|
|
Dear friends,
I don’t do this very often, but this is a call to rally the troops.
As you likely know, folks in Michigan’s far North in the Upper Peninsula have been battling Kennecott for nearly five years now. Kennecott/Rio Tinto proposes to blast a portal to its new metallic sulfide mine through a sacred site to the Ojibwe known as Eagle Rock, Migizi Waasin. Recently, it seems, Kennecott (the same company that mined at Ladysmith and is proposing to mine in Aitkin County, Minnesota as well as in Michigan) made a big mistake and arrested a citizen for sitting on a stump with her dog on public land, close to Eagle Rock. The company has a pending lease for the property, but it is conditioned on the company first receiving all necessary permits to mine. One permit (from the EPA) has not yet been granted, so the land lease is not valid (not that it would be, really, even if they had all of their permits).
Members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community have taken a strong stand for the land, for the water (the proposed mine site is about ten miles from the shores of Lake Superior) and the sacred site. Right now, about 5 of them are perched atop the site of the mining company’s proposed portal. They welcome visitors to the site (you do not have to trespass, you can meet them at the end of the road). They need food, blankets, prayers, spiritual support, emotional support and legal support. If you have suggestions or ideas, if you would like to come for a visit, if you need a place to stay or a little funding for gas, please email me (kettu2010@callta.com) or my friend Teresa Bertossi (teresabertossi@gmail.com).
Here’s a link to stories about the issue we face:
http://standfortheland.com/ This is a blog recently put up just for the issue.
http://headwatersnews.net/
http://miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/543341.html?nav=5006
I thank you from my heart for your help … in whatever form it might take.
Sincerely,
Laura Furtman
I was sitting with Bill Magie during the summer of 1973 when Congress passed the Wilderness Bill setting aside over a million acres of Northeastern Minnesota as the only area, east of the Mississippi River, large enough to claim to be a true wilderness area. Taken in combination with the Quetico Provincial Park, of approximately the same size, the Canoe Country is truly a remarkable place. Each year hundreds of people come to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Quetico Park, to get away from civilization, in order to experience something of the world, the way it used to be.
I was a young man back in 1973 and Bill Magie was an old man. Bill was one of the men, along with people like Sig Olson who worked hard to convince Congress that the Canoe Country was a unique place worthy of being set aside as a wilderness area, for all people down through the generations. I remembered telling Bill that with the passage of the Wilderness Bill, at least two percent of Minnesota was safe from being bought and sold. Bill Magie told me that the Canoe Country would never be safe. I was surprised by what he said that night. I asked Magie why he felt that way. “Someone will always want something from the country, that isn’t good for it. That’s why people like you have to stand guard to protect it, when people like me and Sig Olson aren’t around anymore.”
I didn’t know what Bill Magie meant back in 1973. It’s taken many years for the wisdom of his words to manifest themselves. But now, with the talk of opening up large areas of the Superior Natural Forest to sulfide mining, the truth of what Bill Magie told me almost forty years ago is sinking in. I am one of those people who think that there is no good way to mine sulfide ore in a state with so many lakes and rivers, and so little soil to absorb the sulfuric acid and heavy metals, which are an inevitable by-product of sulfide mining. At first I didn’t know how to oppose those who want to allow this dangerous business from happening. I asked myself what Sig Olson would have done if he were still alive.
That’s why I started writing articles, I hope will make people who love the Canoe Country aware of the danger we are facing from the proposed sulfide mining in the Superior National Forest. I wanted people to know that all the hype and spin the mining companies are claiming about them operating, in a new and better way, aren’t true. One spokesperson for the mining companies, Dr. Kent Kaiser, raised the question that this matter would be best served by leaving it up to the people of Northeastern Minnesota to decide, because they are better informed about the matter. He implied that people living in the Twin Cities or Chicago shouldn’t have a say in making this decision. I don’t agree.
I think Sig Olson would have pointed out that this is the 100th Anniversary of the Superior National Forest. The Superior National Forest was created by President Theodore Roosevelt on the recommendation of the newly created Forest Service, when they found out that close to a million acres of Northeastern Minnesota was left a virtual waste land, after private logging companies devastated the last great eastern pinery, and then moved west; leaving little else but stumps and slash in their wake. Roosevelt created the Superior National Forest in order to insure that when private companies harvested trees, or used the National Forest in any way, that they would be held accountable to insure the continued integrity of a national treasure.
I believe Sig Olson would have done his homework, to try to give the mining companies the benefit of the doubt. He would have realized how much Northeastern Minnesota needed high paying jobs. But he wouldn’t have wanted those jobs if there was an inevitable danger of seriously harming the country he loved. I don’t think Sig Olson would have placed his trust an industry that has never done anything other than take the money and run. With a history of degradation and exploitation Sig Olson would be filled with doubts about all the mining companies’ empty promises. He would have asked the mining companies to show him one good example of where they have left the place in the same condition it was, when they finished mining it. Sig would still be waiting for that answer if he were alive today. I think Sig would have told us to leave the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area like they are.
Sig Olson would have read and listened to what the mining companies said, but he also would have looked at what they have done to other places. He would take his pipe out of his pocket, strike a farmer match on his canvass pants, and lit his briar pipe. Then he would think the matter over. Sig would sit down at his type writer in the writing shack, and write his concerns to any who would listen, that proposed sulfide mining in the Superior National Forest is a matter of great national interest. Sig Olson would point out that the issue is greater than a fifty year period of prosperity, and that the real value to America isn’t the area’s minerals, which can be gotten in other places, but rather the billions of gallons of fresh clean water, which are unique to Minnesota, and are of great importance to millions of Americans. Those billions of gallons of clean water are only found in Northeastern Minnesota. Our clean water is a true national treasure beyond price. The Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area are places deserving of our protection now; and for all the generations to come.
By Mike Hillman
Like many people living in Northeastern Minnesota, I’m getting pretty tired of hearing about all the negative things those environmentalists are telling us about what will happen if we allow those foreign mining companies to come here and tap into the second richest undeveloped reserve of precious metals in the world. If God wouldn’t have wanted us to mine them, why did he put them here in the first place? All these extremist groups seem to want to talk about, is all the bad things that are going to happen, if we allow sulfide mining here on the, edge of the Boundary Waters. It’s like these people have some kind of crystal ball that’s telling them the future for heaven’s sake. I’ve been paying close attention to what the mining companies are saying, and I think it’s time we give them a chance to demonstrate all the new technology, that they’re going to use, when they start mining all the valuable minerals that God placed here in Minnesota.
The first point I would like to make is that all these bad mines, many of which are now Super-Fund Clean-Up Sites, aren’t even in Minnesota. In the whole history of mining, there has never been a single instance of any sulfide mines polluting any water in The State of Minnesota. All those Super-Fund Mines are in other places. Many of those mines didn’t have the supervision, or cutting edge technology, that our mines are going to employ here in Minnesota.
You can’t judge the future based on the past. They say that those who don’t know history are doomed to make the same mistakes. The mining companies know better than anyone else that they’ve made some horrendous messes in the past, and they’re really sorry for them. Nobody feels worse about past sulfide disasters in places like Colorado, Montana, Arizona, and Canada, than the foreign owned mining companies. They promise if given the chance that they will do it right this time here in Minnesota. Those past environmental disasters were made by other mining companies, who didn’t have the new and improved, cutting edge technologies that our foreign owned mining companies will use here in Northeastern Minnesota. When I looked at what their new process was, I couldn’t find anything new, nothing that hasn’t been done before, that’s my definition of new. But, if those mining companies say it’s new, it’s got to be, don’t you believe?
I’m sure if those mining companies, who made a fine mess of things all over the world, hadn’t gone bankrupt, that they would have been only too happy to help clean up the mess they made. You can’t ask a bankrupt company to help with anything once they’ve made their money, and finished mining a place. Like the old saying goes, you can’t get blood out of a turnip. No one can ask a company, that’s declared bankruptcy, to help take care of its mistakes. That’s why we have the Super-Fund. The Government Super-Fund has already spent millions and millions of dollars taking care of other people’s messes, but we don’t have to worry, here in Minnesota. The foreign owned mining companies, who want to bring billions of dollars into the local economy, have better ways of doing things now, or so they say. Can’t these worry-wart environmentalists forget about the past, and look towards a brighter and better sulfide mining future?
Why do these environmental groups; Like the Friends of the Boundary Waters, have to be so negative. Don’t they know that millions of Chinese people need to have cell phones, computers, and all the other high tech things that we have here in America. And how about all those people living in India? Shouldn’t they have all the same things we do? Who are we to deprive them of all the high tech stuff that used to be made right here in the USA, but have now been moved overseas, so rich American owned companies, can make even more profit? Where are we going to get the gold, copper, platinum, and nickel that these poor third world people need for their cell phones? I’m sure if they were lucky enough to be sitting on all the minerals we have here in Minnesota, that they would be thanking their lucky stars for all the mining jobs. But because God chose to bless us with tons of valuable minerals, those jobs will be ours. Let’s tell the EPA to stop worrying about the future, so we can start mining today. You can bet those third world people wouldn’t be whining about a little sulfuric acid polluting their Boundary Waters, if they had a Boundary Waters to worry about.
Finally I’d just like to say that even if the worst thing happened, and our mining companies pulled out after making a lot of money for half a century, and then left us to deal with rivers of sulfuric acid flowing right into the heart of places like Basswood Lake, and Lac LaCroix. If that were to happen, it would no doubt kill millions of things like fish, ducks, and loons. People have to realize that even if part of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was polluted by sulfuric acid and heavy metals, there would still be plenty of lakes in the Quetico-Superior Wilderness Area that wouldn’t be ruined by sulfide mining. God gave us over fourteen thousand lakes in Minnesota, and if a few of them have to die, so that we can have mining jobs today, that’s really a small price to pay. Sulfide mining will fill our schools with children again, and our economy will be humming for half a century. Wouldn’t it be worth the loss of a few lakes and rivers, in order to stuff our pockets now? I say to hell with worrying about rivers of sulfuric acid in the future. We’ve got enough to worry about. Let the future take care of itself. We need to live for today. We need those mining jobs, no matter what it costs our children and grand children to clean up the mess we make today.
“Based on our review…EPA has rated the (Polymet) DEIS as Environmentally Unsatisfactory – Inadequate, or EU-3″ Received Feb 22, 2010
January 26, 2010
In response to Friends’ policy director Betsy Daub’s recent column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about sulfide mining, the film “Avatar,” and the decisions Minnesotans must make, Kent Kaiser of the Center for the American Experiment, a conservative think-tank, published a counterpoint. The crux of his article is based on several “facts” he presents. Because many of those “facts” are anything but, we felt it would be useful to respond.
Below is a point-by-point response, and below that is an e-mail that Betsy has shared that she wrote back to an individual who contacted her for her side of the story after reading Kaiser’s article.
“Facts” vs. Truth
“Fact: PolyMet’s proposed mine — near Hoyt Lakes — is in a completely different watershed than the BWCA, and nowhere near “Hwy. 1, the scenic entryway into Ely and the wilderness beyond,” as Daub claims. Daub suggests that the BWCA could be affected, and this is completely false.”
Daub did NOT claim that the mine was in the BWCAW watershed. She clearly stated that, after PolyMet, all serious mining interest is located in the BWCAW watershed and thus the PolyMet environmental review process is important to watch and ensure it is done right.
“Fact: If any other mining company ever wanted to begin operation anywhere else up north, it would have to go through its own environmental review process. Daub suggests that permitting PolyMet to mine would automatically lead to mining next to the BWCA, which is false.”
“Suggest” is such a vague word. What Daub stated was that what happens with PolyMet will indeed be precedent-setting. See this statement from Duluth Metals, which last week announced a $227 million deal with a Chilean firm to advance its mine in the BWCAW watershed:
“During a conference call with investors, Duluth Metals leaders were quizzed over the company’s ability to pass Minnesota’s permitting maze. The answer was simple: follow PolyMet.
“Now in the final stages of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, PolyMet has had the misfortune of being the first in line. After countless delays and $20 million spent on getting the EIS done, PolyMet has laid down a map for how to permit a copper-nickel mine in Minnesota.” Ely Echo, 1/16/2010
“Fact: PolyMet’s operation in Minnesota will be so environmentally and technologically cutting-edge that it will be a model for the world — far from the outdated gloom-and-doom image painted by Friends of the Boundary Waters. The state and federal governments’ environmental requirements for this mine will be unprecedented. In fact, this mine might even have a positive effect on the global environment. Indeed, the entire human race would benefit from PolyMet’s operation being established instead of a mine in some other, less environmentally conscientious country.”
Wow, the entire human race would benefit. And environmentalists are the ones that get accused of hyperbole. Two points:
- Opening the PolyMet mine does not mean that another mine in another country will close. Mining companies will always seek to mine metals wherever they are found. They will do so as cheaply as possible to maximize their profits and will be subject to whatever laws apply where they wish to mine.
- The PolyMet project is full of holes and serious flaws. Until mining boosters can point to specifics in the project’s Draft EIS that say otherwise, rhetoric about how cutting edge and environmentally safe it will be is nothing but words. The DEIS fails to discuss financial assurance–a glaring omission that puts our tax dollars at risk and which a conservative like Kaiser should be able to appreciate–, it predicts water pollution from waste rock piles for up to 2,000 years, it states that the tailings basin will have a “low margin of safety.” That is just the beginning.
“Fact: PolyMet will provide a domestic supply of metals that Americans use every day — nickel, copper, gold, platinum and palladium — in cell phones, computers, catalytic converters, electric cars, wind turbines and medical devices. The global environmental and domestic economic impact of producing these critical metals here, and having to import less from elsewhere, will be very positive.”
PolyMet’s metals will be sold on the global commodities market, to the highest bidder. The company has entered into a marketing agreement with Swiss firm Glencore AG and it is disingenuous to claim that this will reduce our import or transportation of metals.
“Fact: PolyMet’s operation will create 400 well-paying jobs directly, and there will be hundreds of spinoff jobs. This will add an estimated $240 million to the local economy and to the state’s tax base. The University of Minnesota Duluth has produced excellent analyses.”
The University of Minnesota-Duluth study was paid for by PolyMet, Mining Minnesota and other mining companies and it paints a predictably rosy picture for the project’s economic impacts. Not considered are the negative impacts of such a mine on the region, including the contamination of one Minnesota’s greatest resources: clean water.
“Fact: Our state’s leading policymakers, including U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, U.S. Rep. James Oberstar and Gov. Tim Pawlenty support this new generation of mining in Minnesota.”
That is the last “fact” that Kaiser offers, and the only one that is unequivocal. Unfortunately, many of our state’s elected officials have indeed offered their support for PolyMet but one must wonder if they or even their staffs have actually read the Draft EIS or if they are voicing support for the potential jobs, and choosing to just ignore the serious negative impacts on public health, clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and the region’s sustainable economy.
Civil Dialogue
An individual that read Kaiser’s piece contacted Betsy to ask her what she thought of Kaiser’s arguments. Her response is worth reading:
Thank you for contacting me and for your interest in this issue. I do not agree with Mr. Kaiser’s characterization of my points or how he characterizes the mining issue in general. I do agree with him on a few points – though (he might be surprised by that!): that we all use the metals that are sought and that this mine would extract; and that northern MN is in particular need of jobs. But much of the rest of his article is filled with inaccuracies. My article talked about safeguarding sustainable economies. He talks of providing jobs – but he does not talk about jobs mining (and the scale of mining proposed) would jeopardize. The MN Office of Tourism has found that tourism and recreation are a 1.6 billion dollar industry for northeastern MN. The Superior National Forest brings in over $200 million to the region in recreation and tourism alone – and $30 million of that is from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This is not small potatoes. Mining has played an important part of Minnesota’s economy – but it does no longer (about 1% of the state’s income) – and even in the counties where mining has dominated, it now is about 4 or 5% of the economic base. I don’t say that to put down miners or the industry in terms of how important these jobs are to the communities that have mining. But, some communities have found more sustainable ways to support themselves – and for many tourism and recreation play an important part of that. Despite Mr. Kaiser’s points – a great many northern MN citizens are very, very concerned about what wide-spread mining operations may do to their way of life, their businesses, their communities. This is not about Twin Cities folks demanding things of the north (although – I might point out that the areas in question are all public land – and belong to both the people up north and everyone else too!).
We all use the metals – yes. I wish I had easy answers for solving our metal demands – but I will not pretend that I do. But – just to correct the record – the metals that would be mined will be sold on the international market – mostly to feed China’s growth. Not a domestic source of metals, as Mr. Kaiser notes.
Hope this helps clarify things some. I do not believe it needs to be a jobs vs environment issue. I very much think sustainable jobs should be protected and promoted – and that the environment benefits when we do.
All the best,
Betsy
“This is the most beautiful lake country on the continent. We can afford to cherish and protect it.”
- Sigurd F. Olson
During the last local election, the candidates running for a seat on the town council were asked the question about where they stood on the issue of sulfide mining in Northeastern Minnesota. I listened as the other candidates conducted to what amounted to a mini debate with themselves that placed each firmly, and safely, on either side of the issue: On one hand the region was in an economic slump and needed almost any jobs it could get. Having the opportunity to mine the second largest undeveloped reserved of copper and nickel in the world would almost certainly bring badly needed jobs to our region. Then most of the other candidates went on to say, that the mining had to be done in an environmentally sound way, or they were not in favor of it. The problem was that once you found out the mining couldn’t be done in an environmentally sound way, it would be too late for our water.
Before I knew it, it was my term to address the issue of sulfide mining. I looked out at the crowd of people gathered in Vermilion Community College Fine Arts Theater, and I noticed the school’s Wilderness Recreation Club was attending the debate. The club had invited me to speak to them earlier that autumn, and the question of sulfide mining came up. One of the club members asked me how I felt about sulfide mining.
My answer was simple. I told Vermilion’s Wilderness Club that in my opinion the area could be one of two things; It could become a sulfide mining center on a scale none of us can imagine, or it can remain a wilderness recreation area proud of maintaining one of the world’s great resources of fresh water, but it can’t be both. It was the same answer I gave at the public forum a few months later. When I finished the debate friends told me that my stand against sulfide probably cost me a seat on the town council. One of my best supporters asked me why I couldn’t dance on either side of the issue like the other candidates did. I looked at her and repeated a response Senator Henry Clay told a reporter when he lost a third bid for the Presidency of the United States; Henry Clay said, “I would rather be right than be President.” In my case it was a seat on the city council, but I felt the same way. If I had to lie about how I felt, and tell people something I felt was wrong, then I needed to remember what Abraham Lincoln said about maintaining; “A firmness in the right, as God gave him to see the right.” It is my firm belief that mining sulfide ore in Northeastern Minnesota, is not the right thing to do right now.
Since that time, the issue of sulfide mining has come up again. This year mining companies are asking for the right to mine sulfide ore on either side of the Continental Divide. Ely is a very small place, and taking a public stand on an issue like sulfide mining, is a bold step, which many small town people aren’t willing to do, but people need to take a stand.
I don’t know if I am going to be a candidate in the next election or not, but this week someone reminded me, that if I wanted a seat on the town council come 2011, that I had better amend my stand on sulfide mining, or my next to the last place finish in the last election, would be looking pretty good come the next one. What could I say? I told him, that I would rather be right, than on the town council. I then went on to say that I would make an effort to find a reason to support sulfide mining.
After months of looking for that silver lining the only positive things I can tell you is that sulfide mining would bring jobs to the area. The biggest positive I could say in favor of opening a Pandora’s Box full a noxious chemicals is that we haven’t started mining yet. Sulfide mining is a Faustian bargain that will have lasting effects to our area’s water system, as well as it’s tourism, and retirement economies. Once started, sulfide mining will impact the area for hundreds of years. The small window of economic prosperity derived from sulfide mining, isn’t worth it. Pro mining people tell me that they are sure we can mine safely here in Northeastern Minnesota, and my response to them is that if that were the case, it would be the first time in history that any sulfide mining company has ever been able to measure up to the promises they made, before they turned areas all over the world into sulfuric cesspools. Show me one good example of how you can pulverize the rock, process it through vats of cyanide, take twenty pounds out of every ton of rock processed, leaving nineteen hundred and eighty pounds of sulfurous sludge, and not have it impact the area’s three major water sheds. Maybe we should let the mining companies have a chance to develop the largest undeveloped field of copper and nickel in Africa, before we turn them loose in Northeastern Minnesota, so they can show us how they have mastered the sulfuric acid problem, before we trust them with all our clean water.
Impaired Lakes and Rivers in Minnesota up significantly since 2008. At a time when we should be reducing the number of impaired Lakes and Rivers the State in considering adding a major toxic polluter in Non Ferrous Copper Nickel Sulfide Rock Mining. To improve the State of Minnesota’s biotic community we are moving in the wrong direction fast.
Minnesota’s Impaired Waters and TMDLs
Impaired Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to publish and update a list of waters that are not meeting one or more water-quality standards. The list, known as the 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) list, is updated every two years (the next list will be approved in 2010). Following assessment of water quality data and an extensive public participation process, the draft TMDL list is submitted to the U.S. EPA for final approval.
Minnesota’s 2010 draft TMDL list contains 1,774 impairments on 388 rivers and 647 lakes. Minnesota’s 2008 list contained 1,475 impairments on 336 rivers and 510 lakes. The 2010 TMDL list contains target schedules to address listed waters through TMDL projects.
As noted above, the 2010 draft TMDL List contains 1,774 impairments. This is the list for which TMDL pollution reduction studies are required. But this is not the complete list of all impaired waters. The Inventory of impaired waters includes those needing a TMDL plan as noted above and those for which plans has already been developed and approved by US EPA. The Inventory also includes waterbodies that are naturally impaired, such as the arsenic exceedances in the Red River of the North.
While the draft 2010 TMDL List has 1,774 impairments, the Inventory of all impaired waters contains 3,049 impairments. Waters in the Inventory of impaired waters will remain there until they meet water quality standards.
2010 Draft TMDL List
Draft 2010 TMDL List (1,774 total)
Impaired Waters Maps
Statewide
Statewide
Basin
Meetings and Events
The MPCA held seven public information meetings. The following presentation was given at each meeting.
|
Date
|
Location
|
Time
|
| Monday, Sept. 28 |
MPCA Board Room |
1-3 p.m. |
| Tuesday, Sept. 29 |
Detroit Lakes conference room |
1-3 p.m. |
| Wednesday, Sept. 30 |
Brainerd MPCA conference room |
1-3 p.m. |
| Thursday, Oct. 1 |
Duluth MPCA conference room |
1-3 p.m. |
| Monday, Oct. 5 |
Marshall MPCA conference room |
2-4 p.m. |
| Tuesday, Oct. 6 |
Blue Earth Public Library |
1-3 p.m. |
| Wednesday, Oct. 7 |
Rochester MPCA conference room |
1- 3 p.m. |
TMDL List Archives
I’m certain there is nothing illegal here, “They” wouldn’t be THAT bold. But, am I the only one that sees a MAJOR conflict of interest here. The DNR is supposed to be accomplishing the Greater Good for the people of Minnesota. We taxpayers paid for Mr. Brice’s services and educated him in the ways of Minnesota mining politics, “science” and shenanigans and then LET him be hired by a mining company. Seems to me this is very significantly worse than “double dipping,” it’s a double duping of the Minnesota Taxpayers.
Franconia Minerals Appoints William C. Brice As Director of Government &Amp; Community Relations
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 November 2007, 15:00 CST
Franconia Minerals Corporation (TSX VENTURE: FRA) is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. William C. Brice as Director of Government & Community Relations, effective immediately.
Prior to joining Franconia, Mr. Brice spent 36 years with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), including 19 years as Director of the Division of Lands & Minerals, where he had principal responsibility for the granting of environmental and mining permits throughout the state. He also served the MN DNR as Chair of the Senior Managers Council; Acting Administrator of the Bureau of Real Estate Management; and prior to his appointment as Director, was the Assistant Director, Division of Minerals; and, Manager of Environmental Services, Division of Minerals.
With professional registrations as an Engineer and Geoscientist, Mr. Brice also holds a Ph.D. in Mineral Resources Engineering, from the University of Minnesota, specializing in environmental design, law and economics. He has written numerous articles on environmental concerns, mineral leasing and regulatory issues, which have been published in conference proceedings, agency reports and technical magazines. His previous work includes a copper-nickel resource planning project for the State, drafting of Minnesota’s mineland reclamation permit-to-mine rules as well as the preparation of several Governor’s mining policy recommendation reports.
“We are extremely pleased to have Bill joining us as we approach the next critical phase of permitting for our Birch Lake Project in the Duluth Complex of Northern Minnesota,” said Brian Gavin, Franconia’s President and CEO. “He brings an incredible depth of first-hand knowledge and experience about both the permitting process – including the most effective ways of fulfilling the state’s demanding environmental and regulatory requirements – as well as dealing with complex community issues.”
Franconia Minerals Corporation trades on the TSX-V under the symbol FRA. (For additional information see www.franconiaminerals.com.) Franconia currently has 58,024,744 shares issued and outstanding.
Brian Gavin, President and CEO
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT: Although Franconia Minerals Corporation believes many of its properties have promising potential. These properties are in the early stages of exploration. None have yet been shown to contain proven or probable mineral reserves. There can be no assurance that such reserves will be identified on any property, or that, if identified, any mineralization may be economically extracted.
TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE HAS NOT REVIEWED AND DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.
Contacts: In Canada: Franconia Minerals Corporation (Toronto) Greg Taylor (416) 605-5120 Email: gtaylor@franconiaminerals.com Franconia Minerals Corporation (Vancouver) Farah Alibhai (604) 731-7340 Email: info@franconiaminerals.com Website: www.franconiaminerals.com In the US: Douglas Sherk (415) 896-6820 Email: dsherk@evcgroup.com
SOURCE: Franconia Minerals Corporation
Source: MARKET WIRE
One of the things we take for granted in Northeastern Minnesota is our water. I was born in Ely 57 years ago, and have lived most of my life in Ely. I spent time away at college, and worked ten years at a taconite mine, on the Mesabi Range, but other than that, Ely has been my home.
I made my first canoe trip into the Quetico-Superior with my father and Joe Seliga, when I was a boy, and over the years, I have traveled many miles through the canoe country. The last trip I made this past September, my partner prevailed on me to use a water purifier to ward of the beaver virus. That was the first time I ever used such a device. I never had beaver virus, and I didn’t get it this time, but that’s the only thing I worry about when I drink the water.
Drinking lake water isn’t anything strange to people up here. If you live in Ely, like I do, a person drinks lake water every day. The City of Ely pumps its water from Burntside Lake. We used to get out water from Shagawa Lake, but so many logs were driven through the lake, on their way either to the saw mills in Winton, or the mines in Ely, that the lake became polluted from all the extra nutrients added to the water. Shagawa Lake developed an algae problem that persists to this day, when the lake, “Greens Up”, during the warm summer months. They moved the pump house to Burntside Lake in 1931, which has been the source of Ely’s water ever since.
The first time I had any idea that we had something special, was back in 1971. I was working on Moose Lake running a canoe base, when I noticed a group of people standing on the end of our old wooden dock, looking down into the water. I couldn’t help myself. I needed to satisfy my curiosity, so I walked over to see what they were looking at. I looked down, and it was the same bottom I had looked at all summer. I asked them what they were looking at. The people told me, they were from Ohio, and had never seen the bottom of a lake before. It was a revelation for me. They were heading north into Canada. I smiled, and told them, that they hadn’t seen anything yet.
Over the years, we have gotten better at sampling the water in the lakes and streams around the state, and many of those lakes we monitor are here in Northeastern Minnesota. At first people were surprised at some of the not so nice things they were finding in our water, and many people wondered how they got there, even though there were no direct sources to blame. Apparently, mercury from faraway places had fallen with the rain and snow. The DNR had to place warnings for people not to eat too much fish. Things aren’t bad enough to keep me away from a good dinner of fresh caught walleye. But, we need to know, that when pollution is permitted to enter the atmosphere in places far away from places like our lakes, the wind carries it here and deposits mercury where it isn’t wanted. But now those concerns seem pale to an even greater danger.
This year the State of Minnesota’s DNR is facing some very important questions regarding sulfide mining, and the detrimental effects that mining would have on our water, that would make current problems seem insignificant by comparison. With growing demand across the nation and the world for clean fresh water, the citizens of the entire country and concerned people across the world need to contact the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and let them know that they don’t want to see short sighted economics put such a valuable resource as our water into jeopardy. If we start mining sulfide ore here in Northeastern Minnesota, it isn’t a question of if there’s going to be damage to our water, it’s more a question of just how bad the damage from things like cyanide and sulfuric acid and heavy metals will be.
|
|
Draft List of Waters Needing TMDLs