Sulfide mining questions
Guest Columnist
by Clyde Hanson, Lutsen
Published in the Mesabi Daily News: Monday, February 11, 2008 (registration required)
Most Sierra Club members would agree with the Mesabi Daily News editorial that no one wants metallic sulfide mining to harm the environment. But basic questions need to be answered: What are the risks? Who benefits? Who pays for failure?
Sulfide mines are not taconite mines. A metallic sulfide mine is a Mack 18-wheeler where taconite is a Ford Ranger. You can guess which one hauls more pollution and is a lot harder to stop. The down-sides of sulfide mines are sulfuric acid and toxic metals polluting our streams and groundwater, essentially, forever.
Sulfide mining is the leading toxic polluter in the U.S., accounting for nearly half the industrial pollution reported to the Environmental Protection Agency each year. The headwaters of nearly half the rivers in the western U.S. are polluted by sulfide mining. Once these mines are no longer profitable, their owners leave taxpayers holding the bill to deal with this pollution. The sulfide industry has dumped more than $30 billion in clean-up costs on U.S. taxpayers and the tab is rising. This industry, which is again knocking on Minnesota's door, has a very poor track record of stewardship and integrity.
Sulfide pollutants convert mercury accumulated on the bottoms of water bodies into a form that builds up in fish. Mercury interferes with human brain development. Being limited to one meal of fish per week due to mercury contamination sure takes the fun out of a long fishing trip. It would be a shame if the limit became one per month. There's nothing like fresh fish for a "shore lunch." Fish disappear when even tiny levels of toxic metals or acid enter lakes and streams, killing tiny critters they eat.
A sulfide mine could pollute a river so bad that its waters would be worthless to supply future industrial development. Many industries, like taconite, need cleaner water for processing than we large mammals need to drink. The cost of treating water before using it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Sulfide pollution risks other job opportunities.
Given the increased risk of pollution, should sulfide mines be opened in water-rich places like our region? Is it fair to impose wastewater treatment costs upon our future generations in order to gamble on boom and bust sulfide mining now? Isn't clean water going to become more valuable than oil? Should we open new mines when we aren't yet recycling these metals effectively? Will new technology reduce demand for these metals? Who would have thought we would be making telephone calls through fiber-optic cables made of sand?
We have serious concerns, but are waiting to review the draft environmental impact statement before taking a position on the PolyMet mine. In Hoyt Lakes we have a Mack-truck mine proposed by a company that has not even operated a gravel pit. PolyMet's managers will receive huge bonuses only if they open a mine despite the aftereffects of that mine on the community and environment. Time and again, it can be demonstrated that companies promise that their mines will meet water quality standards; yet, 76 percent of these promises have been broken and their pollution has harmed communities and the environment. Worse yet, 77 percent of pollution mitigation plans failed according to a recent peer-reviewed study by scientists for Earthworks. That's why we want proof, not promises, from sulfide mining promoters.
Meanwhile, Minnesota needs to adopt better policies to prevent sulfide mine problems. Everywhere sulfide promoters go, they call the local pollution regulations "the strictest in the world." Minnesota's rules have Mack-truck sized loopholes and leave key decisions to political appointees. Needed solutions include: 1) Require proof sulfide mining has been done without harm elsewhere in a similar climate before issuing permits for it here. 2) Protect pristine natural areas from disturbance. 3) Prohibit mining where perpetual treatment of polluted drainage is required. 4) Demand secure and significant financial assurance for reclamation and unexpected problems after mine closure to keep our waters clean for future generations.
In the mid-1970s, Minnesota took the time to question sulfide mining, and as a result we avoided making a bad bet on jobs that would have turned to layoffs because of the long price slump that followed. Taking time to ask critical questions about the risks of proposed sulfide mines makes sense. The rocks are not going anywhere. The sulfide deck is stacked against people and the environment. Not asking questions means Minnesota could make a very bad bet on questionable public benefits and costly, long-term pollution.
is co-chairman of the Sierra Club Mining Without Harm Campaign, Lutsen.