You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Let’s see. A cash cow for Minnesota in royalties. Hundreds of new jobs in a repressed area. I am sure an environmentally safe mining solution is out there. The EPA is sure to shut this down, following a flurry of law suits by environmental groups. Point gun at foot and pull the trigger.
Once the land is destroyed, its gone. When will people decide that what they have is enough. Why do we always need more and more and more stuff? Live with what you have and the nature that was given to us.
Does this mean the DNR recommended the leases WITHOUT conducting an environmental review? And, to me it makes sense if there is an appeals court decision pending to see what that ruling says. What city dwellers may not realize is that these mineral rights being "leased" are under people's property, and could severely impact their ability to continue living on their property. And I am not sure that an environmentally safe mining solution is out there, or why is it not being touted? As far as I know, no mining that results in sulfides leaching into water has ever occurred without environmental damage.
Cash cow. Jobs. Tax influx. ......I invite you all for a a trip up the Iron Range memory lane to appreciate the prosperity, the mean income, the mansions, the thousands and thousands of acres of scrub pine and dwarf popple eking out an existence on mountains of tailings. We've heard it all before; you suck the minerals out, then put the workers on unemployment, and leave the land raped and the tourist industry bankrupt for a generation.
"As far as I know, no mining that results in sulfides leaching into water has ever occurred without environmental damage." - Let agree on that for discussion (I don't know if it's true). Why would the DNR recommend leasing for that kind of mining then? It seems by definition against what their core responsibility is, managing and protecting from degradation our natural resources. Perhaps criminal or other charges should be brought against the individuals in the DNR who aren't doing the tasks the people sent them there to do? Denying the leases until the companies show a demonstrated ability to mine without pollution. If they want a lease they can test for presence of minerals with but can never actually mine for them because they aren't responsible enough, then maybe that's just oney in the state coffers. Just because you have a lease and want to mine doesn't mean the people will allow it.
Kind or ironic that everyone is up in arms about fracking for oil but are ready to give the green light to this very quickly. I would like to see an independent environmental assessment done (no ex state officials or special interest groups involved). If that came up clean, go for it.
tnesley "Let’s see. A cash cow for Minnesota in royalties. Hundreds of new jobs in a repressed area. I am sure an environmentally safe mining solution is out there. " The last big sulfite mine, the Anaconda Mine in Montana is now a lake filled with battery acid. There has been no SAFE mining operation anywhere on earth EVER! The people who want to mine have a lousy track record in South Africa and South America. This project could be put on hold until after the Alaska find has been successfully and SAFELY mined. The value will never go down. It will always go up!
"A cash cow for Minnesota in royalties."..................A cash cow with botulism would be more accurate.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks