onpoint
Well-known member
There are a lot of MN squareheads (I'm entitled) here. At the risk of the answers, why aren't you guys piping up about this issue? thoughts???????????????????
Trump administration renews mining leases near Minnesota wilderness area
- Thread starter mfb99
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
double post cleanup
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I have spent countless days and nights in the "canadian sheild" wilderness over the last 40+ years, have hunting land w/ cabin inside superior forest and multigenerational cabin within 30 minutes of Ely so I have a lot of context and more than a little skin in this game. These issues are more complex than most like to accept. Of course I want theses lands/waters preserved, but I also believe the men and women of Northern Minnesota deserve living wage jobs (vs. crappy minimum wage seasonal jobs in the recreation industry). All balanced, I am willing to believe that mining in 2025 is more technically sound than mining in 1945 and that we can have both great wilderness and an economic engine (mining). I understand many on this forum will disagree. The locals are no different, a strong split between pro and anti is evident when you spend time at the coffee shop or bar. I hope that all the out of state politicians, left coast advocates and twin cities once a decade visitors stay out of this, as the vitriol they are bringing to this debate is at risk of creating permanent divisions in an already struggling community.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
My family on my mother's side has a cabin and land on the Stoney River which is east of Ely. I'm familiar with the area although it's been over 20 years since visiting there. I know little about mining, but my initial concern would be water getting into the underground mine shafts.
onpoint
Well-known member
I can't speak for the local sentiment anymore - I left that country 33 years ago. However, I was there in the mid 70's when similar battles were being fought about wilderness designation and logging. I was a teenager and many of my buds were from logging families. I, at the time, was young and impressionable and was led to believe that it was the end of the world for the local economy. There was plenty of "vitriol", mostly from the locals, who feared for their economic well being. The "Dump Fraser" (congressman who sponsored disliked legislation) bumper stickers were everywhere, effigies of Sigurd Olson ( a BWCA outdoorsman legend) were burned. Things were hot in "struggling communities" like Grand Marais.
With issues like these, there are winners and losers, and people pick sides. Vitriol, divisions, hard feelings, and ultimately winners and losers are all part of the game.
Short term gain in exchange for long term impacts - look at the whole Iron Range. The mining companies won and left. The locals won for a couple decades, then they suffered the same fate as tons of folks in a mining economy experience. Poster child.
Hey VikingsGuy - I before e, except after c
Last edited:
Some of my greatest memories are from the BWCA and the Canadian Shield in general. It’s where I want my ashes spread. It seems incredibly selfish to permanently jeapordize an area as special as this for the benefit of a single generation of miners.
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
Yes, agree with this 100%
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
Yes, and when the mine comes and goes what will the area have left? I certainly hope it will not have an impact to the Boundary Waters, although it is very possible. Like someone else stated, the Boundary Waters is a pretty special place to put at risk for one generation of miners.
Also, I know all about a crappy local economy. I don't live all that far away and am willing to bet our local economy is even worse. However, I do have thousands of acres of public lands and the Saint Croix River basically out my back door. I don't live where I do for the money. If a thriving economy and high paying jobs which allow you to accumulate material possessions is what you want, then there are plenty of areas in this country where you can achieve that. All places have positives and negatives
I am one of those former squareheads who has fished, camped, canoed, etc in the Rainy River Headwaters Watershed that is the BWCA. I spent even more time in the watershed just downstream, the Rainy River-Rainy Lake Watershed.
I've had company over the Holidays, so piping up has not really been an option.
I couldn't agree more about the one-dimension perspective. On both sides; more often by the side wanting to have lower regulatory standards and yelling at the other side for being one-dimensional. As much as those living far away from the area don't look at the impacts the same way a local person does, those supporting the mine and its possible impacts refuse to look at the other businesses and property values that could be affected. That is pretty much an expected outcome in these issues. I usually laugh when one side or the other make accusation of the opposition being one-dimensional.
I left that country 30 years ago, though I still go back almost every year. Yes, the economy is in the chitter; has been for at least a decade before I left.
If there has been one part of the economy that has some level of stability, it is the tourism and fishing-based economy. That brings a lot of money in from outside the area. It is not cyclical to market prices of commodities, yet rather cyclical to the same tones of the national and global economy. That tourism economy has kept property values at stable or increasing levels while providing income to local communities. Nobody is "getting rich" in that tourism economy, but people in those businesses consistently make a decent living in a sustainable manner that does not impair property values.
Let's say the mine is approved by the regulatory agencies, goes through, and creates the problems that many are concerned about. Will it be another LTV lawsuit/bankruptcy/"stick the state with the tab" problem as happened on Birch Lake near Babbit in the 1970s; the place much of this proposed activity is planned for? I hope not. But, the track record of mining, the long-term track record of the companies (some foreign companies) who have come/gone/bankrupted on the Iron Range are too long to list.
If this goes according to the best laid plans of the mine company, great. Everyone is happy.
If it goes in the crapper, what about the wildlife, fish, water quality, local property values? What about the tourist-based businesses such as resorts, outfitters, guides, etc in the local area and in the downstream watersheds that include not just the great fishing of the BWCA, but Lake Kabetogama, Rainy Lake, etc.?
A question for most of these issues, here, Bristol Bay, etc. - Is the company, and the state/federal agencies that impose the bonding and insurance rules, ready to bond at a high enough level to cover the possible economic impacts to all of those businesses in the two main watersheds affected, do remediation, and indemnify for possible damage to local property values? That seems to be some possible path forward.
Require 100% bonding, not just for reclamation, but for damage to other businesses and property values. Must be bonded by an insurance company that can withstand a possible claim on the bond for the crazy amount of potential liability. Then, the citizens of MN, and the US for that matter, are not on the hook for another Superfund sight like is 90 miles down the road from where I live in Montana. The company and the bonding company are on the hook for the financial impacts.
Here is why that is a worthwhile discussion, at least in my mind.
If the risks are very low, as the company suggests, then the bonding costs will reflect that and be a very small part of the cost of production. Pretty simple. Everyone is covered, ore gets produced, minerals go to market, and the local economy benefits without impact to the existing businesses/property values.
If the risks are high, the risk experts will reflect that high risk in the costs to bond. The company will complain that they cannot afford such a high cost of bonding and maintain any level of profitability. Well, if the experts in risk have determined there is extreme risk, if there are potentially huge financial impacts, if the supposed technology improvements are still not enough to mitigate the potential risks, then who should we listen to; the company and their "experts" or the risk management experts who have determined that this represents a tremendous risk and has priced their bonding accordingly.
Using that model is unfortunately where the politics comes in. Those imposing risks try to socialize the costs and impacts, while privatizing the profits. They do that by currying favor from politicians who don't give a chit because they stand to benefit or because they stand to have no impacts if things go sour. If the risks are low and the bonding is a pittance because the risks truly are low the mine should be there and contribute to the local economy. If the risks are high and bonding makes the operation financially impossible, then the mine shouldn't be there.
My gut tells me that given the problems that have occurred there decades ago and what has happened in other mine operations that have stuck taxpayers with remediation costs (and damaged local businesses and property values), that the bonding costs would be very high. I suspect full bonding would add a cost to the ore production that would make it economically unfeasible and these ores could be found in other locations at lower cost/risk dynamics.
I suspect that unfavorable cost/risk dynamic is why the mining company is spending so much time/money/effort on the political strategy. If it requires political favor (read risk subsidy) to make this work, shame on us if it is allowed; fifty years from now another train wreck will land on the lap of future generations so the current generation could have lower-priced commodities and a corporation and its shareholders could make some profits by conning politicians into letting the citizens pick up the true costs of doing business.
When companies use the political route to try tilt the cost/risk dynamic to their favor, these kind of spats are usually the norm, rather than the exception. An adult life of watching these issues unfold, very seldom to the benefit of the public/resource/wildlife/air/water and most often to the benefit of the political donor/corporation, my skepticism meter has enough experience to make me very cautious on most of these debates. I wish it was different, but such is the lesson history has taught us.
And yes, even with that skepticism, I use copper, I use energy, I have impacts. And I fully expect to pay a market price that reflects the costs of production that would cover the impacts my needs and demands for resources impose. I don't want to hand off more problems to the next generations by demanding subsidized natural resources, as my generation is already sticking them with hundreds of trillions of unfunded promises.
That would do nothing but raise the demand for the raw material from mining. If they ain't getting it from scrap, they will get it from the dirt in mining.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
This is an issue I have mixed feelings about -whether it is a mine in the Paradise Valley, The headwaters of the Smith, or near-adjacent to the BWCA. If mining is permitted and "properly" bonded in those areas, then the fact that they are near to a special place shouldn't figure in whether permitting agencies allow it. A proposal should stand on it's own merit. For any single location in the State of Montana, I could make a powerful case that it is near something both sacred and beautiful. MTGomer's question is something I recently asked a friend who is strongly opposed to the Tintina Mine near the Smith's Headwaters: If not there, then where would be acceptable? For any place you choose in the western half of Montana, we can wax poetic about the range and what's downstream. We are a headwaters state, and maybe that means something or everything.
I live one mile from a mine that is delinquent on its taxes by nearly 6 million dollars to a county that needs money, and is delinquent on its bonding payments - The Montana Tunnels Mine. When the mine was running it was a boon to the community. Folks made good livings working there, Clancy School is a high-quality campus because of tax dollars at that time, and from VFDs to Community Centers "Donated by Pegasus Gold" could be found written just about anywhere. When the mine was running they were good neighbors.
Extracting ore became more expensive due to market reasons and keeping the pit safe was more difficult and the mine closed. In 2009 it basically shut down entirely, and has been sitting there eroding and filling up with water ever since. An entire mountain, next to the mine but not a part of it, which has on it a public road to public lands is sloughing off into the pit, and so the public has lost access to land adjacent to the mine because of it. Because of this mass wasting, Clancy Creek has been forced into a pipe for some of it's length and the upper mile of Clancy Creek will disappear when the mountain makes its great slide. There are cracks a yard wide and a dozen feet deep that run the length of the mountainside. It's something else. The machinery that is supposed to keep the tailings piles wet to keep air quality acceptable are no longer working. In the word's of the mine, "“(There are) a lot of bills for maintaining the pumps and maintaining the pipes. Right now the cash flow is really tight,”" When it's dry and the wind blows great clouds of dust erupt from the mine and float over Alta Mountain and my home toward Jefferson City. They are often called in as clouds of smoke. Who knows what's in them. Lastly, when the mine closed they quit paying their taxes and bond payments. What does the public do? You can give them notice, but all they do is threaten bankrupty, in which case the public will foot the massive bill for reclamation. I think Jefferson County has accepted they will never get what they are owed in taxes. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. As the pit fills with water, now probably over 100 feet deep, I wonder about my own water, which pulls from from an aquifer 380 feet down and only a mile away.
I'm not saying never allow mining, because I don't know if the amount of caution that is actually warranted is feasible. Once a large-scale operation is underway, cross your fingers and enjoy the good economic conditions for your community, because they'll end, and hopefully the split will be amicable.
I live one mile from a mine that is delinquent on its taxes by nearly 6 million dollars to a county that needs money, and is delinquent on its bonding payments - The Montana Tunnels Mine. When the mine was running it was a boon to the community. Folks made good livings working there, Clancy School is a high-quality campus because of tax dollars at that time, and from VFDs to Community Centers "Donated by Pegasus Gold" could be found written just about anywhere. When the mine was running they were good neighbors.
Extracting ore became more expensive due to market reasons and keeping the pit safe was more difficult and the mine closed. In 2009 it basically shut down entirely, and has been sitting there eroding and filling up with water ever since. An entire mountain, next to the mine but not a part of it, which has on it a public road to public lands is sloughing off into the pit, and so the public has lost access to land adjacent to the mine because of it. Because of this mass wasting, Clancy Creek has been forced into a pipe for some of it's length and the upper mile of Clancy Creek will disappear when the mountain makes its great slide. There are cracks a yard wide and a dozen feet deep that run the length of the mountainside. It's something else. The machinery that is supposed to keep the tailings piles wet to keep air quality acceptable are no longer working. In the word's of the mine, "“(There are) a lot of bills for maintaining the pumps and maintaining the pipes. Right now the cash flow is really tight,”" When it's dry and the wind blows great clouds of dust erupt from the mine and float over Alta Mountain and my home toward Jefferson City. They are often called in as clouds of smoke. Who knows what's in them. Lastly, when the mine closed they quit paying their taxes and bond payments. What does the public do? You can give them notice, but all they do is threaten bankrupty, in which case the public will foot the massive bill for reclamation. I think Jefferson County has accepted they will never get what they are owed in taxes. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. As the pit fills with water, now probably over 100 feet deep, I wonder about my own water, which pulls from from an aquifer 380 feet down and only a mile away.
I'm not saying never allow mining, because I don't know if the amount of caution that is actually warranted is feasible. Once a large-scale operation is underway, cross your fingers and enjoy the good economic conditions for your community, because they'll end, and hopefully the split will be amicable.
Last edited:
I totally agree with BF & Nameless on this subject.
I worked in MT in the 70's building a mill for locals to use & not have to get ripped by Anaconda in Basin,MT Jefferson county.Dismantled the Iron King mill/mine in AZ & we moved most of it to MT.
1st off it was extremely dangerous work,for a TX company who cared nothing for the environment or the workers.
Wound up a foreman for a season then left when they shut down for the brutal winter.
I visited 2 times to hunt elk with some locals in 75 & 78. Mill had gone thru several owners. Jobs were always iffy.
Boom & bust ,left in the dust. It was never the same in Jefferson county I hear.
Went back to home building & saw the same thing happen to the lumber industry in another state.
Boom & bust,a mess left in the fishless rivers of mud.
Personally I have seen few if any mines, mills,logging & lumber companies pay their fair share after taking more than their return on investment in my 62 years.
I'm torn because I'm an American worker who used these products & believed the end result would be benificial to most Americans.
I built many fine homes that are still standing.Many pieces of furniture & cabinets that folks still enjoy.
I see mines leaking everywhere. I see some refrain from further silting of waters & clearcutting,but the slash/road/mill/tailings/mess remains for the American taxpayer to pick up.
Not one biomass plant that was suppossed to mitigate the rape logging got built.
I have seen picture of elk grazing on hillsides of grassy tailings piles in the east. But who would drink the water there? Who would eat more than 1 tainted elk?
We have never learned to clean up our mess. "Get your S H I together,or you'll lose it" I was told...
Some of us have fought many battles in our lives. Some to make up for what we did in a prior life.
But I don't think I'll see it in my life.
It might cut into someones profit margin.
I worked in MT in the 70's building a mill for locals to use & not have to get ripped by Anaconda in Basin,MT Jefferson county.Dismantled the Iron King mill/mine in AZ & we moved most of it to MT.
1st off it was extremely dangerous work,for a TX company who cared nothing for the environment or the workers.
Wound up a foreman for a season then left when they shut down for the brutal winter.
I visited 2 times to hunt elk with some locals in 75 & 78. Mill had gone thru several owners. Jobs were always iffy.
Boom & bust ,left in the dust. It was never the same in Jefferson county I hear.
Went back to home building & saw the same thing happen to the lumber industry in another state.
Boom & bust,a mess left in the fishless rivers of mud.
Personally I have seen few if any mines, mills,logging & lumber companies pay their fair share after taking more than their return on investment in my 62 years.
I'm torn because I'm an American worker who used these products & believed the end result would be benificial to most Americans.
I built many fine homes that are still standing.Many pieces of furniture & cabinets that folks still enjoy.
I see mines leaking everywhere. I see some refrain from further silting of waters & clearcutting,but the slash/road/mill/tailings/mess remains for the American taxpayer to pick up.
Not one biomass plant that was suppossed to mitigate the rape logging got built.
I have seen picture of elk grazing on hillsides of grassy tailings piles in the east. But who would drink the water there? Who would eat more than 1 tainted elk?
We have never learned to clean up our mess. "Get your S H I together,or you'll lose it" I was told...
Some of us have fought many battles in our lives. Some to make up for what we did in a prior life.
But I don't think I'll see it in my life.
It might cut into someones profit margin.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I 100% disagree with this statement, on every level.
There are inherent problems with leaving these types of decisions up to the "locals"...and for the record who gets to decide just who a "local" is?
I've seen this countless times, where a company swirls into a local community, and sell their snake oil to the locals. Promise them the world, high paying jobs, better schools, more tax money, on and on and on. As per always, they take the bait like a hatchery reared trout fresh out of a raceway. There is never any concern for the long-term impacts, remediation, all those things that Fin and Nameless said.
Then, after the company gets their way, things change. Rather than hiring locals, the vast majority of the "high paying jobs" end up going to existing employees that move in to actually do the work. Sure, they hire a handful of locals. Many times the local economy sees a boost in tax money, upgrade schools, etc.
Then the crash, that ALWAYS happens when the mine folds up shop for one of many reasons. Any extractive resource based economy will suffer the "boom and bust" "rape and run", whatever you want to call it.
Suddenly these communities find themselves living in the middle of a superfund site, tax money has dried up to the point they cant pay the local janitor to clean their upgraded schools, streets fall apart, etc.
Sorry, but IMO/E the "locals", who end up being impacted the worse, are the ones least likely to think down the road further than the next bottle of snake oil.
Not to mention that many of these extractive uses are either done directly on public lands, or will impact public lands, public waters, public wildlife, etc. when the chit hits the fan. Plus, the US taxpayers will be on the hook if the remediation surpasses bonding via superfund sites.
As such, I cant disagree more with your opinion that these decisions should be left up to the locals. If the only people being impacted were the locals, and not the entire citizenship of a municipality, a County, a State, and a Nation...I would agree. That's just not reality though, these types of things impact us all, and thusly, we should all have a voice in the decision making process.
Last edited:
highplainshunter
New member
You have described what I call "exporting the negative externalities of doing business". Many companies and individuals try to do this. I saw this when I lived in North Dakota when farmers tried to export the true costs of draining their wetlands. Their drainage created flooding downstream, but they didn't care as long as they could put more acres into production. Unbridled profiteering is an unfortunate reality of capitalism, and that is the reason many of our environmental laws and institutions were initiated starting in the 1960s and 1970s.
While bonding can address some of these issues (and it's good requirement...I'm not saying it's not), it can't put all the cats back into the bag after they have been released. What I'm saying is that neither political shenanigans nor economics should always be the deciding factors. Intrinsic concern for preserving our very few, increasingly rare special places should count for just as much.
What could possibly go wrong? As long as there is money to be made, to hell with the consequences right? This is the Mt. Polly gold and copper mine in British Columbia. I'm sure the company assured everyone that the risks were very minimal.
If watersheds become polluted, so be it as long as the company that contributes to the administration and their cronies makes money.
At the rate regulations are being reversed we may not live long enough to see the clean-up that we will have to deal with after the current administration is booted out.
If watersheds become polluted, so be it as long as the company that contributes to the administration and their cronies makes money.
At the rate regulations are being reversed we may not live long enough to see the clean-up that we will have to deal with after the current administration is booted out.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Honest question. Are there any metals mines that have operated successfully then closed and been remediated properly so that the end result is that the mining company made money and still cleaned up after themselves?
onpoint
Well-known member
Great question. I may be wrong here, but......
However, if I was to ask that question here, I'd subject any answers to a high degree of healthy skepticism. Getting a qualified, accurate, unbiased answer may be a stretch.
Unless of course BHR knows of a few hundred.........
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Stand by for internet search links ad infinitum.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Did either one of you two clowns get your wapiti?
Similar threads
- Locked
