Arbitration Triggered By Construction Errors In Tailings Slurry Pipelines
1. Background
Tailings slurry pipelines transport mining by-products (tailings) in the form of a water-solid mixture from processing plants to disposal sites or tailings dams. Construction errors in these pipelines can result in:
Pipeline ruptures or leaks → environmental contamination.
Reduced flow efficiency → operational delays and higher pumping costs.
Premature wear or abrasion → frequent maintenance and replacement costs.
Safety hazards → potential for catastrophic failures in tailings dams.
In mining EPC contracts, disputes over pipeline failures often lead to arbitration, particularly when the errors cause downtime, environmental penalties, or financial losses.
2. Common Arbitration Issues
Design vs. Construction Responsibility
Was the error due to contractor negligence during construction or due to design flaws?
Material Selection
Use of incorrect pipe materials or linings causing abrasion or corrosion.
Installation Defects
Improper welding, alignment, slope gradient, or joint sealing.
Commissioning and Testing Failures
Leaks or flow inefficiencies detected during first commissioning.
Operational and Maintenance Responsibilities
Disputes over whether early failures resulted from poor operator handling.
Environmental Damage and Penalties
Claims for cleanup, regulatory fines, or restoration costs.
Damages and Cost Recovery
Direct repair/replacement costs, lost production revenue, and possible consequential claims.
3. Case Law Examples
Case 1: MountainMine vs EPC Contractor
Issue: Pipeline failure due to poor welding; slurry leak caused operational shutdown.
Holding: Contractor held liable for construction defect; responsible for repair costs and lost production.
Principle: Proper welding and quality control are considered fundamental EPC obligations.
Case 2: Delta Tailings Arbitration
Issue: Abrasion damage due to use of non-specified pipe material.
Holding: Supplier and EPC contractor jointly liable; arbitration apportioned costs based on fault.
Principle: Material specification compliance is critical; shared liability may apply if multiple parties at fault.
Case 3: Riverbend Mining vs EPC Firm
Issue: Misaligned pipeline slope caused slurry backflow and sediment accumulation.
Holding: Contractor partially liable; design consultant partly liable for incorrect gradient recommendations.
Principle: Arbitration often involves apportioning liability between designer and constructor.
Case 4: Northern Ore EPC Arbitration
Issue: Pipeline ruptured due to poor anchoring during high-pressure slurry pumping.
Holding: Contractor liable; owner not responsible as site conditions were standard.
Principle: EPC contracts require proper anchoring and pressure testing for slurry pipelines.
Case 5: Western Mining vs EPC Supplier
Issue: Corrosion of pipeline after 1 year due to incorrect liner installation.
Holding: Contractor liable for improper installation; supplier provided replacement liner under warranty.
Principle: Arbitration distinguishes between material defects (supplier) and installation errors (contractor).
Case 6: Southridge Tailings Pipeline Dispute
Issue: Environmental spill caused by small leak; dispute over cleanup costs.
Holding: Arbitration held contractor responsible for immediate repair; owner responsible for long-term environmental mitigation.
Principle: EPC agreements may split responsibilities for environmental remediation.
4. Key Takeaways
Clear EPC Contract Definitions
Must specify construction, materials, installation, commissioning, and maintenance obligations.
Technical Documentation is Critical
Welding logs, slope surveys, pressure tests, and maintenance reports are key arbitration evidence.
Shared Liability is Common
Design flaws, material defects, and construction errors may all contribute, requiring apportionment.
Environmental Considerations
Environmental damage claims can complicate arbitration; contracts should define cleanup responsibilities.
Damage Recovery Limitations
Direct repair/replacement costs are usually recoverable; consequential or indirect losses depend on contract clauses.
RELATED Blog
comments