What's your view of PolyMet's mining proposal?
I support it under any circumstances.
530 votes (47%)
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach and will decide based on the EIS findings.
89 votes (8%)
I'm opposed to it under any circumstances.
505 votes (45%)

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Comments
16 comments on this item

I voted for the wait and see approach. I want to make sure that the process is solid and that there is a hefty personal fine for any or all mine managers (some of which are U.S. Steel veterans) are held accountable for any mischief that could occur in the dark of the night. I don't know if it's possible, but I do recommend those provisions before approving the EIS and beginning operation. Safety first, but as U.S. Steel managers would imply at Minntac, as long as it doesn't cost too much. We may not have that much latitude with copper-nickel mining. Now is the time to get it right.

As an addendum to my foregoing comments, an Environmental Impact Statement is really only words on paper. It's effect is contingent on the people managing the mine to adhere to the letter and intent of the statement. Having worked at Minntac, I saw where management circumvented many EPA and MPCA directives when they thought they could get by with it. And they did. We need to keep that in mind because copper-nickel mining is not as forgiving as iron ore mining.

Glencore the parent company of the fledging Polymet company.

Do you trust them?

The company renamed itself Glencore and continued its shady practices, this time working with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Under the 1996-2003 UN Oil-for-Food Program, Saddam would trade oil for humanitarian supplies. Turns out he was rewarding companies, like Glencore, that were friendly to his regime

Glencore also supplied precious metals to Iran after other mining companies Honered the ban opposed by the U.S. and the U.N. on its nuclear ban

Glencore at present owns over half of the known copper supplies in the world.

If it was the old U.S. steel company or some of the old iron ming companies that were U.S. based yes.

Shoe: What the heck are you talking about? Your comments are so dis-jointed most of the readers can't follow you along. Can you try to be more concise and and make your point?

The point I don't trust Glencore.

I am just saying Glencore with 236 billion in revenue last year has broken every rule and regulation in the books over the years,recently in Zambia they knowing drained acid wiith a pH of 1 into the river causing 5 million people to lose their source of water.

They admitted it they did it on purpose and said it was because they did not want to lay anybody off. Yeh.

The bottom line their is a reason to have strong environmental over sight and review. The company has zero concerns of what happens in this area.

This company has zero concern about this country or any other country,there bigger than most.

The EIS is now available for review by going on the DNR website. This will enable all of us to see what is contained therein.

I love NE Mn and it's people and I respect the offices our elected leaders hold and I love our system of government. It's not perfect but I respect the balance of powers. I strongly oppose mining in the Duluth Complex, and Polymet is in the Duluth Complex and being built as a first step to a mining district in the Duluth Complex I have family from Hibbing and the utmost respect for the people on the Iron Range. The problems associated with mining are not their fault, and their support for it is intertwined with their concern for their families and health. They care. People around Swan Lake care. The elected leaders on the traditional Iron Range are often functioning as publicly funded mining lobbyists as are their newspapers. Despite recent back pedaling, "mine and log the hell out of it" and "jobs jobs jobs" is the cry and all that's lacking is poms and short skirts.. They want their cake and to eat it too. They want to say they protect the region but want to profit from grinding it up. The Duluth Complex is a DIFFERENT kind of ore body, it is a complex or group of intrusions or areas of mineral but it is all sulfide laden and it is a much more dangerous area to mine than the western range as the resulting Acid Mine Drainage makes it the most polluting industry. This isn't a team sport. We can't just announce we want both the mining and the healthy environment. This is like King Solomon saying to cut the baby in half. Some things just cannot be done without harm no matter how desperately you wish. We all know there are limits to what science can do. Anyone who has been to the dentist knows things that sound great like getting a new tooth put in are pretty painful and complicated. We can't cure cancer though we are making strides and we can't get our rivers clean of mercury - the MPCA can't even manage to study mercury effectively in the St Louis River and rivers in Mn are reacting in unpredicted ways to mercury in the air. 1 in 10 babies on the north shore of Lake Superior are born with abnormally high levels of mercury in their tiny bodies In the womb our mothers body mistakes mercury for an amino acid and the baby's nervous system is harmed. Read about mercury's impact on the unborn baby. Read about sulfide and how it changes mercury and makes it more harmful Then ask yourself if you trust politicians enough to follow them down this path. The minerals are safely in our state, tucked in the ground waiting. Right now if we mine them they go on the open market, most likely to China. Nothing against China but i dont think our mining here decreases their mining and pollution If anything it just makes the price of minerals a speck lower as it adds to what is being sold Other nations are keeping theirs, not selling them on the open market. Until we can figure out how to take them out without harm or half a millennia of expensive treatment we can just leave them there. They will still be ours. I for one would gladly do with few or no or old gadgets, fewer titanium golf clubs and i dont think every kid needs a cell phone. We dont have to have all this junk And it's not fair to throw that kind of mining PR line at the people after marketing the toys and gizmos and basing the economy on endless buying of junk. It's not fair. It's a line mining companies use the world over. Is it really worth selling our soils and water and the health of the Arrowhead? Is it worth more babies born with abnormally high levels of mercury and nervous system damage at birth? Is it worth losing the value of our homes? Banks are rethinking giving mortgages where folks don't own the mineral rights. Google it. It's a real and emerging problem in MN I do not think we will need the minerals less in 100 years. We sure will know more about how to extract them properly if it is possible. I know, 100 years is a long long time to wait. So is 500.

Kristin,

How did you type this - with your computer? I live up here and will have the mining on my back doorstep (slight exaggeration). It still comes down to the fact that a large majority of the locals want this to happen and those, like yourself, who don't live here don't want it. Look at the headlines of the Mesabi Daily News today (Sunday, December 8). The Mayor of Hoyt Lakes is almost soiling himself he is so excited.

I am sick and tired of the loudest wining is from those who do not live up here! We live up here, we will benefit from it, we will deal with the aftermath. We are grown ups here and can deal with it!

By the high number of supporters listed above and the few opposed it just shows that most want Polymet to succeed!

Steve....I think you had better check the tally one more time. Looks like it is pretty much an even split on those that want it and those that do not. There are plenty of us who live "up here" that do NOT want it.

407 For to 406 against! Just prooving that the Iron Range people want the Polymet Project to succeed!

If, by the way, you do not want to see it succeed could we interest you in a relocation program? Because it's most likely going to happen so you might as well get use to the idea or move on!

Polymets parent company is - Glencore trade with Iran earned the company $659 million in 2012, but it could also have been a way for Iran to avoid the United Nation sanctions against the country over its nuclear program, reports Reuters.

According to the news agency, which was granted access to a confidential U.N. Panel of Experts report, Glencore supplied thousands of tons of alumina to an Iranian company that has provided aluminum, a key ingredient in the manufacture of tubes used in uranium enrichment centrifuges, aiding Iran's nuclear program.

Do you think they are going to worry about pollution and who they hire?

Glencore is just trying to carve out a living like the rest of us!

Trading with Iraq while we go to war with them,defy worldwide sanctions on Iran.It just says we are are own destiny maker and nobody matters,regardless of the consequence.

The mining community inself was upset at how Glencore has acted.

The end justifies the mean for them.

But, to get this Polymet project off the ground we needed someone with deep pockets to be able to withstand ten years of environmentalist protesting it. Where they got their money is of no concern to me.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to log in.