Former Vice President Joe Biden shaking hands with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack during a campaign event in Newton, Iowa, on January 30, 2020.
Former Vice President Joe Biden shaking hands with former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack during a campaign event in Newton, Iowa, on January 30, 2020. Credit: REUTERS/Mike Segar

In 2016, the administration of Barack Obama halted a controversial mining project near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. President Trump revived it once he took office.

What will President-elect Joe Biden do? Since his campaign for president began, Biden hasn’t said anything about the Twin Metals Minnesota proposal, but two of Biden’s Cabinet picks may offer the best hint yet. 

Rep. Deb Haaland
[image_caption]Rep. Deb Haaland[/image_caption]
The president-elect chose Tom Vilsack, who was secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Obama, to return to the job. The USDA oversees the Forest Service, which manages the Superior National Forest, where Twin Metals wants to mine. Biden also tapped U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland of New Mexico to lead the Interior Department, which controls the mineral deposits in the forest.

The moves were celebrated by those who want to stop Twin Metals and taken as a bad sign by the project’s supporters. Haaland and Vilsack must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, a St. Paul Democrat from Minnesota’s 4th Congressional District who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies — which oversees both the Forest Service and the Department of Interior — said the choices “reconfirm” her belief that Biden “will do the right thing by the environment” and protect public lands by blocking the copper-nickel mine.

Up and down history for Twin Metals

Twin Metals, which is owned by the Chilean mining giant Antofagasta, hopes to build a large copper-nickel mine near Ely on Birch Lake and the South Kawishiwi River. The company says it can use modern mining technology to meet environmental standards and predicts the project would create more than 750 jobs and another 1,500 spinoff jobs, not counting construction work to build the mine.

Still, opponents say the project is perilously close to the BWCA and risks creating toxins that will flow into the protected wilderness. In the final weeks of the Obama administration, the USDA and Interior Department rejected two mineral leases for Twin Metals and launched a study that could have led to a 20-year moratorium on mining in the Rainy River watershed, which drains into the BWCA. Such a ban is known as a mineral withdrawal.

Twin Metals offices in Ely.
[image_credit]Courtesy of Twin Metals Minnesota[/image_credit][image_caption]Twin Metals offices in Ely. The company hopes to build an underground mine primarily for copper and nickel, but also to collect cobalt, palladium and platinum.[/image_caption]
Trump later reversed this decision, ended the study without releasing its results and championed the project. Twin Metals is still in the early stages of its environmental review and permitting process with the state and federal government. 

State regulators at the Department of Natural Resources did say Twin Metals couldn’t yet prove its claim that rock in the area is low risk to create sulfuric acid that can leach heavy metals into water. That phenomenon, known as acid mine drainage or acid rock drainage, happens when rock bearing sulfides is exposed to air and water. The DNR is also reviewing its copper-nickel mining rules in the Rainy River watershed as part of an agreement with an environmental group that sued the state.

Biden picks have a history of opposing copper mining in Rainy River watershed

The Biden transition team did not respond to a request for comment and has not replied to questions about the project for months from MinnPost and other Minnesota media outlets.

But when Vilsack was in charge of the USDA, the U.S. Forest Service said acid mine drainage posed risk of irreparable harm to the BWCA.

In a 2018 op-ed for MinnPost, Vilsack called the Boundary Waters a “priceless wilderness” that can attract an economy based on outdoor tourism. “A project like the proposed Antofagasta Twin Metals mine, which threatens the fundamental character and integrity of the Boundary Waters, puts all that at risk,” Vilsack wrote.

While serving in Congress, Haaland cosponsored a bill with McCollum to permanently ban mining for copper, nickel and other similar metals on 234,328 acres of federal land in the Rainy River watershed, a step further than the USDA was considering under Vilsack.

Haaland criticized the Trump administration in 2019, saying: “In places like Minnesota, the Forest Service and [Bureau of Land Management] are jointly responsible for putting valuable freshwater resources at risk from mining pollution.”

BWCA
[image_credit]Creative Commons/Chad Fennell[/image_credit][image_caption]In a 2018 op-ed for MinnPost, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack called the Boundary Waters a “priceless wilderness” that can attract an economy based on outdoor tourism.[/image_caption]
McCollum said last week she is preparing information to share with Vilsack once Biden is sworn into office to get him up to speed on the issue. McCollum also said she talks to Haaland frequently, and said her colleague knows the topic well and voted for McCollum’s bill to ban sulfide mining in the Rainy River watershed in the House Natural Resources committee. “I think a Biden administration putting her in the position they have is to protect our public lands and sacred sites for Native American nations,” McCollum said.

Rep. Betty McCollum
[image_credit]Creative Commons/Lorie Shaull[/image_credit][image_caption]Rep. Betty McCollum[/image_caption]
McCollum said she hopes the Biden administration completes the mineral withdrawal study, which in her view was prematurely canceled. She also said Biden shouldn’t release the information until his administration has time “to see what needs to be added to that study to round it out.” McCollum also said she plans to suggest an executive order related to mining for the Biden administration, but declined to give details.

Could Biden be more open to mining projects to help green energy plans?

Reuters reported in October that Biden told U.S. mining companies he will support boosting production of metals like copper and nickel that are needed for clean energy technology such as electric cars and solar panels. McCollum said she viewed that as a broad statement that doesn’t apply to every mining project and doesn’t signal a change in course from the Obama administration on Twin Metals.

[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Brian Halliday[/image_credit][image_caption]Rep. Pete Stauber[/image_caption]
Despite Biden’s comments to mining companies, U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, a Republican from Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District, appeared to see Vilsack and Haaland as bad signs for the future of Twin Metals. Stauber, who serves with Haaland on the Natural Resources Committee, said Biden’s decision to nominate Cabinet members who have already opposed Twin Metals or copper mining in the watershed means the former Vice President has “politicized” environmental review. 

Vilsack and the Obama administration “injected politics at the very last minute of an outgoing administration, Stauber said, and that is very concerning to me to put politics in play rather than following process and science.

He said the project should be able to go through the larger permitting process without earlier intervention to study mineral withdrawal or cancel leases, saying if the project “can’t be done safely” in the end, then it shouldn’t move forward. 

The project is in an area of Superior National Forest designated for mining development, and Stauber said Twin Metals could provide a needed boost of high-paying union jobs and produce metals that can power green technology. 

The Trump administration and Biden say domestic mining can reduce reliance on foreign powers for these critical metals. Kathy Graul, a spokeswoman for Twin Metals, said in a prepared statement that the mine project “is aligned with many of the priorities of the incoming Biden Administration,” such as a shift to renewable energy technology.

Minnesota is home to a rare U.S. supply of copper, nickel, cobalt and platinum group metals in a stretch of northeast Minnesota that’s known as the Duluth Complex. “The development of these resources – which are foundational to stronger domestic supply chains and a green economy transition – should get bipartisan support,” Graul said.

Still, environmental groups are happy with Biden’s choices. Jeremy Drucker, spokesman for the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, a nonprofit opposed to Twin Metals led by former Minnesota DNR chief Tom Landwehr, said: “We think it’s a good Cabinet.”

“It’s a sea change in how this project is going to advance at the federal level,” Drucker said.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. It should not make any difference. There is a permitting process in place by law, if you pass the current thresholds, you get permitted. Once you have the permits, you should be able to mine.

    1. Someone from the range should appreciate:

      “The thresholds, they are a changin…”

  2. Mr. Stauber has now presented is with one of the very best jokes of the newly-born year of 2021 with his statement that “…that is very concerning to me to put politics in play rather than following process and science.” Coming from a devoted member of the political party that routinely ignores science and established process when said science and process don’t yield results friendly to extraction industries who are lobbyists for those industries and big donors to that political party is among the most cynical lines I’ve read in the new year.

  3. You say “…environmental groups are happy with Biden’s choices.” This is too sweeping a statement. Many are very uncomfortable with the Vilsack choice because of his association with Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and the increased use of glyphosate, his poor record with regard to racial justice, and his generally strong alignment with “Big Ag” over sustainable agriculture. Below are a couple of relevant links:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/08/tom-vilsak-agriculture-secretary-biden-443825

    https://accuracy.org/release/vilsack-at-agriculture-mr-monsanto/

    1. The links to glyphosate and cancer are dubious at best. From Fact Check: “…there’s conflicting evidence on whether glyphosate leads to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph nodes, in workers who handled the herbicide. They also pointed out that the “overall weight of evidence indicates” glyphosate isn’t genotoxic in mammals at doses and routes “relevant to human dietary exposure.” At high doses (much higher than any human would ever be exposed to) there could be more evidence of a link. This reminds me of the saccharine study done in the 1970s that led to its ban and how researchers exposed lab rats to the equivalent of 10,000 bottles of diet soda per day. The rats were alleged to have contracted bladder cancer from that. Duh, drink 10,000 bottles of anything per day and you will have bladder problems. Expose anybody to a super high dose of anything and you can jury rig results. Especially when personal injury lawyers are involved (such lawyers were instrumental in getting Dr. Wakefield to make his erroneous ‘conclusions’ about vaccines….it was later found that Wakefield was paid by lawyers to get the results so they could sue vaccine makers). Such I’m willing to bet is the same scenario with glyphosate.

      1. Whether it causes cancer or not, glyphosate has near eliminated habitat for pollinators over 99% of the “bread basket”. Pollinator extinction being a far greater threat to humanity than cancer.

  4. I suspect Stauber believes in Noah’s Arc more than science. As for Vilsack, maybe he will not support Twin Metals or any other front company (like PolyMet) doing the work of a foreign behemoth corporation…maybe.

    As for Vilsack though…As Obama’s Ag Sec, he presided over the near extermination of many pollinators species and the collapse of the Monarch butterfly migration, more consolidation of farms and corporate control, the continued polluting of the land and waters and mass soil loss. So in fact he cares more about making money and keeping corporations and land barons happy than farm culture or the health of the earth.

    1. Or, he’s a guy from a farming community in rural Iowa and does know a thing or two about “family farm culture”.

      1. Here is a recent, modest takedown of Vilsack from the DesMoines Register.

        I would add, there are 44 million hogs in Iowa. There are about 7 million people in Iowa. The average hog generates 4 times the waste an adult human does. There is next to no treatment of hog waste in the state, as if there were no waste treatment for 176 million people. Who owns most of those hogs? Smithfields. Who owns Smithfields? A Chinese conglomerate, WH Group.

        Iowa “farm” culture is Big Agro-business, USDA Policy writ large. There is a reason Vilsack was called Mr Monsanto during the Obama Admin. Whatever corporate Big Ag wanted, Big Ag got.

        https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2021/01/05/tom-vilsack-wrong-person-tackle-usda-climate-rural-snap-pollution/4128714001/

        1. You places your bets and you take your chances:

          Current Secretary Sonny Perdue:
          “In 2004, Perdue sued the Environmental Protection Agency to block environmental regulations on reformulated gasoline.[33] In a 2014 editorial published by National Review, Perdue criticized attempts by “some on the left or in the mainstream media” to connect climate change to weather events. Perdue wrote that “liberals have lost all credibility when it comes to climate science because their arguments have become so ridiculous and so obviously disconnected from reality.”

          Tom Vilsack:
          “Vilsack did well in his previous time as secretary; he completed trade agreements, led forest and water conservation programs, chaired the first White House Rural Council, and spear-headed and then implemented the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. ”

          As we will continue to disagree on into perpetuity: I’ll place my bets on incremental change over waiting for the big bang…

          1. Perdue is a typical elite Republican for whom no amount of damage to the earth is too great a cost for making his cronies richer.

            Vilsack didn’t get his nickname Mr Monsanto because he cares about ecology. But of course he worked for Obama so he will surely not be held accountable among liberal or corporate media for any Republican-like treatment of the earth past or future.

  5. Tom Vilsack should get the Archer Daniels Midland logo branded onto his forehead like in Inglorious Bastards. He is no friend to working class rural Americans.

    1. Maybe not a brand, but maybe he should be required, any time he appears in public, to wear a suit emblazoned with the logos of ADM, Cargill, Bayer etc, that we might not be mistaken about where his allegiance stands?

Leave a comment