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?

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.

Riversend,

You made some excellant points including ownership of the land..

Byline: John Myers

Jun. 6--Legislation in the U.S. House would sell 6,700 acres in the Superior National Forest to the Polymet copper company

starwatcher

Back to the original question… I’m in favor of the projects for the Jobs and for minimizing the environmental impact through existing air, water, wetlands, mine reclamation and environmental regulations.  It seems like most people either work for government or industry, and 50% of Northern Minnesota economy is provided by the mining or forest product industry.  Tourism only accounts for 11% of the economy, and those tend to be lower paying and seasonal jobs like waitresses, maids, and helper jobs as compared to high paid professionals.  The projects would provide additional revenue in the form of taxes to support government and the educational system.

In regards to open pit versus underground; I accept the open pit mining operations. When you drive on interstate 80 around the southern end of Lake Michigan in Indiana you cross a huge open pit mine called Thornton Quarry.  The quarry most likely will end up as a lake when they complete mining the resource.  Where did the rock go?  It’s in the pavement that you’re driving on.  Similarly, the open pit on the Mesabi Range end up in steel that you used in the cars we drive and buildings we live and work in.  There were four mines that are on the outskirts of Ely.  You can see them across from the Grand Ely Lodge.  They are now a lake stocked with lake trout and have a biking and hiking trail around them.  To me the copper-nickel mining area is a continuation of the existing Mesabi Range.  The PolyMet site is farther away than the current iron mines and I’m comfortable with the location and for the benefit it will have on the economy.

starwatcher


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

Starwatcher-

According to Minnesota Department of Economic Development St. Louis County has just under 100,000 people under employment of which fewer than 4000 are employed in mines or logging. A far cry from 50%.

I'm all for jobs in this neck of the woods but not at any cost.

The pit PolyMet will leave behind will not be a "lake" but a storage and containment pond for the tailings with the highest level of sulfides. A body of water that must be isolated from surface and groundwater systems for hundreds of years (A tall order for a company that has existed for less than five years). Basically an acidic lake- quite different from the ferrous pits strung across the range. The other concern is whether or not PolyMet will still exist as a corporate entity when it comes time to pay for the cleanup. Unfortunately dissolving corporate structures is an often used strategy to avoid costly reclamation once the ore is gone (very common among coal companies in West Virginia and Kentucky). The "cleanup" bonds required by Minnesota would not come close to covering the possible costs of this operation.

Akula's analysis is as good as I've seen at stripping it to the most important points, ignoring the noise being emitted by the cheerleaders and knee jerk nay sayers.

Starwatcher-

I did not name call. I'm sorry that it came across that way. What I was trying to say was that Akula had produced a rather deft analysis despite the hub bub created by both preservation (knee-jerk nay sayers) and mining (cheerleaders) groups  that make it difficult to get to the meat of the matter.

starwatcher wrote on Dec 15^th, 2009 at 9:47pm:


That is correct.



With regards to the leftover flooded pit and reclaimed property, I don't see any potential for prime real estate. The tailings pond (at the plant site) would be revegetated to keep dust down, but it would be left in place, along with its dams, and would require chemical and structural monitoring well into the future. The below-grade foundations of the plant buildings and other structures would be left in place.

The pit(s), 6-8 miles away, would be left as is, except they would be flooded and backfilled with the reactive waste rock. If the proposed liner system on the adjacent walls works as described, the pit water would be kept fairly clean; but whether or not it will be clean enough for fish and human use is uncertain. Next to the old pit would be the pile of non-reactive waste rock, which would be revegetated if possible - but would still be just a giant pile of rocks.

Hopefully that will paint a clear picture of what would be left behind. Read through section 3.1.7 of the DEIS, titled "Project Closure," for more details.



I want to again stress the fact that PolyMet's NorthMet deposit is just one of several along the mineral trend - if this mine doesn't open, another one could in the future. A few of the other deposits would favor a less destructive, underground mining operation. PolyMet is not our only option.

Here is a link to the data Solus mentioned: (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links). The NRRI report that starwatcher mentioned takes into account all of the indirect employment resulting from mining operations, which is significantly higher than the percentage of people directly employed by mining.

I have long decided that Americans had lost the ability to disagree with dignity and respect, to allow others to hold differing opinions, interpretations and conclusions without resorting to personal attacks, character assassination and ridicule.

Practiced at their worse, partisan politics and religious bickering (or is that partisan bickering and religious politics?) are killing this country.

But discussions like this one give me hope.

I'm impressed with the knowledge, the respect and the clarity of the  arguments demonstrated here thus far -- by those on both sides (jobs v. environment) as well as those who acknowledge some indecision.

Not to lay it on too thick (I prefer my syrup light), but ... very nice, and refreshing, too. Kudos to QJ founders and moderators, as well as veteran members.

...

Having said that, I was interviewing author Rick Bass once about the purpose of wild places, which to him and others is simply to exist, untouched, as a testimony to God's creation or Mother Nature's mystery (or whatever your belief system).

If I remember correctly, there was a proposal floated by President Bush to balance the federal budget by selling some national forest land, including a few parcels of Kentucky's coveted Daniel Boone National Forest. When I talked to him, Bass had recently finished a book about ANWR ("Caribou Rising") and of course he was fighting -- as he is always fighting -- to protect his beloved Yaak Valley in Montana.

... all them, he said, untamed areas where "wild nature still possesses its own compass and grace."

It's tough to be a conservationist these days, he said, to argue the merits of forested areas and pristine waters in a world of hard currency. But the more complicated the world gets, the more important it is.

And then he gave me a quote I've held on to all these years: "With so many critical issues at play in the world, it might seem at times indulgent to be advocating for so elemental and increasingly unfamiliar a value as wildness. But there is hope, for the worse matters get in the larger world, the more we realize, I think, the spiritual value of free and untouched  landscapes, to which -- cribbing from a woman named Ellen Burns Sherman, over a hundred years ago -- we may return again and again, contrite prodigals from the task of an artificial life."

Admittedly, I'm not from Minnesota and do not have intimate knowledge of the area being targeted. Admittedly, too, I have a job and know not the desperation of being unemployed with mouths to feed (I was fortunate as a single father of two children to find a job two years ago when my company closed).

But let's not forget in this discussion that wild places have value -- intangible value, perhaps -- outside the worth of the minerals, timber and crude they hold.

-- kypaddler

kypaddler wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 5:10am:


kypaddlle: I'm not sure about the proposed sale of USFS lands to balance the budget, but as I recall there was a preposal that the monies from such a sale would go to some sort of rural school funding :question Funding to replace lost source of money generated by timber sales for these shools...no logging = no $ dough $ The USFS is constantly exchanging or desposing (mostly aquireing) lands . Lands selected for these transactions are mostly small or isolated parcels. Some of these parcels are comepletly surounded by private land, so no one but the private land owner has access to these "public" lands. There is a federal program called "summer homes" in which a permit is issued to grant the recipient permission to build vacation type building on Taxpayer land. I think these lands are also selected for disposal, as the permittee is granted sole exclusive rights to occupy these taxpayer lands :question... any way, you might want to some background research into this program for interesting thought prevoking  :exclamation I'm attaching a photo showing some of this taxpayer timber that was saved from the saw Now, back to the origional  :question

kypaddler wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 2:58pm:


kypaddler: I was researching a current land exchange deal between Lake County Mn. and the USFS today when I happened upon a bit of info you may be interested in... Under the current Obama admin., Govt. land is still being made available to private ownership   This federal land is curently under the "summer home" lease program to private owners, more interesting is that the govt. land preposed to be turned into private land is some of the very land that is predicted to become barren waste land if the polymet mine becomes functional     Either the private investers know something about this soon to be "toxic asset" that the rest of us don't know or the private investors don't put much faith into the  "hollywood" type doom and gloom movie starwatcher made mention of ....hummmmm,hummmmm, and double hummmmmmm :question. I don't know if this link will work, but if you do have intrest, try: (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)    
skle = South Kawishiwi Land Exchange......now I am really wondering :exclamation

ps. don't know about the term yellow populars, herd em refered to by many other terms , but I have spent some time walking amongst scattered clumps of them in the "REDBIRD" down on the Dan'l Boone  

say.......I am starting to have some real concerns about potental damage to an already shaky real estate market ..damage possiably induced to land holders downstrean in the Kawishiwi water shed :question.   If a land invester was shopping for property, I can see how the "hollywood-like" movie implys certain real-estate is bound to have little to no value, and would someone seeking financing for such property find backing or be turned away due the "toxic asset"lable I am startingt to think the makers of this "holywood-like " film should be held accountable ........class action suit :question....

realy would like some imput 

thanks for the links db

Hey Wandering Scott, check this out...... (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Maybe they could use your ideas.

Laurention Vision Partnership has been working with mining, government, business and community interests on the Mesabi Iron Range to demonstrate how the mining process can create land forms to accommodate the residents, the environment, and the economy of this region's promising future...Read more.

starwatcher

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.

db wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 6:48am:


I'll just say that mining has legacy issues just like other industries previous to the environmental movement in the 70's and the National Environmental Policy Act.  Environmental regulators are very much aware of sulfide mining potential for acid mine drainage and recent reclamation activities involve making sure that any waste rock is managed so that limestone is used to neutrallize its potential to become acidic.  This has been successfully demonstrated.  The other legacy from sulfide ores are from smelter operations like Sudbury Ontario and still in use thoughout the world, in Russia and China.  The new cutting edge hydro process for PolyMet uses an autoclave and sulfide ore as the fuel instead of smelting the ore.  

starwatcher

Quote:


I'm having trouble with the DNR website at the moment, so I can't point to any specifics right now, but the underground water was evaluated in the Draft EIS. De-watering the pits would lower the local water table a little bit, and it could stay that way for 65 years. This and other factors could lower the flow in the Partridge River by as much as 9%, which they say shouldn't be enough to cause "significant" changes in the stream's morphology.

As a protective measure, a network of monitoring wells would be drilled in the areas adjacent to the site, especially down-gradient or in the general direction of subsurface flow. If these monitoring wells show a negative change in the chemistry of the subsurface water (which is supposed to be prevented by the multiple-layer liner systems in the pit itself), then a network of drawing wells will be activated to remove as much of the contaminated water from the aquifer as possible.

The liner system, along with the flooding of the pits to cover the waste rock, is in itself a pretty good way to handle the tailings. The sulfide minerals need to be exposed to air to develop sulfuric acid, so while underwater, they are *practically* inert. Simple lime treatments can also help control pH levels within the flooded pit and surrounding area. Also, it seems like one of the points of concern, aside from the sulfide-bearing minerals in the ore rock, is the sulfide-bearing sediments of the Virginia Formation, which would be exposed as the pit was excavated. This part would also be lime-treated and lined, to prevent any further acid formation.

But it should be noted that the Virginia Formation, and other rock units containing even greater concentrations of sulfides, are already exposed at the surface naturally in many other places across NE Minnesota - each contributing its own small amount of naturally-occurring weak acid runoff to the areas around it.

And generally speaking, in these hardrock areas, groundwater flow is very slow. So if a problem were to arise with the liner systems, a serious problem can most likely be avoided by the monitoring + drawing well network. These wells are a pretty standard thing, that part isn't exactly new technology.



Quote:


If I have it right, the "new technology" refers to systems on the processing end, not the extraction end. So this would be a cause for concern at the plant site, not the mine site. We can expect many safety measures to be in place with regards to the handling of waste / slurry material, and the "new technology" would probably create a waste stream that is less toxic / reactive than other systems in use at other processing sites. But I haven't had a chance to look into this part yet, so don't quote me on that.



Quote:


According to the State's Pollution Control Agency, most of the mercury deposited in Minnesota's waterways comes from the air, and 90% of that comes from other states and countries. Of the 10% of the total mercury deposited here that originates here, 21% of that comes from taconite processing - making up 2.1% of the total mercury found in our lakes, rivers, and fish. Burning coal and the use / disposal of products containing mercury are by far the largest contributors.

See (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) for further details.


I want to again stress the fact that I am still up in the air about this project. But I am trying to add facts to the discussion as much as I can.

Looks like I responded at about the same time as AK.

WR,

They are ten miles away from the divide and thirty miles from the BWCAW.  All the experts and environmental agencies weighed in on it, reviewed the EIS and didn't flag it; you could be right, but it seems like a long distance to impact on groundwater.  

starwatcher

starwatcher wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:


I have seen and know how "think tanks" and "group think" work. Another longshot was the space shuttle Challenger in January of 1986. Two engineers at Morton Thiokol held out but finally nuckled under pressure from the others in the end......that long shot cost us seven human lives and a couple billion worth of spacecraft. Three months later, another long shot now known as Chernobyl took place. Ya, 24 years have passed but the history books show that we never seem to learn from history. Don't test the "new technology" in an area where the cost of failure is very high. Try it and prove it elsewhere. The aquifers in that area are to valuable for an "experiment" in new technology.

WR

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


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:


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...

PJ - My apologies. I made an erroneous assumption reinforced by ST's post. I also have no clue if the guy you know was writing while wearing his team jersey or his jammies. I simply recoil whenever I smell partizan politics entering into what I consider to be rather important deliberations that politics and a deference to some ism will probably muck up.

Akula wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

Akula's (in particular but there were others for me) willingness to add knowledgeable input has been most helpful-IMO as he seems an objective, knowledgeable bystander. To me, this thread hasn't been as much about justifying, defending or promoting an opinion as it is about offering concerns and insights that may help others develop their own.

I recently made a crack about 13 million (and my own $400) in stimulus money in another thread so the $5,000,000.00 EIS seems like, well, lip service or (less offensive?) going through the motions to me.

Honestly, I only have a superficial interest beyond:
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it."

       -President Lyndon B. Johnson
       on signing the Wilderness Act, 1964

My hope is anyone willing to add their two cents ( (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) ) has done their own due diligence and has other tried and true redactive ways to gather whatever information they feel is meaningful to them. Tickety tick. A penny for your thoughts, or is it money talks? I'm thinking the latter.

Oh and my earlier link with the smiley?

http://www.google.com/finance?q=polymet 

Sorry. I wasn't playing.

A & B are interesting though:
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

db wrote on Jun 8^th, 2010 at 6:53am:



I'm not sure how this whole thing works, but it sounds like the Mesabi Trust was formed back in the 60's to acquire the land that was ultimately mined for iron. If I have it right, the trust holds title to the land while a separate operator produces from it, and subsequently pays a royalty to the trust. The trust is publicly traded:

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

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

I don't know if this will affect the PolyMet project one way or the other, but I certainly don't have all the facts on that.

In other news, PolyMet, the EPA, the USFS and others have agreed to begin a new "Supplemental" Draft Environmental Impact Statement to more clearly address the issues surrounding potential water use and contamination. For efficiency, they have decided to combine efforts with the USFS, who would have had to do their own separate EIS as part of the land exchange / sale to PolyMet. This will be another "Draft" Environmental Impact Statement, and it will be submitted for public review just like the last one, before the final EIS is constructed and submitted to the State as part of their application for a Permit to Mine.

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

This new supplemental DEIS could take a year or more to complete, so whatever your stance on the issue, don't hold your breath for a Cu/Ni/PGE mine to open in Minnesota any time soon.