EPA condemns northeast Minnesota copp...

EPA condemns northeast Minnesota copper-nickel project

There are 4 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Feb 24, 2010, titled EPA condemns northeast Minnesota copper-nickel project. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has slammed a draft environmental review done for the proposed PolyMet copper-nickel mining project in northeastern Minnesota.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Charles Ellis

Anoka, MN

#1 Feb 25, 2010
False choices. Environment or jobs. In a deep recession like this getting people back to work is job one for the state. I get that.

If the jobs directly put, say, sewage or pesticides in our drinking water, would we say yes to them? No. Why? Because pollution lasts and lasts, harming many individuals. It does not make sense to employ people when the employer directly harms others.

The political question on the table should be how can we create more work on the Iron Range, not, how can we create jobs at the expense of those downstream and the outdoors all Minnesotans love.
Jane Koschak-Ely

Pierson, FL

#2 Feb 25, 2010
Citizens all over Minnesota need to become engaged in learning more about the dangerous environmental affects of sulfide mining. This is not the "normal" iron ore or taconite mining, that is relatively benign, as compared to sulfide mining, but still continues to create plenty of contamination. PolyMet and other mining companies tout that the "latest technologies will reduce and treat acid runoff." I am not very comfortable with being informed that, "a reduction in acid runoff will occur"--so that means there still will be some level of run-off? Absolutely, runoff will occur, and there surely will be groundwater pollution. Let's not buy into their propaganda. Let's require that these mining companies "Prove It First" in some other country or state, before experimenting with Minnesota's natural resources. Mining for copper and nickel in other parts of the country have left a track record of environmental contamination and destruction that is horrific--and impossible to clean up. Remember, these mining companies care only about their profit, not our natural resources-and they will promise anything to reach their goal. The DEIS is riddled with problems which will result in long-term water and air pollution into perpetuity. Even with financial assurances and damage deposits, PolyMet and sulfide mining companies should be made to "Prove It First"!
Ghost Writer

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Feb 25, 2010
Unless all environmental safeguards and green technologies are in place it is off no use ruining our state's quality of life for a few passing temporal jobs.

The sulfide mining industry and related mining companies have poor environmental track records to date. Our Minnesota resources are only so finite. Why ruin the land and pollute environment without regard to future consequences?

It's time to take a stand and protect what precious natural environmental gifts we now have in Minnesota before it's too late and/or too polluted.
Robert Essian

New Baltimore, MI

#4 Feb 27, 2010
If you want the answers to your uninformed questions then go read the DEIS.

The State of Minnesota has the most stringent regulations in the world on the potential developement of non-ferrous mining in the WORLD. The MDNR and USACE has put together an outstanding DEIS and will have it further strengthened towards the FEIS.

The EPA, mis-respresented themselves by not understanding or possibly not fully reading the DEIS. Unfortunate for such an important agency as the EPA. The statement given this past week or so was immature at best and unprofessional for sure.

Now, for the record: Eveywhere in the State of Minnesota where people live in mass, I gaurantee that what you flush down your toilets and what bubbles up from aged septic fields are doing way more damage to the environment than the Mining Industry does in Northern Minnesota. Perhaps the priorities need to change to deal with that known fact. Regards Robert Essian

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Supreme Court Takes Up Global Warming (Nov '06) 12 hr Earthling-1 36
News Environmental Protesters Fight Defamation Lawsu... Jun 23 Maria Gifford 1
News Cut crime, boost growth by getting rid ... Jun 19 Bipo 1
News Time for conservatives to lead on clean energy ... Jun 15 Solarman 1
News Grand Lake St. Marys polluted again with toxic ... Jun 6 Kevin McGraw 1
News Decades later, Taft's "navigable waterway" disa... (May '08) Jun 4 Brown Skillington 3
News U.S. insecticide release halted May 31 2 Bee or Not 2 Bee 1
More from around the web