Services
Commentary
Before mining in northeastern Minnesota, dig up some answers
by Elanne PalcichChisholm, Minn. — I have spent my life on the Iron Range, watching the expansion of open pits and piles of waste rock that we call "dumps." As kids growing up, we never questioned that men worked to mine the iron that was made into steel and turned into cars. As a young teacher on the Iron Range, I never questioned how taconite mining was done, or what it would do to the land.
When the natural ores were depleted, a process was developed to blast, crush and grind taconite rock containing 25 percent iron into pellets. It's only now, 50 years later, that we are beginning to realize the extent to which taconite mining has disrupted the land with open pits, waste rock piles, tailings basins and surrounding dikes that will be unusable when mining ends. It's only after our fish have become contaminated with mercury, when haze has become visible as one drives toward the Range, and when our human population suffers from increasing allergies, asthma and lung disease, that we realize there is pollution in our water and our air.
Recently, market demand from China and India created a new wave of mineral exploration in Minnesota's Arrowhead Region. The Duluth Complex of low grade sulfide mineralization, including less than 1 percent copper and nickel, and ounces per ton of platinum, palladium and gold, is advertised as one of the largest undeveloped metal deposits on earth.
If it sounds too good to be true, it is. This low grade mineralization would result in the mining of 99 percent waste rock. It would come at the expense of forests, wetlands, watersheds -- and, ultimately, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
New technology, such as hydrometallurgy, enables companies like PolyMet to make a profit mining low grade metals--provided that the price of the metals remains high. Toxic residues from the hydromet process, resulting as metals are leached and precipitated from their ores, would be placed in lined tailings cells, eventually leaking into the ground water.
In a sulfide ore deposit, all of the metals are bonded to sulfur. Acid mine drainage occurs when rock is excavated, crushed and ground, and the sulfur is exposed to air and water, forming sulfuric acid. This sulfuric acid leaches out heavy metals that remain in waste rock piles, tailings and pit walls. This process can continue for hundreds to thousands of years -- until all the sulfur and metals are depleted. Because mining less than 1 percent ores results in 99 percent waste rock, there is huge potential for acid mine drainage. The EPA acknowledged this potential when it rated the draft environmental impact statement for PolyMet's proposed copper-nickel mine as "environmentally unsatisfactory."
The metallic sulfide ores of the Duluth Complex lie under what is now Superior National Forest --adjacent to the BWCAW. This is an area of forests, rivers and wetlands. This water-rich environment makes acid mine drainage more problematic -- both fueling the process, and distributing the acid-metal load downstream. The destruction of wetlands releases carbon into the air, and removes a source of carbon sequestration.
So the questions remain.
Is it wise to mine low grade deposits of sulfide ores in a water-rich environment because this is where they happen to be? Are we prepared to mine increasingly low-grade ore in any environment just because we have the technology to do so?
Is it wise to destroy what is left of our natural environment because conditions might be worse in some other country? If permitted, PolyMet would likely be purchased by a mining conglomerate. These companies mine on a global level. So why aren't they mining responsibly everywhere?
Are we promoting mining out of fear? Are we afraid that without these metals we will not be able to have our computers, our cell phones, our TVs? Has anyone seen any shortages on the shelves?
What evidence do we have that it is in the best interest of northeast Minnesota to allow Canadian companies to mine our metals and send them abroad, leaving behind land that will be unavailable for tourism, recreation, real estate or forestry, and water that will be unsuitable for fishing or drinking?
New mining in northeast Minnesota means digging up new land--that of the Arrowhead. What legacy does this "next generation" mining hold for the next generation?
----
Elanne Palcich is a retired teacher.
Comments (9)
First off, these rocks have been fractured for millions of years. This is why there are few if any geologists drawing lines on this one. The moon itself cracks these rocks from time immortal, these cracks are called lunates. These fractures are responsible for the triangular lakes in northern Minnesota. Secondly, a process called Isostatic rebound fractured these rocks due to glaciation. It is the process of the plates rebounding out of the mantle after great weight is removed. Thirdly, I could die a happy man if any of these do0-gooders could read a topo map. Nothing flows to the BWCA nor does it flow to Lake Superior. The mine under Big Birch Lake is so deep the water may never reach the surface. Fourthly, I am a geologist and VP of Technical services for SIONIX and we can treat AMD to drinking water standards while "mining" elements from the waste. Tell me again why we can't do this.
First off, these rocks have been fractured for millions of years. This is why there are few if any geologists drawing lines on this one. The moon itself cracks these rocks from time immortal, these cracks are called lunates. These fractures are responsible for the triangular lakes in northern Minnesota. Secondly, a process called Isostatic rebound fractured these rocks due to glaciation. It is the process of the plates rebounding out of the mantle after great weight is removed. Thirdly, I could die a happy man if any of these do0-gooders could read a topo map. Nothing flows to the BWCA nor does it flow to Lake Superior. The mine under Big Birch Lake is so deep the water may never reach the surface. Fourthly, I am a geologist and VP of Technical services for SIONIX and we can treat AMD to drinking water standards while "mining" elements from the waste. Tell me again why we can't do this.
Whenever mining advocates want to speak of the "huge numbers" of jobs that sulfide mining will create, they assume that all proposed projects in northeastern MN will come to fruition. When they want to minimize the environmental impact, they speak of just this one project (PolyMet) that is on the other side of the Laurentian divide. But there are at least a half-dozen other sites that are moving from exploration to pre-feasibility studies that are on the BWCA's doorstep and in the BWCA's watershed.
Stop acting like those who oppose these mining projects are just too stupid to read a map, Mr. Hayes. You're the one who doesn't understand how water flows if you don't think that the PolyMet mine affects the Lake Superior watershed. Embarrass / Partridge Rivers -> St. Louis River -> Lake Superior.
The PolyMet EIS doesn't propose active water treatment, and no one will be left to pay for it in perpetuity after the mine closes - except Minnesota taxpayers.
Oh my Miss Palcich, you are so uninformed! You are wrong about everything you said.
The land is already mining land and not available for recreational use so please don't even go there.
The mercury in the fish is not from mining, it's from the coal fired power plants so why don't you say something about them? I guess you didn't know that did you?
And what "haze" are you talking about? I have never seen a haze around here, we have the cleanest air in the country, once again you are uninformed and misrepresenting the issues, how sad.
This is mining country and will always be mining country so if you don't like it then move away.
First of all, when you add these different metals together we are not talking about low grade deposits here. (1%+ copper equivalent).
If you can't reasonably acknowledge...
1. The advances made in more environmentally safe mining practices
2. The positive potential economic impact of this mining to the state
3. The abhorrent practices being used to mine these metals in other countries
4. The impact on the economy of importing the vast majority of these metals from politically insecure areas of the globe
...then these hit pieces, written by little old ladies will never have much credibility or impact.
Shorty, do you honestly believe that any third world mine will shut down because of a new one opening here?
The positive economic impact will be around for a relatively short time while the burden of cleanup will be around for over two thousand years. If this mine had been built when Jesus walked the Earth we'd STILL be paying to clean it up. How is that economically positive?
Again, mining these metals here will not stop abhorrent mining practices in other parts of the globe.
As for "BM's" statement "if you don't like then move.." I would suggest that if you don't think you can get a job where you are then maybe you are the one who should move. Or are you that self important that you think the taxpayers of Minnesota should subsidize your temporary job by paying for the aftereffects for generations?
Mr. Hayes,
To promote Sionix as the solution to sulfide mining in Minnesota is misleading and risks the reputation of what may be a promising company. Minnesota Senator Michael Jungbauer was hired as Sionix's political liaison to "advise Sionix on Minnesota State legislative and regulatory issues that impact the Sionix business." Minnesota introduced the 2010 Bonding Bill that could eventually provide funding in excess of 1.5 million dollars for a water recycling project in the city of Ramsey using Sionix water treatment systems/units. "These water units will clarify water drawn from an eight acre lake created as part of the total project and provide potable water to the Ramsey Town Center"... then "will process waste water from the Ramsey Town Center to be discharged into the lake." Whatever the outcome of this plan, it does not mean Sionix is at the stage where it can solve the problems inherent with the massive proposed sulfide mining projects in Minnesota, particularly contamination from nickel and sulfates.
Geologists I have spoken to are "drawing lines on this one." They have been very helpful in my research. As a geologist you must realize that describing how fractures are formed does not accurately describe how fractures are involved in surface and groundwater contamination.
To imply that citizens concerned with protecting Minnesota's waters cannot read topographical maps is amazing, especially when your statements do not reflect an understanding of the dynamics of the divides, watersheds, surface water, groundwater, and deep aquifers in Minnesota. Your apparent dismissal of any possible effects on both groundwater and deep aquifers by the proposed Birch Lake underground mine is disconcerting. You do not address anoxic leaching. You do not appear to understand that substantive hydrogeological studies necessary for a project of this scope have not been done for PolyMet or any of the other proposed sulfide mines. If the purpose of your comment was to advertise for your company it was ill advised.
Mr. McDaniels,
PolyMet, Franconia, Duluth Metals, Mining Minnesota, all have many representatives of the same age, or older than Ms. Palcich. I am sure they will be interested to read your opinion that because they are "old" what they write has no merit. If what they write has no merit, it certainly is not because they are "old". Perhaps you would also like to tell a large percentage of Minnesota's legislators that "old" makes them unqualified to speak?
Mining interests proposing to come here are involved in mining problems elsewhere. Research the background of Rio Tinto and Kennecott, Teck Cominco and Franconia, Duluth Metals and Antofagasto, and of the companies associated with Glencore and PolyMet.
B.M.,
Your comment referred to the mercury content in our fish. Both sulphates from mining and mercury from coal-fired plants contribute to methylmercury contamination. Enormous amounts of electricity will be needed for the many proposed sulfide mines plus the existing taconite mines, and it will be coming primarily from coal-fired plants. With this immense increase of mining activity and additional electricity, our waters and the fish in them will be further impacted. Correspondingly, existing regional haze, which is a documented reality, will also increase.
See minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/.../bwca-haze/
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
