Saturday, December 18, 2010

Risky Business

Risky Business

Kennecott’s point man in the U.P., has said, “We’ll be so very careful.” Unfortunately the company he represents plans to open a metallic sulfide mine, the same kind of mine that has already polluted more than 12,000 miles of rivers and streams in the United States. EPA statistics show this company that promises to be “careful” has in fact been one of the largest polluters in the U.S. for several years. They have only two active mines. This would be their third.
EPA reported last April that the top six polluting U.S. facilities, which have generated more than 45 million pounds each (sounds like a lot to me!) of total disposal and other toxic releases, are all hardrock mining operations. That short list of six included both of Kennecott’s U.S. active mines, the Bingham Canyon Mine at 110,241,108 pounds, and Kennecott Greens Creek mine in Juneau, Alaska, with 47,384,288 pounds. Green’s Creek, which is similar to the proposed Yellow Dog mine, was the second largest producer of toxic waste among all companies in Alaska for two consecutive years.
Metallic sulfide mines pollute. They use high risk-technology judged by a long and troubling record. And this technology remains high-risk today.
If we stake 80% of the fresh water in the United States on promises by a foreign mining company to be “careful” using technology that has never yet produced a pollution-free mine, from a company that has more than once been a top polluter of this country, we do so at our peril. It makes no sense to risk a fifth of the earth’s fresh water for the sake of some foreign company’s bottom line.
Kennecott’s man has said, crisply, “Everything in life has a certain amount of risk.” Well, being careful at other places has not eliminated unexpected results, accidents, and spills, and the proposed site is extraordinarily sensitive. One modest accident and the Salmon Trout River, at least as the last spawning stream in Michigan for the coaster brook trout, will be toast.
A permit is a license to pollute. DEQ decides how much damage the area can absorb, and if they are wrong it doesn’t really affect them. But it will affect us, the residents of the area and the Great Lakes Basin. It tells you something that not even mining companies claim that metallic sulfide mines are pollution free. Instead they say they have “met permit levels.”

Comments

on what side does Michigan stand?

Dick,
It is unfathomable to me that the Michigan DEQ would approve the sulfide mining permit. The risks are too great, the benefits to the public interest negligible. Because of Michigan's budget crisis, as you've pointed out, the DEQ is ill-equipped to render a thorough judgment on Kennecott's permit application. Prudence dictates a 'no' on the permit. That nickel is not going anywhere. Let's hope for good news from the agency.

Let's hope for good news...

Thanks for your comments, Dave. I agree completely.
“Hope springs eternal,” as the poet said, but every indication we have is that DEQ will permit this mine Friday or Monday. I’d love to be wrong.
Dick
Alan Maki's picture

Risky business; united grassroots action required

In my opinion, we need to be using this Great Lakes Town Hall Forum as more of a grassroots "catalyst" to action... and this sulfide mining project in Michigan's UP is a very good example why.
How can we possibly sit by when a sparsely populated area that is mainly very poverty stricken is left to fend for themselves against one of the largest multi-national conglomerates in the world and a state government apparatus which ignores its responsibility to protect the people and a fragile ecosystem.
I took yesterdays column you wrote and sent it around, including to Canada; as they drink this water, too.
This is the e-mail I sent and I would encourage others to do the same:
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 3:55 AM
To: 'Doug Cornett'
Cc: 'Barry W. Babcock'; 'William Willers'; 'Scott Silver'; 'Joan Russow'; 'Gary Garbarino'; 'nnosal@uaw.net'; 'sectreas@clc-ctc.ca'; 'executivevp@clc-ctc.ca'; 'international@clc-ctc.ca'; 'ontario@clc-ctc.ca'; 'laytoj@parl.gc.ca'
Subject: Marquette, Michigan... sulfide mining discussed on great lakes town hall forum... check out link, participate
Doug,
Could you let people your way know this has come up on this site; it would be good to have a few local people commenting.
It would be good to have a bunch of people make this into a real action oriented topic on this site.
Also, has there been any attempt to contact the Canadians? They drink the Lake Superior water, too.
Below this I posted your your posting from yesterday.
Note: the emails went to my good buddy Gary Garbarino the legislative assistant to Michigan Democratic Party Floor Leader Steve Tobachman; environmentalists from around the country; the United Auto Workers legislative lobbyist in Michigan; along with Jack Layton the federal leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada and several officers of the Canadian Labour Congress.
If we can't stop something like this before it starts there is something wrong with how we are trying to assert our sovereign rights as a free people living in the worlds' greatest democracy... or so we are constantly told.
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Blog: h

Spread the word

Thank you, Allen!
This has been a “David and Goliath” kind of battle, and you can guess which one we are! The mining side seems to have endless financial reserves, which in this country seems to translate into political power, while the mostly volunteer citizen opposition struggles with paying the rent.
Save the Wild UP, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, needs all the help it can get, financial and otherwise, and the kind of thing you have done by circulating your message to friends and political contacts is great. If everyone did that there would be a groundswell to protect the water. That would quickly translate into political power, and ultimately political power is what we need to protect the Lakes.
Wisconsin passed a law, not quite accurately called a “Moratorium”, that has effectively stopped sulfide mining by requiring a “proof of effectiveness” – proof that sulphide mining can be done without damaging the water. A mining company there first has to show that there is a mine anywhere in North America that has operated for ten years, and been closed for ten years (the actual period of concern during which pollution can start is 40 years after closure). They can even use two different mines as "proof". That has been enough to make Wisconsin the most unfriendly environment in the world for metallic sulphide mining!
In answer to your question about the Canadians, there has been some contact and they are taking action on their own. October 25 the Prime Minister announced the creation of “Canada’s newest National Marine Conservation Area. More than 10,000 square kilometers of Lake Superior, including the lakebed, islands and north shorelands within the NMCA boundaries, will become the largest freshwater marine protected area in the world.” And they challenged the United States to follow their lead.
Come on, USA.
Dick
Gary Wilson's picture

Options?

Dick,
Assuming that you're right and the permit is granted -- what options remain?
Understanding the expense and resources involved, can a viable legal challenge be made?
gw

Options?

Thanks for your question, Gary. Yes. I expect a strong, effective legal challenge will be made by at least three organizations, maybe more. Law is not my field of expertise, but I am flatly told that Kennecott has not complied with Michigan law. There are also treaty issues with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. It will be up to the courts to decide.
There is an application pending with Fish & Wildlife to list the coaster brook trout as an endangered species, which would have an effect. The DNR has yet to grant a land lease, there is at least one EPA permit required, and we believe there are other permits that will be required. Construction cannot start until all required permits are granted to Kennecott. And there are other initiatives. Meanwhile, while this moves to the courts we need to use the time to raise awareness and hear the voice of the people. That is what can win it in the end.