kypaddler,

I have not witnessed the Appalachian mining firsthand, but I have seen some case studies focusing on the area. The mountaintop removal really is disgusting, and the fact that we are still using so much coal is disgusting as well. We could solve 100% of our domestic energy requirements with a geothermal grid - the technology is simple and many other countries have been doing it for over half a century. But that's another topic for another time.

You are right, however, that what happens in KY is a lot different from what happens in MN - at least to some degree. We don't have mountaintops to remove for coal, but we have massive iron ore deposits which are turned into giant holes in the ground (ever driven by Hibbing?). Mining has taken its ups and downs here as well; pits and facilities have been abandoned, markets have fluctuated, towns have dried up, and the taxpayers have been left with cleanup costs. There are several of these giant holes that have just been left there, taking the place of the forest or wetland that came before it.

And nobody, even pro-mining folks like myself, likes to see that happen.

With regards to PolyMet's project, I would prefer to see an underground operation rather than an open pit. Underground mines take up less space and disturb far less of the surface. The noise of mining operations is deep underground, and once the reclamation phase is reached, the shaft and drifts can be backfilled with tailings, sealed up, and forgotten about. In a short time, the small area on the surface that was disturbed can be re-forested without the massive job of re-contouring a giant open pit.

But the ore body at the NorthMet site is fairly shallow, and the dimensions of it don't really make an underground operation economically feasible. But I'm not a mining engineer, that's just a semi-educated opinion. If there is a possible underground option, it should be pursued. And, people who are concerned about potential acid runoff contaminations and the aesthetics of strip mining could support an underground operation as well - bringing jobs and industry without leaving a big  scar on the landscape.

I don't think that just because PolyMet is the farthest along with their exploration, that we should hurry up and just let them mine already. We should all take some time to read through the DEIS; it should outline a basic operation and reclamation plan, and give a means of mitigating potential hazards. Submit your comments via the DNR website I gave above, and then PolyMet and the Army COE / other agencies will revise the draft and eventually post a final Environmental Impact Statement. All of this will happen before they start any actual mining, and then there's still more permits to be obtained, etc.

Another point of concern, which is a result of the mining method being proposed, is the costs per job benefit. PolyMet is estimating 400 jobs will be created when running at full capacity. That's 400 jobs  for 20 years, at a cost of how many thousands of acres of wetlands destroyed? At a cost of risking a potentially dangerous chemical contamination over how big of an area? Affecting how many people, and how much wildlife? If we allow this, and it has a negative impact on area tourism, are the jobs gained in one sector worth the jobs lost in another?

I'm obviously a pro-mining guy, but I'm still on the fence about this NorthMet project, because I don't yet know all of the details. I'm curious to see how other members of the boards, and other residents of Minnesota feel about this.