Local view: Sulfide mining threatens BWCAW
April 17, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Minnesotans concerned with protecting clean water in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and in the St. Louis River watershed continue to look skeptically at proposals to develop a new kind of mining sulfide mining in Minnesota.
Continue Reading
Using Proescholdt’s flawed logic(it was bad in the past, therefore it will always be bad) we should never, ever even consider upgrading our mass transit systems to rail because, as has already been proven , Train engines produce tons and tons of sooty smoke. Witness the Pittsburgh PA area around the turn of the century. The smog was thick enough to cut with a knife. Now I know that you people will immediately jump on me citing how technologies have changed and cleaned things up. to which I reply, EXACTLY! The processes proposed for enriching/refining the sulfide minerals in Mn are not the same as what Proescholdt is pretending Polymet will use. But nothing whips up hysteria like a good lie, again, witness Salem MA and it’s witch hunts. The greenies want you to believe their lies because they know that they can’t win this argument with the facts.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
Hugh, you almost made some sense. Except that you try and draw a relationship between transportation technologies that are many decades apart. The writer is using present day evidence that this type of mining is not being done safely in todays world. Small difference to someone wanting to stay blinded by corporate literature.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
“the 2009 draft environmental impact statement for PolyMet Mining Company’s proposed new mine admitted that sulfuric acid will leach from its operations for up to 2,000 years” This is from the story we are commenting on now. Are there any unfamiliar words or concepts in the statement, Hugh? These words come from Polymet, not some so-called “greenie” There is no denying or changing the rules of chemistry, no matter how much you want them to change. Sulfides plus water always produces sulfuric acid, no matter who is involved or in which century.
tom koehler
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
polymet also said that they would be treating the waste rock with limestone and bury it in lined, sealed reservoir also treated with lime. Did you flunk Chemistry or something? You do realize that the slightly acidic tailings will be more than offset by the basic limestone, right?
Like or Dislike:
3 
8
Hugh,
Treating with limestone is only part of the equation, as you would know if you had done your research, or perhaps you are choosing to forget the rest of the story?
Limestone would decrease the ability of the tailings to produce sulfuric acid, but reactivity would not be eliminated.
According to the PolyMet DEIS the gypsum would also have been treated with limestone. Remember the wallboard from China used in homes after hurricanes swept through the South? The metal used in plumbing and wiring, particularly copper, was damaged or destroyed because the wallboard emitted sulfide gas that produced sulfuric acid when reacting with humidity. Follow-up investigation found some wallboard manufactured in the U.S. was just as reactive. Why do you think PolyMet cannot find a market for its gypsum?
Limestone treatment does nothing to offset the release of Nickel, a huge issue at all proposed sulfide mines in the Duluth Complex.
Also, the use of limestone, in an attempt to make the pH of tailings less acidic and more basic, creates another serious problem – with arsenic. Arsenic is also an issue raised in PolyMet’s DEIS. The greater the pH (the more basic, or alkaline) the more arsenic is released. Your choice: more sulfuric acid or more arsenic?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1