db wrote on Jun 8^th, 2010 at 6:53am:



I'm not sure how this whole thing works, but it sounds like the Mesabi Trust was formed back in the 60's to acquire the land that was ultimately mined for iron. If I have it right, the trust holds title to the land while a separate operator produces from it, and subsequently pays a royalty to the trust. The trust is publicly traded:

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I don't know if this will affect the PolyMet project one way or the other, but I certainly don't have all the facts on that.

In other news, PolyMet, the EPA, the USFS and others have agreed to begin a new "Supplemental" Draft Environmental Impact Statement to more clearly address the issues surrounding potential water use and contamination. For efficiency, they have decided to combine efforts with the USFS, who would have had to do their own separate EIS as part of the land exchange / sale to PolyMet. This will be another "Draft" Environmental Impact Statement, and it will be submitted for public review just like the last one, before the final EIS is constructed and submitted to the State as part of their application for a Permit to Mine.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

This new supplemental DEIS could take a year or more to complete, so whatever your stance on the issue, don't hold your breath for a Cu/Ni/PGE mine to open in Minnesota any time soon.

What's the Mesabi Trust? What's that all about and how might it figure in?

PJ - My apologies. I made an erroneous assumption reinforced by ST's post. I also have no clue if the guy you know was writing while wearing his team jersey or his jammies. I simply recoil whenever I smell partizan politics entering into what I consider to be rather important deliberations that politics and a deference to some ism will probably muck up.

Akula wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

Akula's (in particular but there were others for me) willingness to add knowledgeable input has been most helpful-IMO as he seems an objective, knowledgeable bystander. To me, this thread hasn't been as much about justifying, defending or promoting an opinion as it is about offering concerns and insights that may help others develop their own.

I recently made a crack about 13 million (and my own $400) in stimulus money in another thread so the $5,000,000.00 EIS seems like, well, lip service or (less offensive?) going through the motions to me.

Honestly, I only have a superficial interest beyond:
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it."

       -President Lyndon B. Johnson
       on signing the Wilderness Act, 1964

My hope is anyone willing to add their two cents ( (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) ) has done their own due diligence and has other tried and true redactive ways to gather whatever information they feel is meaningful to them. Tickety tick. A penny for your thoughts, or is it money talks? I'm thinking the latter.

Oh and my earlier link with the smiley?

http://www.google.com/finance?q=polymet 

Sorry. I wasn't playing.

A & B are interesting though:
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Akula wrote on Jan 31^st, 2010 at 1:20am:



Akula,

No offense taken, no need to apologize. I was in no way trying to be derogatory in response either. I just wanted to elaborate the distance that the mercury traveled and how close the sulfide is comparatively speaking

I am still on the fence but am very leery. In my 54 years, I have seen a lot and as has been said, "the best laid plans of mice and men......."  

I appreciate all the data you have fed us through this thread.

Enjoy that cold one

WR  

Solus wrote on Jan 31^st, 2010 at 12:11am:


I couldn't agree more. Numbers and figures don't mean much without a solid explanation of what they mean, and general layman's descriptions provide few, if any specific details. It's irritating.


Quote:


My take is that the "cutting edge technology," as I stated above, is more of a reference to the ore processing part of the proposed mining process, not the extraction or pit reclamation. Impermeable liner systems and well networks are not really new, and certainly not cutting edge, but they are effective.


WR,

I didn't mean to offend or single you out in my response. I just feel obligated to provide verifiable facts in my replies where I can, for the benefit of anyone who happens to read this thread. If I came across as being negative, I apologize.

I agree that the groundwater situation should be looked at with as much detail as possible, and they did a pretty good job with this (remember it's a 'draft' impact statement, intended only to identify areas of concern). Groundwater flow from the mine and plant sites is generally from the NW to the SE, towards the Partridge River - which feeds the St. Louis River and eventually ends up in Lake Superior. But you're right, any contamination is unacceptable, whether it affects the BWCA or anywhere else.

Anyone who wants to see the results of the Draft EIS study with regards to local water systems should refer to section 4.1, which begins on page 135. The draft is still available for download, follow the links from the MN DNR home page.

You are also right in the "theory vs. practice" argument. Guarantees are hard to come by, and there is environmental risk involved with any industrial or chemical facility, be it a mine, a manufacturing plant, a petroleum refinery, or simple a gas station. The best we can do is evaluate the specific risks involved, and utilize the best technology and prevention practices available. But, in some cases, accidents do happen despite the best efforts of everyone involved. And it is 100% valid to argue the potential risks against the potential economic benefits.

I still believe that we should not rush into this just to create jobs. If we don't mine these deposits now, we can always mine them later, as technologies continue to improve and the commodities become more and more valuable. But that said, I don't see any reason why we can't do this safely now, provided every possible measure is taken to address and practically eliminate ALL of the risks identified in the Draft EIS, the final EIS, and the USFS-sponsored EIS that would preclude any land transfer.

And I should remind everyone again that PolyMet is a Canadian-based company, and the metals extracted by this Minnesota mine would be sold worldwide through a foreign commodities exchange. Domestic sources don't automatically mean domestic ownership of materials (unless the government itself were to start mining, and I don't think that would go over well).

*whew*

That's all I have for now. It's Saturday night, and I'm heading out for a cold one...

I previously posted lamenting the rhetoric used by groups on both sides of the issue. By  using the term "environmental extremist organization" in reference to the "Friends" [did they blow up a dam? were they caught waterboarding mining executives?-do tell] Kaiser identifies himself as an unapologetic booster for Polymet. Not only does it weaken his argument, it's just plain silly [or should I write "the earth-scorching radical industrialist corporation Polymet"- silly].

My biggest difficulty with the proposed mine is  that the new-method  "so environmentally and technologically cutting-edge that it will be a model for the world" is never explained in a succinct fashion that details how it addresses the well documented environmental problems of sulfide mines and the degree to which it mitigates these problems. Calling a process "new and cutting-edge" is as illuminating as calling it "shiny". Tell us how it works and why it's safe.

It also seems to me that the treatment of the tailings and other accumulated waste is hardly new or cutting edge. Basically the idea. as outlined in the draft eis" is that the waste will be put in a hole and covered with water, secured by time and gravity- which is pretty much the way it's been done since the 19th century.

It's disingenuous for the Friends to imply that Polymet endangers the BWCA drainage. Not that I'm comfortable throwing Lake Superior and the St. Louis River [already burdened by a toxic legacy] beneath the bus. In the end the cost of cleaning up must be paid- the question is by whom and when? If a deposit is not rich enough to pay the freight for a permanent , comprehensive clean up it should not be exploited.

starwatcher wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:


I have seen and know how "think tanks" and "group think" work. Another longshot was the space shuttle Challenger in January of 1986. Two engineers at Morton Thiokol held out but finally nuckled under pressure from the others in the end......that long shot cost us seven human lives and a couple billion worth of spacecraft. Three months later, another long shot now known as Chernobyl took place. Ya, 24 years have passed but the history books show that we never seem to learn from history. Don't test the "new technology" in an area where the cost of failure is very high. Try it and prove it elsewhere. The aquifers in that area are to valuable for an "experiment" in new technology.

WR

I wonder if ANY of the possible pollutants in this mining operation would kill/sterilize the Asian Carp
Seems like the government is going too sit on their collective (*)"s until their in the Great Lakes and THEN take a pro-active stance.

I wonder how far into the North country streams and rivers they could/will get?  For a warm water species they've seemed to have adapted well.

Only reason I bring this up is because the government said they had a handle on them too  If they can't do any better with the mines than with the Carp, I can see why people are so concerned.

WR,

They are ten miles away from the divide and thirty miles from the BWCAW.  All the experts and environmental agencies weighed in on it, reviewed the EIS and didn't flag it; you could be right, but it seems like a long distance to impact on groundwater.  

starwatcher

SW.

There are cracks / fissures in the rocks some of which may be a direct pipeline to the aquifer. Being primarily rock with cracks as opposed to sand which can filter and possibly neutralize, I am more concerned. There are a number of interlinked underground springs that do not know the natural ground level boundary of the watershed divide. The government spent a trillion on the stimulus and 3/4 of a trillion on the bailouts but I don't think all angles were covered. We do not know enough of the underground water workings in that area   

Akula,

I knew where the mercury came from. I asked that question to make a point. The mercury traveled a far greater distance. PolyMet will be Canoe Country's neighbor. Nor very far for the airborne vapors and solids to travel and find a new home.