What’s normal for me and mine?

I thought any remaining snow would have been erased by recent warm temperatures and rain, and I was wrong. There are still scattered patches of snow along the roads and in shaded areas of fields. The few piles on our property disappeared sometime over the weekend. The “wet spot” in our back yard is actually showing a little water. Spring conditions are approximating something like normal.

we don’t have this much water this year

Photo by J. Harrington

We’re well beyond the main path of the eclipse, and the sky is covered with a thick layer of clouds. No mid-afternoon darkness for us, nor have we seen any fundamentalists floating skyward in the Rapture. Again, an approximation of “normal.”

During a visit this morning to our favorite local book store, the Better Half and I each picked up some more reading material. That’s also as normal for us. If I keep away from politics and international affairs, what can pass for normal sometimes prevails. I think a message is lurking in there, somewhere.

Last Friday’s newsletter from Trout Unlimited [TU] reminded me of something that’s far from normal. The basic legislation governing mining in the US “was passed when Ulysses S. Grant was president in 1872.” TU, among others, is supporting revisions. Did you know that:

Unlike every other commodity produced from our public lands, there is no royalty or tax on rare earth elements, critical minerals, and luxury items such as gold and silver. 

By contrast, since 1977, coal mining has provided over $11 billion from a tax on each ton of produced coal. That funding is used to clean up abandoned coal mines across Appalachia and parts of the western United States.

You might want to read the whole TU article and think about contacting your members of congress to see if they support an update and, if not, why not. One of the basic principles of environmental management is supposed to be the “Polluter pays.” (Don’t talk to me about agriculture, please.)

Something that’s probably missing from any mining revisions is any reference to the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA). That’s a major oversight in my opinion. See what you think.

It seems our world has gotten too complex and contentious for us to get away with simply voting for our party’s candidate and forgetting about politics. As long as we don’t get too carried away, that’s probably good for US. To paraphrase an old title, “No One is an Island.”

No Man Is An Island

John Donne 1572 (London) – 1631 (London)

---

---

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee. 

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

Do Minnesota's rules need a ruler?

I spent part of yesterday afternoon and evening reading the Appeals Court Decision on the PolyMet NorthMet project. In the process, I learned that I have been technically incorrect that Minnesota doesn't have areas where mining is, by regulation, prohibited. I don't know how I could have missed it. There are numerous rules sections under the heading of the Department of Natural Resources. Four appear to have to do with mining:

6125	MINERAL RESOURCES
6130	FERROUS METALLIC MINERAL MINING
6131	PEAT MINING
6132	NONFERROUS METALLIC MINERAL MINING

Under 6125, Mineral Resources, there are three major sections:

PERMITS AND LEASES FOR METALLIC MINERALS, EXCEPT
IRON ORES AND TACONITE ORES

PERMITS AND LEASES FOR SAND AND GRAVEL 

LEASES OF STATE LANDS
FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIAL MINERALS

There's no metallic mineral mining exclusion that we could find in these sections.

The PolyMet NorthMet project doesn't involve ferrous metallic mineral or peat mining so we shouldn't have to look there. That leaves 6132 Nonferrous metallic mineral mining. It has four general sections:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

RECLAMATION STANDARDS

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Logic might suggest one would expect to find areas from which mining is excluded under either General Provisions or Permit Requirements. Don't bother looking there. The pertinent sections are located as part of Reclamation Standards. (Because, of course, reclamation wouldn't be necessary in areas where mining is excluded?) Here's the relevant listing:

6132.2000 SITING. 

Subpart 1. Goals.     Mining shall be conducted on sites that minimize adverse impacts on natural resources and the public. Separations shall be maintained between mining areas and adjacent conflicting land uses. All sites shall incorporate setbacks or separations that are needed to comply with air, water, and noise pollution standards; local land use regulations; and requirements of other appropriate authorities.
§
Subp. 2. Mining excluded.     Except as allowed under state and federal laws, no mining shall be conducted within the following:
A. the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, as legally described in the Federal Register, volume 45, number 67 (April 4, 1980), with state restrictions specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.523, subdivision 3;
B. Voyageurs National Park, with state restrictions specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 84B.03, subdivision 1;
C. state wilderness areas, with restrictions specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 86A.05, subdivision 6;
D. Agassiz and Tamarac National Wilderness areas, and Pipestone and Grand Portage National monuments;
E. state scientific and natural areas;
F. within state peatland scientific and natural areas where such activities would significantly modify or alter the peatland water levels or flows, peatland water chemistry, plant or animal species or communities, or natural features of the peatland scientific and natural areas, except in the event of a national emergency declared by Congress;
G. calcareous fens identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.223; and
H. a state park, except if the park has been established as a result of its association with mining.

would you locate a mine and tailings basin upstream?

Photo by J. Harrington

There's also a prohibition on mining that disturbs the surface within a quarter mile of many of the preceding areas and

within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mineral Management Corridor, identified on the Department of Natural Resources map entitled "Minnesota Department of Natural Resources B.W.C.A.W. Mineral Management Corridor," dated February 1991, which map is hereby incorporated by reference, is not subject to frequent change, and is available through the State Law Library;

We found nothing that acknowledges that mining rarely, if ever, occurs without water resources. Presumably, water quality impacts would never leave the site? Or, it's not DNR's worry, that headache belongs to the Pollution Control Agency? In any case, we believe that the approach, logic, and structure used by the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance makes lots more sense than the fragmented structure Minnesota has cobbled together.

School

By Daniel J. Langton

I was sent home the first day

with a note: Danny needs a ruler.

My father nodded, nothing seemed so apt.

School is for rules, countries need rulers,

graphs need graphing, the world is straight ahead.

It had metrics one side, inches the other.

You could see where it started

and why it stopped, a foot along,

how it ruled the flighty pen,

which petered out sideways when you dreamt.

I could have learned a lot,

understood latitude, or the border with Canada,

so stern compared to the South

and its unruly river with two names.

But that first day, meandering home, I dropped it.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

How flawed is our Environmental Policy Act?

Let's make a couple of points clear from the beginning. First, this blog posting should, in no way, be read or (mis)interpreted as support for any particular mine, or mining, as currently regulated in Minnesota. Second, we're pleased to see that state Senator Bakk has finally lifted a lid off the can of worms about whether Minnesota has sufficiently rigorous environmental requirements regarding mining. We may return some day soon to the question of regulatory capture and political chicanery and their effects, or lack thereof, on several extractive sectors on Minnesota's economy, including mining, agriculture and forestry.

Here's a "money quote" from a Timberjay editorial as republished in MinnPost:

As Sen. Bakk noted, the environmental review, which is the initial part of the permitting process, is designed to better understand the risks and attempt to mitigate those risks to the extent that’s financially feasible. That process is not designed to answer the more fundamental questions of whether a proposed project makes sense or poses too great a risk to allow to move forward.

“So, once they start down that road of applying for those permits it’s pretty hard to stop,” said Bakk.

 If it's been some time since you've read Minnesota's Environmental Policy Act, we suggest you follow the preceding link. The really germane sections are a relatively quick read. In fact, the most relevant section is one that seems to be missing from Minnesota's rules and regulations.

Subd. 2.State responsibilities.

In order to carry out the policy set forth in Laws 1973, chapter 412, it is the continuing responsibility of the state government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate state plans, functions, programs and resources to the end that the state may:

...

(3) discourage ecologically unsound aspects of population, economic and technological growth, and develop and implement a policy such that growth occurs only in an environmentally acceptable manner; 

...

(6) develop and implement land use and environmental policies, plans, and standards for the state as a whole and for major regions thereof through a coordinated program of planning and land use control;

(7) define, designate, and protect environmentally sensitive areas; 

None other than a former Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources claims that:

... Minnesota’s regulatory standards are inadequate to protect a unique natural resource such as the Boundary Waters. 

Perhaps you'll be more successful than I was doing an internet search for Minnesota's definition and designation of environmentally sensitive areas. I could find no such references.

Twin Metals offices in Ely, MN

Photo by J. Harrington

Taken by itself, the preceding represents, in my opinion, an egregious example of governmental failure to implement legislation. What seems to represent an even more significant example of malfeasance is the state's willful(?) ignorance of international mining standards that have evolved over the past decade. The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance [IRMA] has standards that state, among other requirements:

4.6.5.3.  IRMA will not certify new mines that are developed in or that adversely affect the following protected areas: 

•World Heritage Sites, and areas on a State Party’s official Tentative List for World Heritage Site Inscription; 

•IUCN protected area management categoriesI-III; 

•Core areas of UNESCO biosphere reserves. 

a "reclaimed" iron mine site near Ely, MN

Photo by J. Harrington

A preliminary reading indicates that the Boundary Waters Canoe Area could well qualify as one of the IUCN protected area categories, if Minnesota were working with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Would such efforts solve the mining issues near the Boundary Waters or those potentially affecting Lake Superior? Not by themselves, but they would help Minnesota frame the issues of whether, and under what conditions, activities that can significantly affect environmentally sensitive areas could or should be allowed to apply for operating permits.

The Well Rising

By William E. Stafford

The well rising without sound,

the spring on a hillside,

the plowshare brimming through deep ground

everywhere in the field—

The sharp swallows in their swerve

flaring and hesitating

hunting for the final curve

coming closer and closer—

The swallow heart from wingbeat to wingbeat

counseling decision, decision:

thunderous examples. I place my feet

with care in such a world.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

Minnesota isn't ready for Twin Metals, but it could be!

The folks at Twin Metals Minnesota have submitted a Mine Plan of Operations to the federal government (Bureau of Land Management) and a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The newspaper story in the Star Tribune didn't mention red ribbons or bows so maybe the documents aren't intended as a Christmas present.

Twin Metals Ely, MN offices

Photo by J. Harrington

Since it is likely to take years before the issues related to this proposed project will get sorted out, let alone resolved, we think this is a good time to refresh some fundamentals about mining and sustainable development. The best approach we've found thus far is in a framework called The Natural Step, which posits Four System Conditions:

In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing: 

1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust, 

2. concentrations of substances produced by society, 

3. degradation by physical means and, in that society... 

4. people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their needs.

No doubt in the days, months, and years ahead, we will be subjected to repeated assertions to the effect that Minnesota and the United States have the most rigorous environmental standards when it comes to mining. And yet, and yet, we have damn few, if any, mines that do not contribute significant amounts of pollution and that don't "degrade by physical means." Trout Unlimited, an organization I've belonged to for years and years, notes, in regard to hard rock mining, that "Approximately 110,000 miles of streams – enough to circle the Earth four times – are listed as impaired for heavy metals or acidity and abandoned mines are a major source of these impairments." We're still waiting to read about examples of mines that have not severely degraded and/or polluted their environment.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] has organized a noteworthy amount of information on "Environmentally Sensitive 'Green' Mining." We're very dubious that Minnesota's standards are comparable to the "Environmentally Conscious Mining Standards" MIT lists and describes. Plus, we've seen little, if any, indication that Minnesota's regulatory agencies, or politicians, are the least bit familiar with a book coauthored by a senior lecturer at MIT, Peter Senge. It's titled The Necessary Revolution. One final point, for today, is that we have yet to find any indication that Minnesota is aware of and has considered adopting international mining standards that may meet or exceed current site and federal requirements. The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance [IRMA] has developed and published standards. They can be found here.

The Journey

by Mary Oliver

One day you finally knew
what you had to do, and began,
though the voices around you
kept shouting
their bad advice—
though the whole house
began to tremble
and you felt the old tug
at your ankles.
"Mend my life!"
each voice cried.
But you didn't stop.
You knew what you had to do,
though the wind pried
with its stiff fingers
at the very foundations,
though their melancholy
was terrible.
It was already late
enough, and a wild night,
and the road full of fallen
branches and stones.
But little by little,
as you left their voices behind,
the stars began to burn
through the sheets of clouds,
and there was a new voice
which you slowly
recognized as your own,
that kept you company
as you strode deeper and deeper
into the world,
determined to do
the only thing you could do—
determined to save
the only life you could save.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

To "B" or not to "B" mine

We know it's well past Valentine's Day but we couldn't resist playing on Shakespeare's immortal words for today's title. Nevertheless, what we're thinking about is a serious topic. It's about the form of corporate entity, and required oversight of that entity, that should be required of those wishing to apply for and hold a permit to mine in Minnesota.

The ultimate test of a man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice
something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.

Gaylord Nelson

Photo by J. Harrington

Minnesota has had, since 2015, legislation authorizing business entities to incorporate as a public benefit corporation. That means, among other things that:

Under traditional corporate statutes, the pursuit of social or environmental goals potentially exposes corporate directors to the risk of lawsuits from shareholders interested in profits alone. As a public benefit corporation, such lawsuits could be warded off more easily so long as the public benefit corporation can show it was acting with due care in following its public benefit mission.

So, from our perspective, any entity that wishes to obtain a permit to mine should be required to incorporate as a public benefit corporation. But, and this is a very important but, that's not enough. We also recommend that the public benefit corporation, to qualify as a holder of a permit to mine, also be certified as a "B" corp.

The B Corp Certification is a third-party certification administered by the non-profit B Lab, based in part on a company's verified performance on the B Impact Assessment. The benefit corporation is a legal structure for a business, like an LLC or a corporation. Benefit corporations are legally empowered to pursue positive stakeholder impact alongside profit. Some companies are both Certified B Corporations and benefit corporations, and the benefit corporation structure fulfills the legal accountability requirement of B Corp Certification. Learn more about the difference.

It may well be too late to require such conformance for the PolyMet project, unless, of course, it fails and needs to start again. There is, we believe, plenty of time to enact any required legislation and modify regulations that need tweaking, enabling Minnesota to do a much improved job of protecting the vulnerable environment of Northern Minnesota from foreign or domestic corporations that would put profit maximization ahead of environmental protection.

New Year

Joanna Klink

We woke to the darkness before our eyes,
unable to take the measure of the loss.
Who are they. What are we. What have we
   abandoned to arrive with such violence at this hour.
In answer we drew back, covered our ears
with our hands to the heedless victory, or vowed,
   as I did, into the changed air, never to consent.
But it was already too late, too late for the unfarmed fields,
the men by the station, the park swings, the parking lots,
   the ground water, the doves—too late for dusk
falling in summer, chains of glass lakes
   mingled into dawn, the corals, the neighbors,
the first drizzle on an empty street, cafeterias and stockyards,
young men asking twice a day for
   work. Too late for hope. Too far along
to meet a country, a people, its annihilating need.

Because the year is new and the great change
already underway, we concede a thousandfold
   and feel, harder than the land itself,
a complicity for everything we did not see
or comprehend: cynicism borne of raw despair,
long-cultivated hatreds, the promises of leaders
traveling like cool silence through the dark.
My life is here, in this small room, and like you
   I am waiting to know—but there is no time
to wait for what has happened.
What does the future ask of me,
those who won’t have enough to eat by evening,
those whose disease will now take hold—
   and the decades that carry past me once I’ve died,
generations of children, the suffering that is never solved,
the heat over the earth, its marshes,
   its crowded towers, its unbreathable night air.
I would open my hand from the wrist,
step outside, not lose nerve.
Here is the day, still to be lived.
We do not fully know what we do.
But the trains depart the stations, traffic lurches
   and stalls, a highway crew has paused.
Desert sun softens the first color of the rock.
Who governs now governs by grievance and old scores,
   but we compass our worth,
prepare to do the work not our own,
and feel, past the scorn in his eyes, the burden
in the torso of a stranger, draw close to the sick,
   the weak, the women without jobs, the twelve-year-old
facing spite half-tangled into sleep, the panic
tightening inside everyone who has been told to go,
I will help you although I do not know you,
and strive not to look away, be unwilling to profit,
   an ache inside that endless effort,
a slowed-down summons not from those
whose rage is lit by greed—we do not consent—
but the ones who wake without prospect,
those who don’t speak, cannot recover,
   like the old woman at the counter, the helpless father
who, like you, gets no more than his one life.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

should Minnesota follow Montana's mining initiative?

Three times last century, Minnesotans failed to approve an initiative and referendum process. We were residents, and voters, in 1980 and voted in favor. We were dismayed at the failure then and are even more so now. Here's one reason why.

Montana, another state whose name begins with "M," and also a state where mining issues are becoming more contentious, has an initiative, I-186, that would modify that state's current mining laws in a way that, among other things,

Places the burden of proof on the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to find, in writing and based upon clear and convincing evidence, that proposals for new mines will not cause perpetual water pollution problems.

which way would Twin Metals' waters flow

Photo by J. Harrington

That last phrase reads to us as if it could help address some of the issues related to the mine development proposed for PolyMet's NorthMet project and the Twin Metals development. From what we've read, the evidence available on PolyMet is neither really clear nor convincing. Financial assurance isn't enough, in our opinion, for a variety of reasons, up to and including uncertainty about where and how potential any catastrophic failures might fit into any financial assurance provisions.

As part of the supporting information in favor of the I-186 initiative, a description of the status quo reads much too much like what we believe about Minnesota's status for us to have any degree of comfort about how mines and mining are and will be overseen in our state's future. Here's what's claimed:

Currently, newly proposed mines are supposed to prevent pollution from entering Montana’s waterways. Unfortunately, due to insufficient enforcement and lax legal standards, this hasn’t happened. Mines such as Zortman-Landusky, Montana Tunnels, and Beal Mountain have become permanent sources of pollution, the companies have gone bankrupt, and taxpayers have spent millions of dollars treating contaminated mine water (and will do so forever). 

St. Louis River between PolyMet NorthMet and Lake Superior

Photo by J. Harrington

It remains beyond our comprehension why the owners, investors and managers of both PolyMet and Twin Metals haven't taken an initiative themselves and committed to join the United Steelworkers, ArcelorMittal, Microsoft and others by participating in the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance's Launch Phase. Starting a new kind of mining in Minnesota, in locations that could severely degrade some of the state's most revered natural resources, warrants "belt and suspenders" levels of protection. We're not likely to achieve that with our business as usual approach nor with a win-lose process wherein we perpetuate an unnecessary and ill-founded jobs vs. the environment conflict.

We doubt that Montana's water resources are any more valuable to them than Minnesota's Lake Superior and Boundary Waters are to Minnesotan's. We are equally doubtful that Minnesota's mining regulators are much more rigorous than Montana's. We think the new and emerging processes offer much more potential for avoiding mining contamination than what we have now. We also believe that the demands for sustainable supply chains will continue to grow. What we don't believe is that it is wise for Minnesota to continue to ignore international standards that move the world toward sustainable mining and continue to rely on the same old same old processes in a new world facing a new normal.

Perpetuum Mobile

By Marin Sorescu

Translated by Michael Hamburger

Between people’s

ideals

and their realization

there is always

a greater drop

than in the highest

of waterfalls.

This potential gradient

can be exploited

rationally,

if we build a sort of

power station above it.

The energy it supplies,

even if we use it only

to light our cigarettes,

is something

anyway;

for while one is smoking

one can very seriously

think up

ideals even crazier.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

Would IRMA ban mining in BWCA?

If you read yesterday's posting, you probably remember that IRMA is the acronym for the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, which is developing a Standard for Responsible Mining. (Even if you didn't read yesterday's posting, you now know what IRMA is an acronym for.) A draft of Version 2.0 of the Standard was released today for public comment. By reference the Standard incorporates a world-wide database of areas protected from mining, which includes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area as a site classified IUCN Category Ib. One of the relevant elements of the Standard in the Environmental Responsibility section addresses such Highly Protected Areas. It notes, inter alia:

3.7.2.1. Mining-related activities shall not take place in the following Highly Protected Areas (HPA):...

• IUCN category I -III protected areas

Sawtooth Mountains, northern Minnesota

Photo by J. Harrington

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a site listed and categorized as Ib most likely falls somewhere between category I and category III and therefore "mining-related activities shall not take place" there. Governor Dayton's and, hopefully, the federal government's, rejection of the Twin Metals proposed project looks to me as if it's consistent with and supported by this part of the Standard. In fact, a quick skim of the Protected Areas section seems to make it pretty clear that mining should not even be allowed in a "buffer area" next to the BWCA.

What is much less clear to me is whether any of Minnesota's environmental, mining or mine permitting agencies are even discussing the potential relevance of IRMA's draft Standards to mining decisions and activities in Minnesota. What I think I've seen so far has been very much a "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" strategy from both the pro- and anti- mining advocates. On the other hand, each week many more in the business sector are recognizing the benefits of "green building" and "greening supply chains" and "sustainable business" and "Corporate Social Responsibility." As I see it, Minnesotans can continue to battle the old battles in a win-lose framework that will shift with political power, or we can use new systems approaches to build a new economy for Minnesota by making our supply sources more sustainable. I've found no indication that Mining Minnesota is even aware of IRMA, despite claims to environmentally responsible mining. The Tiffany Foundation provided a $50,000 grant to Minnesota Environmental Partnership back in 2012, for "Support to create and promote a model for responsible, non-polluting sulfide mining in Minnesota." I'm trying to learn if there were productive results from that effort. Again, I see no hopeful signs.

Let me be clear, I'm appalled at mining's environmental and social track record. I don't believe that existing systems offer us much assurance that environmental disasters from mining activities can be avoided. See Brazil and Mt. Polley for recent examples. I doubt very much that we're going to successfully recycle enough rare earths and strategic metals to continue to support our dependence on electronic trinkets and useful gadgets such as the one I'm typing this on. So I've reached the working conclusion we need to change our practices and values to optimize the environmental and social benefits of an essentially damaging activity. We won't get there if we do all our talking through lawyers. IRMA's Standards seem to offer a reasonable alternative starting place for more productive talks. Why aren't more Minnesotans talking about them?

To answer the question that started this post, remembering INAL (I'm not a lawyer), I believe IRMA would ban mining in the BWCA. I also believe Minnesota could be dismally laggard for not requiring all future mining permits to reference whatever is the current version of the Standard as a permit requirement.

The Dependencies

By Howard Nemerov

This morning, between two branches of a tree   

Beside the door, epeira once again

Has spun and signed his tapestry and trap.   

I test his early-warning system and

It works, he scrambles forth in sable with   

The yellow hieroglyph that no one knows   

The meaning of. And I remember now

How yesterday at dusk the nighthawks came   

Back as they do about this time each year,

Grey squadrons with the slashes white on wings   

Cruising for bugs beneath the bellied cloud.   

Now soon the monarchs will be drifting south,   

And then the geese will go, and then one day   

The little garden birds will not be here.   

See how many leaves already have

Withered and turned; a few have fallen, too.   

Change is continuous on the seamless web,   

Yet moments come like this one, when you feel   

Upon your heart a signal to attend

The definite announcement of an end

Where one thing ceases and another starts;   

When like the spider waiting on the web   

You know the intricate dependencies   

Spreading in secret through the fabric vast   

Of heaven and earth, sending their messages   

Ciphered in chemistry to all the kinds,

The whisper down the bloodstream: it is time.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.

Just trust us!

What are you doing tomorrow night? Will you be at the last public hearing for the (current version) of the PolyMet / NorthMet SEIS? Today's Star Tribune has a commentary in favor of proceeding with the project, written by the usual suspects, the Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The authors argue that "We trust the multiple state and federal agencies that have been involved in developing this document. We trust the DNR to read and listen to all public comments and to remain transparent throughout this process. We are confident in our state’s ability to pursue new opportunities in an industry — mining — that we have worked in for more than a century. It is time to let these projects move forward."

northern Minnesota tamaracks    © harrington

I'm fascinated to see their reference to the DNR "remaining transparent," especially since the United States is not yet signatory to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. If you're concerned about both jobs and the environment, you might want to follow the link above and see what the EITI is all about. It involves government, industry and civil society in an oversight process. If you want an executive summary, here's a link to a four page fact sheet, perhaps it will suggest some comments if you go tomorrow night. The reason I mention EITI is that I believe that the contentiousness of the mining/jobs issue isn't about technology, it's about trust. Extractive industries such as mining (remember Reserve Mining) have a long record of creating problems and opposing most environmental regulations. 

Most, I suspect all but haven't checked, corporations involved in the extractive industries, have a fiduciary (legal) obligation to maximize shareholder value or, as we measure that in this country, short term profitability. Think about BP and the Deepwater Horizon, or the current question of whether the water in West Virginia's capital is safe to drink. A claim of proprietary trade secret for a second chemical leaking into the Elk River sure doesn't seem very transparent to me, nor does it seem to me to be the kind of response likely to instill confidence in the governmental framework within which many extractive industries work. We're not only interested in jobs and protecting Minnesota's natural environment, we're also interested in protecting Minnesota's citizens' health. Transparency goes a long way to helping to ensure all three of the outcomes we want.

Today's MinnPost has two stories that might seem unrelated. I don't think they are. One is by Rolf Westgard, who claims that "Well-regulated sulfide mining can be done effectively." He concludes "Many NorthMet Project opponents raise the question of whether the mining companies can be trusted to safeguard Minnesota’s environment. A better question could be: 'Can we regulate them?' I suggest that we can." I agree with Mr. Westgard that we can regulate them. I question whether we have the political will and adequate resources and the appropriate framework to regulate them. Here's why.

Lake Superior                   © harrington

How many tank cars hauling North Dakota oil or tar sands from Canada have been involved in recent "Incidents?" Will we finally follow recommendations for improved tank car safety? Do federal, state and local taxes pay for enough government personnel to look for oil spills along the Louisiana coast or do we have to rely on volunteers? These are only some of the instances in which it would seem that, as a society, we fail to do what we can do because it might cost too much, be politically unpopular, make us "uncompetitive" or we have other priorities, plus it's not in our back yard.

This all brings me to the second MinnPost story today, this one about Kent Nerburn's latest book. Toward the end of a well written interview with Nerburn, Amy Goetzman quotes him as saying"...I do want to help get the message out about these people [Native Americans], what they have been through, and what they have to teach us, especially about the land. The idea of a spiritual quality in the land is something we need to accept and embrace, or we’re all going to end up in a very bad place.” Can we mine copper and nickel in northern Minnesota and still protect the spiritual quality of the land, that's what I think those concerned with the PolyMet NorthMet project impacts are trying to ask. I don't think any of us want to see our environment or our citizens end up in "a very bad place." I'd like to feel the way Thomas R. Smith captures. I can't, just yet, at least about extractive industries or government. I need transparency to ...

Trust

By Thomas R. Smith 

It’s like so many other things in life   

to which you must say no or yes.                                    

So you take your car to the new mechanic.   

Sometimes the best thing to do is trust.   

The package left with the disreputable-looking   

clerk, the check gulped by the night deposit,   

the envelope passed by dozens of strangers—   

all show up at their intended destinations.   

The theft that could have happened doesn’t.   

Wind finally gets where it was going   

through the snowy trees, and the river, even               

when frozen, arrives at the right place.                        

And sometimes you sense how faithfully your life   

is delivered, even though you can’t read the address.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can. Be kind to each other while you can.

This land is your land?

As many (all?) of you know, there's a proposal for Minnesota's first copper-nickel mine that's the subject of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. One of the major arguments in favor of allowing the proposal to proceed is that it will "create" 360 well-paying jobs. That may seem like a lot. In fact, according to the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, "Between 2000 and 2011, mining employment in Minnesota fell 25% to 4,245 jobs in 2011, according to the state's Department of Employment and Economic Development." So, the number of jobs "created" may disappear in the volatility of world demand (and prices) for the copper-nickel or other mined resources. On the other hand, here's a link to the images of copper mine pollution in the United States. Here's a different link to nickel mine pollution. Now, here's a link to pictures of Minnesota's Boundary Waters. It doesn't take much imagination to juxtapose copper-nickel mines and Boundary Waters and not like the results.

Sawtooth Mountains           © harrington

But, you say, we'll have financial assurances from the mining corporation that the long term (hundreds of years) pollution will be "cleaned up." Well, from the BBC comes this piece of information: "The average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century, from 67 years in the 1920s to just 15 years today, according to Professor Richard Foster from Yale University." Business Week reports that commercial corporations have only been in existence for about 500 years, the same amount of time pollution from the NorthMet project may require treatment. I suspect it might be a little tricky trying to collect from a non-existant entity in 200 years or so.

I firmly believe, and have argued here before, that Minnesota, if wisely managed, can have both jobs and a beautiful, clean (if not pristine) natural environment. But, we're already failing to meet water quality standards in much of the area that could be affected by the proposed mining project. Does anyone think the proposed project will actually improve things?

northeast Minnesota            © harrington

Let's look at this from a different perspective. If Minnesota's state government were a Fortune 500 business, and were about to make a massive long-term investment in a company responsible for meeting and maintaining water quality standards on the Iron Range for the next 500 years, would you buy stock in that company? That's what you're being asked to do by the mine's proposers. Wouldn't you think there might be a less risky way to get 360 "high-paying" jobs created up on the Iron Range? How about an aircraft maintenance facility?

Mine, mine, all mine!

© harrington

Happy Valentine's Day. Thanks for stopping by. Remember a poster with the saying "war is not healthy for children and other living things?" I'm starting to feel the same way about mining. Monday's posting on snow storm, sand storm elicited a great set of comments. I'm reprinting them here because I don't like the way Blogger buries comments and I think the ones submitted are important. Jim Erkel wrote :

There are a number of developments relating to the possibility of a GEIS for silica sand mining and processing. The Environmental Quality Board has been considering a petition for a GEIS for some time. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health recently recommended that Winona County perform an EIS for several proposed mines that the agencies believe should be considered as part of a single project. And, the Minnesota Legislature is considering several bills that would fund a GEIS.

One question that hasn't been answered yet is whether a moratorium on permitting additional mines and processing facilities can or should be imposed during a GEIS. Under its rules on environmental review, the EQB can't impose a moratorium if it decides to proceed with a GEIS. However, some of us have argued that it has such authority under the Critical Areas Act. Some of the legislation moving through the Minnesota Senate would also establish a moratorium if a GEIS is funded.

I also find that Bluestem Prairie is a great source of information on sand mining and I highly recommend it. The Land Stewardship Project is leading the charge on the legislation to fund a GEIS and establish a moratorium. They have a lot of information on specific projects that have been proposed and about how well (or not) local governments in southeast Minnesota have responded to the sand rush.

It is important to remember that silica sand mining isn't only a concern in southeast Minnesota. The maps of commercially available sand deposits show broad swaths up through the Twin Cities and into the northern suburbs and also up the Minnesota River Valley. It truly is an issue of statewide concern.

Thanks, Jim. Shortly after reading Jim's comments,  I received an email notice of a DVD that's been made of last year's sled dog delivery to the governor by Frank Moe a petition with thousands of signatures expressing concerns about mining in sensitive areas of northern Minnesota. I'm really pleased that My Minnesota has folks like Jim and Frank and Sally Jo helping the rest of us keep track of the threats to Our Minnesota. Please stop by again tomorrow to check out the latest rant or write on what's yours, mine and ours.