This interesting MinnPost story by Ron Way from yesterday shows the battle lines for an intra-DFL squabble over a certain type of mining that would be used for a new project on the Iron Range. Range DFLers back the mining, saying that a mining area should be the place where experimental mining techniques are used, but others in the party cite the environmental concerns. This could be an interesting battle in the new legislature. The story explains the background.
DFL dustup over sulfide mining on Iron Range
October 7, 2008 by 5 Comments
The problem is that, unlike iron mining that left behind pits for swimming, these non-ferous mines could leave behind a regional wasteland with water pollution that kills off fish and wildlife.
The industry has a terrible track record of broken promises to protect the environment. They have gotten away with it because local leaders are so blinded by the quick bucks to be made that they are willfully naive about the long term impacts. It appears that history is repeating itself.
Minnesota hasn’t had this kind of mining on the scale projected for the future. So, I don’t know if the current environmental regulations are sufficient or not. But neither do the local legislators and its pretty clear they don’t want to know.
Our local leaders apparently continue to operate in the old paradigm that you have to choose, jobs or the environment. In the long run those two things compliment one another. But the quick buck artists can’t wait. They want to make their killing now and let the future take care of itself.
(a different anonymous coward here, not connected to the mining industry or to anyone involved, though).
It’s easy to cheer on the environment and alternative energy, and say that we should be looking at things like cleaner-burning power plants, cleaner cars, and more environmentally friendly sources of electricity.
What is even easier to do is to forget that those technologies need lots of platinum, palladium, copper, nickel, gold, and probably a few other things that come from big dirty mines. Cheaper supplies of the raw materials make it more likely that the environmentally friendly alternatives will arrive sooner. If we don’t have those materials, or if they’re prohibitively expensive, we don’t have the advanced technology needed to build hybrid cars or transmit hydroelectric energy long distances.
Now those materials can come from existing mines with huge polluting smelters, or we can try to obtain the materials in a manner that is much more friendly to the planet.
As for the effect of the current environmental regulations, I’ve attended a couple of technical presentations on Polymet. They haven’t dug a shovelful of ore yet, but they have had to create and obtain approval for a plan to restore the site to a nice flat green space in 30 years. (a nice, flat green space in the middle of an old abandoned taconite mine). The plans for how they’ll dispose of the sulfide containing material seem to be way overboard when you compare what the rest of the world does.
When you look at the process required for environmental reviews, you wonder, are those processes really about protecting the environment, or are they about getting lawyers and consultants rich. I vote for the latter. Look at it this way, would we rather have a nonferrous mine spend a few million dollars on designing a reliable tailings basin, or would we prefer they spend millions more doing redundant review after review? Or, better yet, would we rather they put cash on the table, and design the tax structure to ensure that we can clean up after them when they leave (the mining equivalent of a damage deposit on an apartment)?
A side note: the minnpost.com article points out that there will be huge quantities of waste rock sitting around. If you live in Edina, it sounds awful, if you live in Hibbing, you’re familiar with the concept of an ore dump. If you pay attention to the Polymet project, I believe you’ll find that the non-sulfide material will actually be used as part of the reclamation process.
I’m all for protecting the environment (my family and I drink the water here, and hope to do so for a long time). Part of doing that should be that we lead the way in the responsible use of our natural resources.
Another footnote: a hallmark of environmentalism is recycling. Well, the biggest recycling effort I could ever imagine is going on as part of this project, since Polymet is essentially recycling the old LTV facility.
Finally, we’re not talking about a few quick bucks here. If I remember right, Polymet is going to be running about 1/3 of the crushers at the old LTV plant. If they were to ramp up to run all of the crushers (which is not in their current plan) at the current market prices, the dollar value of their production would approximately equal the entire taconite industry in MN.
Let that sink in for a second. One project. One mine. One reworked plant, producing as much as the ENTIRE taconite industry. Do we want to get it right? You betcha. Do we want to let unfounded fears and red tape muck it up? Nope.
Sorry for the long rant, but it bugs me that in the big picture this can be good for the environment and enormously good for the economy.
are those processes really about protecting the environment, or are they about getting lawyers and consultants rich. I vote for the latter.
If true, isn’t that one more reason to review the current regulations to ensure they protect the environment rather than just making lawyers and consultants rich?
if you live in Hibbing, you’re familiar with the concept of an ore dump.
The problem is that the ore dumps from non-ferrous mines are not so benign. Iron ore dumps don’t leach sulfuric acid into the water. And you don’t have to put nets over the mine pits to keep birds out so they won’t be killed.
I’ve attended a couple of technical presentations on Polymet.
Let me suggest that if you are going to remain anonymous that you not refer to your personal experience as authority. My three year old may have attended a technical presentation, it doesn’t mean his opinions have any merit. Now you obviously are not a three year old, but you are also obviously not the disinterested party you portray yourself as.
There are reasons for anonymity other than cowardice.
Environmentalists (or the not in my back yarders) always cite the mining industry’s “bad track record” with sulfide mines. The truth of the matter is that all of the environmental problems are at old mines that were operating well before any of the current regulations and laws went into effect. In the old days you could open a mine (or factory) and it was cheap, easy, and allowable to dump your waste in any local stream. You cannot do that any more. If people would look at examples of modern mines they would see that the current regulation do a good job of protecting us.
The Flambeau gold mine in Ladysmith Wisconsin is a good example of a modern mine. Kennecott fought for many years to open that mine, the environmentalist insisted that the mine would ruin the Flambeau river and destroy all the fishing and tourism. Today the mine has all been successfully reclaimed. The area has been returned to it’s natural state and you cannot tell that there was ever a mine there.
C.O.
Let that sink in for a second. One project. One mine. One reworked plant, producing as much as the ENTIRE taconite industry.
Let it sink period – because it isn’t remotely true.
Far from being a huge cash cow, according to the company, one of the reasons the project is economically viable at all is that they are reusing existing taconite crushing facilities. The total cash flow for the proposed plant is projected at less than $700 million.
Here is a link to http://www.polymetmining.com/s/Projects.asp , Polymet’s description of the project.
This is not another taconite industry. It has far more serious environmental issues and produces far fewer jobs. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, but it does mean that you are being seriously mislead if the iron mining industry is your reference point.
According to this article, http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2007/03/20/wi/4w.txt the Ladysmith mine in Wisconsin referenced above operated from 1993 to 1997 and crushed a total of 1.9 million tons of ore during that time. That’s less than 2 months production proposed by Polymet over a 20 year period. Its not remotely the same scale.
I don’t think anyone is arguing you can’t mine these ores without damaging the environment. But doing that is expensive and that money is not going to get spent by the company unless public officials insist on it. We need to be prepared to accept that adequate environmental protections might make the project less economically viable.