Published December 20, 2009

Dissenting view: Creating our own Appalachia means giving up too much

By: Marc Fink, For the News Tribune

Over the years we’ve seen, in the Appalachia region of West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, what happens when a single industry becomes a sacred cow, supported by politicians across the spectrum for their own self interest and political survival. The end result has been tops literally blown off mountains, vanishing streams and continued poverty in local communities.

This scene, unfortunately, now seems to be playing out in Northeastern Minnesota as our local, state, and national politicians compete with each other to see who can offer the loudest support for corporations entering our state to strip-mine copper, nickel, and other metals from the Iron Range.

Lost in the politicians’ rush to support this new type of mining in Minnesota is not only the horrid record of similar projects across the country, but facts disclosed in the just-released draft environmental review for the PolyMet proposal.

For instance, the proposed mine site is within the Superior National Forest, where an open pit strip mine is not even allowed. Instead of enforcing this provision to protect a public resource, the U.S. Forest Service entered into private negotiations for an exchange of national forest lands with PolyMet.

As I understand it, the proposed mine would directly destroy more than 850 acres of high-quality wetlands with more than 650 additional acres of wetlands indirectly impaired. The total wetlands impact would be more than 1,500 acres. And the vast majority of the required wetlands mitigation would occur outside the St. Louis River watershed.

Lakes and streams downstream of the proposed site already are impaired due to mercury pollution, prompting fish consumption advisories. The proposed mine could result in seepage of high sulfate concentrations, which, according to the draft analysis, could create “high risk situations” for mercury methylation. As explained in the analysis, methyl mercury is the “active form of mercury that accumulates in fish and is toxic to humans and wildlife.” The proposed mine would place tailings on the former LTV tailings basin, which is unlined and already causing seepage to groundwater and surface water.

According to the experts of tribal cooperating agencies, water collection and treatment could be needed for 2,000 years to avoid further water-quality contamination. How do you factor that into any financial assurance from the mining company?

The PolyMet mine also could destroy nearly 1,500 acres of critical habitat for Canada lynx and wolves. Moreover, the project could affect two of only 13 remaining wildlife corridors across the Iron Range, with additional projects anticipated to affect nine of these corridors.
The mine is expected to generate nearly 400 million tons of waste rock and account for an annual carbon footprint of 767,648 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

The mine site is located within the 1854 Treaty Ceded Territory, where the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and Grand Portage Band of Chippewa retain hunting, fishing and gathering rights.

And PolyMet is just the first of a number of potential copper-nickel mines in Northeastern Minnesota, with our political leadership showing little restraint in its thirst for supporting this type of industry across the region.

If we commit to decades of additional and environmentally harmful mining, are we locking ourselves into a permanent resource-extraction economy — at the price of long-term pollution from Lake Superior to the Boundary Waters — while driving away other industry and points of view?

Too bad our politicians have apparently failed to ask this question.

Marc Fink of Duluth is a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Published December 20 2009
Duluth News Tribune

Our view: Minnesota can embrace PolyMet and copper mining

We’re sitting on the third-largest nickel deposit in the world, with the potential to create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of good-paying permanent positions.

A team of Iron Rangers has been working for years to bring “the next generation of mining” to Northeastern Minnesota. Under the name PolyMet, the team acquired a massive, long-idled processing plant. It lined up investors from around the world, spent more than $20 million of the investors’ money in preparations, and is now, it says, “in the late stages of the environmental review process.”

A long-awaited draft environmental impact statement, more than four years in the making, was unveiled in October, a major step in making PolyMet a long-needed reality. The statement explains how the mine can process copper, nickel, platinum and other valuable metals in accordance with strong state and federal environmental rules and regulations.

Public comments on the draft statement are being accepted even as Minnesota’s U.S. senators and the region’s representative in Congress and others in high places voice their strong support for PolyMet and copper mining.

The plan will be tweaked before final approval. The company then must apply for permits before this boon for our region can begin operations.

Iron ore has been mined from our region since the 19th century. PolyMet would be a different kind of mining. Copper, nickel, cobalt, palladium, platinum and gold are precious metals used to make everything from electronics to jewelry. Rich deposits have been found just south of the famed Mesabi Iron Range.

How rich? We’re actually sitting on the third-largest nickel deposit in the world, with the potential to create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of good-paying permanent positions. The industry could mean an economic impact in the hundreds of millions of dollars for St. Louis County alone.

And not all of it from PolyMet. At least four more companies are poised to follow PolyMet’s permitting and environmental-review lead.

At least 37 pages of laws and regulations are in place to monitor and to take care of environmental issues, including after mines close. The existing provisions even prevent the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources from issuing mining permits if precautions aren’t taken.

“No additional restrictions are necessary,” Frank Ongaro, executive director of Mining Minnesota, a coalition of copper-mining ventures, told the News Tribune earlier this year.
Two groups strongly opposed to copper mining are far removed from the Northland. The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness group is based nowhere near the Boundary Waters, but in Minneapolis. And the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy is based in St. Paul.

Much of their concern has centered on sulfuric acid, which has run off at other copper mining operations, including ones in countries devoid of or nearly devoid of environmental laws and concerns. At those mines where acid runoff has been a problem, the sulfur content of the rock has been as high as 15 percent to 30 percent. The sulfur content of the rock at the PolyMet site is 1 percent or lower. It’s negligible.

“There’s no one more interested in doing this right than those of us who live here. This is our backyard,” PolyMet President and Chief Execu¬tive Officer Joseph Scipioni told members of the News Tribune editorial page during a visit this year to PolyMet. “This is not worth doing if we can’t do it right. That’s what the [environmental-review] process is all about.”

An impressive and reassuring list of agencies and others are making sure PolyMet — and any companies that follow — will “do it right.” The list includes the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and three tribal governments.

The timing is right for copper mining. New technology allows precious metals to be recovered without smelters, the biggest culprit in the industry’s dirty-air history.

In addition, PolyMet would bring back to life the former LTV taconite plant near Hoyt Lakes. The massive facility was one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken in the U.S. when it was built in the mid-1950s for $350 million. That’s $2.7 billion in today’s dollars. Closed in 2001, the facility’s water tower, power plant, tailings ponds, grinders, crushers and other features and infrastructure all can be reused. And it would be a shame not to with opportunity presenting itself.

“This is an exciting project that’s ready to add to the viability of this region” Ongaro said.
Added U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., in a letter of support to the DNR: “PolyMet will help diversify the economy of the iron ore-dependent Range, and will help meet our nation’s domestic demand for copper, nickel, platinum, cobalt, gold and palladium. Most importantly, this project offers a real opportunity to put Northeastern Minnesota citizens back to work.”

The economy continues to struggle. Despite the protests of a few, many others — including politicians, bureaucrats, regulators and everyday citizens eager for jobs and prosperity — are embracing and encouraging PolyMet and copper mining. They can all — from the Iron Range, from across Minnesota, and all the way to Washington, D.C. — continue to embrace and encourage a new industry being done right.

A version of this editorial was published March 1.

Published December 20 2009

Iron Range view: Buy a bigger truck?
By: Elanne Palcich, For the News Tribune

I was one of several hundred orderly and attentive people who attended the meeting about the PolyMet draft environmental impact statement in Aurora on Dec. 9.

Contrary to what PolyMet states, there is no hostile environmental movement against jobs in northern Minnesota. However, there are people who are concerned about toxic acid and heavy metal drainage associated with the mining of low-grade copper-nickel sulfide ores.

As noted during the presentation, stockpile leachate could exceed groundwater standards while pit overflow after closure could exceed surface-water standards. This would require treatment 40 years after mine closure. Seepage from tailings could increase sulfates and methylmercury in the watershed. There was mention of safety concerns regarding tailings embankments and stockpile design due to the sheer volume of waste rock.

I have additional concerns.

Contrary to talking points about the domestic use of these metals, PolyMet’s agreement with Swiss Glencore assures that all metals would be sold on the global market. One of the tabling consultants told me he is getting inquiries about how the semi-processed metals could be packed to ship directly to China.

PolyMet claims its metals are critical in the production of electronic products. Have you checked out the mall lately? Are there any shortages? Do we need to mine low-grade ores based on fear?

Another piece of propaganda claims this kind of mining is green. The mining of 99 percent waste rock is simply not sustainable over its projected 20-year life span. It doesn’t make sense to use declining sources of energy to mine 99 percent waste. Nor does it make sense to replace an energy structure based on oil and coal with one dependent on rare metals. Does anybody really think technologies and lifestyles will stay the same over the next 20 years? Future technologies will be based on recycling, efficiency, and new processes.

I believe it’s irresponsible of our politicians to show unequivocal support for PolyMet without studying the draft environmental impact statement and considering long-term impacts.

There was no public discussion during the Aurora hearing, but state Sen. Dave Tomassoni presented a speech that seemed to come right out of PolyMet’s archives. State Rep. Tom Rukavina at least acknowledged there was no “public” in the public meeting. State and federal politicians are promising local people 400 jobs, which are nonexistent in today’s economic market and unsustainable in the long run.

The Arrowhead Region of Minnesota, wedged between the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Lake Superior, is known for its scenic quality. Our politicians claim we should mine here rather than in countries with fewer environmental standards. What the politicians neglect to understand is that the mining of sulfide ores in the wetland environment of Northeastern Minnesota is a recipe for disaster.

PolyMet’s technologies were designed to extract low-grade ores, not to prevent pollution. The hydromet process releases pollutants into groundwater rather than into the air while the low-grade mineralization can leave mountains of waste rock.

Furthermore, if mining companies claim they can extract ore in ways that are better for the environment, why aren’t they doing so on a global level? Instead, Canadian mining companies are being called on the carpet worldwide for their poor environmental record, putting corporate profits over people and the land.

PolyMet supporters identified themselves at the Aurora meeting by wearing sweatshirts proclaiming, “Buy a Bigger Truck.” The words symbolize why we don’t need to mine low-grade ores. Jobs of the future will require workers who can design solutions for living creatively and sustainably within our planetary limits.

My advice to all is, “Buy a smaller truck.”

Elanne Palcich of Chisholm is a retired teacher who has been closely following the PolyMet proposal since June 2005.

Published December 20 2009

Reader’s view: PolyMet would meet demand responsibly

I am writing to clarify comments attributed to me in the Dec. 6 story, “PolyMet mine splits Iron Range.”

I was quoted using the phrase “slave labor” in reference to current global copper production. This comment was misleading. I do apologize for making it and wish it had not been included. However, the reality, and the point I was attempting to make, is that copper is currently mined in places with histories of atrocious working conditions. Places like Mexico and Zambia. Although not “slave labor,” standards are clearly below what they are here.

I consider myself an environmentalist, and ultimately that is why I am supporting the PolyMet project. Ten years ago, when I was dropping off campers along the Echo Trail, I would never have thought I would be supporting a copper mine. However, these minerals are being used; I use them. By reading this you have participated in their use.

Perhaps the best-case scenario would be to stop consuming everything, period. That seems a bit impossible because we would all start getting a bit hungry. Then someone would start a tractor and we would be using resources again.

We could conserve, and I would encourage everyone to do so, but that would not eliminate the need for resources for food, heat and electricity.

The best we can hope for is for the resources we use to be produced in the most technologically advanced and environmentally friendly way possible.

That is what PolyMet’s proposal is and why I am in favor of it.

I am glad people are concerned about this project. I do hope these people investigate their concerns fully. We do need to be educated and not incendiary on a project this important.
I do regret if any quotes attributed to me in the article served the latter.

Justin Mattson
Aurora

Published December 20 2009

Reader’s view: PolyMet mine will lead renewal on the Range

Mining to the Iron Range is what wheat production is to the Great Plains. Mining is the lifestyle, the very essence of the Range. It’s the basis of the region’s very existence. Those who do not understand the significance of mining on the Range and the consequences of its exodus not only underestimate the value of mining to Rangers but to all Minnesotans.

The proposed PolyMet project would produce 400 to 470 direct, long-term jobs plus a large number of ancillary and support jobs. This would be in addition to the thousands of construction-related jobs during the initial phases of building. Furthermore, a study by the University of Minnesota Duluth found PolyMet would add an additional $6 billion annually to the state’s economy. That would prove welcome relief from ever-rising taxes to aging northern Minnesotans and their ability to remain in their homes.

The PolyMet project, near Hoyt Lakes, represents the vanguard of the rebirth of the Iron Range, this time as a producer of nonferrous metals like nickel, copper and platinum.

But the PolyMet project has been a typical example of the way government can create hurdles instead of highways for Range miners and the tax base of Minnesota. This project holds great promise for the futures of both the Iron Range and all of Minnesota, but government bureaucracy and national special-interest groups have held the project hostage five years.

Adding to the obstacles is U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar’s proposed Clean Water Restoration Act, which would further introduce impediments in bringing prosperity to an area already finding elusive the fruits of economic recovery.

My hope is our currently elected officials have the good judgment to facilitate the PolyMet project not only for the hard-working people of the Iron Range but for all Minnesotans.

Chip Cravaack
Lindstrom, Minn.

The writer has declared candidacy for U.S. House in Minnesota’s Eighth Congressional District.

Published December 20 2009

Reader’s view: Pollution fears misplaced for PolyMet project

Like Steve and Jane Koschak, who were featured in the Dec. 6 story, “PolyMet mine splits Iron Range,” my husband and I were born and raised in Ely, we both graduated from Ely schools, and we have seen our schools and hospitals suffer due to a decreasing population, a lack of good-paying jobs and a tax base to sustain them.

This year the graduating class in Ely was 39. That is a definite sign of a dying community.
My husband works at Northshore Mining, and his job provides our family with a good income that includes benefits. It allowed me to be a stay-at-home mom while our two daughters were young. We have lived on Fall Lake for 35 years, and in all those years, we have not noticed any change in Fall Lake, even though there has been iron ore and taconite mining in the area for close to 100 years.

We know the importance of our tourism industry and can appreciate the Koschak’s concerns for Birch Lake, where they have one of the area’s nicest resorts. But most tourism jobs are part-time and seasonal, and they do not pay enough to support families.

We disagree that PolyMet will pollute Birch Lake, as PolyMet is not in the Kawishiwi Watershed.

The jobs that PolyMet will provide will support workers and their families for the next 50 years. These full-time, year-round jobs will pay livable wages with benefits and will help revitalize our communities with even more spin-off jobs.

We support the PolyMet project as well as other mining projects. We have the resources here and we are confident that under the watchful eyes of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency our environment and lake waters will be protected with new technology.

Nancy and Doug McReady
Ely