Anti-non-ferrous mining bill ready
Opponents say it would ban
copper/nickel/precious metals ventures
By JON COLLINS
Legislative Correspondent
Published: Mesabi Daily News, Va, MN
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:59
PM CST
ST. PAUL Legislation championed by
environmental groups that would impose new
restrictions on non-ferrous mining projects in
Minnesota will be introduced today.
The bill, which is not a surprise to Range lawmakers
and mining supporters, would require companies to
create a fund before mining operations begin. It is
being introduced by state Rep. Alice Hausman,
DFL-St. Paul.
Environmentalists said the funds would help ensure the
state wasn’t left to pick up the tab for environmental cleanup
when mining companies go bankrupt, as other states have in the
past.
But Frank Ongaro, executive director of Mining Minnesota,
an organization of non-ferrous mining ventures, said the
legislation would effectively kill any copper/nickel/precious
metals project.
“It’s clearly a bill that would prohibit non-ferrous mining in
Minnesota,” Ongaro said. “Environmental groups have said they
don’t want to prohibit non-ferrous mining in the state. But
their written words obviously speak louder than their verbal
words.”
“I’d say almost every sulfide mine, it seems like, has had
problems with acid mine drainage,” said Greg Sietz
communications director for Friends of the Boundary Waters
WIlderness. “That causes all kinds of problems with polluting
our waters and leaving taxpayers liable.”
Allies of non-ferrous mining, which includes copper, zinc, gold,
platinum and palladium among other metals, said the legislation
was not only a transparent attempt by environmentalists to ban
all non-ferrous mining, it could threaten all mining.
Rep. Tom Rukavina said the bill was so broadly written that it
might endanger other forms of mining, like gravel and taconite.
“Basically the bill is intended to discourage copper/nickel
mining in Minnesota and almost make it impossible,” Rukavina
said.
Environmentalists deny the charge.
“We specifically wrote this bill so it would not be a ban on
this type of mining,” Sietz said. “What this is, is a
prohibition on pollution.”
It would also place severe restrictions on mining operations
that require “perpetual treatment” of water in an attempt to
limit acid mine drainage, often a byproduct of this sort of
mining.
The acids can pollute lakes, rivers and groundwater supplies,
and poses a threat to human and animal health through absorption
of the sometimes toxic minerals it carries.
The bill could have a big impact on the handful of non-ferrous
mines that are currently in the permit phase in Minnesota. That
includes the PolyMet project, which is the furthest along and
slated for the footprint of the former LTV Mining Co. site near
Hoyt Lakes. A draft Environmental Impact Statement for PolyMet
was completed a few weeks ago. Department of Natural Resources
officials have said it will be put out for public review by the
end of March.
Officials estimate the $602 million PolyMet project would create
more than 400 good-paying jobs, at least 500 spin-off jobs and
more than 1.5 million man hours of construction work.
Critics of the bill said the long permit process for the PolyMet
project was evidence that Minnesota already has sufficient
regulation for mining.
“State agencies have all the regulatory authority necessary to
assure water quality, air quality and financial responsibility
for reclamation. No additional restrictions on non-ferrous
mining are necessary,” Ongaro said.
Rukavina said the non-ferrous mines currently in permit phase
would pump money and jobs into the state, while ensuring that
minerals needed for technologies like clean energy are obtained
in an environmentally responsible way.
“We’re going to make sure that our (mines) protect the waters,
protect the boundary waters, and is done right, and is the
cleanest most efficient copper-nickel mine in the world,” he
said.