just some counter points, nothing positive to add -

"PolyMet is estimating 400 jobs will be created when running at full capacity. That's 400 jobs  for 20 years"

Yeah, maybe --  mining has always been boom and bust, boom and bust -  prices go up, and new mines open all around the world, supply and demand works, so supplies go up, prices and demand go down, and the mines get shut down and miners laid off.  The Molybdynum mine near Leadville is classic example for this - it'll be open for a few years, or a year, or a half year, then shut down for a year or years.  Hell on the local economy if there isn't alternative employment.   (Look what happened to Atikokan when those iron mines shut down)   If prices/demand go down, and the remaining minerals aren't economic to dig, they just shut in the mine and wait/hope price and demand go back up - so that 20 years may stretch to 60 in the long run - and as long as the mine isn't technically played out, why would they close it down and reclaim/revegetate ?  a lot cheaper to just say they are waiting for the market to turn around again.

not quoting, but it was said that the technology to do the mine environmentally safely/correctly is available, and rules are stricter than years ago --- maybe         but there were rules and technology in place to keep the Exxon Valdez off the rocks; there were rules and technology enough to keep Challenger and Columbia from blowing up; there were rules and technology in place to prevent 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl; there were rules and technology in place to prevent that coal slurry pond from cutting loose.        So what happens to the rules and technology when some plant manager gets his budget cut, and maybe cuts cost on the monitoring equipment, or buys a cheap valve, or......

al long as you can't prevent human nature and greed from exercising bad judgement and cost cutting, you got no real guarantee that the rules and technology will actually do what they are supposed to  - those instances may be only 1 in a thousand, or one in a million - but the cost of those instances is really high - is such a potential cost worth the potential benefit of those supposed 400 jobs ??  That big swamp area sounds like its pretty unique as is

Nickel may be important to national security - don't know, but my guess is if its mined in US, it'll wind up being shipped to China so they can make more Nicad batteries for us to buy back -- worth it ?

Just like the current debates over the national deficit - do we have the moral right to bankrupt future generations ?  500 years out ?  what's wrong with "storing in place" those minerals in MN and buying the metal form other producers. 

Similar argument to drilling in ANWAR for oil we "need" now - my thinking is as long as we can buy the oil elsewhere now,  let's keep that in reserve for future generations, in case it is ever desperately enough needed to really be worth taking the risks associated with extracting it.  Most or maybe all of the oil that flows thru the Alaska Pipelin used to be sold to Japan - closer for shipping and less environmental issues about delivery to shore from the tankers - my guess is most of the oil under ANWAR would go the same way.  That may be off topic, but I see it as a similar situation to the mine in question.  Do we need that mineral that badly now?

and last, but not least - I think there should be a total moratorium on all mining until they redo that 1890's mining law.  Mining should be similar to oil and gas exploration, where the landower - the government in this case (that's us) gets a 1/8th (or more) royalty - that is, 1/8th the value of the extracted mineral, right off the top.  Why should we continue to give this stuff away ?  If that royalty makes the project uneconomical for now, well good.  I want "my" share.

db: wish I could fill you in a little better, but that is something that is pretty much beyond what I could practicly do by computer...you see, here at the end of the road, I have an extreamly slow dial up and am quite often disconected if I pause typing for very long while I attempt to look up the correct spelling of a word. Sometimes I have to reconect several times just to post a simple message...that is one reason why my messages are so ummmmm..simple  I would like to discuss and better explain the watershed and other situations, but that is something that would be better achieved in a small cabin at wilderness edge, maps spread wide over the table in front of the woodstove and a case or two of cold ones close at hand.....ahhh, maybe someday

I know Kent Kaiser.  He's a great conservationist.  I don't have a horse in this race but it appears that other around here do.  This was in the Bemidji Paper today.

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

No horse either, but always nice too hear the "locals" side in debates like this
Sad thing is, a significant number of people will buy into the " Avatar" comparison, just like many do with the PETA propaganda.

My local news out of Detroit, characterizes most anyone who lives in the rural Northern areas as gun toting/ environment destroying country bumpkins  Unfit to judge what is best for them. Good too see a well spoken, knowledgeable rebuttal to this mentality

solotripper wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

No offense PJ, ST.... but as you guys well know, I believe everyone's a cynic until proven otherwise.

If all I knew was he was a friend of yours that would be one thing but the bemidjipioneer wouldn't let me in and the name sounded familial because I often skim some of the daily Google Alerts I get. I found a few redundant Op-eds by the same author so I'm assuming this link is similar to what was linked to and various editors published.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Here's the part I question most based on my first impression stated a few pages back.

"• Fact: If any other mining company ever wanted to begin operation anywhere else up north, it would have to go through its own environmental review process. Daub suggests that permitting PolyMet to mine would automatically lead to mining next to the BWCA, which is false."

next paragraph

"• Fact: PolyMet's operation in Minnesota will be so environmentally and technologically cutting-edge that it will be a model for the world -- far from the outdated gloom-and-doom image painted by Friends of the Boundary Waters."

The future is never fact unless you're talking death and taxes and no, of course my doggie doesn't bite. • Fact: In my world, sh*t happens and cutting edge is far too often referred to as the bleeding edge in hindsight.

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer. Take one down and pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

What does a senior policy fellow at a think tank do exactly? Seriously. I got no clue and would actually love an answer. That's what my high school metals shop teacher used to call whomever he caught smoken behind the break press. (Coffee and donuts avoided suspension type worries plus he was a good natured guy.)

Personally, if I lived in a directly or even indirectly affected local area, I'd be selfishly poo-pooing the idea based simply on truck traffic and it's affect on my quality of life alone not to mention all the indirect costs someone else will pick up. Screw the future. It's done nothing for me to date.