Tag Archives: paid lobbyists

CSP2 disputes claims in letter about Back Forty mine

Posted on by

Wednesday, January 30, 2019  – Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

I recently received a copy of an editorial published in the EagleHerald, “Communications director says release was ‘misleading’,” by Nathan Conrad, communications director for the Natural Resource Development Association.

I am the president of the Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2). I have agreed to review the application to construct a tailings dam at the proposed Back Forty mine, but as yet have not received the technical documents I need to perform this review. Nonetheless, Mr. Conrad decided to criticize CSP2 before I have done my analysis.

He said in the letter to the editor: “CSP2 is the same anti-mining group that reviewed a wetland permit last year for opponents of the Back Forty mine. Furthermore, the same local environmental groups opposed to mining previously hired CSP2 to review Eagle Mine’s permits.”

This is attacking the messenger, not the message. It is a logic of innuendo, and a smear tactic. The only factual information in this statement is that a report was done — not that the report was either objective or biased, or right or wrong, and why.

Mr. Conrad goes on to assert: “In 2015, it was made known CSP2 colluded with an “anti-mine coalition” and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an attempt to derail the Pebble Mine project in Alaska.”

This is not only false, but unless Mr. Conrad has factual evidence to substantiate this claim, which he doesn’t, it is a libelous statement.

CSP2 provides an objective analysis of the data — data that is typically paid for by, and collected by the mining industry. CSP2’s analysis and critiques are not based on who collected or paid for the data, it is an analysis of the data itself. If there is to be a criticism of our reports, then critique the report, not the reporter.

If, however, Conrad wants to insist that it is political agenda, or who one works for that counts, then who should be trusted, a scientist working for a nonprofit helping citizen groups, or a scientist employed with a for-profit company, paid by the mining industry?

David M. Chambers
Center for Science in Public Participation, Bozeman, Mont.

Writer disputes points, talks about permits

Posted on by

Tuesday, January 29, 2019 – Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

In his recent letter to the EagleHerald (posted below), Nathan Conrad paints concerned citizens as “known anti-mining” “opponents” who are trying to “obstruct and mislead.” In fact, we’re local residents concerned about the Back Forty sulfide mine, which will destroy clean water and other natural resources. Unlike Conrad’s Natural Resource Development Association, we’re 100 percent volunteer — no paid staff, no lobbyists. We hired well-respected experts at The Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2) to assist with the complex technical review of the proposed Back Forty mine permit.

Conrad’s letter made false statements, including:

  • “According to The Center for Science in Public Participation own website, since 2007, the organization has been providing technical support to a loose coalition of groups opposed to the proposed mine.” False. This refers to the Pebble Mine, not the Back Forty.
  •  “Furthermore, the same local environmental groups opposed to mining previously hired CSP2 to review Eagle Mine’s permits.” False.
  •  (Aquila) “received all state and federal permissions required for the construction and commencement of operations at the Back Forty Project.” False. Aquila’s permits are replete with unmet special conditions — incomplete or missing environmental studies, infrastructure designs, financial assurances, etc. No construction or operations can take place until all conditions are satisfied.

When Conrad said the mine received “four final permits” he meant:

  • Mining permit — defunct, in litigation
  • Air pollution permit — defunct, being modified
  • Wetland permit — wetland destruction, in litigation
  • NPDES permit — pollutant discharge to the Menominee River

Aquila rushed headlong in pursuit of these permits, desperate to meet investor deadlines to get more funding. But haste makes waste, as the saying goes. Aquila’s permits were shoddy and must be amended. A fifth permit is under review for the tailings dam, one of the mine’s riskiest features.

Mining and milling will obliterate this scenic area. The true riches of the place aren’t found underground, but in the flowing river, sturgeon, mussels, native plants, ancient garden beds, and the burial mounds belonging to ancestors of the Menominee people.

Lowered water quality. Lost wetlands. The industrialization of yet another wild place. These are the Back Forty’s permitted environmental impacts.

Aquila’s “commitment to clean mining” is totally meaningless. Millions of tons of reactive waste tailings raise the permanent threat of groundwater contamination or catastrophic dam failure. Contaminated waters from the pit will seep into the river. Air pollution — mercury, lead and other metals — will settle nearby and accumulate in lakes. This is how clean water is lost: Permit by permit, to a thousand cuts.

Did Conrad read the permits? “Clean mining” claims do not change the devastating facts of the Back Forty project. We look forward to CSP2’s technical review.

Kathleen Heideman
Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, Houghton, Mich.

Responding to:

Communications director (**) says release was ‘misleading’

Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:00 AM  Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

A press release distributed by a known anti-mining group published in the EagleHerald Extra (“Environmental groups to fund technical review of permit amendments for Back Forty Mine,” Jan. 17, 2019) was grossly misleading and provides a disservice to your readers.

According to The Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2)’s own website, since 2007, the organization has been “providing technical support to a loose coalition of groups opposed to the proposed mine.”

CSP2 is the same anti-mining group that reviewed a wetland permit last year for opponents of the Back Forty mine. Furthermore, the same local environmental groups opposed to mining previously hired CSP2 to review Eagle Mine’s permits.

In 2015, it was made known CSP2 colluded with an “anti-mine coalition” and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an attempt to derail the Pebble Mine project in Alaska.

CSP2 may claim it is independent from Mining Action Group, Front 40, and UPEC but the group is far from impartial. For the press release to suggest its “independent” is dubious at best. In fact, the press release clearly shows it has reached its conclusion before the “independent” review is conducted.

The fact of the matter is — despite anti-mining groups’ attempts to obstruct and mislead — Aquila Resources has been granted four of four final permits by Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Because of Aquila’s commitment to clean mining, it has received all state and federal permissions required for the construction and commencement of operations at the Back Forty Project.

Nathan Conrad

Communications Director for the Natural Resource Development Association

**  In his letter to the editor of the Eagle Herald, Mr. Conrad identified himself as the “Communication Director for the Natural Resource Development Association” but failed to disclose that he is a registered lobbyist for AQUILLA RESOURCES, one of the “leading members” of the Natural Resource Development Association. Talk about misleading!