House bill would cut environmental review time for mines
July 12, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
The U.S. House on Thursday moved to speed up the environmental process for mining projects and to apply those new rules to projects already in the works, such as the PolyMet copper mine proposed near Hoyt Lakes.
Continue Reading
I for one cannot support the idea of limiting the amount of time in the review process, especially when you are talking about copper nickel mining. Mining history shows that there is not one mine during operation or after that has not polluted. Even Wisconsin has put a hold on any copper nickel mining whatsoever. Sure the rewards for big business are good and for local communities maybe so for a period of time. But is it worth the possible contamination of the Boundary Waters Canoe area and lake Superior. So far no one has shown that this can be done safely to protect the water sheds we all depend on.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
28
The shortening and limiting of mine permitting review to 30 months has two problems with it. The first is not all mine projects are created equal. A big project will take longer to review than a small one so a one size fits all bill that creates a deadline is not realistic. The second is the stealth method of starving the beast. For those who actually pay attention, the full House committee on interior and the environment passed a budget just two weeks ago that cut the EPA budget by 17% which is already expected to lead to layoffs. If EPA does not have enough people to review the proposals (and they already have problems with review due to lack of staff), and the artificial 30 month deadline is in place, the review may not be complete and the mine would be permitted. Sorry, this bill needs to be opposed because the delays in permitting were created by the self same legislators that told the agencies they were not allowed to hire enough people to do the job in the first place. If the problems they describe actually exist, why are the legislators like Craavack not fixing the problem rather than add more laws and cutting budgets that keep the regulatory agencies from doing the job in a timely manner. Disengenuous at best and evading their responsibility for creating the problem is more like it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
21
To play “conspiracy theory” here: I wonder how much money Mr. Cravaack’s family stands to earn through his wife’s job with a pharmaceutical company? You know, when the thousands of northlanders and their families start developing all the diseases and cancers that come along with poisoning your water system and your environment? Well, whew, at least Mr. Cravaack got HIS family out in time. Thank goodness.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
27
My point is this: the same people who are mad that the govt. is stopping jobs from coming to this area, will be the very same people railing against govt. for not stopping the polluting of their environment and creating health disasters. Picture holding your diseased grandchild in 35 years, wondering if a few dollars was worth watching people suffer.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
20
It is important to have environmental studies but things have gotten ridiculous in past years. I grew up on the Range had most of my family and extended family worked in the mines. We did not poison a generation of people by allowing mining. To suggest Chip Cravaack’s family will gain from this is I say , a bit crazy. Oberstar was for the same projects, was he going to also gain from them? Let’s have a common sense approach to these projects, innovation and ingenuity have driven America to greatness.We need to get back on track.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
25
Why, yes, Hattie, that’s why I called it a “conspiracy theory”. But, the fact remains, we cannot gamble with the health and environmental safety of our state. Rushing through this project is NOT in the best interests of the state and it’s peoples. It does benefit the mining company, though, doesn’t it? If 3 years is sufficient to verify the safety of our lands, then fine, but studies of other ventures this company has been involved in, show that three years is NOT long enough. They have polluted and ruined other lands, in other countries, and we just do not need that here.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
17
It would take me three years to figure out if GoldSim the program being used to project Polymet’s impact is actually going to give accurate results. Just reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement took months. There’s no way this can be competently done in three years. It takes the amount of time it takes, if they want to risk our water, do something that will require treatment for far more than 10 generations, then we sure should look long and hard at it. There’s no guarantee that this can be done safely – that’s why these minerals have remained in the ground. It is not like they just discovered them. They’re drilling to find out where the pockets are and pushing for easier regulations at the Federal and State level because of the desperate times and the high prices metals draw right now. If the market for the metals collapses ( just look at what gold prices have done…. remember the year 2000 and the crashes that have followed? What goes up goes down ) the companies will not be profitable and they will go away.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
12
Three years is not rushing. The environmentalists are intentionally dragging out the permitting process with the intent of discouraging any development. You complain about conspiracy, but these delaying tactics are part of a published record.
Rather than saying “not good enough”, mining opponents need to show how these new mine will harm, not “might harm” the environment. They have consistently ignored the advances in mining and mitigating technologies. All the while pointing to 100 year old technologies and how damaging they were. That’s a dishonest representation of how a new mine and new processes will work, and they know it. And if mining opponents are willfully dishonest in their representation of these issues, what else are they lying about?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
24 
35
So you just want Minnesota to bend over a little more so you can get your mine in faster? I mean, you are going to give us money so we should be happy about it. If we would only relax a little it wouldn’t be so painful……right? I mean we shouldn’t fight it…it’s inevitable so we should just take the money, save it and use it to treat the ……
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
19
What’s your point?
Like or Dislike:
13 
15
Natural resources, whether it’s copper, nickle, coal, or oil, should all be exploited as quickly as possible!! That way, our children’s children certainly won’t have the same luxuries and freedoms that we do!
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Republicans and their love affair with unions? Right http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9976504-republicans-vs-the-unions-2012-edition?lite
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
Clarify yourself please. Anybody that has to reference Rachel Maddow because they can’t speak for themselves doesn’t present validity.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
20
How would this differ from a law that says if you do not pass all the courses for your college degree in four years, or five that you automatically get the degree? Presently agencies must work to find ways to help companies successfully achieve permitting. Presently the public gets to comment on the plans with the intent of discovering any flaws in the plan. Presently if people think the company or the government did something wrong they can sue, and if they are found to be correct their costs in bringing suit are reimbursed. If that changes the plans may be less carefully reviewed because of time constraints, the companies can drag their feet right up to the last possible moment every step along the way, the public will not be able to read the plans carefully and investigate flaws and if someone wants to seek redress in the courts, the third of the balance of power in our nation, even if they are right they may be unable to afford to bring action. Do you really want to live in a place where only the very rich can sue, where industrial development can be rushed through permitting even when it may pollute PERPETUALLY or for hundreds of years? Do you personally understand how mercury impacts the developing baby in its mother’s womb? Is it morally justifiable to risk a developing baby’s health for money?
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
10
Mining companies and the Government are NEVER wrong.
Like or Dislike:
17 
8
Let’s assume I actually earned my degree in 4 years, but bureaucrats and outside interests kept moving the goal posts, ie, changing the requirements of my degree after I have met the requirements? Should I be denied a degree through no fault of my own? A streamlined permitting process requires opponents to now abide by the same timeline and rules as the permitee. IS this just making too much sense for people to grasp? Or are there ulterior motives at work here. If the Sierra Club has an objection, they should voice it immediately so the process is allowed to work itself out. Waiting until the eleventh hour to suddenly raise an objection demonstrates a lack of good faith from the beginning, and should be summarily dismissed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Screw healthy babies, we want money. Support Mining, it gives us money.
?????????????????????????
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
15
Piping in to invite more folks to gather frequently with friends and loved ones for EIS study groups in the next several decades. Any thing less is as good as laying across the tracks and waiting for the rape train. Seriously! Here we are making value judgments that will impact ALL future generations. Do we really want to be “lowering our standards”??? Opening up our money makers for the highest bidders. FYI: We are being low balled! Any serious prospectors would be talking about the direct citizen dividan. What do they get in Alaska? Residents? $1500 year or something? Ahhhh…..But these are multinationals, and this game is rigged. It predates every living person on this planet.
It’s precious, larger then life with the power to give and take away.
No thank you feast or famine. How about we all just keep on keeping on and remember that this last 200 years of advances has at every point been active genocide upon these lands and all those who’s bloodlines have the deepest roots.
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
Come on folks! Get a grip! Companies now days are regulated 10 times over compared to the days gone by… Chances of a major pollution problem most likely WILL NOT HAPPEN. Lets get these jobs and industry moving forward and simply make those companies accountable at the same time. We need industry and decent paying careers in Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin to get our region out of this 30 yr recession! Ive waited long enough!!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Senator Cravaack’s stand seems to be jobs at any cost, and long-term consequences be darned. I’m extremely concerned about the long-term effect of sulfide mining on our tourism industry, our fishing, our wild rice, and our water quality. This type of mining has never been done anywhere without huge environmental cost, and the wetter the area, the higher the risk of catastrophe. Senator Cravaack shouldn’t sell out NE MN’s future like this.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Peg, I am a lifelong fisher, hunter, camper. I cut my teeth in the BWCA before it was the BWCA. If we are to be held hostage by the what ifs of life, what do we do? do we even get out of bed in the morning? Better that we should, or risk getting bed sores. Now, did the DOT deny you a drivers license because “in the future” you might cause and accident, possibly killing someone? No. Does the local liquor store or tavern not sell booze because somebody will get drunk and kill somebody? No. The people of this state have deemed the risks to be acceptable within limits. Nobody is saying turn a blind eye to the permitting process. What they’re advocating is that some integrity be added to the process so that obstructionists don’t hold all the cards. That’s all. Companies must still show their plans are safe. And opponents must back up their claims with evidence based on current processes, not old data and hyperbole. Reason needs to return to the permitting process. A company’s demands to build an open smelter are just as unreasonable as opponents demands that there be absolute proof that nothing could ever happen that would adversely effect the environment…forever. We should be willing to be held to the same type of accountability we want businesses held to. That means even accidents of our causing are accompanied by very harsh penalties. That means we put up a security bond of millions before we sit behind the wheel, purchase a beer, a firearm, or a can of spraypaint. Even a bar of soap comes with risks. Should we guarantee that the user/purchaser of that bar of soap be insured against all possible calamities associated with its use? This is where and why common sense and reason need to be applied.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
So, being there is historical information, dont you think that this could be part of the progress? Make these companies be accountable in their operation. With today’s technology and science, Im quite certain we can find ways to protect our environment AND produce a better local economy. Lets work toward something positive for everyone!
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Under a different climate, maybe we could have some faith in the processing. However, the multitude of assaults upon our basic human rights in this country has never been more polarizing. It’s a trust issue. Our basic human needs have been distorted and that fact alone makes it unreasonable to permit the process to be simplified to proceed. The world owes us nothing, we owe each other the world.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
So you agree that Obama has trampled on our constitutional rights? Or even those most basic rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Maybe we have more in common than you think.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
How about changing the climate? I have faith that those who can’t get the job done, will be shown the door! We owe that to each other!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1