Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Mineral withdrawal

There’s no trick involved, just a long-established federal process

Posted

“Follow the process,” was a theme that federal officials heard early and often in recent days from opponents of the proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would block new sulfide-based, copper-nickel mining within about 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest within the Rainy River watershed.
For supporters of that mining in general, and the proposed Twin Metals mine, in particular, it’s a favored talking point— one that suggests that the proposal to institute a 20-year ban on new mineral leasing on about ten percent of the Superior National Forest, is some kind of parlor trick, rather than a federal process in its own right, dating back to the Ford administration.
The process that mining supporters want to see is the permitting process of the mine plan proposed by Twin Metals. Both state and federal officials are currently in the early stages of that process and any resolution is years away regardless of the decision federal officials make on the proposed mineral withdrawal.
Mining supporters, along with some in the media, seem to misunderstand the reality of the project permitting process, which begins with environmental review. Many believe that it is the environmental study that determines whether a major project, like a mine, can be done in accordance with environmental standards and can move forward. That belief, stubborn though it may be, is entirely incorrect.
We’ve covered many environmental review processes in our 30-plus years as a regional newspaper, so we have heard the admonitions of regulators time and again. The purpose of an environmental review is not to determine whether a project is “safe” to move forward, or whether it is desirable in any way. It is designed to better understand the risks associated with a project and to develop mitigations that seek to reduce those risks to the extent that is financially feasible. It could be the most dangerous project ever envisioned by humankind, but the final environmental report will simply tick off the required boxes and dutifully point out that a tweak here and there might help reduce the risks— so let the permitting begin.
Once the review and permitting process has begun, it’s like a runaway train. Don’t take our word for it. State Sen. Tom Bakk acknowledged as much two years ago at a joint powers meeting in Ely. “So, once they start down that road of applying for permits, it’s pretty hard to stop,” he told those in attendance at the meeting.
We have created a myth around the environmental and permitting review process, telling ourselves that it makes judgment calls about the merits of a project even though that is, explicitly, not part of its purpose. It is about mechanics and engineering, and offers no input into the broader scope of questions surrounding a risky project like a sulfide-based mine on the edge of the nation’s only large, water-based wilderness.
The mineral withdrawal study is designed to answer those broader questions and, in this case, it should have been undertaken years ago. We know, for a fact, that the proposed Twin Metals mine will pose risks to the long-term water quality of downstream waters. We know that because these mines almost always result in environmental degradation. Are those risks justified? That’s a question an environmental impact statement would never even explore.
We know that while the mine would bring some economic benefits to the area, we also know, or at least strongly suspect, that there would be economic dislocations as well, which could easily offset whatever economic benefits a mine might bring. That’s a particular risk in a place like Ely, with a well-established economic sector based on wilderness recreation. Are the economic losses associated with a mine likely to offset, or even exceed, the benefits? At least one economic analysis out of Harvard, which the withdrawal study is likely to consider, strongly suggests the answer is yes. That’s certainly relevant to the broader question about the merits of a mining project, but it’s something that would not be part of a project-specific environmental review.
It’s apparent that supporters of the Twin Metals mine don’t want these broader questions asked, perhaps because they don’t want to know the answers. Which is likely one reason the Trump administration abruptly canceled the original withdrawal study just before its completion and fought endlessly to block its release.
In the end, of course, any decision on whether to enact a withdrawal, or not, will be a political one, just as every decision to allow a mine to be built is political. But in this case, it will be a political decision, hopefully, based on well-founded answers to the appropriate questions. That’s how our system has worked since the mineral withdrawal process was established back in the mid-1970s. Indeed, what is happening today is part of “the process.”