Minnesotans should get a medal for tracking a decade and a half of information about PolyMet’s controversial proposal to open a copper/sulfide mine in our state. With clean air and water at stake, each decision point has been critical and much has been asked of all of us.
But something new is happening in 2021 that merits attention: For the first time since Gov. Tim Walz was elected, PolyMet’s proposal is back at our state agencies. That’s because key permits have been rejected by the courts, and it’s now up to the Walz administration to decide what to do next.
Before we get to what that means, it’s worth revisiting how we got here. In short, PolyMet submitted a deeply flawed proposal, and our agencies handled it poorly.
It wasn’t for a lack of opportunity to do better. Concerned Minnesotans have been working to expose the truth about PolyMet ever since a small group of politicians decided to promote it as a panacea for northeastern Minnesota before the facts were in. In 2016, thousands of medical professionals requested that our agencies address the health impacts of the proposal. In 2017, downstream communities asked agencies to hold public hearings about dam safety concerns and centuries of pollution. In 2018, a record number — tens of thousands — of Minnesotans submitted comments urging that the proposal be rejected.
Each was unceremoniously denied, and the Dayton administration hurriedly issued a set of bad permits days before an election, setting up the current legal battles. To this day, we have yet to hear testimony from a single expert witness under oath about the real issues associated with PolyMet’s proposal, such as its reliance on the same upstream dam design that has led to catastrophic collapses in Brazil. Instead, decisions were made behind closed doors, leaving major issues very much in dispute.
The good news is, thanks to the recent court decisions at the highest levels, the Walz administration has a new opportunity to make it right. Central permits are now back at both the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA), which are currently reviewing their next steps.
[image_caption]JT Haines[/image_caption]Importantly, the flaws in the permits cannot be addressed by the flick of a pen, as the company would like us to believe. Addressing the issues identified by the courts appropriately would require serious work, and a serious effort to remedy past procedural mistakes.
At the PCA, the air permit is back because of the agency’s failure to investigate whether PolyMet has been engaging in a “bait and switch” about the intended size of the operation. PCA is also still dealing with problems with the water permit and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) buried comments, which reveal concerns that the permit isn’t even enforceable. These are not small matters.
At DNR, the permit to mine is back at the agency for two reasons. First, because there is literally zero evidence in the record to support the company’s proposal to control water pollution with an untested application of a bentonite clay mixture around the tailings basin (what DNR’s own consultant termed a “Hail Mary”). And second, because the permit had no end date — a “forever permit” — which violates Minnesota law. The proposal as submitted asks us to trust that the company would actively manage seeping and leaking wet tailings with mechanical pumps indefinitely, 200 years or more.
These are major issues. You can’t just slap a date on a proposal that has no plan to deal with billions of gallons of toxic water behind a shoddy dam. And you can’t just move a few things around and issue a new finding about bentonite when that scheme is central to the company’s entire proposal to leave polluted water sitting behind a dam indefinitely.
If the DNR decides to continue to defend these permits, it should include the related issues of the dam and the wet tailings storage in the hearing about bentonite. The courts are clear that the DNR has the authority to do so, and at this point it’s the bare minimum that we should expect. The DNR would benefit from a more fully developed record on all the disputed issues as well. It’s only the company that benefits from keeping them in the dark.
But here’s the bottom line: We don’t actually have to keep throwing time and money at this flawed proposal. PolyMet has spent more than 15 years trying to sell Minnesotans on phony assurances that this wouldn’t be the most dangerous and polluting mine ever in the state of Minnesota, and it has failed. At this point, Walz can, and should, return it to sender.
That’s why a growing coalition has launched a new campaign to Move on from PolyMet. With the most important PolyMet permits remanded, Walz has the power to protect the people of Minnesota now and set us on a better course for our future. If the company wants to come back with a new application, so be it. But after 15 years it’s time for the governor to acknowledge that PolyMet has failed and unite Minnesota behind pathways that build healthy and sustainable communities in northeastern Minnesota.
JT Haines is the northeastern Minnesota director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. MCEA is joined by Sierra Club, Duluth for Clean Water, Friends of the Boundary Waters and more in the Move on from PolyMet campaign. All individuals and organizations who would like to join the campaign are welcome. For more information visit http://www.mncenter.org and http://www.moveonfrompolymet.org.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
Good job, J.T. More plenary response to follow.
Hear hear!!!
In August of 2019, Governor Tim Walz said in an interview with Walker Orenstein of MinnPost that poor old PolyMet had been trying to get permits for so long that Minnesota needed to give a little (my paraphrase) and award the permits as a participation prize, I suppose. I wrote about that in the first Community Voices piece I had published at MinnPost.
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2019/08/on-polymet-can-the-state-really-do-things-right/
I have always believed:
1. Polymet should be given the opportunity to mine in Minnesota.
2. The liabilities they create during mining and after the mine’s life cycle need to be clearly quantified and Polymet must provide guarantees of their responsibility for things like a reservoir leak 100 years after mining stops.
With item 2 being something they will never comply with and voluntarily leave.
The good folks of the range are certainly against corporate welfare and having the public subsidize future failures almost as much as they want to get the jobs and economic activity right now. Just denying the permits without offering a plan will just leave a lasting hostility towards the permit deniers. Instead:
“They were given every opportunity to mine but declined to do so because the economics of doing it here vs. the high desert in Chile were too much too overcome”
And without a government subsidy that enables private profits and public losses, that is the EXACT truth.
Poly Met can agree to all of the 100 year promises you want. As soon as the mine run it’s economic course, Glen Core’s attorneys will be racing to the court to shut down Ploy Met, along with it’s liabilities and obligations, forever.
If Glen Core’s name is on the permits and assumes all liabilities, then we can begin to talk. Promises from Poly Met are like wetting your pants outside in January; it gives you a warm feeling, but only for a little while.
Not promises, money in the bank that can’t be touched by Glencore:
“A performance bond, also known as a contract bond, is a surety bond issued by an insurance company or a bank to guarantee satisfactory completion of a project by a contractor. ”
Again, Glencore will decline such an arrangement and move on.
They had their chance and passed on it.
Very good points and I agree except 100 years is not close to enough. Put it out to 500 years because that’s more realistic and probably still not enough.
MN PCA wants 20% electric vehicles in MN by 2030. Gov Walz wants 100% C-free electrical energy by 2040. Everything electric requires copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium and other rare earth minerals. China has near monopolistic control of many of these, but MN is one of the world’s largest natural source of many. Yes, the mining of these in developing countries has abused the environment, but Minnesota has the opportunity to showcase how they can be mined with minimal environmental impact. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is the reason we have nuclear waste stored on Prairie Island rather than the best-science-supported Yucca mountain site. Let’s do what’s best, in the long run for Minnesota, the world – and the environment – and mine these elements responsibly, while we support the people and the economy of northern Minnesota. William Pilacinski, born and raised in MN, Vietnam veteran, and PhD from UMN
“Minimal environmental impact” is patently untrue.
With our supine regulators it will certainly never be true. They’ve tried the slip the environment a mickey every step of the way on PolyMet, as J.T. outlines.
“patently untrue” based on your experience? I spent half of my 30+ yr career in the food and ag industry in regulatory affairs, working with USDA, FDA, EPA and regulatory agencies throughout the world. If anything, MN over-regulates. It is one of the few state that separately, in addition to federal regulations, requires an approval for genetically engineered crops. After 20 yrs, and in spite of the WHO data that half million children go blind every every from vitamin A deficiency, Golden Rice was finally approved in The Philippines – all because of unreasonable regulatory requirements driven by anti-GMO opponents world-wide. In the long run, mining to obtain minerals necessary to reduce the use of fossil fuels will be better for the world and MN.
Take a look at Chilean copper reserves and the high desert where they are mined and I believe you will see why a sulfide mine in the middle of the water rich Laurentian, Gulf of Mexico and Arctic Ocean continental divides is not a practical choice:
“Copper reserves in Chile
Chile has the world’s largest copper reserves of any country by far, with 200 million metric tons as of 2020. It is also the world’s largest copper producer, having produced some 5.7 million metric tons of copper from mines in 2020.”
Oh, and they had to build an Aqueduct to bring water in from miles away, rather than a dam to hold water from getting out.
How do sincere environmentalists rationalize that the US should depend on China and certain
third world nations for copper and precious metals.
Do they really believe the net affect on the world environment would be in better hands?
Northern Minnesota is God’s Country and will by if Polymet mine proceeds.
“How do sincere environmentalists rationalize that the US should depend on China and certain
third world nations for copper and precious metals.”
Chile is sitting on a 40 year global supply of these materials. Let’s let them use all theirs up and then begin to talk about the need for ours. China and Russia are global competitors with interests very much opposed to ours: If they can screw us on “X” by controlling “Y” they will do so. Chile, not so much. They have goods to sell that we want to buy. Ain’t capitalism a wonderful thing?
And let’s not forget about:
“Bingham Canyon Copper Mine (USA)
Located south-west of Salt Lake City in Utah, Bingham Canyon is the world’s largest open-pit mine and has been in production since 1906.”
Another copper mine in an arid, desert climate. Polymet is playing a bluff that we will allow them to keep private profits and the public subsidize their potential losses. Call their bluff.
Another reason to get Polymet up and running is China is already working with Taliban leadership to mine the 3 trillion dollars worth of precious metals in Afghanistan. It will be much like the USA being dependent on OPEC for our oil, when we can drill/mine here. It never works out well when we depend on other countries to log, mine, drill or produce our much needed products. America is blessed with natural resources, unfortunately there are those that would rather buy it from somewhere else… Not really a smart move!
“there are those that would rather buy it from somewhere else… Not really a smart move!”
An incredibly smart move: use theirs up first and then sell ours when the price is really high.
All this blather about the US being dependent on China for these materials is exactly that blather, with no basis in fact.
Joe: How much corporate welfare are you willing to extend to Glencore? 1X, 2X or 3X The total mining payroll they will payout during the life of the mine? Let’s just cut the checks to you folks up there to subsidize a minnow harvesting operation and call it quits.
Edward, how is that working with gas prices? Shockingly OPEC said no to Biden when he asked them to produce more oil. As I stated, China is already laying claim to Afghan precious metals, I wonder how long your “let them run out of resources “ con game will take until the USA busts out its mining skills and holds the rest of the world hostage with pricing? 75-100-150-200 years?? That is definitely playing the long con game, good luck with that.
Just the facts ‘maam:
We are an oil exporting country: who cares about OPEC?
Gas prices working pretty well: from 1968 to present gasoline prices are within 1 percentage point of inflation for all other items.
If we can deplete others resources for 1 year or 100 years before we use ours, who cares? we win in the end. I guess you are afraid that successful alternative energy will kill the market for petroleum and we’ll be stuck with our significant reserves.
Do any of you guys have any vague remembrance of what conservatism, conservation, and conserve really means? How about: Cautious use of scarce resources. Meaning tax dollars, government spending and resources like all that stuff in the ground that you want to deplete at the most rapid rate possible.
You look at Trumpian behavior and try to square it with any concept of conservatism and you come up empty. Or maybe someone could explain otherwise?