starwatcher wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 9:47pm:

Again, In regards to the Draft EIS, my understanding is that the purpose of an EIS is to identify potential issues.  The permitting process would determine the ultimate design of project components.

That is correct.



With regards to the leftover flooded pit and reclaimed property, I don't see any potential for prime real estate. The tailings pond (at the plant site) would be revegetated to keep dust down, but it would be left in place, along with its dams, and would require chemical and structural monitoring well into the future. The below-grade foundations of the plant buildings and other structures would be left in place.

The pit(s), 6-8 miles away, would be left as is, except they would be flooded and backfilled with the reactive waste rock. If the proposed liner system on the adjacent walls works as described, the pit water would be kept fairly clean; but whether or not it will be clean enough for fish and human use is uncertain. Next to the old pit would be the pile of non-reactive waste rock, which would be revegetated if possible - but would still be just a giant pile of rocks.

Hopefully that will paint a clear picture of what would be left behind. Read through section 3.1.7 of the DEIS, titled "Project Closure," for more details.



I want to again stress the fact that PolyMet's NorthMet deposit is just one of several along the mineral trend - if this mine doesn't open, another one could in the future. A few of the other deposits would favor a less destructive, underground mining operation. PolyMet is not our only option.

Here is a link to the data Solus mentioned:   (You need to Login or Register. The NRRI report that starwatcher mentioned takes into account all of the indirect employment resulting from mining operations, which is significantly higher than the percentage of people directly employed by mining.