A small handful of participants turned out Monday night in Marquette for an event supporting the cause of about 560 U.S. Borax workers locked out of their jobs in southern California by Rio Tinto, the parent company of the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company.

The event was organized by Yellow Dog Summer, an environmental group that opposes Kennecott’s proposed nickel and copper mine in northern Marquette County.

The Borax workers, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 30, have been locked out since Jan. 31 after labor negotiations broke down with Rio Tinto.

The International Mining and Maritime Unions called for “worldwide solidarity actions” to take place Monday.  The Yellow Dog Summer event was held at the Messiah Lutheran Church in Marquette.

Organizer Gabriel Caplett said he was hoping some members of local mine workers unions would have attended the meeting.  None did.  But the irony of the Kennecott opponents holding the miner support event was not lost on Caplett or the group’s other organizers.

“Some people can definitely see it as being ironic,” Caplett said.  ”I didn’t think that it was a bad thing to show support for them (the Borax miners).  It’s a very human story.”

Caplett said the groups opposing Rio Tinto and Kennecott’s mining efforts are not against local mine workers.

Caplett said he hoped the church as a meeting place would work to level differences on both sides, providing a starting place for more substantive discussions in the future.  The church broadens the debate and is more inclusive of people on both sides, Caplett said.

“The faith community bridges that issue and makes it more of a neutral ground,” Caplett said.  ”I think we have to have more of that kind of dialogue.”

Caplett said good points have been made in the discussions on Kennecott’s mine from both sides.  He said those in favor of the mine speaking at local hearings and meetings seem to be reasonable people and he can understand how anti-Rio Tinto events organized by environmental groups might seem polarizing.

Caplett said that he, like some other opponents, want the best circumstances to come out of the situation if the Eagle Mine is dug into the ground by Kennecott.

“If it does open up there, there should be as many workers as possible with good pay and benefits and the county should get more revenue our of this than it has,” Caplett said.  ”We should get the most out of it that we can.”

The small gathering of less than 10 people at the church Monday listened briefly to remarks by Caplett and local reverend and environmentalist Jon Magnuson.  The 1976 documentary “Harlan County U.S.A.” was then shown.  The film chronicles the 1973 struggle of nearly 200 Kentucky coal miners in their unionization efforts against the Duke Power Company.

Caplett said he hopes for a larger turnout at the group’s next event.

“Hopefully, the next one can have more people from both sides, Caplett said.  ”Maybe not yelling, but debating fiercely.”

Note:  Gabriel Caplett is Editor of the Lake Superior Mining News.

Elliott told the London press that the company might soon expand spending on new projects and possibly start buying new projects.

“We are very happy with the progress of the recapitalization since June,” Elliott said. “We have lots of organic options and this gives us the flexibility to progress those if they require funding.”

Some are even speculating that Rio Tinto may soon have more cash than it can deal with.

“From being on the brink in 2009, to having a surplus of cash in 2011 is a stunning turnaround and raises the question of what to do with any excess cash pile that builds,” wrote Johan U. Rode, an analyst at Citigroup, in London.

Rio Tinto’s optimistic view of a company soon flush with cash counters insinuations made by Borax leadership that sacrifices by the over 500 workers at the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 30 are necessary to keep the company afloat.

Dean Gehring, general manager of the mine, told the Los Angeles Times Rio Tinto would not be negotiating with the union “any time in the near future” and that, because of the threat of a strike, the company had to lock the workers out in order to remain globally competitive.

“People here are tough and willing to see this through to the end,” union spokesman Craig Merrilees said. “It’s not just about Rio Tinto but all the companies doing this to people across the country. In this little town people are drawing the line.”

Workers at Local 130 have received support over the past few months from a number of unions around the world, including the Maritime Union of Australia, the Construction Forestry and Mining Union, Mining and Energy Division (CFMEU) and mine workers’ unions in Denmark, Poland, Turkey and India.   Today, the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine, and General Workers’ Unions (ICEM), offered its support.  The ICEM represents 20 million workers worldwide from 467 affiliated trade unions in 132 countries.

According to an ICEM news release:

“We note that all 500 members of ILWU Local 30 voted against the company’s contract proposal on Saturday night,” said ICEM General Secretary Manfred Warda. “This should have served as a message to Rio Tinto Minerals to continue negotiating, continue seeking the necessary compromises in order to achieve a mutually acceptable collective agreement.”

A prior contract expired on 4 November 2009. Management is seeking unprecedented changes to workers’ seniority, shift and overtime assignments, and the way in which promotions are made, as well as seeking unilaterally to impose flexibility changes that favour the company to the detriment of workers.

The ICEM will use its role, as the leading Global Union Federation in the mining industry, to alert trade unions around the globe, particularly those representing Rio Tinto workers, of the lockout and urge them to take action on behalf of ILWU Local 30 in California.

In an October 15 statement the Maritime Union and CFMEU said:

“While our Unions have had a long and bitter experience with Rio Tinto and their anti-union, anti-workforce tactics and policies here in Australia, we continue to be amazed at the way in which multi national corporations like Rio Tinto, demand and expect working men and women to sacrifice hard won conditions of employment in order to prop up already bloated corporate profits.”

“I think it will be pretty traumatic,” said Jim Freeman, 54, who has worked at the mine for 31 years. “I think the company had the impression we were going to roll over and let them feed us the poison.”

Dean Gehring, general manager of the mine, told the Los Angeles Times Rio Tinto would not be negotiating with the union ”any time in the near future” and that, because of the threat of a strike, the company had to lock the workers out in order to remain globally competitive.

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.

Resolution Explores for Copper Outside Superior, Arizona; Photo courtesy Flickr

Rio Tinto, a company that has made its name exploiting public and indigenous mineral wealth for decades, is set to make off with an astounding $140 billion in publicly-held mineral rights, in Arizona, for what is expected to be North America’s largest copper mine.

On Wednesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a land swap allowing Resolution Copper Mining (a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton) access to 2,400 acres of the Tonto National Forest.  The area contains sites sacred to local Native American tribes and was previously protected from mining activities by the Eisenhower administration.

According to the Arizona Republic, in a deal reached between the Obama administration, Senate Democrats and Arizona Senator John McCain, the only thing standing in Resolution’s way is a federal environmental review that must be completed prior to the land deal.

An opponent of the deal, US Representative Raúl Grijalva has concerns with Rio Tinto’s human rights record and urges a full investigation before a land swap is considered.

US Representative Raúl Grijalva opposes Rio Tinto's land swap and condemns the company's human rights record

“(Rio Tinto) has as bad a record as you’ll find anywhere in the world, yet the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (approved) a deal that would grant it another $140 billion in mineral rights currently held on public land,” Grijalva said in a prepared statement.

“We, as lawmakers, owe the public some due diligence before rushing to pass a bad bill in the name of job creation.  The economy cannot be jump-started at the expense of the labor, civil rights and environmental laws we hold dear in this country.”

“Voting to pass this legislation blatantly ignores Rio Tinto’s troubling human rights record,” Grijalva said, pointing to the Norwegian government’s recent decision to divest itself of approximately $890 million in Rio Tinto stock after deeming the company’s activities overseas “grossly unethical.”

“The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, by moving the legislation forward without greater consideration of Rio Tinto’s worldwide business practices, has done “a grave disservice to our taxpayers and abused Congress’ role as the guardian of public resources,” he said.

Grijalva  serves as Chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee on the House Committee on Natural Resources where he could block a vote on the bill.

Lake Superior Mining News has reported on Rio Tinto’s theft of public resources in the past.

In Michigan the company plans to mine copper and nickel from its planned Eagle Mine.  The multi-billion dollar project is partially located on public land and would use a rock outcropping sacred to local Native American tribes for its mine portal.

In Utah, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon has criticized Kennecott Copper (wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto) for exploring on prized public recreation land.

Similarly, mining companies in Minnesota have  found it easy garner political support for the use of public land in order to mine metallic sulfide deposits.

PolyMet’s NorthMet project will move forward if the company can gain access to roughly 6,700 acres of public land in the Superior National Forest.  US Representative Jim Oberstar and US Senator Amy Klobuchar have introduced legislation that would directly give PolyMet that land.

Duluth Metals and Franconia Minerals also have projects, located just outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, in Minnesota, that would rely on the use of the Superior National Forest.

New commissioner David Saint-Onge questioned why the City was considering the resolution.

“As a new guy on the commission, I’m not so sure why this issue comes before us, to be honest with you, why we’re taking the amount of time that we’ve taken to address this issue – not that it’s not important,” said Saint-Onge. “I do believe that there are some portions of the resolution that’s being offered this evening that are unnecessarily inflammatory.”

Saint-Onge said that, since the resolution was introduced he could not, according to City guidelines, abstain from a vote. The seemingly reluctant St. Onge endorsed the resolution with a quiet “yes” vote.

According to November 30 City Commission meeting minutes, the anti-ballot resolution was introduced in order to support “State Senator Prusi’s efforts to defend mining in the Upper Peninsula.” In a November 11 news release, endorsed by four other Upper Peninsula politicians, Prusi claimed the MiWater ballot would “BAN any future mining,” and would create “economic devastation for the families that live and work in the Upper Peninsula.” Although the proposed MiWater ballot would act as an amendment to legislation governing only metallic sulfide mining (the ballot would also require similar legislation for uranium mining), Prusi’s claim was invoked by two City commissioners.

Mayor Pro-Tem John DePetro, who introduced the anti-ballot resolution, suggested that the ballot effort was a “guise” that “would affect and stop future mining in the Upper Peninsula the rest of our lives.”

Commissioner Frederick Stonehouse agreed, claiming the ballot would “have a very negative effect on all mining in the Upper Peninsula, be it iron, copper, nickel, even limestone.”

During public comment, building contractor, Jorma Lankinen and Marquette resident, Tony Retaskie used rhetoric similar to that in Senator Prusi’s statement.

“The Michigan water ballot proposal is really an anti-economic, anti-jobs, anti-mining and anti-Upper Peninsula proposal, and it’s disguised under a clean water initiative derived from Grosse Pointe,” said Retaskie.

Retired professor, Jon Saari disagreed, saying that Retaskie’s comments represent “the whole hammer blow of what we’re going to be seeing in this debate over the next year.”

“Our public discourse, these days, is abysmal,” said Saari. “This Michigan water initiative is being presented as anti-UP, anti-UP economy, culture and future, and a trick by a bunch of Grosse Pointe elitists.”

Gene Champagne, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Big Bay (CCBB), introduced himself as from “Big Bay up the road, not Big Bay below the bridge, at Grosse Pointe, as some of our officials like to point out in the media.”

Champagne explained that CCBB introduced a resolution in 2003 or 2004 calling for independent hydrology studies.

“That resolution called for a third party, independent hydrology study on the Yellow Dog Plains before any hardrock or sulfide mining takes place,” said Champagne. “The hydrology is not a guise; it’s been at the forefront of this issue since the beginning.”

In 2005, Marquette County Board Chairman Gerald Corkin wrote to express similar concerns to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality:

“The Marquette County Board of Commissioners supports…recent requests for a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Baseline and Hydrologic Survey of the Yellow Dog Plains region. This request has the support of Marquette County residents and local government officials, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, as well as State Senator Michael Prusi.”

The Marquette City Commission unanimously passed a resolution supporting independent hydrology studies and was supported by Marquette County and a number of townships.

In his support for the anti-ballot resolution, Commissioner Stonehouse noted that only three percent of Michigan’s voting population lived in the Upper Peninsula.

“We effectively have no functional voice on politics in this state – we are simply overwhelmed by the numbers,” said Stonehouse.

Commissioner Robert Niemi also took a practical view of the ballot initiative.

“The issue is too complex to do by initiative,” said Niemi. “The future of the mining industry is important to the UP and the vagaries of a political campaign are not the way to decide the question.”

Some comments in support of the resolution claimed disastrous economic consequences if the ballot proposal moved forward.

Amy Clickner, CEO of the Lake Superior Community Partnership (City commissioner and former Cleveland-Cliffs manager of public affairs, Don Ryan, helped form the group), along with some influential building contractors one of the main supporters of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine proposal, claimed that a water ballot proposal would threaten all other aspects of Michigan’s economy.

“Once we start this slippery slope, where does it end?” questioned Clickner. “Is the next ballot initiative what we can do in timber, is it what we can do in agriculture, is it what we can do in recreation?”

Jon LaSalle, chairman of Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs, claimed that, if the proposed ballot were passed, “The economic consequences of all future mining would be horrendous.”

“There’s no proven contamination anywhere in this subject matter,” said LaSalle.

However, according to the US Forest Service, at least ten-thousand miles of rivers in the American West have been destroyed by metallic sulfide mining operations. In September 2008, one of Rio Tinto’s largest shareholders, the Norwegian government, divested and called the company “grossly unethical” for its operations at a controversial mine in West Papua, currently under Indonesian military control. In a statement, Norway’s Council on Ethics said that acid drainage from metallic sulfide mines is “considered one of the most serious mining-related environmental problems across the world.”

Promoted as a “citizen” campaign, the spokesperson for Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs is Deb Muchmore. For years, Muchmore has been Rio Tinto’s lead spokesperson in efforts to open the proposed Eagle Mine.

LaSalle also said that claims of future uranium mining in Michigan were unfounded.

“Today, earth scientists agree that no one has found a commercially-viable uranium ore body in Michigan,” said LaSalle.

Retired Northern Michigan University chemistry professor, Gail Griffith, disagrees. According to Griffith, since 2004 the price of uranium has dropped from $139 a pound to less than $50 a pound, making uranium operations that may be economically viable in the future not viable today.

“If well water in the Jacobsville Sandstone formation is already contaminated with uranium it seems reasonable to develop stringent rules for uranium mining to protect these waters and to do it now,” said Griffith.

According to Michigan Messenger a joint venture between uranium giant, Cameco, and Bitteroot Resources, has been actively exploring the Upper Peninsula since 2003, spending over $700 thousand on uranium exploration in the first nine months of 2009 alone.  In a report issued to shareholders in July, the company noted that it had “identified several areas which warrant additional exploration.”

Commissioner Stonehouse seemed to agree with Griffith.

“If it only prevented uranium mining I would likely support it and would be the first one to sign the petition,” said Stonehouse. “If the issue were only about mining on the Yellow Dog Plains and its sensitivity to Lake Superior, that’s a different story too.”

Stonehouse said that a number of issues are affecting the Great Lakes that are more significant that metallic sulfide mining and cited his belief that Asian carp “will decimate a seven billion dollar fishing industry.

“From an environmental perspective that is a disaster of biblical proportions,” said Stonehouse.

For additional video from the meeting, please go to YouTube.

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.”

As the result of tightly-controlled verbal public comment, few participated in that part of the PolyMet DEIS process; Photo courtesy Lori Andresen

Hundreds of PolyMet Mining Company supporters were bussed to public meetings in Aurora and Blaine to provide comments on the company’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed NorthMet project.  The organizing effort was combined with a public relations blitz of endorsements from Minnesota state and federal politicians -including the late endorsement of Senator Al Franken – the Minnesota AFL-CIO, construction groups and the Chamber of Commerce.  Despite the large turnout, the public was unable to speak at either meeting.

“The ‘public hearings’ didn’t actually allow public comments to the audience,” said retired miner, Bob Tammen.  “The only oral comments allowed were by individuals to stenographers in a tightly monitored room separate from the auditorium.  That meant that the only outside speakers allowed were Iron Range legislators.”

Citizens wanting to give verbal public comment registered here in order to speak, privately, with a stenographer; Photo courtesy Lori Andresen

In a new public hearing format, described as “enhanced” by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), public comments were severely restricted with the only speakers allowed to voice opinions on the project being staunch political supporters of PolyMet’s NorthMet proposal.  State Senator David Tomassoni and State Representative Thomas Rukavina gave speeches at the hearing in Aurora, on Wednesday, while State Senator Thomas Bakk chimed in at the Blaine hearing, the following day. Both Rukavina and Bakk are running for governor in the 2010 election.

Rukavina criticized the DNR and Governor Tim Pawlenty for silencing the public and used his unique opportunity to promote his gubernatorial campaign.

“If I were Governor,” said Rukavina, “the public would have been allowed to speak.”

Supporters claim PolyMet’s NorthMet project would provide metals necessary for what is being called a “green economy” that produces wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, batteries and solar panels.  Over the past decade, the mining industry has attempted, rather successfully, to recraft its dirty image through a massive global public relations effort to frame mining operations as synonymous with sustainable development.

“The new green economy is ready to explode,” said Senator Tomassoni, at the Aurora hearing.

Retired schoolteacher, Elanne Palcich disagrees and maintains that projects like PolyMet’s are anything but environmentally friendly.

“Mining ninety-nine percent waste rock is not green and not sustainable,” says Palcich.  “This mine is only green for a few top investors who hope to make huge profits on the precious metals while the going is good.”

A statement on PolyMet’s website claims that “by providing these valuable metals while meeting strict environmental regulations, PolyMet will help U.S. consumers practice sustainability, as well.”

Representative Rukavina said that metals from the NorthMet mine would be used to create numerous “green” products.

“Whether you support this project or have concerns, no one will dispute that we need these metals,” said Rukavina.

But Bob Tammen says the metals shouldn’t come from water-rich Minnesota.

“Every Polymet meeting I’ve been to has a coffee pot but nobody says we should grow coffee in Minnesota because we use it here,” said Tammen.  “We aren’t a great area for growing coffee; likewise, we aren’t a great area for mining copper.  We’re all wetlands.”

“I’m probably more against it because of the economics than environmentally,” Tammen told the Mesabi Daily News.  “Historically, any region that relies on resources and mining does not do as well as other areas. People just sit around and wait for the mining companies to provide some jobs that come and go,’’ Tammen said.

Others have concerns coming from an environmental and public health standpoint.  After reviewing the DEIS, the Friends of the Boundary Waters has outlined some of the more major environmental and public health concerns with PolyMet’s proposal on their website.  According to the group,

Water leaching from the waste rock piles is expected to be contaminated for up to 2,000 years

The West Mine Pit will overflow at Mine Year 65 (45 years after expected mine closure), contaminating the adjacent Partridge River with sulfates and heavy metals

Groundwater at the mine site is expected to exceed water quality standards

Due to structural instability, the tailings basin has a “low margin of safety”

Al Trippel, an environmental consultant with Environmental Resources Management (ERM), based out of London, England, gave a presentation on PolyMet’s DEIS.  The Minnesota DNR hired Trippel’s firm to conduct the “third-party” assessment of PolyMet’s project, not the first time Trippel has been promoted as an independent source.

Trippel acted as Aquila Resource’s representative throughout Michigan’s “Part 632″ statute and rules process that crafted legislation regulating the metallic sulfide mining industry. Trippel is currently on Aquila’s payroll, and was responsible for conducting baseline environmental studies necessary prior to submitting a mine application for the company’s proposed “Back Forty” project, located along the Menominee River, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  In December 2008 Trippel gave a presentation, in Menominee, Michigan, that was advertised by Aquila, in a local newspaper, as being held “in response to public requests for unbiased, educational, fact-driven information from an expert.”

While DNR, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers staff were on hand to answer public questions, the US Forest Service, an agency cooperating on the DEIS, was not available at the public meetings.

Forest Service involvement in the PolyMet proposal is significant.  In order to open the NorthMet project, the company must either secure a controversial land exchange with the Forest Service or rely on a bill introduced by US Representative Jim Oberstar and US Senator Amy Klobuchar that would allow PolyMet to directly own 6,700 acres of the Superior National Forest.  The move would also eliminate requirements requiring consultation and cooperation with Native American tribes, under an 1854 treaty with the US government.

In addition to the land exchange bill, PolyMet may also benefit from a revolving door relationship between state pollution enforcement agencies and the mining industry.

Brad Moore, recently the commissioner of the MPCA, now works for Barr

Ann Glumac (in blue), former deputy MPCA commissioner, currently a PolyMet consultant, at Aurora meeting; Photo courtesy Lori Andresen

Engineering, a Minneapolis-based consulting firm working with PolyMet, while Ann Glumac, former deputy MPCA commissioner, is assisting PolyMet as a consultant.

In 2007 Franconia Minerals hired former Director of the state DNR’s Division of Lands & Minerals, William Brice, as the company’s Director of Government & Community Relations.  Franconia is currently exploring a deposit directly underneath Birch Lake, which feeds into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

For information on providing public comment – due by February 3, 2010 – please visit the Minnesota DNR’s PolyMet page.

Baraga County Mine Inspector, Don Carlson, expressed concern that fugitive dust leaving the proposed mill site could affect worker’s health and the health of their families since he has not seen an adequate plan to both capture and dispose of the fine material.  Carlson also highlighted Michigan’s poor economy – Baraga County has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates - and said that any mining jobs need to be performed by union workers, citing the closed White Pine Mine as a good example of how workers could be treated.

“When this company comes to the area are the area people going to be hired or are the companies going to bring the people from other areas,” questioned Carlson.  “We have an influx in Michigan of no jobs, people being laid off every day, all these types of things and these workers aren’t being able to go and get a job, a union job, with these companies.”

Rio Tinto, a notorious anti-worker company has drawn the ire of union workers around the world and is currently attempting to bust Local 30 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, AFL-CIO, at the company’s large open pit Borax Mine, in California.

Chris Mofatt, a Marquette County prison worker and lifelong Upper Peninsula resident said, “I don’t oppose mining, I don’t oppose jobs, but I do oppose liars and I think that Rio Tinto and the DEQ are not credible.”

“Rio Tinto’s track record is poor,” said Mofatt.  “They want to come in here and do the same thing in the UP they’ve done in other countries. I oppose that.  Michigan deserves better than that and we’re not getting it right now.  Our corporate government wants to run an eighteenth century industry down the throat of twenty-first century enfranchised Americans. . . we deserve better and so does everybody in the world because we have twenty percent of the fresh water.”

According to Keweenaw Bay Indian Community geologist, Chuck Brumleve, the DEQ’s approval of the Humboldt Project is currently opposed by both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Yet, in an interview with WLUC-TV6, the DEQ’s director of the Office of Geological Survey, Hal Fitch, claimed that approval of the Humboldt Mill project “hasn’t been a controversial issue.”

Reading from an EPA statement, Brumleve reported that the agency is “concerned the currently proposed project may have significant adverse impacts on the ecosystem.  We object to the issuance of a permit for this project.”

Brumleve said that the US Fish and Wildlife Service requested “that the MDEQ not issue a permit for the proposed work.”

Brumleve expressed concern if toxic materials enter into the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River, already contaminated by high selenium levels coming from Cliff’s Natural Resources’ Empire and Tilden iron ore mines.

“The Escanaba River watershed is one of the Upper Peninsula’s major watersheds,” said Brumleve.  Any discharge “will ultimately affect the Escanaba River and discharge into Lake Michigan.  The Escanaba River already has a number of fish advisories.”

At a previous Humboldt Mill hearing, in February, Ely Township resident and miner, Stephen Johnson, said that he lives along the Escanaba River and has seen fish die off.

“Since the thirty years I’ve lived here I’ve seen the Middle Branch of the Escanaba deteriorate as a quality watershed,” Johnson said.  “We used to have brook trout galore in it some thirty years ago and I’m not aware of anybody catching a brook trout down by my residency in the last fifteen years.”

Marquette County Commissioner, Deb Pellow, read a statement in support of Rio Tinto’s milling plans, saying that the “reuse of the abandoned industrial site is an outstanding opportunity for environmental clean-up with the cost borne by Kennecott.”

“At the end of the mine’s life the site and surrounding area will have to be reclaimed to establish a self-sustaining ecosystem that does not need ongoing care.” [to view Pellow's public comment, see video below]

Indirectly countering Pellow, Brumleve said that while “we’re all in favor of” reusing old industrial sites, “instead of creating news ones,” Rio Tinto’s application makes clear, in at least two sections, that they are not required to leave the site cleaner than it currently is, nor do they intend to do so.

Quoting from Rio Tinto’s application, Brumleve said “the final land use of the reclaimed area of the Humboldt Mill site will remain as restricted industrial uses consistent with [Rio Tinto's] acquisition of the site.”

“They apparently do not intend to remediate these conditions,” said Brumleve.

Cynthia Pryor, Big Bay resident and former executive director of the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, outlined other deficiencies.  Pryor said that contingency plans required under Michigan law for a ‘spill prevention control plan’, ‘pollution incident prevention plan’ and monitoring of surface water sediment and fish tissue, as well as designs for “liners, covers, leachate collection systems [and] tanks” were not included in the application.

“Those designs should have been a part of the application,” said Pryor.  “In order to demonstrate that you’re going to be capable of doing something, you should have the design available for people to look at, for you to evaluate and for us to comment on.”

Pryor said the DEQ failed to request additional information from the company regarding designs for a water treatment plant, as well as a containment wall to prevent toxic tailing waste from entering into area wetlands and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River.

“If it is not done, if it is not there, then your job is not done and neither is theirs,” said Pryor.  “It is the law. . . the application, therefore, is not complete.”

The DEQ’s Hal Fitch maintained that Rio Tinto has met all requirements.

“We’ve looked at it, at every aspect of it,” Fitch said.  “The requirements, the statute, and our rules and we feel that it meets those requirements and with those revisions and provisions Kennecott has provided us.”

Richmond Township supervisor William Luetzow joined supervisors in Humboldt, Republic and Michigamme townships in offering “one hundred percent” support of Rio Tinto’s proposed milling facility.  Luetzow, likely among the minority of American citizens that trust politicians, said that he resented public comments suggesting that Michigan politicians were corrupt and working on behalf of Rio Tinto’s interests.

“It was brought up twice here that politicians are corrupt or they’re part of this Kennecott thing.  I truly don’t understand that because politicians are voted by the people, for the people,” said Luetzow.

Some Rio Tinto supporters attacked local opponents as “anti-mining” and opposed to jobs.  James Sodergren claimed that, “many of the folks who make up the anti-mining group are not residents.  I’m certain that they have spent millions and continue to spend more in their effort to stop mining in the UP” and Deerton resident, John Hongisto, claimed that Rio Tinto opponents were “telling lies about mining and Kennecott.” [see video below]

Later public comments countered the claim that Rio Tinto opponents were opposed to mining or jobs.  Big Bay resident and schoolteacher, Gene Champagne, said, “You hear a lot of talk about jobs tonight.  Yes, we need jobs in this area.  Who in their right mind is against jobs?”

Champagne said that he does not belong to an environmental group and that Rio Tinto’s own actions led him to not trust their mining plans.

“In the time that I’ve been opposing I’ve never heard one person in the opposition, in so-called environmental groups, say one thing about being anti-mine or anti-jobs,” said Champagne.

Champagne called the approval process a “farce” and said that, while “we need the jobs here, nowhere in the law does it say that it has to provide jobs to get a permit.”

“The law says it does have to protect the safety of the workers and the safety of our environment,” said Champagne.  “The DEQ needs to follow the law.”

A couple comments in support of reopening the Humboldt Mill were seemingly heartfelt and compelling, especially considering that Michigan currently has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Jay Mathews, with the local carpenters and millwrights union, said that his family has a long history of working in the mines and construction.

“It’s been our heritage for four or five generations,” said Mathews.  “All of my family has been supported by mines or by the jobs that came around with the mines.”

Mathews said that his sister worked for the Republic school system and lost her job when Cleveland Cliff’s eponymous mine closed.

“When they closed the schools, she was out of a job, said Mathews.  So it’s not just the mine workers that work, it’s everybody around.  It’s a big picture that we need now, as far as the economy goes.”

For other local coverage, read Johanna Boyle’s article, at the Marquette Mining Journal.

To view documents related to the proposed Humboldt Mill project, or to comment on the project by 5pm, Tuesday, December 29, 2009, visit the Michigan DEQ’s Web site.