St. Louis County eyes windfall from expanding mines
February 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
With more taconite mining expected on public land, millions in royalties will flow to state and local governments. Continue Reading
St. Louis County eyes windfall from expanding mines
20 Comments
“Now, the potential for royalties has county officials salivating over new income to take the pressure off the property tax levy, especially as state aid is cut and as county property values stagnate.” Yes, and that’s how the mining income ought to be used — to abate property taxes. Not to expand state and county governments. With so much of St Louis County in public hands, we taxpayers now are burdened with high and rising taxes. Also, the state should be negotiating with the feds for land exchanges for state land within the BWCA — not for money. This would put more public land to use for development and recreation. If the state gets just money for our land in the BWCA, it will waste it. Good to hear that there can be a brighter economy ahead for SLC. Let’s not blow it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
9
Too bad they will. They’re at the Welfare Center yelling “MAKE IT RAIN!!!”
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
19
I can see the people in state government seeing how they can get a bigger share of the money- They trobbed us of our money before-
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
5
Instantly the cry is for more $$$ for bureaucrat wages and benefits. “Add staff”. Why not hire our neighbors in the private sector to survey land and perform other tasks??
Why continually expand govenment jobs and benefits on the backs of us taxpayers? We do buy the steel made with taconite, so this is not found money. Share it with us and cut our taxes!
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
11
Pay attention Northern Wi !! Don’t let Jauch and Bewley, wacko conservationists and the indians screw up our mining opportunity ! Jobs .jobs, jobs !!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
22
The Wisconsin Democrats have a new slogan. “Wisconsin Democarts……Keeping northern Wisconsin poor since 1960″.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
18
Great idea. Let’s demand the county tax the activity at 4x what the state is already taxing it. Magnetation has already said “we’re tired of this BS” an has threatened to locate elsewhere. Let’s make sure they do just that, ungrateful corporation that they are. The audacity of the 1%, proposing to make a profit while providing jobs and other benefits. Who do they think they are?
Idea: Let Magnetation take their millions of dollars of investment capital and hundreds of jobs elsewhere. Then the county can step in and run this reclamation project the right way. We all know governments and agencies are so good at doing tasks the private sector can’t handle (or are taxed so high they can’t invest profitably). They can start with some seed money, a nice grubstake from the legislature (ie, our taxes), hire a big staff (maybe former IRRRB or Iron World or Northwest workers?) and make lots of plans. Then they’ll lost track of what exactly they were hired to do, focus on their fancy Power Point presentations, and eventually get found out as just another well-intentioned public jobs effort that couldn’t make a go of it. OK< you probably recognize the sarcasm. There's ore in them thar hills (and valleys, and ponds). Let a skilled private company with the correct motivation and incentives get it out without killing the golden goose before it's allowed to fly.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
I want to see jobs created to clean up the mess taconite mining has made before they think about expanding. Prove it can be cleaned up. We are eating fish contaminated with mercury, breathing air filled with dust we can see and asbestos or asbestos-like fibers we cannot, and drinking who knows what in our water because no one is documenting the synergistic effects of heavy metals and chemicals contained in taconite mining waste. And our children are the ones affected first and most. If you don’t care about yourself, care about your kids. Get off the mining bandwagon. It’s a killer. “The only two certainties in life are death and taxes.” When it’s a choice, I pick taxes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
21
Burntsider,
Money for school trust lands in the Boundary Waters would go to the School Trust Fund. Money invested now is a far better choice for our children’s future than speculative land exchanges. Exchanges are being orchestrated by mining corporations that are doing so for their own interests – namely getting their hands on the land to mine. It has nothing to do with the welfare of our children.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
Mining companies and their suppliers pay taxes. Their workers pay fees, sales tax, income tax, gasoline tax, and property tax to support state services including education. Opponents of the land exchange want the feds to keep their land outside of the BWCA — perhaps in hopes of expanding the BWCA. Many of us would like to see federal land outside of the BWCA traded to Minnesota for state land within the preserve. This would facilitate commercial (thus tax paying use) of more land and more recreational opportunities on those lands. If the state land the feds want within the BWCA is purchased by the US, two bad things happen: 1. the US goes further into debt and 2. the US controls more of Minnesota’s land. Also, I don’t trust Minnesota to make appropriate use of the money if that’s how this is settled. Land for land — so the land can be put to work to create economic opportunity and support itself.
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
Burntsider,
1. The money for a land purchase would probably come from federal funds that are earmarked for conservation purchases only. The source for those funds is oil well leases.
2. Mining destroys the use of the land for other purposes. We lose all sustainable surface resources for the use of one unsustainable subsurface resource. It is also unconscionable to essentially give mining corporations tens of thousands of acres of Superior National Forest land, land that belongs to all the people of Minnesota for a variety of uses.
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
The notion that lands received in a land exchange out of the BWCAW would be “given” to the mining companies is hogwash. If an area of state land is to be mined, the fees the state of Minn and County would receive are staggering. Mining lease fees, axillary lands lease fees, royalties, taconite tax. Just to name a few. Whether one likes mining or hates it is a whole different debate. But don’t think for a second that the mining companies would get a free ride, because it simply isn’t true.
Like or Dislike:
9 
11
wacootah,
The definition of give is “transfer the possession of (something) to (someone).” Whether there is money involved is a whole different debate. The land would be ending up in the possession of mining corporations for their exclusive use. When they leave we are left with their mess and with little or no other resources to rebuild our economy on – short-term gain for long term loss is the definition of stupidity.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
Wacatooh,
The 50 year mining leases currently being gobbled up in Northeastern MN on both public and private lands, for copper-nickel mining are selling at pennies per acre, not “staggering” as you say. The state doesn’t make any real money till mining occurs and royalties collected. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/leasesale/bid_summary_2011.pdf
The free ride comes after the operatiopn is in place in the form of pollution waivers.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Actually I was referring to the dollars made once a mine is up and running, and the revenue is substantial by any standards. The mining exploration leases you refer to are in a different category and designed to encourage exploration of state minerals.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
It is so sad to see a local economy, that has been depressed for so long, jump at whatever carrot comes along.
But, that’s just what big business intends to happen.
Keep them broke long enough, and they’ll accept anything that comes along. Even drinking mercury-laced koolaid, if you dangle a living wage over thier noses.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
Read the results of the recent research on mercury levels of newborns in the Lake Superior basin. Minnesota’s percentages are considerably higher than those from Wisconsin and Michigan. Some newborns in Minnesota had mercury levels 1,000 times higher than what is considered “safe” levels. Proposed reason? Pregnant women in Minnesota eat more fish contaminated with methylmercury. Solution? According to the Minnesota Health Department, pregnant women need to eat less fish and learn what kind of fish to eat. What about addressing the real reason? Not contaminated fish, but the source of the contamination. And one chunk of that contamination is coming from the taconite mines and the power plants that run them. The solution is not to eat fewer fish; the answer is to do what we can to stop creating the methylmercury. Instead, some in Minnesota want to increase the threat to our babies exponentially by permitting sulfide mining; and in order to do so weaken the sulfate standard, a direct link to methylmercury levels.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Trying to argue that taconite mining is causing mercury contamination is cute and all, but it doesn’t explain why there are rivers in southern Minnesota have the EXACT SAME ADVISORIES that the St. Louis and other NE Minnesota rivers currently have. The Minnesota Department of Health has also stated that pregnant women should not eat any of the following more than once a month: canned “white” tuna, chilean seabass, grouper, halibut, marlin, orange roughy and tuna steak; pregnant women should not eat shark, swordfish or king mackerel AT ALL. If you believe that we’ve managed to pollute the ENTIRE OCEAN with enough mercury to poison all of these animals to the level of unsafe eating, I’ve got a lift bridge in Canal Park I’d like to sell you.
Here are some facts: Mercury is a naturally-occurring element. It is most prevalent in water. Animals that live in the water will absorb mercury.
Don’t want your kid to be born with mercury poisoning? Don’t eat things that live in the water.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
winnerwinner,
I guess you didn’t bother reading the multiple articles on the mercury levels of our newborns, so here’s a quote: “Mercury goes into the air when coal and other fossil fuels are burned — and from volcanoes and some other natural sources — and then falls back to Earth. In the U.S., about half of all mercury emissions come from coal-fired power plants. In Minnesota, taconite plants also are a large source.” I suggest you research sources of contamination in southern Minnesota rivers and elsewhere; my focus is northeastern Minnesota. And by the way fish do not absorb mercury from the water. Brush up on methylmercury and bio-accummulates.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Efforts to exploit “resources” of the Great Lakes Region has been opposed for more generations then most of us can boast, it will not be concluded with out sacrifices beyond our comprehension. While there are powerful efforts to extract the vibrant characteristics held within these lands. There are infinitely more profound movements to protect resources necessary for the survival of life on this planet. You and I are mostly WATER.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1