Mercury Emission by AGSM

Chapter 6
World Emissions of Mercury from Artisanal

and Small Scale Gold Mining
Kevin H. Telmer and Marcello M. Veiga
Summary We estimate mercury releases from artisanal and small scale gold mining
(ASGM) based on available data about mercury and gold exports and imports by
country and from field reports from the countries known to have active ASGM
communities. The quality of the estimates ranges from reasonable to poor across the
countries. This paper aims to give a first order estimate of the amount and location
of mercury being released into the environment globally by ASGM, to motivate
stakeholders to improve the quality of these estimates, to illustrate the linkages between
global mercury trade and its use in ASGM, and the fourth objective is to provide a
practical outline of the options available for reducing mercury use in ASGM. We
estimate that artisanal and small scale gold mining releases between 640 to 1350 Mg
of mercury per annum into the environment, averaging 1000 Mg yr-1, from at least
70 countries. 350 Mg yr-1 of this are directly emitted to the atmosphere while
the remainder (650 Mg yr-1) are released into the hydrosphere (rivers, lakes, soils,
tailings). However, a significant but unknown portion of the amount released into the
hydrosphere is later emitted to the atmosphere when it volatilizes (latent emissions).
Considering that ASGM is growing, latent emissions conservatively amount to at least
50 Mg yr-1 bringing the total emission of mercury to the atmosphere from ASGM to
400 Mg yr-1. This estimate of emission to the atmosphere differs from the previous
one provided in the 2002 UNEP Global Mercury Assessment both in terms of its
magnitude (400 Mg yr-1, versus 300 Mg yr-1) and in the way the estimate has been
made. The current estimate is based on a better understanding of ASGM and on
a wider variety of information sources, more field evidence, better extrapolation
methods, and independent testing by analysis of official trade data.
6.1 Introduction
We begin with a presentation of the intricacies of why mercury is used in ASGM

and how it is released to the environment. A good understanding of the use of mercury
in ASGM is needed in order to evaluate both the emission estimate and the options
available for reducing mercury use.
N. Pirrone and R. Mason (eds.), Mercury Fate and Transport in the Global Atmosphere, 131
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-93958-2_6, © Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
132 K.H. Telmer and M.M. Veiga
We then begin to build the database on mercury in ASGM by identifying the

known localities of ASGM – documented to occur in 70 countries – by citing
reports from governments, international bodies, NGOs, the peer reviewed literature,
and from mining companies. This is followed by a section that uses case studies and
field data collected from various intervention efforts, as well as arguments from
later sections, to make an estimate of the consumption of mercury in ASGM by
country. This is further broken down into an estimate of how much mercury is
directly released to the atmosphere.
The next section examines the global trade in mercury and gold for the purposes
of placing the magnitude of mercury consumption by the ASGM community
into perspective. Because reporting is voluntary, this approach is imperfect but
does provide some useful information on mercury in ASGM. It also re-enforces
the notion that mproved reporting of mercury trade would greatly improve our
ability to track flows of mercury around the world. For example, despite having
active dental services that undoubtedly use mercury, there are 70 countries that
do not report any trade in mercury. Analysing the trade data, allows some crude
but independent constraints on the magnitude of mercury consumption in ASGM
to be made.
We then explain the current knowledge gaps surrounding mercury use in ASGM.
This is to point out that despite being one of the largest sources of mercury to the
environment, research on mercury in ASGM has been relatively poorly funded and
grossly unsophisticated relative to that carried out in the northern hemisphere, and
that small scale mining communities are a good place to build knowledge about
mercury. Aside from answering important questions about mercury’s behaviour,
working in these communities would additionally bring needed resources, raise
awareness, and undoubtedly produce some innovative ideas. The current lack of
understanding about mercury in ASGM puts a limitation on the development of
innovative solutions towards prevention and remediation.
The final section examines the options available to reduce mercury use in ASGM
and the estimates the magnitude of reductions for each of the options discussed.
6.2 Why Mercury is Used
Mercury is used in ASGM for the following reasons:

1. Mercury use is very easy – the easiest and quickest method to extract gold from
many alluvial ores under the existing field conditions. This is sometimes debated
by those who have not spent much time in the field, but it is a verity. A simple
way to look at this is as follows. In the case study by Telmer and Stapper (2007),
the effective ore grade (what is recoverable by the miners) was about 0.1 g Mg-1;
the miners processed about 100 Mg of ore per day to produce a gravity concen-
trate of 10 kg of ore. That represents a concentration factor of 10,000 times.
The 10 kg of concentrate contains 10 g gold and so they need to further concentrate
6 Mercury Emissions from Artisanal Gold Mining 133
by 1000 times. This can be done by manual gravity methods (like panning) but
will require significant time and will risk the loss of some gold (particularly the
finer fraction). For example, recreational small scale miners in Canada often
spend 2 or more hours panning up their concentrate. Capturing the gold by amal-
gamating the concentrate takes about 10 minutes and produces more certain
results. So in ASGM sites, the 2 hours is instead used to continue mining and
produce another 2 g of gold.
2. Mercury is very independent – the whole mining process can be accomplished
by just one person thereby eliminating the necessity of participating in undesirable
and unfair labour practices (there is no need to be indentured). Often in more
mature ASGM sites the bottom of the labour pool are still indentured to middle men
or “a syndicate”, but even so, their salaries are inevitably higher than those from
their former occupation, and they always have the choice to strike out on their
own – an important and desirable psychological condition for most people
around the world.
3. Mercury is highly effective at capturing gold under the conditions found in
ASGM sites. Again, the verity of this statement is occasionally debated by
academics but under the circumstances found in ASGM sites, it is indisputably
true. That is not to say it is technically always the “most” effective method to
capture gold, but it can often be the “optimal” method under the socio-economic
and political conditions found in ASGM sites. For example, in the first point
(#1) above, a centrifuge or other technology may be more effective than mercury,
but at what cost? and what infrastructure is needed to operate it? Often costs and
infrastructure are prohibitive. This is particularly true when operations are
illegal, which is most of the cases. Who is going to risk significant investment
into an illegal operation?
4. Mercury is typically very accessible – it is as portable and easy to transport
as gold and so moves across borders and into camps as easily as or more easily
than many other contraband materials. As far as we know, eliminating mercury
through local enforcement has never been successful. In fact it often has a det-
rimental effect on the miners. For example, in Indonesia, mercury was made
illegal in 2006. This drove mercury trade underground and doubled the price
paid in the ASGM sites but did nothing to stem the flow of mercury – in fact
it made selling it more lucrative for merchants. However, it is also true that
increased prices may have been an incentive to increase recycling efforts – keeping
in mind that the affordable recycling technology was only made available
through an intervention program, the GMP.
5. Mercury is relatively very cheap, as explained through the following perspective:
• As of Jan 22, 2008, prices were: mercury (US$600/76 lb flask; US$17.40/kg);
gold (US$874.00/ozt)
• This is close to historical highs for both mercury and gold.
• Therefore 1g mercury = US$0.017; and 1g gold = US$28.10
• The mercury: gold price ratio is therefore 1:1,650
• If 2 units of mercury were used to produce 1 unit of gold, the cost of the
mercury would represent 0.1% of revenue. An invisible amount.
• In the mine fields, the price paid for gold is less than the international price,
typically 8 to 10% less (~US$25/ozt) and the price paid for mercury is higher,
particularly where it is illegal making gouging by suppliers easier. Some miners
have reported paying as high as US$200/kg (US$0.20/g) (Creporizão, Brazil).
Under these prices the cost of using 2 units of mercury to produce 1 unit of
gold represents a mercury: gold price ratio of 1:125 or 0.8% of revenue – still
remarkably cheap.
• However, once expenses are paid (fuel, equipment, food, shelter), and profits
are divided – usually very inequitably with the lion’s share going towards the
top of the labour pyramid – the cost of mercury may become significant for
labourers at the bottom, and so despite its apparent cheapness, an economic
incentive to conserve mercury does exist for the lowest paid labourers and for
those who deal in large quantities of mercury – often gold dealers.
6. Miners are not always aware of the health risks that mercury poses. Images of
people carelessly exposing themselves to mercury in Figure 6.1 tragically show
the truth of this.
7. Miners have no choice – in many cases miners are not aware of alternatives if
they do exist, or do not have the capacity to practice them.
8. Mercury is most commonly used when simple gravity methods cannot produce
concentrates greater than 10-20% gold. This is true of many simple hydraulic
sluicing operations and many shallow colluvial or hard rock operations. If a
concentrate of 20% can be produced, then direct gold smelting is possible.
9. Mercury is used when capital (cash) is needed quickly for subsistence or to
purchase materials and supplies required for more sophisticated techniques
like leaching with cyanide. This point is often a difficult one for citizens of
developed nations to fully grasp. The miners – even the middle men – do not
have bank accounts or credit cards or much, if any, access to social assist-
ance like health care, and therefore often cannot wait to get paid. For example,
miners who have made the transition to cyanide leaching and whom know
that the maximum gold can be obtained through cyanide leaching alone,
often return to using mercury when an emergency such as a family illness or
wedding comes up, simply because they cannot wait until completion of the
more time consuming, albeit more efficient, cyanide processing method (often a
1 month cycle).
In summary, using mercury is cheap, simple, fast, independent, and reliable.
And so in many settings, it is hard to beat. That is why, as a first line of interven-
tion, it may be more appropriate to try to reduce mercury consumption through
conservation practices like retorting, fume hoods, and mercury re-activation or
cleaning (making dirty mercury usable again and thereby preventing it from
being discarded into the environment), rather than immediately aiming for the
total elimination of mercury use. The introduction of conservation practises can
easily reduce mercury consumption by 50 to 90% and it is an easily accepted
change in practice – one that can even have the powerful incentive of being
profitable (Agrawal, 2007).
Air-surface Amalgam
Air-surface Atmospheric Long range River Siltation,
burning: Drastic
exchange Adsorption
exzchange transport aqueous
• Halogen • How far? Alteration of the
behaviour to transport in-water light
depleted
localsurfaces field,
atmosphere
like the Species and
wooden Diversity Loss,
beam, have Habitat shifts,
large health Photochemistry
implications shifts
• Speciation?
ajos
• Magnitude? Addition of more
• Fate?
sediment from gold
Tap
mining
Rio
• Speciation?
Air-surface • Magnitude?
exchange? • Fate Sediment plume occupies
Speciation?
half the Tapajos' width.
Magnitude?
Fate? Complete mixing is attained
Gold Shop before reaching Itaituba.
chimney Deposition or emission to
Emissions. the canopy over 10 years?
Urban
surfaces?
Amazon Rainforest Canopy Indonesian Rainforest Burning
Hydrologic Forcing 1995 Mixing of sediment

800 1998 plume at rapids
2001
700 2004
Trends
Level (cm)
600 Media (1970-1996)
500 5 km
400
300 S m water level Sediment Plume
Primary Forest
200 variationannually Clear Water
100 Rio Trombetas Gold Mining Activity
Estação ORIXIMINA and Open Soil/Sand
0 Deforestation
Nov Feb May Sep Dec Mar
Tapajos River Basin
LANDSAT R=TM3,
G=TM4,B=TM5
Mining into high DOM waters
• Weathering and
mercury?
• During Laterication
What happens to the
• Changes in ri
mercury in the
repo
• Floodplain Inundation
Active Pools Protolith?
• Impacts of
Rio C
Anthropogenicially
• Methylation Enhanced Weathering?
Health Impacts Mercury–Cyanide Interactions

Education
Awareness
Aquaculture in recieving waters
Mercury handling
Rice cultivation in recieving Health and safety Best practices
environment– methylation,
aquaculture
Figure 6.1 Illustration of some of the many knowledge gaps remaining about mercury in ASGM
6.2.1 How Mercury is Released to the Environment
Mercury is released to the environment during artisanal gold mining in a variety

of ways. When it is used to amalgamate gold, some escapes directly into water bodies
as elemental mercury droplets or as coatings of mercury adsorbed onto sediment
grains. The mercury that forms the amalgam with gold is emitted to the atmosphere
when the amalgam is heated – if a fume hood or retort is not used. As well naturally
occurring mercury in soils and sediments that are eroded by sluicing and dredging
becomes remobilised and bio available in receiving waters (Telmer et al. 2006).
Finally, where a combination of cyanide and mercury are used, the formation of
water soluble cyano-mercuric complexes enhances transport and bio-availability.
Albeit the fate of mercury in any of these processes is poorly understood, the
interactions of cyanide and mercury are the least understood at this time.
When miners use cyanide, this dissolves not only gold but also mercury, forming
cyano-mercury complexes. These complexes are easily mobilized by rain and often,
due to poor containment practices, quickly reach stream waters. It is expected that
water-soluble mercury cyanide is either more bio available or easier to be biomethylated
than elemental mercury. This possibility deserves more investigation, but indirect
evidence collected by the Global Mercury Project sites in Indonesia, Zimbabwe and
Brazil suggest this is the case. Dangerously high levels of mercury in fish (average
2.53 ± 3.91 mg Hg kg-1; carnivorous fish: 4.16 ± 5.42 mg Hg kg-1) were found in
Brazil when mercury and cyanide were used together compared to when only mercury
amalgamation was performed (UNIDO, 2006). Other similar investigations were
carried out in Indonesia (Castilhos et al., 2006; Baker and Telmer, 2007).
Overall, therefore, the pathway that mercury from ASGM takes into the environment,
whether it is emitted to the atmosphere, first released into surface water and soils and
later emitted (latent emissions), or exported in products (see later section); as well
as the amount of mercury consumed per unit of gold produced, varies greatly across
ASGM operations and communities.
6.2.1.1 Whole Ore Amalgamation
Whole ore amalgamation is the process of bringing mercury into contact with 100%
of the material being mined. Typically, mercury is either added when the ore is
being ground in mills or the slurry produced from grinding is passed over a mercury
coated copper plate. Amalgamating the whole ore uses mercury very inefficiently
and so between 3 and 50 units of mercury are consumed to produce 1 unit of gold,
with an average of around 5. Most of the mercury loss during whole ore amalgamation
initially occurs into the solid tailings which are often discharged directly into receiving
waters and soils. Importantly, however, it is well documented that this mercury
continues to evade into the environment for centuries (Alpers and Hunerlach, 2000;
Al et al., 2006; Shaw et al. 2006; Winch, 2006). Further, although little studied, it
is certain that mercury in tailings that are subsequently leached with cyanide to
recover more gold (a growing trend already observed in 10 countries) undergoes
enhanced aqueous transport and emission to the atmosphere. This is because of the
complexation of mercury by cyanide. It is well known that mercury and cyanide,

like gold and cyanide, readily form soluble complexes, and that when cyano-mercury
complexes degrade, mercury readily volatilises.
Immediate emissions to the atmosphere during whole ore amalgamation occur
when the recovered amalgam is heated to produce the gold. In the simplest case,
such as the use of mercury coated copper plates, immediate losses to the atmosphere
are therefore roughly equal to the amount of gold produced. However, there can be
significant additional emissions to the atmosphere on a time scale of weeks to months
from tailings and in particular from operations that employ cyanide. For example, in
a whole ore amalgamation operation like those in Indonesia documented in Sulaiman
et al. (2007), if 20 g of mercury are consumed to produce 1 g of gold, then 19 g
of mercury are lost to the tailings and 1 g of mercury is immediately emitted to the
atmosphere. However, additional mercury is released to the atmosphere shortly
thereafter from: (i) volatilisation from cyanide rich tailings; (ii) during cyanidation
gold is adsorbed from the solution by activated carbon. Mercury is also unavoidably
adsorbed. To recover the gold, the carbon is burnt and so any adsorbed mercury is
emitted at that time; (iii) the “ash” produced by burning the activated carbon is often
re-amalgamated with mercury and this amalgam is also thermally decomposed to
produce the gold, releasing an additional amount of mercury to the atmosphere
equal to the total gold produced. In such cases, immediate emissions to the
atmosphere are minimally greater than the total gold produced and this includes
the amount of gold produced via cyanide leaching.
6.2.1.2 Amalgamation of a Concentrate
In cases where only a gravity concentrate is amalgamated, losses are normally about
1 to 2 units of mercury for each unit of gold produced, but can be significantly lower
if a mercury capturing system is used when the amalgam is burnt – retorts or fume
hoods. For example, in Central Kalimantan, commonly 1.3 g of mercury is consumed
to amalgamate 1 g of gold from a gravity concentrate produced by sluicing alluvial ore
(Telmer and Stapper, 2007). In this case 0.3 g of mercury is discharged to water with
the tailings and 1 g of mercury is emitted to the atmosphere when the amalgam is burnt.
Consumption of mercury in Brazil as recorded by Sousa and Veiga (2007) is similar.
Sometimes the tailings are rich in minerals such as zircon which are valuable to
the ceramics and abrasives industries and so the tailings are not discarded but rather
are further processed and then export (often to China or Korea). During reprocessing
the tailings are often amalgamated a second time to recover any residual gold, and
then further processed to produce (i) a high grade heavy mineral concentrate which is
contaminated in mercury and export, and (ii) a waste which is discarded. The mercury
that is export with the zircon is certain to be emitted to the atmosphere during later
industrial use. The fate of the mercury in the residual waste is unknown but may
end up in aggregate products such as bricks or be discarded into local waterways.
An additional cause of mercury pollution that is frequently overlooked is the discarding
of “dirty mercury”. When ore is amalgamated with mercury the products are (i) solid
amalgam; (ii) tailings; and (iii) residual liquid mercury. For example, a miner may
add 100 g of mercury to 10 kg of concentrate and then recover 20 g of amalgam

(50% gold, 50% mercury), and 87 g of residual liquid mercury with 3 g lost to the
tailings. They would then re-use the residual liquid mercury to amalgamate the next
day’s concentrate. However, the effectiveness of the liquid mercury is reduced as it
becomes oxidized and contaminated with impurities – this is referred to as “dirty
mercury”. Typically, after 3 or 4 uses, mercury becomes much less effective at
amalgamation and so it is discarded. In the case of dredge operations in Kalimantan,
dredge operators just throw it into the river. This causes mercury consumption to
be higher than the 1.3 units of mercury for every 1 unit of gold described above.
When mercury is not recycled through re-activation (described in the final section),
consumption is likely to be at least twice the ratio established by recording only the
immediate losses that occur during amalgamation.
6.3 Where ASGM is Occurring
There is reasonably good information about where ASGM is occurring. The

Information sources are: reports from the MMSD (2002); 16 years of archives from
the Northern Miner (1992–2008); reports and conference materials from the World
Bank’s Secretariat on Communities and Small Scale Mining (CASM, 2007) up to
2007 (7 meetings); 5 years of reports and conference materials form the UNDP/
GEF/UNIDO Global Mercury Project (GMP) up to 2007; reports from other intervention
programs such as the Swiss Development Agency (SDA), the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF); reports and abstracts
from the International Congresses on Mercury as a Global Pollutant (ICMGP) up to
2006 (8 congresses); numerous articles published in the peer reviewed literature; and
personal communications with field operatives of intervention programs and people
employed in the ASGM economy – miners and gold and mercury merchants. Table 6.1
(see Appendix 1) lists the countries and column 3 of Table 6.1 lists the sources of
information that identify the presence of ASGM by country (note that these
information sources are in some cases different from those used later to estimate current
mercury consumption – column 7). Accordingly, ASGM has been documented to
occur in 70 countries. Figure 6.2 illustrates the global distribution of ASGM based
on data from Table 6.1. There are at least 6 more countries that are likely to have
ASGM occurring bring the likely total to 76 countries but with no firm documentation
for those countries we will use the more conservative number of 70.
6.4 Amount of mercury used in ASGM
Amounts of mercury consumed in ASGM can be determined primarily in 5 ways.

1. Direct measurements – using a balance to directly weigh amounts of mercury used.
2. Applying a mercury/gold (Hg:Au) ratio based on the style of operation (gravity
concentrate or whole ore amalgamation) to estimates of gold production.
Figure 6.2 Map of mercury consumption by artisanal small scale gold mining globally
3. To get to number 2, estimate the number of miners actively mining and their
average gold production.
4. Interviewing miners and gold merchants who buy or sell mercury.
5. Official trade data.
The first four approaches involve directly working with miners and gold merchants
and gaining their trust.
Unfortunately, there is very little high quality information on amounts of
mercury, size of operations, and what styles of operation are in use around the
world in ASGM sites. Much of what exists is anecdotal. In part, this is because
of ASGM’s highly decentralized and remote nature and because it often exists
outside the law. Specifically: (i) there is a lack of interest from governments
about ASGM because miners are marginal citizens – they do not pay tax, do not
vote, do not have permanent homes, etc.; (ii) miners are subjected to gold price
cycles and gold rushes and unfair labour practices and so are very migratory and
dispersed; (iii) many ASGM sites are in remote areas where there is no infra-
structure and therefore no information; (iv) many clandestine (illegal) activities
are involved in ASGM such as money laundering, tax evasion, weapon acquisition,
etc., making it sometimes difficult to access miners and making the quality of
information they provide sometimes questionable; (v) miners and mining and
the use of mercury are often prohibited – perhaps more than 90% of all miners
are operating in illegal ways.
But we have found that, in fact, many of these obstacles can be overcome and
the lack of information is not only due to these reasons. It is also due to the differing
cultures of various intervention efforts. Telmer and Stapper (2007) explain this as
follows: “A good knowledge base is the required backbone to formulate solutions
to the problems associated with mercury and ASGM. Indeed, many well meaning
attempts to improve the livelihoods and living conditions of miners or to reduce the
environmental impacts of ASGM have failed because of lack of appropriate knowledge

about the ASGM community. There have been attempts to create alternative liveli-
hoods or to introduce mercury-free technologies to miners based simply on the idea
or wish that they should behave differently, rather than starting by understanding the
financial burden that such interventions might cause and then building up a solution
from there.” They go on to explain that “In assessing an ASGM site, there are many
useful bits and pieces of information that help constrain the socio-economic and
environmental realities of small scale gold mining. Of these, perhaps some of the
most useful quantities are: (i) how many people are mining? (ii) how much gold
are they producing?; (iii) how much mercury do they use to do so?; and (iv) what
is the scale of the impacts they are having on the landscape? – How much habitat
(land and water) has been impacted? This basic information can then be used
to constrain many other important aspects of ASGM, and then to educate the
stakeholders and interest groups involved – including the miners themselves. This
in turn helps immensely in guiding the formulation of appropriate intervention
strategies, focusing resources, and avoiding costly and frustrating failures.” And so
unfortunately, despite years of efforts, most interventions in ASGM have either not
attempted to, or have not been able to effectively measure the quantity of mercury
consumed by miners in ASGM sites. There are however some cases where the
amounts of mercury consumed have been well documented.
6.4.1 Indonesia
1. Telmer and Stapper (2007) together with Agrawal (2007) used a scale to directly
weigh amounts of mercury used to amalgamate ore, and then extrapolated these
statistics to Central Kalimantan by using aerial photography and satellite
imagery. The estimate of mercury consumption since 1990 to 2006 for Central
Kalimantan not including river dredging was 70 Mg of mercury with the lion’s
share (10 Mg yr-1) being consumed in more recent times. River dredging con-
sumes more mercury than land based work because the miners throw away the
mercury once it becomes oxidized (refered to as “dirty mercury”) and is no
longer a strong amalgamator of gold – a habit that can be changed by teaching
how to clean or re-activate mercury (Pantoja and Alvaarez, 2000; Wuerker,
2008) Sousa and Veiga (2007) estimate how much mercury this prevents from
entering the environment for a case study in Brazil. Mercury consumption is
estimated to at least double for the region when river dredging is included. Central
Kalimantan is about 1/3 of Kalimantan but contains about 1/2 of Kalimantan’s
ASGM sites, and so by further extrapolation using satellite imagery, it is
estimated that 40-60 Mg yr-1 of mercury are consumed in Kalimantan. This is a
minimum estimate because it does not include any high-grade underground
workings which are known to occur in Kalimantan (Mansur Geiger, Kalimantan
Gold Corporation, pers. comm., 2008) but difficult to see with publically
available satellite imagery. Further, there are many small operations up the many
tributary river channels that cannot be easily seen by satellite imagery. Many of
these were seen by low flying aerial survey performed while ground truthing the
larger areas with aerial photography – small scale mining was ubiquitous, often
appearing in the wake of illegal logging.
2. Sulaiman et al. (2007) examined a whole ore amalgamation operation in North
Sulawesi, Indonesia, and also used a balance to directly weigh amounts of
mercury used to amalgamate ore per mining operation. Mercury losses per unit
of gold amalgamated were extremely high averaging 37.5 g mercury lost per 1 g
gold produced. The consumption of mercury in just one small area that contained
roughly 100 individual operators was 3 Mg yr-1. [An important additional
and worrisome consideration here is that once the ore has been subjected to
amalgamation by mercury, it is subsequently leached with cyanide and then the
final tailings are crudely disposed of into unlined ponds that leak into rivers and
groundwater. It is known that cyanide complexes mercury as well as gold and so
it is certain that the cyanide leaching is enhancing the transport and distribution
of mercury in the environment. It is also known from large scale mining operations
that cyanide leaching enhances mercury evasion to the atmosphere and so that
too is certainly occurring.] Two more mining areas in North Sulawesi of equal
magnitude were visited making a total of 9 Mg yr-1 mercury consumption only
for the limited study area. However, it is known that there are more operations
in Sulawesi making this a minimum for that island.
The mercury consumption for these two areas is 40-60 Mg yr-1 for Kalimantan plus
9 Mg yr-1 for a part of Sulawesi with a total between 50 and 70 Mg yr-1. The MMSD
report on indonesia by Clive Aspinal (2002) claims much higher losses of mercury
in north Sulawesi – a total of 270 kg Hg per day which would make annual losses,
based on 260 working days per annum, equal to 70 Mg of mercury – just for one
area in North Sulawesi. Further, the report uses that estimate from North Sulawesi
to extrapolate and make a hypothetical loss of mercury per annum for all Indonesia
of 1400 Mg Hg yr-1. Clearly, this is an overestimate. Nonetheless, the report does
help give some useful information on the extent of ASGM in Indonesia claiming
that in 2002 small scale gold miners were operating in Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Java,
Sumatra, and Irian Jaya (now called Papua) – essentially all of the major islands.
Through talking to miners, we learned that it occurs on several other islands as well.
Considering the broad distribution of ASGM in Indonesia and the fact that ASGM
has grown since the MMSD was completed in 2002 (the price of gold has tripled
during that time increasing the incentive to mine), we feel it is reasonable to double
the estimates from Kalimantan and Sulawesi for a total mercury consumption for
Indonesia equal to 100 to 140 Mg yr-1. To make the quality of this estimate clear,
and to illustrate how poor the database on mercury in ASGM is, it is important to
understand that despite the obviously loose nature of this estimate, it is perhaps our
most certain figure. Scaling up from one operation to the country level inevitably
involves significant assumptions; nonetheless, we have begun with quantitative data
and used the tools that are available to scale up.
6.4.2 Brazil
Sousa and Veiga, (2007) have estimated that there are 40,000 miners in the Crepori
area of the Tapajos basin (Reserva Garimpeira) and that they consume 40 g mercury/
month for a total of 19.2 Mg yr-1. Telmer and Stapper (2007) independently looked
at a subset of this region representing about 1/2 of the area for the period 1979 to
2006, and only considered land based operations (i.e. no river dredging included)
and estimated an annual mercury use of 4 Mg yr-1 for 2006 – the closest year to the
work of Sousa and Veiga. By extrapolation to the whole area and including dredges
an amount of 15 to 25 Mg yr-1 is possible, roughly corroborating the results of
Sousa and Veiga. Brazil is a vast territory and has several other known ASGM sites
including several new areas in the western state of Acre (Blore, 2007) and so we
feel that doubling this estimate to 40 Mg yr-1 is reasonable.
6.4.3 Other Countries with Documented Estimates
Quantities of mercury have also been relatively well documented in Cambodia

7.5 Mg yr-1 (Murphy, 2006); Guyana 15 Mg yr-1; Suriname 7.5 Mg yr-1, French
Guyana 7.5 Mg yr-1 (Vieira, 2008); and Monglia 11.5 Mg yr-1 (Grayson, 2007). As
well, quantities of mercury have been estimated in four more countries that partici-
pated in the Global Mercury Project: Sudan 0.8 Mg yr-1 (Ibrahm, 2003); Zimbabwe
25 Mg yr-1; Laos 1.3 Mg yr-1, and Tanzania 6 Mg yr-1. Gunson and Yue (2002)
reported a minimum of 50 Mg yr-1 mercury released through ASGM in China,
however this estimate was since revised to a min and max of 237 to 652 Mg yr-1
through more thorough research (Gunson, 2004) and seems reasonable based on
the fact that China became the world’s largest gold producer in 2007, much of its
production is known to come from small mines, and that much of China’s
ASGM employs inefficient whole ore amalgamation where the consumption of
mercury can be very high. Unfortunately at this time China officially admits no
ASGM operations occur in its territory.
6.4.4 Other Countries - Direct Anecdotal Information
We have direct anecdotal information on ASGM operations in another 15 countries

(Ghana, Mozambique, Guinea, Uganda, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia,
Venezuela, Suriname, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Madagascar). These involved
either visits or telephone conversations with various stakeholders and miners and
gold merchants who, through personal communications provided estimates of
mercury consumption by the ASGM community – listed in Table 6.1. As such
these estimates are based entirely on anecdotal information gained through
6
Appendix 1
Table 6.1 Mercury consumption by country for 2008 in artisanal small scale gold mining (ASGM) estimated by the authors; official imports and exports of mercury
and gold as recorded in the UN’s COMTRADE database per annum for the five year period 2002-2006; the number of chlor-alkali plants per county in 2004 that
use mercury (data from the Chlorine Institute). Note: Iraq and Libya do not report any trade in Hg or Gold. However Iraq has 3 mercury based Chlor-Alkali plants
and Libya has 1
Chlorine
ASGM Mercury COMTRADE Data Inst.
(Mg yr-1)
Basis for Hg Export Hg Import Au Export Au Import Chlor-alk.
Country ASGM Presence min max mean Estimate (Mg yr-1) (Mg yr-1) (Mg yr-1) (Mg yr-1) Plants (#)
Amount 641.9 1352.5 997.2 3227.9 3202.7 5954.9 4884.3 229
Count 163 70 70 70 70 70 65 117 108 124 44
1 Albania 0.05
2 Algeria 218.38 0.31 0.187 0.567 3
3 Andorra 0.015 0.254
Mercury Emissions from Artisanal Gold Mining
4 Anguilla
5 Argentina 0.31 15.18 32.310 0.026 4
6 Armenia 0.00 5.422 4.812
7 Australia APLA (2004) 0 2 1.0 Guess 49.96 37.62 258.902 106.918
8 Austria 1.70 3.84 13.071 20.078
9 Azerbaijan ? 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 21.22
10 Bahrain 0.05 0.109 0.014
11 Bangladesh 7.93 0.009 1
12 Barbados 0.04 0.005
13 Belarus 1.06 11.375 2.806
14 Belgium 17.12 37.23 20.974 12.314 4
15 Benin Yager et al. (2002) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.00 0.002
16 Belize 6.372
17 Bolivia Graham (2002); 5 10 7.5 MMSD, 1.29 6.701 2.378
Hentschel et al. (2002) GMP,
CASM
143
18 Bosnia 38.20 0.04 0.055 4

Herzegovina
(continued)
Table 6.1 (continued)
144
Chlorine
(Mg yr-1)
19 Botswana Madawo (2007) 0.5 1 0.8 GMP
20 Brazil Blore (2007); 30 60 45.0 Sousa and 0.09 54.60 32.009 0.712 11
Veiga (1997) Veiga
(2007);
Telmer
and 0.012
Stapper
(2007)
21 Bulgaria 0.12 0.44
22 Burkina Faso Hiyate (2008); Saywell 3 7 5.0 MMSD, 0.001 0.192
(2008); ILO (1999) Northern
Miner
23 Burundi Cumming (1997) ; Priester 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
and Hentschel (1992)
24 Cambodia Sotham (2001) 5 10 7.5 Sotham 1.996
(2004);
Murphy
(2006)
25 Cameroon ? 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.003
26 Canada Basque (1991) 0 2 1.0 8.16 9.03 203.737 150.442
27 Central Africa Yager et al (2002); Northern 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
Republic Miner (2001, v87, no.2)
28 Chad Mobbs (1996) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
29 Chile Castro and Sanchez (2003) 3 5 4.0 42.49 1.59 15.230 0.068
30 China Saywell (2007); Gunson 237 652 444.5 Gunson 0.18 188.49 22.642 18.558 6
and Veiga (2004) (2004)
31 China, Hong Kong AR 11.93 41.79 278.843 132.759
K.H. Telmer and M.M. Veiga
6
32 China, Macao 0.00 0.002 0.032

SAR
33 Colombia Harris (2006); Lacerda 50 100 75.0 Gov. of 0.03 63.18 35.744 0.247 1
(2003) Antioquia
34 Cook Isds 0.000
35 Costa Rica Northern Miner (1998, v 84, 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.31 194.969 135.707
no. 17); Veiga (1997)
36 Côte d’Ivoire Mobbs (1998) 0.04 1.518
37 Croatia 0.46 0.05 0.259 1.907 3
38 Cuba 2.72 0.215 0.081 1
39 Cyprus 0.02 0.037 1.306
40 Czech Rep. 74.50 3.36 6.006 5.102 2
41 Denmark 9.00 0.42 1.119 2.331 2
42 Dominica 0.002 0.006
43 Dominican Veiga (1997) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
Republic
44 Democratic Vaccaro (2007); ILO (1999) 1 2 1.5 Guess
Republic of
Congo
45 Ecuador Robertson (2006); 10 20 15.0 GMP 0.03 9.47 285.982 0.922
Betancourt et al (2005)
46 El Salvador 0.70 0.057 1.488
47 Estonia 2.79 0.003 0.047 1.589
48 Ethiopia Labonne (2002) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.05 5.278 0.256
49 Faeroe Isds 0.004 0.005
50 Fiji 0.19 4.829 0.684
51 Finland 32.16 0.20 1.221 1.170 5
52 France 56.76 137.93 33.397 41.417 10
53 French Guiana Fréry et al (2001) 5 10 7.5 Viera (2008) 0.081
54 French Polynesia
55 Gambia Dolley (1996) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.005
56 Georgia
145
(continued)
146
Chlorine
(Mg yr-1)
57 Gabon Northern Miner (2003, 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 6.694 0.063
v. 89, no. 40); Priester
58 Germany 50.35 52.82 59.861 50.487 21
59 Ghana Northern Miner (2007, 3 6 4.5 GMP 5.41 80.243 1.717
v. 93, no. 39); Babut
et al (2003)
60 Greece 2.79 1.069 28.300 1
61 Guatemala UNEP (2005) 1 2 1.5 GMP 27.81 0.620 2.327
62 Guinea Labonne (2002) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 79.313
63 Guinea-Bissau Dolley (1996); 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 34.36 7.417 0.028
Bermudez-Lugo (2002)
64 Guyana Couture and Lambert, 10 20 15.0 Viera (2008)
(2003)
65 Honduras Attenborough (1999); Veiga 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.65 0.51 5.955 0.106
(1997)
66 Hungary 4.11 0.764 0.736 2
67 Iceland 0.003 0.008 0.493
68 India Duval (2004); 1 2 1.5 Guess 11.10 186.81 0.594 743.774 48
Siddaiah (2001)
69 Indonesia Castilhos et al (2006) 130 160 145.0 Telmer and 4
Stapper
(2007)
70 Iran ? 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.13 126.19 2.666 7
71 Ireland 0.40 4.91 0.118 2.444
72 Israel 13.92 24.01 0.444 3.987 2
73 Italy 66.94 39.67 46.578 275.543 11
6
74 Ivory coast Yager et al (2002) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min

75 Jamaica 0.04 0.037
76 Japan 108.29 4.58 124.808 67.000
77 Jordan 0.03 12.989 7.125
78 Kazakhstan ? 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 1.24 26.678 0.535
79 Kenya Yager et al (2002) 5 10 7.5 GMP 0.93 10.57 558.196 0.765
80 Kyrgyzstan Appel et al (2003) 5 10 7.5 Appel 460.48 12.521 0.079
81 Laos Boungnaphalom (2003) 0.5 2 1.3 GMP
82 Latvia 0.00 0.01 0.001 0.147
83 Lebanon 3.42 17.625 11.290
84 Lesotho Coakley (2002) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
85 Liberia DLI (2003) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
86 Lithuania 0.003 0.012
87 Luxembourg 0.06 0.11 6.625 6.435
88 Madagascar Rajaobelina (2003) 1 2 1.5 Guess 0.00 0.02 0.001 0.002
89 Malawi Dreschler (2001) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.02 0.004
90 Malaysia Priester and Hentschel 2 5 3.5 Google Earth 173.88 42.04 732.191 651.339
(1992)
91 Maldives 0.01 0.137
92 Mali Northern Miner (2008, v93., 1 2 1.5 MMSD 41.061 2.412
no. 47; no. 50); MMSD
(2002)
93 Malta 0.003 0.406 9.461
94 Mauritius
95 Mayotte 0.06 0.114 0.778
96 Mauritania Mbendi (2004) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.006
97 Mexico Graham (2003); Veiga 5 10 7.5 Guess 7.64 221.27 138.191 646.113
(1997)
98 Mongolia Grayson (2007) 8 15 11.5 Grayson 11.503
(2007)
99 Montserrat 0.003
100 Morocco 16.94 2.18 0.915 2.472 3
147
(continued)
148
ASGM Mercury Chlorine

(Mg yr-1) COMTRADE Data Inst.
101 Mozambique Spiegel et al (2006) 3 5 4.0 GMP 0.004 1.201 0.006
102 Myanmar UNESCAP (2003) 5 8 6.5 UNESCAP 2.956 .454 1
(2003)
103 Namibia 0.05
104 Nepal 0.09
105 Netherlands 198.36 592.26 16.818 20.764 1
106 New Caledonia 0.01 0.077
107 New Zealand ? 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 0.04 0.01 18.221 1.067
108 Nicaragua Attenborough (1999); 1 2 1.5 Silva (2008) 0.29 4.989 0.021 1
Rosario and Ault (1997)
109 Niger Alfa (2000) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 3.218
110 Nigeria Vaccaro (2006); Priester 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
111 Norway 0.02 0.08 3.732 2.509
112 Oceania ? 0 1 0.5 Guess
113 Oman 0.09 0.367 5.306
114 Pakistan 34.36 27.650 3
115 Panama Attenborough (1999) 1 2 1.5 Guess 0.14 0.232 0.572
116 Papua New Crispin (2003) 2 4 3.0 MMSD 3.74 28.230 0.571
Guinea
117 Paraguay 0.12 0.051 0.046
118 Peru Brooks et al (2006) 20 40 30.0 Brooks et al 75.46 82.67 415.032 0.026 8
(2006)
119 Philippines Israel and Asirot (2000) 20 30 25.0 Israel and 1
Asirot
(2000)
120 Poland 11.39 9.22 0.482 2.373 3
121 Portugal 15.76 0.28 0.184 2.344

122 Qatar 0.05 0.016 1.762
6
123 Rep. of Korea 8.57 131.15 117.824 156.265 5

124 Rep. of Moldova 0.018
125 Romania 7.08 18.85 1.223 0.453 1
126 Russian Stepanov and Yusupov 7 15 11.0 Stepanov and138.59 38.45 0.020 0.002 4
Federation (2001) Yusupov
(2001)
127 Rwanda Priester and Hentschel 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
(1992)
128 Saudi Arabia 0.00 1.94 234.719 44.816 1
129 Senegal Savornin et al (2007) 1 2 1.5 Guess 0.04 0.508 0.079
130 Serbia 0.00 1.18 0.312 0.013 4
131 Sierra Leone Thonae (2004) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min
132 Singapore 84.95 138.74 61.018 116.456
133 Slovakia 0.90 3.07 0.283 2.993
134 Slovenia 5.18 0.07 0.456 0.856 2
135 South Africa Beales (2005); Mahlatsi and 5 10 7.5 GMP 9.94 11.68 5.999 1.155
Guest (2003)
136 Spain 668.75 454.43 7.831 24.311 9

137 Sudan Ibrahim (2003) 0.5 1 0.8 GMP 0.03 6.01 0.208 7.167
138 Sri Lanka
139 Suriname Heemskerk (2003) 5 10 7.5 Viera (2008) 0.001
140 Sweden 0.33 4.03 14.461 1.441 5
141 Switzerland 124.07 9.83 42.253 9.038 2
142 Syria 19.96 0.005
143 Tajikistan Dawson (1996) 3 5 4.0 Dawson
(1996)
144 TFYR of 18.02 0.01 0.016 0.054
Macedonia
145 Thailand Umbangtalad et al. (2007) 1 2 1.5 Guess 4.40 12.20 35.851 108.214
146 Timor-Leste
147 Togo Yager et al (2002) 3 5 4.0 Yager et al 0.97 8.36
(2002)
149
148 Trinidad and 0.04 0.13 0.127 0.370

Tobago
(continued)
150
ASGM Mercury Chlorine

(Mg yr-1) COMTRADE Data Inst.
149 Tunisia 0.00 0.05 0.409 2.207
150 Turkey 0.03 5.25 13.413 222.339 2
151 Turks and Caicos
Is.
152 Uganda World Bank (2003) 0.5 1 0.8 Hinton 0.05 10.462
(2008)
153 United Arab 1.19 9.70 52.822 117.468 1
Emirates
154 United Kingdom 56.66 23.08 2.168 347.705 9
155 United Rep. of Kinabo (2003) 4 8 6.0 Kinabo, 2.77 50.736 26.600
Tanzania Ikingura
156 Uruguay 1.96 3.792 0.100 2
157 USA Weekend Prospector (2004) 1 2 1.5 319.83 130.75 1330.776 360.750 8
158 Uzbekistan Trung (2001); Northern 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min 1.002
Miner (v. 83 no. 41,
1997)
159 Venezuela Veiga et al (2005) 10 20 15.0 Veiga et al 1.002 0.705
(2005)
160 Viet Nam Trung (2001); Northern 5 10 7.5 0.353 56.863
Miner (v. 83 no. 41,
1997)
161 Yemen 0.824 0.390
162 Zambia Kambani (2003) 0.5 1 0.8 Kambani 0.12 0.750 0.01
(2003),
Nyambe,
(2008)
163 Zimbabwe Maponga. and Ngorima 20 30 25.0 GMP 11.12 16.266 41.005
(2003)
discussion. We therefore have relatively good information on ASGM mercury con-

sumption from 2 countries, reasonable information from 7 more countries, and
some but poor information from 14 more countries amounting to some knowledge
by the authors on ASGM sites in 23 countries. These 23 countries represent in
excess of 80% of ASGM mercury consumption.
6.4.5 Remaining Countries - Indirect Anecdotal Information
There is further information from the MMSD reports published in 2002 but as
mercury was not necessarily a primary focus, the estimates, like the one from Indonesia
discussed earlier, are of variable quality. Some seem to exaggerate the amounts of
mercury consumed by the ASGM community. For example our estimate of 7.5 Mg
yr-1 for Bolivia is far lower than the numbers given by the MMSD report (no total
is given but 25 Mg yr-1 are ascribed to just one area). Some seem to understate the
problem - the report on India by Chakravorty (2002), for example, claims that there
is no “gold rush” in India and essentially no use of mercury in ASGM in India.
However, other anecdotal reports from Indian colleagues claim this is not the case
and clearly India is heavily involved in the gold industry.
According to goldnews (http://goldnews.bullionvault.com) India consumes nearly
800 Mg of Gold Bullion/a, accounting for about 20% of world gold consumption.
Nearly 600 Mg of it goes into making jewellery representing $13.5 billion in fiscal
2006-07, and accounting for 8.3% of world jewellery sales by value. For the sake
of being conservative, we have assigned India an almost impossibly small amount
of mercury consumption through ASGM of 0.3 Mg yr-1, however, we imagine that
this could be substantially larger. Many of the other MMSD reports mention the use
of mercury, even the intensive use of mercury, but do not estimate quantities used.
In total there is some form of information for 48 countries ranging from relatively
good to reasonable to poor as described above. Those 48 countries have been assigned
value for consumption of mercury by ASGM operations. For the remaining 25
countries, there is only information indicating the presence of ASGM. These countries
have been assigned a minimum amount of mercury of 0.3 Mg yr-1 equalling a total
of 7.5 Mg for those 25 countries.
6.5 Reported Trade in Mercury and Gold
In ASGM, mercury consumption (mercury purchased) is equal to the amount of

mercury released to the environment as none that was purchased is ever returned to the
commodity market. Notably, although mercury is traded freely as a commodity around
the world, it is never officially purchased for gold amalgamation despite the fact that
a large amount of what is traded ends up being used for that purpose. For example,
Brazil, French Guiana, and Indonesia, despite their large ASGM communities, are
countries in which mercury is not allowed by law to be used in gold mining. Here, in
order to understand the limits of our estimations on mercury use in ASGM, we analyse
the existing global trade data on mercury and gold to make some crude observations
and also to show how invisible the trade in mercury and gold from ASGM is.
The following analysis is based on the data in Table 6.1 which lists global trade
in mercury and gold per annum using data from the United Nations Commodity
Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE) covering the five year period 2002-2006.
The table also contains the number of chlor-alkali plants that use mercury per country
as reported by the Chlorine Institute (2006), and the estimate of mercury consumption
by ASGM made by the authors that is discussed later.
Figure 6.3a shows total reported global mercury trade by country for the years
2002 through 2006 (a 5 year period) as recorded by COMTRADE. The database
relies on voluntary reporting and so is incomplete. For example, the number of years
reported varied between 5 and 1 for the countries listed. Figure 6.3b shows trade
for the same period but per annum by normalising to the number of years reported
(mass of mercury/years reported). For some determinations, it is better to use
Figure 6.3a, for other determinations, it may be more appropriate to use Figure 6.3b.
For example, to determine the average price paid for mercury, it is better to use only
the reported data, but the incomplete reporting in Figure 6.3a would underestimate the
total trade in mercury. The data in Figure 6.3b, on the other hand, may over-estimate
total mercury trade if some countries imported less mercury during the years for which
no reporting was done. The trade data from COMTRADE is therefore, to some degree,
complicated to interpret. Nonetheless, the following conclusions can be reached:
1. The number of countries that actively trade in mercury is 119 but there are 190
countries listed in the UN’s COMTRADE database. Therefore there are 71 countries
that either do not consume any mercury or do not report consumption. Due to dental
practices alone (300 to 400 Mg mercury consumed per annum for amalgam fillings,
Maxson, 2008a; P. Maxson, Concorde Cons., Belgium, 2008, pers. Comm.), it
is unlikely that these 71 countries do not trade in mercury at least for dental use.
This suggests that the database represents a minimum amount of trade.
2. The total reported mercury trade for the 5 year period of reporting from 2002 to
2006 (Figure 6.3a) is 12,750 Mg exported (2550 Mg yr-1), and 14,870 Mg
imported (2970 Mg yr-1 ). Amounts of “re-export” (57 Mg or 11.5 Mg yr-1) and
“re-import” (0.04 Mg or 0.008 Mg yr-1) are insignificant. This implies a surplus
amount of import of 2120 Mg over the 5 year period. Under any trade or consump-
tion scenario, this is unlikely. The reason for the discrepancy is unknown - perhaps
tax avoidance, perhaps incomplete reporting, or both. As it is unlikely that importing
is over-reported, this, as above in point 1, again suggests that mercury trade is
underestimated by the UN COMTRADE database. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that, a minimum of 2970 Mg of mercury per annum on average was
imported during the years 2002-2006. Normalising by years reported (Figure 6.3b)
the exports of mercury become 3,230 Mg yr-1 and imports 3,200 Mg yr-1.
The discrepancy is lessened and direction of imbalance reversed to surplus exports
a b
Tons of mercury trade for 2002-2006 Tons of mercury trade per year
(total reported for 5 years period) for period 2002-2006
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Albania Albania
Algeria Algeria
Argentina Argentina
Armenia Armenia
Australia
Exports
Australia Exports
Austria Imports Austria
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Imports
Bahrain Bahrain
Bangladesh Bangladesh
Barbados Barbados
Belarus Belarus
Belgium Belgium
Belize Belize
Bolivia Bolivia
Bosnia Herzegovina Bosnia Herzegovina
Brazil Brazil
Bulgaria Bulgaria
Burkina Faso Burkina Faso
Cameroon Cameroon
Canada Canada
Chile Chile
China China
China, Hong Kong SAR China, Hong Kong SAR
China, Macao SAR China, Macao SAR
Colombia Colombia
Costa Rica Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia Croatia
Cuba Cuba
Cyprus Cyprus
Czech Rep. Czech Rep.
Denmark Denmark
Dominica Dominica
Ecuador
Ecuador
El Salvador
El Salvador
Estonia
Estonia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Faeroe Isds
Faeroe Isds
Fiji
Fiji
Finland
Finland
France
France
Gabon
Gabon
Germany
Germany
Ghana
Ghana
Greece
Greece
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guyana
Guyana
Honduras
Honduras
Hungary
Hungary
Iceland
Iceland
India
India
Iran
Iran
Ireland
Ireland
Israel
Israel
Italy
Italy
Jamaica
Jamaica
Japan
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Jordan
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan Kenya
Latvia Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon Latvia
Lithuania Lebanon
Luxembourg Lithuania
Madagascar Luxembourg
Malawi Madagascar
Malaysia Malawi
Maldives Malaysia
Malta Maldives
Mauritius Malta
Mexico Mauritius
Morocco Mexico
Mozambique Morocco
Namibia Mozambique
Nepal Namibia
Netherlands Nepal
New Caledonia Netherlands
New Zealand New Caledonia
Nicaragua New Zealand
Norway Nicaragua
Oman Norway
Pakistan Oman
Panama Pakistan
Papua New Guinea Panama
Paraguay Papua New Guinea
Peru Paraguay
Poland Peru
Portugal Poland
Qatar Portugal
Rep. of Korea Qatar
Romania Rep. of Korea
Russian Federation Romania
Saudi Arabia Russian Federation
Senegal Saudi Arabia
Serbia Senegal
Singapore Serbia
Slovakia Singapore
Slovenia Slovakia
South Africa Slovenia
Spain South Africa
Sri Lanka Spain
Sweden Sri Lanka
Switzerland Sweden
Syria Switzerland
TFYR of Macedonia Syria
Thailand TFYR of Macedonia
Togo Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago Togo
Tunisia Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey Tunisia
Uganda Turkey
United Arab Emirates Uganda
United Kingdom United Arab Emirates
United Rep. of Tanzania United Kingdom
Uruguay Uruguay
USA USA
Viet Nam Viet Nam
Zambia Zambia
Zimbabwe Zimbabwe
Total Total
Figure 6.3 (a) International exports and imports of mercury by country in Mg for the 5 year
period 2002-2006 (UN Comtrade, 2008). All reporting countries are listed. (b) Same in (a) but per
annum by normalizing to the number of years reported – many countries did not report for all years
(30 Mg per annum greater export). The improved balance and more reasonable
direction of surplus (more export than import) suggests that this is a better estimate,
although by no means robust. It is also important to note that trade does not
imply consumption as some of the trade represents recycled mercury, perhaps 5
to 10% globally (Maxson, Concorde Cons., Belgium, 2008, pers. comm.).
3. The total value of reported exports (based on Figure 6.3a) was US$113,587,000
or US$22,717,000 per annum; the total value of imports was US$132,593,000
or US$26,519,000/a. Although, for the above reasons, the totals are minimums,
the average price may still be representative. The average selling price of mercury
was US$8.91/kg, the average buying price was US$8.92/kg. The current average
dealer price is US$18.33/kg (Northern Miner, 2008). For reference, Figure 6.4
shows the price of mercury over the last 108 years. Normalising by years reported
(Figure 6.3b) the value of exports per annum becomes US$26,690,000, and
imports US$28,567,000. Again the improved balance suggests that this is more
reasonable estimate but must be a minimum.
4. The minimum consumption of mercury by human endeavours can only be
approximated by this database - but not robustly. For example, during this 5 yr
period, the Netherlands exported 198 Mg per annum and imported 592 Mg yr-1.
It is unlikely that the Netherlands consumed the difference of 394 Mg yr-1 as they
only have 1 chlor-alkali plant (Table 6.1) and so their stock must have grown
during this period. Rather the data gives some idea of the main mercury dealers
globally, the average amount of trade per annum (the mass and value of mercury
moving around), the main mercury importers, the countries that must be engaged
in mercury trade but do not report it (e.g. Philippines), and puts some constraints
on the amount of mercury that could possibly be used for ASGM – i.e. it must
Figure 6.4 Price of mercury over the last 108 years (sources: Northern Miner, 2008; Reece, 2006)
be significantly lower than global trade. Figure 6.5a and 5b illustrate exporters
and importers by country. There are 54 countries that only import mercury – these
are clearly visible in Figure 6.5a – and there are 2 countries that only export
mercury, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan – visible in Figure 6.5b.
5. The minimum consumption of mercury by human endeavours can only be
approximated by this database - but not robustly. For example, during this 5 yr
period, the Netherlands exported 198 Mg per annum and imported 592 Mg yr-1.
It is unlikely that the Netherlands consumed the difference of 394 Mg yr-1 as they
only have 1 chlor-alkali plant (Table 6.1) and so their stock must have grown
during this period. Rather the data gives some idea of the main mercury dealers
globally, the average amount of trade per annum (the mass and value of mercury
moving around), the main mercury importers, the countries that must be engaged
in mercury trade but do not report it (e.g. Philippines), and puts some constraints
on the amount of mercury that could possibly be used for ASGM – i.e. it must
be significantly lower than global trade. Figure 6.5a and 5b illustrate exporters
and importers by country. There are 54 countries that only import mercury – these
are clearly visible in Figure 6.5a – and there are 2 countries that only export
mercury, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan – visible in Figure 6.5b.
6. There is clearly a transfer of mercury from the developed countries and northern
hemisphere to less developed countries and southern hemisphere. Veiga et al.,
(2006) also discuss this trend. Because overall, industrial consumption of mercury
is dropping (Maxson, 2008a), consumption of mercury by ASGM is the most
logical explanation for the direction of this transfer.
7. The non-ASGM consumption of mercury for 2005 is estimated to be a minimum
of 2385 Mg yr-1, and a maximum of 3365 Mg yr-1 (Maxson, 2008a; P. Maxson,
Concorde Cons., Belgium, 2008, pers. Comm.). If the global trade data from
COMTRADE represents a minimum of 2970 Mg yr-1, and we assume that the
2005 data is a good average for the period 2002-2006 (reasonable), then that
suggests that the minimum amount of mercury available for ASGM ranges between
585 Mg yr-1 and negative 395 Mg yr-1 – hardly a satisfying result. Obviously
ASGM consumption is not zero and so perhaps the maximum non-ASGM
mercury consumption estimate of 3365 Mg yr-1 is too high. That leaves us with
a minimum ASGM consumption supported by official data of somewhere
between 100 (arbitrary non-zero value) and 585 Mg yr-1 with an average
minimum of 345 Mg yr-1 mercury consumed by ASGM. This is a hypothetical
minimum based on available but clearly incomplete official trade data – a starting
place. The real amount of mercury consumed by ASGM must be higher as becomes
clear when field data is considered – discussed below.
8. The price of mercury has risen sharply since 2003 from ~US$5.00/kg to the
current price in 2008 of US$18.33/kg, slightly down from a 2006 peak of around
~US$23.00/kg. That is, on average, a quadrupling of price. From 1975 until 2005,
the price of mercury and gold correlated well, but this relationship broke in 2007
when the price of gold sharply increased and the price of mercury actually decreased.
The increase in price of mercury to a peak in 2006 was likely a response to the
announcement of mercury mine closures and an expectation that supplies would
a b
Top Mercury Exporters Top Mercury Importers
Tons Mercury / Year for Period 2002-2006 Tons Mercury / Year for Period 2002-2006
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Spain Netherlands
Kyrgyzstan Spain
USA Mexico
Algeria China
Netherlands India
Malaysia Singapore
Russian Federation France
Switzerland Rep. of Korea
Japan
Exports USA
Exports
Singapore Imports Iran Imports
Peru Peru
Czech Rep. Colombia
Italy Brazil
France Germany
United Kingdom Malaysia
Germany China, Hong Kong SAR
Australia Italy
Chile Russian Federation
Bosnia Herzegovina Australia
Finland Belgium
TFYR of Macedonia Pakistan
Belgium Guyana
Morocco Guatemala
Portugal Israel
Israel United Kingdom
China, Hong Kong SAR Azerbaijan
Poland Syria
India Romania
South Africa Argentina
Denmark Thailand
Rep. of Korea South Africa
Canada Zimbabwe
Mexico Kenya
Romania Switzerland
Slovenia United Arab Emirates
Thailand Ecuador
Estonia Poland
Austria Canada
Kazakhstan Togo
United Arab Emirates Bangladesh
Togo Sri Lanka
Kenya Ghana
Slovakia Turkey
Honduras Ireland
Croatia Japan
Ireland Hungary
Sweden Sweden
Argentina Austria
China Papua New Guinea
Iran Lebanon
Bulgaria Czech Rep.
Brazil Slovakia
Luxembourg Greece
Trinidad and Tobago
New Zealand Cuba
Ecuador Morocco
Sri Lanka Uruguay
Turkey Saudi Arabia
Colombia Chile
Norway Bolivia
Latvia Serbia
Saudi Arabia Belarus
Tunisia El Salvador
Madagascar Honduras
Serbia Bulgaria
Albania Denmark
Armenia Algeria
Azerbaijan Costa Rica
Bahrain Nicaragua
Bangladesh Portugal
Barbados Finland
Belarus Fiji
Belize Panama
Bolivia Trinidad and Tobago
Burkina Faso Paraguay
Cameroon Zambia
China, Macao SAR Luxembourg
Costa Rica Oman
Côte d'Ivoire Nepal
Cuba Norway
Cyprus Slovenia
Dominica Mauritius
El Salvador Croatia
Ethiopia Ethiopia
Faeroe Isds Uganda
Fiji Albania
Gabon Qatar
Ghana Tunisia
Greece Bahrain
Guatemala Namibia
Guyana Bosnia Herzegovina
Hungary Côte d'Ivoire
Iceland Barbados
Jamaica Jamaica
Jordan Senegal
Lebanon Jordan
Lithuania Cyprus
Malawi Madagascar
Maldives Malawi
Malta Latvia
Mauritius TFYR of Macedonia
Mozambique New Caledonia
Namibia Maldives
Nepal New Zealand
New Caledonia Gabon
Nicaragua Armenia
Oman Faeroe Isds
Pakistan Mozambique
Panama Estonia
Papua New Guinea Iceland
Paraguay Malta
Qatar Lithuania
Senegal Cameroon
Syria Belize
Uganda Dominica
Burkina Faso
Uruguay China, Macao SAR
Viet Nam Kyrgyzstan
Zambia Kazakhstan
Zimbabwe Viet Nam
Total Total
Figure 6.5 (a) International exports and imports of mercury per annum sorted by top exporters
and (b) importers for the 5 year period 2002-2006 (UN Comtrade, 2008). All reporting countries
are listed.
be short (Maxson, pers. Comm.). Demand for mercury for ASGM and VCM
production in China (vinyl chloride monomer – a feedstock for polyvinyl chloride
plastics (PVC)) also likely contributed to supporting higher prices. VCM use of
mercury is large and growing (Maxson, 2008b).
9. There is a set of further observations that can be drawn from Table 6.1 as follows:
• There are 28 countries with known ASGM sites that do not officially export
any gold: Azerbaijan, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon,
Central Africa Republic, Chad, Dominican Republic, DRC, French Guiana,
Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Ivory coast, Laos, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania,
Nigeria, Oceania, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan,
Togo, Uzbekistan
• There are 16 countries with known ASGM sites that do not officially record
any mercury or gold transactions whatsoever: Botswana, Burundi, Central
Africa Republic, Chad, Dominican Republic, DRC, Indonesia, Ivory coast, Laos,
Liberia, Nigeria, Oceania, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan. Two
of these countries, Indonesia and the Philippines, are known to have very
large ASGM activities (see refs in Table 6.1).
• There are 4 countries that only export gold: Belize, Guinea, Mongolia, Niger
• There are 16 main mercury exporting countries (those who export more than
50 Mg yr-1): Algeria, Czech Rep., France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan,
Malaysia, Netherlands, Peru, Russian Federation, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, USA
• Officially there are 54 countries that only import mercury (a total of 190 Mg yr-1):
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin,
Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Macao SAR, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire,
Cuba, Cyprus, Dominica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Faeroe Isds, Fiji, Gambia,
Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon,
Lithuania, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mayotte, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal,
New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Qatar, Senegal, Syria, Uganda, United Rep. of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Zambia, Zimbabwe.
• In terms of countries that are potentially significant distributors of mercury
for use in ASGM, there are 13 countries with no or few mercury using
chloralkali plants that import significant amounts of mercury: Australia,
Azerbaijan, China, Hong Kong SAR, Guatemala, Guyana, Kenya, Malaysia,
Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, Syria, Thailand, Zimbabwe. Of these,
Mexico and Singapore are by far the largest, importing 221 and 138 Mg yr-1,
respectively.
• There are 14 countries that import more than 50 Mg yr-1 of mercury: Brazil,
China, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Iran, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru,
Rep. of Korea, Singapore, Spain, USA
• Estimates of ASGM mercury consumption is greater than official mercury
imports in 53 countries of the 70 known to have ASGM sites. The opposite is
true for the other 21 (imports>ASGM consumption) indicating that the official
imports of mercury to these countries is sufficient to meet ASGM demand.
6.5.1 Using Gold Production to Estimate Mercury

Consumption in ASGM
Regarding the use of gold production to estimate ASGM consumption of mercury,

this also is controversial. There have been unofficial estimates by gold dealers
that ASGM gold production is around 150 Mg per annum. However, this is
very difficult to know because the gold market is unlike most other commodity
markets in that 80% of gold produced over the past 6000 years is still in existence
today and available to be traded – a total amount of approximately 135,000 Mg
(Schofield, 2007). Official gold production per annum is around 2500 Mg yr-1
(Schofield, 2007). So gold traded and gold produced officially by large scale mines
do not have to match up and this makes it very difficult to constrain the amount of
ASGM gold entering the market each year. This is particularly true because the vast
majority of gold trade is done on an unallocated basis meaning that it is held in a
vault in common with other gold and the customer has a general entitlement only.
Essentially this means that gold from many sources is mixed into one pool by
holding companies.
However, even if ASGM production were only 150 Mg per annum, considering
that a significant portion of that is estimated to be produced using whole ore
amalgamation (around 50%) which uses large amounts of mercury, then globally
with a Hg: Au ratio of at least 3:1, a production of 150 Mg of gold per annum would
imply 450 Mg yr-1 of mercury consumed in ASGM. This calculation is made as yet
another hypothetical minimum and to further support later arguments that mercury
consumption by the ASGM community must be significantly higher.
Others lines of evidence discussed in the MMSD (2002) and GMP (2007)
documents, as well as some earlier work (Veiga, 1997) that used patterns of produc-
tion per miner per region, suggest that global gold production by ASGM is much
higher – 400 to 600 Mg Au per annum. At this level, the consumption of mercury
must be near to 1000 Mg yr-1 as reflected in Table 6.1. In a reverse argument, if the
estimate of mercury consumption in Table 6.1 is reasonable, then global gold
production by ASGM must be about 1/3 of 1000 Mg = 350 Mg of gold/year, a value
in-between that of gold traders and MMSD estimates.
6.6 Knowledge Gaps about Mercury in ASGM
In order to evaluate the significance of mercury emitted from ASGM, and to enable
discussion about how best to reduce emissions, it is useful to elaborate the current
gaps in our understanding about it.
The fate of mercury in the environment released from ASGM remains poorly
understood. For example, of the portion emitted to the atmosphere, how much falls
out locally, and how much travels long distances and over what time scale has never
been adequately investigated and so remains poorly known. This is despite the fact
that the long range transport of these emissions and subsequent deposition in other
countries is a key interest of the UNEP Mercury Program and other parties concerned
about global mercury pollution.
Further, what happens to the mercury emitted from ASGM following deposition
is also not well known as most of the high calibre research that has been done on
atmospheric mercury and its fate has been done in temperate or polar environments
whereas most ASGM occurs in the tropics where hydrology, soils and vegetation,
productivity, and rates of biogeochemical cycling are vastly different. The fate
of the mercury from ASGM that is directly discharged into water is equally poorly
known. How it is transported, how far it travels, how and where it becomes
methylated, and ultimately how much of it enters the local versus global fisheries
is poorly known.
In fact many of the general knowledge gaps about mercury that were highlighted
by the plenary panellists at the 8th ICMGP (International Conference on Mercury
as a Global Pollutant, “Mercury 2006”) apply directly to mercury and gold mining.
Some of the relevant gaps identified at that congress are:
• Air-surface exchange
• Role of Halogens
• Trends in active pools
• Hydrology
• How to scale up
• The role of dissolved organic matter (DOM)
• Modelling challenges
• Inorganic mercury vs. Methyl mercury contamination in fish
• Mercury in aquaculture
For a variety of reasons, small scale mining is a good place to build this knowledge.
Perhaps even the best place as it would additionally bring needed resources, raise
awareness, and undoubtedly produce some innovative ideas. The current lack of
understanding about mercury in ASGM puts a limitation on the development
of innovative solutions towards prevention and remediation. Table 6.2 lists the
knowledge gaps highlighted by the plenary panellists at the 8th International
Congress on Mercury as a Global Pollutant (Mercury 2006 in Madison, Wisconsin)
and how they relate to ASGM as well as some additional important knowledge gaps
that were not highlighted. A large part of mercury emitted to the atmosphere from
ASGM has been thought to be deposited locally around gold shops and mining sites
where amalgam is burnt. Part of the argument used to support this idea, are halos
or “bulls eyes” around amalgamation burning centres. Using data from CETEM
(1992), Telmer et al. (2006), made some mass balances for soils around gold shops
in Alta Floresta, and found that the amount of mercury in the observed bulls eye
may be as low as 1% of that emitted, suggesting that in fact, mercury emitted to
the atmosphere is travelling long distances. This interpretation is supported by
measurements of mercury in the atmosphere made by airplane over the Amazon
Basin (Artaxo et al., 2000). They concluded that gold mining areas contribute 63%
of the total atmospheric Hg over the Amazon. Telmer et al. also speculate that
Table 6.2 Knowledge gaps about mercury use in ASGM
General relationship to ASGM Specific example
Knowledge gap highlighted
1. Air surface exchange How far is mercury vapour from ASGM transported? How does the tropical rainforest canopy and or thick clay
How much mercury enters the global mercury cycle rich tropical soils interact with atmospheric mercury
through the atmosphere? How much mercury from released from ASGM? How do atmospheric conditions
ASGM is emitted to the atmosphere? What are the and processes in the tropics cause mercury transport to
latent emissions of mercury from ASGM to the differ from conditions in the temperate and polar
atmosphere (other than directly during amalgam environments? Are the tropics a net source or net sink
burning)? What is the fate of mercury emitted to for atmospheric mercury?
the atmosphere from amalgam burning?
2. The role of halogens What role do halogens play in the fate The atmosphere is highly depleted in halogens in the middle
of mercury released from ASGM? of the Amazon basin and in other equatorial sites where
much ASGM occurs. Does this effect long range transport?
3. Trends in active pools Which active pools are growing due to ASGM? Commodity storage? Elemental Mercury in soils? Adsorbed
mercury in soils? Methyl Mercury in Floodplains?
4. The role of hydrology How do annual inundation events in the world’s How much does inundation of floodplains downstream of
tropical floodplains interact with mercury released mining operations cause methylation? Does annual
from ASGM? inundation enhance or suppress mercury bioavailability?
5. Scaling up How can the fate of emissions from one ASGM site Do emissions in rainforest ASGM behave similarly to
be extrapolated to other sites and other regions semi-arid ASGM? How can global ASGM emissions
in the world be modelled?
6. The role of dissolved How does DOM interact with mercury released The draining and burning of tropical peat lands which
organic matter (DOM) by ASGM? releases vast amounts of DOM directly interacts with
mercury released from ASGM. How does this effect
transport and fate?
7. Modelling How to include mercury releases from ASGM
into models of the global mercury cycle?
8. Inorganic versus organic mercury Is inorganic mercury a significant vector of mercury
contamination in fish into fish exposed to ASGM discharges?
9. mercury in aquaculture Many aquaculture operations are in the receiving
waters of ASGM. Are these fish impacted?
Knowledge gaps that are important but not highlighted
10. Human Health Long term vapour mercury exposure How persistent are mercury vapours in ASGM communities?
How can locally made chelating agents detoxify
contaminated people?
11. Mercury and Cyanide interactions Many ASGM operations have begun to use cyanide What are the Cyanide-Mercury complexes? How long do
to extract gold and this often occurs in conjunction they persist? How can they most efficiently be destroyed?
with mercury use. What are the fate of the decay products? Can they
exacerbate methylation?
12. Best practices regarding Use of retorts and fume hoods, storage and disposal Retorts reduce emission of mercury to the atmosphere but
the handling of mercury of mercury and mercury wastes do not always significantly reduce human exposure due
to operation and handling practices. How can design,
operation, and education be improved?
Note: It must be mentioned that there are many equally important knowledge gaps that are unrelated to mercury regarding best practices in ASGM, most importantly
those involving health and safety.
factors such as atmospheric conditions at the site and time of amalgam burning
play an important role in controlling entry of mercury into the regional or global
atmospheric cycle. For example, if amalgam is burnt on a hot tropical afternoon
when the atmosphere is turbulent well mixed, the likelihood of mercury entering
higher levels of the atmosphere and being transported long distances will be greater
than if the amalgam is burnt in the evening or early morning, when the atmosphere
is less well mixed. It is also possible that mercury deposited locally at one time is
quickly desorbed and transported at another as the tropical atmosphere is very
energetic. As no firm scientific evidence has yet been provided to prove the distance
mercury emitted from amalgam burning travels (Veiga and Baker, 2004), clearly
more research on this topic is needed.
To illustrate this knowledge gap and others, Figure 6.1 shows examples of
mercury being emitted into the environment from ASGM (some tragic) and how
these relate to the identified knowledge gaps. Filling these gaps is required if we
are to understand the impacts and costs of mercury emissions from ASGM at local,
regional, and global scales.
6.6.1 River Siltation in ASGM
Another significant environmental impact caused by ASGM is river siltation. It is

mentioned here because it does have a direct and large impact on mercury transport.
Dredging and sluicing sediment and soils for gold extraction causes the discharge
of huge amounts of sediment into rivers, lakes and oceans. For example, small scale
mining is now the main source of sediment to Brazil’s Tapajos River which is
one of the Amazon’s largest tributaries and one of the world’s largest rivers (Telmer
et al., 2006b). The Tapajos is about twice the size of Europe’s largest river, the
Danube. In the tropics sediments are very fine because they are rich in clays and
amorphous oxides (mostly iron oxy-hydroxides). This is due to the nature of soil
formation in the tropics. When discharged into rivers, a significant portion of these
clay rich sediments remain in suspension indefinitely. Sediment discharged
from ASGM is consequently transported hundreds to thousands of kilometers
downstream and into the ocean.
These sediment discharges have severe environmental impacts. The increases in
suspended sediment reduce the penetration of light into waters and change the
nutrient supply. This drastically alters the natural habitat (Costa, et al., 2008):
• Biological productivity and diversity is reduced
• Shifts in species composition are extreme
However this also directly relates to mercury. The process of soil formation
naturally concentrates and sequesters mercury. Soils around gold mining areas are
both naturally rich in mercury (Jonasson and Boyle, 1972) and receive mercury
released from amalgam burning.
The erosion of soils by mining releases mercury accumulated during soil formation
into water bodies at hugely accelerated rates (Telmer et al., 2006) where it likely
becomes available to be methylated and bioaccumulated in downstream floodplains.
Forest clearing in the Amazon is also thought to contribute to this process (Roulet
et al., 1998). Therefore mercury released into water bodies by soil erosion represents
a large anthropogenic source of mercury into waters. The amount of mercury released
by this process includes that added by miners but also the mercury that was naturally
accumulated in the soils. In some cases, the latter can be the larger number.
6.7 Reducing Mercury use in ASGM
The amount of mercury consumed by artisanal small scale gold mining (ASGM)
depends on three main factors: (i) the type of ore being mined; (ii) the technique
used to process the ore; and (iii) the technique used to process amalgam to produce
gold. To varying degrees, these factors are interdependent.
6.7.1 Reducing Emissions
In a few cases, mercury consumption has been significantly reduced through the
use of fume hoods, retorts, and by re-activating dirty mercury. In Brazil and Indonesia,
simple fume hoods have been adapted by some gold shops that trap about 90% of
former atmospheric emissions (Sousa and Veiga, 2007; Agrawal, 2007; Chouinard,
2007, Argonne National Laboratory, 2008). The fume hoods in Indonesia are very
cheap ($US35) and allow gold shop owners to recover and re-sell mercury, thereby
recycling it and greatly reducing overall mercury consumption (Agrawal, 2007).
They need to recover only 1kg of mercury in order to recover the cost of buying a
fume hood. Brazilian efforts in collaboration with the USEPA, are producing similar
results (Argonne National Laboratory, 2008). The USEPA led efforts have produced
a detailed accounting of the functioning and efficiency of fume hoods constructed
in some of the Brazilian Amazon gold mining communities.
As well, importantly, additional reductions in mercury consumption are occurring
by teaching simple mercury re-activation and cleaning methods (Pantoja and Alvarez,
2000; R. Wuerker pers. comm., 2007). Using these methods, so called “dirty mercury”
is never discarded and this reduces overall consumption and contamination. Pantoja
and Alvarez (2000) use a simple electrochemical cell to operated with a 12 volt
battery to reduce oxidized mercury to its elemental form. Ralph Wuerker is an
astronomer with experience running liquid mercury telescopes which suffer surface
oxidation that occasionally needs to be removed. The astronomers (as well as many
chemists studying electrochemistry with mercury drop electrodes) simply pass the liquid
mercury through a coffee filter to clean it. It is also worth mentioning that retorting
mercury (evaporating and then condensing it) produces relatively clean mercury
that is able to effectively amalgamate gold. For example, the gold shop owners who
operate fume hoods in Kalimantan, sell their recovered mercury with no further
cleaning procedure for direct use in mining and this is accepted by the miners.
Retorts also significantly reduce mercury consumption by facilitating mercury
recycling. Rickford Vieira, a key person involved with the World Wildlife Fund’s
efforts to combat environmental degradation due to small scale mining in the
Guyanas and Suriname has stated that overall mercury consumption has been
reduced to 1:1 by use of retorts. UNIDO’s Global Mercury Project, as well as other
intervention efforts, have also introduced retorts in an effort to reduce mercury
releases to the atmosphere. Although, even with a reduction of 90%, the levels of
mercury released by ASGM are still quite unacceptable by modern environmental
laws, such a reduction represents a vast improvement from the status quo.
Capturing direct emissions to the atmosphere is a positive development, but in
order to have a more significant impact on mercury consumption in ASGM, the
practice of whole ore amalgamation must be eliminated or reduced. That is because
whole ore amalgamation is (i) the least efficient way to use mercury and so causes
the greatest losses; and (ii) is likely to grow as the exploitation of colluvial and
bedrock ores becomes more common – these types of ores are the ones that are wholly
amalgamated. Eliminating whole ore amalgamation is a much more complicated
endeavour than capturing direct mercury emissions to the atmosphere with fume
hood and retorts. Most concepts about how to eliminate it involve: (i) introducing
efficient processing which involves increasing the sophistication of the processing
technology; (ii) increasing initial capital investment; and (iii) increasing the organi-
sation of the labour pool – all big challenges for poor and transient communities that
reside at the margins of legal society. However, if these steps can be accomplished,
it is possible that more gold can be captured, or less mercury would be consumed,
both of which would have monetary value to the miners and so there potentially are
underlying economic incentives for such change. It is also important to mention
that an increased mercury price, perhaps driven by legally binding export bans from
the big exporters such as the European Union and the United States, would likely
induce miners to use less mercury in order to reduce costs. Simply put, as the price
of mercury rises, the economic feasibility of whole ore amalgamation is reduced.
In order to conceptualise possible reductions in mercury use in ASGM, it is useful
to break down the possible approaches as follows:
1. We estimate that if fume hoods and retorts are adopted by any singular ASGM site,
immediate emissions to the atmosphere can be reasonably reduced by 90% – less
for operations that use cyanide. So where 1 g of mercury was emitted to the atmos-
phere for every g of gold produced, then only 0.1 g of mercury would be emitted.
2. If mercury re-activation or cleaning methods were adopted for any singular
operation, then mercury consumption would be reduced by 50%. So where 2 g of
mercury were used to capture 1 g of gold, only 1 g of mercury would be used.
3. If an operation is able to stop amalgamating the whole ore, then mercury con-
sumption can be reduced by 90%. So where 10 g of mercury were used to capture
1 g of gold, only 1 g of mercury would be used.
Overall, if 50% of ASGM mercury use (50% of 1000 = 500 Mg yr-1) is consumed
through the amalgamation of concentrate (2:1 Hg: Au ratio – this includes losses
incurred when dirty mercury is disposed); and 50% (50% of 1000 = 500 Mg yr-1)
is consumed through whole ore amalgamation (5:1 Hg: Au ratio – this is an average
based on a mix processing with copper plates and milling with mercury in the grinding
circuit), and for every unit of gold produced a unit of mercury is directly emitted to
the atmosphere then, (i) 350 Mg of gold are produced by ASGM each year; (ii) 350
Mg of mercury consumed by ASGM are directly emitted to the atmosphere (35%
of total mercury consumption), (iii) 250 Mg yr-1 of mercury (25%) are discarded
because the mercury is dirty, and (iv) 400 Mg yr-1 (40%) are lost directly to tailings
during whole ore amalgamation. Of these latter two (25% + 40% = 65%), some
portion would be latently emitted to the atmosphere from tailings and waters, and
some portion would remain in the hydrosphere. The rate of latent emission is
unknown but is particularly high where mercury is used in combination with cyanide
processing. Considering the growth in ASGM, the growth in the use of cyanide in
ASGM, and the growth in the production of mercury contaminated waste from ASGM
(multi-year accumulation of tailings), latent emissions conservatively amount to at
least 50 Mg yr-1 bringing the total emission of mercury to the atmosphere from
ASGM to 400 Mg yr-1. Under such a scenario, then adoption of #1 (emission control
that captures 90% of emissions) could reduce mercury consumption globally by a
maximum of 0.9*35% = 31.5% or more with better emission capturing technology;
adoption of #2 (mercury re-activation or cleaning) could reduce mercury consumption
by a maximum 25%; and adoption of #3 (elimination of whole ore amalgamation)
could reduce mercury consumption by 0.9*40% = 36%. The latter assumes that 10%
of mercury used to amalgamate gravity concentrates (rather than whole ore) will still
be lost to tailings. Also, note that the estimated reduction for emission control includes
capturing 90% of the emissions caused by the burning of amalgam produced at
whole ore amalgamation operations – i.e. 100% of ASGM sites. If all three of these
approaches were adopted universally, mercury consumption by ASGM globally
could be reduced by 96% (from 1000 to 40 Mg yr-1), emissions to the atmosphere
could be reduced by 90% (from 350 to 35 Mg yr-1), and losses to tailings, rivers,
lakes and soils, could be reduced by 99.2% (from 650 to 5 Mg yr-1).
To put this further into perspective, if the top 10 countries using mercury in
ASGM minus China, which are: Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Philippines,
Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Guyana, Venezuela, and Mongolia, that together emit around
400 Mg mercury per annum, were to adopt emissions control measures (fume hoods
and retorts, #1), and learn how to clean mercury (#2) then roughly 240 Mg less
mercury per annum would be consumed. If China is included, the reduction in
mercury consumption would increase to 500 Mg of mercury per annum. China is
separated to highlight its importance. Considering that these two approaches are
vastly simpler than #3 - elimination of whole ore amalgamation - and have been
effectively demonstrated to be profitable for miners, their adoption by mining
communities should be relatively simple and successful – perhaps even quick if
governments cooperate. The elimination of whole ore amalgamation must also
remain a focus, as the current trend is that this practice is increasing. We suggest that
by working towards the three approaches above, it is reasonable to expect a 50%

reduction in mercury use in ASGM globally on a time scale of perhaps 10 years.
6.8 Conclusions
In summary, the impacts of mercury use in artisanal and small scale gold mining
(ASGM) are as follows:
• 400 Mg yr-1 of mercury per annum are volatilized to the atmosphere (350 directly;
50 through latent emissions).
• 650 Mg yr-1 are discharged into rivers, lakes, floodplains, soils, and tailings (50
Mg yr-1 of these are volatilized to the atmosphere).
• Global food chain contamination is likely to be occurring through long range
atmospheric transport, deposition, and accumulation in global fisheries - global
ecosystem damage is likely to be occurring
• Severe occupational hazards occur – mercury vapour
• Intense local food chain contamination is occurring
• Intense local ecosystem damage is occurring
• Neurological damage to people and animals is occurring
• Tens of thousands of polluted sites have been created that are long-term (centuries)
health hazards to populations and ecosystems
• Overall the emissions of mercury from ASGM are leading to decreased capacity
for innovation and prosperity for people at local regional and global levels – societal
regression
The most significant environmental issues are: (i) mercury emissions to the
atmosphere, transport of these emissions locally, regionally and globally, and
ultimately leading to aquatic food chain contamination and human health impacts
through fish consumption; (ii) health impacts through direct mercury vapour
exposure, (iii) release of mercury into aquatic systems and the consequential
development of mercury hotspots that last for centuries, and (iv) land-degradation
and river siltation and the associated deforestation, loss of organic soil, modification
of hydrologic regimes and loss of aquatic habitat.
Finding a resolution to mercury use in ASGM is complicated by the characteristics
of the informal gold mining sector including that ASGM remains illegal in many of
the areas where it operates; ASGM communities are remote and have a transient
nature; miners move quickly when better gold areas are found; different mine types
and gold purifying methods are used in different regions; and the general lack of
communication within and between artisanal miners and society and government
authorities. An approach that links field knowledge, a field presence, and community
economic considerations with international stakeholders may have a chance at
success where other efforts have failed. A key to this approach is building a reliable
knowledgebase about ASGM communities, particularly how and why they operate as
they do, and the economic drivers behind these operations. A good knowledge base
is the required backbone to formulate solutions to the problems associated with

mercury and ASGM.
One important function of this knowledgebase is to enable the determination of
the financial implications that proposed changes in practice will cause. These are
an important primary criterion for finding sustainable solutions. At the global level,
the database on ASGM remains poor. How many people are mining, how much
gold they are producing, how much mercury they use, what happens to the mercury,
and how much habitat (land and water) has been impacted remains poorly known?
Here, in recognition of the importance of good information in bringing the issue
into focus and finding solutions, we have used the available data to make a first
estimate of these quantities, and to point out the knowledge gaps surrounding
mercury use in ASGM. We welcome any inputs that will improve the database or
innovations that can contribute to solutions.
References
Agrawal S., 2007. Final Report, UNIDO Project No. EG/GLO/01/G34, Contract No. 16001054/
ML, Community Awareness on Hazards of Exposure to Mercury and Supply of Equipment for
Mercury-cleaner Gold Processing Technologies in Galangan, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Al T.A., Leybourne M.I., Maprani A.C., MacQuarrie K.T., Dalziel J.A., Fox D. andYeats P.A.,
2006.Effects of acid-sulfate weathering and cyanide-containing gold tailings on the transport
and fate of mercury and other metals in Gossan Creek: Murray Brook mine, New Brunswick,
Canada.Applied Geochemistry, 21:1969-1985.
Alfa, S., 2000. Child labour in Small-scale Mines in Niger. International Labour Organization, Sector
Publications: Available at: www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/ childmin/137e1.
htm#1
Alpers, C.N. and Hunerlach, M.P., 2000. Mercury Contamination from Historic Gold Mining in
California. USGS FS062-00, May 2000, 6 p.
APLA - Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association of Western Australia (Inc),
2004.
Appel, P.W.U.; Dyikanova, C.; Esengulova, N.; Tagaeva, A., 2003. Baseline Survey of Artisanal
and Small-scale Mining and Teaching Seminars for Small scale miners in Kyrgyz Republic.
Report from Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, n.2004/11. Copenhagen, 27 p.
Appleton, J.D.; Taylor, H.; Lister, T.R.; Smith, B., 2004. Final Report for the Assessment of
Environment in the Rwamagasa area, Tanzania. UNIDO Project EG/GLO/01/34. British
Geological Survey, Commissioned Report CR/04/014. Nottingham, UK.159 p.
Argonne National Laboratory draft report 2008. “Technology Demonstration for Reducing
Mercury Emissions From Small-Scale Gold Refining Facilities” prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Artaxo, P.; Campos, R.C.; Fernandes, E.T.; Martins, J.V.; Xiao, Z., Lindqvist, O.; Fernandez-
Jimenez, M.T.; Maenhaut, W., 2000.Large Scale Mercury and Trace Element Measurements
in the Amazon Basin.Atmospheric Environment, 34:4085-4096.
Attenborough M., 1999. Social problems in developing countries pose challenge - Canadian
companies learning that it pays to be a friendly neighbour The Northern Miner, Volume 85,
Number 4.
Babut, M.; Sekyi, R.; Rambaud, A.; Potin-Gautier, M.; Tellier, S.; Bannerman, W.; Beinhoff, C.,
2003.Improving the Environmental Management of Small-scale Gold Mining in Ghana: a
Case of Dumasi.Journal of Cleaner Production, v.11, p.215-221.
Baker R. and Telmer K., 2007. Summary of Fish Mercury Data from Tanoyan Mining Area,
Bolaang Mongodow North Sulawesi. UNIDO, Project EG/GLO/01/G34.
Basque, G., 1991.Gold Panner’s Manual.Sunfire Pub. Ltd., Langley, BC, 108 p.
Beales P., 2005. Busy Indaba showcases African mining industry, Northern Miner, Volume 91
Number 1.
Bermudez-Lugo, O., 2002. The Mineral Industries of Gambia, Guine-Bissau, and Senegal. U.S.
Geological Survey Minerals I
Chouinard R., 2007. Results of the Awareness Campaign and Technology Demonstration for
Artisanal Gold Miners, Summary Report, Brazil – Indonesia – Laos – Sudan – Tanzania –
Zimbabwe. UNIDO, Project EG/GLO/01/G34.
Coakley, G.J., 2002. The Mineral Industry of Lesotho and Swaziland. U.S. Geological Survey-
Minerals Information. Available at: minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/africa. html#ir
Costa, M.P.F., Telmer, K., and Novo, E.M.L.M., 2008. Spectral light attenuation in Amazonian
waters. Submitted to Limnology and Oceanography.
Couture, R. and Lambert, J.D., 2003. Source of Mercury in Small scale Mining Communities of
Guyana. Presented at the GGMC Mining Week conference. August 2003. Georgetown, Guyana.
Crispin, G., 2003.Environmental Management in Small-scale Mining in PNG.J. Cleaner
Production, v.11, n.2, p.175-183
Cumming J., 1997. Banro Resource on hold in eastern Zaire after purchase of Sominki, Northern
Miner, Volume 83, Number 2.
Danielson V., 1992. Tanzania opens its doors to foreign investment. Northern Miner, Volume 78,
Number 7.
Dawson S., 1996. Nelson mining gold along historic Silk Road. Northern Miner. Volume 82,
Number 6.
DLI – Defense Language Institute, 2003. Liberia in Perspective. Available at: www.lingnet.org/
areaStudies/perspectives/liberia/liberia.pdf.
Dolley, T.P., 1996. The Mineral Industry of Senegal, the Gambia, and Guinea Bissau. U.S.
Geological Survey—Minerals Information. minerals. usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs / coun-
try/1994/9233094.pdf
Drasch, G.; Boese-O’Reilly, S.; Beinhoff, C.; Roider, G.; Maydl, S., 2001.The Mt. Diwata Study
on the Philippines 1999 – Assessing Mercury Intoxication of the Population by Small-scale
Gold Mining.The Science of the Total Environment, v.267, p.151-168.
Dreschler, B., 2001. Small-scale Mining and Sustainable Development within the SADC Region.
MMSD Report 84. Available at: www.iied.org/mmsd/mmsd_pdfs/asm_southern_africa.pdf
Ecosystems Contamination Assessment. In: Mercury in the Tapajos Basin. p.75-94. Villas Boas,
Beinhoff, Silva(eds.). GEF/UNIDO/CYTED/CETEM/IMAAC publication. Rio de Janeiro.
Fréry, N; Maury-Brachet, N.; Maillot, E.; Deheeger, M.; de Mérona, B.; Boudou, A., 2001.Gold-Mining
Activities and Mercury Contamination of Native Amerindian Communities in French Guiana: Key
Role of Fish in Dietary Uptake.Environmental Health Perspectives, v.109, p.449-456.
GMP, 2007. Partnership on Mercury Reductions in Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining
(ASGM). Available at : www.chem.unep.ch/Mercury/partnerships/
Graham R., 2002. Eaglecrest advances San Simon, Northern Miner, Volume 88, Number 40.
Graham R.. 2003. Juniors eye Mexican gold prospects. The Northern Miner, Volume 89 Number 42.
Grayson, R. 2007.Anatomy of the Gold Rush in Modern Mongolia.World Placer Journal, v.7, p.1-65.
Gunson and Yue, 2002. Artisanal Mining in the People’s Republic of China. Mining, Minerals and
Sustainable Development (MMSD) report 74.
Gunson, A.J., 2004.Mercury and Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Miners in China. MASc Thesis.
Dept. Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.154 p.
Gunson, A.J. andVeiga, M.M., 2004.Mercury and Artisanal Gold Mining in China.Environmental
Practice, v.6, n.2, p.109-120.
Heemskerk, M. 2003.Risks, Attitudes and Mitigation among Gold Miners and Others in the
Suriname Rainforest.Natural Resources Forum, v.27, p.267-278.
Hentschel T., Hruschka,F., Priester M., 2002. Global Report on Artisanal & Small-Scale Mining.
MMSD Summary Report.
Hinton, J.J.; Veiga, M.M.; Beinhoff, C., 2003.Women and Artisanal Mining: Gender Roles and the
Road Ahead. In:The Socio-Economic Impacts of Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining in
Developing Countries. Chapter 11.G. Hilson (ed.),Pub. by A.A. Balkema, Swets Publishers,
Netherlands.
Hinton, J.J.; Veiga, M.M.; Veiga A.T., 2003.Clean Artisanal Mining, a Utopian Approach? Journal
of Cleaner Production, v.11, p.99-115.
Hiyate A., 2008. Semafo banks on Mana Gold Mine to Take Company from Red to Black.
Northern Miner, Volume 93 Number 51.
Hunerlach, M.P.; Rytuba, J.J; Alpers, C.N., 1999. Mercury Contamination from Hydraulic
Placer-Gold Mining in the Dutch Flat Mining District, California. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4018B, p. 179-189.
Ibrahm, M.S., 2003. Information about the Project Sites in Sudan. Report to GEF/UNDP/UNIDO
Global Mercury Project. October, 2003. 10 p.
Ikingura, J. R. andAkagi, H., 1996.Monitoring of Fish and Human Exposure to Mercury Due to
Gold Mining in the Lake Victoria Goldfields, Tanzania.The Science of the Total Environment,
v.191, n.1-2, p.59-68.
Ikingura, J.R.; Mutakyahwa, M.K.D.; Kahatano, J.M.J., 1997.Mercury and Mining in Africa with
Special Reference to Tanzania.Water, Air & Soil Pollution, v.97, p.223-232.
Ikingura, J.R., 1998.Mercury Pollution Due to Small-scale Gold Mining in Tanzania Goldfields.
In:Small-scale Mining in African Countries: Prospects, Policy and Environmental Impacts.
p.143-158.Ed L. Landner, Dept. Of Geology, Univ.Dar es Salamm, Tanzania.
International Labour Office (ILO), 1999. Social and Labour Issues in Small-scale Mines, Report for the
Tripartite Meeting on Social and Labour Issues in Small-scale Mines, Geneva 17-22 May, 1999.
Israel, D.C. and J.P. Asirot. 2000. Mercury Pollution in Small-Scale Gold Mining in the
Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-
06. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, 2000.
Israel D.C., 2000. Mercury Pollution Due to Small-Scale Gold Mining: A Serious Menace.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Policy Notes, No. 2000-03
Jonasson, I.R. and Boyle, R.W., 1972. Geochemistry of mercury and origins of natural contamination
of the environment. Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin 65.
Kambani S.M., 2003.Small-scale mining and cleaner production issues in Zambia.Journal of
Cleaner Production, 11; 141–146
Kinabo, C.P., 2002.Comparative Analysis of Mercury Content in Cosmetics and Soaps Used in
the City of Dar Es Salaam. In:Proc. International Workshop on Health and Environmental
Effects of Mercury: Impacts of Mercury from Artisanal Gold Mining in Africa. p.173-186.
Tanzania, Nov. 19-20, 2002.Ed. National Institute of Minamata Disease, Japan.
Kinabo, C., 2003.Women Engagement and Child Labour in Small-scale Mining – Tanzanian Case
Study.Urban Heath and Development Bull., v.6, n.4, p.46-56.South Africa.
Labonne, B., 2002. Seminar on Artisanal and Small-scale Mining in Africa: Identifying Best
Practices and Bulding the Sustainable Livelihoods of Communities. Synthesis Report:
Available at: www.naturalresources.org/minerals/smscalemining/docs.htm
Lacerda, L.D., 2003.Updating global Hg Emissions from Small-scale Gold Mining and Assessing
its Environmental Impacts.Environmental Geology v.43, p.308–314
Madawo I., 2007. Canadians lead new Scramble for Africa. Northern Miner, Volume 93, Number 42.
Mahlatsi, S. andGuest, R., 2003.The iGoli Mercury-free Gold Extraction Process.Urban Heath
and Development Bull., v.6, n.4, p.62-63.South Africa.
Maponga, O. andNgorima, C.F., 2003.Overcoming Environmental Problems in the Gold Panning
Sector through Legislation and Education: the Zimbabwean Experience.Journal of Cleaner
Production v.11, p.147–157
Maxson, P., 2004. Mercury flows in Europe and the world: The Impact of Decommissioned
Chlor-alkali Plants.Prepared by Concorde EasMg/West Sprl for the European Commission
(Environment Directorate), final report, Feb 2004, Brussels, Belgium. Available at: europa.
eu.inMg/comm/environmenMg/chemicals/mercury/index.htm
Maxson, P., 2008a. AMAP study of air emissions & transport. Preliminary draft report for UNEP.
Maxson, P., 2008b. Global atmospheric Hg emissions from incineration of mercury products in
the waste stream. Preliminary draft report for the Mercury Policy Project, February 2008.
Mbendi Information for Africa, 2004. Mauritania Mining Overview. Available at: www.mbendi.
co.za/indy/ming/ af/mu/p0005.htm
MMSD – Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, 2002. Breaking New Ground.
International Institute for Environment and Development and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. London, UK. 441 p.
Mobbs, P.M., 1996. The Mineral Industry of Chad. U.S. Geological Survey-Minerals Information.
minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ pubs/ country/1996/9206096.pdf -
Mobbs, P.M., 1998. The Mineral Industry of Côte D’Ivoire. U.S. Geological Survey-Minerals
Information. Available at: minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/ pubs/country/1997/9208097.pdf
Murphy T., 2006. Mercury Contamination along the Mekong River, Cambodia. In: Book of
Abstracts of the 8th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Madison,
Wisconsin, USA. Aug 6-11, 2006.
Northern Miner, 1997. Gold output from East to rise in ‘98, FACTS ‘N’ FIGURES, Volume 83,
Number 41.
Northern Miner, 2001. Vaaldiam raises Boungou funds, Volume 87, Number 2.
Northern Miner ,2003. SouthernEra advances Messina, raises CUS$77m Volume 89 Number 40.
Northern Miner, 2007. Exploration Annual Review, Artisanals point the way for African Gold
Group, Volume 93 Number 39.
Northern Miner, 2008. Delta drills high-grade gold in Mali , Volume 93 Number 50.
Northern Miner, 2008. Delta drills high-grade gold in Mali. Daily News, Volume 93, Number 47.
Nyambe I., 2008. pers. Comm.
Pantoja F. And Alvaarez R., 2000. Decrease of pollution by mercury in gold mining in Latin
Amercia. In: Mine Closure in Iberoamerica., eds.) Villas Boas R.C., Berreto M.L., CYTED/
IMAAC/UNIDO: Rio de Janeiro, pp. 178-190.
Priester, M. and Hentschel, T., 1992. Small-scale Gold Mining: Processing Techniques in
Developing Countries. GTZ/GATE, Vieweg, Eschborn, Germany, 96 p.
Rajaobelina, S., 2003. Biodiversity and Small Scale Gold Mining in Madagascar. Paper presented
at 3rd CASM Annual General Meeting and Learning Event, Elmina, Ghana, September 7-10,
2003. Available at: www.casmsite.org/events_Elmina.html
Robertson R., 2006. Aurelian Gold Discovery Takes Centre Stage Drilling Continues to Show
Expansion Potential to the South. Northern Miner, Volume 92 Number 39.
Rosario J. And Ault S.K. 1997. Environmental and Health Impacts of Mercury and Cyanide in
Gold-Mining in Nicaragua. Environmental Health Project, Contract No. HRN-5994-C-
00-3036-00, Project No. 936-5994, sponsored by the Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support
and Research, Office of Health and Nutrition, U.S. Agency for International Development,
Washington, DC, ACTIVITY REPORT, No. 33.
Roulet, M., Lucotte, M., Canuel, R., Rheault, I., Tran, S., De Freitos Gog, Y.G., Farella, N., Souza
do Vale, R., Sousa Passos, C.J., DeJesus da Silva, E., Mergler, D., Amorim, M., 1998.Distribution
and partition of total mercury in waters of the Tapajos River Basin, Brazilian Amazon.The
Science of the Total Environment 213, 203–211.
Savornin, O.; Niang, K.; Diouf, A., 2007. Artisanal Gold Mining in the Tambacounda Region of
Senegal. Report to Blacksmith Institute. 16p.
Schofield N.C., 2007.Comodity Derivatives, Markets and Applications.John Wiley and Sons
Canada, Mississauga, pp.315.
Shaw S.A., Al T.A., and MacQuarrie K.T.B., 2006. Mercury mobility in unsaturated gold
mine tailings, Murray Brook Mine, New Brunswick, Canada. Applied Geochemistry, 21:
1986-1998.
Siddaiah, N.S., 2001. Mercury and Arsenic Pollution Dues to Gold Mining, Milling and Smelting
in India: A Need to Assess Its Impact on Human Health and Ecosystem. . In: Book of
Abstracts of the 6th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Minamata,
Japan, Oct.15-19, 2001.
Silva A.C., 2008. pers. Comm.. based on Ph.D. work on community mining in Nicaragua.
Sotham, S., 2001.Artisanal Gold Mining in Cambodia. In:Small-scale Mining in Asia. p.31-40.S.
Murao, V.B. Maglambayan, N. Cruz (eds.).Mining Journal Books Ltd., London, UK.
Sotham, S., 2004. Small-scale gold mining in Cambodia, a Situation Assessment. Ed. Dr. Carl
Middleton, Additional research contributed by the NGO Forum on Cambodia’s Environmental
Forum Core Team. Oxfam, America.
Sousa and Veiga, 2007. Brazil Country Report, UNDP/GEF/UNIDO Project EG/GLO/01/G34.
Final Report.
Spiegel, S.J.; Savornin, O.; Shoko, D.; Veiga, M.M., 2006.Mercury Reduction in Munhena,
Mozambique: Homemade Solutions and the Social Context for Change.International Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Health, v.12, n.13, p.215-221.
Stepanov, V.A. and Yusupov, D.V., 2001. Mercury Contamination of Soil-vegetative Cover in Zone
of Influence of a Gold-concentration Enterprise. In: Book of Abstracts of the 6th International
Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Minamata, Japan, Oct.15-19, 2001.
Sulaiman R., Baker R., Susulorini B., Telmer K., and Spiegel S., 2007. Indonesia Country Report,
UNDP/GEF/UNIDO Project EG/GLO/01/G34. Final Report.
Telmer K., Stapper D., Costa M.P.F., Ribeiro C., Veiga M.M., 2006. Knowledge Gaps in Mercury
Pollution from Gold Mining. In: Book of Abstracts of the 8th International Conference on
Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Aug 6-11, 2006.
Telmer K., Costa M.P.F., Angélica R.S., Araujo E.S., andMaurice Y., 2006b.The source and fate
of sediment and mercury in the Tapajós River, Pará, Brazilian Amazon: ground and space
based evidence. Journal of Environmental Management, 81: 101-113.(invited, special issue)
Telmer K. and Stapper D., 2007. Evaluating and Monitoring Small Scale Gold Mining and
Mercury Use: Building a Knowledge-base with Satellite Imagery and Field Work UNDP/GEF/
UNIDO Project EG/GLO/01/G34 Final Report.
Thomae B., 2004. Mano River’s Pampana yields more gold. Northern Miner, Volume 90, Number 25.
Trung, N.X., 2001.Small-scale Gold Mining in Vietnam. In:Small-scale Mining in Asia. p.41-45.
S. Murao, V.B. Maglambayan, N. Cruz (eds.).Mining Journal Books Ltd., London, UK.
Umbangtalad S., Parkpian P., Visvanathan C., Delaune R.D., andJugsujinda A. 2007.Assessment
of Hg contamination and exposure to miners and schoolchildren at a small-scale gold mining and
recovery operation in Thailand.Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A:42:2071-2079.
UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme, 2002. Global Mercury Assessment
UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme, 2005. Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management (SAICM). Status Report on Partnerships as One Approach to
Reducing the Risks to Human Health and the Environment from the Release of Mercury and
Its Compounds to the Environment. Vienna, 19–24 September 2005. Available at: www.chem.
unep.ch/SAICM/ meeting/prepcom3/ en/INF18%20mercury.pdf
UNESCAP – United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2003.
UNESCAP Assists Myanmar in Formulating Environmental Policy and Guidelines for the
Mining Industry. Available at: www.unescap.org/esd/water/mineral/2003/26_6February.asp
UNIDO, 2006. Summary of the Environmental and Health Assessment Reports. The Global
Mercury Project. Compiled by A.J.Gunson et al. Available at: www.globalmercury project.org.
Vaccaro A., 2007. After surviving DRC’s dog days, Banro nears its payday – Site Visit. Northern
Miner, Volume 93, Number 42.
Veiga, M.M., 1997, Introducing New Technologies for Abatement of Global Mercury Pollution in
Latin America. Ed. UNIDO/UBC/CETEM, Rio de Janeiro, 94 p.
Veiga M.M. and Baker R.F., 2004. Protocols for Environmental and Health Assessment of
Mercury Released by Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Miners. Vienna, Austria: GEF/UNDP/
UNIDO, ISBN 92-1-106429-5, 294p.
Veiga, M.M.; Bermudez, D.; Pacheco-Ferreira, H.; Pedroso, L.R.M.; Gunson, A.J.; Berrios, G.;
Vos, L.; Huidobro, P.; Roeser, M. 2005.Mercury Pollution from Artisanal Gold Mining in
Block B, El Callao, Bolívar State, Venezuela. In:Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional
and Global Scales, Atmospheric Processes and Human Exposures Around the World.
p.421-450.Pirrone, N.; Mahaffey, K.R. (Eds.)ISBN: 0-387-24493-X, July 2005, Springer,
Norwell, MA, USA
Veiga M.M., Maxson P., andHylander L., 2006.Origin of Mercury in Artisanal Gold Mining.Journal
of Cleaner Production, 14:436-447.
Vieira R., 2008. WWF Guinas, Goldmining Pollution Abatement. World Wildlife Federation.
Weekend Proespector, 2004. Available at: www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/1849/
Wickre J.B., Karagas M.R., Folt C.L., andSturup S., 2004.Environmental exposure and fingernail
analysis of arsenic and mercury in children and adults in a Nicaraguan gold mining community
Archives of Environmental Health, 59:400-409.
Winch S., Parsons M., Mills H., Fortin D., Lean D., Kostka J., 2006. Mercury Speciation and
Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in Mine Tailings. In: Book of Abstracts of the 8th International
Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Aug 6-11, 2006.
Wuerker, 2008. The cleaning of mercury by filtration during the use of liquid mercury telescopes,
(Personal communication).
World Bank, 2003. Project Information Document: Sustainable Management of Mineral Resources
Project, Uganda, Report 90 p.
Yager, T.R.; Coakley, G.J.; Mobbs, P.M., 2002. The Mineral Industries of Benin, Cape Verde, the
Central African Republic, Côte D’Ivoire, and Togo. U.S. Geological Survey-Minerals
Information. Available at: minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/africa.html

Mercury Emission by AGSM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercury Emission by AGSM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mercury Emission by AGSM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 6

World Emissions of Mercury from Artisanal

Kevin H. Telmer and Marcello M. Veiga

We begin with a presentation of the intricacies of why mercury is used in ASGM

We then begin to build the database on mercury in ASGM by identifying the

6.2 Why Mercury is Used

Mercury is used in ASGM for the following reasons:

Amazon Rainforest Canopy Indonesian Rainforest Burning

Hydrologic Forcing 1995 Mixing of sediment

600 Media (1970-1996)

Health Impacts Mercury–Cyanide Interactions

Aquaculture in recieving waters

6.2.1 How Mercury is Released to the Environment

Mercury is released to the environment during artisanal gold mining in a variety

6.2.1.1 Whole Ore Amalgamation

complexation of mercury by cyanide. It is well known that mercury and cyanide,

6.2.1.2 Amalgamation of a Concentrate

add 100 g of mercury to 10 kg of concentrate and then recover 20 g of amalgam

6.3 Where ASGM is Occurring

There is reasonably good information about where ASGM is occurring. The

6.4 Amount of mercury used in ASGM

Amounts of mercury consumed in ASGM can be determined primarily in 5 ways.

environmental impacts of ASGM have failed because of lack of appropriate knowledge

6.4.3 Other Countries with Documented Estimates

Quantities of mercury have also been relatively well documented in Cambodia

6.4.4 Other Countries - Direct Anecdotal Information

We have direct anecdotal information on ASGM operations in another 15 countries

18 Bosnia 38.20 0.04 0.055 4

32 China, Macao 0.00 0.002 0.032

74 Ivory coast Yager et al (2002) 0.05 0.5 0.3 Min

ASGM Mercury Chlorine

121 Portugal 15.76 0.28 0.184 2.344

123 Rep. of Korea 8.57 131.15 117.824 156.265 5

136 Spain 668.75 454.43 7.831 24.311 9

148 Trinidad and 0.04 0.13 0.127 0.370

ASGM Mercury Chlorine

discussion. We therefore have relatively good information on ASGM mercury con-

6.4.5 Remaining Countries - Indirect Anecdotal Information

6.5 Reported Trade in Mercury and Gold

In ASGM, mercury consumption (mercury purchased) is equal to the amount of

6.5.1 Using Gold Production to Estimate Mercury

Regarding the use of gold production to estimate ASGM consumption of mercury,

6.6 Knowledge Gaps about Mercury in ASGM

6.6.1 River Siltation in ASGM

Another significant environmental impact caused by ASGM is river siltation. It is

6.7 Reducing Mercury use in ASGM

6.7.1 Reducing Emissions

by working towards the three approaches above, it is reasonable to expect a 50%

is the required backbone to formulate solutions to the problems associated with

You might also like