Sulfide mining exploration proposed at edges of the BWCAW

Map of sulfide mining exploration proposals at the edge of the BWCAW (click to view full-size version)

In another sign that Minnesota’s Arrowhead region could become a vast new mining district for dangerous sulfide mines, the Superior National Forest recently started a process to examine impacts of more exploratory drilling for sulfide ore deposits on public lands at the very edges of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

The exploration alone could mean significant ecological impacts, not to mention if the drilling leads to the development of new mines. Most of the exploration would occur near the South Kawishiwi River. Several companies have requested a total of 32 exploration permits, and more are expected in the future. Exploration activities could include:

• Building new, temporary roads and cutting vegetation to clear and provide access to drill sites
• Using helicopters and planes to deliver equipment and personnel
• Constructing drill pads and sump pits
• Using about 1,000-2,000 gallons of water a day, which may be acquired from nearby, natural water sources
• Adding chlorine to the water, which must be prevented from contaminating ground water
• Generating large volumes of waste rock to be stockpiled on site with the potential to generate Acid Mine Drainage.

The Friends submitted comments to the Forest Service this week (PDF) expressing our concerns about the impacts from these activities and others on the surrounding ecosystem and the Boundary Waters. Details on individual drilling locations have not yet been provided, but here’s a map of general areas where the exploration would occur:

Map of exploration proposals (click to view full-size version)

Visit our sulfide mining page for more information about the industry’s track record of pollution and economic irresponsibility and the threats the mining now poses to the BWCAW and the surrounding lakes, rivers and streams.

6 Comments

• Steve Klopp says:

  May 18, 2009 at 9:20 pm

  We need to stop All drilling near the BWCA and especially in areas where the ground water flows north and east.
  There is no way to extract precious metals/ores without polluting our ground water. Lets keep our Minnesota free and clear of Mining and pollution.

  Sincerely,

  Steve “get the net” Klopp

  Reply
• JS says:

  June 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  This isn’t anything new. Exploration companies have been drilling at these sites for the past 40 or so years. If you would try to find one of these older drill sites (5+ years) it would be impossible without GPS coordinates. The evironment bounces back faster than you think.

  After reading the SNF’s reports it sounds like they have everything under control. They have strong regulations to keep drilling and mining from hurting the environment.

  Minnesota needs to support Mining! We can support it in away that won’t abolish mining, but to make sure it is done in the safest way possible for its workers and the environment. That is why the DNR and the Forest Service have these regulations.

  Let us not forget that your car, house and computer that we all know the “Friends of the BWCA”, Steve Klopp and myself are using are made with these metals. If not mined in Minnesota then it will be mined in Russia, Africa and places with no evironmental regulations at all. The U.S. will have to continue importing these metals we use on a daily basis!

  Reply
• Greg says:

  June 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  JS – Thanks for your comment. The Friends can’t share your trust in the promises made by the mining companies. Our research shows that we have good reason to take what they say with a big grain of salt.

  This is an industry with countless broken promises that “this mine will be different.” The more we learn about the holes in proposals in Minnesota, the more worried we get that we’re going to be the industry’s next victims.

  In regards to the Superior National Forest exploration, I’m not sure what reports you’ve read that assure you that the exploration activities will have no impact and that the existing regulations are sufficient, as neither topic is covered in the scoping documents already released. Some of those specifics might be covered in an Environmental Assessment, but until we see that document, it’s too early to say. Because we didn’t even link to the scoping documents here, can you tell me what exactly you read?

  Lastly, the idea that if this mining isn’t done in Minnesota it will be done elsewhere is completely misleading. You mean to say that if these mines operate here, they won’t also mine in Russia or Africa? Or anywhere that there is economically viable ore to be extracted?

  So the question remains: do we want this industry, with it’s shameful track record and huge risks, in Minnesota, right next door the BWCAW? Our work is to help Minnesotans have that discussion.

  Reply
• JS says:

  June 8, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  Greg- I agree with you in a sense that the mining companies have made false promises in the past. These broken promises have created this bad rap for which no one can trust them anymore. People can not compare the mining that has been done in the past 50 to 100 years with mining today because the technology was not there, even 25 years ago. I believe that it is time to start fresh with the companies in MN and stop hanging the mistakes of our fathers and grandfathers over their heads. Let them show the world that sulfide mining can be done safely like Kennecott’s Flambeau mine in Wisconsin (I guess safe so far).

  As to the SNF exploration I am not aware of any reports or data that has been done on dilling and the environment. Do you know of any? Though, if I remember correctly the DNR did do a water sampling project for Franconia Minerals, it stated no water contamination during the barge drilling Franconia conducted. I believe Franconia has it on their website? It was just my opinion from reading over the regulations the MDH has on exploratory boring. I would figure through all the years of experience in over seening drilling campaigns they would know what would hurt the environment and what would not, that is their job.

  You are right by implying that if mining occurs in MN it will continue to occur in other countries as well. If an ore deposit is economically viable it will be mined. Would you rather want the metals you use in everday appliances coming from some other country with less/no evironmental regulations or from the U.S. where you know it is being done safely?

  I appreciate you and The Friends helping Minnesotans with their discussions and I thank you for having this one with me.

  Reply
• Greg says:

  June 10, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  JS – thanks for the respectful discussion about this contentious topic.

  While I agree that it’s unfortunate for mining companies today to be saddled with the mistakes of the past, I also don’t think we can just ignore the dark history of this industry, which has consistently promised that “this mine will be different” and just as consistently has been wrong.

  There are also enough specific concerns about the PolyMet proposal and other potential mines that I think we have good reason to be concerned. The new (untested) technology that they are boasting is primarily in the processing facility. Piles of toxic waste rock the size of 500 football fields 20 stories high will be left behind at the mine site on man-made liners that will have to not leak in perpetuity to contain pollution. That’s just one problem with what we’re hearing about the PolyMet project so far.

  I had not read that report about Franconia’s operations, I’ll see if I can track it down as it might be useful. Our concerns as stated in our comments to the Forest Service are both about the potential environmental impacts of the exploration activities, as well as the impacts on visitors in the Boundary Waters (noise, etc.). But perhaps our biggest concern, and one of the reason we highlighted this issue, is the potential for a large swath of land at the edge of the BWCAW and throughout the Arrowhead to be converted into a substantial new mining district, with a type of new, riskier mine than we’ve seen before. It seems like the citizens of the state should be aware of that and learn what’s going on.

  Lastly, I don’t think we can expect to ever know where most of the metals in products we purchase come from. Even if these mines someday open, the chances you or I will be able to make sure our products are made using metals from these mines is slim. Just like I can’t tell my neighbor what sort of pesticide to use on his yard, but I can decide what is safe for me and my family in my yard, we have to look at Minnesota and decide if this is what we really want now and in the future.

  Thanks again for participating in this discussion.

  Reply
• Alice Mairs says:

  November 24, 2009 at 10:07 pm

  I nearly bought a property on Birch Lake. Potential buyers need to know about what is proposed so they can make educated decisions.

  Reply