGIE Ranking of Comments: The prioritization of report comments by the IGIE
authors is largely unrealistic when these comments are compared to the
significance of real-world mining experiences.



The IGIE report (p. ii Exec. Summary) states: a**Within this review three
categories of comment have been applied: General Remarks (which generally
require no action); Recommendations (which are observations which may bring
improvement in the management of the project but it is not considered an
absolute requirement that they should be implemented); and Concerns.
Concerns certainly require action from decision makers authorities and/or

The IGIE considers that the sound and justified management of the Concerns
and Recommendations highlighted in this report is a basic prerequisite for the
adaptation of the EIA and for environmental permitting.a**

Many and sometimes most of the IGIE comments listed as Remarks and
R e c om m e nda t i on s s houl d ha v e be e n c a t e gor i z e d a s C onc e r ns . Fr e q u e n t l y
the wording in the IGIE text indicates that an issue is fundamental but it is then
m i s l e a d i ng l y c a t e go r i z e d as a R e m a r k o r R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . A g o o d e x am p l e o f
this situation can be found on p. 10 Transportation Issues where it states:
a**Remark Despite of the (sic) transport management system described in the EIA
the review group has doubts if the present provincial road conditions from any
direction to Rosia Montana would satisfy the safety requirements for such
transport. This refers especially to the conditions during winter and during intense
rainstorms which are becoming more and more frequent during the springtime in
t h e C a r pa t h i a ns . a**

This is an absolutely fundamental concern which indicates that the authors
understand that RMGC is proposing to transport massive quantities of cyanide
and other toxic chemicals fuels etc. to the mine using the substandard and
inadequate local road system. Nevertheless this fundamental comment is
presented as a simple REMARK---a category that according to the IGIE
a**generally requires no actiona**.

General opinion #4 above is reinforced by the views of Sandor Kisgyorgy (see
Annex C p. 46) one of the Hungarian IGIE authors who states that the a**majority
of the recommendations supplied by the IGIE are so important issues (sic) that
they should be treated with the same seriousness and weight as the concerns.a**

Kisgyorgy also states (p. 46) a**a** that the expert team referred to within Concern
III Recommendation 10 should have a majority of international members.a** Why
would he have made such a recommendation? Was he concerned for some form
of national bias in these matters? The reader must progress to the last page of
the report however to learn of the details of Kisgyorya**s dissenting opinions.

5--NaA*ve IGIE Approach: Many sections of this report present a largely naA*ve
non-pragmatic approach to describing the manner in which social technical and



environmental risks will be minimized. This approach revolves around two basic
and damaging assumptions:
A* Whatever RMGC has a**promiseda** to do in the EIA and related permitting
d o c u m e nt s w i l l b e d o n e .
A* Oversight will be based on self-monitoring and largely self-enforcement

It has been my experience in countries as diverse as Kyrgyzstan Mali Senegal
United States Peru Guatemala Honduras etc. and the experience of
n u m e r o us o t h er m i n i n g - en v i r o n m en t a l ex pe r t s t h a t s e l f - m on i t o r i ng a n d s el f -
enforcement by natural resource development companies does not function
successfully---at least not for the general public. These practices inevitably lead
to water land use economic and social conflicts degradation of water quality air
quality etc. Only through aggressive and competent oversight by the
appropriate regulatory agencies together with a constructive involvement of civil
society can such projects operate successfully long-term.

Many of the a**protectionsa** mentioned by the IGIE such as the International
Cyanide Management Code (UNEP / ICME 2002) are voluntary agreements with
no real penalties for failure to comply. IGIE implies that simply because RMGC
will be required to be certified compliant with the International Cyanide Code that
all cyanide risks will vanish. It is useful to note that the development of the Code
was funded almost entirely with industry funds and the process was directed by
the Gold Institute. Some mining industry staff were seconded to UNEP to assist
with the Code development and much of the funding for these UNEP activities
c a m e f r om t h e m i n i n g i nd us t r y .

In addition the Code states that direct or indirect mine facility discharges to
surface waters can contain up to 0.50mg/L WAD CN (weak-acid dissociable
cyanide). Aside from recommending an analytical procedure (WAD) that fails to
detect many of the toxic CN species such a concentration would be lethal to
most of the aquatic life in many settings---yet it is acceptable according to the
C o d e ( M o r a n 2 0 02 ) .

The past actual operating practices of the specific mining company RMGC and
the past practices and history if the Romanian mining and environmental
regulatory agencies are much better predictors of the future project risks or
degree of regulatory oversight and enforcement at Rosia Montana than any
a**promisesa** that might be made in an EIA or in the IGIE report.

Unfortunately RMGC / Gabriel has not previously operated another mine.
Romanian regulatory oversight is discussed below.

6a**Governance: On p. 35 section 7.1.5 the IGIE report states: a**Moving away
from specific issues it appears that an additional but significant closure issue



does exist that is currently beyond the control of the company and cannot be
specifically covered by the EIA. This can be seen largely as a governance risk.
a** Remark Countries such as Romania have yet to develop sufficiently
sophisticated corporate governance regulatory frameworks or financial and
insurance markets to adequately address mine closure rules or funding. This
indicates a possibility that insufficient bonding monitoring and enforcement could
eventuate. Capacity building in such areas is also generally listed as a priority
n e e d .a**

These words clearly indicate that the IGIE felt that weak Governance in Romania
was a fundamental factor yet they present this pivotal point as a simple Remark.

After a two year evaluation of the successes and failures of the World Bank
Groupa**s (WBG) oil and gas and mining projects they released a report of their
findings entitled: Extractive Industries Review [EIR] Final Report vol. 1 available
at: ].

When describing the factors necessary for a successful project the first factors
mentioned in the EIR report all dealt with good Governance. Page 2 of the EIR
report Executive Summary states:

a**The more specific building blocks of governance required for extractive
industries include the following:
a** promote transparency in revenue flows
a** promote disclosure of project documents
a** develop the capacity to manage fluctuating revenues
a** develop the capacity to manage revenues responsibly
a** help governments develop modern policy and regulatory frameworks and
a** integrate the public in decision making processes at local and national

Romanian authorities at all levels have failed to adequately protect the public or to
assist it in evaluating and understanding the actual environmental and health impacts
resulting from the past mineral development-related impacts at Rosia Montanaa**and
many other Romanian mining sites. Romanian mining and environmental agencies
clearly lack the institutional capacity and will necessary to enforce the appropriate laws.
Under these regulatory conditions where mines are essentially self-regulated adequate
remediation and long-term clean-up are unlikely to occur. The long-term costs will
ultimately fall on the Romanian and E.U. taxpayers.

Clearly inadequate Governance is a factor that should have been presented as a
C o nc e r n b y t h e I G I E.

7--Fallacy: All contamination will disappear if RMP is constructed. Pages 34-35 of
the IGIE report describe the a**Zero Optiona** the situation wherein the project
would not be constructed. The IGIE discussion implies that if the RMP is



approved and constructed that all sources of water contamination will disappear
following mine closure. This is not correct. Existing facilities such as the Abrud
and Saliste tailings are unlined and unremediated. They will continue to release
contaminated leachates long-term into the local surface and ground waters. The
RMP EIA fails to describe the collection and treatment of contaminated leachates
presently being released from the existing tailings impoundments.

IGIE also fails to note that no toxicity testing of the RMP surface waters has been
presented in the EIA and none is proposed for the future. Because some existing
contaminant sources will not be remediated it is likely that many sections of the
site surface waters will remain toxic to cold water fish following project closure.
Simple compliance with the water quality standards will not be sufficient to
guarantee that aquatic organisms will be able to establish healthy sustainable

It is common experience at Canadian and U.S. metal mines to find that water
quality of effluents and receiving waters may comply with the appropriate
standards but the waters are often still toxic to aquatic organisms (Moran 2001).

Furthermore IGIE states on p. 35 that: a**a**project proponents indicate that the
(their) cost estimates for mine closure activities required at the existing RosiaMin
operations in order to achieve an environmental standard comparable to that
achieved by the RMGC project would be a**23.2 million.a**

Firstly I agree with the IGIE footnote at the bottom of p. 35 that this cost estimate
seems low--possibly very low. Also no detailed cost evaluation is presented to
substantiate this amount.

Furthermore the IGIE alleges that there are no alternative sources of funds to
remediate the area---other than from development of the RMP. This conclusion
seems unwarranted and outside the scope of IGIEa**s competence. It does not
seem beyond the realm of possibility that remediation funds might be obtained
from various public sources or international donor agencies.

I n a dd i t i on r ec e n t c o r r es p on d e n c e be t w e e n A l b u r n us M a i o r a nd t h e M i ni s t r y f or
Economics and Industry states that State funds are already allocated to Minvest
for this program and a Governmental Decision is under preparation for its
approval. The same information seems to have been given by the Romanian
authorities to their Hungarian counterparts [see Comments Made Within the
Framework of the Espoo Procedure in Relation to the Environmental Impact
S t u d y ( E I S ) o f t h e P l a n n e d O p e n i n g o f t h e R o s i a M o n t an a M i n e S e c t i o n V P o i n t
30: compiled by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water available at: ].



Thus IGIE comments in section 7.1.4 pages 34-35 have great potential
significance and instead of being presented as a Remark should have been
n o t e d as a C o n c e r n .

8a**Baseline Studies Disregarded by IGIE: The IGIE report completely disregards
the need for adequate baseline data and studies [surface and ground water
quantity and quality aquatic biota health stream sediments etc.] which are
inadequate in the present EIA. This leaves many important questions about
responsibility liability and remediation successa** past present and most
importantly futurea**unanswered and largely unanswerable. Does this imply that
RMGC and the Romanian regulatory authorities will be considered exempt from
liability or responsibility for any past or future Rosia Montana activities?

IGIE failed to note that the EIA baseline monitoring did not include an adequate
list of chemical constituents. Despite all the references to cyanide the IGIE
fails to note that forms of cyanide were not included in the baseline data
p r e s e n t e d i n t h e E I A a** n o r w e r e a n y f o r m s o f r a d i o a c t i v e c o n s t i t u e n t s. M a ny
more EIA baseline inadequacies are presented in Moran (2006). These issues
s h o u l d b e C onc e r n s .

9a**Financial Assurance: The IGIE authors strongly emphasize the importance of
adequate Financial Assurance as is evidenced by the Recommendations and
Concerns presented in the Executive Summary. However many of these
comments need to be more specific to be useful and all should be presented as
C o nc e r ns .

Unfortunately in many developed countries such as the U.S.A. and Canada the
amounts of the financial bonds or insurance are frequently calculated by
representatives of the mining companies. As a result these calculations are often
far too low (Kuipers 2000). Often the calculations are based on the naA*ve and
self-serving assumption that acid rock drainage will not develop in the future (or
following remediation) thus the bond calculations may only consider the costs
associated with a**dirt-movinga**---backfilling capping recontouring revegetation
etc. Such an assumption disregards the future costs that are generally most
expensive at metal mine sites---the long-term operation of water treatment
plants. Normally these a**optimistica** assumptions have been developed by
consultants to the mining companies using geochemical computer simulations
which almost always underestimate the future impacts (Kuipers and Maest 2006;
Septoff 2006). In this way the long-term risks and costs have often been
transferred from the mining companies to the taxpayers.

Numerous mine sites exist in the U.S.A. where inadequate financial assurance
m e a s u r es w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d a n d t h e S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l t a x pa y e r s h av e b een
required to pay more than $50M to $100 million U.S. per site to remediate these



The IGIE should have made as a minimum the following specific financial
assurance recommendations expressed as Concerns:
A* RMP financial assurance calculations must be made by experts that are
selected by independent parties and are both technically and financially
independent of RMGC or the Romanian government. These calculations
should be based on conservative assumptions which assume the need
for operation and maintenance of perpetual active water treatment
facilities---to ensure that most of the financial risk stays with the company
and not the public;
A* The terms for year-by-year bond accrual and release back to the mining
company must be developed by comparably independent experts;
A* Bonds or other forms of Financial Assurance must be held by independent
trustees [independent of both RMGC and the Romanian government] and
should be in the form of liquid collateral not for example in the form of
guarantees against future gold production or based on the supposed
market value of various company assets.

1 0 a** C o n s e q u e nc es o f I G I E C o m m e n t s : I f t h e I G I E h a d n o t e d a n d d e s c r i b e d
nu m e r ou s C onc e r ns w o ul d t he s e r e qui r e pr e pa r a t i on of a r e v i s e d EI A ?

The IGIE report does not make this point clear despite the fact that in numerous
places the report language calls for a revision to the EIA. For example see
Recommendations 24 and 27 p.25 [section 5.2.5 first paragraph] p. 27 [second
recommendation] all of which specifically call for revisions to the EIA. The IGIE
authors suggest similar changes to the EIA in numerous other sections of the

Nevertheless much of the IGIE report is written in language that seems to
assume the RMP will obviously go forward. In fact some sections (for example
see sections 4.3 (initial paragraphs and other portions) 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2 5.4 5.5
5.6 large portions of section 6 much of section 7.2.1 section 8 [page 38] etc.)
sound more like a a**public relationsa** document than a technical appraisal. Aside
from appearing to promote the project they generally lack specific actionable
c o m m e n ts .

11a**Calls for Independent (International) Expertise: Throughout the IGIE report
the authors express the need for independent (sometimes international) experts
to evaluate numerous situations (see examples below). While it is reasonable to
call for such independent auditing and oversight following project approval many
of the calls for independent expertise here are intended to verify and strengthen
sections of the present EIA. Obviously RMGC should have originally employed
such a**independenta** experts to prepare these sections of the EIA. Who will select
pay and direct such a**independenta** experts?

[Examples where IGIE calls for independent expertise: p.16 (Concern and
Recommendation); p. 20 last two recommendations; p.26 (a**Recommendation



All basic data and preliminary assumptions related to the hydrology of the area
and the water balance should be counterchecked. The IGIE proposes a detailed
independent evaluation of the calculations by independent international expertsa**.
p.38 footnote 44; p.39 second bullet.]

1 2 a** L a n d R e q u i r e d f o r N e w F a c i l i t i e s : N e i t he r t h e I G I E n o r t h e E I A m e n t i o n t h a t
much of the land required for construction of the new RMP facilities is owned by
private citizens and churches who have stated that they will not sell these
properties. If the project is approved and these lands cannot be purchased they
must be confiscated by the Romanian authorities. This issue is obviously a
Concern that should have been discussed.

A d d i t i o n a l S p e c i f i c C o m m e n t s R e l a t e d t o I G I E c o m m e n t C a t e g o r i e s ( s ee
I G I E p . i i a n d 4 ) . T h e c o m m e n t s t h a t f o l l ow r e f e r t o t h e I G I E c a t e g o r i e s o f
comments presented throughout the body of the report.

1 - - S e c t i on 2 . 1 p . 6 t o p R e m a r k . S h o u l d b e c o ns i d e r ed a C o n c e r n . T h e
translation of EIA Chapter 2 was so poor as to make it largely useless and it
contains information that contradicts and was never integrated with related
Technological Process information in other EIA chapters.

2--Section 2.4 top paragraph. The IGIE has not commented on the residual
toxicity of process waters that have undergone the INCO SO2 / air process. The
residual toxicity can be due to various forms of cyanide and cyanide-related
compounds together with elevated concentrations of metals and non-metals.
It is misleading to suggest that such treated waters are not toxic to fish and
aquatic life. This should be a Concern.

3--Section 2.4 p.7 Concern. International mining literature has consistently
failed to demonstrate that semi-passive treatment lagoons function adequately
to meet water quality criteria for most chemical constituents found in mine
e f f l u e nt s .

4 - - S e c t i on 2 . 4 p. 7 s ec on d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . S h o u l d be e l e v at ed t o a
Concern and the IGIE should have provided a detailed list of the specific
chemical constituents to be monitored.

5 - - S e c t i on 3 . 1 . 1 p . 9 C y an i d e T r a ns p o r t at i on . B o t h R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s s h o u l d
be elevated to Concerns.

6-- Section 3.1.1 p.10. Last Remark should be elevated to Concern (see
c o m m e n t s o n p. 5 t h i s r e p or t ) .

7 - - S e c t i on 3 . 2 p . 12 . A l l o f t h e R e m a r k s s h o u l d b e e l e v a t e d t o C o n c e r n s ( s ee
c o m m e n t s o n p. 5 t h i s r e p or t ) .



8 - - S e c t i on 3 . 2 p. 12 . R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( b o t t o m o f p a g e ) s h o u l d b e e l e v a t ed
to Concern. In the words of the IGIE authors: a**a** is recommended that the
project proponents produce a significantly more thorough assessment of the
safety environmental and/or social impact of transport activities for the proposed
project with a thorough analysis of the possible alternatives for hazchem
transportation modality and route and discussion of the negative and positive
environmental and social impacts.a** This is a significant actionable issue.

9--Section 4.2 p. 15. Concern and Recommendation. IGIE should make clear
which part of their comments is the Concern; it is presently unclear.

10--Section 4.3 Geology hydrogeology and Reservoir Water Loss p. 16
Concern and Recommendation. IGIE should make clear which part of their
c om m e n t s i s t he C onc e r n. B e c a us e t he EI A f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt a n a c t ua l
meaningful hydrogeology / ground water discussion the IGIE needs to
present specific recommendations on what additional monitoring they feel is
necessary. Clearly there is essentially no useful baseline ground water and
s p r i n g d at a .

11--Section 4.3 p. 17 top Recommendation. IGIE should elevate this to a
C o nc e r n.

12--Section 4.4 p. 17 top Recommendationa**should be elevated to a
C o nc e r n.

13--Section 4.5 p. 18 Concern and Recommendation. IGIE should specify
w hi c h i s t he C onc e r n a nd w ha t i s t he R e c om m e nda t i on a nd de f i ne t he
actions to be taken.

14--Section 4.5 p. 18 bottom Recommendation. IGIE states:a** For
completeness provisions should be made to meet the prescriptive limits of
contaminants in the effluent in the environment.a** This statement is so vague as to
be useless. IGIE should require that RMGC define the specific limits (standards
and criteria) that will be applicable for each relevant chemical constituent. This
s houl d b e a C onc e r n.

15--Section 4.7 p.20 second Remark should be elevated to Concern. The
I G I E s t a t e s : a** Q u es t i o n s i n r e g a r d t o t h e l o n g- t e r m b eh a v i o ur of t h e a b an d o n e d
mining facilities remain open for further clarification.a** In particular this comment is
relevant to the long-term pollution of the environment by slow permanent
contaminant movements.a** This obviously describes very important closure issues
such as the adequate definition of point and non-point pollution sources. This
should obviously be a Concern and IGIE should describe specific action
it e m s .



16--Section 4.7 p.20 two Recommendations at bottom of page. Both refer to
the need for independent expert assistance. Both should be elevated to
C o nc e r ns .

17--Section 5.1.1 p. 22 last Remark. IGIE states: a**The potential effects of
climate change (with the concomitant effect that rainfall intensities for short
events are increasing all over Europe does not seem to have been discussed.a**
This is a significant issue for sizing engineered structures and should be
c ons i de r e d a C o nc e r n. O n p . 2 1 p a r a . 2 t h e I G I E s t a t e s : a** Th e I G I E h a s
performed its evaluation on the basis of the EIA documentation. However the
EIA has also relied on a deal of basic documentation which were not available for
the IGIE for assessment. As such limitations exist regarding the extent to which
the IGIE evaluation can be definitive.a** What does this disturbing statement
a c t ua l l y m e a n?

18--Sections 5.1.2 5.1.3 and 5.2 p.22--23. It appears that the hydrologic claims
made in the EIA were accepted by IGIE a**at face valuea** without independent

19--Section 5.2 first para. p.23. IGIE states: a**This basic documentation was not
available for IGIE and the detailed control checking related to the justification of
the data was beyond the capacity of the expert group.a** Such a statement
should raise a Concern for IGIE or any other expert?

I G I E c o n t i n u e s i n p a r a . 2 s e c t i on 5 . 2 : a** O n e m e m b e r o f t h e I G I E ( I B ) h a d t h e
opportunity to examine the basic documentation earlier.a** Does this imply that no
other IGIE author has seen the basic water cycle data---which should have been
included in the EIA? This should present a Concern for IGIE but below the
authors merely present the following: a**Remark Regarding the fact that the
environmental protection strategy relies on the assumption that closed water
cycle is possible in the planned development the IGIE holds that this issue
should be handled in a conservative mannera**.

This statement raises several other Concerns. Firstly it is commonly-accepted
international knowledge that all mining waste facilities leak to some degree long-
term. Thus the assumption that a closed hydrologic system will exist is contrary
to international experience. Secondly what does this Remark actually mean to

20--Section 5.2.1 Hydrology Water Balance p. 23-24. The wording of this entire
section indicates that the IGIE believes that inadequate hydrology / water
balance information is contained in the EIA. In Moran (2006) I state that the EIA
contains no meaningful reliable water balance. Nevertheless the IGIE make
only one comment regarding this most important matter and it is the top
Recommendation on p. 24 which reads: a** It is thereby recommended that this
item be clarified with a summary of the water balance included (sic) losses and



management of excess waters (if any) and freeboard details.a** This obviously
s houl d b e a C onc e r n t o I G I E.

21--Section 5.2.2 p. 24 Remark. IGIE states: a**The indirect message from the
text above that the mine pits will be used for final emplacement of partly
detoxified waters in the closure period. This solution could be strongly criticized
from environmental point of view.a** This should be a Concern for IGIE.

22--Section 5.3 p.26 both Recommendations. Both should be Concerns for
IGIE. Once again they imply that IGIE did not independently check the data
presented in the EIA yet they accepted the conclusions.

23--Section 5.3 pg. 27 all four Recommendations should be considered
C o nc e r ns b y I G I E .

24--Section 5.5 p. 28 Carnic Waste Rock Stockpile bottom Remark should
be a Concern for IGIE. IGIE states: a**The IGIE perceives that the designed
solution for waste rock management and management of contaminated runoff
from the stockpiles is adequate.a**

Unfortunately the geochemical testing presented in the EIA for these waste
materials is totally inadequate and inconsistent (Moran 2006). Thus this issue
clearly merits more than a simple Remark.

Numerous other areas of the IGIE report underestimate the importance of the
inadequacies in the RMP EIA but time limitations prevent commenting further.
Many additional details and comments on the RMP EIA are presented in Moran

R e f e r e nc e s .
Extractive Industries Review (EIR) Final Report Dec. 2003 Striking a Better
Balancea**The World Bank Group and Extractive Industries: International Finance
Corp. Available at:

Kuipers J.R. (2000). Hardrock Reclamation Bonding Practices in the Western
United States: National Wildlife Federation. Boulder Colorado U.S.A. 416 pgs.
This document and a summary can be obtained at: ]

Kuipers J.R. A.S. Maest and others 2006 Comparison of Predicted and Actual
Water Quality at Hardrock Minesa**The Reliability of Predictions in Environmental
Impact Statements. Available at:



Moran R.E. 2001 More Cyanide Uncertainties: Lessons from the Baia Mare
Romania Spill---Water Quality and Politics. Mineral Policy Center Issue Paper
N o . 3 W a s h . D . C . 1 5 p gs . A v a i l a b l e a t :

Moran Robert E. 2002 De-coding Cyanide. A Submission to the European
Union and the United Nations Environment Programme: Sponsored by Hellenic
Mining Watch Ecotopia CEE Bankwatch FOE Europe FOE Hungary FOE
Czech Republic Food First Information and Action Network Minewatch UK and
M i n e r a l P o l i c y C e nt e r 2 5 p g.
Available at:

Moran Robert 2006 Assessment of the Rosia Montana EIA Report Romania:
Prepared for Alburnus Maior; funded by Staples Trust U.K. and Open Society
Foundation Romania. Available at:
2.raport_Moran_final.pdf [Includes summary in Romanian.]

Septoff Alan 2006 Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Minesa**A
Failure of Science Oversight and Good Practice; Earthworks Washington D.C.
8pg. Available at:
h ttp ://www.m in e -

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and ICME (International
Council on Metals and the Environment) 2002 International Cyanide
Management Code. [Final draft may have different publication date.]