Don Rawlyk: Sunset Sails ~Enlarge
I have a confession. Looking back over this week’s postings I can see that I chose the easy route and focused quite a bit on problems with Rio Tinto’s Eagle Project, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. I have a better understanding of Eagle than I do other projects, such as the northeast Minnesota projects (PolyMet, Duluth Metals, Franconia, Kennecott, etc.) or projects in Ontario.
When I wrote on problems with Michigan’s new metallic mining legislation and the “consensus” process, I should have mentioned a bill that representatives Jim Oberstar (MN) and Amy Klobuchar (US) have attempted to introduceallowing Minnesota to sell over 6,000 acres of public forestland to PolyMet for the controversial NorthMet project.
And I utterly failed in covering, even briefly, mining issues in Ontario. I hope that someone can pick that up at a later date as theKitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, the Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadjiwan and Canadian citizens’ struggles to protect their land rights, water quality and local economies are no less compelling and critical than struggles in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Nonetheless, Rio Tinto’s Eagle Project is a good starting point as issues with that mine have quite a bit in common with others. For instance, Aquila Resources’ Back Forty gold and zinc project is adjacent to the Menominee River (in fact, the ore body goes underneath the river), while PolyMet’s NorthMet project is adjacent to miles of pristine wetlands, Franconia’s Birch Lake Project is directly underneath Birch Lake and Rio Tinto’s is underneath the Salmon Trout River.
Mining issues in the three states seem to contrast somewhat with Canadian mining issues, primarily due to the incredibly weak mining laws there.
So, where do we go from here? I certainly don’t have the answers, although I do have some ideas that I can share.
To Do List
In the information and facts department, I am confident that we are on the right path. Many industry experts, including some who are staunchly “pro-mining”, believe strongly that Rio Tinto’s Eagle Project has a high likelihood of collapsing and that the company’s mine plan is utterly incompetent and, potentially, fraudulent. Rio Tinto and other mining giants like Cameco (exploring for uranium on public forest land in Michigan) have terrible histories riddled with egregious human rights abuses and extensive environmental damage – histories that Great Lakes citizens cannot ethically tolerate.
At least in Michigan, regulatory agencies have proven to be unwilling and unable to properly scrutinize and enforce new metallic mining projects. In response to questioning by National Wildlife Federation attorney, Michelle Halley, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) geologist Joe Maki (“mine team” coordinator for review of the Eagle Project application) admitted that the DEQ did not require Rio Tinto to have back-up plans for a mine collapse, aquifer contamination (the Yellow Dog Plains has some of the most sensitive aquifers in the Upper Midwest), wastewater treatment failure, and seemingly any other major problem that could easily happen at a modern mining project.
Maki also admitted that the DEQ ignored a central tenet in Michigan’s new mining law when approving Rio Tinto’s application. The section that Maki claimed neither he nor the mining team considered:
“The applicant has the burden of establishing that the terms and conditions set forth in the permit application, mining, reclamation and environmental protection plan and environmental assessment will result in a mining operation that reasonably minimizes actual or potential adverse impacts on air, water and other natural resources and meets the requirements of this act.”
After the state’s suppression of documents critical of the Eagle mine plan, the incompetence shown by the DEQ in approving that plan, and after watching Governor Granholm’s Upper Peninsula director, Matt Johnson, accept a position in “community and governmental relations” for Rio Tinto, I have to wonder what has to occur before the project is finally ditched and Rio Tinto is asked to leave the Great Lakes and take its slick PR and empty promises with them. Could problems with the state’s lack of oversight and Rio Tinto’s mining plans become more evident?
One thing that I believe has been lacking (at least in Michigan) is the vibrant public involvement witnessed up until a couple of years ago. Without an active public, elected officials and agency heads have little incentive to make ethical and sound decisions. It is not enough to be against Rio Tinto’s Upper Peninsula projects or PolyMet’s Minnesota project or Aquila’s Back Forty project. In order to protect our physical health, the quality of our water and the long-term stability of our economy, individual citizens are going to have to take a more active role. Don’t just write your officials every month but submit an editorial to your local newspaper every month as well. Becomeactively involved in your area conservation group that is working to protect our quality of life. I don’t know of any grassroots citizen group that can’t use volunteers.
In Michigan pressure has to be put on elected officials to, at the very least, reinforce the current nonferrous metallic mining law in order to eliminate loopholes that endanger public health and Great Lakes waters. Ideally, the public should talk to these same officials and ask why Michigan’s governor claims that the state’s nonferrous metallic mining laws are the strongest in the nation when Wisconsin’s are obviously better. While you’re on the phone ask the governor’s aide why one of Granholm’s solutions to Michigan’s economic crisis is to permit development of a very un-“green” short-term toxic mining project.
Green With Envy
Frankly, I’m jealous of Wisconsin. The day after Wisconsin’s House passed a weakened “moratorium” law, corporate giant Exxon dropped its interest in the massive 55 million ton zinc, copper and lead Crandon deposit and left the state. That in response to a gutted law that was strengthened at a later date (that law has never been challenged in court).
Located south of Crandon and first discovered by Exxon Minerals the massive project was successfully stalled by citizen opposition since 1976. After Exxon split town the world’s largest mining company, BHP-Billiton, through its subsidiary Nicolet Minerals, attempted to bypass the moratorium. The company cited the Sacaton Mine, in Casa Grande, Arizona, the Cullaton Mine in the Nunavut Territory, Canada, and the McLaughlin Mine in Lower Lake, California.
By April, 2003, as the examples proved unable to pass scrutiny under Wisconsin law, a defeated BHP sold Nicolet Minerals and its surface and mineral rights for the project to Northern Wisconsin Resource Group, a subsidiary of Nicolet Hardwood Corp.
On October 28, 2003, the Mole Lake Sokaogon Chippewa and the Forest County Potawatomi Tribes purchased the project and associated lands for pennies on the dollar, ending the 27 year fight between the citizens of Wisconsin and the world’s most powerful mining companies. Two days later, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources received a letter from the company announcing its intention to withdraw its permit applications.
There’s no reason we can’t have a more active public and mining laws that really are protective of our values and quality of life in Michigan, Minnesota and Ontario. But it won’t happen without significant effort from all of us.
To get involved, please contact any of the grassroots organizations and indigenous groups below that are working on mining issues (keep in mind the list is nowhere near comprehensive) and visit the Lake Superior Mining News (I have no shame!) to keep somewhat current. For mining issues not limited to the Great Lakes, please visit the incredibly helpful Mines and Communities and London Mining Network websites.
Michigan:
Minnesota:
Wisconsin:
Ontario:
Please visit the various mining company websites, as well, to get a feel for their take on things (also not a comprehensive list):
