Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Report Inappropriate Comments

It’s too bad that Minnesota Miners (MM) isn’t posting under her/his/their real name(s.) Failing that, MM could at least be honest enough to post under “Chilean Miners,” because the writing is clearly at the behest of Antofagasta. MM/Chilean Miners, please cite for the readers—better yet, quote with citations—the section of NEPA that says “Either the agency must be proposing a development or a private entity must be proposing one.” MM/Chilean Miners won’t be able to, because NEPA establishes an environmental review process for federal actions, which is vastly different from mere federal or private development. The federal action that generated the current EIS process for the Boundary Waters watershed is a proposed FLPMA withdrawal of land from the federal mine leasing program. The reason that the Forest Service proposed the withdrawal is that professional land managers—not political appointees—determined that copper mining in the SNF would be devastating to land and water owned by the people of the United States. Precisely the same kind of proposed federal action led to the development of an EIS that resulted in the 2012 withdrawal of a million acres of federal minerals from leasing around the Grand Canyon. EIS processes are underway currently because of the same kind of proposed federal action in the Paradise Valley, Montana; the Methow Valley, Washington; and around Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers. I think that MM/Chilean Miners knows that, and is misrepresenting NEPA for the purpose of trying to confuse the issue in the minds of readers. That’s standard mining industry practice.

As for MM/Chilean Miners’ reference to Pebble Mine and PolyMet, it’s more of the same mining industry dishonesty. Neither is relevant to the process underway with respect to the Boundary Waters watershed. Setting aside the obvious greed and stupidity driving a proposal to put a mine on the headwaters of Bristol Bay, the specific issues there revolved around the Clean Water Act. That statute has nothing to do with the Boundary Waters watershed EIS. As for PolyMet, the minerals involved there are privately owned, so a withdrawal was not an option, which means the legal process is entirely different. The minerals, lands, and waters under study in the Boundary Waters watershed belong to the people of the United States.

The reason for the current Boundary Waters watershed environmental study is to determine whether this is simply the wrong place for a sulfide-ore mine. Referring to the EIS process as a “preemptive study” is another misrepresentation by MM/Chilean Miners. The study grew out of specific interest by Antofagasta and other companies in mining in the watershed. Antofagasta has sued to compel the issuance of mining leases (calling them “exploration leases,” as some of Antofagasta’s friends do, is another misrepresentation) and a bill has been introduced in Congress on Antofagasta’s behalf to compel the issuance of mining leases. To claim that no “mine plan” exists is sophistry. The Antofagasta pre-feasibility study (43-101) shows mine sites, the processing plant, and pipelines. But the main point is that a specific mine plan is irrelevant. The nature and history of mining in sulfide-bearing ore are extremely well-known. No technology exists or is foreseeable that would prevent the destruction and pollution of many thousands of acres of land and water (surface and ground). The impact of that mining and destruction on the Boundary Waters, the rest of the SNF in the watershed, and on the people who live in the area is the reason for the study, and it is obviously timely in light of the relentless push by Antofagasta to get the right to mine.

Anyone who knows anything about Iron Range taconite mines knows that MM/Chilean Miners’ assertion about Minnesota’s “stringent environmental laws” is a bad joke. The industry flouts the laws and refuses to comply, and the Range delegation is constantly chipping away at the statutes and regulations.

As MM/Chilean Miners knows, the prior EIS was for exploration permits for a limited time, not the permanent mine leases that Antofagasta seeks. The impact of preparing drill sites and drilling for core samples is a tiny fraction of the impact of mines and their many thousands of acres of infrastructure, operating over decades. To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

MM/Chilean Miners knows perfectly well why I raised the issue of the massive landslide in the Bingham Canyon copper mine that buried millions of dollars of equipment and put the mine out of operation for months. I could also have mentioned mining industry disasters in West Virginia (where a coal mining industry solvent tank leak a few years ago poisoned the Kanawha River and wiped out the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people for many days), and in Mexico, Romania, Italy, and many other countries. A peer-reviewed scientific study using Antofagasta/Twin Metals’ own information shows that mines in the South Kawishiwi/Birch Lake area will pollute the Boundary Waters under normal operations. It doesn’t even take into account the kind of catastrophic failure of pipelines, dams, water treatment, etc., that routinely happens in industrial operations (mines, railroads, fertilizer plants, refineries, pipelines, etc.). It took years for the effects of DDT on birds of prey to come to light; to claim that the toxic pollution from Mount Polley won’t have an effect on salmon is wishful thinking at best.

True to form, MM/Chilean Miners want to define “investment” in their own way and then claim retirees don’t invest. No competent economist or business development professional would buy that analysis. The single most important factor in developing and maintaining sustainable communities is building on what exists now. (Another strong business area that exists in Ely now, and which I left out of my prior list, is financial services—two banks, at least two insurance agencies, at least one investment advisor. I also left out IT consultants, accountants, and electronics stores—all of which we have). And I made a mistake in limiting my earlier comments to retirees; Ely has survived for 50 years since the end of mining partly because of tourism, but mostly because of second-home owners, retirees, and people who have moved to Ely and started businesses. A recent study by the University of Minnesota-Morris makes clear that a lot of those people will leave if copper mining comes to the Boundary Waters watershed. Copper mining would devastate this economy. If MM/Chilean Miners and Ely politicians and Range politicians had the courage and sense to consider the unlimited downside of copper mining, they would have attended Tuesday Group at GEL (another great Ely institution and employer) last week and listened to Marshall’s carefully reasoned and very sobering economic analysis. But doing that would have jarred their preconceived notions and required some hard thinking—which is in very short supply.

Finally, no, we don’t “all do that” when it comes to shopping in Ely. If you could get honest answers from a lot of the people who scream the loudest in favor of copper mining, and from the relatively few people around Ely who work in mining, they would tell you that they are shopping at SuperOne, Menard’s, and Target in Virginia.

Copper mining in the Boundary Waters watershed would bring poison and destruction to land, water, and the well-being of people that is outside the previous experience of this area.

From: The fearful politicians

Please explain the inappropriate content below.