To: Members of the Environment and Oversight Committee, House Bill 916
I am a resident of Chisholm, Minnesota and I am writing to you concerning an article in the Duluth News Tribune entitled “Back off, St. Paul.” As a retired classroom teacher, I am appalled at the explicit bias presented in this article. Polymet doesn’t need lobbyists running around the legislature when it has a major newspaper spouting out its propaganda.
I’m tired of hearing about the third largest nickel deposit in the world. If that statement were true, then why hasn’t it been already mined? Does .1% nickel within an ore body actually qualify as the 3rd largest deposit in the world? Doesn’t this actually mean that it would be the largest amount of rock deposit containing a nickel source? Does anyone realize that the entire Arrowhead region of the state (Duluth Complex) would need to be dug up in order to get at this ore? Does everyone agree that it’s environmentally sound and economically feasible to spend money and energy creating over 99.9% waste?
There are currently operating nickel mines worldwide that are shut down due to market conditions. Does Polymet even have enough investors to build its touted new generation hydromet technology? How can Polymet be allowed to advertise the hydromet as environmentally sound technology when the process requires a brew of toxic chemicals to leach or precipitate the metals from the sulfide ores? These chemicals include 13,000 tons a year of hydrochloric acid and 12,800 tons of sulfuric acid which need to be railed in and stored on site. I am getting these figures directly from the pre-draft EIS documents. These, along with a dozen other chemicals, will become part of the residue which would be stored among currently sulfate-leaching LTV tailings.
Add to this acid rain (12 ½ tons of sulfuric acid mist and 78 tons of NOx per year) which will be released into the air, even though the scrubbers are rated at 99% efficiency. Then add the sulfuric acid and leaching of toxic heavy metals from the waste rock piles, lean ore stock piles, tailings, pit walls, and work areas. The amount of sulfuric acid generated when the sulfide ores are exposed to air and water is not based upon percentage as much as volume. Huge volumes of sulfide bearing rock will be dug up in order to mine the low percentage of metals. We already know that acid mine drainage will be a problem due to the fact that the Dunka pit site, where sulfide ores were removed in order to get at the taconite beneath, has been leaching toxic heavy metals since the 1970’s. Much of what is in the Polymet pre-draft EIS documents centers around potential acid mine drainage problems. So why is Polymet allowed to publicly state that its ores are so low in sulfides that acid mine drainage is not a problem—and then turn around and declare that HF 916 would in effect ban the mining of sulfide ores?
NE Minnesota legislators claim that our regulatory agencies (DNR, MPCA, ACOE) will see to it that this mining is done safely. Then they turn around and push the agencies into hurrying up with this process. The agencies are currently stymied because there is no way to treat the contamination of ground water from acid mine drainage/heavy metals, and no way to prevent the leaching of sulfates and the resulting methylmercury problem which will ultimately affect the estuary region of the St. Louis River watershed, ruining the walleye spawning grounds and polluting Lake Superior. If the regulatory agencies were to release the draft EIS at this time, without solutions for these problems and with questions in regard to the slope design of 300 foot high waste rock piles, it would be a massive failure of our regulatory process.
Other mines that are slated to follow Polymet, once the regulatory agencies deem that this mining is safe, would threaten the Boundary Waters. Polymet itself is 20 miles from the BWCA. Haze from plant operations will impact both the BWCA and Voyageurs National Park. In addition, blasting of rock as part of the mining process can produce cracks and fissures that alter the flow of ground water as evidenced with taconite mining, so that Polymet could eventually have a water impact on the BWCA watershed.
I would also like to address Polymet’s touting this as a domestic supply of metals. Polymet and the other companies exploring in Minnesota are Canadian. (Note that exploration is taking place in Carlton and Aitkin counties and along the Mississippi River down to the Root River, as well as surrounding Lake Vermilion, along the Echo Trail, Fernberg Road, Spruce Road, and the Kawishiwi River—all places touted for their environmental attraction.) Except for electro-plated copper, the other metals would not be completely processed in the hydromet, but would be shipped out of the country for final smelting. Polymet does not designate where this would be, but I am guessing that Sudbury in Ontario is the closest facility that could handle this. Sudbury is the site of monumental environmental degradation due to smelting, and I believe that is why this final processing stage is not mentioned by Polymet. Then, since Polymet has a tentative agreement with the Swiss company Glencore, the metals would be sold on the global market. So the U.S. would have to buy back these so-called strategic metals. Also note that the U.S. currently gets between 30 and 40% of its nickel from recycling.
The economic demand for these metals is based upon a quick market recovery, with business going back to usual. It seems to me that business as usual will pull us back into the downward spiral that got us into this recession in the first place. The marketability of these very low grade ores (less than ½% copper—approximately 8 pounds per ton, 1/10th % nickel, .01 ounces per ton of platinum, palladium, and gold) and the computer models that claim pollution will stay within mandated limits is all theoretical. If the mining company goes into bankruptcy ahead of closure, how will the cleanup be funded?
If Polymet’s claim about new generation clean mining is true, then why would this bill stop the project? If Polymet had the investor resources in place to open up such a risky mine to begin with, then why would strict financial assurances be a problem?
How would the market shutdown of such a low grade mining venture coinciding with the market downturn in the taconite industry be such a great boon to northern Minnesota’s economy? How will the destruction of the Arrowhead help any other industry—whether it be tourism, recreation, timber, or real estate? What is the value of clean water for future generations?
If you are unsure of your support of the Safe Mining Bill, I recommend that you request a CD or DVD copy of the pre-draft EIS documents from Stuart. Arkley@ dnr.state.mn.us, so that you can do some research in order to draw your own conclusions. I also hope that at some point you are able to take a tour of either Minntac or Hib Tac and see for yourself the moonscape left behind by the mining of low grade ores. (Taconite is 25% iron, in comparison to less than ½% copper nickel.)
Knowing the problems inherent with sulfide mining, I believe that the minerals division of the DNR, and NE Minnesota legislators who have not done their job of researching this issue, have shown a lack of responsibility in promoting this mining and building up the hopes of local residents in regard to jobs. I also believe that the forests, wetlands, and water resources of northern Minnesota, most of which are on U.S. Forest Service or state lands, belong to the state as a whole, and decisions regarding the future of this area should be made from that perspective.
Now is the best time, while the market has collapsed, to put nonferrous mining on hold if environmental standards and financial assurance can’t be met. The metals won’t disappear. They will remain in the ground while the mining industry continues to develop technology that can hopefully solve these treatment problems in the future.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elanne Palcich
Chisholm, MN
.