PolyMet mine would increase Minnesota’s CO2 emissions

A Tamarack bog in northern Minnesota

Recent research by the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness reveals that the destruction of peatlands to construct PolyMet Mining Corp.’s NorthMet mine would increase Minnesota’s overall CO2 emissions by two percent.

One thousand acres destroyed, 2.7 million metric tons released

The calculations are based on formulas developed by a University of Minnesota research group working at the request of the Legislature and Governor Pawlenty’s Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. The Friends report states that 2.7 million metric tons of carbon would be released by the destruction of approximately 1,000 acres of peatlands to create the open pit mine and its waste rock piles.

Peatland conservation critical

The “Minnesota Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Project,” an inter-disciplinary research group at the University of Minnesota working at the 2007 request of the Minnesota Legislature, issued a report in 2008. Its top recommendation was:

“Preserve the existing large carbon stocks in peatlands and forests by identifying and protecting peatlands and forests vulnerable to conversion, fire, and other preventable threats.”

Governor Pawlenty’s Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group stated in a report in April 2008:

“Protecting these enormous carbon reservoirs (peatlands)…is critical.”

Click here to read the full report.

4 Comments

• John Tumazos says:

  February 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm

  The PolyMet web site shows aerial photos of the Northmet site, which already contains a vast reddish brown area of taconite tailings from the prior iron ore mining since 1953. The site has permitted tailings capacity for 28 years new output.

  Your literature appears one-sided and inaccurate. The PolyMet site was already disturbed and spoiled by Cleveland-Cliffs.

  By the way, my brother-in-law needs a job, and isn’t such a new mine a more effective way to create jobs than our buffoons in Washington can manage ??

  Reply
  • Greg says:

    February 16, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Thanks for your comment. The research this article involves pertains to the mine site, not the tailings basin, which is what is pictured in the aerial photos you refer to. The two sites are about six to seven miles apart. As you have correctly identified, the PolyMet tailings basin–where waste from the ore processing would go–would be located on an existing tailings basin where taconite tailings have previously been deposited.

    The mine site, on the other hand, would be on undisturbed peatlands. It is the destruction of those peatlands that would cause such a drastic increase of our C02 emissions. You can see satellite imagery of the site here.

    A new mine could certainly put some people to work on the Range. I don’t think this is the place to debate the effectiveness of the jobs efforts our politicians are working on. Unfortunately, PolyMet’s proposal is so flawed and poses such a significant risk to clean water and other natural resources that the company is forcing the citizens of Minnesota to choose between their promised jobs and the certain contamination of our lakes, rivers and streams.

    Reply
• John Tumazos says:

  February 16, 2010 at 2:07 pm

  Thank you for the link to satellite imagery. However, it is hard to tell where is the historic tailings or new mining areas. It is all green.

  What is the PolyMet flaw ? Does not the DNR require PolyMet to meet one hundred year surge storm water run offs ?

  Does not PolyMet further safeguard Minnesota in its plan to ship concentrates to Sudbury, ONT where existing metallurgical facilities exist?

  Does not Duluth Metals, in planning a closed hydro met autoclave, prevent all air borne emissions? Duluth Metals plans to put half of its tailings back underground in “tailings backfill,” improving mine safety. It plans to use the old Dunka iron ore pit for the balance.

  How can you object to Duluth Metals, which will disturb one-tenth as much earth per lb of copper or nickel produced? It is a relatively pristine project.

  Reply
• Greg says:

  February 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm

  It is all green because that is just the mine site. The tailings basin is about seven miles west. You can zoom out and pan over to see that. Here’s a map that shows the two sites (location is somewhat approximate):
  http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1115+Gordon+Ave,+St+Paul,+Ramsey,+Minnesota+55109&t=h&hl=en&msa=0&ll=47.61843,-92.05204&spn=0.168475,0.308647&z=12&msid=103285516536613601287.00047fbda7963787c51e5

  You’re absolutely right. The mine site is all green. Those are largely peatlands, which take millenia to form and sequester enormous amounts of carbon.

  I’m not sure what storm water surge run offs you’re referring to, sorry. There are serious flaws with the PolyMet proposal, including water contamination for up to 2,000 years, severe risk of mercury contamination, and those tailings basins are dangerously unstable. Please see our comments on the draft EIS for a full description of problems with the proposal: http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/02/polymet-draft-eis-comments/.

  Whether or not the possibility that PolyMet will ship its concentrate to Sudbury protects Minnesota’s environment, the project as proposed has significant flaws and presents a serious risk.

  We haven’t seen enough information about Duluth Metals’ proposal to be able to comment on that, except that with this industry’s track record (including, now, the flawed PolyMet Draft EIS), the idea of doing this mining three miles from the most visited wilderness area in the country is deeply concerning.

  I spoke with the president and CEO of Duluth Metals a few weeks ago. He told me that they have about 50 options for processing, etc. and narrowing down that list is one of their priorities in 2010. Obviously, it’s just too early to say what exactly their proposal might be, and what kinds of risks it will present.

  Reply