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?
Let's hope for good news...
Risky business; united grassroots action required
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
Spread the word
Options?
Options?