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

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.

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:

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.

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...