Comments on: “Damage deposit” bill for sulfide mines withdrawn http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/ To protect and restore the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Quetico-Superior ecosystem Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:10:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Greg http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6478 Greg Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:36:56 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6478 JK - I don't find your tone very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 (<a href="http://www.friends-bwca.org/wp-content/uploads/Friends-of-the-Boundary-Waters-Wilderness-PolyMet-NorthMet-DEIS-comments.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF</a>). 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 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

]]> By: jk http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6461 jk Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:04:36 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6461 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? 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?

]]> By: Greg http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6445 Greg Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:00:57 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6445 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 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

]]> By: Greg http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6444 Greg Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:59:21 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6444 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 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

]]> By: Greg http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6441 Greg Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:29:17 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6441 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 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

]]> By: JL http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6429 JL Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:38:18 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6429 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. 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.

]]> By: jk http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6421 jk Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:58:27 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6421 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. 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.

]]> By: JS http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6417 JS Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:00:57 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6417 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. 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.

]]> By: Greg http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6416 Greg Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:54:53 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6416 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 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

]]> By: jk http://www.friends-bwca.org/news/2010/03/%e2%80%9cdamage-deposit%e2%80%9d-bill-for-sulfide-mines-withdrawn/comment-page-1/#comment-6414 jk Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:25:30 +0000 http://www.friends-bwca.org/?p=2709#comment-6414 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. 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.

]]>