Monday, March 10, 2014

PolyMet Mining Regulatory Hurdles: Good or Bad

Conservatives often complain that the American and Minnesota Regulatory Environment is excessive, unnecessary, and that it stifles growth, wastes money on bureaucrats, kills jobs, snuffs profits, etc.  Dan Burns wrote the following at MN Progressive Project, and it is an interesting if biased post.  MPP Public Opinion about PolyMet

Here are some more links reference links:
PolyMet Mining
PolyMet Map/Brochure
Mining Truth
MinnPost Centuries



jerrye92002 said...

I tried to read through all the links, but couldn't find enough common "facts" between the two sides to reach any sort of conclusion. There seem to be assertions without evidence on both sides, though the PolyMet people seem to be doing the best on reasonably factual assertions while the environmentalists seem to be making an emotional appeal based on making stuff up. But I'm willing to concede my bias in that interpretation.

So, the only thing I can fall back on is my own experience. My good friend Lorie, 3/4 Inuit, spends his winter working at a lead mine north of the Arctic circle. The tribe owns the mine, and by every measure the site is cleaner now than it was before. There are fish in the streams and rivers now. But environmentalists want it shut down; they are adamant about it and they have the PROOF! That proof is that there are vast quantities of heavy metals being "discharged" from the site. Well, yes. It is a LEAD mine, and those trucks haul a LOT of it to waiting ships. So somehow, when I hear environmentalists wailing about mining, I discount their concerns.

Sean said...

Considering that everyone agrees that we're looking at a long-term need for water treatment at these sites -- a period of time which will almost certainly outlive PolyMet's lifespan -- a thorough review is required and due diligence must be done to ensure that the mining site itself generates sufficient revenue to pay for the environmental remediation.

jerrye92002 said...

I have no problem with that; just that I am sure it has already been done time and again, yet environmentalists refuse to take "yes" for an answer. And many of those demands are not reasonable, either, for example requiring restoration to a state BETTER than what existed prior, or that "pollution" be capped below natural levels. I don't know the particulars here, but our existing regulations are, I think, stringent enough that we don't need to be foolishly holding up business ventures willing to comply, as seems to be happening here.