Mining near the BWCA is about more than jobs

  • Article by: DENNIS ANDERSON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 10, 2012 - 2:53 AM

A former legislator now living on the North Shore argues for the environment.

  • 50
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
Lowrie02Mar. 8, 12 9:10 PM

Seems like Minnesota and Wisconsin should be very cautious about these mining companies! They are like developers everywhere who come into an area, make their money and move on! Not much allegiance to anyone or anybody except themselves!

33
10
pdf123Mar. 9, 12 6:06 AM

Good piece. The evidence is that sulfide mining can't be done safely - it will leave a dead zone in its wake. There is a reason this hasn't been mined until now - it's 99% rock and 1% copper and nickel. The crushed rock's drainage in a wet area like NE MN will contaminate. The only place this has been done safely are parts of Chile, where there is little rainfall and it's very dry. People should think about the jobs they will lose (loss of tourism, fishing, possibly waterfowl hunting) as well as gain. I'm a union member, so I understand the appeal of the mining jobs, which will likely be union. But, they won't last and there will be a lot fewer than the companies promise.

28
9
mrscoutMar. 9, 12 6:59 AM

very biased article. Improved mining regulations and technology minimize impact. Funny how these people who dont need a job have no real compassion for unemployed people or their familys but tons of passion for unused parcels of land

15
37
conbrioMar. 9, 12 7:12 AM

"I'm a union member, so I understand the appeal of the mining jobs, which will likely be union. But, they won't last and there will be a lot fewer than the companies promise."--------------- Absolutely correct, the job figures by the company are excessively and unbelievably bloated. Left out is the impact on the jobs that already do exist: if the areas water gets contaminated it would destroy the tourism industry on which we now depend, and eliminate thousands of tourism jobs. The other part not emphasized enough is that this mining method is not only poisonous, but is very expensive, if the price for any of the "precious metals" falls even slightly the company will abandon the area, declare bankruptcy, and leave behind a mess. Precious metals or precious water: choose one.

25
8
conbrioMar. 9, 12 7:21 AM

"very biased article. Improved mining regulations and technology minimize impact."-----------------------Prove it otherwise, the record of Polymet/Glencor is abysmal. As for jobs, we have them now, we don't want replace them with temporary mining jobs, been there done that. We like our place and our quality of life, and we don't want outsiders coming in and wrecking it for us.

28
6
BCanniffMar. 9, 12 8:51 AM

Would you rather be a fishing guide barely making a living or miner making enough to hire a fishing guide? Converting an economic wasteland into a prosperous treasure trove can be done without destroying the environment.

9
29
mnwildz12Mar. 9, 12 9:13 AM

Same old story with Andersen, next time please file this in the editorial section as this "story" is not based on the facts. For any reasonable person out there, don't give these selfish tree huggers an inch. They are not happy until every motor, every cell phone and every measure of economic progress is purged from this area to serve their own selfish purposes. There will copius government regulation put upon these mining companies to make this a safe, measured, reasonable investment that the benefits will truly help the people that reside in this area.

11
31
conbrioMar. 9, 12 9:26 AM

"Would you rather be a fishing guide barely making a living or miner making enough to hire a fishing guide? Converting an economic wasteland into a prosperous treasure trove can be done without destroying the environment."---------------------Most of us that live here choose to do so in part BECAUSE the lifestyle is less demanding, I make a decent living off the tourist trade as well as local support, and I do in in just 7 months. I f I wanted to work the other 5 I would have no problem, I chose my lifestyle. We do not need to create some temporary jobs, attracting people who neither care for the quality of life here nor the environment concerns. The people who want the mining are not the locals, but outsiders who only want to make a buck and then leave. I strongly resent and resist your characterization as an "economic wasteland", you certainly don't live here, and I would guess you don't even visit.

29
6
aklemzMar. 9, 12 9:33 AM

BCanniff: And milk and honey will flow from the rocks, and the animals will join together to sing a song. The notion of sulfide mining without environmental damage is a fantasy. If it were real, someone would show you a place where it happened before. Ask yourself - why haven't they?

23
6
gobigblueMar. 9, 1210:04 AM

Mar. 9, 12 8:51 AM Would you rather be a fishing guide barely making a living or miner making enough to hire a fishing guide? Converting an economic wasteland into a prosperous treasure trove can be done without destroying the environment.....No BCanniff, it can't. Haven't you ever heard the old adage, "If something sounds too good to be true, it probabaly is". Ask yourself this question "What motivation does the mining company have to protect the land it mines, or the community its operating in, AFTER approval for the site has been granted, and mining has commenced?" Once the mine is operating the mine has NO incentive to follow up on its empty words with action. If they violate regs, wreck the water supply, injure workers, wreck the local tourist economy, who cares? They will have access to the profits they are after, and any and all fines and or lawsuit settlements will be deducted as a cost of doing business. Do you honestly think they haven't already taken this into account when they've made the decision to go forward with this project. They'll make THEIR money, no matter what, and to hell with the consquences on the larger area as a whole. The mistake comes when people attempt to affix moral judgement to an entity that is by definition amoral. Its easy to believe the rhetoric put forth by the company as true, since that's what we would expect most rational and moral folks to believe and attempt to achieve. The company is not a person and cannot be expected to behave by those standards. Which is more benefical, 5000 or so jobs, which are by nature transitory, or hundreds of millions of tourism dollars, which will never go away. The question SHOULD be easy to answer, but for those desperate for short term gratification, it seems to be muddled.

22
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who wins tonight's Game 4?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT