by Duluth News Tribune
November 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Two groups often on opposing sides of heated issues have joined hands to promote Minnesota’s fledgling copper mining industry and other big construction projects. Continue Reading
Tags: Business, energy 14 Comments »
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yes please educate me on the benefits but please dont talk about the down side that there has never been one copper mining operation in existance that has not contaminated ground water sources. And by golly dont talk about the fact that people in Northeastern Minnesota get there drinking water from the ground water. And that for every ton of ore recovered they have nine tons of waste rock that has to be monitored forever. Here we go with the propaganda blitz talking about the benefits again but nothing about the down side.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 22 38
The waste is not 9 to 1, its more than 99 to 1, and the acid/heavy metal contamination of ground water will impact the surface water equally.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 17 28
You are so right on this one.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 8 22
I hope MN’s tourism lobby is taking note of this. Heavy industry and tourism do not mix period.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 15 29
Desperate times create strange bedfellows indeed. I would like the chamber to take the business approach and explain the risk in relationship to profit. I firmly believe that risk could be mitigated a great deal, but it would be at the expense of shareholder profit. So please be transparent and truthful about profit to shareholders. For instance- does the company guarantee a 15% return no matter what risk has to be taken, or can they go to their shareholders and say that a safer and less damaging process can be implemented but you blokes will have to put up with 12% return? Does that public have to shoulder the risk to maintain unrealistic profit % for our valued shareholders, or can the shareholders reduce their return in order to mitigate risk?
Could the media help the public to learn the value of the risk?
Like or Dislike: 13 13
It’s the largest concentration of copper on Earth. As long as we use copper it’s going to get mined some day. Get used to the idea.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 29 13
Yes it is the largest deposit of copper- but I still say there has never been a copper mine that hasn’t polluted the area. I would like to see them use their safe methods in a smaller area first and prove that their concept doesn’t pollute- don’t experiment on us.
Hot debate. What do you think? 16 18
If this is the largest concentration of copper on Earth, then it follows that this will have the largest impact on the water and air of any copper mine on Earth. If we’re going to follow China’s ambition in risky mining operations, then we should also be prepared to deal with the cancer, asthma, and birth defect rates that China is already faced with. These externalities are always played-down before a new industry moves in, and never attributed to the industry after the damage is done. After all, there’s no real way to scientifically prove that your cancer is caused by heavy metals in the drinking water. I wish all the conservatives who talk about “personal responsibility” would focus their outrage at the industry leaders who have never had to take responsibility for the damage they create and profit from all over the world.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 13 23
At least the Unions are looking out for NE Minnesota….
Well let’s not go that far. Where are the United Steelworkers Union on this issue so far. Siding with the Sierra Club. But guess what? Once the project gets up and running, the USW will be first in line to unionize the workers and get into their paychecks for dues money to be sent to the Sierra Club. Anybody think of that yet?
Like or Dislike: 8 2
Oh by golly gee gosh. I hate to break your bubble but unions only represent 10 or 11 percent of the total work force and the majority in the public sector. Looking out for whose interest? Give me a break.
Like or Dislike: 13 15
The year is soon to be 2013…. What we have learned from the past should greatly assist when future mining projects begin, (IF EVER). Tourism alone, has not and will not provide this region a sound economy. We need to use our resources PROPERLY. Hold these mining operations accountable when and if they aren’t operating safely. It isn’t impossible. Or, you may decide to fight it, and continue to pay the taxes you do, the cost of living you do, and we continue to struggle in this region because we are afraid of the “what ifs”. Come on people,,, lets be progressive!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 20 2
This just in… the local mining industry just laid off a huge number of workers… as has happened time and time again. There are now 2 reasons to be highly skeptical about these new mining projects in NE Minnesota. Yet many people are still going to drink the corporate kool-aid anyhow.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 4 20
I would not be concerned if it was taconite mining. But we are not comparing oranges to oranges. We are comparing taconite processing versus copper/nickel mining. The two are not alike and should not be thought of in the same light. I can be as progressive as I want but unless someone can demonstrate that this can be done safely and that the surface waters of Northeastern Minnesota watershed which includes Lake Superior are not harmed then I am skeptical. History speaks for itself.
When Reserve Mining was dumping into Lake Superior it was not the State of Minnesota that put an end to it but a Federal Judge named Miles Lord.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 5 17
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company