Water concerns temper elation over Big Bend silver mine

The 'Silver Capital of Texas' has consisted of ruins and an unworked mine since the late 1940s. The 'Silver Capital of Texas' has consisted of ruins and an unworked mine since the late 1940s. Photo: Edward A. Ornelas, Staff Photo: Edward A. Ornelas, Staff Image 1 of / 6 Caption Close Water concerns temper elation over Big Bend silver mine 1 / 6 Back to Gallery

SHAFTER - More than seven decades after its glory days as one of the richest silver mines in the Southwest, La Mina Grande is roaring back to life in a remote corner of the Big Bend.

Huge Terex and Volvo trucks are rumbling two shifts a day, hauling away waste rock and bringing ore to a new on-site processing plant where the sparkling gray material is pulverized and then treated with cyanide to extract precious metals.

With the silver price hovering around $35 an ounce - up from $5 a decade ago - the mine's owners, Aurcana Corp., are looking clairvoyant.

"With production costs of significantly less than $10 an ounce, the idea of reopening this mine was a very good one," said Greg Miller, a mining consultant for Aurcana, which bought the Rio Grande Mining Co. in 2008 for $40 million.

Miller said some of the sweet spots are proving as rich as chocolate cake.

"Some of it's coming in at 500 ounces per ton. That's $15,000 per loader scoop," he said.

But there are clouds on the horizon. Alarms are being raised by several landowners who worry about the mine's plan to pump vast quantities of water from deep, flooded tunnels. They fear wells might go dry and that massive discharges might harm the desert.

"This is the major issue in the county as far as water resources are concerned," said Houston businessman John Poindexter, owner of the adjacent 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch, where well-heeled guests come to get away from it all.

"We fear the possibility of the drying up of Cibolo Creek and other live watercourses, the exhaustion of springs and large declines in water tables," Poindexter wrote in an August letter to the Presidio County Underground Water Conservation District.

1,000 acre feet of water

In recent weeks, the Texas General Land Office and Texas Parks & Wildlife Department also have raised questions and objections about the mine's plans to remove as much as 1,000 acre-feet of water from flooded deep tunnels.

"The decisions regarding this project may have long-lasting impact to critically important aquatic resources in arguably the driest region in Texas," wrote Scott Boruff, a Parks & Wildlife director.

A clutch of political figures, including state senators Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, and Jose R. Rodriguez, D-El Paso, as well as outgoing state Rep. Pete Gallego of Alpine, who was elected to Congress last week, have expressed their concern and support to the water district board.

On Monday, the board will meet in Presidio with La Mina Grande's pumping and discharge issues high on the agenda.

In the meantime, the mine, just off U.S. 87 south of Shafter, is producing silver from mostly surface deposits. If all goes well, its owners hope to expand underground mining from more than 100 miles of old tunnels.

Long before the region was a tourist magnet for rafters, hikers and campers, it was hard-rock mining country, generating more than 90 percent of the silver and 70 percent of the gold in Texas. But that ended many decades ago.

Mine's long history

The recent reopening of La Mina Grande continues a pattern going back to the mid-19th century when rancher John Spencer first found silver deposits in the Chinati Mountains south of Marfa. He shipped the ore to Mexico to be smelted.

Others, including noted Indian fighter Col. William R. Shafter, later began developing the deposits near the town that still bears his name. Between 1885 and 1912, the Presidio Mine, as it was called, produced 450,000 tons of ore, according to the Handbook of Texas.

The biggest boom occurred between 1928 and 1942, when hundreds of people lived alongside the Cibolo Creek and around Shafter. The cemetery on a hill outside of town, which holds the remains of numerous miners, bears testimony to opportunities and dangers of that era.

However, the mine closed in the late 1940s because of fluctuations in the price of silver, a decline in ore quality, flooded tunnels and the shortage of miners during World War II.

An attempt to reopen it the late 1970s was aborted after Dallas' Hunt brothers attempt to corner the world silver market ended with a sudden price crash.

All told, an estimated 33 million ounces of silver had been mined here before Aurcana, a small Canadian company, bought the site in 2008.

Aurcana officials believe the 3,000-acre site south of Shafter holds at least 24 million ounces of recoverable silver and may yield twice that. If the price of silver holds, the mine is expected to be in business for 10 years or more, employing 150 to 200 people.

'I have concerns'

While most folks in Presidio County welcome the mine - already the county's second largest employer and third biggest taxpayer - worries about water issues are growing.

With the water table at about 540 feet below the surface, according to Miller, and the old mine workings going down to below 900 feet, as much as 1,000 acre-feet of water may have to be removed for the deeper ore pockets to be exploited.

"The mine has been a good neighbor. I don't have any complaints, but I have concerns," said Patt Sims, a retired schoolteacher who lives in Shafter.

"I'm concerned about the water, and I think everyone in Shafter is," said Sims, who is also a member of the local underground water conservation board.

Resort's objections

Poindexter, a Houston businessman who owns the adjacent high-end resort, argues that the deep pumping and potential surface discharges of up to 3 acre-feet a day, as allowed by permit, must be dealt with now.

"Let's say two years from now, when the mine is highly profitable, a rancher raises his hand and says, 'By the way, the water is declining in my wells.' The reaction, beyond laughter, would be none," he said.

Poindexter says the mine brushed off his request to conduct a joint hydrological study to assess the affects of massive water withdrawals.

"We're highly concerned because the mine has done no investigation, not withstanding our attempt to cooperate," he said.

On its website, the Cibolo Creek Ranch claims to be is the "finest luxury hotel and resort in the Big Bend," a place where "captains of industry" and "famous beauties" have found "privacy and serenity."

The resort offers its guests everything from a private landing strip to gourmet meals to rafting trips on the Rio Grande. Water wells going dry would do little to enhance the experience.

Plan is to store water

Miller, a hydrogeologist and geochemist, said Poindexter is crying wolf. He said that the historical data shows no adverse effects of pumping water from the mine shafts and that it's not even clear Poindexter uses the same aquifer.

Miller said the mine intends to store and use most of the water it extracts, instead of discharging it into the desert, as it would be allowed to do. And, he said, it's not the mine's burden to prove its anticipated water withdrawals will not harm others.

"The hydrological studies that would resolve this would cost tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, and by law, it's not the mine's responsibility. The person who is claiming the injury has the duty to prove the damage," he said.

But Poindexter continues to press the water conservation district to require Rio Grande Mining to get a permit before making any withdrawals of water. So far, the district is gathering information.

"At this point, we're trying to get the mine to tell us what they are doing. As to Mr. Poindexter's concerns, the board really doesn't have a position," said Jim Mustard, the board president.

At present, he said, there is a moratorium on issuing new well permits while the board's regulations are being revised. Still unresolved, he said, is whether the mine will need a local well permit to pump out the flooded tunnels.

"I think it's pretty clear. If you have a shaft in the ground, and are going to produce water from it, it's a well, so it's subject to the regulation of the Water Conservation District," he said, adding that the district has not ruled on anything.

jmaccormack@express-news.net