375H&H
Well-known member
The Pebble Mine probably wouldn't get much opposition it if were located in the Texas Panhandle.
Ironic considering the amount of opposition coal mines in ND, WY, MT, SK, AB, TX, NM, and CO get.
Trump administration renews mining leases near Minnesota wilderness area
- Thread starter mfb99
- Start date
Ironic considering the amount of opposition coal mines in ND, WY, MT, SK, AB, TX, NM, and CO get.
onpoint
Well-known member
Or anywhere here:hump:
Those damned hippie ranchers in SE MT.......
375H&H
Well-known member
Hahahaha
Huge expanses of reduced water quality usually constitute an ecological problem. Not sure when something reaches the level of "disaster." This is not far from the proposed project in question. In fact, the entire Iron Range of NE Minnesota deals with this problem.
http://www.startribune.com/epa-push...-on-minntac-s-iron-range-waste-pit/288157331/
The article contains the key plea made to local authorities in charge of oversight:
When I lived there and family members worked in those mines and taconite plants, I was pretty sympathetic to the claim, "Environmentalists just want to ruin our lives." Now, seeing how companies use the political process to lessen their responsibility (read increase/maintain profits), while asking locals to absorb the consequences to their daily lives and eventually fund the clean up/mitigation, I'm a lot less sympathetic to the claim and companies making them. I am still very sympathetic to the locals and the workers who just want a good paying job and some economic activity, both of which are compromised by US Trade policy; a trade policy that tilts the scale toward less environmental safeguards.
US Trade policy provides incentive to import resources from countries with far lower environmental and health standards, making it hard for US resource producers to compete and even harder to compete when EPA/States demand a high level of regulation for potential damage. Every Congress and every President of my life is more than happy to establish trade policies that import resources, even if it results in exporting jobs and environmental consequences.
It doesn't have to be that way, but that is how we as a society have decided we will operate. Every single topic we are discussing here could be somewhat mitigated if the US did not allow for the import of extracted resources from countries that have bad environmental and health standards. It would balance the playing field to some degree and allow US companies to be profitable by doing all they can to mitigate/improve, not just the minimum they and their political operatives can get the regulatory agencies to agree to.
Folks whose ox would be gored with those changes in trade policy claim that would result in higher prices. Yup, it would. It would actually reflect the true cost of extracting resources in a manner that covers all the costs and doesn't export our jobs and associated environmental problems. It would result in much higher paying and more stable domestic jobs in the resource industries. It would lessen the generational gifting of environmental problems. Higher prices would result in better use of those scarce resources. Changing those trade policies doesn't fit well with Wall Street commodity traders or the companies that benefit from access to US markets with their low-cost foreign resources that were extracted with little/no regard for damage to the landscape and local communities. But that is a discussion for another day.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I would merely prefer it be done in less beautiful naturally pristine places.[/QUOTE]
I some times wonder if some of the proposed mining in pristine places is fall out form the buy out of the mine close to Yellowstone in the 90's. Propose a mine in an environmentally sensitive place, do some preliminary work, Environmental groups understandably pitch a fit, demand a buy out from the government. Not a bad business plan. You can get payed for mineral rights that are not economical to mine.
I some times wonder if some of the proposed mining in pristine places is fall out form the buy out of the mine close to Yellowstone in the 90's. Propose a mine in an environmentally sensitive place, do some preliminary work, Environmental groups understandably pitch a fit, demand a buy out from the government. Not a bad business plan. You can get payed for mineral rights that are not economical to mine.
Ditto Gerald's thoughts. The Libby issue was a DISASTER from my perspective and effects of it have harmed many families - not discounting the environment though the human toll alone is far from acceptable.
I valued the conversations that excluded the rants of politics... information is absorbed with an appreciated understanding.
Reading Ross's considerations - it breaks through the two side rants and shares a personal reflection of the situation with a fair rationale considering his concerns.
I share this as a means to hopefully shed some light regarding conveyance of concerns and to effectively share the intent of building more support. This goes for both sides of any contested issue. Beat your keyboard chest or effectively communicate your concerns to reach others. Your call and I know it will most likely not change your future communications though...
Anyhow, initially, I originally sat in support of the mining. Now I'm slightly opposed as it really stands with the potential harm to one of our most well revered National waterways of Wilderness in America. I've paddled within the superior National forest as loved the entire adventure.
I also value jobs and the economy and appreciate the modern safety protocols. I don't like how it is foreign owned though as I'm directly involved in the U.S. immigration / non immigrant visa employment and Customs duty/tariffs, there is money to be made and U.S. employment protected.
Reading the quality posts and ignoring the partisan @#)(# fights, i have learned a great amount and feel much better informed than before. Thanks to Dudeabides, Bambistew, 357h&h and those within Minnesota, MNHunter, BigFin (formerly), etc for your conversation.
I valued the conversations that excluded the rants of politics... information is absorbed with an appreciated understanding.
Reading Ross's considerations - it breaks through the two side rants and shares a personal reflection of the situation with a fair rationale considering his concerns.
I share this as a means to hopefully shed some light regarding conveyance of concerns and to effectively share the intent of building more support. This goes for both sides of any contested issue. Beat your keyboard chest or effectively communicate your concerns to reach others. Your call and I know it will most likely not change your future communications though...
Anyhow, initially, I originally sat in support of the mining. Now I'm slightly opposed as it really stands with the potential harm to one of our most well revered National waterways of Wilderness in America. I've paddled within the superior National forest as loved the entire adventure.
I also value jobs and the economy and appreciate the modern safety protocols. I don't like how it is foreign owned though as I'm directly involved in the U.S. immigration / non immigrant visa employment and Customs duty/tariffs, there is money to be made and U.S. employment protected.
Reading the quality posts and ignoring the partisan @#)(# fights, i have learned a great amount and feel much better informed than before. Thanks to Dudeabides, Bambistew, 357h&h and those within Minnesota, MNHunter, BigFin (formerly), etc for your conversation.
Last edited:
375H&H
Well-known member
Sometimes mines in ecologically sensitive areas are proposed to distract opposition from other mine proposals that are not in as sensitive of areas. This allows a company to help ensure the often more profitable mine in less ecologically sensitive areas goes through after not fully pursuing the mine in the more sensitive area. If the opposition only had the "makes sense" mines to oppose, then those would be their main target.
375H&H
Well-known member
Good example Fin and very good "big picture" issues that are all related to mining/cost of modern life. Another big issue of how the US could export commodities to clean up the world, but again another day or thread.
The iron ore range mines are a tough call, they are old mines that were well in operation before the clean air act, clean water act, and reclamation act were put into place, all of which have cleaned things up for the better in my opinion. We are in that weird transition period where the visible scars of the past are still affecting the decisions of the much improved future. Almost a whole thread worthy of mining practices, impacts, and options just since it is so important to western US public lands.
onpoint
Well-known member
A lot of different folks with technical knowledge, laymen, people who grew up in this place, guys who recreate there currently, folks with legitimate concerns about a place and it's future, guys with a passion for wilderness, people trying to inject a little humor into an internet conversation, and don't forget - the OP, etc. weighed in here. A lotta ways to look at a subject - who's right/wrong - whatever......
I will agree with you Sytes - most will not likely change our/their future communications. No reason to.
I for one have no problem with that and use all that is posted on here - everything posted has some kind of value. It's up to the reader to be able to see it and use it.
I have worked in mining for about 10 years and have a degree in the environmental sciences.
I think the best quote from this thread said something to the affect that its not 1945 anymore. Very true and some of the poster children for poor mining where projects started before the Clean Water Act and other laws were in place.
I lived just north of the BWCA on the Canadian side for 6 years were i owned and operated a fiahing lodge. I understand fully whats going on up there from a political perspective. That said I would be overly concerned, although due diligence is a must. I would also point out that the candian side of the Shield is littered with active and inactive mines. We actually had an abandoned 1950's era uranium project near our fishing lodge which was essentialy in a wilderness area.
I think the best quote from this thread said something to the affect that its not 1945 anymore. Very true and some of the poster children for poor mining where projects started before the Clean Water Act and other laws were in place.
I lived just north of the BWCA on the Canadian side for 6 years were i owned and operated a fiahing lodge. I understand fully whats going on up there from a political perspective. That said I would be overly concerned, although due diligence is a must. I would also point out that the candian side of the Shield is littered with active and inactive mines. We actually had an abandoned 1950's era uranium project near our fishing lodge which was essentialy in a wilderness area.
The other thing I would point out is the proposed mining ban in the paradise valley valley is nothing more than elites trying to preserve there playground as is with little sympathy for the plight of average Montanans. The Billings land fill is located almost right next to the Yellowstone River and up hill. I dont see any one bitching about that potential disaster.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Interesting read...https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-arizona-copper-mine/
It's much more than elites complaining - it's most of the businesses who are dependent upon tourism and wildlife that don't want the mine in the Paradise. It's Montanans who live there year round and raise their families there.
As for the Billings Landfill - we have more stringent rules for landfills than we do for mining thanks to state action on the issue. A few years ago it was a big deal due to contaminants leeching in to the water table, etc.
It may not be 1945 anymore, but we're working diligently to remove every obstacle to unfettered development. Give the administration a little more time and it'll just like the good old days when rivers caught fire and we didn't worry about stupid stuff like wildlife or the outdoor economy.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Interesting. In virtually every jurisdiction I've worked, landfills/solid waste are managed under the same regulations and requirements as mine waste. Do you have any specifics how MT allows mines to operate outside the CWA and CAA? There are dozens and dozens (hundreds maybe) of old unlined landfills in MT. Unlined facilities were the norm just 25 years ago, virtually every community had a "dump". Treating leachate from a landfill is far more complicated due to the chemical cocktail that oozes out the bottom, and reacts with god knows what, as compared to typical mine waste rock.
Trump's head of the EPA will make sure he does all he can to make this come true.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...nominee//RK=2/RS=NdpL5STnyI0ClPjSRO7mtBLrS_g-
States that adopt stricter standards than the CWA or CAA use those standards over the federal ones, IIRC. It's been a while since I've looked at landfill regs in MT, but in 2011 or 2009, the legislature passed some new laws that improved the MT standards for landfills due to water contaminants. Those laws were specific to landfills and not mining, so there's the variance.
With Pruitt at EPA, many of the enforcement issues related to CWA & CAA are not happening anymore in an effort to be more of a friend to polluters than the environment. Therefore, CWA & CAA rules on any mine in Montana or elsewhere will be lax and generally not enforced unless their hand is forced.
Regulations are bad, M'kay?
I dont know how one calls a highly regulated industry "unfettered".
I might also point out that right around the corner from the Paradise Valley the Stillwater mine is in operation on a pretty darn good trout river and adjacent to a wilderness area and winter ground for Bighorn sheep. I also believe they have a pretty good record.
I might also point out that right around the corner from the Paradise Valley the Stillwater mine is in operation on a pretty darn good trout river and adjacent to a wilderness area and winter ground for Bighorn sheep. I also believe they have a pretty good record.
Last edited:
Many of those regulations are going away, or are in the process of being weakened either through the EPA, POTUS Executive Order or through congress. We've already seen them scrap the cleanup rules put in place after the spill on the Animas, we've seen the removal of regulations put in place due to the Deep Water/Horizon spill, etc. It's not unthinkable that we're so set on removing regulations regardless of impact that it will come back and bite us on the butt in areas where the highest & best use of a place is for conservation purposes.
I agree about Stillwater (Cousin worked there until he passed on the job) and I'm not totally against the Smith River Mine either (Although I'm danged worried by it and would prefer they looked elsewhere), but for the Paradise, locals and the predominant industry have said no thanks.
I agree about Stillwater (Cousin worked there until he passed on the job) and I'm not totally against the Smith River Mine either (Although I'm danged worried by it and would prefer they looked elsewhere), but for the Paradise, locals and the predominant industry have said no thanks.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Same could have been said of Mt. Polly a decade ago. You show me a mine that has not harmed the environment and I'll show you one that will, just give it time. When the ore runs out or the market tanks start the clock, it'll only be a matter of time.
Similar threads
- Locked
