State to auction off sulfide mineral leases

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is planning to auction off mineral leases for sulfide mining across the northeastern part of the state. Last week, Minnesota Public Radio ran a story on the auction:

Chuck Laszewski, communications director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the fact that the DNR’s new lease sale might expand mining exploration in Minnesota should make policy makers think about enacting laws that will ensure the state’s lakes and rivers are protected if a company proceeds with non-ferrous mining.

“We’re not talking about just St. Louis County anymore,” he said. “People who never thought they would see a mine in their county could now see a mine in their county, and they better pay attention to that.”

The scope of the interest is worrisome. Minnesota could see huge tracts of land in the Arrowhead (and beyond, including in areas in Aitkin County) developed for new copper-nickel mines. All of this activity would occur in sulfide ore bodies capable of producing acid mine drainage and other toxic pollution.

The location of some of the most recent activity is particularly concerning to those who enjoy fishing, swimming and other activities on some popular recreation lakes near Duluth, including Island and Grand Lakes. Save Lake Superior Association has posted some maps showing where leases are being offered near those lakes.

(Maps of the mineral leases near Island and Grand Lakes–click to view full-size. Courtesy Save Lake Superior Association.)

A mineral lease auction held by the DNR last year included significant lands around Ely. At the time, many property-owners and Realtors became very concerned because many of the leases were for mineral rights underneath private lands. Land-owners suddenly realized that a mining company could control the mineral rights underneath their property and there would be nothing they could do to prevent them from starting up a mine. The issue received considerable attention in the press at the time:

The Ely Echo ran an editorial last January:

Local realtor Charlie Chernak said there is reason for concern. “If you’ve got a $300,000 house sitting on a 40 (acre plot) and a company gets a minerals lease for that 40, I can tell you your house isn’t worth $300,000 anymore. I’m afraid this sale can have a harmful affect on a real estate market that’s already on its knees here.”

Chernak, who has been involved in economic development efforts in Ely, said the issue isn’t about mining.

“I’m not against mining but these mineral leases shouldn’t be on private ownership. The DNR says the odds of them drilling are slim and none but these are 50-year leases. My concern is it’s not the norm to have the minerals leased to a mining company,” said Chernak.

The Ely Timberjay also ran an article on the issue:

The state can offer mineral leases on those lands because the state of Minnesota allows what is known as “severed mineral rights,” which means the owner of the surface does not necessarily have rights to the minerals below. The state of Minnesota holds the rights to explore or mine for minerals across millions of acres of northeastern Minnesota, including much of the privately-held property in the region, and it typically exercises those rights through leases to mining companies. Under those leases, which can run up to 50 years, mining companies have a right to explore for, or mine, minerals on the lands covered by the lease, regardless of who owns the surface rights.

Learn more:

• View maps of all the lease sites at the DNR’s website

4 Comments

• Mae says:

  January 17, 2010 at 3:54 pm

  It’s fine to inform people of the possibilities as long as you don’t make the stretch and turn them into probabilities.
  Tell people the WHOLE TRUTH. Yes, mining of sulfide ore bodies DOES have the POTENTIAL of polluting, but it can be done RIGHT. Minnesota already has in place some of the strictest mining regulations in the country. And keep in mind that, no matter what these mining outfits do, the state and federal government is on their backs. How many private citizens bury or dump toxic junk on their properties without ANYONE knowing?
  We have the opportunity of making SURE these people do it right, while the mining creates revenue for our state, counties and communities.
  Let’s not lose sight of the good this COULD do, and lets also not forget that every electronic device we use, including vehicles, cell phones, computers, etc., require sulfide ore in the form of precious metals. Ready to give up all of your conveniences and live like the Amish?

  Reply
  • Greg says:

    January 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    I think we are actually fairly on the same page regarding public education. This article stresses the “could,” factors which are important for our website visitors, Friends members, and the public to consider. The earlier that folks are informed about these proposed activities and their potential impacts, the better, so it doesn’t catch anybody by surprise.

    It has been very frustrating that almost all the emphasis in the media and public and political spheres has been from the industry’s perspective, stressing the potential for jobs and repeating claims about being able to do it right, without a hard look at those claims or any sense that Minnesotans have a choice to make about the future of our natural resources and what types of risks are acceptable regarding our state’s clean water.

    Certainly, there is the possibility that these mines could be done right. But there is also the very distinct possibility that this mining, which has been so prone to incorrect predictions about water pollution in the past, could have serious negative impacts on the region. Groups like ours, which advocate for clean water and healthy ecosystems, are seeking to inform our members and the public about the implications of the intense interest we are seeing in this type of mining.

    Thanks for commenting. You’re right that all sides of this important issue need to be heard. The side you represent has had no shortage of opportunities to be heard and we are just seeking similar consideration.

    Reply
    • Mae says:

      January 21, 2010 at 9:08 pm

      I think, Greg, that you are mistaken about which ‘side’ I represent or, more accurately, that I represent ANY side. That is presumptuous. My point wasn’t that I am ‘pro’ mining, but that both sides of the issue are not represented because, of course, there is a bias here. That’s understandable from a standpoint of fighting for the environment, but unforgivable from the standpoint of not telling the whole truth and, instead, inciting fear and panic in people, giving them a ‘gloom and doom’ picture. Yes, the bad CAN happen, if we all turn our eyes away and don’t WATCH what is happening and REPORT when we see something wrong.
      So is it your standpoint that only YOUR group, and groups like you are concerned about clean water and healthy ecosystems? I can guarantee you that those of us who LIVE here are just as concerned. We are ALL stewards of our lands, Greg. Those of us who feel a sense of responsibility to this earth are watching. We view the mining companies with a large dose of skepticism, however, we are also keeping an open mind. How? By doing investigating of our own. I spoke to a representative of the MPCA; sifted through the EPA website; spoke with the minerals attorney for the MN DNR…contacted our county officials, watershed, read through several studies done by various Universities, etc. All of the agencies gave me straight-forward, factual answers, both pro and con. They did not inject personal bias into the answers. I would have called them on that, just as I am doing here. I care about this land too, but it angers me when people stretch the truth, no matter who it is… environmentalists are just as guilty as the mining companies and, believe me, I have called them on their honesty, face to face.
      The bottom line is, there are right ways to do anything and always wrong ways. The predecessors of the mining industry have left a negative mark but does this mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and banish mining forever? I don’t feel the Boundary Waters should ever be touched but, certainly, there are other areas where it can be tried with less impact.
      So, what standpoint do I come from? My husband and his brother do whatever they can in our area to improve our lands, including planting trees. In their lifetime, they have planted approximately 305,000. They plant thousands every year. Think about it… all that fresh O-2 and habitat they’ve created. Good stewards. That’s my nucleus. People who don’t just talk the talk but walk the walk, with a way of life that fits into the environment, not just takes from it.
      In conclusion, I would like to thank you for an opportunity to express my view. I hope that, in the future, consideration and honesty can be a two way street for both sides of this sensitive issue.

      Reply
      • Greg says:

        January 22, 2010 at 2:19 pm

        Mae – Thank you for engaging in this discussion. I apologize for assuming what “side” you are on; that was unfair. I’m also sorry you feel that we are seeking to misrepresent the issue, when in fact our advocacy is based in an enormous amount of research and analysis, including work with technical experts.

        The process by which these mines are moving forward has been very biased, in my opinion. The DNR meetings for PolyMet in December were a good example–the public was not allowed to speak but politicians were given the stage and allowed to turn the event into a political rally for the mines, and not the sober explanation of the proposal’s environmental impacts that it should have been.

        That said, I don’t question the motives of mining proponents. They may very well wish to do this right. The analogy that has been useful to me is that this form of mining is like a pitbull. Whether the owner is a loving master or a dog-fighter, the dog itself is frequently dangerous by its very nature. Even the best intentions and purest motives might not be good enough to prevent the damage that has almost always accompanied copper-nickel mining.

        It is not our intent to sow fear. We feel it is our job to help our members and anybody else who is interested learn about this issue, stay up-to-date with developments, and speak up for their values.

        All the best,
        Greg

        Reply