Why this area for mining? Just like the Quetico/BWCAW is a natural resource, the area south of the boundary waters is a huge mineral resource.  It is the second largest nickel reserve in the world and the third largest copper reserve in the world.  I believe in conservation of resources.  United States imports 100% of nickel and nearly 100% of our platinum.   (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
They are actually strategic minerals and minerals that we use everyday in cell phones, catallytic convertors and other environmental and medical uses.   (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) In the scheme of the U.S. and Minnesota economy, I would surely like to get my resources from a nearby source.   They aren't mining in the Boundary Waters.  The Polymet site is using the former LTV iron mining site, their mine development is farther away from the BWCA that the existing taconite operations, and it isn't even in the same drainage basin.  The water flows toward the St. Louis River and the BWCA / Quetico is on the other side of the continental divide. (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I also believe that we have better environmental standards and controls in place here as compared to other nations like Russia and China.  Do you think they care about green house gas or sulfide emissions?  I'm not convinced.  Someone mentioned the destruction of wetlands;  I should point out that we have environmental rules in place that require replacement and no net loss of wetlands.  I'm for environmentally responsible development of the mineral resources, and I believe that there currently is a regulatory system in place to make sure that our environmental permitting and reclamation procedures maintain the quality of the environment in the Boundary Waters for the next millennium.

starwatcher

Living here in Hibbing, everything from KeeTac (US Steel) flows into the Mississippi River Basin. HibTac (Cleveland Cliffs) just north of town sits on the rare 3 way divide sending runoff into the Mississippi, Lake Superior or Hudson Bay (BWCA/Q). MinnTac (US Steel) can flow to the Hudson Bay or Lake Superior and the balance of the mines, including PolyMet, are fully in the Lake Superior basin.

But.......the underground aquifer(s) DO NOT know the above ground boundaries of the the Laurentian divide. Seepage does take place.

With Wandering Scott being my son, me having a job dependent on sales to the mines and my love for canoe country..................

All of you have provided food for thought in this ongoing debate. 400 jobs for 20 years or so is a drop in the proverbial bucket when compared to the possible downside.

NE Minnesota is blessed with conflicting precious natural resources that are to close together

WondereR

Here's the Wisconsin DNR report on the reclamation of the non-ferrous sulfide mine and reclamation activities that states the Flambeau Mine near Ladysmith in Rusk County is an example of a successfully operated metallic mineral mine that was permitted, constructed, operated and reclaimed under the State's existing regulatory framework:

Wisconsin DNR report flambeau mine

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

According to the Wisconsin DNR: "Throughout the life of the project, the company has remained in substantial compliance with all permit conditions and applicable standards."

"There were no exceedances of any effluent (treated wastewater) limits during the period of discharge. Monitoring of water quality and other characteristics in the Flambeau River similarly did not show any impacts from the effluent discharge."

Yes, the Cu Ni mining will have an impact on the environment.  The point is at it must be regulated and bonded and reclaimed to minimize adverse impact.  Regarding wetlands, yes PolyMet will need to displace the existing wetlands. Apparently there is no feasible alternative mine site.  The wetlands will be replaced at a greater than one to one ratio according to the environmental regulations.

By the way Akula, you provided a lot of good information in your posts.

starwatcher

Since I've got lots of time to kill at work, I've been able to read through a substantial portion of the DEIS within the last few days. Some questions have been answered, others remain open. Some major points brought up so far in this thread:


Underground vs. Surface Mining

Since the NorthMet deposit is low-grade, as I mentioned before, they must process a lot of it each day in order to produce enough metals to sustain the operations and turn a profit. An underground operation would not make this possible, due to the smaller volumes of ore that can be extracted per unit time. The ore body at the NorthMet deposit is also very shallow and diffuse, making a pit mine the best technical option.

A third-party engineering firm was contracted to evaluate the feasability of an underground option, and the cost difference also speaks for itself. For the surface operation, the total cost required is estimated at around 3.6 million dollars, at a unit cost of $3.26 per ton of ore extracted. For the underground option, the capital cost is estimated between $120 to $180 million dollars, at a unit cost of $20 to $50 per ton. That's quite a difference.


Sulfide Content of Ore and Waste Rock

The ore and waste were divided into four categories based on sulfide mineral content, which is directly related to its potential to create acidic runoff. The highest risk waste is category 4, which contains around 0.6% sulfides, making up only 3% of the total waste rock. By far the most abundant waste rock type is category 1, at 74% of the total. These low-risk category 1 waste rocks contain 0.12% or less total sulfides.

For comparison, some of the mines and prospects I visited in the Far North had some areas of 60-100% sulfides. Sometimes when these are exposed at the surface naturally, they produce acid all by themselves. Here is a picture of (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links), north of Anchorage. The rust color and the lack of vegetation are the result of sulfuric acid forming due to the sulfide-rich rocks at the top of the mountain.

Once mining is completed, the pit would be lined with an impermeable liner, then backfilled with the category 2, 3, and 4 waste rocks. The pit would then be flooded and covered again, to avoid allowing the waste to come into further contact with the air - which is required for acid production. A series of monitoring and drawing wells would be installed to monitor and recover any potentially contaminated water should the liner system fail. The rest of the waste would be left as a pile on the surface, covered with soil, and revegetated.


Scope and Cost of Reclamation

The DEIS estimates the total cost of reclamation to be around $44 million dollars, with the highest portion coming from the demolition of infrastructure. This is a preliminary estimate, and the DEIS does not provide an actual reclamation plan. The DEIS and EIS are decision-making tools for lawmakers and agencies to help decide whether to give the project proposal a green light for the next planning steps. There are still some 24 permissions and permits to be obtained from federal, state, and local authorities. An actual Reclamation Plan would come later, as part of the requirements for obtaining a Permit to Mine from the state, and this Plan would be updated yearly to account for any changes or concerns.


Major Areas of Concern

The DEIS outlined a few areas of major concern that could potentially result from normal oprtation of the mine and processing facilities. These include:

1. Local groundwater drawdown (lowering of the local water table) as a result of de-watering the pits could pose a problem. This drawdown condition could exist for some 65 years.

2. Lowering of flow in the upper Partridge River by as much as 9% by some estimates. The reduced flow would not have a significant effect on the stream's morphology, but it could pose a slight problem to aquatic life in the stream. Part of the reclamation would include restoring the flow levels back to their original conditions.

3. Metals such as antimony, aluminum, and nickel, as well as sulfates, which would enter the local surface and groundwater systems. In the models that were run, some of these were predicted to exceed EPA contaminant levels. This will be a key point of focus for the EIS and any mitigation plans and water permits.

I haven't yet read through the portions of the DEIS which go over air quality and emissions affects. The noise levels were not named as a significant area of concern. I'll try to get through more of this as I find the time...


**************


My take on the whole thing so far:

As I mentioned above, the reclamation ideas mentioned in the DEIS are disappointing. The operation would leave a giant pile of rock on the surface, which they would revegetate and walk away from. The flooded pit containing the higher-risk waste rock would simply be left there, with a fence around it to keep people out. How is that reclamation? That's still leaving a pretty big area that neither people nor fish nor wildlife can use.

Some of the tribal organizations which were partners in the event brought up another interesting point. Since the remains of the mine would require perpetual monitoring and, in all likelieness, at least some small level of mitigation efforts over time, that this cannot be called "reclamation" at all - and thus violates the goal af the state's reclamation statute.

I know I mentioned it before, but all of the major post-closure contamination and reclamation concerns are a result of the choice to build a pit mine instead of an underground mine. I realize that the NorthMet deposit isn't "right" for an underground mine, but that's not our problem. If we're going to allow this type of mining to be done in Minnesota, perhaps we should allow only underground mining; for the sole purpose of eliminating future headaches and not leaving behind an ugly mess.

I've seen former pit mines in Alaska and Yukon that have been completely reclaimed, to the point where one could hardly tell anything was there just 40-60 years prior. And these were also metal mines (gold, copper, etc.), which had a much higher sulfide content than what is present at the NorthMet deposit.

Unless PolyMet can come up with some better reclamation ideas, we shouldn't let them go forward with their mine. After all, the land belongs to the taxpayers. When the mining is done, PolyMet will be gone, and we are the ones who will have to deal with what gets left behind - whether bonds were posted to pay for our efforts or not.

jjcanoeguide wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 5:53pm:



PolyMet is a junior 'mining' company. PolyMet has never mined anything, anywhere, ever. As of right now, the company is composed of only a handful of people, serving as directors, planners, controllers, etc.

But that's not saying that they aren't capable of it. Even large corporations like Teck, Gold Corp and Barrick started out in PolyMet's shoes, as junior companies developing their first project.

Their President and CEO is Joe Scipioni, who is a retired mine engineer and plant director from U.S. Steel, carrying some 30 years experience with mining in Minnesota (whatever your opinion of US Steel). The directors and officers on PolyMet's board carry impressive resumes, including Ph.D. engineers and business gurus.

Take that as you will.