This story was last updated at 4:21 p.m.
WASHINGTON – The Interior Department on Thursday announced a 20-year mining moratorium on 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest that bars Twin Metals from constructing a proposed copper, cobalt and nickel mine in the area.
The moratorium is a result of a Forest Service study of the environmental and economic impact of building an underground mine in the Rainy River Watershed, which covers the forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
“Protecting a place like Boundary Waters is key to supporting the health of the watershed and its surrounding wildlife, upholding our Tribal trust and treaty responsibilities, and boosting the local recreation economy,” Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said in a statement. “With an eye toward protecting this special place for future generations, I have made this decision using the best-available science and extensive public input.”
The decision was cheered by environmental and conservation groups that sought protection of the Boundary Waters and battled Twin Metals over its proposed mine, which they said posed an environmental risk.
Meanwhile, supporters of the proposed new copper, cobalt and nickel mine denounced the decision.
[image_credit]Bureau of Land Management[/image_credit][image_caption]Superior National Forest withdrawal lands[/image_caption]
Stauber said the moratorium would only spur unsafe and dirty mining overseas and increased use of child labor in those operations. He also said he would use his new position as a chairman of House Natural Resources subcommittee with jurisdiction over energy and mining to hold hearings into the Biden administration’s actions.
“I can assure you that this Administration, from the President to the Forest Service, to the Interior Department, will answer for the pain they elected to cause my constituents today,” Stauber said.
Meanwhile, Twin Metals Minnesota said it was “deeply disappointed and stunned that the federal government has chosen to enact a 20-year moratorium on mining across a quarter million acres of land in northeast Minnesota.”
“This region sits on top of one of the world’s largest deposits of critical minerals that are vital in meeting our nation’s goals to transition to a clean energy future, to create American jobs, to strengthen our national security and to bolster domestic supply chains,” the mining company said in a statement.
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness extends 150 miles along the U.S.-Canada border, covering more than 1 million acres with over 1,100 lakes and 1,500 miles of canoe routes.
The Forest Service determined the risk posed by mining in the area was too high. It also determined more than 350 species that depend on the ecosystem of the Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters were also at risk. And it said the area withdrawn from mining includes all the land ceded to Lake Superior Tribes in 1854 by the federal government so the moratorium is need to protect the treaty rights of the Bois Forte, Fond du Lac and Grand Portage bands to hunt, fish and gather wild rice in the area.
The Forest Service also determined that there would be an adverse economic impact if mining despoiled the Boundary Waters, which draws 150,000 visitors each year.
Taconite is mined in the Superior National Forest and the moratorium will not impact on those operations.
But environmentalists argued that mining for minerals like copper, cobalt and nickel in the forest – which require deep extraction in an underground mine – would produce tailings that can be dangerous sources of toxic chemicals that would pollute the Rainy River Watershed – and the Boundary Waters.
Twin Metals vows its plans for a new mine are safe and says the new metals that would be extracted are needed to boost clean technologies aimed at fighting climate change.
Thursday’s announcement follows action by the Biden administration last year to cancel two federal mining leases owned by Twin Metals – prompting the mining company to sue. The moratorium may provoke new legal action by the mining company.
While the moratorium would block Twin Metals from developing what would be one of the largest undeveloped copper-nickel resources in the world and make the area off limits to other mines, the ban could be scrapped by a subsequent administration.
“I can’t speculate on what future administrations will or won’t do,” an Interior official said at a briefing for reporters on Thursday.
However, Becky Rom, the national chair of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition of environmental and conservation groups, said it’s unlikely the moratorium would be scrapped and more likely that it would be renewed because the federal government has had a history of increasing protections on the Boundary Waters though clean water legislation.
Still, Rom called the public land order that imposes the moratorium “the most important land conservation measure to impact Minnesota in the last 45 years.”
“Today’s science-based decision is a massive win for Boundary Waters protection,” she said.
Haaland was restricted in what she could do to protect the Boundary Waters. The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to withdraw this area for a maximum of 20 years, subject to renewal. Only Congress can legislate a permanent withdrawal.
Efforts to do so, however, failed in the last Congress and it’s unlikely they will succeed in this one, which has a GOP-led U.S. House.
Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., who has been lobbied by environmental groups to introduce a bill that would permanently put the Superior National Forest off limits to copper sulfide mining, hailed the Interior Department’s action.
“We are a mining state, but mining is not appropriate everywhere,” Smith said.
EV Cars? Electric stoves? Increasing the grid? Jobs for the range?
So we are going to continue getting our copper from 3rd world countries?
Well naturally, seems the best way to mine cobalt is to use slave labor in The Congo for example.
I’m supposed to believe Pete Stauber gives a damn about what happens to people in the Congo?
It’s about the water Andy. We’ll be getting our water from our own domestic MN supplies in aquifers and groundwater.
As for mining around the world, we call those “developing countries”, not the more condescending American “3rd world” or as Trump called them “s*thole countries. If you look closer, the mines of Glencore, Rio Tinto and others will continue to exploit minerals wherever they can avoid regulation.
I see others here have somehow decided to put their faith in mining companies even if it is our own boundary waters watershed that is damaged forever. Please take a little time and look at what is left when miners are done.
Depletion of the ores is followed by depletion of the communities, depletion of the local economy and old poor people left to fend for themselves.
As Buckminster Fuller pointed out a long time ago, we have already mined much of the materials needed– they are in retired aircraft and shipyards, scrap yards and defunct buildings. The LME exchange will assure us all of plenty of good materials, including copper, aluminum, lithium and rare earths, all available at the market price.
What 3rd world country are you referring to? 95% of US copper imports are sourced from Canada, Mexico and Chile.
Recycle Andy
If it turns out we need the minerals, THEY’RE STILL THERE. A moritorium only says we aren’t going after them right now. What’s with the rush to extract them immediately?
See the response by Rus Schultz. The push for EV vehicles to take over almost immediately is the reason. The timeline that governors in liberal states are putting on the changeover to EV vehicles is not possible without immediate procurement of these minerals. I commend anyone for trying to protect the environment, but pushing the clean energy movement without any forethought as to how it will happen is careless and bound for failure.
AMEN! The “hurry up and pick it” assures immature fruit. Let’s observe first.
It’s a hardsell salesman’s closer, “Hurry. There’s a crisis ! Act now! Prices will never be this low!” What’s there, took milli0ns of years.
Silly us!
We think that being a conservative means the conservative (cautious) use of precious resources.
As conservatives tell us:
Drill Baby Drill…
There will be a major shortage coming for copper as we expand wind and solar, we simply need more transmission lines. The number of purposed projects around the country pushing for these along with the availability and hesitancy to mine is going to create issues for the viability of clean energy. EV’s require 2.5x more copper than conventional vehicles, Solar requires 2x more than conventional coal energy, wind up to 5x more. Building the infrastructure needed for the green energy future is going to take a lot of resources, we can’t close it off. We can pray nuclear fusion development continues, but until then we need resources to build the clean energy resources we’re supposed to use.
Of course the actual facts tell an entirely different story:
Annual worldwide annual copper consumption: 23 million metric tons.
Current reserves just from countries we like (Chile, Australia, Peru, Mexico) : 420 million metric tons
That would be 18 years: Perfect, a strong motivation to see if the moratorium needs to end for legitimate needs instead of just curing right wing fever dreams.
Have any of you guys ever heard of this Google thing: It’s pretty easy. You just type in: “Annual worldwide annual copper consumption” and you get FACTS. Pretty neat, huh? Give it a try…
This is a little misinformed, as reserves does not mean annual production, so we use 23 million sq. ft. annually right now, in all countries throughout the world, we only produce 20 million annually, Chile being the largest at 5.7 million. sure they may have the most reserves, but that doesn’t mean they are all easily accessible nor are they going to extract it all nor have the capabilities to.
The reality is the need for copper is increasing rapidly, it is expected to increase 13% annually for the next 10 years, exceeding our current mining capabilities (not reserves) and recycling. The biggest reason for this is renewable energies and electric vehicles. This is not a conservative position or need, it is a simple economic reality. By 2033 we will need 78 million sq. ft a year to make green energy work. The demand will exceed the mining capabilities of what is currently there, as this will be a major world wide demand. Without some major changes to energy alternatives like nuclear options, freeing up some of this expected demand, we will fall short of meeting any kind of renewable energy goals we have.
All fine and good. And the noble mining interests of the globe can expand their “capabilities” in areas that don’t put a watershed of two US national parks and wilderness at risk. Or we could actually require use of gas burning vehicles that meet the current high mpg capabilities.
More unelected bureaucrats making decisions that affect average citizens. I understand the need to protect the environment around the Boundary Waters, but the mining industry is so regulated so as to reduce the impacts to the environment.
The Iron Range needs to take a good, hard look at who they choose to elect – they only have themselves to blame for electing Biden. So far they have seen Biden attack unions (which protects their way of life) and now they are seeing him actually taking away their livelihood.
Why, in the name of “fighting climate change” and going “green”, would our president allow this when the alternative is that these minerals are derived from 3rd world countries with little (or more likely no) mitigation in place to protect any part of the environment (land, water, or air) and then have to transport the minerals at a huge detriment to the environment to the US?
Uh…I imagine if you WEREN’T a paid shill, conveniently popping up here in our fair commentariat only today, you’d realize the Range hasn’t been a Democratic stronghold in years. Their loss of course, as they could be well in their way to a more diversified, stable, economy were they to eschew their dogmatic stubbornness to new ideas from we mere “Citiots”, but what are you gonna do? Addicts need to hit rock bottom before they are willing to admit they need help.
Biden has handed the solar power industry to China. Thanks, slow Joe. Now we know why they keep sending him money.
Yes indeed, because we all know the “conservative” movement (and its wholly-owned Repub party) have been the REAL supporters of solar power, as well as the TRUE champions for reducing CO2 emissions! Biden is obviously the real anti-environmentalist, and corrupt to boot!
The American right’s new pose as the actual protectors of the 11,000 year old stable climate is a bit much, even for those accustomed to their usual level of transparent hypocrisy and bad faith arguments…
“The Iron Range needs to take a good, hard look at who they choose to elect – they only have themselves to blame for electing Biden.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Trump win the 8th?
“Mining industry regulated”. If so, why has every effort by mining companies polluted the surrounding areas….every place ?
“Stauber said the moratorium would only spur unsafe and dirty mining overseas and increased use of child labor in those operations.”
Everyone who believes that Stauber cares about child labor in foreign countries, raise your hand.
I like how the right posits this question. I guess they prefer dirty mining and child labor HERE, what with their disdain for environmental regulation of any kind.
He may be disingenuous on this issue (although Stauber is a bog-standard GOPer on most issues, he’s not reflexively hostile to Labor, so you never know) but he’s not wrong. there is an ethical concern that needs to be weighed with environmentalism that if we consistently make moratoriums on things like mining at home because of what we think might happen, we are simply exporting what we fear abroad. Can we ever put enough guardrails and safety measures on companies like Twin Metals to ensure that a) they won’t pollute the water, b) can and will pay for clean-up if they do, and c) can’t simply fold up shop and disappear once the money’s been made? I would say that the ability of corporate actors to evade responsibility makes this problematic.
No problem, next election the administration will lift the 20 year ban. The charade will continue.
I forgot to raise my hand about the foreign child labor thing even though it was a reach. I was also wondering why the invisible hand of the all knowing market is not raising the price of copper in the face of this crisis.
You know, it’s funny how these reactionary “conservative”/Republicans can’t follow the logic of their own rationale’s in any straight direction for any length of time. After decades of arguing against environmental a regulations and labor rights they’re suddenly pretending to be the champions of sustainable energy, EV’s, and children’s rights. And the guys who are always telling us that sustainable energy, and powering our cars with anything but oil, gas, or ethanol is a comical libtard fantasy are now going to tell us where to get our batteries. Whatever.
Sure child labor is a bad thing, but the rest of us figured that out what… just about a 100 years ago after the Triangle factory fire? Now that we need batteries these guys have suddenly discovered the evil of child labor. Such is the logic of debate games. After being the champions of globalism and free markets since the 1950’s while millions of American jobs were offshored in the name of efficiency and corporate profits… suddenly these guys are worried about were our raw materials come from?
I think the best part is when they claim that working at a mine that has never existed is: “A way of life” and a largely defunct industry is the only possible salvation for the nation and Northern MN… but then they want to vote against extending unemployment benefits for the livelihoods they’re defending… Have you been to Silver Bay in the last 30 years? Have you seen the ore docks in Duluth?
Well, back in the real world we currently have options and supplies for our batteries so we don’t have to trash northern MN on behalf of corporate profits and investors. We are and will continue to fight for workers rights and against child labor (by the way… let’s not forget the child labor violations right here in Southern MN right?). We’re not choosing between child labor or electric cars… we can have electric cars and fight child labor. The economy in the Northern MN has long since transitioned out of a mining economy; hence all the abandoned mines all over the place up there.
I am delighted that “conservatives” like Stauber are now showing such concern for protecting the 11,000 year old stable climate. Now if only it would extent to something beyond a fervent desire to open mines in the watershed of the BWCA…
Nothing personal but I look at mining like trickle down economics! It is a ll a bunch of BS rhetoric. The mining companies tell us they have it all figured out until,
A. the pollution starts to trickle out of their containment ponds and into the fresh water,
B. the industry takes an economic bump, and the 20 years of good jobs, start trickling away to a lower cost mining operation
C. All that local development increased tax base etc. starts to trickle away when the mining operation wants increased profits and finds loop holes to walk away from their commitments.
Its the global story of mining, they have been repeating it for 100’s of years.
Yes, and I would like to update my previous math:
1. Worldwide annual copper consumption: 23 million metric tons.
2. Annual recycling of copper: 8.7 million metric tons.
3. Resulting annual need of mined copper: 14.3 million metric tons
4. Current reserves just from countries we like (Chile, Australia, Peru, Mexico) : 420 million metric tons
5. That would be 29.3 years: Plenty of time to see if the 20 year moratorium needs to end.
6. Average annual rainfall of the Chilean desert where the greatest reserves of copper exits: Less than 1″
7. Average annual rainfall Ely Minnesota: 30″
8. Mining life of the Twin Metals mine is 25 years.
Sorry my right side friends, Twin Metals simply does not make any sense based on actual facts right now. Why not extract our needs from places with friendly relations and an environment much more conducive to mining than ours? Our Minnesota copper reserves are not going anywhere: extract them now or a hundred years from now. Our needs for copper are also not going anywhere. Growing demand and the gradual reduction of other’s reserves just make ours more valuable over time. Technology advances may offer new and safer means of extraction. What is the hurry? Isn’t the conservative path one of patience and caution to reap a larger reward later? Please, Joe, Dennis, anyone, surprise me and tell me why I am sadly misinformed?
I’d guess the real motivation of the Mine, Baby Mine! guys above is not really economic or national security or supply chains. And it’s most certainly not the egregious Stauber’s feigned “concern” for the climate (or child labor of all things); that’s just the kind of “gotcha!” argument the coaches of Team Conservative enjoy.
No, the real motivation is emotional: they cannot bear to see a progressive argument or policy position prevail, especially one involving the environment. The frustration of those on the left is what they enjoy. Because the left can never be correct, about anything. No matter what scientists or economists may say. Such as here, where they profess to believe the self-interested arguments of foreign mining concerns!