1. Home
  2. Archive
  3. Minnesota BHA Blog
  4. Hunters & Anglers Oppose Northern Minnesota Sulfide Mining Proposals

Hunters & Anglers Oppose Northern Minnesota Sulfide Mining Proposals

Posted by | December 18, 2013

 “To me the biggest thing is this whole question about
500 years of pollution for 20 years of jobs.”
–Paul Austin1


The Minnesota chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) is concerned about proposed sulfide mining operations in northern Minnesota. The two foreign-owned sulfide mining operations include PolyMet’s mine near Hoyt Lakes and the Duluth Metals/Twin Metals mine southeast of Ely adjacent to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).


Much of the debate surrounding sulfide mining revolves around whether companies have adequate bankruptcy-proof financial assurances in place to cover cleanup costs when (not if) acidmine drainage (AMD) occurs. This is no small issue. PolyMet’s proposed mine, for example, is within the Partridge River watershed, a headwater tributary of the St. Louis River, which enters Lake Superior at Duluth. The Twin Metals mine project would be about two or three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The ore body to be mined is adjacent to the South Kawishiwi River, along both sides of scenic Highway 1, and under Birch Lake.2

Copper-mining operations, sometimes called “hard-rock mining” or “sulfide mining,” have left toxic scars across the country, with acids and sulfides leaching into streams, contaminating rivers and lakes, killing fish, and leaving dead zones. And PolyMet says acid-mine drainage (AMD) will be occurring at its proposed Hoyt Lakes mine “for up to 2,000 years.” Less than 1% of the ore would be produced as copper, etc., with waste rock comprising the remaining 99%.

In 2004 the federal government estimated it would cost taxpayers $7.8 billion to clean up 63 of the mining operations designated as Superfund sites by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cleaning up all abandoned hard-rock mines would cost between $20 billion and $54 billion. In January 2012, the EPA released its annual Toxic Release Inventory. Metal mining was at the top of the list of polluters across the country. Such mining was responsible for 41 percent of all pollution in our country last year.

While the mining industry claims new technologies can help avert these kinds of problems here in Minnesota, skeptical sportsmen and women have demanded proof, and argue that the short-term extraction of sulfides pose a long-term threat to the pristine qualities of an area dependent on outdoor recreation and tourism, not mining, for its future.

Minnesota BHA is not alone regarding concerns about the impacts of sulfide mining on our public lands and waters. Other sportsmen and women from across the country (see Sportsmen United for Sensible Mining: http://www.sensiblemining.org & the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s Mining Issues webpage: http://www.trcp.org/issues/mining) share our concerns, which are detailed in the letters, opeds, and other links/information below (see Press, Key Facts, Information Sources, Quotes).

“We don’t have a healthy main street along 100 miles of the Mesabi Range.
If mining brings prosperity, how come our communities don’t have it?”
–MN BHA member (& former miner) Bob Tammen3

Press:

 

“Minnesota has existed for 155 years. The U.S. for 237 years. The notion that
[cleanup] instruments will be available 500 years from now is not believable.”
–Northern Minnesota tribal cooperating agencies4

Key Facts:

  • Coppermining operations, sometimes called “hard-rock mining” or “sulfide mining,” have left toxic scars across the country, with acids and sulfides leaching into streams, contaminating rivers and lakes, killing fish and leaving dead zones.
  • Mining of sulfide-metal ore has never been accomplished without causing eventual acid-metal leachate pollution of ground and surface waters.
  • In northern Minnesota, the underlying geologic complex consists of low-grade, highly disseminated metals which are very costly to extract, and over 99% of the mined material would be “waste.”
  • Mining less than 1% sulfide ores requires blasting, crushing and grinding of rock, leaving behind tons of waste rock and tailings that will leach acid-mine drainage (AMD) and toxic heavy metals into the watershed.
  • In 2004 the federal government estimated it would cost taxpayers $7.8 billion to clean up 63 of the mining operations designated as Superfund sites by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; cleaning up all abandoned hard-rock mines would cost between $20 billion and $54 billion.
  • Nationwide, Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) has already polluted more than 12,000 miles of rivers and streams and over 180,000 acres of lakes and impoundments.
  • PolyMet says acid-mine drainage will occur at its proposed Hoyt Lakes mine “for up to 2,000 years.”
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave the PolyMet sulfide mining proposal a failing grade, a ranking of “environmentally unsatisfactory (and) inadequate.”
  • Mining has historically always been a boom and bust industry. In the last 20 years, sixteen hard rock mines declared bankruptcy.
  • In Minnesota, the fishing industry alone supports 50,000 jobs and recreational fishing brings in $3 billion a year.
  • The BWCAW draws 250,000 visitors a year from around the world. This, in turn, fuels a $1.6 billion tourism economy.
  • There are 30,000 people working in the Northwoods recreation economy.
  • Northern Minnesota is one of the world’s most water-rich regions. In terms of acid-mind drainage (AMD) risk, you could easily argue this is one of the worst places on the planet for a sulfide mine.
    Statewide polling shows an overwhelming 85 percent of Minnesotans favor requiring mining companies to prove they have the financial means to clean up pollution from their mines before beginning operations.
  • Is 20 years of a couple hundred sulfide mining jobs worth 2,000 years of poisoned waterways and watersheds that will cost the rest of us millions, and possibly billions, to clean up?

 

“The construction jobs at the front end of this project will be temporary, and then we
have been told that there will be a more set amount of steady jobs. Well what of the
now steady jobs that will be lost in the area when the pollution takes over?”
–Marlys Wisch, Lake County DFL Chair5

Information Sources:

 

“If someone said ‘name me a prosperous mining town,’
you’d be hardpressed to come up with a name.”
–Thomas Power, Ph.D., Chair, Univ. of MT Econ. Dept.6

 

Quotes:

  • “Does it make sense to risk the 18,000 tourism jobs in Northeastern Minnesota that rely on our forests and fisheries–in exchange for a few hundred, short-term, non sustainable mining jobs that will leave us with a degraded landscape and the tatters of a ‘boom & bust’ economy?” –Paul Schurke7
  • “Nonferrous mining, however, is new to Minnesota. It brings with it unfamiliar risks. Nonferrous minerals are found in sulfur bearing rocks. When sulfide waste rock is exposed to water and air, sulfuric acid is produced … When sulfuric acid and heavy metals get into our surface waters, fish and plant life die. Waterfowl and other wildlife populations follow.” –Rebecca Otto, Minn. State Auditor 8
  • “The construction jobs at the front end of this project will be temporary, and then we have been told that there will be a more set amount of steady jobs. Well what of the now steady jobs that will be lost in the area when the pollution takes over?” –Marlys Wisch, Lake County DFL Chair9
  • “This kind of mining has not gone well anywhere it’s been done. For me, as a statewide elected official and as a state auditor, I want to make sure that we’re thinking about the financial burden it could place on the next generations. We have to have that in mind.” –State Auditor Rebecca Otto10
  • “Hard rock mines have a long history of environmental damage … sulfide rock mining of various kinds have polluted 10,000 miles of rivers and streams … Between 1998 and 2007, the federal government spent at least $2.6 billion to clean up polluted hard-rock mines, some of which are now Superfund sites.” –Josephine Marcotty11
  • “Computer projections in the environmental impact statement say that either active or passive water treatment will be needed for … up to 500 years … a Minnesota law … prohibits mines requiring perpetual treatment after closing. The statute, passed in the 1990s, requires mines to be reclaimed and maintenance-free … ‘That law was written to prevent exactly what they are intending to do,’ said Betsy Daub, policy director for Friends of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.” –Josephine Marcotty12
  • “I was just thinking that as I drive across the range in the summer I don’t see any signs of a booming economy . . . until I get to Ely. In Ely in the summer you would think that you’re at the Mall of America there are so many people. I visit Mountain Iron on a fairly regular basis right on the edge of a major mine. All you see is a crumbling community.” –Iron Range resident13
  • “Imagine if a Walmart came in said, ‘We’ll give you 350 jobs for a few years but then you’ll have to keep treating runoff from the store for 500 years.’ Would anyone agree to that?” –Betsy Daub14
  • “We don’t have a healthy main street along 100 miles of the Mesabi Range. If mining brings prosperity, how come our communities don’t have it?” –MN BHA member (& former miner) Bob Tammen15
  • “The jobs that [sulfide] mining companies offer will not bring prosperity to us. If mining companies’ promises were true, this would be the wealthiest part of the country.” –Jennifer Cummings16
  • “We have hundreds of years of history with mining. It’s staring us in the face on the Iron Range or the Upper Peninsula or Butte, Montana. How is it that despite the high wages, and despite the incredible wealth pulled out of the ground, these areas are not prosperous?” –Thomas Power17
  • “If someone said ‘name me a prosperous mining town,’ you’d be hard-pressed to come up with a name.” –Thomas Power, Ph.D., Chairman Univ. of Montana Economics Dept.18
  • “A proposed copper-nickel mine in northeast Minnesota would generate water pollution for up to 500 years and require billions of dollars in long-term cleanup costs, state regulators have concluded … How taxpayers would be protected from any long-term cleanup costs remains an open question.” –Josephine Marcotty19
  • “No corporation is likely to exist for hundreds of years … and accurately predicting the costs of water treatment for centuries is difficult if not impossible … The Zortman-Landusky gold mine in Montana … is an example. When it went bankrupt in 1999, the operator turned off its water treatment plant and left.” –Josephine Marcotty20
  • “We’ve got clean water and a healthy forest, and we went to keep it that way.” –Art Ernest, Stony River Township supervisor.21
  • “Cleanup related to nonferrous mines is costly and difficult to predict. State regulators estimate that the PolyMet Mining site in northern Minnesota, for example, will require water treatment for up to 500 years. How do we calculate such financial risk 500 years into the future? How do we account for changes brought on by technology, the environment or the economy over such a long period of time?” –Rebecca Otto, Minn. State Auditor 22
  • “The U.S. Government Accountability Office, an independent nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, says that financial assurances for nonferrous mining have been inadequate to cover cleanup costs. According to one GAO report, ‘after cleanup became mandatory, many parties responsible for hard rock mining sites have been liquidated through bankruptcy or otherwise dissolved, [leaving the cost of cleanup] to the taxpayer.’” –Rebecca Otto, Minn. State Auditor 23
  • “Sulfide-ore mining has never been done safely in North America. Northeastern Minnesota is a water-rich environment that would increase substantially the environmental damage found in every other sulfide-ore mine project.” –Brad Sagen, Fall Lake resident24
  • “Taxpayers across the country are already on the hook for $50 billion of cleanup costs from closed, polluting sulfide mining operations. In most cases, companies declared bankruptcy or simply walked away from mines after closure, leaving taxpayers on the hook. In Colorado, the company that operated the Summitville mine declared bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers with a $230 million cleanup bill. That’s nearly three years of funding for the Duluth public schools.” –Ian Kimmer25
  • “The first copper-nickel mine proposed for Minnesota hasn’t yet adequately addressed concerns about taxpayer liability. Despite calls by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to include details of financial assurance in the upcoming PolyMet Environmental Impact Statement, the company and its contractor haven’t done so. Failure to consider the costs of cleanup at the beginning of the environmental review process risks putting Minnesota in the same position as other states stuck with long-term cleanup costs. Since PolyMet is proposing a mine that would require 500 years of treatment of polluted water after closure, at a cost of billions of dollars, this is a real concern.” –Ian Kimmer26
  • “Never—not once, not anywhere in the world—has sulfide mining been done without damaging lakes and streams. The sulfide mines proposed for Minnesota are at the head of our continent’s 3 key watersheds: Great Lakes, Mississippi and Hudson Bay. Does it make sense for industry with a 100% water-pollution track record to operate in North America's most water-intense environment?” –Paul Schurke27
    “Proponents of the PolyMet Mine concede that it will generate pollution for at least 500 years & will require perpetual treatment. Does it make sense for Minnesota to permit a 20year mine that will threaten our … lakes and streams for 500 years?” –Paul Schurke28
    “Proponents of the Twin Metals Mine acknowledge that it would be the first sulfide mine to operate within the watershed of a protected wilderness area. Does it make sense for the nation’s most polluting industry to operate up against the nation’s most heavily-visited and popular wilderness, the Boundary Waters?” –Paul Schurke29
    “This document is complex but the choices that Minnesotans have are simple. Are we going to take on 500 years of water treatment and the cost that goes along with that … in exchange for just 20 years of mining?” –Aaron Klemz30
  • “When it comes to dealing with a half-millennia of water pollution in a part of the state that includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in the Superior National Forest, wild-rice waters (actively used by the state’s Chippewa tribes) and rivers that drain into Lake Superior, Minnesotans are being asked to take a leap of faith.” –Jeff Guntzel31
  • “Minnesota has existed for 155 years. The U.S. for 237 years. The notion that [cleanup] instruments will be available 500 years from now is not believable.” –Northern Minnesota tribal cooperating agencies32
  • “To me the biggest thing is this whole question about 500 years of pollution for 20 years of jobs.” –Paul Austin33
  • “‘Sulfide mining has a rap sheet of really bad violations, and we have to ensure our water resources aren’t harmed. I’ve personally been to the proposed mining site, and it’s rich in wetlands and has a lot of ground water moving through the area. That’s a big concern for us’ … ‘It’s being pitted as jobs versus the environment, but it’s jobs versus jobs,’ Morse said.” –Tori J. McCormick34
  • “Promises of good times and plentiful jobs need to be treated with circumspection. PolyMet has repeatedly scaled back its job predictions for its huge, open-pit sulfide mining project near Hoyt Lakes, Minn., and the company’s own figures suggest that only 90 of the promised 360 jobs just 25 percent — will go to local communities.” –Louis V. Galdieri35

“Imagine if a Walmart came in said, ‘We’ll give you 350 jobs
for a few years but then you’ll have to keep treating runoff
from the store for 500 years.’ Would anyone agree to that?”
–Betsy Daub36

1 CBS Minnesota. “New Environmental Review Coming For PolyMet Mine.” CBS: 12/1/13.

2 Conservation Minnesota, et al. “Frequently Asked Questions about Sulfide Mining in Minnesota.” Conservation Minnesota: May 2012.

3 Ron Seely. “Most speak against mining-law changes during packed hearing in Ashland.” Duluth News Tribune: 2/10/13.

4 Jeff Guntzel. “Seeking copper, Canada’s PolyMet offers Minnesota jobs and water pollution.” American-Aljazerra.com: 12/6/13.

5 Tammy Francois. “Lake County DFL cries foul over Nolan support of U.S. House mining bill.” Lake County News Chronicle: 10/31/13.

6 John Myers. “Copper mining economics questioned by Montana economist.” Duluth News Tribune: 6/19/13.

7 Paul Schurke. “Rebecca Otto speaking in Ely Nov. 26.” EMail: 11/25/13.

8 Rebecca Otto, state auditor (since 2007). “State auditor on mining: Long-term Risk too hard to quantify.” Minneapolis St. Paul (Minn.) Star Tribune: 11/20/13.

9 Tammy Francois. “Lake County DFL cries foul over Nolan support of U.S. House mining bill.” Lake County News Chronicle: 10/31/13.

10 WCCO (St. Paul, Minn.). “31 Mining Lease In Northern Minn. Get The Green Light.” Minnesota.cbs-local.com: 10/25/13.

11 Josephine Marcotty. “Iron Range mine could pollute water for up to 500 years.” Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune: 10/7/13.

12 Josephine Marcotty. “Iron Range mine could pollute water for up to 500 years.” Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune: 10/7/13.

13 Iron Range resident. “David’s article in the Duluth paper.” EMail: 3/12/13.

14 John Myers. “PolyMet study: Water from mine site would need 500 years of treatment.” Duluth News Tribune: 10/5/13.

15 Ron Seely. “Most speak against mining law changes during packed hearing in Ashland.” Duluth News Tribune: 2/10/13.

16 John Myers. “St. Louis County Board votes (43) to support copper mining.” Duluth News Tribune: 12/21/11.

17 Dan Kraker. “On the Iron Range, debating whether long-term prosperity follows more mining.” Minnesota Public Radio: 3/4/13.

18 John Myers. “Copper mining economics questioned by Montana economist.” Duluth News Tribune: 6/19/13.

19 Josephine Marcotty. “Iron Range mine could pollute water for up to 500 years.” Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune: 10/7/13.

20 Josephine Marcotty. “Iron Range mine could pollute water for up to 500 years.” Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune: 10/7/13.

21 Forum Newspapers. “Stony River puts hold on mining.” Lake County News Chronicle: 9/22/11.

22 Rebecca Otto, state auditor (since 2007). “State auditor on mining: Long-term Risk too hard to quantify.” Minneapolis St. Paul (Minn.) Star Tribune: 11/20/13.

23 Rebecca Otto, state auditor (since 2007). “State auditor on mining: Long-term Risk too hard to quantify.” Minneapolis St. Paul (Minn.) Star Tribune: 11/20/13.

24 Tammy Francois. “Lake County DFL cries foul over Nolan support of U.S. House mining bill.” Lake County News Chronicle: 10/31/13.

25 Ian Kimmer. “Auditor’s mining stand a proper watchdog role.” Duluth News Tribune: 11/23/13.

26 Ian Kimmer. “Auditor’s mining stand a proper watchdog role.” Duluth News Tribune: 11/23/13.

27 Paul Schurke. “Rebecca Otto speaking in Ely Nov. 26.” EMail: 11/25/13.

28 Paul Schurke. “Rebecca Otto speaking in Ely Nov. 26.” EMail: 11/25/13.

29 Paul Schurke. “Rebecca Otto speaking in Ely Nov. 26.” EMail: 11/25/13.

30 Steven Karnowski. “Minnesota officials urge ‘hard look’ at new environmental review for proposed Polymet mine.” MinneapolisSt. Paul Star Tribune: 12/6/13.

31 Jeff Guntzel. “Seeking copper, Canada’s PolyMet offers Minnesota jobs and water pollution.” AmericanAljazerra.com: 12/6/13.

32 Jeff Guntzel. “Seeking copper, Canada’s PolyMet offers Minnesota jobs and water pollution.” AmericanAljazerra.com: 12/6/13.

33 CBS Minnesota. “New Environmental Review Coming For PolyMet Mine.” CBS: 12/1/13.

34 Tori J. McCormick. “Public review of proposed PolyMet copper, nickel mine delayed.” Outdoor News: 9/6/13, p. 20.

35 Louis V. Galdieri. “Will big mining do better this time around?” MinnPost.com: 8/30/13.

36 John Myers. “PolyMet study: Water from mine site would need 500 years of treatment.” Duluth News Tribune: 10/5/13.

About Caitlin Thompson

Search
Local Chapters
AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY AB BC MB NB NL NT NS NU ON PE QC SK YT