Minnesota Public Radio digs into PolyMet controversy

Minnesota Public Radio ran an excellent in-depth report today on the PolyMet sulfide mining proposal and the growing controversy over the potential toxic pollution that could flow from the mine into the surrounding lakes, rivers and wetlands and ultimately into the St. Louis River.

In the report, PolyMet spokeswoman LaTisha Gietzen states that the mine will actually use some of the sulfur from the mine in the processing plant, but the  sulfur she is referring to is only some of that which is actually bonded to the metals the mining company is seeking. Once the bond between the minerals the chemicals is broken, a portion of the sulfur is used as fuel (the rest ends up in a waste dump).

That process will have no impact on the enormous amount of sulfur-containing rock will be left behind at the actual mine site forever. Waste rock piles at the mine site will be over 800 acres in size, and up to 20 stories high.

Gietzen defends the waste rock piles by stating they will be put on synthetic liners and runoff water will be collected and treated. After closure, the piles will be covered up with a similar liner. As the MPR report states, “It’s hard to picture a liner that could withstand the pressure and sharp edges of tons and tons of rock.” Gietzen responds that it is no different than a landfill, but the simple fact is that the liners will have to remain intact and not let water in or out forever in order to prevent sulfuric acid from polluting the surrounding waters.

Read the MPR story.

7 Comments

• Chris says:

  October 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  You could at least wait until the Draft EIS comes out before you say it won’t work. Technology has advanced a long was since copper mining of the 1930s. In fact, one small Range company just patented a Mercury Filter that can filter mercury out of water down to 3.5ppm.

  Is it better for copper mining to exist in countries that do not have decent regulation, or in the U.S. where we do have good regulation? Polymet has spent $20 million on the EIS process, the people that run and work at the company are from the Range. Give them a chance to put out the Draft.

  Reply
• Bryan says:

  October 24, 2009 at 9:47 am

  Keep the pressure on. This mine is a bad idea. It’s bad for Minnesota, bad for Lake Superior and bad for the Boundary Waters.

  Reply
• Greg says:

  October 24, 2009 at 3:49 pm

  Chris,
  Thanks for your comment, I’m sorry you interpreted our concerns as having pre-judged the PolyMet proposal. That is not at all the case, though we have spent a significant amount of time analyzing preliminary versions of the DEIS, as have nationally-respected experts with years of experience in copper mining and its environmental impacts.

  The concerns we and many others have are based on a lot of very real evidence about the industry’s history of failed predictions and toxic pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency has listed this type of mining as the number one toxic polluter in the United States. That is not pollution emanating from decades-old mines, it is pollution being created right now. We have previously researched several examples of mines that have wrongly predicted acid mine drainage, heavy metal leaching and other pollution, which are still operating or have been in the last 10-20 years. In S. Dakota, a mine that operated during the 1990s told the public and regulators that there would be no acid mine drainage because they were mining in rock with a sulfur content around one percent. Sadly, they were wrong, that mine is now a Superfund site, and we are all paying to clean it up. In Wisconsin, the Flambeau Mine (which also operated during the 1990s) is the subject of a recent lawsuit over levels of heavy metals leaching into groundwater and the Flambeau River.

  The simple fact is that mining companies always promise they will do it right “this time,” and unfortunately they are wrong almost as often. Any new technology is unproven and must be closely examined to determine if it will actually prevent pollution. I have not heard anything from PolyMet that says they intend to use new technology to filter mercury out of water.

  It is not accurate to say that this mining should be done here in the United States *instead* of in other countries. If PolyMet opens up, it does not mean a mine somewhere else will not. As long as there are economically-viable ore deposits, mining companies will pursue them. We can’t do much about what goes on in other countries, but we have an obligation to decide what is best for our own state and our natural resources.

  While the local staff of PolyMet are indeed from the Iron Range, the company itself is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada and its board of directors is made up of people from all over the globe, including from the Swiss company Glencore. It is they who will have the final say as to what environmental protections are economically worthwhile.

  Despite our concerns, the Friends does not oppose the PolyMet project and certainly won’t make up our minds about whether or not it is an appropriate proposal for our state until we’ve seen the DEIS.

  Sincerely,
  Greg Seitz
  Communications Director

  Reply
• brian mann says:

  October 26, 2009 at 7:24 am

  Greg Seitz I would like too know where you were able to be see preliminary versions of the DEIS ? It has not been posted anywhere that I know of, and I’ve been involved in this for 2years.

  Reply
• Greg says:

  October 26, 2009 at 8:11 am

  Brian -
  The Preliminary Complete Draft EIS (CPDEIS) was released in December, 2008. Although it was not posted online or available for public comment, it was available from the Dept. of Natural Resources per request. The group WaterLegacy posted much of the document online:

  http://waterlegacy.org/PolyMetEISin_process

  Additionally, per our request, the DNR also sent us sections of the DEIS recently that were commented on by the cooperating agencies.

  Greg

  Reply
• Robert Ahmann says:

  November 1, 2009 at 10:11 am

  Who are the board of directors of PolyMet and how did they gain access to mineral rights on our State Land?

  This may be another example of our resources being looted and shipped abroad to places like China as they’re used in the production of cheep and shoddy goods by wage slaves.

  I sense a bribe taking place between a multinational corporation (PolyMet) and the sovereign state of Minnesota

  Reply
• brian mann says:

  December 11, 2009 at 7:14 pm

  to robert the payments were installments in 2 dollar bills and wooden nickels under the hennepin bridge on november 31 at12:31 am. I know because I wasn’t there.Feel free to ask me about the secret moon bases on Iou.

  Reply