Satellite map of Rio Tinto's planned Humboldt milling facility; Photo courtesy Google Maps

One day before a hearing on the company’s proposed 22-mile haul road, Rio Tinto is announcing it has obtained all state permits for its planned Humboldt milling facility.

At a December public hearing on the mill, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community geologist, Chuck Brumleve, noted that the DEQ’s approval of the Humboldt Project was opposed by both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

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.”

Ignoring the strong criticisms, 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.”

Rio Tinto says it will clean up the Humboldt site.  One staunch supporter of the company, Marquette County Commissioner Deb Pellow, claimed 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,” said Pellow.

Brumleve disagreed and 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.

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.

Sticker distributed before meeting by Rio Tinto's Senior Advisor for Government and Community Relations, Chantae Lessard

West Ishpeming, Michigan - Last week Rio Tinto’s head spokesperson for the proposed Eagle Mine, Deb Muchmore, informed AP that she is the new spokeswoman for a “citizen” campaign:  Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs.  Today’s public meeting regarding Rio Tinto’s proposed haul road, for the mine, featured public comment from a number of current and potential Rio Tinto employees, many sporting pro-road stickers passed out by Chantae Lessard, Senior Advisor for Government and Community Relations for Rio Tinto.

The organizing effort paid off for the company with a large turnout in support of the project and, as is the case at any meeting concerning the proposed mine, jobs were a main talking point among Rio Tinto supporters with high unemployment, locally and statewide, cited as an incentive to approve the road plan.  Details of perceived employment benefits were not outlined.

While advertised as a “multi-use” road that would benefit the logging, gravel and tourism industries, and only incidentally the mining industry, the road, as designed, goes from the proposed Eagle Mine to the proposed milling facility, in Humboldt, the project will not get off the ground if Rio Tinto can’t use it as part of its mining operations and the company is paying the entire $50 million cost to build the new road.

On September 29, Rio Tinto’s chief operating officer for the haul road project, Ken Wooley, insisted that the road was not specifically for the proposed Eagle Mine:  “The road is not tied to the mine. This is truly a multi-use road.”

At today’s meeting, Mark Holmes, a concerned citizen, said , “As of right now it [the road] has nothing to do with the mine – although in the future it might have.”

However, the Marquette County Road Commission was not sure if the road would move forward regardless of whether the Eagle Mine would go in or not.  Darryll Sundberg asked Rio Tinto’s lobbyist and community relations manager, Matt Johnson, “is this road going to be built whether or not the mine goes through?”

Johnson said that “depending on whether or not the mine goes in” Rio Tinto would have to consult with other partners in the project to decide whether or not the road should move forward.

Adrian Baker, from Big Bay, told the commission that while the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken at the beginning of the meeting,  “this country was not founded on catering to British business interests.”  Baker showed the audience that Marquette County will actually lose tax money with Rio Tinto’s plan to build a new road, rather than use existing roadways, to much laughter from the audience.

One man, claiming to represent “the tourism industry” said that Lindberg & Sons, the contractor planned to build Rio Tinto’s road, has “been building state and federal highways for years.  I can’t imagine that they couldn’t build a quality road that would meet the county road commission’s specifications.”

According to an expose by the New York Times, Lindberg & Sons is one of few known violators of the federal Clean Water Act in Marquette County.

Safety concerns weren’t addressed at the meeting.  According to a confusing statement on Rio Tinto’s website, the company believes that using existing roadways would be safer for the public than building a new road:

“Ore-carrying trucks, familiar to area residents, would likely follow the AAA and County Road 510 to County Road 550 to area rail connections, which would then transport the ore to existing offsite processing facilities. Use of existing truck routes will help ensure public safety and minimize burden on area roads.”

Jackie Koski, Humboldt Township trustee assured the commission that the township was in full support of Rio Tinto’s project, while Deb Pellow and Bob Struck indicated that the Marquette County Board was also in full support of the project.

Michigamme Township supervisor, John Olson, expressed his township’s support of the project.  A visibly agitated Olson said that it is “ironic” that mine opponents drove to the meeting in metal cars and noted that he saw “two people” talking on cell phones outside of the meeting hall.

“How do they get here if they don’t use mining projects to get here,” said Olson.

According to Rio Tinto’s John Meier, the company plans to fill in wetlands to construct the road over the Yellow Dog River, Mulligan Creek, Wildcat Canyon Creek, the Dead River, Voelkers Creek, Koops Creek, Second Creek and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River.

The meeting contrasted sharply with hearings held on Rio Tinto’s proposed Eagle Project mine from 2006 to 2007. More than 400 attended one Eagle hearing, with over ninety-percent speaking in opposition to the project.

While not quite the inverse of the Eagle hearings—roughly sixty-percent of public comments were offered in support of the milling project and only about forty public comments were taken—the number in support greatly outnumbered detractors, partly due to the presence of mine company staff and generous amounts of heckling from much of the crowd.

To thunderous applause, one audience member disrupted Big Bay resident and Save the Wild UP (SWUP) director, Kristi Mill’s public comment. The man shouted that discussion of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine was “not relevant” to the Humboldt hearing. Moderator, James Collins, replied that Mills had time remaining for her comment and that discussion of Eagle was allowed because the two projects “are related”.

Mills had been questioning why the DEQ was using tax payer dollars to consider Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill application while the Eagle Project has been “deferred” indefinitely.

Rio Tinto has had a rough few months.

The company has seen a dramatic reduction in its share value as metal prices have plummeted. Nickel, alone, has fallen from over $25 per pound roughly a year ago to less than $5 per pound today. Burdened with roughly $40 billion in debt, the company announced plans last week, to sell nearly one-fifth of the company to the Chinese government-run aluminum company, Chinalco, currently Rio Tinto’s largest shareholder. Kennecott is, currently, a wholly-owned subsidiary of London-based Rio Tinto.

Economy Main Issue at Hearing

A need for additional area employment and economic growth was, by far, the strongest theme during the hearing. Every comment in support of the project cited the need for more jobs without addressing the Humboldt application specifically. Although not a job creation agency, the DEQ was repeatedly urged to approve the project based on the potential for job creation and economic growth.

County commissioner Deb Pellow said that Rio Tinto’s project is “very important to the county’s overall economic diversification and well being.”

“DEQ: do your job and bring us these jobs,” urged Pellow.

Gerald Corkin, chairman of the Marquette County Board of Commissioners, said the mill project would “provide up to fifty to seventy full-time jobs [and] one-hundred to two-hundred construction jobs.”

“There’s the potential to have mining for another hundred years in the UP,” Corkin speculated.

Joe Derocha, Humboldt Township supervisor, said, “Mining was what raised us, brought us here today.”

“More businesses, more jobs, more people create more economic development,” said Derocha.

Tom Peterson, former Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company general manager and current president of Citizens for Responsible Mining offered his support for the project and represented the hearing’s only complaint coming from a Rio Tinto supporter.

“I did not want to see Kennecott do what they did down in Ladysmith at the Flambeau Mine and that is to high-grade a deposit and leave a lot of ore that could be mined,” said Peterson.

According to Jack Parker, former Rock Mechanics Director at the White Pine Mine, Rio Tinto has similar plans for the Eagle ore deposit. According to Parker, the company plans to leave much of the ore behind, taking only the richest available. Parker maintains that, since much of the ore is owned by the people of Michigan, mining only the high and mid-grades and leaving the rest is “not responsible mining”.

DEQ: “Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public” at Humboldt Mill

According to documents obtained through an open records request, the DEQ believes mercury discharges may be a serious issue at the mill site. Mercury is known to bioaccumulate in fish tissue and is considered a serious danger to public health. According to the DEQ, “There are no proven technologies to consistently achieve [a] low level…Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public and environmental groups.”

At the hearing, some local citizens expressed concerns regarding potential water contamination and fugitive dust control problems at the Humboldt Mill.

Robert Rivera, from Iron River, told the DEQ that he is opposed to Rio Tinto’s milling plans that could process ore currently being explored by Prime Meridian Resources, in Iron County, where he has lived most of his life.

“I grew up in a mining family, in a mining town a quarter of a mile from an abandoned and toxic mine site on the Iron River. It has been remediated and remediated again and it still leaches yellow boy,” said Rivera.

Ely Township resident and miner, Stephen Johnson, said that he lives along the Escanaba River. “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.”

Johnson commented on Callahan Mining’s Humboldt Mill application in the 1980s and said that he was “not really happy with the way, at that time, the DNR handled the situation. There were a lot of questions we asked that were never answered.”

“My major concern is here what is the DEQ going to do to ensure that the quality no longer deteriorates anymore and what are we doing to bring it back to the level that it was thirty years ago,” said Johnson.

Incomplete Application?

Only a handful of comments in opposition to Rio Tinto’s milling project highlighted concerns directly related to aspects of the company’s milling application.

Chuck Brumleve spoke on behalf of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and raised concerns regarding water inflow through bedrock surrounding the tailings pit. According to Brumleve, “the applicant seems to treat the pit as if it’s a sealed pool or container for sulfide tailings.”

“There is a whole body of current information by the Canadians and the [Environmental Protection Agency] that indicates surrounding rock considerations are the primary consideration in safe tailings disposal, which is not addressed by the applicant in this mining permit application,” said Brumleve.

Brumleve also addressed the need to clean-up existing mining contamination at White Pine, the Keweenaw Copper district and the Empire and Tilden mines before new mining projects are permitted.

Brumleve urged Rio Tinto supporters to “think of the next seven generations and not of your level of affluence here in today.”

Big Bay resident, Cynthia Pryor, raised concerns that construction plans for a protective berm were not included in the Humboldt application and that the plan lacks adequate contingency plans for such events as an “absolute berm failure”.

“It’s very difficult to give public comment on something that’s not included in the application,” said Pryor.

Defending the DEQ

Even the DEQ’s Office of Geological Survey Director, Hal Fitch, took his turn at the microphone to respond to this writer’s public comment on DEQ malfeasance regarding the handling of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Project application. Fitch also defended his role in forming a non-profit corporation with Kennecott and Bitterroot Resources while the Eagle Project application was under agency consideration.

The Northern Michigan Geologic Repository Association (NMGRA) was formed by the DEQ in 2007, with Fitch as president. Meetings were held in the DEQ’s Lansing office building and were attended by paid DEQ and DNR staff. Company representatives expressed an interest in utilizing federal and state grants to fund NMGRA projects.

In an October 2007 e-mail, Fitch acknowledged “that there would be a problem with a state agency forming a corporation” but “came up with an innovative way to address the problem: formation of a non-profit corporation that is not a part of any state agency, but in which OGS is a participating member.”

Hal Fitch resigned from the NMGRA’s board in Fall 2008.

At the Humboldt hearing, Fitch defended his actions: “To suggest that somehow I’m corrupt because I tried to organize a system where we could get the users to pay for something we’re mandated to do, I don’t think that’s very responsible.”

Fitch also defended the actions of DEQ employee Joe Maki, who testified under oath during a recent contested case hearing, that the DEQ did not follow a key provision in Michigan’s new metallic mining law:

“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.”

When questioned by a National Wildlife Federation attorney if either he or “the mining team” applied this key section of the new law to their analysis of the Eagle Project application, Maki responded, “I did not, no.”

At the Humboldt hearing, Fitch disagreed, saying, “Joe Maki did not say that we did not, that we disobeyed the law in processing the permit,” said Fitch.

Fitch was presented with a copy of Maki’s court transcript.

Rio Tinto is proposing to produce both nickel and copper concentrates at the Humboldt Mill that would “most likely” be shipped via rail to smelters in Canada. The waste material, containing heavy metals and acid-generating material, would be deposited underwater at the mill site, on top of Callahan’s tailings. The company plans to discharge treated wastewater into wetlands that feed into the middle branch of the Escanaba River.

According to the DEQ, the company must still apply for Air Use, Surface Water Discharge and Inland Lakes and Streams permits before the Humboldt Mill can be used again for mine processing. The DEQ expects to issue a proposed decision in “mid-April.” A new public hearing, addressing all of the required permits would follow.

Citizens are encouraged to send in written comments on the Humboldt Mill mining application. Comments are due to the DEQ by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, March 18.

Letters should be sent to:

Kennecott/Humboldt Mill Comments

DEQ Office of Geological Survey

PO Box 30256

Lansing, MI 48909

Or, by e-mail:

Deq-kennecott-humboldt-mill-comments@michigan.gov

Humboldt Township, MI – Callahan Mining Company purchased the Humboldt Mill facility from Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company (CCI) in the early 1980s. Callahan began milling gold ore from its Ropes Gold Mine in 1985. The company permanently closed both the mine and milling operations by 1991, citing a decline in the price of gold, mine flooding and “ground control” issues that caused serious worker safety problems. A 1989 “compliance review” found that high levels of copper, nickel and cyanide were leaving the Humboldt tailings pit and entering the local water supply.  The site is considered one of few known major sources of toxic selenium release in the Upper Peninsula.

Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill plans and promises have much in common, historically, with Callahan’s operation decades ago:

Like Rio Tinto, Callahan promised a high percentage of local jobs at its mine and mill sites (“90 to 95 percent”), as well as a significant local economic investment (more than $20 million).

In June 1984, the Marquette Mining Journal editorial board reported that “the 75 or so jobs provided by the gold mine and the processing plant may seem insignificant to some. But let’s face it, jobs are jobs and investment is investment.”

In April 2008, the Marquette County Board of Commissioners expressed support for Rio Tinto’s version of the mill project. According to Chairman Gerald Corkin, the project would “possibly create 50-plus dditional jobs plus additional tax base” for the county and Humboldt Township.

Both Rio Tinto and Callahan assured residents that ground and surface water contamination are unlikely to occur as waste material is disposed of underwater, in an old mine pit. Both companies claimed to be using “a time-tested process.” For Callahan, the technology used was over 80 years old.  Now, more than 20 years later, Rio Tinto is promoting the same technology Callahan employed, saying that it has been successfully utilized for over 100 years.

Both companies expressed a serious interest in utilizing the mill to process ore from future mine sites.

For Callahan, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approved its tailings disposal and milling process. A DNR water quality specialist, Ron Raisinen, assured residents that the process “will not hurt the environment any more than it has already been hurt with the milling process.  They will be using a site that is already in place and they will be helping with employment in the area.” According to Raisinen, “it’s a good process and I have a positive feeling about the operation.”

Now, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is reviewing applicable permits for the company, and providing assurances for the public.

While Rio Tinto racked up worker violations at operations from Utah to Namibia, Callahan acquired its own poor labor rights record during its short tenure at Ropes and the Humboldt mill.

On June 13, 1987, a drill worker was seriously injured when a large rock crushed the lower half of his body. Two days prior, the company was cited for failing to report a June 4 cave-in at the mine that almost seriously injured a mine worker. Anonymous employees that expressed concerns regarding Callahan’s lack of commitment to worker safety reported the cave-in.  County Mine Inspector Bill Maki accused Callahan of using inadequate machinery Said Maki: “I think they could stand a little more safety.” According to Maki, Callahan management had previously told him that the proper equipment would be “too costly.”

In September 1987, another mine worker was injured while attempting to stabilize the roof of the mine when a 1,000-pound rock crushed both of his feet and caused back injuries. According to the worker, he told his partner, “I don’t care if they fire me…I’m putting one more [roof] bolt in and no more.” The mine’s General Manager, Ross Wayment, chastised workers for airing their concerns to the public, rather than to mine management. One anonymous worker replied that “morale is not that high” at the mine and that workers had continually told mine management that the mine’s roof was unstable.

The Ropes Mine even had a somewhat similar design to Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine, consisting of a “spiraling series of declines” that allowed truck access to the blasted ore, considered more economical than a vertical shaft design. Ropes, like the proposed Eagle Mine, had persistent structural issues.

The operation also had major pollution issues associated with the mining and milling of gold ore. The mine contaminated nearby Deer Lake with mercury while Callahan’s state-permitted tailings disposal created extensive ground and surface water contamination surrounding the Humboldt site.  The federal government now considers Deer Lake to be one of the most toxic sites in Michigan. Over 50 years of mercury-containing discharges from Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company contributed to the extensive mercury pollution.

Rio Tinto is a “good company that operate[s] to the same level of safety and environmental standards worldwide, regardless where we’re operating,” Cherry said.

But University of Wisconsin, La Crosse sociology professor and mining expert Al Gedicks disagrees.

“A company’s track record in other places is one of the best predictors of future behavior,” said Gedicks. “If decision-makers in Michigan choose to ignore this record, they are setting themselves up to join the long list of communities burdened with cleaning up Kennecott’s mine pollution.”

Many others also disagree with Cherry’s claims. In September, 2008, the Government of Norway (formerly one of Rio Tinto’s largest shareholders) divested from the company, citing “grossly unethical” environmental abuse at the Grasberg Mine, in West Papua. Additionally, at Grasberg, the Australian Council on Overseas Aid found mine security and military personnel were responsible for the “disappearances” of 22 civilians and torturing of 13 others between 1994 and 1995. Rio Tinto acknowledged paying the Indonesian military $4.7 million in 2001 and $5.6 million in 2002 for its services.  Citizens of neighboring Papua New Guinea are suing the company, under the Alien Tort Claims Act, alleging that Rio Tinto created extensive environmental damage at its Bougainville mine, paid Black workers less than white counterparts and instigated a civil war.

Cherry made no mention of such past history or pending lawsuits.  Instead, he compared Rio Tinto’s Humboldt plans with former milling at the site. According to Cherry, Callahan Mining Company’s Ropes Gold Mine and Humboldt Mill “operated rather successfully,” and Rio Tinto’s proposed milling process is “the exact same process that Callahan and the Ropes Mine used.”  Rio Tinto is not “proposing to do anything at the Mill that hasn’t been done before,” Cherry said, and the company “can probably do it a little better.”

Some Humboldt Township residents were unconvinced, since Callahan’s mill left part of the community with undrinkable well-water. “When Callahan was there they ran all their water out of the pit and ruined all of the wells on the Wolf Lake Road,” said Ron Norkoli. He told Cherry to “find another way to put that water other than through my backyard.”

Cherry was unable to explain which toxic chemicals were planned for the milling process. “Without having the applications opened up right in front of me I can’t tell you exactly which ones those are,” he said. But he assured the audience that the company’s water treatment “will meet the State-required standards for mercury.”

According to Cherry, the process at Humboldt would involve crushing 12-inch or smaller-sized rocks down to a sand, or talc, consistency.  The powder would then be mixed with water and placed in tanks and agitated. Alcohol and compressed air would assist in creating a froth, while chemicals would be added to cause the metals to attach to bubbles, which would be skimmed-off the top and de-watered. Waste material would be deposited underwater, into a pit on-site. The company plans to discharge treated wastewater into wetlands that feed into the middle branch of the Escanaba River.

According to documents obtained through an open records request, the Michigan DEQ believes mercury discharges may be a serious issue at the mill site. Says the DEQ: “There are no proven technologies to consistently achieve [a] low level. . . Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public and environmental groups.”

Most public comments that evening focused on the importance of jobs and local economic investment. One man, from Mohawk, Michigan, argued that the Keweenaw Peninsula “was founded and raised on copper mines. It was the best thing that ever happened to our area. When the copper mines closed, it was a ghost town.  We need jobs, we don’t need tree huggers.”

One Humboldt resident cited Cliffs Natural Resource’s layoff of over 300 workers, saying: “We had jobs and now we’re losing them.”  Pointing at a group of citizens that expressed disapproval of Rio Tinto’s plans, he said, “Yous want to take everything away from us.”

Others say that we should not have to trade worker and community health for jobs. Skandia Township resident Barb Bradley told the crowd that she has been struggling for years to find a good job but cares more about the health of our water than short-term jobs.

“I’m looking at the picture ahead and future generations . . . Will they have clean water to drink?” questioned Bradley. “That’s more important to me than a few jobs.”

One Republic Township resident said he was “glad” numerous interests were involved in creating Michigan’s new metallic sulfide mining law and that the legislation “protects every one of us.”

“We live in a beautiful area and we need to protect it. If they can build it safe, we need the jobs; let’s do it and let’s do it safe,” he said.

One Humboldt resident insisted that Rio Tinto is “doing everything by the law.”

Marquette resident Teresa Bertossi disagreed, saying she participated in the rules process as an unpaid concerned citizen. According to Bertossi, a local iron miner helped cover her expenses to attend the rules meetings. “Whenever we would try to get some strong parts into the rules,” Bertossi said, “they [Rio Tinto] would threaten takings lawsuits against the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.” (A “takings” lawsuit means that a company that is denied access to their resources may sue the state for the value of those resources. This law remains untested in Michigan.)

Richard Hendricksen, also from Marquette, agreed with Bertossi.  “There was not a consensus in the rules,” he said.

According to Cherry, Rio Tinto is proposing to produce both nickel and copper concentrates at the Humboldt Mill. The product would “most likely” be shipped via rail to smelters in Canada. The waste material, containing heavy metals and acid-generating material, would be deposited underwater at the mill site, on top of Callahan’s tailings. Rio Tinto plans to use the mill to process ore from multiple mine sites. In November 2007, Rio Tinto Copper CEO, Bret Clayton, told a group of Australian investors that the company has six project areas in the UP, in addition to the Eagle Project. According to Cherry, he is optimistic that the company will locate additional ore bodies and maintained that the Eagle Project “is just the beginning.”

While the Humbolt Mill project is by no means a done deal, Rio Tinto hopes to receive final Michigan DEQ approval in July.  Ultimately, the people of Humboldt will decide the fate of the old Humboldt Mill by voicing their opinions.  Concerned citizens are encouraged to write their local, county, and state officials with their comments and questions and to request access to clean drinking water. Citizens are also encouraged to contact their healthcare professionals for more information about the risks of mercury.

London-based Rio Tinto, ,parent company of Kennecott Minerals,  currently controls roughly 500,000 acres of mineral rights on public and private land in the Upper Peninsula. The company’s largest shareholder is the People’s Republic of China. As of this writing, China is seeking an even larger stake in the company.