Future cleanup represents sticking point for nonferrous mining on the Iron Range

The Mesabi Daily News ran a Sunday piece by Jon Collins about the ongoing debate about a new bill that would limit nonferrous mining (copper, nickel and other minerals) in Minnesota to a very precise set of circumstances. Mining proponents say the bill amounts to a ban on nonferrous mining. Supporters of the bill say that environmental risks if the nonferrous mines close are great and must be addressed before these mines open. The story shows the battle lines and potential efforts to find common ground. Here are some important questions

• Does the bill do more than current environmental regulations?
• Is that necessary?
• Is there a way to plan ahead for environmental mitigation that won’t make the projects economically unfeasible?

If the answers are Yes, Yes, No, expect a showdown. And there will always be arguing about the first two. Perhaps there is some solution, however, involving a mitigation fund set up at the front end of the development.

A side note, Bob Tammen, the retired miner who spoke in favor of the environmental bill at the legislative hearing is a loyal reader of this blog as are many in the nonferrous mining industry. In fact, this blog is a something of a crossroads for this debate as I am neither anti-mining nor blindly pro-development. Any suggestions for how we can elevate this debate here? I’d entertain a point/counterpoint guest posting from the respective perspectives. Any volunteers?