Home
Data and Resource Information
Contact Us
Code Of Conduct
Other Governments
Computer Policy
County Policies
Drug and Alcohol Policy
Resolution 104
Cited In Code
Video
Audio
In the News

Environment
Social Svc
Economy
Plan Zone

Keith Nelson announced at a recent board meeting that he is to be appointed to a
citizens advisory board with regard to expansion of the OHV Park in Virginia. 



 

New mining era for northeastern Minnesota -- and new environmental worries

A drill atop a barge on Birch Lake
Department of Natural Resources A drill atop a barge on Birch Lake, near Babbitt, Minn., last year. The Department of Natural Resources says tests show no unusual levels of materials in the water where prospecting test holes have been drilled.


By Ron Way
Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008

Even before giant shovels begin peeling away tons of overburden to launch a new mining era in northeastern Minnesota, legislators and others are pondering what happens when the mines shut down.

The first "nonferrous" open-pit mine is set to open as soon as an environmental report is completed and state permits are issued as early as late this year. But unlike iron mining that has defined the Arrowhead's economy for more than a century, mining for copper, nickel and other metals will literally bring to the surface sulfides that can combine with air and water to produce sulfuric acid that can be environmentally deadly.

Industry advocates insist there's nothing to worry about, and that has environmentalists plenty worried.

"The more informed one gets about copper mining, the more one learns not to trust the industry and to fear the scale and persistence of its pollution," said Clyde Hanson of Lutsen, Minn., a co-chair of the Sierra Club's "Mining Without Harm" campaign.

On Friday in St. Paul, a joint Senate-House hearing involving the Legislature's leading environmental committees will hear from industry advocates and its doubters about how to protect the state's environment and financial resources if the new industry goes bust and bolts, leaving a costly cleanup as already happened in Colorado and most Appalachian states.

"We have a duty to protect the state financially, and we aim to do just that," said state Rep. Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, who chairs the House Environment Finance Division.

New to Minnesota
The issue is how to ensure that before mining starts the companies put up enough money to pay for reclaiming the mined-over lands once the ore is removed — or the companies go bankrupt in the fickle economic world of hard-rock mining that already has seen a recurring boom-bust cycle on the state's Iron Range.

Minnesota has special rules for "nonferrous" mining that require companies to put upfront cash for reclamation and environmental protection and to annually review whether the dedicated amount is enough. The challenges are to make certain the financial commitment is binding, the cash is readily available in the event of a rapid shutdown or a catastrophe, and the cash is enough to cover foreseeable events that, it turns out, are difficult to foresee.

"We're concerned generally about sulfide mining; it's new to Minnesota and we need to be cautious," said Janette Brimmer, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

Geologically, it's far from new: 1.1 billion years ago lava oozed across the Arrowhead and was dubbed the "Duluth Complex" (its durable remnants are visible at the North Shore's Palisade Head near Silver Bay). Heat from the event leached out copper, nickel, platinum, palladium, cobalt, and even gold in quantities so small that extraction wasn't economical.


A prospecting drill in a forest about 10 miles south of Ely, Minn.
Department of Natural Resources A prospecting drill in a forest about 10 miles south of Ely, Minn.


However, today's emerging economies in China, India and elsewhere have helped drive world metals prices to historic highs, and suddenly modern-day prospectors are punching dozens of test holes into the Duluth Complex to figure out where the metals are. According to MiningMinnesota, a trade group for the "new era" nonferrous mining industry, there are at least four billion tons of mineable metals scattered throughout the Complex.

But it's low grade stuff with less than a percent of everything in the ore body yielding metal — and the worrisome sulfides that come with it. This means that nearly all material removed from the mines will be "waste" piled into massive mountains of rock with crushed residue from the initial ore processing dumped into "tailings basins" and, hopefully, prevented from leaching into streams draining into Lake Superior or the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA).

"Nearly half of the rivers in the western U.S. have their headwaters polluted by sulfide mining," said Hanson.

Company poised to begin operations
But that won't happen here, pledges MiningMinnesota's Frank Ongaro, who adds that companies will have "zero water discharge" and will line and cap waste rock to prevent any discharge of the toxic sulfuric acid.

The first of several companies seeking to move forward is Polymet Mining, technically based on Vancouver, British Columbia (only because the company's president, William Murray, hasn't yet joined his entire staff in Hoyt Lakes, Minn.). Polymet's very first mine venture anywhere will be an open pit near Babbit, Minn., where the company has purchased the defunct LTV operation including its rock crushers and tailings basin. Polymet also has rights to LTV's railroad and equipment to eventually ship its processed product to Taconite Harbor on Lake Superior.

LaTisha Gietzen, Polymet's vice president for public and environmental affairs, said the company is poised to begin operations as soon as state permits can be obtained. The Department of Natural Resources is expected to release a draft environmental statement in March and the company hopes to have its state permits sometime this fall.

Even by Iron Range standards the emerging industry is huge. Polymet's operation is valued at $380 million and is expected to require 400 or more fulltime jobs over the anticipated 20-year life of the mine.

There is also Franconia Minerals that is prospecting with test holes in the area of Birch Lake (near the BWCA) and anticipates a $616 million underground operation with 550 regular jobs to begin operation in 2011. At least four other companies are actively prospecting their leases in the Duluth Complex.

How the mining process works
Fully operational, the mining process is generally like this: waste rock is removed and stored in massive piles over sealed liners and, later, covered to prevent any of the inevitable sulfuric acid from draining into surface or ground waters. Metalic ore is sent to crushers with the tiny quantities of copper, nickel, palladium platinum, cobalt and gold drawn out in a chemical flotation process, with waste "tailings" dumped into a large basin.

The remaining ore contains up to 15 percent metal along with its sulfides, and that's sent to an "autoclave" process (that replaces the smelter of yore) that adds pressure and heat (provided by sulfur in the ore) that produces nearly 100 percent metal, most of which is formed into 4-by-6-foot plates (the powdered gold is put into bags) for shipment to product processors. Gietzen said the residue from the autoclave process is neutralized with lime that becomes gypsum that will initially be put into landfills but may be further processed into wallboard for use in home construction.

But it's not always as tidy as that, according to mining expert David Chambers of the Montana-based Center of Science in Public Participation.

Chambers, who will testify at Friday's legislative hearing, tells of the Sumitville mine in Colorado where the mining company went bankrupt and left the state with a messy cleanup that cost more than $200 million. The company paid only $4.5 million of the cleanup cost.

Which gets to two questions that will be examined Friday.

First, how can the mining companies guarantee that they will cover the cost of cleanup? Polymet says it favors insurance, but Brimmer said that in bankruptcy or contested cases insurance money is hard to get. A lawyer, she favors a "non-expiring letter of credit" that is the most direct avenue to cash when it's needed in an emergency.

Second, how much should the mining companies put up? Brimmer favors $70 million to $150 million, but neither Ploymet nor others in the industry have commented on an amount.

Another option is expected to be proposed to legislators: copy Wisconsin's "Prove It First" law. Brad Sagen of the Ely-based Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness says the law requires that metallic sulfide companies seeking to mine must first show that similar mines have operated successfully in North America for at least 10 years. 

Ron Way, a former reporter for several Midwest newspapers, covers the environment and energy issues. He can be reached at rway [at] minnpost [dot] com

 
 
 
 

Exploratory mining could be contamination disaster

The Jan. 17 article, “Company drills for nickel, copper in Carlton County [and Aitkin County],” was a revelation to many people.

Exploratory drilling in Aitkin County has been proceeding unabated since the citizens of Aitkin County lost in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. My husband and I spoke against allowing uncontrolled exploratory drilling in Carlton County last summer. Our ideas were rejected by the Carlton County Board of Commissioners.

Our main concern is the possibility of ground and surface water contamination in Carlton County watersheds, including Stony Brook, the St. Louis River, Nemadji River, Otter Creek, the Blackhoof River and Kettle River, which drains into the St. Croix River watershed.

Copper-nickel mining, with its acid mine drainage, is under review by the state of Minnesota for PolyMet, and if it’s permitted, it will open the door for mining in Aitkin and Carlton counties.

The transfer of many mineral leases in Carlton County to international mining corporations was made at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources auction in November 2007. These transfers occurred with or without surface landowner permission and included county, state and private lands. Rural Carlton County could become the site of an around-the-clock mining operation that could destroy rolling hills and lovely streams. The precious metals could be sold on the international market.

Do we really want to do this? 

Bethel Anderson

Cloquet

 

Ely-area mine prospects improve

Duluth News Tribune
Published Thursday, January 24, 2008

The prospects for a copper-nickel mine near Ely appear brighter after a recently completed scoping study by Duluth Metals Ltd.

The Toronto-based corporation has drilled 68 exploratory holes since May 2007, and all of them have hit sought-after mineral deposits. Based on initial findings, Henry Sandri, Duluth Metals’ president and CEO, said the available resource, dubbed the Nokomis Deposit, appears it could support 70 to 75 years of mine operations.

“The project appears very robust. We’re not just looking at creating another generation of mining jobs on the Range. We’re talking about creating good jobs for multiple generations,” Sandri said.

Duluth Metals has envisioned building a 20,000-ton-per day underground mine that probably would employ 335 to 350 people. But Sandri said engineers have suggested the deposit also could support a larger operation.

The proposed mine, about 15 miles southeast of Ely, is expected to generate revenue from operations in the following mix: 42 percent from copper, 40 percent from nickel, 1 percent from cobalt and 17 percent from platinum, palladium and gold.

Sandri said Duluth Metals will proceed with a prefeasibility study. The project still must obtain regulatory approvals and will require more detailed design work. Assuming Duluth Metals successfully navigates the project to completion, it will be several years before the mine is ready to begin operation.

Getting the proposed mine into production is forecast to cost about $916 million, but at current market prices, Duluth Metals projects that initial investment could be recouped in as little as two years.

The project is one of several copper-nickel mines being developed on the Iron Range.

 

 

 

January 23, 2008

sulfide mining hearing in MN

Let us hope Minnesota and Michigan do not authorize the plunder of their majesty with this destructive mining technique.

Divisive debate on mining copper gets legislative hearing
Supporters, skeptics on northern mining square off


ST.PAUL--What promises to be a contentious debate throughout 2008 will kick off Friday, Jan. 25 during a joint Legislative hearing by environmental, work force and economic development committees over proposed metallic sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

Two Canadian mining companies are vigorously pursuing state permits to mine copper, nickel, gold and other precious metals from sulfide-bearing rock in northeastern Minnesota. Polymet Corp. is expected to release its draft environmental impact statement on its proposed operation in the spring.

Metallic sulfide mining is different from taconite mining and much more hazardous to the environment. Once exposed to air and water, excavated rock produces sulfuric acid that drains into rivers, lakes and even ground water, killing fish, birds and other wildlife. Often the drainage carries toxic metals as well. States are usually left with millions of dollars of clean-up when the mine companies leave, a chore that can go on virtually forever.

Two of the expert witnesses Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy is bringing to the hearing will detail the damage done throughout the country by sulfide mining, explain that the Iron Range’s economy has rebounded from the taconite bust of the 1980s and show how sulfide mining could hurt, rather than help, the area’s economy.

 

           WHEN: 12:30 p.m. Friday Jan. 25

           WHERE: Room 200 State Office Building

           WHO: Joint meeting of House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Divisions, Senate Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Budget Division, House Higher Education and Work Force Development Policy and Finance Division, and Senate Economic Development Budget Division. The chairs of the committees are Rep. Jean Wagenius, Sen. Ellen Anderson, Rep. Tom Rukavina and Sen. David Tomassoni.

 
 
 
http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=A82CD768-B348-733C-86FAC3EA1A1FC5E3
In them thar hills
The new gold rush on Montana’s federal lands
 
By: Patrick Duganz
Posted: 01/24/2008
 
Photo courtesy of Warren McCullough

With the number of new mining claims on federal lands in Montana increasing 75 percent since 2005 and gold selling at $900 an ounce, views like this one from the the Golden Sunlight Mine near Whitehall might become more common sights.
With the stock market swinging in drastic phases between soaring hopes and crushing dreams, economists predict an impending recession. But gold prices remain at all time highs, holding strong at around $900 per ounce. On Wall Street, it’s just dollars and cents, but for Montana, the strong market for gold has spurred a dramatic surge in new mining claims on federal land.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reports that it received over 2,700 new claims for mineral rights on federally owned lands in Montana in 2007.

Greg Albright, a BLM spokesman in Billings, says the rush to file claims represents part of a larger trend over the last decade.

“[Mining claims] come and go with the market just like an oil company,” Albright says. “Lately it’s been going up, the number of active mines that we have.”

The vast majority of prior claims have been renewed as well, he says. But even without these renewals, BLM processes far more new claims than abandoned claims in most years.

Albright says the majority of the new claims come from amateur prospectors whose small diggings look less like Butte’s infamous Berkley Pit, and more like “just someone poking around in the woods.”

“I’m betting that these claims are really just that someone found something cool and wanted to keep it so they put in for a claim,” he says, explaining that given Montana’s long history of gold exploration, the big money veins probably don’t exist.

Nevertheless, at least some of the new claims can be traced back to larger mining interests, the kind that rip off the tops of mountains and tunnel miles underground.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based National Mining Association, says most likely the new claims stem from the healthy gold market.

“Gold stays a little more consistent than the other metals, especially as China and India become the dominant economies,” he says.

According to the BLM over 13,000 mining claims currently exist for federal lands in Montana, all under the provision of the 136-year-old General Mining Act of 1872.


The venerable law, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant, seems antiquated to many, and the fight’s begun to update the act to better reflect modern market conditions and concerns about the environment. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act to reform the prior law. That bill would place an eight percent royalty fee on all ore extracted from federal lands as a charge for environmental efforts the government must undertake for new mines.

Former Montana Congressman Pat Williams, representing Western Progress, a liberal think tank and advocacy group, joined a collection of local leaders and conservationists in Helena on Jan. 15 to urge Montana’s top policy makers in Washington, D.C., to change the outdated law. The lobbying efforts focused on Sen. Jon Tester, a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where the Senate version of the House mining reform bill awaits action.

“The law is too old. It doesn’t represent what companies want anymore, and it fails to represent the way the public wants to see mining handled nowadays,” says Williams. “Currently it’s too easy to get a claim, and too easy to walk away without doing anything after.”

Under the 1872 law, all U.S. citizens 18 years or older may file for a hard rock or placer (gravel) mining claim on federal lands open to mineral removal. According to Albright, filing a claim requires little more than some simple paperwork and a $150 fee.

“A few years ago we had a company just go out into the woods and essentially throw stakes into the ground,” he says, recalling that the firm filed for at least one hundred claims. “Of course most of those weren’t approved, but you get my point.”

While the mining industry wouldn’t mind some type of reform, their spokesman Popovich says, he balks at the steep royalty fee included in the House reform bill.

“An eight percent royalty fee doesn’t make economic sense for us. It would effectively kill the mining industry,” he says. “It’s sort of like moving the goal posts halfway through the game.”

Williams disagrees and says the cost of environmental reclamation should not rest entirely on the public. “Look, mining is a dirty business. We all know that, but investing in the clean up efforts of mining would help the industry far more than harm it,” he says.

Both men recognize that with the explosion of new claims, some type of reform is needed to bring the industry into the modern day. But the battle lines are forming to determine who—the public or the mining industry—should pay for what.