Here's a real dilemma involving mining in the USA...

[MineralMan]

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_15340289?source=rss

A very, very large deposit of copper, nickel, platinum and a number of other metals has been discovered in Northern Minnesota, near, but not inside, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Estimates put the resource at over $1 trillion.

Mining always creates environmental damage. There no way it cannot, by its nature. So, there are many reasons to object to developing this resource through mining. On the other side of the argument, we are heavily dependent on metal resources from other countries, many of which are extremely exploitive of the workers in those mines.

The area is already a mining area, primarily of iron ore, but that mining has been reduced by imports, and employment in the existing mines is way down. Union mineworkers are out of work and in danger of financial disaster.

On the other side of the coin, the BWCAW is a pristine wilderness area, widely used for recreational purposes by many, many people from all over the world. There would be an impact on this wilderness if the metals are mined. How large that impact would be is still undetermined, since mining plans have not been presented.

So, the question for discussion involves two very different sides of the same issue. Should mining be developed, since we need those resources, both for employment and as a boost to the overall US economy, and since the sources we are now using for those metals involve serious abuse of human rights, in places like Nigeria and other African countries? Or, should all mining be prohibited to ensure that no damage is done to the BWCAW at all?

This is going to be a huge, huge question and will be coming very soon. The minerals are there, worth $1T and will not be difficult to mine. The BWCAW is there, and is widely used by people who will not want to see it disturbed in any way.

I should point out that I come from a family where both grandfathers worked for the Magma Copper Mine in Superior, AZ. I'm also a fan of wilderness areas where motorized vehicles are not allowed. I have pretty much the same things weighing on both sides of the question.

What do you think? What should happen or not happen in this situation?

[Oregone]

1. We need to mine and consume earth's resources until there is not one square inch of habitable land

Capitalism demands it

[MineralMan]

3. OK. I understand your position.

A lot of people share it. A lot of people, though, believe that mining is a necessary thing, in the world in which we live. The economy is dependent on many resources. Unless the population drastically goes down, we will continue to need those resources.

You're looking at it from a particular viewpoint, and I know the argument well. In many respects, I share it. However, metals are being used. They will continue to be used. That you are typing a post in this forum indicates that you are not averse to using the technology that uses the very metals in this deposit.

That's why I said, in my title, that this was a major dilemma. It's going to create a major discussion, if not here, in many other places.

[Oregone]

6. The only way to solve the dilemma in a manner that enables humans to live is lower consumption

"The economy is dependent on many resources"

I understand that. The economy creates this dilemma. Change the economy. Change our entire way to live. Change the fundamental drive to perpetually expand into the unknown. This perpetual growth is killing us.


"That you are typing a post in this forum indicates that you are not averse to using the technology that uses the very metals in this deposit."

No exactly. I hate myself, and things I do, but continue nonetheless. Why? I'm human, and humans suck.

[MineralMan]

8. Hmm...I'm afraid I have to deal in realities. The population is

not going to decrease, and we're not going to change the economy drastically. That is simply not going to happen. So, the dilemma remains.

[leftstreet]

11. Actually, the Predator Class R changing this economy drastically

No jobs

Stagnant wages

Crumbling infrastructure

Global 'austerity' measures

Look around you. The economy IS "changing."

Before long the global peon class will happily mine a mineral just to eat it.

[Oregone]

15. "and we're not going to change the economy drastically"

I understand that. My suggestion: embrace the notion of extinction, and help make an orderly exit. Please note the aisle way will have flashing lights directing you to the two exits in case of an emergency landing.

[MineralMan]

19. I'm glad that your plan is unlikely to be implements.

I've heard others say things like that, and always wonder if they'd be the first to line up. Somehow, I doubt it, knowing some of them. It borders on the very offensive, if you ask me.

[Oregone]

21. My plan?

My plan is to change the very way people live, immediately, and shift to a no-growth, low-tech use society. Its a shitty plan that offers little in way of comforts. No. It wont be implemented, so instead, brace for extinction.

[The2ndWheel]

31. "So, the dilemma remains"

If economy trumps environment each time the cards are dealt, then there is no dilemma.

[Cleita]

2. Does pristine wilderness area translate into government lands of some sort?

If so, it would seem that it belongs to the people.

It may be an opportunity to nationalize new mining interests as an experiment and see how it can be done and how the product can be sold on the open market for the benefit of the people of Minnesota, something that is already done successfully in other countries. I know that most mining is destructive, but it's far more destructive when private companies do it who are trying to make a profit. If, we the people, owned the mine and a mining plan presented that would cost the least ecological damage, could this be a solution to getting the metals we need without allowing private and maybe foreign companies to come in and do the destructive extractions that they do? It could also create government jobs for the mining employees. My father came out of Arizona copper mining in Miami, Arizona. I forget the name of the company. He moved on to Anaconda copper whom he worked for most of his life.

[MineralMan]

4. Yes, the BCWAW is government owned, but the deposit is

outside of its borders, and the land is privately owned. The extent of the deposit has been pretty well measured, through test borings, and it's pretty amazing. The value equals the much-touted reserves of other types of raw materials in Afghanistan that we've all heard about.

I'm not sure that the US government is going to go into the mining business, though. It would be developed by private companies. The government, both of the USA and Minnesota, though, would have a mutual role in regulating the development. Mining laws are pretty tough to follow these days.

That is not to say that there would be no damage to the BCWAW. There undoubtedly would be some damage. How much, I cannot say. Mining is always destructive of the environment to some degree.

[pitohui]

5. link doesn't open but post says "near" not "in" the wilderness

i think you'll have abt as much luck as we in louisiana have had getting our offshore drilling royalties which supposedly someday we'll start getting in 2017, probably not that long after the last person has given up and left what remains of our state

i don't think it's allowed to nationalize metals mining but, even if it is, don't be too sure it will benefit the people of minnesota if our experience is any guide, the metals will benefit the nation but all the misery and costs will be born by the people who live nearby will be my guess -- not that i'm bitter or anything, well, ok, i'm bitter...

the jobs you get right now are the only benefit you can realistically expect unless there's a LOT of noise made to make sure there are fair taxes and a fair percent of the proceeds go back to the affected state -- not that the jobs are nothing, jobs in extractive industries can be excellent of course and they can keep people/families in areas where they might not otherwise have opportunities to stay

the mining plan has to show a way that it would not damage the waterways in the wilderness but, at the end of the day, nobody's leaving a trillion dollars worth of platinum in the ground

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I expect you're right and that the deposit will be developed.

I can't imagine it won't. I do hope that regulation will be sufficient to limit environmental damage to a minimum. Certainly it was not back when my grandfathers worked in that AZ copper mine back in the 20s and 30s. The town next to the mine was a stinking, toxic mess.

We do have better regulations now, but there will be damage. How much? I have no idea.

[Cleita]

10. I know nationalizing is a dirty word for generations of Americans who

have been indoctrinated into thinking any such thing is a communist plot. But the fact is the government can run things for a much smaller administrative cost than private industry. Also, there are the peripheral industries that would be contracted to private firms, like explosives for instance. So it would create an economy. Also, the government actually has to adhere to laws like OSHA, which private interests are inclined to ignore and then pay fines. Minnesotans would have a bigger say in the operation of the mine too, when they feel it's practices are going in the wrong direction, which they would have zilch from a private company. Look at how much influence the residents of West Virginia have with the coal mines, practically zilch. I know it's a million to one possibility but I wish the people affected will look into it. Even if it's on private land the government could go in and buy it off the owner.

[MineralMan]

7. I just checked the link, and it opened for me. Maybe there was a

problem.

[pitohui]

12. it might be on my end

computer acting weird lately

[Brickbat]

13. Actually, the iron ore mines are working full-bore right now. The downturn in the 80s made the area

a lot less vulnerable to the ups-and-downs in mining -- a lot of people moved away, got out of the business, or were ruined and did something else. The slowdown from a couple years ago was bad, but people generally made it.

I support mining in that area.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I think anyone who has been to Boundary Waters would suggest not doing this anywhere near there

To someone who hasn't been there it is just more resources to exploit up north somewhere.

Its not just more resources to exploit up north somewhere.

Its about as good as it gets. I don't want that to change on my watch. I want my grandchildren and my great grandchildren to be able to portage Boundary Waters and be able to drink the water right out of the lakes.

No where near this area should be messed with in my opinion.

Don

[Cleita]

16. I agree with you, but it will be done regardless.

The problem is to make sure it's done in a way that causes the least environmental damage. Let's face it, we as a species cannot survive without tools and we get our tools from the earth, whether flint and obsidian to make stone age tools on up to the metals we use to forge tools from harder metals and the oil we use for fuel and plastics.

It's time we took responsibility for how we get and make these tools and who they affect and everything they affect all the way down the food chain.

[MineralMan]

17. That's true, but there's no way this would destroy the Boundary

Waters. It would probably affect areas near the deposit, but any damage would be limited. The BWCAW is a big, big place. I sure don't like the idea, though, of destruction of wilderness area in way. That's why it's such a dilemma.

[MineralMan]

18. I'm sort of assuming that this deposit will be

similar in form to the copper/nickel deposits in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I have never been there, so I don't know what effect mining there had on the surrounding area.

One of the problems with this deposit, is that the metals would have been deposited quite recently in geological times, so they would be in the form of native metals and sulfides. Native metals are no big deal, since they can be processed very cleanly. Sulfides, on the other hand, are a problem, since the refining process produces sulfur, which means sulfuric acid is a byproduct. In some ways, these northern midwest copper/nickel areas offer easy refinability, but with those side effects. It's a problem, because it's easy to refine the material, meaning that the cost of mining and refining is relatively low, and that means good profitability. So, anytime a deposit like this is discovered, there's no shortage of companies that want in on the process.

I can't imagine that environmental objections will stop this deposit from being mined. I'm cautiously hopeful that those objections will, however, force strict regulations on mining wastes.

[Brickbat]

20. I do hope the regulations are realistic, rather than the BS from

Miles Lord regarding Reserve Mining.

[MineralMan]

22. I'm not familiar with that, I'm afraid. When I have time, I'll research

it.

[MineralMan]

23. OK, I had a quick look at the Wikipedia entry.

From what I understand, he stopped the mining company from dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior. I'm not sure I have a problem with that. There are other ways to deal with tailings, including using them as backfill on depleted mines.

What's your objection to banning the dumping of mine tailings into Lake Superior?

[Brickbat]

25. That wasn't my objection -- sorry I wasn't clear.

I objected to his contention that the number of fibers in the air outside the plant had to be equal to or lower than the number of fibers in the air in St. Paul.

[Zenlitened]

24. "Mining always creates environmental damage. There no way it cannot, by its nature."

No way at all?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

26. I don't think so. The ore is underground, so some sort of hole has

to be dug. Processing ore to make the metal usable creates waste, and that waste has to be dealt with. Most often, the chemistry of ore processing creates or uses toxic materials. Each of those steps causes environmental damage at some level.

It can be kept to some minimal level...at least in some cases. In other cases, such as mining mercury, it's pretty much impossible.

Mining is, by its nature a pretty toxic thing. Getting the metals we need is a difficult task. That's why, today, most metal mining is done outside the US, and much of it is done in sub-Saharan Africa. Nobody seems to care about what happens to the environment there. We just want the metal.

So, now, in Minnesota, there's a huge deposit of the metals we need and use. It's readily accessible, and can be mined and refined at a reasonable cost. So, we have a big dilemma to deal with.

[Cleita]

27. What if the raw ore was trucked or taken by railroad to some other place

that wasn't so vulnerable to be crushed separated and finally smelted. Also, something better has got to be done to the tailings other than throwing them on a dump.

[MineralMan]

29. That's certainly possible. In fact, I think it would be likely in this case.

Removing the ore from the sensitive area and processing it elsewhere would somewhat mitigate the problem. However, all of northern Minnesota is pretty much swampy wetlands, heavily sprinkled with lakes and rivers. You'd have to take it a long way not to disturb that, I think.

[Cleita]

33. It would have to be taken further than that. Perhaps by rail would be the

most practical way. Maybe they could refurbish abandoned mines, like in Arizona or Nevada who are out of ore, but still have the skeleton of facilities that could be built on to do this. Since the original mines already polluted the landscape, less damage would be done.

[quaker bill]

28. There are environmentally sensitive ways to mine

Yes, there always is an alteration of the environment at some level, but that level can be held to a minimum and largely kept on the site of the mine.

It is expensive and our regulations only require it to be done well in a few locations, but the technology exists.

[Zenlitened]

34. And there is the key point, IMO: "It is expensive."

What they really mean when they say that is, "It will leave us with no profits."

Which is a valid concern, but one that shows this to be an economic issue, moreso than a technical or environmental issue.

So, as others have pointed out in this thread, the question becomes whether we're going to insist on Business (and Consumerism) As Usual... or really re-think how we do things, how we set our priorities, how we live our lives.

I'm still clinging to the high-tech ecotopia model, though whether that's a guiding ideal or a convenient form of denialism... well, opinions will vary!

:D

[quaker bill]

39. Not that expensive

There would still be profits to be had, it would just take longer to get them. I do environmental regulatory enforcement for a living. With good and regular enforcement, people will spend what it takes to comply with the law. It is very rare to see someone go much beyond the legal minimums voluntarily. This is why strong laws are needed, because that is about all you will ever get.

[hunter]

30. I think we should mine existing automobiles, suburbs, and landfills.

We've dug plenty of stuff out of the ground already; enough to last a long, long time.

We can tear down our soon to be discontinued oil fueled world and recycle everything.

[Cleita]

32. I think mining landfills and junkyard dumps for reusable metals, plastics

and other recyclable materials time has come. It could create a new industry and hopefully jobs if it's done right.

[MineralMan]

35. The metals recovery business is thriving. We're recycling metals

from almost all available sources already. Landfills probably don't have a high enough concentration of them to be economically feasible.

Try posting an ad in the Free section of your local Craig's list for any worn out metal object you have, from an old washing machine to whatever. Some person will come with their pickup or flatbed truck and take it away for you, then sell it to the scrap recycling people.

We don't waste as much metal as we used to. Not even close.

[Cleita]

36. There's other stuff to be mined from landfills too. Metals and plastics would

only be part of it. I think it could be a good civic exercise and could open up jobs for those who have fallen through the cracks and can't find work. It is being done in other countries in some cities, which not only puts the poor to work but brings in revenue to the city from the sale of the salvaged recyclable trash. I think the organic garbage should be separated as well to be composted. Whether it is put back in the landfill as dirt or packaged to be sold if it's good quality would be up to how practical doing that would be. I just think it would be nice to remove all trash from the land and ocean by the turn of the next century. I will not be alive but it would be a nice legacy to leave for future generations.

Also, when I was growing up in a mining camp, I used to crawl around the rock dumps (parents would have had a cow, if they knew) looking for lapis lazuli and other pretty rocks that were dumped because they didn't contain enough ore to extract. In my adult years it occurred to be that those rocks could have been shaped into building blocks. Of course where I lived, there was little need for building materials, but here in the USA it seems it would be a good byproduct to be manufactured and get rid of the unsightly dumps in our more beautiful areas.

[Spazito]

37. Very interesting OP

My first instinct is to go with NO mining there at all, it certainly would fulfill one of my ideals. Reality, however, intrudes on this and my 'second thought' would be to allow severely restricted mining, highly regulated and with strict oversight including mandatory restoration of the affected area to as close to pre-mining conditions as possible. The mining company would have to provide a sizable fund, even before breaking ground, set aside for recovery. I could live with that but would still wish there were alternatives, non-invasive ones, to replace mining all together, idealistically speaking.

[MineralMan]

38. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

My thinking is quite similar.

[Robb]

40. We had an interesting, drawn-out case out here a few years ago

...in Colorado, where a family had a mining claim (gold) that went back years, and predated the Wilderness Act; at some point, the land was included in a Wilderness area when it was created. The family had just gotten around to deciding to work the mine, but had kept up on the paperwork in the meantime. This was about the time we had a bit of a surge in gold mining out West, for obvious reasons.

The solution, I thought, was clever enough. The family's rights to mine there were protected by federal law, as was the land, so they accommodated both -- they could mine, but they couldn't break any of the rules of the Wilderness area. In this case, that meant no motorized vehicles, so they were permitted for pack mules. A lot of pack mules. :D

I can dig up the story if you'd like, or you can Google; I believe the claim was called the Robin Redbreast.