Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 189–207 | Cite as

Environmental geochemistry of the abandoned Mamut Copper Mine (Sabah) Malaysia

  • Antony van der EntEmail author
  • Mansour Edraki
Original Paper


The Mamut Copper Mine (MCM) located in Sabah (Malaysia) on Borneo Island was the only Cu–Au mine that operated in the country. During its operation (1975–1999), the mine produced 2.47 Mt of concentrate containing approximately 600,000 t of Cu, 45 t of Au and 294 t of Ag, and generated about 250 Mt of overburden and waste rocks and over 150 Mt of tailings, which were deposited at the 397 ha Lohan tailings storage facility, 15.8 km from the mine and 980 m lower in altitude. The MCM site presents challenges for environmental rehabilitation due to the presence of large volumes of sulphidic minerals wastes, the very high rainfall and the large volume of polluted mine pit water. This indicates that rehabilitation and treatment is costly, as for example, exceedingly large quantities of lime are needed for neutralisation of the acidic mine pit discharge. The MCM site has several unusual geochemical features on account of the concomitant occurrence of acid-forming sulphide porphyry rocks and alkaline serpentinite minerals, and unique biological features because of the very high plant diversity in its immediate surroundings. The site hence provides a valuable opportunity for researching natural acid neutralisation processes and mine rehabilitation in tropical areas. Today, the MCM site is surrounded by protected nature reserves (Kinabalu Park, a World Heritage Site, and Bukit Hampuan, a Class I Forest Reserve), and the environmental legacy prevents de-gazetting and inclusion in these protected area in the foreseeable future. This article presents a preliminary geochemical investigation of waste rocks, sediments, secondary precipitates, surface water chemistry and foliar elemental uptake in ferns, and discusses these results in light of their environmental significance for rehabilitation.


Biodiversity Floc Kinabalu Mamut Copper Mine Malaysia Sabah 



We wish to thank Sabah Parks, the Minerals and Geosciences Department (JMG), the Sabah Forest Department and The University of Queensland. We like to extend our gratitude to Dr. Maklarin Lakim and Rimi Repin (Sabah Parks) and Mr. Kamaruddan Abdullah (JMG) for their support, and to Public Works Department (JKR) for providing access to the MCM site. We thank Rositti Karim, Sukaibin Sumail and Yabainus Juhalin for fieldwork assistance. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the SaBC for granting permission for conducting research in Sabah.


  1. Akiyama, Y. (1984). A case history-exploration, evaluation and development of the Mamut porphyry Cu deposit. Geological Society Malaysia Bulletin, 17, 237–255.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, B.N.M., Abdullah, M.H., & Yik, L.C. (2011). Application of geoaccumulation index and enrichment factor for assessing metal contamination in the sediments of Mamut River, Sabah. In National geoscience conference, 1112 June 2011. Johor: The Puteri Pacific Johor Bahru.Google Scholar
  3. Ali, M. F., Heng, L. Y., Ratnam, W., Nais, J., & Ripin, R. (2004). Metal distribution and contamination of the Mamut River, Malaysia, caused by Cu mine discharge. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 73, 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ali, B. N. M., Lin, C. Y., Cleophas, F., Abdullah, M. H., & Musta, B. (2015). Assessment of heavy metals contamination in Mamut river sediments using sediment quality guidelines and geochemical indices. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187, 4190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC). (2000). Australian water quality guidelines for marine and freshwaters. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  6. Azizli, K. M., Yau, T. C., & Birrel, J. (1995). Design of the Lohan Tailings Dam, Mamut Copper Mining Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia. Minerals Engineering, 8, 705–712. doi: 10.1016/0892-6875(95)00031-k.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaman, J. H. (2005). Mount Kinabalu: hotspot of plant diversity in Borneo. Biologiske Skrifter, 55, 103–127.Google Scholar
  8. Beaman, J. H., & Beaman, R. S. (1990). Diversity and distribution patterns in the flora of Mount Kinabalu. In P. Baas, K. Kalkman, & R. Geesink (Eds.), The plant diversity of Malesia (pp. 147–160). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dold, B. (2014). Evolution of Acid Mine Drainage formation in sulphidic mine tailings. Minerals, 4, 621–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francesconi, K., Visoottiviseth, P., Sridokchan, W., & Goessler, W. (2002). Arsenic species in an arsenic hyperaccumulating fern, Pityrogramma calomelanos: A potential phytoremediator of arsenic-contaminated soils. Science of the Total Environment, 284, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furrer, G., Phillips, B. L., Ulrich, K.-U., Pöthig, R., & Casey, W. H. (2002). The origin of aluminum flocs in polluted streams. Science, 297, 2245–2247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Imai, A. (2000). Genesis of the Mamut porphyry Cu deposit, Sabah, East Malaysia. Resource Geology, 50, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Isidore, F., Cleophas, F., Bidin K., & Abdullah M.H. (2012). Acid mine drainage dilution and heavy metal removal in temporary settling pond of Mamut Ex-Cumine, Ranau. In UMT 11th International Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and Management 09th11th July 2012, Terengganu.Google Scholar
  14. Jopony, M., & Tongkul, F. (2009). Acid mine drainages at mamut Cu mine, Sabah, Malaysia. Borneo Science, 24, 83–94.Google Scholar
  15. Keong, Y. P., & Sa, T. T. (1992). Land use and the environment in the South Kinabalu Highlands, Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography, 23, 103–118.Google Scholar
  16. Kitayama, K., et al. (1999). Climate profile of Mount Kinabalu during late 1995 - early 1998 with special reference to the 1998 drought. Sabah Parks Nature Journal, 2, 85–100.Google Scholar
  17. Kosaka, H., & Wakita, K. (1978). Some geologic features of the Mamut porphyry Cu deposit, Sabah, Malaysia. Economic Geology, 73, 618–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, Y. H., & Stuebing, R. B. (1990). Heavy metal contamination in the River Toad, Bufo juxtasper (Inger), near a Cu mine in East Malaysia. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45, 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMillan, W. J., & Panteleyev, A. (1980). Ore deposit models—1. Porphyry Cu deposits. Geoscience Canada, 7, 52–63.Google Scholar
  20. Mehlich, A. (1984). Mehlich-3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich-2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15(12), 1409–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mokhtar, M. B., Awaluddin, A. B., Fong, C. W., & Woojdy, W. M. (1994). Lead in blood and hair of population near an operational and a proposed area for copper mining, Malaysia. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 52, 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nakamura, T., Miyake, T., Kanao, N., & Tomizawa, N. (1970). Exploration and prospecting in Mamut mine, Sabah, Malaysia. Mining Geology, 20, 100.Google Scholar
  23. National Environment Protection Measures (NEPM). (2013). Accessed June 08, 2015, (
  24. Newton-Smith, J. (1966). Geology and copper mineralisation in the Mamut River area, Kinabalu. Borneo Region, Malaysia Geological Survey Annual Report for 1965, 1966, 88–96.Google Scholar
  25. O’Shay, T. A., Hossner, L. R., & Dixon, J. B. (1990). A modified hydrogen peroxide oxidation method for determination of potential acidity in pyritic overburden. Journal of Environmental Quality, 19, 778–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plumlee, G. S., Smith, K. S., Montour, M. R., Ficklin, W. H., & Mosier, E. L. (1999). Geologic controls on the composition of natural waters and mine waters draining diverse mineral-deposit types, Chapter 19. In L. H. Filipek & G. S. Plumlee (Eds.), The environmental geochemistry of mineral deposits, Part B: Case studies and research topics, reviews in economic geology (Vol. 6B, pp. 373–432). Littleton, CO: Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Seal II, R.R., Piatak, N.M., Levitan, D.M., Hageman, P.L., & Hammarstrom, J.M. (2009). Comparison of geochemical characteristics of modern-style mine waste from a variety of mineral deposit types for insights into environmental challenges associated with future mining. In Proceedings of Securing the Future and 8th ICARD, 2326 June 2009 (pp. 1–10), Skellefteå.Google Scholar
  28. Sinclair, W.D. (2007). Porphyry deposits. In W.D. Goodfellow (Ed.), Mineral deposits of Canada: A synthesis of major deposit-types, District Metallogeny, the evolution of geological Provinces, and exploration methods: Geological association of Canada (vol. 5, pp. 223–243). Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication.Google Scholar
  29. Skousen, J., Simmons, J., & Ziemkiewicz, P. (2002). The use of acid-base accounting to predict post-mining drainage quality on West Virginia surface mines. Journal of Environmental Quality, 31, 2034–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sobek, A., Schuller, W., Freeman, J.R., & Smith, R.M. (1978). Field and laboratory methods applicable to overburden and minesoils. In US Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH: EPA-600/2-78-054.Google Scholar
  31. Van der Ent, A., Baker, A. J. M., Reeves, R. D., Pollard, A. J., & Schat, H. (2013). Hyperaccumulators of metal and metalloid trace elements: Facts and fiction. Plant and Soil, 362, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Visoottiviseth, P., Francesconi, K., & Sridokchan, W. (2002). The potential of Thai indigenous plant species for the phytoremediation of arsenic contaminated land. Environmental Pollution, 118, 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woolf, D.L., Tooms, J.S., & Kirk, H.J.C. (1966). Geochemical survey in the Labuk Valley, Sabah. Borneo Region, Malaysia Geological Survey Annual Report (pp. 212–226).Google Scholar
  34. Yong, J. W., Tan, S. N., Ng, Y. F., Low, K. K., Peh, S. F., Chua, J. C., et al. (2010). Arsenic hyperaccumulation by Pteris vittata and Pityrogramma calomelanos: A comparative study of uptake efficiency in arsenic-treated soils and waters. Water Science and Technology, 61, 3041–3049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals InstituteThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Laboratoire Sols et Environnement, UMR 1120Université de Lorraine – INRANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations