The mail below is interesting. I looked up the website celdf.org and it has a unique message–giving the environment rights.
It’s just that we would need some kind of a group to make this work.
|
||||||
 F.O.K. U.S. Illustration by: Elliot Dahl Issues raised by Native Americans in their “POLYMET DEIS –Tribal Cooperating Agencies Alternative Findings and Perspectives” should be seioursly heeded by the DNR and regulatory agencies. This is a through analysis of the DEIS and will be ignored or maginalized by “the powers that be” at the peril of all peoples of Minnesota. We are just hoping someone is listening and paying attention to these thoughtful citizens. For example, for those who are interested in the science and claim little or no impact, that is highly debatable. The Cooperating Agencies write, “The view that mine pit dewatering impacts will be very limited or non-existent (Adams, John and Michael Liljegren. 2009 “Additional PolyMet peatland data / information.” email communication to Stuart Arkley. February 1, 2009) is based on the assumption that there is little or no connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers (GLIFWC 2009, Memorandum to Jon Ahlness and Stuart Arkley: Photographic evidence for pit impacts to wetland hydrology. April 24, 2009). However, the scant data that does exist characterizing mine site hydrology suggests that there may be substantial connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers.” How can any scientist claim “limited or non-existent impacts” when in fact the science “suggests that there may be substantial connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers.” If there is any question at all, we should not proceed. When we know for certain our waters will not be polluted, then we may proceed.  Jobs, Coming to a Minnesota Community Near You! I,ve heard the argument recently that “All” companies have made improvements in environmental stewardship in the last few decades and that our regulators are just doing a “great” job of protecting us against pollution. Please watch the PBS film by Frontline “Poisoned Waters.” Then come back and tell me what a great job we are doing in the U.S. to protect our waters, our health, and our communities long term viability. At this critical time in our Nations history when we need, no must, reverse our decades long abuse of our planet. We must find ways to create jobs that contribute to the health of our children and our families, our communities, and the environment. Trusting in industry and our regulators and politicians is what has gotten us the “Poisoned Waters” that the PBS film is about. Watch the film, unless you just don’t want to know what’s happening in your world. Then just trust. Illustration by: Elliot Dahl View more of his work at www.elliotdahl.com Are the waters of Northeastern Minnesota less precious than those of Wisconsin? Wisconsin will not allow sulfide ore mining until it can be proven that it can be done without harming the environment. No mining company has done that. The waters of Northeastern Minnesota could be a testing ground for PolyMet’s unproven methods. The damage to our environment and the taxpayers’ cost for cleanup could last decades longer than the jobs. Mary Thompson Duluth Published: Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:48 PM CST
Mining companies have one reason for setting their sights on Northeastern Minnesota: Extracting minerals. They have no benevolent desire to create jobs or pay taxes. They have poured millions of dollars into public relations campaigns convincing and promising regional politicians that their project is the economy’s “savior,” knowing that if they spent enough time and money hyping job creation, they would be able to railroad through environmentally-risky mines. Has anybody looked at how PolyMet came up with its 400 jobs number? Or are we supposed to “trust them,” like we are supposed to in every part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement process? Making promises is how this industry works. PolyMet mining will not be done right. Their DEIS points to numerous pollution problems. This is a low-grade ore deposit that has never been mined in Minnesota. The company will have neither the incentive nor the resources to clean up their toxic messes. PolyMet is vigilant in its claim that we need these metals for electronic products. Along with their hype of jobs, PolyMet’s propaganda for mining these dangerous sulfide ores is based on a fear of product shortages. None exists. However, clean water is undeniably scarce … and priceless. Damage to it is irrevocable. Contrary to what the politicians would like us to believe, there are countless vacationers to Minnesota and thousands of concerned Minnesotans who have serious issues with this proposed mining project. We may be Minnesota nice, but we aren’t Minnesota stupid. Jane Koschak Ely December 21, 2009Members of Minnesota’s hunting and angling community issued the following statement over the weekend. It highlights many of known concerns about the PolyMet Draft Environmental Impact Statement and demonstrates how this issue is of concern to a broad segment of Minnesota’s citizens: Sportsmen’s coalition supports holding PolyMet fully accountable for watershed and waterways pollution2,000 years of contamination for 20 years of copper mining DULUTH—An ad hoc coalition of hunting and angling groups formally requests that legislation be passed by state lawmakers holding Canadian mining company PolyMet fully accountable for any and all costs associated with remediation and cleanup of its proposed copper-nickel mining operations near Hoyt Lakes, Minn. If this can’t be accomplished—thereby protecting taxpayers from a cleanup tab that could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars—no copper-nickel mining should be allowed. The coalition of groups, which includes the Minnesota Division of the Izaak Walton League of America and the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, consists of sportsmen and women and others who understand the priceless value of clean watersheds and crystal clear lakes, streams, and rivers that supply Minnesotans with clean drinking water and unparalleled outdoor recreation opportunities. And we have serious concerns about the seemingly reckless rush of some northern Minnesota legislators and others to approve PolyMet’s proposed mining operation on the former LTV Steel Mining Co.’s taconite plant near Hoyt Lakes.[1] Especially considering that these same lawmakers stymied attempts to pass common sense legislation ensuring that taxpayers won’t be saddled with decades of remediation and toxic waste cleanup costs after PolyMet officials pack their bags and head back to Canada. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 40 percent of western headwater streams are polluted by abandoned mines, which poison rivers, creeks, and watersheds with sulfuric acid and heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and arsenic. High-end estimates of the number of abandoned mines range up to half-a-million. The projected cost to clean them up could be as high as $70 billion.[2] Hardrock mining imperils watersheds and fish habitat because mineral ores are infused with sulfides. When mining puts the ore into contact with water, the result is acid runoff that pollutes lakes, rivers and streams, oftentimes killing all aquatic life.[3] For example, in South Dakota the Dakota Mining Corp. extracted nearly $70 million worth of precious metals from public lands, then went broke in 1998, abandoned the mine, and left behind a 100 million gallon pond of acid and toxic heavy metals. The cleanup cost is estimated at $40 million—more than seven times higher than the cleanup bond the company posted, shifting the costs onto taxpayers.[4] At Summitville, a mine in Colorado, a bankrupt Canadian company has left the nation’s most costly mine cleanup. It will take 100 years and cost $235 million to clean up the release of cyanide and acid mine drainage that has left 17 miles of the Alamosa River devoid of fish and other aquatic life. The mine was permitted as a ‘zero discharge’ mine.[5] Montana and Wisconsin have since banned similar mines as a result of these and other disasters. It’s clear to us that PolyMet’s Canadian officials don’t want to be held financially responsible for their mine’s cleanup and reclamation costs because they know that the long-term environmental damage to our watersheds, waterways and other natural resources will likely exceed the value (many times over) of the copper and other minerals they manage to extract from the ground. PolyMet’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) says as much, stating that:[6]
It’s also clear that PolyMet’s proposed mining operation will most likely contaminate waters that flow into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and tributaries of Lake Superior.[8] The very lifeblood of northern Minnesota’s economy is its healthy watersheds and waterways, but PolyMet’s proposed mine waste will be leaching sulfuric acid into those same northern Minnesota waterways “for up to 2,000 years.” In essence, what this amounts to (i.e., not holding PolyMet accountable for remediation and cleanup costs) is a corporate bailout for a Canadian company. American’s hard-earned tax dollars shouldn’t be used to subsidize foreign companies who are going to leave us with a legacy of 2,000 years of poisoned lakes, streams, and rivers. Adding insult to injury, the raw materials dug up from Minnesota’s public lands are going to be sold on the world market, very likely to countries with emerging economies, like China. We end by asking a simple question: is 20 years worth of copper mining jobs worth 2,000 years of poisoned waterways and watersheds that will cost the rest of us millions, and possibly billions, to clean up? The risks to taxpayers and northern Minnesota’s waterways cannot be overstated and should not be brushed under the rug by short-sighted legislators. If PolyMet officials won’t agree to abide by tough, common sense legislation that requires them to be held fully accountable for all future remediation and cleanup costs, thereby protecting taxpayers from having to pay to clean up their toxic mess, it’s time to send them back to Canada. Coalition Spokesmen: Len Anderson David Lien Darrell Spencer [1] Charley Shaw. “Copper controversy.” Capitol Report: 2/23/09 “When concern for economic and technological progress is not accompanied by concern for the balance of the ecosystem, our earth is inevitably exposed to serious environmental damage, with consequent harm to human beings. Blatant disrespect for the environment will continue as long as the earth and its potential are seen merely as objects for immediate use and consumption, to be manipulated by an unbridled desire for profit.” — Pope John Paul II My View of Our View by the Duluth New Tribune which they first “aired” March 1st and then ran again Dec. 20, 2009 Even for Editorial Comments this “Puff Piece for the Mining Industry” was beyond reason. Why are they trying to Puff and Sell Copper Nickel mining to their readership? What do they gain? Are there Stock Options or mining ownership hidden here for the owners, who by the way live in North Dakota? Let’s put the article into a little more open perspective. I’ll offer snipets of their comments with my opinion in parentheses. PolyMet acquired a massive, long idled processing plant (for less than the scrap value of that asset according to the Northern Miner.) PolyMet has spent more than $20 million of investor’s money. (Where did all that money go? Are you an investor, do you know how your money was spent? Person’s I’ve talked to believe about $2 million in expenditures in the state of Minnesota can be accounted for. Where’s the rest, where’s the accounting. They obviously have a LOT of money to spend any way they want. How much would it take to buy YOUR vote? Minnesota Taxpayers owned the tailings pond until given away by IRRRB and PolyMet values that tailings pond at $50 million, Minnesota taxpayers got nothing.) Public comments are being accepted in writing. Minnesota’s U.S. Senators and Representatives along with “others in HIGH places” have voiced their STRONG support for PolyMet and copper mining. (And therefore KWITCHURBELIAKIN it’s a done deal and public comments will not be allowed at public meetings such as the recent PolyMet pep rallies in Blaine and Aurora, MN.) Iron ore has been mined form our region since the 19th century. (So what? This has absolutely nothing to do with copper mining here and now. There are a large number of people who don’t know that there is a VERY significant difference between the two types of mining. To say that PolyMet is a different kind of mining is such a gross understatement. I suppose the mining companies don’t want you to start thinking about it or analyzing it.) The deposits are RICH. And not just PolyMet, others are lined up for the riches if PolyMet is permitted. (How rich? So rich you common Minnesotans will be rich the article implies, jobs for everyone, thousands or hundreds of jobs, maybe, if everything goes right and we can get round these pesky individuals interested in clean water. We’re also not sure how many of the better paying jobs will have to come from highly trained foreign mining experts, maybe only a few, maybe, if we’re lucky. Then the gates are open for prosperity for someone, we’ll work out the details of who gets what and how much and at what cost later. Let’s just look at the possibility of jobs and the RICHES for now. ) There will be little or no risk to the people of Minnesota because we have 37 pages of laws and regulations. (We can’t screw up; they can’t screw up. We would not allow it. Rule 6132 completely has us covered. Go back to sleep and trust your government. Minnesota Rule 6132.1200 provides for financial assurances for reclamation activities and postclosure maintenance. However “all terms and conditions must be approved by the commissioner” or his designated representative. This puts a lot of power in the hands of that person or persons. How does that person balance the state dictate to “increase mining” with the protective clauses, which look good on paper but are entirely up to the commissioner or his delegate. Oh, and by the way, if our laws and regulations are so great why is the old LTV tailings pond still leaking and polluting ground water? It’s fact folks, the Duluth News Tribune likes to add and edit articles that state it leaks to state that it allegedly leaks. Nope, DNR and MPC employees will tell you, “It leaks” and they just don’t know how badly it leaks. Yes folks the very same pit PolyMet will buy, if they pay for it, and is proposing to use as is, leaks badly. One MPC representative said he doesn’t think it would be any worse, “ideally,” with PolyMet but “there just isn’t money to clean it up.”) Frank Ongaro says…and Joseph Scipioni says…(The editorial staff really seems to like Frank Ongaro, executive director of Mining Minnesota and will repeat verbatim anything that he says. I didn’t know he was a Jedi Knight…he seems to be quite accomplished at the Jedi Mind Trick. “This is an exciting project etc, etc. and my personal favorite “No additional restrictions are necessary.” I shouldn’t fault you in accepting these since the Jedi Mind Trick is SO powerful. They also seem to like Joseph Scipioni, PolyMet President and Chief Executive Officer. He talked with them and his statements go unquestioned. He also must be a Jedi master.) Much of the concern (as it should) has centered on sulfuric acid which has run off at copper mining operations, including countries devoid of environmental laws and concerns. (Oh yes you forgot to mention Wisconsin and the Flambeau River debacle which led to a moratorium in 1989 on copper mining in that state until mining companies could DEMONSTRATE successful and safe mining practices. Isn’t it interesting that no mining companies have returned to Wisconsin to demonstrate such can be done?) But, we in Minnesota believe (without proof) that we are better than those other polluting countries and Wisconsin and we –“will do it right.” (Trick) “The sulfur content of the rock at the PolyMet site is 1 percent or lower. It’s negligible.”(Trick) (Shouldn’t even editors in an opinion piece offer these comments as alleged? Because and in fact due to the low copper content also, the amount of sulfur in relationship to the amount of copper is as high or slightly higher than in the Wisconsin mines. So we will end up with the same amount of sulfur to deal with and that IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE!) An impressive (but not nearly as reassuring as you might think) group of agencies are attempting to “make this happen.” (However, as impressive as the group is, the group has no control over human behavior, mine captains behavior and the need for profit and the concomitant expediency of extraction with the necessity to cut corners where ever possible. The mining companies will have as few workers as possible and will cut back jobs when technically feasible or economically necessary. Hiring a few hundred workers is NOT their primary goal.) PolyMet would bring back to life the former LTV taconite plant. The massive facility cost $350 million to build in the 50’s, is reportedly worth $2.7 billion in today’s dollars (and was “sold,”no money has changed hands yet, for $3.4 million and some stock which is less than the scrap value of the place. So, in other words if PolyMet pays for the plant it will be a gift for stock from Cleveland Cliffs. And what shame is there in not using it, the Duluth News Tribune thinks there is shame involved if we don’t. And, it appears there is plenty of shame to go round, but not where they are trying to put the shame blame. PolyMet brags to shareholders that the plant was worth $200 million and the LTV tailings pond worth $50 million. This is a tailings pond that IRRRB gave to Cleveland Cliffs for FREE who then included it in the agreed upon 3.4 million “sale” which has yet to be consummated. Seems to me there is plenty of shame to pass around with the skullduggery involved with this “ownership maneuvering” along with the U.S. Forest service swapping of protected lands for the express purpose of circumventing those same protections, all for PolyMet, all for a few temporary jobs. Two groups strongly opposed to copper mining are far removed from the Northland. The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness group is based nowhere near the Boundary Waters, but in Minneapolis. And the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy is based in St. Paul. (No one I’ve met with whom I’ve talked, these groups included, are opposed to copper mining, a myth that for some reason the mining companies want to perpetuate. These groups, like me, are opposed to pollution. I am very surprised that an editorial group could not distinguish the difference. And your inference than someone who is geographically a distance from the pollution doesn’t count, if valid, would disqualify you as your ownership, in North Dakota, is geographically further away. Anyone who knows anything about newspapers knows that even editorial staffs don’t blink unless told to by the owners of the newspapers. In this case an individual “far removed from the Northland.”) Diversifying the economy of the iron ore-dependent Range (is an exceptional idea, one that has been overlooked for over 35 years. So far the best idea we can come with is more mining, mining that is ever so much trickier than iron mining to control from the standpoint of environmental impacts. What if we take a portion of the shameful money we are wasting trying to perpetuate mining and gather all these impressive agencies and individuals together for a new dictate, “diversify the economy of the iron-ore dependent Range and let’s do it in a way that creates truly long term sustainable businesses and jobs here and gives individuals meaningful, healthy, non-polluting jobs. That could be done but it would take a different focus and commitment. YES, let’s put people back to work! And, let’s make sure the air and water are healthy for us and future generations.) Yes the economy continues to struggle (and it has nothing to do with the protests of a few as implied by the juxtaposition of those two sentences in the Tribune editoral. It struggles because of the politicians, especially because of the bureaucrats, in spite of proper regulation, and in spite of the best efforts of our citizens. If we are going to do anything other than more of the same but worse scenario with mining, if we do want diversification and long term growth then we must look beyond extractive industries. Nature, clean water and clean air are more valuable now and in the future than all the resource extraction you can imagine, finagle, coerce, or force upon a working population.) (I would propose a moratorium on copper mining in Minnesota as the best long term plan. The Wisconsin situation with recent test wells showing abnormally high concentrations of heavy metals should not be ignored. If mining companies can prove to the standards requested by the intelligent and thoughtful people of Wisconsin, then we might also want to reconsider copper mining here. Until then we must demand more of our politicians than the high risk, promises without adequate financial assurances, short term run copper mining presently offered to Minnesota. And, if the foreign mining companies get their way and when they are done with us and we are left with the cost of cleanup and the pollution they will leave behind, we will be exactly where we were 25 years ago and still today, wishing we had diversified and done SOMETHING entirely different.) One of the best mining ballads is Merle Travis’ song; Sixteen Tons. The title comes from the average amount of ore a miner brought each month in order to almost break even. The classic line of the song comes at the end of the chorus; “St. Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go, I owe my soul to the company store.” The reason I thought about the song is because there are a lot of people talking about mining sulfide rock near Ely and Babbitt. I have visited with folks on both sides of the issue. Everyone agrees we could use the jobs, but others think the eventual employment benefits, wouldn’t equal the ecological mess sulfide mining would leave behind. According to reports, in the local papers, mining companies are interested in opening sulfide mines near the Kawishiwi River and Birch Lake. The reason for all the renewed interest in copper nickel mining is that the area contains one of the largest reserves of copper and nickel in the world, and mining companies are very interested. |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2025 Ely Minnesota - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||