A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
 After 30 Plus Years The other day my friend Richard and I took a drive up to the Spruce Road which is located just south of the Kawishiwi River about ten miles from Ely. People who camp and fish on Gabro and Bald Eagle Lakes are familiar with the Spruce Road. The reason for our visit was that we wanted to take a look at one of the old mine sites that was used many years ago when earlier miners were looking for a mother lode of copper and nickel. They found both minerals, but not in enough concentration to make mining the ore bodies a profitable venture. Whenever you talk of mining, it is always done for profit.
The site we stopped to take a look at is right off the Spruce Road, but not many people driving by the open field, surrounded by woods, know that it is an old mining site. Over thirty years later, the site is still devoid of trees and other small plants, like blue berry, which normally start to take over a site once the tree cover has been cut down. The only things growing in profusion on the old copper-nickel exploration site are several kinds of lichens. Lichens are one of the oldest plants in the canoe country, and in some rocky places, they are the dominant plants. But this old mining site was drilled, blasted, and the required specimens were hauled away a long time ago. The site was covered with gravel and left to nature. I looked at the bald spot in the forest and I wondered what kept it bald for so many years. Was it something in the gravel, or did the old blasting expose enough rock to cause some chemical change that kept the pine on poplar from reclaiming the site? All I know is that this site should have grown up like the country surrounding it, but it didn’t, and that fact bothered both of us.
When we got back to the car, I heard an engine like drone that filled the woods with its dull grinding sound. It was the sound of drill rigs. The sound wasn’t deafening, but it was easy to hear. Hearing that dull drone seemed out of place in the Superior National Forest. I told Richard that if we could hear the six rigs on the Spruce Road, you could hear it in the Boundary Waters. Up until now, my only concerns have been for maintaining the quality of our water, but now I realized the impact mining would have on the audio quality of the wilderness. If six drill rigs were this loud, what would two or three mines and a railroad sound like on Gabro and Bald Eagle?
 Carla Arneson wrote the following article after visiting the site pictured at the left with a few other concerned and outraged (this is for Gov. Dayton and his group who ask “where is the outrage?,” they don’t seem to be able to act on the facts) citizens. Here is a link to the video made on the same visit. VIDEO
By C.A. Arneson | Wednesday, April 27, 2011 posted in MinnPost.com
ELY — In October of 2010 sulfide-metal (sulfide) mining was in the news with the discovery of toxic drainage at a supposedly remediated 1974 International Nickel Co. (INCO) bulk sample site off the Spruce Road — and for ongoing concerns stemming from a legacy of heavy-metal contamination at the nearby Dunka mine. Both sites are near Ely and even closer to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).
The Friends of the Boundary Waters tested the unmonitored INCO site and found toxic levels of heavy metals, including nickel and arsenic, far above state standards.
If one 10,000-ton bulk sample at the INCO site leaches toxic levels for 30-plus years, what would the legacy be of the 40,000 tons a day that Duluth Metals is proposing to mine?
Here is what the area looks like now 30 years later.
David Oliver of Duluth Metals has long claimed that any waste rock from a Duluth Metals sulfide mine, the Nokomis Project, proposed for the same area as the INCO site “is deemed below any threshold that would generate acid drainage. It just doesn’t have enough sulfur to do it” [Minnesota Public Radio News, June 23, 2010].
Unpredictable in highly disseminated ore
First, Oliver cannot predict the amount of sulfur in such highly disseminated ore as the Duluth Complex, and more importantly, toxic metal release from sulfide mining waste is not dependent on acid drainage — it occurs with or without it.
Sulfide mining proponents blithely recite limestone treatment as the answer, never saying that even if they successfully control copper they will still be unable to meet state standards for nickel, which is not adequately controlled by limestone — as demonstrated at the LTV Dunka pit. Nor do they say that Duluth Complex material also contains arsenic that releases at higher pH levels — so the more limestone is used in an attempt to control copper by raising the pH, the more arsenic would be released to our waters.
Nor do they mention the inevitable additional mercury contamination of the fish in our lakes, both from sulfide mining and from tremendous amounts of coal-fired electricity needed to power the projects — in many cases tipping the scales to “do not consume.”
Today, no technology exists that will in reality protect our waters from sulfide mining.
Experiments don’t capture the reality
Controlled experiments with minuscule test piles or within laboratory environments do not constitute the reality of Minnesota’s labyrinth of water impacted by millions of tons of mining waste — or the reality of perpetual treatment. If there had been a sulfide mine when our constitution was written, operating with today’s technology, we would still be treating it today.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Director of Strategic Planning Ann Foss, concerning toxic levels at Dunka not meeting State or Federal standards, said: “They are taking steps to bring down the levels of those pollutants, referring to Cliffs Natural Resources.” [Star Tribune] Glaringly, she did not say they would ever be able to meet State or Federal standards.
Legislative assault on our waters
What has been the response to this inability to meet standards? Instead of preserving and protecting our waters from sulfide mining, legislators and mining lobbyists launched an arsenal of tactics in campaigns to lower our state water standards in order to enable the mining companies.
Legislators “streamlined” environmental review so public response could be virtually eliminated, ensuring such corporations dictatorial power.
Legislators introduced bills to weaken the wild rice sulfate standard in order to allow mining companies carte blanche to damage our lakes, not to mention our health, since higher sulfate levels are inextricably linked to increased mercury levels in the fish we eat.
They passed legislation removing the important part of School Trust Lands language that specified, “…with sound natural resource conservation and management principles, and with other specific policy provided in state law,” but retained “to secure the maximum long-term economic return from the school trust lands.” No surprise that 3.5 million acres of school trust lands have mineral rights controlled by the state of Minnesota.
Then they passed the Omnibus Environmental Finance bill that would drastically reduce funding and protection for clean water in our state.
Sulfide mining companies would be the only winners
The first proposed sulfide mine, PolyMet’s NorthMet, has not been permitted yet because it is an accident-waiting-to-happen project. It takes moral backbone to say no to sulfide mining in Minnesota — and our political parties appear to be sorely lacking in spine.
Once standards are set for sulfide mining at NorthMet, there is no turning back. The same standards would hold for all subsequent sulfide mines, regardless of location.
What happens when dangerous contamination is discovered at permitted mines? Historically companies threaten job loss. What if the state wants to shut a polluting sulfide-mining company down? Companies can sue for the value of the minerals they are not allowed to recover. Minnesota would be held hostage while mining companies cite financial inability to meet standards — while contamination of our waters continued unabated.
The only winners would be the sulfide mining companies. In 2010, PolyMet executives received $1,670,618 in compensation, a one-year percentage change of 108.56 percent, even though the stock price was on a precipitous downward slide at the time. [Morningstar]
Professing to care about our waters — truth or pretense?
If we value Lake Superior; if we enjoy the lakes connected by the Kawishiwi River — Birch Lake and White Iron Lake, premier Basswood Lake and the Basswood River, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyagers National Park and Rainy Lake — and beyond to Canada’s Quetico, we need to educate ourselves to recognize the decimation of sulfide mining. We are naïve at best if we take our incredible wealth of water for granted and believe nothing can damage it.
Tremendous amounts of water and coal-fired, perhaps nuclear, electricity are consumed by sulfide mining. Toxic contaminants would be released to both watersheds and airsheds. Downstream and downwind would have deadly new meaning. One only has to look to Japan to see that in hazardous industry technological miscalculations are inevitable, often with catastrophic consequences.
Lest one dismiss nuclear as not an issue here, it must be noted that nuclear waste contaminating the waters of Japan are bio-accumulative — the higher up the food chain the more accumulation — just as sulfide mining waste increases the mercury levels in fish which bio-accumulate in us when we eat them. So Minnesota legislators, in what I hope was mere ignorance, voted to raise the sulfate standard for our waters — which increases the methylation of mercury — so that all of us, particularly our children, could have the opportunity to accumulate even more of it in our tissues.
Reality behind the rhetoric
In January 2011, at a legislative hearing in Hibbing, “Wayne Brandt, an executive with the Minnesota Forest Industries and Minnesota Timber Producers Association, described a project that the UPM paper company considered for its plant in Grand Rapids. Brandt said the environmental review took more than two years, and the company ultimately decided not to build it. In contrast he claimed the company did build a similar plant in Bavaria, in southern Germany.” [MPR] Brandt forgot to mention that the pulp and paper industry is also one of the top polluters of air and water, so much so that it is referred to as “paper pollution.”
Quite simply, lengthy environmental review correlates with abysmally poor-quality projects — such as PolyMet’s NorthMet project that received the lowest rating possible from the EPA.
Lori Fedo, president of the Hibbing Chamber of Commerce, testified that if proposed mining operations had been permitted, a long-time Hibbing business would not have closed. If she was referring to PolyMet, it is questionable that mining operations in Hoyt Lakes would have a significant impact on a grocery store in Hibbing. What is clear is that every time minerals run out, mining companies run out of town — and businesses close in towns where there is little left after mining to attract people. Ely was able to depend on its wealth of waters for recovery; will it now become the next victim of the boom and bust cycle?
The 360 jobs last projected for PolyMet would be the equivalent of 10 companies, each hiring 36 employees — 10 sustainable, environmentally sound companies. That would be certainly attainable if Minnesota poured the kind of money into attracting them it has spent on sulfide mining — such as the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board’s controversial $4 million dollar loan to PolyMet. Divide $4 million by ten.
Rather than long-term vision, Gov. Mark Dayton and a majority of our legislators chose to make it even harder to protect our waters by weakening Minnesota’s environmental review process with “streamlining.” They failed to recognize process has never been the problem. The problem is the state’s inability to say no to projects that destruct what defines us.
The people of Minnesota have another, saner choice
We can choose to build on the greatest assets we have — our “10,000 lakes” — the assets that will sustain generation after generation if we care for them. Our waters do not belong to a state — they belong to the people of a state.
Minnesotans have the ability, the opportunity and the responsibility to tell our legislators and our governor to support jobs and businesses that are compatible with our waters. To deliberately choose and shape a vision of Minnesota as a premier state — attracting people to live and work here because we have a wealth of clean water, clean air and an unyielding commitment to keep it that way.
C.A. Arneson lives on a lake in the Ely area.
 This photo is of the Last Wall of Zenith Sibly Savoy Mine’s Dynamite Shack. It reportedly had 2 foot thick walls and a 10″ thick solid oak door that would have hung in the opening in this wall. The mines shared this shack for safe storage of that vital component of their work. This is all that’s left. So just what town are we going to be?
The other day four young entrepreneurs from International Fall were arrested for busting into a hotel down in Eveleth. They broke into the place, because they were there to steal as much copper as possible. Right now the price of copper is so high that people are breaking into places in order to help fill the demand for copper, by stealing as much of it as they can. The price of copper is also fueling the demand of pro mining people to allow them to by-pass current environmental laws so that they can get down to business and take advantage of the current market.
A few years ago, the pro mining people told this blogger that the best reason to mine non ferrous minerals in Minnesota is that we have the highest standards in the world, and if the mining is done here, rather than in Africa: It will be better for the world, because then we know it will be done right. Last year one of the companies interested in developing the second largest deposit of copper and nickel in the world, the biggest is in Africa, submitted their EIS to the State of Minnesota, it was rejected as being inadequate. The company plan to mine in Minnesota just wasn’t up to our standards. The state people told the mining company to come back with a better plan.
But what if there isn’t a better plan to mine non ferrous minerals in Northeastern Minnesota? What if the EIS was the best the mining people could come up with, and that there really is no safe and good way to develop this vast reserve of potential mineral wealth without forever damaging the quality of the area’s valuable amount of federal water? That just might be the reason Tommy Rukavina and David Dill came out in favor of raising the amount of sulfides we allow to be dumped into our water system. Currently the issue is about the concerns some people have over how much pollution our wild rice crop can take before we kill it. I don’t know if anyone really knows what that limit of tolerance is, and I don’t think many pro mining people even care. Fortunately for the canoe country, there are many people all over the nation and the world who do care about things like water, fish, loons, and wild rice.
The only possible hope I see that the two camps might be able to come together on is the possibility that the mining companies would agree to install and operate a sludge treatment plant at each of the mines granted permits to operate in Minnesota. The issue is really one of what will be done with all the pulverized waste rock that in most cases will be over ninety percent waste and less than ten percent product. I would like to see some of the pro mining people join me in calling on the mining companies to admit that unless they remove the caustic chemicals from their waste sludge that there isn’t any good way to mine here, and that if we do open Pandora’s Box we are sure to leave the lasting effects of ruining our water, and forever altering life here as we know it.
This issue is all about dollars and cents. The mining companies want our copper for the same reason those four young men broke into the hotel down in Eveleth; they were looking for a profit for their efforts. The price of copper is very high, and these are desperate times. There is no doubt that we have the technology to remove the bad things from the sludge we will have to put somewhere if we allow mining here. My doubts are whether or not the price of copper will ever be high enough to justify the costs of installing and then operating sludge treatment plants. Sooner or later the sludge is going to drain into our water, just like it is already doing in the St. Louis River. There is just no way to prevent that. In time even the best built dikes are going to leak, and if we allow things like sulfur to be left in that sludge we are going to see acid drainage polluting the Boundary Waters. It is only a matter of time. So what kind of town are we? Are we going to take the pieces of silver now, and leave the mess to the future, or are we going to hold to our high standards which now say that if mining can’t be done right, then it shouldn’t be done at all.
Picture and Post by Mike Hillman
It is shameful elected state and federal legislative members seem to be in collusion with PolyMet to create 360 polluting mining jobs. PolyMet’s proposed mining activity definitely endangers Chippewa Indian spiritual culture and wild rice.
Sixty years ago, a scientist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources showed that if there are more than 10 milligrams per liter of sulfides in water wild rice doesn’t grow. A state legislator wants to use precious taxpayer dollars to study the same problem.
Mining by PolyMet threatens the multimillion-dollar tourist, resort and casino industries. These industries need to get actively involved in stopping PolyMet. Minnesota is tourist land, not yesteryear mining land. This is where the tax dollars are!
The mining industry has the Mesabi nugget expansion development, which has created hundreds of jobs.
No one talks about the Indian casinos, which employ 12,800 people statewide while also creating thousands of part-time satellite jobs. Casinos saved the state of Minnesota from employment depression. About 70 percent of their employees are non-Indian. The Indian casinos create many jobs that pay state and federal income taxes. Additionally, they give the state of Minnesota billions of dollars through the compact system.
We talk about big government, but I believe we need to reorganize state governments. There seems to be much duplication of paperwork and many departments that do the same things.
We must not let PolyMet mining pollute the people’s land and water via the discharge of toxic chemical like sulfides.
Warner B. Wirta, Duluth
Published April 29, 2011, 12:00 AM in Duluth News Tribune
PolyMet should not be the only pollution concern
PolyMet is the first company to present an environmental impact statement to mine low-grade, sulfide-containing mineral ores.
PolyMet is the first company to present an environmental impact statement to mine low-grade, sulfide-containing mineral ores. PolyMet has stated it would do what’s necessary to comply with the existing 10 milligrams per liter standard for sulfates.
However, if that standard could be increased, it could potentially pave the way for other companies — such as Twin Metals and Franconia — that have been conducting exploratory drilling further north, nearer the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness.
Not that the roughly 1,500 acres of wetland that would be displaced by the proposed PolyMet mine isn’t important; it is, but increasing the sulfate standard and the potential of mining near the BWCAW, where sulfate pollution could flow into the BWCAW, would have serious impacts on both the area’s tourism and wildlife.
Matt Noll
 Visit Toxiland I may have underestimated local and state politicians bending all rules necessary, changing laws when possible, and giving vast sums of money to already wealthy mining companies to lure them to the Minnesota Gold, presently Non-Ferrous Metals ensuring nearly hundreds of jobs, in the short term.
But, their long term thinking may be similar to our mining crazy friends in Butte, MT. This video with Jon Stewart and Jason Jones explains it all:
Jon pronounces that “In the environmental war, the human race continues to win the war over it.” But, points out that where some only see a large toxic mining pit, “one town see a horribletunity.”
 It appears very little is different. The lack of responsibility on the part of large, politically favored heavily financed mining corporations is the same in Utah and Minnesota. You will also see these same battles in any state where you see these corporations systematically pursuing natural resources without sincere and adequate protection for the environment and the health of the states residents. While reading this article by Ms. Udell certain similarities between our states and the “mining situation” struck me as identical, those I’ve highlighted by making the text bold
Rio Tinto should be responsible for damage
By CHERISE UDELL April 16, 2011 Cherise Udell is founder of Utah Moms for Clean Air.
The CEO of Rio Tinto, Tom Albanese, lamented recently that his corporation must do “a better job at managing the curse of resource nationalism … and the activism of stakeholder engagement.” Let me translate that for you: Local people throughout the world are tired of being exploited for profit; they’re starting to stand up for themselves, and Rio Tinto doesn’t like it.
Last week I boarded a plane to London, headquarters of Rio Tinto, to join protesters from California, Michigan, Indonesia, Mongolia, Madagascar and London to bring Albanese face to face with “the curse of resource nationalism.” Virtually every country and state where Rio Tinto operates is sending real people to the annual Rio Tinto shareholders meeting to give Albanese an earful.
Most adults in Utah know they have suffered, and will likely still suffer for years to come, from a culture of greed, corruption, entitlement and disdain for the little guy that permeated Wall Street, culminating in the collapse of the world economy in 2008.
For years, Wall Street suckered Congress into passing laws it knew only it could exploit, and then pushed even those laws to the limit. The average person (you and me) ended up paying dearly, while those who profited like kings escaped not only unscathed but are now making bigger bonuses than ever.
There are stark similarities between Wall Street’s behavior and Rio Tinto’s operations in Utah and throughout the world, prompting its stiff opposition to “resource nationalism,” as Albanese puts it.
With the dramatic increase in the price of metals, the profitability of mining is greater than ever, despite a still-depressed economy. The principal beneficiaries are Rio Tinto management in London and stockholders far removed from the consequences of their actions.
For years, Rio Tinto has manipulated Utah agencies, pushed the permitting process to the limit and operated beyond the constraints and intent of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act and our State Implementation Plan.
Rio Tinto now sees much greater profit potential using this well-worn modus operandi in seeking an expansion of its Bingham Canyon Mine. Using the mirage of job creation and the thinly veiled threat of shutting down if it doesn’t get what it wants, Rio Tinto is busy trying to hide its environmental footprint rather than clean up its act. If it succeeds, the economic and health consequences will be long-lasting and borne by the average Utah citizen for decades to come.
The Bingham mine’s 23,000 acres currently have no financial bond. As far as I know, this is a highly unusual situation in America. When the mine finally closes, as all mines eventually do, Utah taxpayers will be left with a mess we can’t afford to clean up, toxins in our aquifers and Great Salt Lake, and a mountain range that once beautified and enhanced our vistas, hopelessly and irreversibly disfigured. An expansion of the mine will make all of that even worse and more costly to us.
Utah and its government leaders have a choice to make on Utah’s future. We can continue giving preferential treatment to the big polluters — and Rio Tinto is by far the biggest — which will solidify and perpetuate economic dependency on the extraction industries and will discourage companies that would otherwise bring us cleaner jobs.
We can inadvertently become the Pittsburgh of the 1950s or Silicon Valley of the 2020s. Granting Rio Tinto a free ride to pollute more certainly steers us toward becoming the Pittsburgh cesspool of the future.
Americans didn’t stand up to Wall Street and we are paying dearly for not having done so. Utahns should now demand that our state government stand up to Rio Tinto.
We can demand a realistic reclamation bond. We can demand that a small part of Rio Tinto’s profit of $14.3 billion last year be invested in electrical generation sources such as wind and solar that don’t pollute our air. We can demand that Rio Tinto use the best available technology to mitigate its pollution output.
It’s technologically feasible, it will provide new jobs, Rio Tinto can well afford it, and to do otherwise simply perpetuates an exploitation of all the residents of Salt Lake County.
I plan to ask Albanese in person, “If this expansion is such a great idea for Utahns, come to Salt Lake City and debate your opponents. Come and tell us face to face just how the future health and economic well-being of Utah families are to you just the ‘curse’ of resource nationalism.”
When : Wednesday, April 13 • 4:00pm
Where : Harbor Drive, behind the DECC, Duluth, MN
What : Picket and Press Conference: Stop the Environmental Standards Rollback!
Who : Listen to Bob Tammen Retired Miner from Tower Soudan
The Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration will be holding a conference in the DECC
Tell the industry! We don’t want the state’s water quality standards rolled back to make way for their industry profits!
For more information contact NoMnSulfidemining@gmail.com
By Mike Hillman
A friend of mine told me a few weeks ago that State Representative Tom Rukavina wanted to increase by five times the legal limit we allow for sulfates in our discharge water. “Why would he want to do that,” I asked. “The current standards are too high for the mining companies to meet and they know it”, was my friend’s answer, “They talked to Tommy about their problem meeting the ten milligram standard, that’s why Tom is asking to lower the current requirements.” “So much for meeting the highest environmental standards in the world,” I said in response. It leads to the logical question about the fairness of our environmental standards.
This week the topic of sulfate limits and wild rice was in the local papers, and there was Representative Rukavina asking to have the limits on sulfates raised, because he feels the standards to protect wild rice from mining waste water is too high. Now I know when you serve in the state legislature you have to be familiar with a lot of things, but I was surprised when Representative Rukavina seemed to know something about sulfates and wild rice that the rest of us didn’t know.
Now I’ve heard about people talking about wild rice before, but it’s usually a few weeks before the late summer wild rice harvest, and the talk is about how this year’s crop of wild rice is going to be, not about how much sulfate the plant can tolerate before it stops producing rice. According to some scientists the current level of ten mg per liter is out of line and according to them a level of as high as two hundred and fifty wouldn’t kill wild rice, but Representatives Tom Rukavina from Pike, and David Dill of Orr, said they will settle for fifty as a reasonable compromise. Reasonable by whose standards I wondered.
According to Tom Rukavina it’s not just about proposed sulfide mining in Northeastern Minnesota that’s being hampered by the unreasonable sulfate limits, because many of the man made mine lakes, all across the Mesabi Range, have sulfate levels much higher than the ten mg per liter limit the state now sets as the acceptable standard for sulfates. Rukavina said that many municipal water systems across Minnesota can’t match the standards and people seem to be turning a blind eye to those violations. Rukavina thinks the mining people are being singled out and he feels that’s unfair. So instead of keeping the best water quality standards in the world, Rukavina and Dill want us to lower those standards all across the state. Thank heaven for people who are saying that before we lower the current standards that may be wrong, we should make sure they’re not really right.
I like Tom Rukavina, but I don’t agree with him about changing the rules about sulfates in our water until the state finishes a two year study that will better tell us the truth about sulfates and wild rice in Northeastern Minnesota. Tom Rukavina is from the south side of the continental divide. Where he stands the water runs east and south, and where I stand the water runs north. The water in the St. Louis River is so polluted from mercury from mining waste that the EPCA doesn’t have a plan to deal with cleaning up the mess, and that is a sad thing. Right now the water in the Rainy River Water Shed; the water flowing north to Hudson Bay is in better shape. I want to keep it that way. It would be nice to have high paying jobs, but not if it is going to put poison into our water.
The truth is the mining companies can’t meet the current standards that we have set in order to protect Northeastern Minnesota from pollution and degradation, and they know it. I hope we take the two years to study the issue, and find out for sure just what a fair and safe measure for sulfates going into either of our major water sheds. The rock here has been waiting two thousand eight hundred million years, so two more years maintaining current standards doesn’t seem a lot to ask.
 STREAMLINING POLLUTION
Editorial Comment: This is in our opinion one of the very best summaries of the state of the development of Cu/Ni Hazardous Chemical Processing/Mining written to-date. If you have any concern for the health of the citizens of Minnesota and the state itself, you should take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with this post, tell your friends, and especially jab any politicians you can reach with it. (rw)
On March 3, 2011 Governor Dayton signed into law legislation to streamline the environmental review process for businesses and industries seeking permits (H.F. 1). This legislation directly fast-tracks proposed copper-nickel sulfide mining in Minnesota.
Minnesota’s Strict Standards
Iron Range legislators and mining company officials have repeatedly stated that copper-nickel mining is best done here in Minnesota, with our strict environmental laws. PolyMet, Inc. has spent five years trying to make its way to permitting. After four years of environmental studies, the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released in November of 2009. Citizens who combed through 1800 plus pages of the DEIS found few details for treatment or mitigation of likely violations of water quality standards. In February of 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rated the DEIS as EU-3, Environmentally Unsatisfactory-Inadequate. In short, metallic sulfide mining cannot be done in northeast Minnesota without polluting the watershed for centuries to come.
One year later, we have a Democrat governor dependent on the votes of the Iron Range and a Republican-dominated legislature bent on facilitating industry. The result is a race to see who can do the most to facilitate the permitting of copper-nickel mining. Without the weakening of current regulations, the mining of sulfide ores cannot meet state standards. Lowering our standards puts northeast Minnesota on par with third world countries.
Citizen Legal Appeal and Iron Range Resources
In January of 2011, the Iron Range Resources Board (IRRB) was served notice of intent to sue by five environmental groups. The groups gave notice that a $4 million loan to PolyMet for land purchase was illegal per the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as being done ahead of, and with the possibility of influencing, the permitting process.
PolyMet’s open pits would be located on land that is currently part of the Superior National Forest. According to Federal law, open pit strip mining operations are prohibited on USFS land originally purchased under the Weeks Act for watershed protection. The USFS has been ducking this issue for the past 5 years. The USFS could have denied PolyMet the surface use of its lands. Instead they have initiated a draft EIS process in preparation for a land exchange with PolyMet. The 6,700 acres needed by PolyMet include over 1000 acres of high functioning wetlands that are ARNI (Aquatic Resources of National Importance). To find land parcels of equal value for PolyMet to purchase for exchange may be difficult and costly. Hence the IRRB loan.
The IRR is a state agency that is funded by taconite production taxes paid in lieu of property tax, managing approximately $40 million a year to assist with Iron Range economic development and diversification. In order to evade the law suit and allow the PolyMet loan to go forward, the streamlining law specifically exempts the IRRB from prohibition to perform actions to promote a project before environmental review is complete.
The streamlining law also removes citizen rights to use Minnesota district courts for environmental law suits. All suits must now go through a more expensive Minnesota appeals court process. The constitutionality of altering jurisdiction and bypassing district court appears questionable. Litigation is the only avenue granted citizens as a means of seeking recourse for harm.
The new streamlining law affects all industrial projects, including Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s), coal power plants, nuclear plants, ethanol plants, agricultural operations, and garbage incinerators, among others. Smaller projects may be exempted from environmental review altogether.
Proposers Can Draft Own Environmental Review
The new law allows project proposers to prepare their own environmental review. When companies hire their own consultants, much of the information presented to the agencies for evaluation can be considered proprietary. The agencies must then rely on figures given by the company or perform duplicate studies. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to evaluate potential impacts.
When companies control the environmental review process, citizens lose access to reliable technical information. In addition, citizen response time to the review, no matter how complicated, is now limited to 30 days.
Lowering Minnesota Standards
Another regulation under reconsideration is the Minnesota standard of 10 mg/l of sulfate in the state’s watersheds. Studies show that wild rice was abundant in the upper St. Louis River watershed prior to the 1950’s, before taconite mining. Remaining wild rice stands have stunted growth. The tailings basin formerly owned by the LTV taconite company and purchased for use by PolyMet is currently leaching sulfates and other contaminants into the St. Louis River watershed.
Both taconite plants and their coal fired power suppliers release mercury into the air. When sulfates are present in the watershed, they become part of a biochemical process that converts mercury into methylmercury, the form that bio-accumulates. There are now fish advisories on most northern Minnesota lakes to limit the amount of fish eaten per week. Advisories are based upon studies that show the human body can excrete limited amounts of mercury. But that amount can still be toxic to infants, young children and the elderly. Mercury has been implicated in lowered IQ, autism symptoms, neurological symptoms, and Alzheimer’s disease.
It is known that Minntac’s taconite tailings basin is leaching 3 million gallons per day of sulfates and other pollutants into two watersheds. Minntac is also seeking to release recycled water that has been used in plant operations since start-up and is becoming corrosive to plant equipment. The DNR has not been able to figure out where best to divert this contaminated water. Unfortunately, governmental agencies have been lax in forcing taconite operations to meet state water quality standards. The result is the loss of wild rice crops and the fact that the St. Louis River Watershed is so contaminated with mercury, the MPCA cannot conceive of a plan to clean it up.
Meanwhile, state representative Tom Rukavina is proposing to increase the sulfate limit. Rather than insist that our waterways be cleaned up, Rukavina plans to pave the way for both the expansion of Minntac and the opening of an entirely new sulfide mining district, which would greatly increase the amount of sulfates, mercury, and toxic heavy metals in the watershed.
His basis for doing this is to promote 360 projected PolyMet jobs. If our area legislators took as much interest in Cirrus Aircraft in Duluth, which is in the process of being sold to a Chinese company, they could save 500 already existing local jobs.
Copper-Nickel-Precious Metals as Strategic
Newly elected US 8th district representative Chip Cravaack is also in the mix to facilitate sulfide mining. He claims this mining is necessary for strategic US interests.
Mr. Cravaack is either neglecting to notice, or has not been informed, that PolyMet is a Canadian company, that all of PolyMet’s metals would be semi-processed and need further smelting, and that PolyMet has a market agreement with mining conglomerate Glencore to sell its metals on the global market . Inquiries for purchase of these semi-processed metals are coming from China. Both China and India are stockpiling metals as they seek to become the world’s next industrial giants. The US would need to buy these metals back from our major competitors.
However, it is to mining company advantage to have Cravaack claim that these metals are strategic. According to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978, the BWCAW can only be mined in the case of national emergency. Twin Metals and others have deposits which border the BWCAW and dip down under the wilderness. By claiming these metals as strategically important, Cravaack could be facilitating the opening of the BWCAW to mining operations. Cravaack would do better by the citizens of this country if he would research the recycling of metals from military equipment for strategic use.
Financial Assurance
Other legislation to promote mining is also winding its way through the corridors of the State Capitol. Observers have noted that Brad Moore, formerly of the MPCA and now working for PolyMet, and LaTisha Geitzen , Environmental Affairs for PolyMet, have been wandering the halls with their input. PolyMet staff is essentially helping write legislation conducive to mining.
Among these issues is financial assurance. Some environmental groups have been arguing that sulfide mining should only take place with strong financial assurances, so that tax-payers won’t become responsible for superfund clean-up costs some thirty years or more down the line. PolyMet currently does not have enough assets to begin mining; investor money is needed for plant start-up, not financial assurance. In addition, the requirement of large amounts of financial assurance would notify investors that his project carries huge environmental risk. So it is in PolyMet’s best interests to have the current friendly legislature enact legislation guaranteeing minimal financial assurance responsibility for any sulfide mining project.
Streamlining a Toxic Environment for Future Generations
While legislators have jumped on a band wagon to facilitate sulfide mining, they have lost sight of the long-term consequences. The mining of less-than-1% ores results in 99% waste rock. The cost of fuels, equipment, machinery, electricity, chemicals, and transportation are all projected to rise. The potential for these mines to remain operational for more than twenty years is highly doubtful.
Both Japan and Canada are already developing industries that will recycle all electronic waste. They are realizing that electronic equipment is being updated so quickly, we cannot manage the resulting waste stream. Also, as oil prices continue to rise, demand for many products will decline, while citizens start looking for energy efficient solutions.
Our legislators seem to be unaware of these future trends. We, as citizens, must stand up and defend the rights of our children and our grandchildren to a future that is based on clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment. The jobs most needed right now are those that will clean up our toxic messes and take us to a sustainable future. To facilitate the opening of a copper-nickel sulfide mining district in the Arrowhead Region of Minnesota when the state cannot manage the pollution created by taconite mining is irresponsible policy. Our legislators and governmental leadership must be held accountable.
|
|
