PolyMet officials have sought to quell rising concern among investors in recent days about the impact of potential delays in permitting of their proposed NorthMet mining operation near Hoyt Lakes.

Fears about possible lengthy delays arose in February after the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued one of its lowest ratings possible to the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which was released late last year.

Since news of the Feb. 18 letter from the EPA first broke, PolyMet’s stock price, which had peaked at $3.76 a share in mid-January, quickly fell to a low of $2.09 a share by March 5. The stock has recovered somewhat since, but remained below the $2.40 mark as of Thursday.

Company officials, in a statement issued Monday, acknowledged that the uncertainty surrounding the draft EIS has raised questions from investors about the prospects for a speedy conclusion of the environmental review and permitting process.

“Since the end of the comment period in early February, we have received many questions about both the process and the timeline to complete the environmental review,” said PolyMet CFO Douglas Newby. “The process is determined by the state and federal agencies leading the work, so any opinions on the timeline are personal and speculative. However, in response to concerns whether a delay could be measured in years, I expressed my opinion that any delay is likely to be measured in months.”

In a separate statement, Joe Scipioni, PolyMet president and chief executive officer was less definitive. “At this time, the company does not know what the process of completion of environmental review implies for the project timeline. As soon as these details are made known to the company so that we can determine their impact on project scheduling, the company will make a public statement.”

Company officials stress that the project’s fundamentals remain “robust,” but the response to the EIS from the EPA and other agencies has raised serious questions about just how much additional work may need to be completed before a final EIS can be issued.

EPA not alone in its criticism

While the EPA’s criticism has received much media coverage, other agencies have been equally harsh. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, a coalition of 11 Ojibwe bands including Fond du Lac, was sharply critical in a 55-page comment letter issued Feb. 3. The Fond du Lac Band is a cooperating agency in the EIS process, but it does not have veto power in the decision on whether or not a final EIS can be issued.

The GLIFWC letter identifies a long list of concerns, but among the most basic is the contention that the project, as proposed, cannot be permitted under either state or federal law— a view shared by the EPA.

In addition, GLIFWC officials say the current EIS fails to meet federal requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (or NEPA) for several reasons, including the lack of consideration of financial assurance, the lack of an adequate closure plan, and over-reliance on professional opinion, rather than data, in making conclusions. The tribal agency also criticized the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers for selective editing of information and comments. “We observe that in several areas, the DEIS excludes previously established information that depicts the project in an unfavorable light. Previous versions of the DEIS indicated that the proposed tailings basin design is not adequate and likely to fail. While this is still the case, the DEIS that was released to the public has omitted that language,” stated tribal officials.

“That’s their opinion,” said John Ahlness, project manager with the Army Corps of Engineers, in response to the GLIFWC letter. “We certainly accept and take input from cooperators, but we make the final decision,” he said, referring to the Army Corps and the DNR, which are jointly serving as lead agencies in the EIS process. Ahlness suggested the joint nature of the EIS could be leading to some confusion about which parts are subject to federal rules and which to state law. He said the Army Corps, which is a federal agency, is primarily considering wetland impacts and mitigation, while issues like mine closure and financial assurance for ongoing water quality concerns are subject to DNR oversight and state environmental review regulations.

While both the EPA and GLIFWC have criticized the draft EIS for failure to incorporate financial assurance, Ahlness said that issue never came up in two previous environmental reviews over expansion of the Acelor-Mittal mine near Virginia and the Essar Steel operation near Nashwauk. “That was never raised until the permitting stage,” said Ahlness.