Trump administration renews mining leases near Minnesota wilderness area

[MTGomer]

The other thing people unfamiliar with mining often fail to think about is that not all mining is the same. They think a mine is a mine is a mine.
There are so many different ore types, extraction processes and recovery methods.
An open pit coal mine and a narrow vein underground gold mine have very little in common.
If you’ve never been in a mine, especially an underground mine and ever get a chance to take a tour, you should.
Unless you’ve taken a fair bit of time to research it, What ever you think it is like, you are wrong.
The average member of the public thinks of it as men working in dirty air, with the danger of rock fall at any minute, on their hands and knees with shovels and pick axes.

 

[u1299]

The other thing people unfamiliar with mining often fail to think about is that not all mining is the same. They think a mine is a mine is a mine.
There are so many different ore types, extraction processes and recovery methods.
An open pit coal mine and a narrow vein underground gold mine have very little in common.
If you’ve never been in a mine, especially an underground mine and ever get a chance to take a tour, you should.
Unless you’ve taken a fair bit of time to research it, What ever you think it is like, you are wrong.
The average member of the public thinks of it as men working in dirty air, with the danger of rock fall at any minute, on their hands and knees with shovels and pick axes.

My dad and brothers grew up in Klein, Mt and worked in the coal mines with shovels, picks axes, falling rocks and filthy dirty air but that was 75 years ago, I’m well aware as I think most people are this is not the way mining is done today.

 

[375H&H]

My dad and brothers grew up in Klein, Mt and worked in the coal mines with shovels, picks axes, falling rocks and filthy dirty air but that was 75 years ago, I’m well aware as I think most people are this is not the way mining is done today.

I disagree that most people realize what modern mining is like. Working for an international mining company that has operations on 6 continents there is quite a bit of variation. You have Nat Geo writing articles about how many people die globally from coal mining and the toll it takes which is just not true. If 20 people die from coal mining in the US in a year that is a horrible year in terms of fatalities. Also, you can't compare mining done in any other country to how it is done in the US. The regulation in the US are some of the strictest in the world and we should be happy that we can mine here instead of other countries where they don't have to reclaim or protect water etc.

Also, Regarding the Berkeley pit, that was done way before the mining reclamation act in the 1970s and that is often how most countries STILL mine today. Thankfully we have moved beyond that and still can produce reasonable priced ore.

Perhaps the proposed mine in northern MN isn't the best option, and if it's not, then fine. But then conservation groups should rally behind expansions and increases in tonnages from Kennecott, AZ, and Butte to meet demands, but I doubt they will. They only seem to fight development and never support.

Fin seems to be pretty level headed on these things but I am not aware of any "conservation" group that ever supports a mining project regardless of if it is in a wonderful place to mine like North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, or a lot of other places in the US. I would love to hear of some examples of support from "conservation" groups on a mining project if anyone has some.

 

[Sytes]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bambi and 375h&h. another couple refreshing posts that helps better understand the processes involved.

Also, not as MN though one who certainly appreciates reasonable perspective... thought I would re-up his post so it does not get lost in the shuffle of posts here. Good questions and interesting read though as shared... over my head as well.

Dude, Bambi, others who understand the technical aspects of mining.

What do you make of this? It is a pre-feasability study produced by/for Duluth Metals in 2014; which at the time was the partner of Antofogasta, ergo Twin Metals. I have spent some time chewing on it, but it is a bit over my head. http://www.twin-metals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TMM-Project-PFS-Technical-Report.pdf

Being a Minnesotan who has spent considerable time in this area. these are my biggest questions/concerns:

1. Whose hydrology models should I believe that will give me confidence that the watershed won't be harmed?
2. Why should I trust Antofogasta when they have a terrible environmental record in their own country? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-mining-regulator/chile-regulator-draws-up-charges-against-antofagastas-los-pelambres-mine-idUSKCN12E003
3. How many jobs and for how long? I haven't seen anything that tells me this is going to return NE MN to its mining hay day.
4. The fact that this has turned into a political football makes almost every source I read at least somewhat suspect. Here is another fun little factoid: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanka-trumps-landlord-is-a-chilean-billionaire-suing-the-u-s-government-1489000307

 

[MTGomer]

, I’m well aware as I think most people are

Most means atleast half. You can ‘think’ what you want.

 

[JLS]

I find it funny that so many people are so against development due to pollution concerns, as they sit in their house, drive on their roads, and park in a parking lot. The amount of pollution that one person is responsible for is astounding, and virtually all of it is unmitigated to 100% predevelopment... Ever see how much crap flushes off a parking lot each time it rains? Where do you s'pose it goes? Where do you think fecal coliform in virtually every stream near a meto area came from? Fertilizer on your lawn? Septic system, or sewage or water treatment plan? They all have an impact to the environment above baseline. Yet no one cares, or doesn't seem to. Yet a mine operation that would adhere to as strict or more strict regulations is going to be the end of the environment.

Certainly a fair point, and has a lot of merit. The factors you just listed are all very significant detriments to Puget Sound steelhead runs. I liken it to the fact I can bleed to death and die from a hundred cuts to arterioles just as easily as I can from a cut to my femoral artery. Individual pollutions are the arteriole cuts and a huge event (i.e. breach of a tailing pond) is the artery cut.

Many high risk plans can be done safely, so long as protocol is followed to a "T". Take a short cut and things can and do go to shit. I have no doubt the technology and knowledge exists to do this stuff in a much safer and more environmentally friendly manner. It's the human factor which concerns me.

 

[Bambistew]

Dude, Bambi, others who understand the technical aspects of mining....

What do you make of this? It is a pre-feasability study produced by/for Duluth Metals in 2014…

You have every right to be concerned. Like I said, I'm not here to change minds. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Being pragmatic, I like to hear all sides of an issue, and as an engineer like to believe we can design and construct things that will function properly with little to no risk to the environment and life. If I lived in the area I would also be concerned and want to know everything.

As far as the first link, you got it, it’s a Pre-feasibility Study and financial report/analysis (NI-43 101)required by the security exchange in Canada in order for a company to raise money for a project through the sale of shares. Its way of standardizing information and presenting it to shareholders. The plan laid out in the report is a very basic concept but "realistic" based on very specific assumptions and exclusions included in the report. A pre-feas plan usually has very limited and basic baseline information, some of which can/will change substantially in just a few more years of study. The plan will likely be changed to make it more economical as its refined, but the overall concept will remain the same due to the site constraints. One thing to keep in mind is that due to the complex nature of such a project, and the engineering/studies required, many design iterations are required to come up with a plan that meets regulatory requirements, and financial goals.

Regulatory requirements include public comment and hearings, including addressing valid public concerns. “I don’t want it,” is generally not a valid public comment, but could be acted on administratively. Generally mob rule does not win, and will be challenged in court.

It's been my experience that pre-feasibility studies are at best a skeleton plan for what will eventually be constructed. The next step would be a feasibility level study, which will require much more in-depth review and studies and design changes. The feasibility design will be pretty close to the final design, but could still change. This is usually the go/no go part of a project. In the current investment climate, the “go” for a new mine needs a very solid return on investment, especially when approaching the Billions, and the regulatory climate needs to be somewhat stabil.

For the rest of the questions.
1- That's a very good question. I’m not a hydrogeologist, but would suspect that all the information from the mining district, will be quite valuable. From what I know of this project, the team working on it are some of the best in the world. If not the best working on it, then is the only other option to not study, and cancel the project? Certainly a valid question/answer. From the closure aspect, underground workings flooded and plugged properly, generally have very little potential for generating acid/metal leaching.

2- I have very little knowledge of Antofogasta, and know little of this particular operation. The link you sent seems like a pretty small infraction on the surface. I’m not sure I would jump straight to terrible track record. Would you be considered a terrible driver if had a speeding ticket?

Pulling water out without a permit is pretty serious in a desert, but I have no idea why they did it. Could have been to keep their mill running, or for dust suppression, or to water the reforested area. Who knows? As an example, people collecting rain in rain barrels in most of the western US are essentially doing the same thing. Its illegal in most states west of the Mississippi. Chile has some of the strictest mining regulations in the world, especially when it comes to water. Also, the report does not state if its dollars or peso for the fines. It could be a lot of money, or it could be cost of a new pickup… They are still in operation so I presume it wasn’t that bad. Chile is a very complicated place to operate, in terms of regulatory and more so in terms of politics.

3- What industry outside of the state and federal government provides jobs for eternity? I’ve never understood the argument against more jobs, whatever they may be. Its pretty silly to want to rely on any one industry, diversifying an economy isn’t a bad thing, especially when those jobs typically pay 2-3x as much. They will go away at some point (just like those jobs at Kmart and Sears), but the local economy should know that and use the time to diversify, not sit back and complain once the jobs are all gone.

 

[Bambistew]

Certainly a fair point, and has a lot of merit. The factors you just listed are all very significant detriments to Puget Sound steelhead runs. I liken it to the fact I can bleed to death and die from a hundred cuts to arterioles just as easily as I can from a cut to my femoral artery. Individual pollutions are the arteriole cuts and a huge event (i.e. breach of a tailing pond) is the artery cut.

Many high risk plans can be done safely, so long as protocol is followed to a "T". Take a short cut and things can and do go to shit. I have no doubt the technology and knowledge exists to do this stuff in a much safer and more environmentally friendly manner. It's the human factor which concerns me.

Sure a tailings breach would be devastating, but may also be less devastating than you think. I was amazed at how clean the Mount Polly spill/clean up is today. It had a very limited impact below the extent of the tailings breach, about 7 miles. There are rivers near me here that dump more silt in the ocean in a day than Mount Polly released...

You are right, its very difficult to curtail the continued pollution from 10,000,000 people.

I worked in Maryland for about 8 years. The Clean Water Act was basically triggered to clean up the pollution in Chesapeake Bay. The vast majority of BMPs employed today across the country for sediment controls, and stormwater runoff were developed in Maryland specifically to meet the requirements of the CWA. I worked under one of the engineers who was forefront in the development of many of these practices. It will take decades upon decades to have any chance to clean up the Chesapeake, even with all the latest implements in stormwater design for new and redevelopment.

One last thing on this, and I'm done with comparisons. Landfills in the US are repository for some highly toxic crap, and are 100x? more numerous than mine tailings facilities, and are ever growing. Thankfully we now separate the hazmat form the rest of the trash, mostly... They are managed (regulatory and operationally) much like a tailings facility, constructed similarly (in some cases), yet we don't hear much about them. Most all of them constructed prior to about 1985 didn't even have a liner. We don't hear about it because they are usually a municipal owned entity, however the risk is no less for engineering design failure.

There are hundreds of large operating mines in the US and Canada that have operated smoothly for decades. Sure they have hiccups from time to time, but they are generally minor infractions, and to be honest I'm glad they happen. It means that the regulators are looking out for us. The next 10-20 years will see even more advances in technology, and remediation techniques as many of these mines go into closure and are reclaimed. Many states have a very robust mining and bonding program today, much, much greater than even 10 years ago.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Thank you Ivan for taking the time to give a very knowledgeable reply. John

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I disagree that most people realize what modern mining is like. Working for an international mining company that has operations on 6 continents there is quite a bit of variation. You have Nat Geo writing articles about how many people die globally from coal mining and the toll it takes which is just not true. If 20 people die from coal mining in the US in a year that is a horrible year in terms of fatalities. Also, you can't compare mining done in any other country to how it is done in the US. The regulation in the US are some of the strictest in the world and we should be happy that we can mine here instead of other countries where they don't have to reclaim or protect water etc.

Also, Regarding the Berkeley pit, that was done way before the mining reclamation act in the 1970s and that is often how most countries STILL mine today. Thankfully we have moved beyond that and still can produce reasonable priced ore.

Perhaps the proposed mine in northern MN isn't the best option, and if it's not, then fine. But then conservation groups should rally behind expansions and increases in tonnages from Kennecott, AZ, and Butte to meet demands, but I doubt they will. They only seem to fight development and never support.

Fin seems to be pretty level headed on these things but I am not aware of any "conservation" group that ever supports a mining project regardless of if it is in a wonderful place to mine like North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, or a lot of other places in the US. I would love to hear of some examples of support from "conservation" groups on a mining project if anyone has some.

I feel you will not see any "conservation" groups supporting a mine because they are worried about actual conservation issues. Thus, you hear a lot about the Boundary Waters or Pebble Mine because they are in places where failures and/or mistakes could be devastating to some of our country's premier natural resources. If a mining project were in a place where the impacts would not be as costly, you wouldn't hear anything about it from conservation groups as it would be a non-issue. Why would you expect a conservation group to waste time supporting a mine? Sorry, but I think we have plenty of people and groups who can do that. I think in today's world groups like Trout Unlimited, NWF, and BHA have enough to do with their time

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

Ivan,

I really appreciate your response. In general I think Minnesotans have a pretty positive view of mining. In the case of Nickel-copper mines, there seems to be pretty general support for the PolyMet mine going in SE of the Twin Metals site, but that is because the risk seems dramatically less, and is unlikely to have any impact on the wilderness. This is part of the reason why I think there is credibility in the pushback against the mine right along the edge of the BWCAW.

For Minnesotans the BWCAW might as well be the ANWR, how much are we willing to put it at risk? I ask about the jobs and lifespan because I am concerned that the vast majority of the profits from this mine are immediately going to leave the state and we are taking all the risk, so for me there is some concern about the risk v. reward.

I hate the idea that I am supposed to support or fight an idea because of politics, the hard part with issues like this is that everyone has agendas, and it is very difficult for the layman to get at the facts and make an objective decision. Your responses help.

Thanks

Ross

 

[BigHornRam]

One thing for certain. I don't think Mark anticipated such a well rounded, informative discussion like this one, on a hunt site. His Washington Post links are starting to get stale.

 

[onpoint]

"One thing for certain. I don't think Mark anticipated such a well rounded, informative discussion like this one, on a hunt site. His Washington Post links are starting to get stale".

Gee, never know whose idea may get an interesting conversation going.

I really hope your last sentence was tongue in cheek. If so, great humor - if not............................

 

[BigHornRam]

"One thing for certain. I don't think Mark anticipated such a well rounded, informative discussion like this one, on a hunt site. His Washington Post links are starting to get stale".

Gee, never know whose idea may get an interesting conversation going.

I really hope your last sentence was tongue in cheek. If so, great humor - if not............................

Wasn't meant to be funny. I hope Mark takes his diapers off and ups his game a little.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Wasn't meant to be funny. I hope Mark takes his diapers off and ups his game a little.

It did spark a good conversation on a serious issue. Too bad some are more concerned with getting the thread off track with constant attempts at bickering

 

[onpoint]

links are starting to get stale

I guess it's - if not....... Actually funny as hell either way.
BTW, BHR - did you get your wapiti?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wasn't meant to be funny. I hope Mark takes his diapers off and ups his game a little.

Come on, onpoint and I don't usually agree on politics, but he has always been a man about the discourse on this site.

 

[BigHornRam]

links are starting to get stale

I guess it's - if not....... Actually funny as hell either way.
BTW, BHR - did you get your wapiti?

Yep, shot the last one.

 

[onpoint]

Thank you for the cynical reply. I, for one enjoy, sarcasm - thick skin over an even thicker skull.
Think I'll try to eradicate some of the last living public land roosters in SW MT today...................

 

[Straight Arrow]

It did spark a good conversation on a serious issue. Too bad some are more concerned with getting the thread off track with constant attempts at bickering

Even with some political posturing and contentious posts, the conversation has included factual information and a positive perspective regarding mining, as well as reasoned concerns about the industry's impacts. Importantly, Minnesotans and others familiar with the area in question have expressed well-founded opinions and perspectives.

What is perceived as "bickering" on this forum may often be of value as those who post rude remarks, false information, personal attacks, or excessively political expressions are usually called out. We who fit that category are often corrected and forced to remain humble to remain as Hunttalkers. If we go too far off the rails ... we may lose our password access, as has certainly happened for some. These ethically judgemental dynamics of this forum are of value to me ... and to others likely.