“Hibbing Mine” painted by Cameron Booth in 1932, depicting the town on the edge of a mine site.
“Hibbing Mine” painted by Cameron Booth in 1932, depicting the town on the edge of a mine site. Credit: Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society

WASHINGTON — While a debate rages about the future of copper-nickel mining in Minnesota, the state’s  iron ore industry and employment from mining has been fairly steady — even in the pandemic years. 

And, despite setbacks, the mining industry has not given up hopes of establishing a new era of mining in the state to extract nickel, copper, cobalt and perhaps other metals, incentivized by the prospects the United States will need more of these materials to shift to clean energy and a greener economy.

There’s been mining in the state since prospectors in 1865 searched for gold in northeastern Minnesota in what was mostly a failed gold rush. But rich iron deposits were discovered, and eventually depleted.

Gold mining in Minnesota in 1871.
[image_credit]Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society[/image_credit][image_caption]Gold mining in Minnesota in 1871.[/image_caption]
“Around the time of World War II, there was a real concern that they were going to run out of (iron ore),” said Jeffrey Manuel, a history professor at Southern Illinois University and author of “Taconite Dreams,” a book about the history of mining in Minnesota. 

As the supply of high-grade natural ore decreased, the industry began to view taconite as a replacement that would keep the nation’s steel mills humming. A lower-grade iron ore that’s in plentiful supply in the Iron Range and Arrowhead region of Minnesota, taconite tailings — the sand-like waste that’s left over after ore is extracted — can pollute, but does not pose the level of risk to the environment inherent in other types of mining that produce sulfuric acid, Manuel said.

According to data from the Inspector of Mines in St. Louis County, production of taconite has waxed and waned during the years. For instance, it plummeted during the Great Depression of the 1930s and other times of economic downturn, and it peaked during increased need for iron and steel during World War II and the post-war building boom. Production is also affected by the price of steel. 

But taconite production has generally been fairly constant, at nearly 40 million tons  shipped out of Minnesota each year. This trend is especially apparent over the last 20 years with the notable exception of the recessionary aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis.

Employment by the industry has also held fairly steady at about 3,500 to 4,300 mostly unionized miners each year, the Inspector of Mines report said.  Employment and production rose during the pandemic and dipped last year when Northshore, a Cleveland Cliffs mine, shut down last spring during a royalty dispute. Northshore is now calling its workers back to their jobs.

Northshore Mining processing plant in Silver Bay.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Walker Orenstein[/image_credit][image_caption]Northshore Mining processing plant in Silver Bay.[/image_caption]
“Over the decades, (employment) is down drastically, largely due to automation and the end of poorly paid immigrants picking at rocks,” Manuel said.

Still, Manuel said, the industry continues to produce high-paying jobs in Minnesota.

And it’s not just the direct — and indirect jobs — created that impact the local and state economy. The steady production of taconite pours tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of state and local governments each year. For instance, a “production tax” — or a tax on every ton produced that was established in 1964 — resulted in more than $109 million being distributed in 2021 to cities and towns in a six-county area of northeastern Minnesota. Those counties also received a share, about $12 million, and local schools received more than $20.5 million. 

The production tax subsidized property taxes and also funds the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board, a state economic development agency located in Eveleth. Even the Hockey Hall of Fame Museum in Eveleth gets a cut.

World’s Largest Free Standing Hockey Stick & Puck outside the Hockey Hall of Fame Museum in Eveleth.
[image_credit]MinnPost file photo by Erin Hinrichs[/image_credit][image_caption]World’s Largest Free Standing Hockey Stick & Puck outside the Hockey Hall of Fame Museum in Eveleth.[/image_caption]
The state also receives revenues from taconite production through an “occupational tax” that brought in more than $53 million in 2021 and tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue from royalties and other state taxes.

“To me, taconite production has always been linked to the steel mills, and there’s still many, many years of resources left in the Iron Range,” said Ted Anderson, assistant director of mining operations at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

John Arbogast, a United Steelworkers staff representative, said mining “is all we have in northeastern Minnesota,” even as opponents to mining are promoting tourism and a more diversified economy.

Arbogast’s union represents most of the 4,000 or so miners in the state. He said for each mining job, another 1.8 jobs are created outside the mining industry. Various studies of mining spinoff jobs have shown figures less and more than 1.8.

Jason George’s International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 represents those who work at some of those secondary jobs created by the industry. About 4,000 of his union’s workers are employed in the Iron Range, operating and repairing heavy equipment used in the mines and working in construction and other related fields. 

Like Arbogast, George is a promoter of opening up northeastern Minnesota to the mining of copper, nickel, cobalt and other minerals and says it can be done safely. “I don’t think there’s any way rational people can agree that we keep the minerals in the ground,” George said.

Leftover structures from an old LTV Steel taconite facility
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Walker Orenstein[/image_credit][image_caption]Leftover structures from an old LTV Steel taconite facility that PolyMet hopes to refurbish and reuse for the copper-nickel mine it plans to build.[/image_caption]
Besides the disputes over the ecological impact of mining, there are differences between the industry, its labor allies and environmental groups about the economic impact of mining in the state, with several competing studies that bolster the claims of each camp.

Environmental groups say the mining boom in the Iron Range and the Arrowhead region has ended and amenity based development, including recreation/tourism, construction, personal and professional services and retail established in pristine areas like the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness would provide better jobs and a higher quality of life to residents.

A study commissioned by Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness in 2017 estimated that mining in the Superior National Forest could lose the region between about 5,000 to more than 22,700 jobs and $509 million if mining “suppresses or reverses growth in the amenity-based economy that has been the backbone of the region’s recovery since the early 1980s.”

An image of the Rainy River in Superior National Forest, near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
[image_credit]Minnesota Pollution Control Agency[/image_credit][image_caption]An image of the Rainy River in Superior National Forest, near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.[/image_caption]
Meanwhile, a 2020 report by the University of Minnesota’s Labovitz School of Business and Economics on the Arrowhead Region, which includes Douglas County, Wisconsin, determined that the mining industry grew by 37% between 2009 and 2018, adding 1,138 jobs. “This growth rate was significantly higher than any of the other top 20 industries in the Arrowhead Region,” the report said. 

The report said a survey of mining-related businesses found that businesses that depend upon and support the mining industry tend to have higher-than-average wages.

The report also said mining in the region grew to a $2.1 billion industry in 2018, while tourism grew at a slower but steadier pace and brought in about $622 million.

Becky Rom
[image_caption]Becky Rom[/image_caption]
Becky Rom, national chair of Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, an effort to stop underground mining in the Superior National Forest, said the economic impact of mining is diminished by the money the state pays to construct infrastructure and other amenities for the industry. “The state subsidizes mining,” she said.

Still, Rom concedes the taconite mining jobs “are good jobs” and her organization is “not anti-taconite mining.”

“But I think its contribution to the state of Minnesota is overstated,” she said.

A new era of mining

Those who are pressing for a new era of mining in Minnesota had a setback in January, when the Biden administration imposed 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 Interior Department agreed with the U.S. Forest Service’s assessment that the environmental risks to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the watershed that served it were too great.

But there are two other efforts to extract minerals in the state, although they, like Twin Metals’ proposal,  have also been met with local resistance.

One plan to establish a mine by a joint venture between PolyMet and Teck called NewRange Copper Nickel LLC has been put on hold for years by legal challenges to several permits that are key to construction and operation of the mine, which would be located in the St. Louis River watershed in the eastern edge of the Mesabi Iron Range, about 6 miles south of Babitt.  

NewRange spokesman Bruce Richardson said the company has already spent $400 million trying to develop the facility on a brownfield site that was a former taconite operation. Half that money has been spent on lawsuits and permitting requirements, he said.

He said New Range would spend another $1 billion to build the facility, if it ever gets a green light, and create more than 300 full-time mining jobs and 600 secondary jobs. He also said he hoped the mine’s permits could be “cleared” before the end of the year so construction could start next year. 

Paula Maccabee
[image_caption]Paula Maccabee[/image_caption]

“No one is building anything until all of the permits that have been reversed have been reissued,” said Paula Maccabee, advocacy director and counsel for WaterLegacy, one of the groups that challenged the permits in court. WaterLegacy and the other groups have argued mercury and sulfate discharges could harm humans, fish and other aquatic life and wild rice. Maccabee also argues the quality of the deposit isn’t worth the risk.   

Another mine planned in the state is Talon Metals’ facility that would be located to the south of the Iron Range and the Arrowhead region, near the small Aitkin County town of Tamarack. 

The Tamarack mine would mainly produce nickel, but also copper, cobalt and perhaps other minerals. Talon is touting an environmentally conscious culture at the company that includes using an electric fleet of mining vehicles and transporting its ore to a processing center in North Dakota to avoid pollution risks to the waters of Minnesota. 

Those opposed to the expansion of mining deride efforts by the industry to say they are at the forefront of the fight against climate change as “greenwashing.”

Nonetheless, through the massive infrastructure bill, the Biden administration has given Talon a $114 million grant for its efforts to help in the development of batteries for electric vehicles. Talon has signed a deal with Tesla to supply minerals for EV batteries.

Talon Metals Nickel Project
[image_credit]Screen shot[/image_credit][image_caption]An aerial view of the Talon Metals Nickel Project from a promotional video.[/image_caption]
Even so, plans for the Tamarack mine have provoked pushback from the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, which says any potential water pollution could disturb wild rice gathering and harm the natural environment and cultural practices the tribe relies on. 

“We are asking Minnesota’s leaders and regulators to prioritize fresh water over nickel before it is too late,” said Melanie Benjamin, the tribe’s chief executive, at a news conference earlier this month. “The idea that the green economy rests solely on nickel mining is a false premise.” 

[cms_ad:x104]
Nevertheless, as concerns over climate change spike among Americans and the numbers of politicians who reject climate change  are on the wane, arguments are becoming stronger for mining to help reduce the use of oil, natural gas and coal by providing metals to create EV batteries, solar panels – which require copper – and other green technologies. And mining advocates argue  that all the metals needed to move the United States to a green economy can’t be imported from Canada, China, Chile, the Congo and other places that produce them overseas.

That argument may eventually overshadow today’s competing arguments that have stoked the debate over the economic benefits of mining in Minnesota.

“You’ll never hear me talk about jobs,” said Julie Lucas, executive director of MiningMinnesota. “It’s much bigger than that.” 

MinnPost reporter Walker Orenstein contributed to this story.

Join the Conversation

24 Comments

  1. “An image of the Rainy River in Superior National Forest, near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.”

    Is akin to saying “A view of Stillwater, near Lake Superior”

    Ain’t the study of Geography wonderful?

    1. “An image of the Rainy River in Superior National Forest, near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.”

      Is akin to saying “A view of Stillwater, near Lake Superior”…………..I saw that photo and its description and was scratching my head as well.

      1. The BWCA lists access points on Rainy Lake. It’s considered the headwaters of the BWCA.

  2. Mining companies have not earned a great deal of trust in the past. The pattern of taking the minerals and leaving the cleanup for the state is well established. Put it this way, if every time you loaned your buddy your car he ran his errands but also took a giant dump in the back seat, requiring you to spend money to clean it up, pretty soon you’d stop letting that guy use your car.

  3. My favorite statistic thrown out was tourism vs mining, 622 million for tourism, 2.1 billion for mining. That alone should end the ridiculous proclamations from “greenies” that tourism will replace mining on the Range. When copper/nickel mining gets up and running that will increase easily to 3+ billion for the Range. With mining jobs ranging from 35k+ to 125k+, it is a great job and there are about 2 jobs created for every 1 mining job. Good news is Biden’s bogus 20 year moratorium on mining can be reversed with the stroke of a pen. Let’s hope that happens soon!

    1. According to a review on Earthworks regarding safety at 14 copper sulfide mines: A peer-reviewed study of the track record of water quality impacts from copper sulfide mines found severe impacts to drinking water aquifers, contamination of farmland, contamination and loss of fish and wildlife and their habitat, and risks to public health. In some cases, water quality impacts were so severe that acid mine drainage at the mine site will generate water pollution in perpetuity. I don’t believe companies can create enough jobs to make the tradeoff worthwhile because perpetuity is a l-o-o-o-n-g time. See https://earthworks.org/issues/copper-sulfide-mining/#:~:text=A%20peer%2Dreviewed%20study%20of,and%20risks%20to%20public%20health.

      1. and the number of jobs provided will be steadily decreasing in the future as automation in the industry continues to grow.

    2. I have a good friend who sells mining equipment. He tells me that mining jobs are on the decline, and that the employment numbers the companies are selling us are largely false, or will certainly be outdated in a matter of years. Automation of equipment and operations is rapidly reducing the manpower needed to run mines, and since mine operators only care about profits (not jobs) it won’t be long before workers (especially unskilled) at these plants are being let go due to redundancy with automation.

  4. I am curious, in a previous Minnpost article it was mentioned that Excel and Great River Energy were planning to build electric storage capacity that would rely on iron batteries. It was stated that iron batteries had advantages over other types of batteries for storage capacity. This seems to be good news for the iron range in two ways. First, it is another use for iron. Second, as other types of batteries are developed, it might diminish the need to mine copper/nickel in an environmentally sensitive area.

    It always seems shortsighted when we are given a choice between more jobs and screwing up the environment. Maybe we could hit the pause button and let researchers develop safe ways to mine that are actually demonstrated to be safe – not just declared “safe” by mining advocates.

  5. Water. Clean fresh water. Natural flora and fauna sustained by the waters of the North Country. Water is in the news. People are drinking it, fishing in it, boating on it and gathering rice from its flowages.

    Hard rock mining is water-intensive and changes the pH, making the water more acidic from the moment hard rock meets oxygen in the air or in the soil or water.

    Grinding the nickel and copper bearing rock to the fine consistency of talcum powder assures that it will be a source of sulfuric acid– not just in and around the mine, but in the streams that form the whole watershed, but in the groundwater and drinking water sources residents rely on, most likely, forever.

    The Tamarack mine proposal, sending the rock to North Dakota for processing, will send the water disaster to the Red River (or Missouri) and despoil even more of the indigenous lands we inherit and inhabit.

    IT’S THE WATER. The miracle will be solving for the protection of water. It has not been done yet. There are plenty of examples of sulfide rock extraction that has cost the land its potable drinking water. Conservation is the core mission of those of us that inherited this state and its resources.

    Let the debate actually deal with THE WATER ISSUES.

    1. Do you know for a fact that… The Tamarack mine proposal, sending the rock to North Dakota for processing, will send the water disaster to the Red River (or Missouri) and despoil even more of the indigenous lands we inherit and inhabit?

      Water treatment at an ore processing facility, is not different than at a power plant, a municipal treatment plant, a meat packing plant etc… Every single use of water has a treatment plant behind it. The technology works. Water is cleaner after the treatment than it was before.

      Indigenous lands? Is the entire state of North Dakota Indigenous lands? Look at a map!!

      Seriously, we can send a man to the moon, we can cure cancer but waste water treatment is technologically impossible? Maybe its just your agenda that makes it that way.

      1. How do I know? There are no examples of sulfide rock mining that did NOT pollute and alter the pH of the surrounding waters.

        Like Joe Smith, you seem to confuse this type of extraction with other types of extraction and mitigation. He likes the money source. How are you expecting to benefit?

      2. Robert, in the minds of anti mining folks there is no consideration for mines being permitted in 2023, to be much more advanced with water purification. With the strictest regulations in the world in place here in the USA, mining is as safe as it has ever been right now.

        These are the same folks who steadfastly claim that battery storage for green energy will advance to a point that zero emissions is a reality (with absolutely no evidence). They claim the future is bright for batteries but not for water purification. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

      3. The issue isn’t “Does tech exist that can clean up the damage done by mining” the issue is “What will mining companies pay for?” and the answer is “As little as they can get away with.” because every dime that goes towards keeping the environment clean is one less dime in the bank accounts of the investor class. If the fines for spilling toxic waste into our water supply is less than the profits made, they’ll just do that, after all the investors aren’t drinking that water so what do they care? Mining companies have in the past created shell corporations, used then to extract the profits, then declared bankruptcy thus socializing the cleanup by leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. Given the chance this will happen again.

        Betting that for-profit corporations will do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts is a fool’s game, but it’s one the older generations seem happy to play, and why wouldn’t they? They’ll be dead before the bill comes due and will never have to answer for their voting choices.

      4. If you find such humor in that, maybe you should read the water treatment standards?

        1. Actually I do know. I have executed several projects of this type, and permitted them. So I stand behind my ascertain. For people to make wild accusations and use scare tactics, that aren’t based in any realm of truth is well…. pick your word.

  6. Mining long since stopped being a economic “driver” in MN. Boom and bust industries eventually bust for good no matter how big the booms are.

  7. People against the more egregious copper/nickel/cobalt mining but seemingly supportive of well-established taconite mining are disingenuous.

    For example, Paula Macabee. I have known her and her brother since the ‘80’s, and Aldo knew her parents. She is against ALL mining.

    These people make their concept of the environment sacrosanct to the point of opposing mountain biking in the woods.

  8. If you take a pile of the sulfide rock and pour a little water through it, simulation of a rainfall, you will be able to measure and observe the actual leachate that is produced. A “dry stack” is a de-hydrated (imaginative) pile of overburden that will still make more leachate every time it gets wet.

    No amount of ignorance or knowledge will change that chemical reaction.

    How to “fix” sulfuric acid drainage? Haul a million tons or so of limestone, crush that and add it as needed to bring the pH back to the levels that the biome can withstand without dying. (not feasible)

    This is known information to those who are interested in learning, and the main impediment to digging up more of MN’s resources to get the access to desired amounts of money. No reasonable person who has this knowledge would promote hard rock mining. Nobody is going to build a warehouse to keep the overburden dry and air-tight. Chemistry is not like infectious disease, where a Republican will promote different solutions than a knowledgeable ordinary person.

    Its a no-brainer. LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND.

  9. “The Tamarack mine would mainly produce nickel, but also copper, cobalt and perhaps other minerals. Talon is touting an environmentally conscious culture at the company that includes using an electric fleet of mining vehicles and transporting its ore to a processing center in North Dakota to avoid pollution risks to the waters of Minnesota. ”

    I have always told the pro mining folks that the high desert of Chile gets less than 10% the rainfall of Ely and let’s mine there first. That said, the Tamarack mine folks should be given more consideration than Twin Metals or Polymet if they truly are extracting the ore and processing in a significantly drier climate. Allowing Twin Metals or Polymet is not a reasoned compromise. It is I win, you lose, which is the most important element to the anti mining “own the libs” folks here. Maybe more hope for Tamarack?

  10. I asked BARD to “explain acid mine drainage in hard rack mining.”

    Here is the result:
    [quote]
    Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a serious water quality problem that occurs when metal sulfide-rich rocks and minerals are exposed to air and water. This process, called oxidation, produces sulfuric acid and dissolved metals, which can then flow into nearby streams and rivers. AMD can also occur when coal is mined, as coal contains sulfur that can be oxidized to form sulfuric acid.

    AMD can have a number of negative impacts on the environment, including:

    Degrading water quality: AMD can make water too acidic for fish and other aquatic life to survive. It can also leach metals from the surrounding soil and rocks, which can then contaminate drinking water supplies.
    Damaging ecosystems: AMD can kill plants and animals, and it can also damage wetlands and other sensitive ecosystems.
    Undermining infrastructure: AMD can corrode bridges, dams, and other infrastructure, which can lead to costly repairs or even failure.
    There are a number of ways to prevent or reduce AMD, including:

    Restoring mined land: This involves covering exposed rocks and minerals with soil and vegetation, which helps to prevent oxidation.
    Treating mine drainage: This involves using a variety of methods to remove the acidity and metals from mine drainage before it is released into the environment.
    Managing water flow: This involves controlling the flow of water through mines and mine spoils, which helps to reduce the amount of oxidation that occurs.
    AMD is a serious problem, but it is one that can be prevented or mitigated with proper planning and management.

    [end BARD quote]

Leave a comment