I have heard recently on the news that a mining company wants to start new open pit mines in the Superior National Forest. I have the newslink, (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links).
I would like to know what people think about it, if they like the idea for the jobs, or dislike because of environmental impact.
A Thousand Thanks!

Quote:


Wandering Scott: I think it is good that Wandering Scott is a wondering Scott
I think I would like to know what wondering Scott thinks :question
Do you like or dislike the idea for jobs here in America, or like because it puts the solution of mitigating enviromental impact into the capiable hands of Americans using our own resources ?
Does it have to be"like" for jobs and "dislike"due to enviromental concerns ? Have we no other choices?
You'll be impacted far more than I in the long run...don't make any quick deductions

Here's my $0.02 as a *hack* geologist...

There are over 100 permits being processed for exploration activities in the SNF, and these include drilling core holes, running geophysical surveys, and soil sampling - none of which leave any permanent scars on the landscape. These activities are permitted and overseen by both state and federal agencies to ensure that the rules get followed.

Those are exploration permits. Mineral exploration has always been going on in the SNF, these activities are nothing new. There are really only a couple of mines being proposed right now, and only one of them is far enough along to be in the permitting process. This one is PolyMet's baby ( (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)), and they're calling it the NorthMet project.

PolyMet has been doing exploration work on the NorthMet deposit for a few years now (they leased the property in 1989). They are proposing a large open pit mine, which should have an operational life of 20 years - of course depending on the commodities markets and the price of metals. The principal targets at the NorthMet site are copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, and gold. PolyMet estimates that when the mine and the related facilities are up and running, they will have 400 steady jobs to offer, ignoring the construction phase.

PolyMet is in the beginning stages of the permitting process. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was made public a few weeks back, and it will remain available for review until February 3rd, 2010. An overview of the project, a link to the DEIS, and instructions for public comment are available on the MN DNR website - see the link below.

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


More information about mineral exploration in the SNF can be found here, on the USFS website.

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

For this NorthMet project, PolyMet plans to dig an open pit, located about halfway between Babbitt and Hoyt Lakes. They are in the process of refurbishing the old LTV taconite plant, which was purchased from Cliffs-Erie. All of the ore from the NorthMet pit would be processed at that facility which is six miles away by rail.

Here is a map showing the NorthMet deposit, and others along the same trend. The blue and red zones are known deposits, not mines. The labeling is a bit confusing. The existing iron pits are outlined and shaded in black.

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

Okay. That pretty much sums up the project. Now let's talk about the controversies... I have heard a lot of BS and mis-information thrown around by various groups and media outlets regarding these types of mining operations, so pay attention to the following and decide for yourself.

One of the major causes for controversy is the fact that this mine, and the others targeting the Cu+Ni+etc metals, is the fact that the ore rock contains sulfide minerals. Sulfide minerals basically consist of a metal atom bonded to a sulfur atom. As such, these operations are generally referred to as "sulfide mining." The problem with these sulfide  minerals is once they are exposed to air and water at the surface, they can react to form a weak sulfuric acid.

In the past, there have been some major problems associated with surface and groundwater contamination by these sulfuric acid byproducts. Of course, sulfuric acid is the among the last things you want to enter your water supply or your surface watershed.

But on the other hand, most of these sulfide mines can be operated and eventually reclaimed without issue. The ones that failed were the result of bankrupt companies acting under old rules with outdated techniques. This type of mining can be, is, and has been done responsibly, with little to no risk of a contamination incident. For every contamination incident one can name, I can name a hundred other mines that have gone through the full operational and reclamation cycle without incident.

Simple chemical processing, filtration and settling ponds, and multi-stage impermeable liners are just a few of the ways that potentially harmful byproducts can be contained and neutralized. By the time any water re-enters the local watershed, it is cleaner than when it first arrived.

New governmental regulations require mine operators to post cash bonds, to ensure that reclamation activities and monitoring will be carried out even if the company goes bankrupt down the road. PolyMet has already been putting up cash and assets to satisfy these requirements.

The average sulfur content of these deposits is generally pretty low - under 1%. There is still some potential for creating the weak acids, but the amount of potential acidic byproducts is very low in comparison to other deposits of similar types elsewhere in the world.

It is true, however, that to date, no major sulfide mining of this type has been done in Minnesota. It is something new that should be approached with caution, but it's something that can absolutely be done safely, and it's something that can really benefit the state's economy.

But check it all out for yourself, don't just take it from me.

There ARE five more deposits to the NE of the NorthMet site, optioned by (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) and (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) that are actually at the edge of the BWCA. These would be underground mines that would straddle the BWCA border and conduct mining operations underneath Birch Lake.

But in my honest opinion, these two tiny junior companies are only holding on to the properties in the hopes of sending out juicy press releases to drive up their stock. It's an old game. And these are still just exploration leases, no attempts to start the review or permitting processes have been made by these companies. In all likeliness, these properties will change hands 4-5 more times in the next 10-20 years, and they will never become serious mining interests.

At this point, nobody is really trying to open a mine at the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.


Further reading:

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

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

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

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

Akula/KP,

Lot's of good info, thank you. Things are rarely black and white in the real world, this debate is no different.

Were all "hypocrites" too some degree. Unless your living off the grid, with solar and wind powering your electrical needs, some resource somewhere is being used/exploited depending on your point of view.
Even some of the so called "green" technology has environmental costs associated with it.
 
 I have no doubt that technology used in a responsible manner can and will provide our energy needs in the future. Akula did a good job pointing that out.

  KP, You pointed out the fly in the ointment. With an army of corporate lawyers looking for loopholes, even the best intended regulations can be circumvented. That's the part that I find most disturbing

 We all share this fragile planet. It shouldn't have too come down to a choice between the destruction of the environment vs jobs and energy.
Somewhere there's a balance. Hopefully it can be found?

Akula,

Good points.

And your "inform yourself" directive is well taken.

The challenge for non-engineers like myself is understanding what we look at when we analyze proposals.

The other huge challenge is trust, on many levels:

It's difficult to know whether a particular company is trustworthy (talking in a general way, not directing that at PolyMet, a company I don't know). Will officials do what they promise? Will they cut corners if they can get by with it?

It's difficult to understand whether particular technologies and safeguards will actually work (or whether they just look good on paper).

And it's difficult to ascertain whether government regulations and inspectors are stringent enough, or have the teeth to hold up in court and economically.

I mean, one wants to believe in man's inner goodness, and in technology, and in government regulation (the good kind).

... As to the larger question, both you and Solotripper are right.

As a nation, as a society, we have to begin embracing a different mentality when it comes to energy production AND consumption. Before it's too late.

Here in the Bluegrass, there's some pretty cool developing technology out there involving algae, miscanthus and other biomass, stationary barges and underwater turbines, as well as interesting ideas on the use of so-called clean coal (I'm not yet sold). Kentucky unfortunately doesn't have the sunshine or the wind to do those in a big way.

Kentucky's energy and environment secretary is a really smart guy and its governor last year put out a fairly progressive long-term energy strategy. Since then the state has won a lot of federal dollars and has recruited a lot of private sector investment.

We'll see where it goes.

And now, to tie it back to Minnesota, and pristine water ... 

Man, I don't know what to say, but having seen devastated landscapes I'd err on the side of protection. Once an ecosystem is decimated, it really can't come back in a meaningful way on a meaningful timeline. Not when it takes a thousand years to create an inch of forest floor (or whatever the formula is), or takes a act of God to remove hard metals from the goop at the bottom of a lake.

... And I better shut up. I'm probably not adding to the discussion but confusion and anxiety.

Alas.

-- kypaddler 

p.s. On the underground vs. surface issue. A dumb question for my own edification: Is it much cheaper and much safer to come at the mineral from above ground, i.e. digging a pit?