Polymet will be releasing a revised environmental impact statement (EIS) for its hard-rock mining project located in the St. Louis River watershed later this summer. In their revised EIS they will be making the claim that pollutants from their operation will be treated using a series of submerged tailings ponds, reverse osmosis and other methods of treating acid rock bi-products, many of which have never been successfully used in a wetlands-rich area like the one proposed.
Twin Metals is also working on a plan for a massive hard-rock mine in Ely, just a few miles from the BWCAW. Few details have been released about the companies’ planned water treatment methods, but we know that the Ely mine is being projected by the industry to be one of the largest underground mines in the world, with an estimated capacity of 80,000 tons of rock per day (Duluth News Tribune, March 3, 2012). Based on industry standards, 99.5% of that rock will be waste rock that must be dealt with in an environmentally sound way.
As Minnesotans, we all have the duty to take a more detailed look at the long-term environmental impacts of this kind of mining on our home, as well as look into the mining industry formula for financial assurance when it comes to longterm treatment of sulfide mining pollution. We know that acid-bearing rock will continue to degenerate for many hundreds of years after the mining process has been completed.
According to Grand Portage Water Quality Specialist Margaret Watkins, whose recent lecture, Mine Effluent Treatment Technology & Financial Assurance, examines the water quality data and science behind the mining process, it takes 1,000 years to see the worst effluent from sulfide-bearing rock. The Polymet EIS only models for 200 years into the future.
When the actual costs of perpetual treatment are plugged into the mining industry’s own financial assurance formula, the amount of money required up front to pay for the environmental damage caused by sulfide mining on this scale is almost $100 billion! Until these mining companies agree to pay financial assurance based on perpetual treatment, Minnesotans should reject their proposals to mine here. This seems like a terrible trade-off for what will amount to massive profits for the mining companies and relatively few benefits for Minnesota citizens.
Staci Lola Drouillard
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply