The PolyMet DEIS: Going for the Gold

by Elanne Palcich – Chisholm, Minnesota

Those of us citizens who actually took it upon ourselves to review the 1800 plus pages of the Polymet DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) deserve a gold medal—recycled, of course.  The 90 day comment period took place between November 2 and February 3.   Does anyone notice that Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the New Year came during this timeframe?

Nonetheless, individual citizens submitted over 1,000 pages of substantive comments on the DEIS.  These are comments that relate directly to the chapters and pages of the documents.  Expert opinions were also submitted, creating a volume of concerns regarding the DEIS.

The Sand Saga Continues

by Sally Petrilli – Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin

A sand story – It’s been almost two years since a group of citizens in Chippewa Falls, and surrounding Wisconsin communities came together to protest the City Council’s decision allowing Canadian Sand and Proppants, Inc. (CS&P) to build

Site of proposed sand processing plant in Chippewa Falls

a processing plant within the city limits that will process 2.6 million tons of sand a year for use in oil and gas wells across the country.

Kennecott Mine Not Done Deal

Jack Parker - Baltic, Michigan

It seems that, in their haste to push the permits through in the absence of a director for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Kennecott conveniently forgot several factors which will eventually render the permits void.

1. Mining experts for the NWF and for the DEQ agreed that the February 2006 application was not acceptable.

If you have trouble believing that just read the one-page Executive Summary of Sainsbury’s report, which was suppressed by the DEQ, and has now been restored to their site, but has subsequently been ignored.

The application should have been rejected almost four years ago.

Upper Peninsula Must Think Long-Term To Boost Economy

Gabriel Caplett – LSMN Editor

So many of my letters to the Mining Journal get denied that I sometimes decide to not write the paper anymore.  Unfortunately, some piece of coverage always breaks my seemingly weak resolve. 

I noticed the following passage in a January 6 article: 

“Corkin said the biggest priority for the county board this year will be to help get the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company nickel and silver [it’s nickel and copper, Gerry] mine proposed for the Yellow Dog Plains under construction.” 

Are they serious?  With all the problems with our economy, public health and education our County Board’s top priority is promoting Rio Tinto’s sulfide mine? 

Rio Tinto’s Permits Should Be Revoked

Jack Parker – Baltic, Michigan

Here are some comments on the Humboldt Mill permit.

First, we must thank Hal Fitch for his promise to respond to all written comments.  We appreciate the gesture.

I read the newspapers and watched WLUC-TV6 coverage of the event, but didn’t learn much.

I saw a lot of empty seats and heard that the majority of those present were in favor of the project. I have heard nothing more in the past week.  But two especially strong points were presented and not reported.

1. Speaker Teresa Bertossi, independent, quoted Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director Steven Chester who has freely admitted that budget restraints and pressure to handle more projects have left the department underfunded and undermanned.  We can understand that, and we commiserate.

A “Green” Economy: Buy A Bigger Truck?

Elanne Palcich – Chisholm, Minnesota

I was one of several hundred orderly and attentive people who attended the PolyMet Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) hearing in Aurora, Minnesota on December 9.   Contrary to what PolyMet states, there is no hostile environmental movement against jobs in northern Minnesota.  However, there are people who question the environmental footprint that metallic sulfide mining will leave behind. 

Politics as Usual With Michigan’s Mining Laws

Chuck Glossenger – Big Bay, Michigan

In a recent statement, local politicians Sen. Mike Prusi, D-Ishpeming, Sen. Jason Allen, R-Traverse City, Rep. Mike Lahti D-Hancock, Rep. Steve Lindberg, D-Marquette, and Rep. Judy Nerat, D-Wallace, accused sponsors of a proposed 2010 ballot measure on mining of talking about uranium mining in order to scare people and destroy the mining industry.

This irresponsible statement tells us more about politicians than the group, Save Our Water, and the ballot initiative.

Michigan DEQ: Rotten to the Core

Gabriel Caplett – LSMN Editor

Russ Harding,  first director of Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality,  recently attacked a bill, introduced by Representative Dan Scripps, to protect our water resources and economy from irresponsible corporate exploitation.  Harding also wrote a letter to the Mining Journal, making the dishonest claim that a ballot proposal “effectively bans future mining in Michigan.” Harding’s background as a staunch defender of Dow Chemical has shown him to be an apologist for corporate interests , even when doing so threatens public health.

No U.P. Uranium?

Gail Griffith – Retired Professor of Chemistry, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan

In a recent letter to the Mining Journal titled “No U.P. Uranium”, there is a statement: “There is no uranium ore anywhere in the state of Michigan.”  The important word here is “ore”, which is defined as a naturally occurring material that can be profitably mined.  This does not mean that there is no uranium in the state of Michigan.  It means that no one has yet found of a profitable ore body.

The evidence for the presence of uranium in the U.P. is strong.

Mining Laws Not Enforced in Michigan

Teresa Bertossi - LSMN Writer

A Mining Journal editorial on an environmental ballot proposal (Oct. 21) claimed that Michigan has “significant regulations in place to insure that mining does not damage our environment.”

While I am not involved in the ballot campaign, I have to ask if those “significant” regulations are being followed.

Last September, DEQ Director Steven Chester said, “We simply don’t have the kind of funding we need to adequately implement the laws we’re required to implement.”

In court, Joe Maki, the DEQ’s application review coordinator for Kennecott’s Eagle Project, said his agency did not consider a central tenet of Michigan’s current sulfide mining law requiring that a mine application has to establish that the proposed mining operation “reasonably minimize[s] actual or potential adverse impacts on air, water and other natural resources.”