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.