"This is the most beautiful lake country on the continent. We can afford to cherish and protect it."
- Sigurd F. Olson
- Sigurd F. Olson
|
"This is the most beautiful lake country on the continent. We can afford to cherish and protect it."
- Sigurd F. Olson |
|
|
“Damage deposit” bill for sulfide mines withdrawnMarch 11, 2010 Sen. Jim Carlson Legislation that would have strengthened Minnesota’s financial assurance regulations for sulfide mining was withdrawn by its author, Sen. Jim Carlson, last night. Sen. Carlson expressed both excitement about the possibility of new jobs from mining and grave concerns about the industry’s track record elsewhere in the country, which includes toxic water pollution, abandoned mines, and using bankruptcy to get out of its financial and environmental obligations. “It is disappointing that this legislation will not proceed at this time,” said Paul Danicic, executive director of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness. “This was a chance for our legislators to adopt some practical policies to ensure that, if this mining is going to be done in Minnesota, it is done as safely as possible and our clean water and our wallets are protected.” Productive hearingsDespite the bill’s withdrawal, the hearings were a positive step toward addressing the risks of sulfide mining in Minnesota. After more than 10 hours of testimony about the issue during a series of three hearings this week, serious concerns about the possible negative impacts were finally heard by elected officials. Legislators were particularly interested in the recent letter sent by the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about the PolyMet Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The EPA gave the PolyMet environmental review its lowest possible rating, which has been given out to only 0.3 percent of all EISes the agency has reviewed since 1987. The agency also said that the mine project cannot proceed as currently proposed. Focus on EPA criticismThe EPA’s criticisms of the environmental review document and the mine proposal came up frequently during this week’s hearings. Department of Natural Resources staff that testified at the hearing stated they are currently working on setting up a meeting with the EPA to discuss the agency’s concerns, which include the lack of financial assurance discussion in the environmental impact statement, inadequate data, and unacceptable water pollution from the proposed mine. Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, the chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which heard the testimony, closed the hearing by stating his reservations about the PolyMet project, “My confidence has been shaken,” he said, adding that many of the concerns raised “are things that effect our children, our wildlife, even our jobs and they are not being looked at to the highest standard.”
###
17 Comments |
Recent Posts »
Topics »Get e-mail updates »Support our work »
|
|
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness | 401 North Third Street, Suite 290
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1475
|
Funny how The Friends have a retired EPA chemist working for them and all of a sudden the EPA writes this review document giving Poly Met’s DEIS an “unsatisfactory” lowest rating… I think I will be calling shenanigans on that one.
They shouldn’t even be addressing these EPA concerns. They had 90 days to comment but released the document after the public comment period. Once again…SHENANIGANS!!!!!
The issue at the meetings were whether there needs to be an additional bill of law to the existing laws for the mining industry. There already is an existing process that includes financial assurances be required for a mine’s closure and reclamation. These meetings proved that the process in place is more than satisfacory. Minnesota has some of the most strict environmental laws and practices in the country, this 11th hour bill never had the support or the votes, that is why the author of the bill pulled it, as it should have been, we do not need more laws and regulations in this case.
The DNR has a process in place that will establish financial assurances, they have hired a 3rd party, DPRA, to study the issue and address it fully. Polymet has already stated that they will provide financial assurances. You make these people out to be some sort of monsters that will do nothing but destroy the world. This is not the case, almost every one of the people that work at Polymet are 2nd, 3rd, and some 4th generation miners and have the knowledge and processing expertise for this mine. They have been raised here and will raise their families here. We, as Minnesotans, have a chance to have a World Class Mine that will hire your friends and neighbors and pay millions and millions of tax dollars to the state every year. That tax base will provide monies for the local school system, which is in great need. Just as the Friends of the BWCA have wasted monies on a movie last fall, once again, you had the chance to work with the process we have in place now in this state, but chose to divert too much energy in the wrong direction. The issues you have brought up during the public comment period are under consideration, just as the many others are by the DNR, and will be addressed as this project moves forward. However, the public comment period IS OVER, allow them to do their job.
JK and JS – I’m short on time so I’ll just refer you to the below commentary published on Wednesday in the Duluth News Tribune by John Green, a retired geologist from U of M – Duluth. I think it addresses many of the points you both raise:
Geologist’s view: EPA’s evaluation shows legislative action needed first
Cleaning up after yourself is a cost of doing business, and it is part of being a good corporate neighbor. Mining companies that wish to operate in Northeastern Minnesota need to demonstrate they are interested in more than just extracting minerals at the lowest possible cost and then getting out of town.
But it seems these companies may not be as interested in “doing it right” as they’d have us believe.
Much has been made of the recent failing grade given to the PolyMet draft environmental impact statement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While PolyMet claims this was just a normal part of the environmental review process, in truth, this was the lowest rating the EPA could give; it’s anything but “business as usual” when such a rating is handed out.
Since 1987, the EPA has reviewed 11,834 Environmental Impact Statements. Only 41, or 0.3 percent, received the rating PolyMet’s did. In the Upper Midwest, the agency gave the rating to just 0.2 percent of the 844 environmental impact statements it reviewed.
Among the EPA’s main objections were that the information needed to adequately judge the project’s impact was incomplete; that even with the data presented it was clear that long-term monitoring and perpetual treatment would be required to achieve water-quality standards; and that the question of adequate financial assurance was not discussed.
The industry and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources remain steadfast in their belief that discussion of financial assurance should not be included during the environmental-review process. They’d rather put that off until the permitting stage. Like many of us, the federal agency understands that it is impossible to grasp the environmental impacts of such a mine without understanding how much it will cost to clean up and who will pay for it.
It is such common-sense provisions that are included in the mining bill that will be heard in the state Senate today. The legislation would require financial-assurance calculations during environmental review.
It also would require the DNR to calculate the costs for long-term water treatment after closure when calculating financial assurance. With PolyMet predicting it will need to treat wastewater from its mine for at least 45 years after closure, and predicting up to 2,000 years of contaminated discharges from waste rock piles, we must ensure we have the money available to prevent contamination — without sticking the state’s taxpayers with the bill.
If PolyMet maintains its opposition to these changes in Minnesota’s laws, the company may find it is forcing delays in the project, not environmentalists. Because the EPA believes the environmental review is so inadequate, the agency has said that, if financial assurance is not included in the review, and if other improvements are not made, it will take the issue to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. If that happens, the project would be slowed down by months or even years.
Our modern society clearly has a voracious appetite for metals such as the ones PolyMet plans to mine, and everyone wants to see job creation. We have heard much about PolyMet’s promises. But when it comes time to get serious, the company seems to forget that the water, whose quality will suffer, belongs to all of us.
Despite the company’s rhetoric about “environmentally safe mining,” and despite claiming it wants to get the project online quickly, PolyMet did a seriously flawed job on its environmental review — and it and other companies vehemently oppose legislative efforts to protect our waters and our tax dollars.
It’s time that mining companies, as well as other industries, do the right thing and include the environmental costs to society in their operating expenses. Adequate financial assurance, as required in this legislation, would be a major step in this direction.
JOHN G. GREEN of Duluth is a retired geologist.
Quote: “Minnesota Department of Natural Resources remain steadfast in their belief that discussion of financial assurance should not be included during the environmental-review process.”
I quess that is just the difference between State and Fedral regulations. The blame doesn’t go on PolyMet for not including financial assurance in the EIS, it was done by the state and army corp, which the state doesn’t demand this in that document. Though this doesn’t mean that there won’t be any financial assurance. It just means that financial assurance isn’t discussed in the EIS. Financial assurance will be brought up when PolyMet applies for their mining permits.
Financial assurance needs to be considered at the time of the environmental review – for the very cogent reasons given by John Green.
Kinda odd how no one on the board of directors or advisory council for this org. lives in Babbit,Hoyt Lakes or Aurora were all this is taking place. We who live here will protect our own land, water, and air. We don’t need someone to tell us how to do it. Thanks, but no Thanks. Why not put your efforts towards all the air pollution avisory alerts in the Minneapolis- St. Paul areas.
JL – funny, when I started reading your comment, I assumed you were talking about PolyMet! Take a look at their Board of Directors. It’s comprised of people from all over the globe. It puts a nice face on the proposal when they hire a few local folks to lead the company, but the people who will really be calling the shots–based on maximizing their profits–are located all over the world: Greece, Switzerland, Canada, etc. They meet at the company’s headquarters in British Columbia. It’s those folks who control the purse strings, and those folks who will choose environment or profit when the question comes up.
The Friends has many, many members all over northeastern Minnesota, including Babbit, Hoyt Lakes and Aurora. We are made up of folks who love the region and want to see a sustainable economy and healthy environment. Fortunately, there are lots of people and groups working on issues such as air pollution (it’s always nice to meet another reader of the Mesabi Daily News) but our organization’s focus is indeed on the Boundary Waters and the surrounding region.
- Greg
Greg…Evidently you didn’t look up the members of the board of Directors. Frank Sims-Minnesota, William Corneliuson-Wisconsin, James Swearingen- Biwabik,MN at Giants Ridge, Joe Scipioni,Iron Range,Minnesota, Stephen Rowland, Conneticut, and 3 more in Canada, hmmmm…Sounds like most of them are pretty close to Minnesota if you look at where they live. Not all over the globe. Take a look for yourself. Have a nice day.
JL – yes, there are Minnesotan and Midwestern members, I didn’t say there weren’t. But there are big shareholders like George Molyviatis of Greece to contradict any pretense that this is a local project. Other directors are from Switzerland, Connecticut, and British Columbia (not sure why Canadians should be considered local). The distant members certainly outnumber the Wisconsin and Minnesotans. And then of course there is the huge financial partnership with the Swiss firm Glencore. Not only does this multi-national corporation own enough shares to control almost 20 percent of the company, it will also be Glencore that will sell the metals on the global commodities market.
Far be it for me to claim that geographic proximity is the ultimate influence for good corporate behavior, but when push comes to shove with PolyMet’s actions, I don’t have a lot of confidence that local voices and concerns will be heeded over shareholder value. That’s why Minnesotans need to ensure every loophole is plugged and that, if we go into this, we go in eyes wide open.
- Greg
You will spin all that is facts to satisfy your view, so I cannot wait for your spin after this fact.
The MN DNR will have financial assurances assessed by a 3rd party, DPRA. They will look at the risks and guide the DNR on the actual financial assurances. Polymet has already agree to work with this because this is the process that is existing in place now. Nowhere is the company or the DNR trying to go shortcut the process or the people of MN. There are established vehicles in place called surety bonds that will be placed by Polymet to safegaurd the MN people. Surety bonds are leagal, AND have been used in the past with great success. Simply put, you have tried to make this company out to be monsters, misinformed the public, and do not understand the PROCESS that is in place.
Spin away…grasshopper.
JK – The discussions on this website have been fairly respectful so far, and I appreciate your restraint, but I ask that you continue to discuss the facts and the values in question here, and not resort to personal attacks or questioning my organization’s motives or integrity. I believe we all want what is best for the region and that good people can disagree.
You are absolutely correct that the state of Minnesota currently has strong mining regulations, and the financial assurance rules have some very strong points, too. But there are a couple of significant holes in the regulations that should be addressed. Surety bonds are indeed legal to use, but the experience in other states has been that when it comes time to collect on such a bond, insurance companies have a vested interest in not paying out if they don’t have to. Combined with the copper mining industry’s record of inaccurate predictions, the insurers typically have a very strong position on denying claims and leaving taxpayers to pay for the clean-up. That’s not to mention the failure of huge insurers like AIG in the past year or two. The financial assurance regulations we have were adopted in 1993. We have learned a lot about both the financial/insurance and mining industries in the intervening 17 years.
That’s not to mention other significant gaps in the regulations. Corporate shell games could take place where mining corporations strip subsidiaries of assets, put them in control of a mine, and then have the subsidiary file for bankruptcy. It is the EPA’s strong recommendation, that we share, that financial assurance ought to be addressed in the environmental review phase, and the legislation would have corrected that flaw in our regulations. And the bill would have required financial assurance to account for long-term water treatment after closure, which is a pressing issue as PolyMet anticipates needing to run a wastewater treatment facility for at least 45 years after its mine closes, and predicts contaminated leachate from the waste rock piles for up to 2,000 years.
I don’t believe we have vilified PolyMet or misinformed the public. There are extremely serious problems with the proposal that PolyMet has put forth in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We believe it is the best long-term interest of the state for its citizens and leaders to be aware of and understand the risks, as the supposed benefits (jobs) have certainly gotten their fair share of coverage. Only once Minnesotans really understand the risks and the benefits can the state make a judgment about what the best course of action is.
Greg
Well, from what I have looked into it is very hard to start a mining company in the U.S. The only way a mining company gets their money is through investors. So, you need to list your company on a stock exchange and if you don’t meet any requirements for the NASDAQ (11 million over 3 years) ect.. then you go to Canada create your company and list on the TSX or..to london.
Just because these companies are not U.S. based and have people working for them all over the world doesn’t mean they are exempt from the U.S. or MN state laws.
I can see where JL is coming from. Its hard to be on the enviromentalist side when alot of them are fighting the issue from St. Paul and surrounding areas. The NE MN region is the frontyard to the people that live there. They have the potential to loose their jobs and homes because of people from St. Paul, who use NE MN as their backyard or playground.
JS – I’ll just say that I do this work 40 hours a week and hear from concerned residents of northeastern Minnesota almost every day. It’s true that our office is in the Twin Cities, but we are supported by many, many people from the Iron Range and elsewhere in the Arrowhead.
- Greg
Greg,
If you feel affended sir, I do apologize. I am passionate about the truth that I feel you are swaying to your constituants.
Again you fail to see the 37 pages that are in place now to regulate this situation. The law allows for surety bonds in MN. There is a 3rd party that will assess the risk for the great people of MN and we will be protected by the way the regulations state. This is an attempt to change laws to over-regulate the system, no need. Nowhere, and at no time, has Polymet or the DNR ever stated that they would not follow the regulations. Polymet will provide financial assurances according to existing regulations. You wasted your time and energy in this case, as seen by the author of this bill by the way he chose to withdraw it at the last second after 15 hours of testimony at the state capitol.
JK – I don’t feel offended, so you don’t need to apologize, but I feel that the only chance this conversation has for being productive is to treat each other with respect.
I am not failing to see the 37 pages of regulations, I just don’t believe that quantity makes up for quality. I have pointed to very specific holes in the regulations, and I have provided examples of lessons that policy experts have learned in the past two decades about the effectiveness of certain financial instruments, mining practices, and the reliability of large financial institutions. To make blanket statements without evidence is unproductive.
The legislative effort was not a waste of time. The author withdrew the legislation last week stating that he felt he had accomplished his goals, which were to spur public discussion of the issue and to ask important questions of the DNR and PolyMet. Those are important accomplishments in our view, as well, and we’re glad we spent the time and resources on the effort that we did.
- Greg
If you want cash up front, might as well tell every business and entrepreneur that Minnesota is closed for business and take it elsewhere. And by the way turn the lights out, since you will be the last one here. This is rediculaous to think you were going to accomplish that task, when the existing regulations allow for financial assurances thru the vehicle of surety bonds. Also, check out NORLISK, RUSSIA and tell me why you are not screaming at the top of your lungs to stop smelting in that copper mine. It is amazing how you are an “elitist” on this issue. Polymet will do nothing of the sort, there is this process called “hydrometalurgical” using an autoclave. If your readers and supporters actually knew the difference, enlightenment would happen. The twists and turns you have put on this project are unreal at times. Please feel free to tell us WHY the author of this bill, after all that testimony at the Capitol, decided to pull it last second without a vote?
JK – I don’t find your tone very constructive. This has been a vigorous discussion, but I’m sorry, this will be the last response I will have time to post.
No other business or industry seeking to operate in MN has quite the track record that this form of mining does. This industry has a long, long history of disastrous water pollution, abandoned mines, and leaving taxpayers to pay clean-up bills of tens of millions of dollars. A key to that history is also their consistently inaccurate predictions and broken promises. PolyMet talks a lot of talk about doing it right, but that doesn’t mean we should just blindly trust them. The strikingly poor job they did on their mine proposal for the Draft EIS doesn’t inspire much confidence either. Short-term economic gain from mining for long-term, if not perpetual, pollution of our waters and other natural resources is a trade-off many, if not most, Minnesotans are not willing to make.
It is terrible what is happening in Russia at the Norlisk nickel mine. Do you think that mine will close if PolyMet opens? We are calling attention to PolyMet because we are a Minnesota organization that works for the environment of our state and we don’t want to see something that is even a fraction of the damage caused by Norlisk here. You can toss out baseless words like “elitist,” but it does nothing to make a convincing argument. Fortunately, there are other concerned citizens and groups that are working to address problems like what is occurring at Norlisk.
What we know about the autoclave process PolyMet proposes is that it has never been proven on a commercial scale and it will create large quantities of toxic residue that will be deposited on unstable waste piles. And besides the autoclaving processing, the mine is full of other flaws, as you and our members and other readers would understand–it’s all based in sound science–if you read our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDF). Those problems include the waste rock piles, which are far removed from the ore processing, the mine pits, the sulfate leaching from the tailings basin, the wetlands destruction (the largest that would ever be permitted in the upper midwest), and much more. If you haven’t read the comments, I would urge you to do so and provide arguments based in science and analysis, and not just the same talking points we’ve been hearing from the industry for five years now.
Like I said, I’m going to have to close this discussion now. We are happy to make our website available for the occasional conversation about this issue, but I feel we’ve covered most of the relevant topics and it would be best to stop now before anyone resorts to the name calling and personal attacks that seem to be imminent.
- Greg