Trump administration renews mining leases near Minnesota wilderness area

[JDH]

Not sure if coal meets the criteria folks are looking for, but Bluegrass Fish and Wildlife area is near where I grew up. My father worked most of his career there, mining the coal and doing the reclaim work. I'm not aware of any major environmental issues to the local area.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3099.htm

It is a different quality than some other nearby lands that were strip mined much earlier and never reclaimed. I grew up hunting on some of those places and looking back am very grateful for them. They were the only close public accessible lands.

Having grown up a little bit north from you I also have spent many hours on reclaimed mine ground. There is definitely a distinction from the old ground to the freshly reclaimed areas. I have seen seeps from mining where the ground is blood red from the iron and lakes that are green from sulfur. Near my parents property a neighbor lost a corner of their house to a sinkhole. Another neighbor couldn't get water from a well due to a mineshaft. On the other side of the coin I've seen areas where animals and crops flourish. Heck, in a few areas they are actually mining over old ground that was mined once before. I know Peabody will leave those lands better than what they were when they moved in. Like Thedudeabides said when done correctly by the operator it can be just as good as it was before.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peabodys-farmersburg-mine-recognized-for-stream-restoration-with-major-indiana-honor-112953014.html

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks for the information, Dudeabides. Refreshing to read vs the typical HT partisan garbage.

Yes, indeed good information from TheDudeAbides. It is this reasonable and informative explanation of good mining practices that will hopefully overcome the negative perspective of mining which has resulted from the Zortman-Landusky debacle and others. Having visited and observed the reclamation work at the Golden Sunlight Mine near Whitehall, Montana, it is apparent that mining project is committed to implementing good practices.

Agree with the SSDD observation. 'Seems it's "refreshing" if you agree, but "garbage" if you disagree.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Thanks for the responses DudeAbides. I suppose I could imagine it being filled with water, but I'd also guess they will have to wait for the giant landslide to occur, to see how that shakes out. That would be a deep lake. If they decide this mine is played out, it would be quite a thing, and maybe an economic boost to the county in the form of temporary jobs, to see it reclaimed.

I think a big reason folks are skeptical of mining is we have a rich history in Montana of many different mining company's environmental impact predictions being way off. 30 miles south of this mine is the Golden Sunlight Mine, which has a history of cyanide spills. That was 20+ years ago, and theoretically they've fixed that.

The regulations are good and I am sure as you say some are too strict, but the mine near my house is currently not paying its bonding payments, and is suffering no consequences. They are currently not spraying down their tailings piles, with no consequences. We(the public) lost access to upper Clancy Creek and nothing has been done. Maybe that is the fault of government, but if Tunnels declares bankruptcy the public will foot the bill anyway. In cases like Zortman-Landusky, and a few others I can think of off the top of my head, the bonding wasn't enough to pay for reclamation. I suppose a lot of these things could have been prevented through systems of requirement, as opposed to an outright opposition to mines in general.

I understand the apprehension when it comes to a mine near BWCA.

There is absolutely a reason to be skeptical. Mining companies that are bad environmental stewards of the land should have their feet held to the fire. They give the industry a big black eye. I guess I just wanted to point out that there is an effort among the companies to do the right thing.

As far as regulations being too strict, I think what I was talking about was the permitting process. It is one thing to say you have to protect X,Y, and Z, and another to say your permit is invalid because you used the wrong term in the process. As far as other regulations, I know some of the safety regulations are too vague and it would be better to have a better something that isn't left up to the interruption of the federal inspector. As far as environmental regulations, I think that they could use some work on the reclamation side of things. There are some waste regulations that people would probably freak out about if they had to do it in their own home (separating light bulbs & batteries from trash and putting into a universal hazardous waste container, not throwing paint cans away without them being punctured, digging up oil spilt on the ground, etc), but are necessary for an industrial site.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Thanks for the thorough reply. What EPA?

Exactly. You had to know there was a reason for the administration to begin the dismantling of the EPA. How will the pillagers of our land be held accountable?

 

[JLS]

There is absolutely a reason to be skeptical. Mining companies that are bad environmental stewards of the land should have their feet held to the fire. They give the industry a big black eye. I guess I just wanted to point out that there is an effort among the companies to do the right thing.

As far as regulations being too strict, I think what I was talking about was the permitting process. It is one thing to say you have to protect X,Y, and Z, and another to say your permit is invalid because you used the wrong term in the process. As far as other regulations, I know some of the safety regulations are too vague and it would be better to have a better something that isn't left up to the interruption of the federal inspector. As far as environmental regulations, I think that they could use some work on the reclamation side of things. There are some waste regulations that people would probably freak out about if they had to do it in their own home (separating light bulbs & batteries from trash and putting into a universal hazardous waste container, not throwing paint cans away without them being punctured, digging up oil spilt on the ground, etc), but are necessary for an industrial site.

I really appreciate your take on this. I too am very skeptical for many of the same reasons Nameless has listed. Like any group of people, mining companies probably shouldn't be painted with the same brush. No different than ranchers. I've seen some who absolutely scorch the earth, and others who create habitat so pristine it will make your head explode. I've no doubt mining companies are somewhat similar.

That said, it's a hell of a big risk to ensure you are giving the thumbs up to a good one. Fair or not, my skepticism is increased for a foreign owned corporation.

 

[JDH]

There is absolutely a reason to be skeptical. Mining companies that are bad environmental stewards of the land should have their feet held to the fire. They give the industry a big black eye. I guess I just wanted to point out that there is an effort among the companies to do the right thing.

As far as regulations being too strict, I think what I was talking about was the permitting process. It is one thing to say you have to protect X,Y, and Z, and another to say your permit is invalid because you used the wrong term in the process. As far as other regulations, I know some of the safety regulations are too vague and it would be better to have a better something that isn't left up to the interruption of the federal inspector. As far as environmental regulations, I think that they could use some work on the reclamation side of things. There are some waste regulations that people would probably freak out about if they had to do it in their own home (separating light bulbs & batteries from trash and putting into a universal hazardous waste container, not throwing paint cans away without them being punctured, digging up oil spilt on the ground, etc), but are necessary for an industrial site.

I have a question about the permitting process... Have you seen much work start without all the permits in place with an attitude of "better to ask forgiveness than permission"? I can't find the info right now but I seem to remember Peabody not getting a water quality permit and as a result they had to complete a restoration project in a different locale.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Yes, indeed good information from TheDudeAbides. It is this reasonable and informative explanation of good mining practices that will hopefully overcome the negative perspective of mining which has resulted from the Zortman-Landusky debacle and others. Having visited and observed the reclamation work at the Golden Sunlight Mine near Whitehall, Montana, it is apparent that mining project is committed to implementing good practices.

Agree with the SSDD observation. 'Seems it's "refreshing" if you agree, but "garbage" if you disagree.

Barrick (owner of Golden Sunlight) is probably one of the better ones when it comes to reclamation and having a commitment to reducing environmental impacts.

Here is another mine that they reclaimed. http://barrickbeyondborders.com/env..._source=17RR&utm_medium=abx&utm_campaign=tile

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks, Dude. "Refreshing" to know.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

It wouldn't be large scale mining, because there is no way that you could get away with it. The fines from the EPA would be in the millions. Also there is a lot of capital that has to be spent to start up mining operations. There is also a lot of infrastructure and engineering for high walls or underground ventilation.

A small scale mine like Gold Rush or a mom and pop sand and gravel pit, would be more likely. There are stories of MSHA inspectors walking onto sites that start operations without notifying MSHA and shut them down until they get the proper paperwork and approval. The EPA will still govern this, but it would be more similar to OSHA - only coming around when there is a problem. There is probably a big lack of enforcement by the EPA for small scale sites, because I do not know if the EPA has the man power.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I really appreciate your take on this. I too am very skeptical for many of the same reasons Nameless has listed. Like any group of people, mining companies probably shouldn't be painted with the same brush. No different than ranchers. I've seen some who absolutely scorch the earth, and others who create habitat so pristine it will make your head explode. I've no doubt mining companies are somewhat similar.

That said, it's a hell of a big risk to ensure you are giving the thumbs up to a good one. Fair or not, my skepticism is increased for a foreign owned corporation.

A lot of mining companies are foreign.

Barrick - Canadian

Solvay - Belgian

Ciner - Turkish

Tata - Indian

Kinross - Canadian

Rio Tinto - Australian/British

 

[onpoint]

Interesting conversation. Thanks to the MN guys who weighed. Too bad more haven't so far.
"Seems it's "refreshing" if you agree, but "garbage" if you disagree".
A refreshing comment...

 

[Sytes]

Agree with the SSDD observation. 'Seems it's "refreshing" if you agree, but "garbage" if you disagree.

Interesting take from the comment. "Refreshing" if you agree? It is "refreshing" because it does not stink of partisan banter. Agree, disagree... I didn't take any of his comments as an agree or disagree. rather a semi-objective statement of experienced observation within this field. Not that I've seen his credentials as a bona fide spokesperson however, the course of the content he has shared did not lead it to be this silly, "Refreshing if you agree..."
One does not need to drink the KoolAid of one or the other. One may find it refreshing simply to read useful information.

Also a fun ironic tidbit... SSDD when researched also refers to Single Sided, Double Density. Heh!

 

[Straight Arrow]

One does not need to drink the KoolAid of one or the other. One may find it refreshing simply to read useful information.

'Completely agree.

 

[Bambistew]

I considered weighing in on this thread for some time. It’s hard to change perception and even harder to change the mind of someone who "knows" everything about mining but really has just been spoon fed a myopic view of mining practices from 30+ years ago, and uses their own anecdotal experience as justification of those views. We are all entitled to our opinion. I prefer to base my opinions on practical solutions and current best management practices.

All mining projects are far more complex than what is presented on the surface. I've been involved with reclamation and bonding for mines on and off for nearly 20 years, and full time the last 5. I've worked on/designed water treatment of all types for nearly the entire 20 years, surface runoff from industrial areas, sewage, mine water, etc. I'm fairly well informed on the controversial projects that have been mentioned here. Some do have challenging technical issues, but virtually all of them can mitigated against to limit any sort of environmental exposure to the greatest extent possible.

Mines are regulated by the same laws/regulations that any other industry in the US. There is no getting around the Clean Air and Clean Water Act regardless of who is in charge of the EPA. Bonding and permitting is highly scrutinized by the states (some are better than others) and feds. Setting aside enough money for closure and long term water treatment/future reclamation activities has become highly scrutinized. I recently prepared a bond estimate that was approaching half a billion dollars for all closure activities, and have worked on bonds approaching 1.5 Billion... The bond for this kind of outlay is highly dependent upon who it’s for, and the risk of bankruptcy. What is bonded for is to clean up the project from start to finish and possibly water treatment FOREVER. The actual cost to the company for reclamation and closure is usually about 1/2 what is bonded due to less overhead and other waste the government is famous for, but mostly to ensure that they have enough money for an outside 3rd party to do all the work necessary.

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.

I've worked on some of the most highly "contaminated" mine sites in the world, and been part of solution management for them. One in particular has enough "toxic" waste to kill every human on the face of the earth about 4x over. Yet it will not unless North Korea nukes it. It is a prime example of a mining company going under (30 years ago) and no bonding in place to cover it and the government letting NOGs walk all over them to come up with the solution they want. The reality is the amount of money spent placating NGOs will be nearly 3x what it will take to actually reclaim the site properly, and has taken over 20 years. Get this, one NGO/tribe wanted to do nothing, and let it be a lesson to man for his miss deeds. It also has been out of operation for over 30 years, and the contamination issue was created long before anyone understood the biochemistry and environmental impacts. We've come a hell of a long way in understanding geochemestry in the last 20-30 years. I have the fortune to work with some of, if not the best, geochemists and mine closure specialists in the world. Something to keep in mind is these specialist are also on the hook should something go wrong with the design or plans.

With technology today and the experience that many of the major mining companies have, there is very little risk to the environment as long as plans are followed, and enforcement and compliance to regulations are maintained. We've learned a lot in just the last few years following the Mount Polly failure on tailings dam review. I've sat through countless hours of presentations on Mt Polly and Samarco failures. Both were a serious a black eye for everyone, including the agencies with oversight. No one wants this to happen ever again, period. The loss of life and environmental impacts were astounding. Fortunately the effect to the environment was far less than people realize. Mount Polly was not "toxic" other than turbidity. The cleanup at Mt Polly was first rate and recent pictures from last fall show an area that is well on its way to complete remediation.

As far as the Montana Tunnels project shown above. I don't have much back ground on the project, but from what little I read, they are not "behind" on their bond, rather the inept Montana Department of Environmental Quality screwed the pooch with allowing them to mine without sufficient bonding to account for suspension and time (de)value of money. They also have not forced them into closure because if they do, the State won’t have enough bond to cover it once the company walks or goes bankrupt. The company is not going to come up with more bonding funds because they are currently bonded to the level the state required… Best case is the State let them resume mining, and get the full bond amount needed.

As I mentioned, no one is going to change his or her mind on these controversial projects. I do have confidence that if/when they move forward the impacts to the environment will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

 

[Big Fin]

I considered weighing in on this thread for some time.

Glad you did weigh in. Helpful information for me; a person who doesn't have the inside perspective you and DudeA have.

 

[onpoint]

It’s hard to change perception and even harder to change the mind of someone who "knows" everything about mining but really has just been spoon fed a myopic view of mining practices from 30+ years ago, and uses their own anecdotal experience as justification of those views.

Unless, I misunderstand your point, I don't see where anyone here who weighed in on this professed to "'know' everything about mining"
Just a lot of concern for the possible impacts should "things go wrong".
Of which there is a fair amount of supporting evidence.......
If this project does come to fruition, I hope your assertion that "we've learned a lot...", the we being the companies, agencies, politicians, and the public - holds true.
My concern is "our" profound lack of ability to actually learn from the past.
The "our" is meant to not single out any one group - but to include all groups...........................

Addendum:
I have many times in my life been guilty of condescension - so I know it when I see it. I also have worked 30 years for a large entity full of egotistical uber educated bureaucrats - heard it all.
So when a subject matter authority (which I believe you are) tells me I've been "spoon fed a myopic view", inferring I am somewhat incapable of constructing my own informed views - makes me wonder about his/her true objective(s). Take it how you wanna - hopefully constructively.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

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

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks for the info Bambi. I don’t fully understand how they are not behind on their bonding. This is from the article. Maybe it is my lack of understanding.


http://mtstandard.com/news/local/li...cle_2510af7b-d625-500b-b763-295e477f85f8.html

“Located in Jefferson County about 25 miles south of Helena, Montana Tunnels stopped moving earth and ore nearly 10 years ago. It’s been behind on the state’s bond request, now set at about $41 million, since 2008. It also owes Jefferson County around $5 million in back taxes. The once-profitable gold, silver, lead and zinc mine employs about five people currently but no ore has been mined since 2008.”

One thing they are certainly behind on are their taxes. The state approved an expansion to the mine in 2008, and I as I understand it the mine couldn’t find funding to engage in the approved expansion. The mine is for sale now, and I know the local government would like nothing more than for it to reopen. I have not read that bonding being too prohibitive is the reason for the mine not running. Rather, maintaining the pit safely became too expensive relative to the profits the mine was producing.

I don’t claim to know anything other than my personal experience with this mine which has been a part of my life here for 25 years. It is a contemporary example of unintended negative consequences that I can drive a mile up the road and see. Whether the blame lies with poor planning at the state level I don’t claim to know. I do keep hearing from people involved in mining that today’s practices are fine tuned enough that, as you put it, “that if/when they move forward the impacts to the environment will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.”

Maybe mining’s gotten to that point, but it runs contrary to a lot of past examples , which is why I think folks are colored skeptical. No doubt, technologies and understandings improve.

 

[jryoung]

With technology today and the experience that many of the major mining companies have, there is very little risk to the environment as long as plans are followed, and enforcement and compliance to regulations are maintained.

This is my biggest concern, plans don't get followed, enforcement gets lax, cozy relationships build with enforcement and then chit goes sideways....something about "the best laid plans"...this isn't unique to mining it's true with almost any industry.

We're fallible, and in the context of capitalism some of our greatest weaknesses as a species can be exploited. I hope that in the future we can operate at a very high level, but we must maintain a high level of scrutiny.

Good stuff Bambi and TheDude, I appreciate your perspective and insight.

 

[u1299]

“As long as plans are followed and enforcement and compliance are maintained”, the next time I hear Industry advocate for “self regulation” they need to be reminded plans are not always followed and enforcement is not always adequately maintained.