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.

A brief synopsis follows:

·       The LTV Steel Mining Company tailings basin purchased by PolyMet is already leaching contaminants into the watershed.

·       The LTV tailings basin is unstable, due to load and composition of tailings’ slimes.  PolyMet tailings would be added to an already unstable impoundment.

·       The DEIS does not adequately consider cumulative impacts of PolyMet, Mesabi Nugget, and other mining  expansion and proposed mining within the watershed.

·       PolyMet’s proposed operations would add to mercury and sulfate loads in the St. Louis River watershed, affecting both fish and wild rice.

·       The DEIS does not address the cumulative impacts of more than twenty metals that would be released into the watershed.  Chemical contaminants from the flotation process and hydromet are not addressed.

·       Design of 320 foot high waste rock piles are not adequate for stability.  Acid mine drainage potential is not adequately addressed.

·       Water hydrology and geotechnical testing was based upon computer modeling rather than more accurate but also more expensive on-the-ground testing.

·       The DEIS contains language such as monitoring, mitigation, and treatment, but no plans or details.  For instance, who would monitor and when?  If monitoring showed that contaminants were exceeding drinking water standards, what would mitigation or treatment consist of?

·       The DEIS does not adequately or fully address impacts on wildlife, including cumulative impacts and loss of wildlife corridors.

·       Air quality impacts disregarded cumulative effects.

·       Asbestiform fiber issues are not addressed regarding airborne concerns.

·       Wetland mitigation plans do not comply with the Wetland Conservation Act.

·       Closure plans and length of water treatment, perhaps for centuries, are left open to future determination.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has confirmed our findings and conclusions in its comments.  The EPA has rated the PolyMet DEIS as environmentally unsatisfactory (EU), based upon the potential to exceed water quality standards and create a Superfund site.  The EPA analysis also states that hydrogeological profiles are inadequate and the DEIS provides incomplete and inadequate compensation for loss of wetlands and their function.  Steven Colvin of the DNR took a defensive stance on the EPA report, claiming that these details would be part of the permitting process, but not necessarily the DEIS.    However, if Mr. Colvin’s statement is true, then the public is being denied access to information for public review.

PolyMet faces two additional major hurdles.  One is that the Center for Biological Diversity, the Save Lake Superior Association, and the Indigenous Environmental Network have filed intent to take legal action against Cliffs Erie for clean-up of the LTV tailings basin as required by the Clean Water Act.  Due to the instability of the tailings basin, along with the ongoing water contamination, PolyMet will be forced to produce a different plan for its projected huge amount of tailings.  (Since PolyMet’s ore body contains less than 1% mineralization, the mining would produce 99% waste rock.)

PolyMet’s second major hurdle involves the location of its proposed open pits.  Those pits would lie within what is now Superior National Forest.  According to the Weeks Act of 1911, and litigation which has followed through the years, strip mining is banned on national forest land which was purchased (under the Weeks Act) for watershed protection.    The Forest Service agency was thus remiss in not requiring PolyMet to limit its operations to underground mining.  The Forest Service also neglected to conduct an EIS on the value of those public lands as would be required under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) in order for any land exchange to take place.  In order to cover up for these failures, the Forest Service is now requesting that Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Representative Oberstar introduce a highly unethical bill that would require the sale of USFS land to PolyMet as a special favor.

Going for the gold is a popular thing this year.  Athletes are competing for it.  Mining companies are counting on the projected economic growth of China to attract demand for all metals.    Workers are looking for mining jobs to bring them gold, at least for some and at least in the short term.  But some of us are going for Olympic gold in a different way.  We are digging through mountains of documents, and climbing our way through mounds of paperwork and research to give us a view from the peak.  That view says that mining of less than 1% ores in Minnesota’s Arrowhead Region is not sustainable.  That view says that leaving behind a legacy of water contamination, tailings basins, open pits, and waste rock piles is not the prize we are looking for. The Arrowhead Region holds its own priceless riches:  clean air, clean water, and biodiversity as the gold standards of the future.

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.

How is this sand processed and used? CS&P plans to truck in sand from mines to be developed in areas around the city, treat it with water and chemicals (a number of which qualify as hazardous materials and carcinogens), and ship it out by trucks and rail. This “frac sand” is pumped into wells with a liquid, usually water, at high pressure as part of the hydraulic fracturing process to hold open cracks in the rocks and increase production.

Concerned Chippewa Citizens (CCC) – Newspaper articles began to appear only after the 93 acres of agricultural land and two wetlands had been purchased, annexed into the city, designated “heavy industrial”, and given liberal tax exemptions. CCC was formed in response to this information. Community concerns centered on whether the facility, and the multiple mines needed to support it, will negatively impact the public health, the local economy and our natural resources. With an abundance of this specialized sand, a further concern was the possibility of a rapid and large expansion of similar mines and plants throughout the region, changing the communities and destroying the landscape forever.

Some actions – Many people have attended local governmental meetings to “speak out”. Letters, emails and phone calls have gone to local and national outlets, including letters in support of pending legislation to regulate fracturing at the national level. A forum was held to bring the facts to the community. Connections have been made and information shared with regional groups also experiencing pressure from mining interests. For example, in Blair, Wisconsin citizens are opposing the Canadian Winn Bay Sand Company’s proposed sand mine and processing plant, both less than a mile from the city.

Research - CCC has done extensive research on the implications of this huge project. Issues include respirable crystalline silica inhalation, diesel particulates, congested truck traffic, water and noise pollution, loss of agricultural land and wetlands, and degraded property values. Phone calls and Web searches have identified many cities and towns across the U.S.A. with similar concerns. To name a few:

Citizen vigilance in the Arkansas Calico Rocks area stopped the Bluebird Sand LLC mining operation from discharging sediment into local rivers without a permit.

Activists are working to protect communities from exploitative gas drilling that may affect wells in the Pennsylvania/New York/West Virginia/Ohio Marcellus Shale region.

The city of Fort Worth, Texas, one of the biggest beneficiaries in the natural gas boom, is questioning its largely supportive stand of the industry after a study found high levels of hazardous chemicals, including Benzene, in the air near production sites.

What next? Concerned Chippewa Citizens will continue to work toward building public support and motivating individual involvement. It is essential for city and town governments to have policies, ordinances and funding regulations in place that protect against the potential harm which the mining of such sand and the use of the fracturing process might produce.  As our country transitions from coal, oil and gas to renewable energy sources, communities must also look to the future and support businesses that provide energy sources that are safe, clean, and green.

The CCC website at www.ccc-wis.com has a wealth of information.

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.

2. The “Mining Team” at the DEQ is not qualified to evaluate a technical mining application, having no applicable expertise or experience. They admitted as much in court. All permits granted should therefore be revoked. We could test their level of expertise in public if that would please them. A full hour on TV?

3. The Team admitted no familiarity with the law as it pertains to applications for a permit to mine, and illustrated that point by not requiring the applicant to actually demonstrate that their planned activities would perform as claimed. The pertinent Part 632 is available on the DEQ site and it is not very difficult to read and understand. They should have done that.

So don’t get excited yet. Don’t start your engines. And don’t harm a single tree in sight of Eagle Rock, the place of worship – which is protected by the law.

Thank you for your attention.

This letter was originally posted by the Houghton Mining Gazette on January 22, 2010.

Addendum: Confession to the Houghton Mining Gazette’s Managing Editor (following day)

Good morning Larry [Holcombe]:

This is not a normal Letter to the Editor, but a correction, an apology to you and your readers.

My letter, which you entitled “Kennecott mine not done deal” was written in haste and so was misleading.  You were considerate enough to call me and point that out, but I didn’t listen.  You even gave the piece a title more accurate and descriptive than mine.  I appreciate that.

I will try not to use this as an opportunity to preach my usual messages.

On Thursday  Jan 14th the DEQ announced that they were issuing the permits required by Kennecott.  Most of the press accepted that news as a signal to get started.  So I fired off the letter to the Gazette, intending to point out that the permits were not legal and to head off any preemptive action by Kennecott.  That was my intent, but …

In particular I wanted to ensure that nothing would be done to desecrate the “place of worship” – Eagle Rock.  I am not speaking for KBIC but assume that the top of the bluff, facing west, would be the seat of worship, and that any cutting and bulldozing in front of that place would do irreparable damage to the place of worship.

I could tell that I was in trouble when I came home yesterday and was attacked by my wife, who figured that I had gone over to the fanatic treehugger side.  My last paragraph sounds a lot like it:  ”And don’t harm a single tree in sight of Eagle Rock.”

Phew!  That statement was a bit strong.

I am sorry, and wish to reaffirm that I am “for” mining the Eagle orebody provided that it is done legally and responsibly.

Thank you for the guidance,

Jack

To read Jack Parker’s report on some of the problems with Kennecott’s Eagle Mine application, click HERE.

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?  How are they getting away with using the public office and taxpayer money to promote the interests of a foreign mining company?  The fact that hardly anyone ever runs against them in elections probably helps.  More importantly, why are we putting up with it?  We continue to accept their mediocrity that prevents our chances of having a decent economic future.  We let them get away with promoting themselves as our economic saviors while never having original ideas or a drive for really improving our economy long-term. 

Step away from Marquette County a ways and you might notice that Rio Tinto isn’t focused on improving the UP’s economy, as the County Board would have us believe. 

Rio Tinto’s CEO Tom Albanese notes that new metal demand comes from China and that the company’s biggest new markets are in “China, China – and then again, I would say, China.”

We have a huge trade deficit with China in nearly everything except low-end raw materials, such as metals.  From 2001 to 2007, before the current recession, Michigan lost 79,500 jobs as a direct result of our trade relationship with China, while the US lost 2.3 million jobs, with over $19 billion in lost wages for workers. 

It is a strange irony that, while politicians promote selling our mineral wealth to China, for Rio Tinto’s gain, and claim it will benefit our economy, that very trade in raw materials is costing Michigan thousands of jobs and the U.S. millions of jobs.

It’s long been time to stop investing in China’s future at the expense of Michigan jobs.  We need some new blood in charge that can make decisions that benefit our future.

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.

In the present context, with the Kennecott applications, Mining Team Leader Joe Maki did not have the help he needed.  His team did not have the expertise to evaluate legal and technical issues.  He said as much in court. We understand their predicament.

2. Speaker Cynthia Pryor, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, forcefully read from a long and detailed list of items wherein Kennecott had not met the requirements of Part 632 of the Michigan Mining Law by failing, in each instance, to demonstrate that their plans could be carried out successfully, either by demonstration or with documented evidence that similar plans had been used successfully elsewhere, in similar circumstances. (The alternative would be – “Just trust me.”)

In the first instance the punchline would be:  Extenuating circumstances notwithstanding given that the evaluating agency was not qualified then no permits should have been issued, and all permits and agreements must be revoked.

In the second instance it was shown that Kennecott had not met the requirements of the law, so the application should have been turned down as administratively incomplete at a much earlier date, and it should be rejected forthwith.  MDEQ must uphold the law.

We ask, therefore, for those lapses to be corrected:  That the application be rejected and the permits and agreements revoked immediately.  Thank you.

I’m still pro-mining, but only if it’s done right.

Jack Parker is a respected rock mechanics expert with experience in hundreds of mines over his 60-year career.

Also posted in the Hougton Mining Gazette.

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. 

As noted in the hearing presentation, stockpile leachate will exceed ground water standards, seepage from the tailings will impact wild rice, and pit overflow after closure will exceed surface water standards.  There was also mention of safety concerns regarding the tailings embankments and stockpile design due to the sheer volume of waste rock, along with concern about the cumulative effects of increased regional air emissions, the increase of sulfates and methylmercury in the St. Louis River watershed, and the loss of wildlife habitat and travel corridors.  Concerns about the 45 year post-mining plan were only peripherally mentioned, with the potential for acid mine drainage and toxic heavy metal leaching far into the future. 

I have additional concerns.  Contrary to PolyMet’s talking points about its proposed mine, these metals would not be for domestic use.  One of the consultants that I visited with at the hearing said that he is getting inquiries about how the semi-processed metals (nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, and gold) could be packed to ship directly to China.  He also stated that all metals would be sold on the global market, based upon PolyMet’s agreement with Swiss Glencore. 

PolyMet claims that we need these metals, apparently imported,  for our computers, cell phones, TV’s and other electronic products.  Have you checked out the mall lately?  Do you see any shortage of these items?  PolyMet’s claim that we need its metals in order to maintain our lifestyles is a fear tactic.  

Another piece of propaganda is that this less-than-1% ore body is part of a green future.  The mining of 99% waste rock is simply not sustainable over the projected 20 year life span of the mine.  It doesn’t make sense to use declining sources of energy to mine 99% waste.  Nor does it make sense to replace an energy structure based on oil and coal with one dependent on rare metals.  Does anybody really think that technologies and lifestyles will stay the same over the next 20 years?  Future technologies will be based on recycling, efficiency, and new processes.  

I believe that it’s irresponsible of our politicians to jump on a bandwagon promoting PolyMet, without studying the DEIS and having some understanding of the long term implications of this project.  Although the public was not allowed to speak at the Aurora hearing, state senator Tomassoni began the presentation with a speech that came right out of PolyMet’s archives.  Representative Rukavina at least acknowledged that there was no “public” in this public hearing.  Our politicians are promising local people 400 jobs which would be nonexistent in today’s economic market and unsustainable in the long run. 

The Arrowhead Region of Minnesota, wedged between the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Lake Superior, is known for its scenic quality.  The local politicians claim that we should sacrifice this area, because mining would be done in a more environmentally sound way here than in other parts of the world.   What the politicians are neglecting to understand is that the mining of sulfide ores in the wetland environment of northeast Minnesota is a recipe for disaster.  PolyMet’s “new, not your grandfather’s type of mine” is based on the use of its autoclave and hydromet.  These were designed to extract low grade ores, not to be environmentally friendly.  This touted technology simply releases pollutants into the ground water, rather than into the air, while leaving behind mountains of waste rock. 

Furthermore, if mining companies claim that they can extract ore in ways that are better for the environment, then why aren’t they doing so on a global level?  Instead, Canadian mining companies are being called on the carpet worldwide for their poor environmental record, which puts corporate profits over people and the environment. 

PolyMet supporters identified themselves at the hearings by wearing sweatshirts which proclaimed “Buy a Bigger Truck.” These words should tell us exactly why we don’t need to mine low grade ores in the wetland environment of northern Minnesota.  The world of the future—with over 6 billion people—is going to be a world based on sustainability, rather than luxury—with enough so that everyone can have their basic needs met—for food, water, clothing, shelter,  sanitary facilities, and education.  The jobs of the future will require workers who can design solutions for living creatively within our planetary limits.  My advice to all is “Buy a smaller truck.”

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. Everyone in Marquette County who has followed the mining controversy knows in 2003 local green groups were telling anyone with ears that Michigan didn’t have regulations covering sulfide mining or underground mining.

Then Gov. Granholm created a mining work group to create new legislation. The playing field wasn’t even from the beginning, as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality told the group that a Wisconsin-type mining law wouldn’t even be discussed.

If Michigan’s new mining laws had a regulation that a sulfide mine had to be at least 2,000 feet from a body of water, we wouldn’t need a ballot initiative. If Michigan’s new mining laws had a regulation requiring an example of another sulfide mine that operated and closed without polluting, we wouldn’t need a ballot initiative.

Why do I as a homeowner have to be so many feet from water to build a house or put in a septic field and a mining corporation doesn’t have such a restriction?

When a group of politicians get together from supposedly different parties and recite the same mantra, it tells us there is only one party in America and that’s the Corporate Party. Both Republicans and Democrats are conduits for that party.

Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest 5 percent of our nation controls 95 percent of everything? By controlling politicians to secure the legislation they want with exemptions, loopholes and financial breaks. The top U.S. corporations know this and contribute equally to Democrats and Republicans. Currently there are 250 former congressman and senior government officials who are active lobbyists.

A recent report from the Center for Responsive Politics describing the wealth of members of Congress indicates that 237 members of Congress currently are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans over all.

The time for a legitimate second party is now, and without one we will never have anything resembling a green economy.

Also posted at the Marquette Mining Journal.

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.

In 2000, high levels of dioxin, located in a field near Saginaw, prompted the DEQ to collect samples:  The vast majority showed concentrations violating Michigan law.   Dioxin, highly toxic in even minute doses, damages the nervous and reproductive systems, child and fetal development and causes cancer.

A 2001 FOIA request revealed that Harding suppressed information regarding the soil tests and refused to approve further testing. Harding also suppressed an internal state health assessment recommending immediate action, going so far as to blacken out sections and redacting certain public documents referring to Dow’s responsibility..

Harding tried to tamper with the law in order to increase the amount of allowable dioxin in residential and industrial areas, thereby allowing dioxin levels more than ten times above public health standards.

In October 2004, Harding, who now works for the Dow-funded Mackinaw Center for Public Policy, wrote that the cost of cleanup for Dow “would be a huge expense for them for what they think is not money well-spent.”

In 2007, the highest level of dioxin ever reported to the Environmental Protection Agency was found in the river adjacent to Saginaw’s Wickes Park, where children play.

Harding is not alone in his disregard for public health.  Steven Chester, before becoming the current DEQ head, worked for a law firm representing Dow Chemical.  A 2007 confidential memo obtained from the EPA contains a scathing criticism of both Governor Granholm and Steven Chester, expressing concern that the DEQ and Michigan politicians made attempts to weaken Michigan law and delay clean-up in an effort to reduce potential future liability for Dow.

At the DEQ, it seems profits for companies like Dow Chemical and Rio Tinto will always take a front seat to human health.

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.  The Western Upper Peninsula Health Department has issued an advisory for people with water wells in the Jacobsville sandstone formation in the Keweenaw Peninsula to have their water tested for uranium, because a 2003 study by a group at Michigan Tech found that about 25% of 300 wells tested in the area had levels of uranium above what is considered safe by the national Environmental Protection Agency.

Since 2003, Bitterroot Resources has been exploring for uranium in the Ottawa State Forest in the Jacobsville sandstone.  In 2007, they found small amounts of uranium in drill cores. Cameco, a Canadian company that is one of the world’s biggest uranium suppliers, has given Bitterroot $1.7 million to do further exploration on the site.  New drilling was done in 2008, and the results are now being evaluated for follow-up.  Given that uranium prices have gone down from a peak of $140/lb. in 2004 to about $45/lb. today, even if this uranium body is large or rich, it may not be profitable now, but may well be later.

Mining for uranium is currently done by an process called in-situ leaching (ISL). This method does’t bring any ore to the surface, but rather pumps chemically-treated water into and through the ore body to dissolve the uranium and brings it to the surface, where it is extracted.  Treated water is pumped back in to dissolve more uranium.  The question is, where does the water come from, and where does it go?

Uranium deposits suitable for ISL are found in permeable sand or sandstone that must be protected above and below by impermeable rock, and which are below the water table.  This means that if there is any connection or leakage into any other water source, that water will be contaminated with uranium.  Further, the water used in the ISL process can’t be effectively restored to natural groundwater purity.

Michigan’s new Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining law was written to deal with the threat of pollution by metallic sulfide ores and wastes that can create acidic, metal- laden water that must be carefully purified before being released into the environment.  During the rule-making process, it was pointed out that uranium is a nonferrous metal, and could be mined under these rules, even though there were no provisions for the special precautions needed for radioactive materials.  The response by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was that, yes, the “rules would apply to uranium mining, however, if uranium mining appears imminent, then the DEQ will review these rules for their adequacy to regulate such mining and determine revisions that may be needed.”

Part of the proposed MIWater Ballot Initiative language speaks to this issue by prohibiting uranium mining until new rules have been established. It is clear that such rules are needed now, and a vote for the initiative would ensure this.  It’s all about our water.

Also posted at the Marquette Mining Journal.

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.”

On June 19, 2008, shortly before 6 p.m., when asked if either he or his mine team followed that law in recommending approval of the project, Maki said, “I did not, no,” and “I don’t believe so, no.”

Charges have been made by well-respected mining expert Jack Parker that the Eagle Mine is not safe and could collapse.  The state’s own expert, Dr. David Sainsbury, said that Kennecott’s mine plan is “technically antiquated, sloppy and equivalent to high school level work,” that Kennecott’s methodology does “not reflect industry best practice” and Kennecott’s conclusions regarding the mine’s stability “are not considered to be defensible.”

In a July 2008 letter, the DEQ’s deputy director, Jim Sygo, said that Kennecott “would have to apply for an amendment of the mining permit for construction of a new haul road and … before beginning activities to extend electrical service from County Road 550 to the Eagle Project mine site.”

So where’s the application for mining permit amendments for the current work on the powerline going to the mine and the road going from the proposed mine, on the Yellow Dog Plains, to the proposed processing facility, in Humboldt?  Both plans are clearly for the Eagle Mine and are paid for by Kennecott. Legally, Kennecott has to reapply to add these plans to their mine plan. Why aren’t they?  Why isn’t anyone requiring them to follow the law?

If the state won’t even require Kennecott to follow the current law, is it really unexpected that a group would be working to try to strengthen that law and do the job for them?

Also posted at the Marquette Mining Journal.