- Editorial: A needed and clear sign for nonferrous
- PolyMet: Oberstar Visits
- Officials tout benefits of mine near Ely
- Pawlenty ‘excited’ about mine proposal
- Deal could bring Iron Range 600 new mining jobs
- New law helped pave way for Michigan nonferrous project
- Copper mine near BWCA gets financing
- Duluth Metals Signs Definitive Participation Agreement With Antofagasta Plc On Nokomis Project
- Nokomis project gets $130 million infusion
- PolyMet Waits For The O.K.
News
Brainerd Dispatch
March 5, 2010
One of the most controversial Minnesota projects in recent years is the proposed Polymet Mine on the Iron Range. The project calls for surface mining and mineral processing of approximately 228 million tons of copper-nickel-Platinum Group Element ore over approximately a 20-year mine life. The project would be the first large-scale non-ferrous metallic mineral mine in the state of Minnesota. PolyMet expects to mine, on average, 91,200 tons per day of material, which would include about 32,000 tpd of ore and 3,900 tpd of overburden and 55,300 tpd of waste rock.
Annually, this would result in the removal of about 19.7 million tons of waste rock and 1.4 million tons of overburden, although most overburden would be stripped during the construction period at the beginning of the Project. Operating at these rates, annual metal production would total about 38,821 tons of copper, 9,037 tons of nickel, 400 tons of cobalt, 22,184 ounces of platinum, 87,129 ounces of palladium, and 13,824 ounces of gold.
Environmentalists are lined up in opposition to Polymet, viewing the Project as a serious threat to water quality in the entire region including the Boundary Waters. Project advocates include Congressman Oberstar, Sen. Klobuchar, Gov. Pawlenty and others who are mindful of thousands of new quality jobs on the depressed Iron Range.
There is a recent 714-page Environmental Impact Statement for the Polymet Project from the Minnesota DNR and the Corps of Engineers. It is clear from the statement that all of the effluent from the project ends up in the drainage areas of the Partridge and Embarrass Rivers. Those rivers flow south to the St Louis River and Lake Superior, not north to the Boundary Waters.
The statement has both positive and negative comments about the project, but in general it suggests that if all of Polymet's commitments are met, there is no serious impact on the environment. The following quote from page 244 of the statement sums up comments about the three rivers involved:
"Even with these higher loadings and assuming no natural attenuation, the model results indicate that water quality standards for the Partridge River would be maintained for the eight constituents studied (i.e., antimony, arsenic, fluoride, cobalt, copper, nickel, vanadium, and sulfate) under all flow conditions and mine years modeled. Therefore, even using relatively conservative assumptions, the Proposed Action is not predicted to result in any exceedances of surface water quality standards for the Partridge River at the modeled locations."
There are valid arguments against the Polymet Project. Perhaps the most negative is the financial status of Polymet, a relatively small corporation for whom this is the major activity. Polymet will have to to meet the substantial commitments of the project which are described in the EIS. There is also the final closure and remediation which is estimated to cost $50 million, and then the long (more than 1,000 years per the Environmental Impact Statement) followup of drainage from left over tailings and newly created storage ponds.
Rolf Westgard
Deerwood
ROLF WESTGARD is a resident of Deerwood, a professional member of the Geological Society of America and a member of the Brainerd Dispatch advisory board.











