I found this MPR story by Dan Kraker to be a very helpful scientific explanation of the minerals involved in new nonferrous mining proposals in northern Minnesota. Refreshingly informative.
“Sulfur is the great collector of metals in nature,” [UM-Duluth geologist Jim Miller] said. “If it wasn’t for sulfur, there would be no economic quantities of copper-nickel to be mined. And so to extract these metals, we’re going to have to deal with the sulfur.”
Mining opponents have legitimate concerns about sulfur (and other elements) related to this mining. It also seems that mining companies are developing innovative ways to treat the run-off to handle sulfur. What seems the crux of the matter, to me anyway, are these legacy costs. The mines will have to treat the sulfuric run-off for a very long time, even if the mining itself ends. Addressing this problem would lift the fundamental barrier to mining new minerals on the Iron Range.
Is the sulfur issue insurmountable? Maybe not. But a laser-like focus on that problem and/or solution seems the best use of everyone’s time.
Well, I take that back. A better use of everybody’s time would be for each person on the Iron Range, young and old, to dedicate themselves to one thing this year that will make the Range a better place to live, regardless of mining or not. Costs are minimal and the results would amaze everyone.
I agree with your closing comment, both sides of this issue would do better to improve mining projects rather than work in an adversarial manner or not in my back yard approach. Waste of time. We all use the products made from mining whether it be coal, gas, iron ore or precious metals. Research using peat to assist in controlling any left over issues locally? Potentially more jobs there? Court and permitting battles waste resources better used elsewhere in our schools and communities. We are the people that need those public tax resources used wisely.
This is where the environmental movement needs to go in this state if it is to be relevant in the future. Improve, not delay endlessly or try to kill. These groups will only succeed in being irrelevant if stay the course continues. Sustainability takes many forms of which all need to be addressed. Perhaps a change in mind frame from competitive to cooperative? My two cents.
http://www.polymetmining.com/news/news-releases/polymet-reports-successful-water-treatment-pilot-plant/
Hey Bud. You should allow access to your profile and put that Babbitt blog in there. Its a great way to get some new readers, and also make it easier for current readers. That way people can go straight from one of your comments on this blog (or elsewhere) to the Babbitt blog.
Have a good day!
I agree with Aaron that everything doing something positive for the range will be cheaper than a laser like focus on sulfur, but I think Bud is off base in the way he interprets Aaron’s comment. I think what Aaron means is that, regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should all do something ELSE (not mining politics related) that is positive for our communities.
That said, I have talked to several hydrologists and former mine cleanup engineers, and they tell me that sulfur, while important, is not the only issue. Many of the other metals in the waste rock and tailings also leach, and at high levels are toxic. For example, the first EIS shows high levels of manganese in the waste rock leachate. Long term exposure to manganese causes a disease that gives you the shakes like Parkinson’s, and has been associated with learning disabilities in children.
Because drainage from the PolyMet mine waste rock will flow into Colby Lake, the potential impacts on Hoyt Lakes drinking water are concerning. I know some friends who live in Hoyt Lakes are definitely concerned.
It is not clear yet whether the reverse osmosis process would capture all the manganese, nickel, arsenic, etc. There is also the question of where one disposes of the “waste” concentrate from reverse osmosis.
And, of course, as Aaron rightly points out, the legacy issues. I’m not sure who pays for reverse osmosis 20 years after the mine shuts down. By then I’ll guess any financial assurance will be gone, but the waste rock piles will still be there.
We ARE more important than rocks.
I agree with Aaron that everyone doing something positive for the range will be cheaper than a laser like focus on sulfur, but Bud is way off base in the way he interprets Aaron’s comment. I think what Aaron means is that, regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should all do something ELSE (not mining politics related) that is positive for our communities.
That said, I have talked to several hydrologists and former mine cleanup engineers, and they tell me that sulfur, while important, is not the only issue. Many of the other metals in the waste rock and tailings also leach, and at high levels are toxic. For example, the first EIS shows high levels of manganese in the waste rock leachate. Long term exposure to manganese causes a disease that gives you the shakes like Parkinson’s, and has been associated with learning disabilities in children.
Because drainage from the PolyMet mine waste rock will flow into Colby Lake, the potential impacts on Hoyt Lakes’ drinking water are concerning. Some friends who live in Hoyt Lakes are definitely concerned.
It is not clear yet whether the reverse osmosis process would capture all the manganese, nickel, arsenic, etc. There is also the question of where one disposes of the “waste” concentrate from reverse osmosis.
And, of course, as Aaron rightly points out, there are the legacy issues. I’m not sure who pays for reverse osmosis 20 years after the mine shuts down. By then I’ll bet any financial assurance will be long gone, but the waste rock piles will still be there.
We ARE more important than rocks.