Purging the name doesn’t lessen the impact of sulfide mining

The Ely Echo’s August 1 editorial states that “we will no longer include the term ‘sulfide mining’” and that “[u]nless there is a company proposing to mine sulfides,” the Echo will call it copper mining, or copper-nickel mining, or copper, nickel, platinum and palladium mining. The Echo asserts that the term “sulfide mining” is not “based in truth or fact.”

The reality-based community generally embraces Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s principle that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own set of facts.” Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Echo reconsider its position. Here are some facts: At least two companies are “proposing to mine sulfides” in Minnesota, according to official company, state, and federal documents. One such company is PolyMet, and the other is Twin Metals.

PolyMet’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dated October 2009, says this at page S-1:

“PolyMet . . . proposes to construct and operate an open-pit mine and processing facility to process low-grade disseminated sulfide-bearing ore . . . .” At page 3-4, PolyMet’s Supplemental DEIS, dated November 2013, says this: “Processing would involve concentration using a flotation method to separate metallic sulfide minerals (ore concentrate) from feldspar and other non-ore minerals (tailings).” Thus, the money-making ore concentrate is “metallic sulfide minerals.” See also pages ES-23 and 3-99 of the PolyMet SDEIS, where the same point is made in nearly identical words.

The Twin Metals NI 43-101 (the “Technical Report on Pre-Feasibility Study”), dated October 6, 2014, says at page 1-7 that the mineralization at the Maturi and Maturi Southwest sites that Twin Metals seeks to mine includes among other things chalcopyrite, cubanite, and pentlandite. At page 1-10, the 43-101 states that “[c]opper mineralization is dominated by chalcopyrite and cubanite, an iron-rich copper-poor sulfide . . . ” and that “[b]oth the copper sulfides and the pentlandite are relatively coarse-grained . . . .” Enycyclopedia Britannica On-Line tells us that pentlandite is “a nickel and iron sulfide mineral, the chief source of nickel.”

Our U.S. government’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has published on-line a Report of Investigation (number PB 249736) entitled “Copper-nickel Mineralization in a Drill Core from the Duluth Complex of Northern Minnesota.” NIOSH’s abstract of the Report says in part:

“Copper and nickel sulfides occurring in the Duluth complex of northern Minnesota were examined at the Bureau of Mines. . . . Eighty-two samples were taken from one deep diamond drill core located near Babbitt, Minnesota. . . . The major sulfide minerals are chalcopyrite, cubanite, pyrrhotite, troilite, and pentlandite.”

To claim that Twin Metals and PolyMet do not propose to mine sulfides would be about the same thing as saying “facts don’t matter—only our opinion matters.” Some of the sulfides these companies would mine contain copper and nickel, which the companies hope to extract after mining the sulfide ores and sell for a profit—mostly overseas: “The customers for the nickel concentrate will likely be nickel smelters in North America, Europe, Russia and China. China will be a potential market for the copper concentrate, along with other custom smelters in Europe and Asia.” Twin Metals NI-43-101, p. 1-25. It is “copper for Communists,” to quote Bob Tammen.

Opponents of Twin Metals and PolyMet use the term “sulfide-ore mining” or some variation because (1) it is accurate and (2) we want people to remember that mining sulfide ore releases sulfuric acid, heavy metals, and sulfates, which destroy aquatic life, including fish and wild rice, and harm human health in myriad ways.

The Echo asks that the mining debate be conducted in an “honest and respectful manner.” This is at the end of an editorial in which the Echo accuses sulfide-ore copper mining opponents of engaging in “histrionic behavior [that] gets a bit ridiculous,” of “incite[ment] and bias,” and of “misrepresenting the issue and using scare tactics.” Any sense of irony is apparently missing in action.

Over the past few years, the Echo has published letters on both sides of the debate about proposals to mine on the South Kawishiwi and Birch Lake. As far as I can tell, up until now the Echo has accurately reproduced the words that readers have written to express their views. It would be truly unfortunate if the Echo now censors or changes the wording of letters to the editor because the Echo disagrees with the writer’s views or would prefer that the writer use other words. Freedom of the press carries with it the responsibility to report accurately. If the Echo chooses not to print a letter, fine. But please do not change the words before printing a letter, because often that would not honestly present the writer’s views.

Reid Carron

Morse Twp., Minn.