|
|
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
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.
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.
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.
|
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.
|
|
|