News

Mesabi Daily News
February 21, 2010

ST. PAUL - As the PolyMet copper/nickel/precious metals project nears the end of the state's long review process, a renewed push is being made in the Legislature on a bill that would require more financial assurance by mining companies and add more steps in the public comment process.

They are moves that critics say would delay PolyMet and other nonferrous projects and deprive the Iron Range of badly-needed jobs. 

There is little agreement between environmentalists and pro-mining advocates. 

Environmentalists refer to the process as "sulfide mining," a reference to the technique's main byproduct of sulfuric acid, which has impacted water supplies across the world and that they fear will pollute northern Minnesota. 

Pro-mining parties refer to it as the more technical "nonferrous mining." They argue that Minnesota's laws are adequate and that companies have created innovative techniques that will minimize pollution from an industry that by its very nature involves environmental impact.

Last year environmentalists proposed a similar restriction that critics blasted as a de facto ban on nonferrous mining. But the bill's authors say this year's measure removed language that could be construed as a ban and focuses more on putting Minnesota laws in line with federal regulations that guide this sort of mining on federal land. 

Although Minnesota already asks a deposit for nonferrous mining operations, the bill would increase the financial assurance paid by the companies, limit the forms of payment, and extend assurance to cover the cost of long-term water treatment. It also allows the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources more leeway in changing the amount of assurance if the level of potential damage rises, said Scott Strand, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. 

"You don't want to put the risk of making a mistake on the taxpayers," Strand said. "You want to put the risk of making a mistake on the mining companies."

The bill may have changed, but the Iron Range delegation's stance hasn't. Iron Rangers at the Capitol and mining interests say it's another attempt to prevent non-ferrous mining in the state. 

"They've changed it a bit, but I think the underlying issue is to make it too expensive to start the mining," said Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm. "There's more than enough guarantees and environmental considerations in Minnesota law right now that we don't need to be putting more stringent requirements in law that send negative messages to business."

Mine supporters were backed up in their claims by a recent Star Tribune editorial board opinion that said the bill was a "delaying tactic" for environmentalists.  

Strand, a former deputy counsel at the office of the Minnesota Attorney General, said the Star Tribune's argument was false, and that the revised statutes would actually help avoid lengthy court cases. 

But Frank Ongaro, executive director of MiningMinnesota, said the state's laws already require sufficient levels of assurance for nonferrous mining companies.

"The agencies have everything to assure that taxpayers in Minnesota don't have to pay a dime for any reclamation, if reclamation is even necessary," Ongaro said. "All that cost is covered upfront by bankruptcy-proof financial instruments as determined by the agency." 

Rep. Tom Anzelc, DFL-Balsam Township, said it would be safer to produce the minerals under the relatively strict laws here than in China or someplace else where environmental regulations are nonexistent. 

"We can safeguard the environment, the technologies that exist today make me much more comfortable than technologies that were used in other mineral developments in other places in the world," Anzelc said. "Nobody wants to harm our northern Minnesota environment." 

Like many issues at the Capitol this year, it boils down to jobs. 

"I believe the bill is an effort to kill these projects and would kill upwards of 1,000 jobs on the Iron Range once everything is said and done," Tomassoni said. 

But the bill's state Senate author, Sen. Jim Carlson, DFL-Eagan, said he wouldn't knowingly pursue a bill that hurt the Minnesota economy. 

"We need this kind of industry up there, there will be a lot of good jobs," Carlson said. "Once you open these mines you've started to have some environmental risk - and you really can't ignore it at that point, you'll have to address it - the best way to address it is right away." 

o

Hearings to be held in Senate 

The bill is similar to the one that disappeared without a hearing last year. But this year, they've managed to get hearings promised in Sen. Satveer Chaudhary's Environment and Natural Resources Committee, according to Strand. An assistant for Chaudhary confirmed the bill will likely be heard sometime in March, although they haven't yet arranged an exact date. 

Sen. Tom Saxhaug, DFL-Grand Rapids, is a member of that Senate committee. He said rural lawmakers on the committee will likely need to fight to convince some metro area senators to oppose the bill. 

"The story's been told and obviously it's got to be told a few more times; people in the metro, if they don't think they have the whole story, they're going to support the bill," Saxhaug said. "The way you avoid that is to get down here and educate them."

Chaudhary's committee will likely also set separate hearings to look at PolyMet project and the state's Environmental Impact Statement process, according to Chaudhary's office. 

Because it will be the first nonferrous mine in Minnesota, PolyMet has borne the brunt of much opposition. During the public comment period for the draft EIS that ended in early February, around 3,500 comments were filed with the agency. 

Ongaro said PolyMet has already gone through a $25 million, four-year long process with the state DNR and the US Army Corps of Engineers. 

"We sent the message to Chairman Chaudhary that there should be no hearings," Ongaro said. "It sends a terrible message to investors interested in investing in mining operations in Minnesota."

PolyMet's process is of comparable length to the recently permitted Kennecott Eagle non-ferrous mine in Michigan, which started around the same time. 

It's to be expected that mining companies want to avoid spending money on assurance, Carlson said. 

"It's the companies' fiduciary responsibility to avoid putting money in a fund like this," Carlson said. "It's our responsibility to bring up all of the other side's issues so that the taxpayers of Minnesota realize what we're getting into here." 

The final EIS will take a few months, followed by PolyMet's permit process. It's possible, Ongaro said, that if no new obstacles emerge, non-ferrous mines will be operating in the state by the end of the year. 

No members of the Iron Range delegation were contacted to contribute to the bill, although environmental advocates said they'd taken some advice offered last session.

Carlson said there was always the potential for a compromise that satisfies people on both sides of the debate, but that he understood why the Iron Range delegation so vehemently opposed restrictions on mines.

"If somebody came into my district and wanted to prevent an industry coming into my district," Carlson said, "I might do the same thing."