Promote tourism ... oppose the Eagle Project mine

will Granholm let us down on this issue? (0.00 / 0)

I am very dissappointed with Governor Granholm on this issue.
She campaigned in the U.P. with promises of protecting the environment. Sulfide mining is very dangerous to the environment. Precations and regulations are good, but not adequate for this sensitive area of our state.

On the campaign trail, Gov. Granholm had the support of the Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club.  Well... the Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club opposes this mine, and is now calling on the Governor to put the brakes on this project. Governor Granholm needs to hear from her supporters! Please write a letter, make a phone call, send an email..

We all feared what DeVos would have done in this situation. Let's hope Gov. Granholm can step up and do what is right for Michigan's residents, not an extraordiarily huge and powerful foreign company.

thank you for listening.

---

by: lois90218 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 13:32:00 PM CST

Will the Governor let us down? (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunatly, I think she will.  Despite all of the feel good talk and promises, environmental issues are lmost universally at the bottom of any politicians ethical barometer.  They don't really care, except for a very few notable exceptions, about the environment.  The DEQ has already announced they will issue the permit--and don't believe for a minute that the recently scheduled March public hearing in Lansing on this issue (yes, they do throw a few sops to the great unwashed) will change that.

---

by: oldwarden @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 14:45:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Out of her hands now (0.00 / 0)

Although the governor hired Steve Chester and can fire him, I don't think it's within the scope of her authority to tell him, "Steve, you must instruct your mining division chief to deny this permit." I do know that Granholm wrote a strongly worded letter (on the public record) to Chester shortly after our republican legislature passed the watered-down version of the sulfide mining statute, urging Chester to make sure DEQ wrote strong rules under the statute in order to protect the environment.  I remember thinking, fat lot of good that letter will do, but I also know that under state law, that's the only clout she had. 

I'm not being a knee-jerk Granholm cheerleader--I was very unhappy with the way the groundwater legislation turned out after the Nestle Waters case was decided, and I felt she should have fought harder and more publicly, even if she lost.  But I also know how these quasi-judicial matters work, and I can tell you that the first battle was lost when the legislature refused to approve the original legislation as written.

DEQ will probably ignore the public comment and approve the permit, but it's still extremely important to get tons of opposition on the record during the public comment period.  "On the record" means our opinion gets considered during the administrative hearings and afterward if it goes to court. Another thing:  although DEQ's mining permit division never met a project they didn't like, the DEQ Administrative Law Judges are pretty sharp guys and are not going to give Kennecott a pass because of politics.  ALJs are quasi-judicial personnel and make their decisions based on the applicable statute and the DEQ rules that the statute enables.  We'll soon find out how strong those rules are.

Meanwhile, start saving up to contribute to the legal fund.

---

by: eartha651 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 15:54:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A Zero-Sum Game (0.00 / 0)

Let's see if we can get our facts straight before dismissing the possibility of a nickel mine in the U.P.:

All sulfide mining is unsafe, and will result in irreversible damage to trout and Kirtland Warblers -- in reality there is always the risk of acid rock drainage when groundwater is contaminated by sulfites; however, the risk of ARD can be significantly reduced with liners and covers. If needed, I can explain such systems.

The previous comparisons to ARD-fouled waterways in the Eastern states refers to open-pit mines rather than mine shafts, which is what the proposed KMC nickel mine would be (incidentally, using only about 10 acres of surface land space). Furthermore, Michigan has passed the most stringent mining laws in the United States, more stringent even than Wisconsin, who passed on one KMC mine but allowed another (the Flambeau Mine)that yielded more than 181K tons of copper, 334K oz of gold, and 3.3 mil. oz of silver in four years. The property underwent reclamation and is now a wildlife center that is visited by students and adults. polling of Flambeau residents called KMC a good corporate citizen in terms of long-term economic benefits (73 percent); believed KMC improved the well-being of the Ladysmith, Wisc., population (70.7 percent); and was a good environmental steward (80.1 percent).

The point being, it is good to be cautious and protect precious natural resources -- but at what point would we be overly cautious? As I spend much of my spare time in the U.P. for canoeing, kayaking, backpacking, fly fishing, writing and bicycling, I believe we share the same concerns. Exercising the Precautionary Principle in every instance where a potentially negative outcome might occur may sound reasonable, until one realizes that all actions have possible negative consequences.

---

by: Bruce Walker @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 15:32:58 PM CST

Bruce (0.00 / 0)

I'll be brief:  I'm willing to grant that sulfide mining can be done safely under the very best of circumstances.  Following your zero sum game analogy, even Evel Knievel can claim that jumping his motorcycle over forty buses can be done safely under the best of circumstances.

My question is, given Kennecott's track record with this type of mining, particularly in other countries where regulation is more lax, and their tendency to ignore regulation and do whatever they want until someone steps up and tells them not to, can sulfide mining be done safely here, by this company?

The other thing we have to weigh that you totally left out is the benefit in exchange for the risk.  How many jobs will the mine create?  How long will those jobs last?

Finally, and this is anathema to the engineers, who tend to find the human element mostly a nuisance, the people of the UP have already spoken on this.  The vast majority of people who live in the area don't want the mine, and given the risks, they probably wouldn't want it even if it brought hundreds of jobs to the area.  I lived up there for ten years and am continually amazed at how quickly Yoopers forget their political party affiliation when their beloved landscape is threatened.

---

by: eartha651 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 16:03:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

By the way (0.00 / 0)

Is Jack McHugh your first cousin?

---

by: eartha651 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 16:04:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, let's get our facts straight... (0.00 / 0)

The entire point of the post was that if we're going to promote tourism as a vital component of our economy, and we should, we need to be extra careful that stuff like a mine doesn't substitute short-term gain for long-term sustainability (hiking, biking, birdwatching, kayaking, fly fishing).

I mean, will acid runoff hurt the Kirtland's Warbler?  I'd argue that this is a dubious argument.  But, will the presence of a mine operation, and resulting damage from it, scare off people who want to look at Kirtland's?  I'd say there's little question about that (the mine might scare off the birds ... who knows?).

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 16:20:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mine no scare B (0.00 / 0)

He's saying that Kennecott is such a terrific corporate citizen, and current technology for protecting the environment is so advanced, that neither the bird nor the tourists will even notice that it's there.

I beg to differ.  I have friends who work with landfill operations in Michigan, including some state of the art ones with high-tech liners to keep the trash out of the groundwater.  Guess what?  They all leak.  From the oldest, nastiest, most unregulated dump, to the newest, sexiest, highest-of-high-tech landfill, sooner or later all liners perforate from age, pressure, chemical action, etc.  This news comes straight from science guys, not overly emotional english major types like me.

Now, something else.  The UP is awash, if you will, in groundwater--makes the Lower Peninsula look like a desert.  A geologist friend told me that the basic bedrock of the Upper Peninsula, which starts out as granite near Lake Superior and gives way to limestone as you go south toward Lake Michigan, is basically a big sponge that filters water.  After you get 30 miles or so inland from Superior, the groundwater slowly works its way south through the rock--and by slowly, I mean it takes 30 years.

A big water-permeable island between two of the largest bodies of freshwater in the world.  Yeah, sounds like a great place to put a mine that pumps a deadly, water soluble contrated acid solution that kills everything it comes into contact with.

---

by: eartha651 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 18:35:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jack McHugh's my brother (0.00 / 0)

Just kidding, although I'd be honored to make the claim, Eartha. You say the "vast majority" of U.P. residents have spoken against the mine. I respectfully request that you support this claim with some hard numbers, as I did when quoting the survey of Flambeau, Wisc. Incidentally, here are a few more facts from the survey:

1. Did Kennecott keep promise to protect the environment?
88.7% Yes; 11.3% No

2. Did Kennecott keep promise of economic benefits to the area?
73% Yes; 22% No

3. Did Kennecott keep promise to reclaim mining site?
93% Yes; 7% No

4. If another ore deposit were found in the Flambeau range, would you welcome Kennecott back?
75.2% Yes; 24% No

In addition, the buildings left by KMC continue to generate $6.5 mil. in tax revenues for Flambeau. Similar results were recognized by the KMC Ridgeway mine in South Carolina.

As for not discussing the specific economic risks vs. benefits of the Eagle Mine, it wasn't germane to EB's initial posting. But since you ask, KMC is investing $100 mil in the project, creating 120 to 140 full-time jobs and another 350-500 indirect jobs -- with an estimated 75-85 percent of these jobs filled by U.P. residents.

Yes, the mine is expected to produce for approximately less than 10 years, as most ore veins are a finite resource. All the more reason to not dismiss the possibility of a mine out of hand -- once the mine has been depleted, the fill rock that has been stored with liners underneath and covered as well will be put back in as fill, the area reclaimed much like Flambeau, the KMC footprint all but erased, and the entire area once again returned to outdoors aficionados.

Such a relatively short time span also presents a further safeguard against potential liner leaks as the materials may become compromised over long periods of time as your friends in the landfill business can attest. Again, the area KMC is talking about is really only about 10 acres (of 1,600 owned by KMC -- still open for campers, backpackers, Kirtland Warbler watchers btw) as the mine is underground, requiring relatively little surface space.

Are there risks? Sure, and I don't ignore the fact that additional heavy truck traffic to and from the mine site might disturb residents on their routes. There may be a compelling reason for not proceeding with a project that has met with the most stringent mining criteria in North America and in an economically depressed area of an increasingly financially strapped state, but, thus far, I haven't heard it. My original question hasn't been answered: at what point are we being overly cautious? Is this a zero sum game?

---

by: Bruce Walker @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 07:47:55 AM CST

Less than 10 years... (0.00 / 0)

And, then those same U.P. residents who'd get jobs will be back out on the streets.  I would argue that this isn't even full-time work.  Hell, I didn't realize we were talking about that short a period of time.

At what point are we being overly cautious?  You still haven't answered my first, real, genuine question ... is it wise to go after a burst of short-term benefit, but put at risk industries (tourism) that will be around long afterwards?

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:18:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your question begged the question (0.00 / 0)

So I asked it. I wasn't sidestepping the question, but answering that your initial question required more information: Wise to whom? Business concerns, to be sure. Locals who'll receive wages, benefits and job experience, certainly. Municipal coffers, uh huh. For an adequate response, perhaps it might be useful to have an indication of how much tourism-generated income occurs at the present, a reasonable estimate of how much tourism would be negatively or positively impacted by the Eagle mine over the 10-year period.  What I'm trying to suss out is whether a dialogue could ever exist on this or any other environmental issue, or if I'm dealing with the zero-sum, Groucho Marx crowd singing, "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Don't get me wrong, I believe all the questions and concerns expressed in this posting about the proposed Eagle mine are legitimate as long as there's an admission that sometimes the benefits outweigh the costs.

---

by: Bruce Walker @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 14:56:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, okay... (0.00 / 0)

Don't get me wrong, I believe all the questions and concerns expressed in this posting about the proposed Eagle mine are legitimate as long as there's an admission that sometimes the benefits outweigh the costs.

Absolutely.  If you were to dig up old dilapidated neighborhoods in Detroit, rehab the soil, and put thousands of people to work growing crops for a century, the benefits would far outweigh the costs.  But, we're talking about something slightly different.

In my example, you are employing thousands for a long period of time producing something that is an absolute need and in a way that puts to work earth that is already developed.  You are not disturbing an otherwise undeveloped piece of land, something that has value in its own right but is disappearing and under const.  Furthermore, because tilled earth tends to be a better supporter of biodiversity than does an old abandoned lot, you can argue that this is, in fact, an improvement in the land's natural value.

Let's apply the same standards to this mining project.

First, it will provide a short-term economic boost ... less than 10 years, according to you.  Who will employ the people who work the mine after it gives out?  Does the mining company plan to open more mines?  If so, let's make sure that the public discourse reflect this.  If not, let's make sure the public discourse reflects that the jobs are fleeting, and that the people the company employs will be back to looking for work in less than half the time it would take them to pay off an average mortgage.  On what planet would this constitute wise, long-term economic planning?

Do we really need the copper and nickel?  I have yet to see anyone warn darkly that our nickel and copper stocks are running so low as to verge on a national crisis.  I have seen that argued about oil under ANWR, and we aren't doing it (good thing, too, since that, too, would provide very little return on a big investment).  So, it's reasonable to ask whether we, as a people, really need what this project would produce.  And, if there is a nickel crisis, I'd further insist that whoever needs it go looking for it in our many, many existing junk- and scrapyards (I picked this little trick up from my dad, who taught me that it was cheaper and easier to sew a button back on a shirt than it was to simply go out and buy a new one).

It's also fair to start insisting that our leaders become much more considerate and strategic in our thinking.  We're losing our undeveloped land, and once you do something with it, it takes a varying amount of time for it to recapture its natural character (sometimes, it becomes something very differently once it recovers itself).  So far, to this point, we've treated the land, air, and water like a sailor treats his paycheck during a port visit.  And like the sailor, we'll eventually have to see the doc for our own shot of penicillin if we don't watch it.  The days when it was okay to go forward with a project just simply because there was some kind of resource to be had were over long ago ... it's time we let our thinking catch up with reality.

Finally, you acknowledge that there will be environmental damage.  You can't prevent it, you can only mitigate it.  So, it's obviously not good for the environment under any stretch of the imagination.  And, for it to make any big picture economic sense worth arguing in favor of, you would need to dig one mine after another to keep employed the people who do the work.  So, to realize any economic benefit for society as a whole, you're talking about a great deal of environmental damage.

To sum up, who benefits from this project?  Kennecott, and Rio Tinto, the British company that owns Kennecott.  They are the biggest beneficiaries because not only do they get the lion's share of the profit, they also don't have to live near the mess that they made.  The governor benefits because she can point to a number of jobs created ... regardless if those jobs will still be around in 10 years.  The people who are employed benefit to the tune of a paycheck that will hold out for less than a decade.  The communities of the U.P. benefit for a short period of time ... right up until they go through their second stretch as mining bust towns.  The rest of us get nickel and copper that we don't need, a ruined river, and less undeveloped land.  The trout that live in the river?  Well, they don't pay taxes ... the lazy goldbrickers.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 19:03:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My last say-so (0.00 / 0)

I never acknowledged that there would be environmental damage, only that one can never offer a guarantee that any mining effort can be 100 percent error-free, although some indeed are. Much like figuring the odds of stubbing your toes when you get out of bed in the morning. But your answer seems to be that, lacking a 100 percent guarantee, the Precautionary Principle applies and it's best to just stay in bed to protect your little piggies.

As for KMC and parent company receiving majority of profits, well, yeah, that's Econ 101 -- one would think that the party making the $100 mil investment would be the party receiving the greatest share of the profits in return for guarantees of environmental stewardship, good wages and performing as an overall good corporate citizen. And 10 years of boom need not be followed by 10 years or more of bust. Residents will learn new job skills that can be applied in any manner of ways, signals will be sent to other companies that Mich. has an experienced job force and that the state is open for business.

As much as I enjoyed your homespun analogy of your dad and shirt buttons, the demand for nickel is extremely high and far more than one could expect to pick up at a scrapyard.

Your claim that we're losing our undeveloped land cannot be substantiated by the facts. According to the joint DNR/DEQ Third Biennial Report, non-federal forests in Mich. increased by 538,000 acres between 1982 and 1997; the volume of timber in Mich. has tripled in the last 50 years; bald eagle, wolves, bears and deer are plentiful; mercury levels in fish (a trace element btw) have dropped from 0.45 ppm in 1993 to 0.25 ppm in 2000; and stocking of hatchery-produced fish was continued in all but two areas of Lake Superior; and the Holy Waters of the Au Sable have seen brown and brook trout population booms. Nature and the environment are pretty robust, negative impacts can be reversible, businesses and environmentalists can reach reasonable compromises.

---

by: Bruce Walker @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:15:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh-buh-buh? (0.00 / 0)

As for KMC and parent company receiving majority of profits, well, yeah, that's Econ 101 -- one would think that the party making the $100 mil investment would be the party receiving the greatest share of the profits in return for guarantees of environmental stewardship, good wages and performing as an overall good corporate citizen.

That's precisely the problem.  The company is really the only party here who gets any benefit.  Unless you pay a worker such high wages that they can afford to retire at the end of a short stint, it doesn't benefit a person to give them a job that will go away in less than a decade.  It prevents them the ability to do any long-term planning.  And, you certainly can't build a thriving community on jobs that will be around for less than 10 years.  It's insane.

As much as I enjoyed your homespun analogy of your dad and shirt buttons, the demand for nickel is extremely high and far more than one could expect to pick up at a scrapyard.

Oh, really.  How much nickel do we have lying around in scrapyards?  What critical goods would we have to do without without nickel?  Oh, wait, I looked this up yesterday -- bank vaults and batteries for cordless tools.  And once Mr. Lithium Ion battery (longer life, more power, less weight) gets ahold of the nickel-cadmium battery, you can say light's out for that source of demand.

But, again, where is the critical demand for nickel?  How would Western civilization fall without nickel from Eagle Mine?

I never acknowledged that there would be environmental damage, only that one can never offer a guarantee that any mining effort can be 100 percent error-free, although some indeed are. Much like figuring the odds of stubbing your toes when you get out of bed in the morning. But your answer seems to be that, lacking a 100 percent guarantee, the Precautionary Principle applies and it's best to just stay in bed to protect your little piggies.

Noooooooo, I presented an entire grocery list of reasons why this project is a bad idea.  The fact that there is probably going to be some environmental damage was merely one of them.  The fact that it will happen in a currently undeveloped river that provides spawning ground for trout make this project a menace to local tourism.

Your claim that we're losing our undeveloped land cannot be substantiated by the facts. According to the joint DNR/DEQ Third Biennial Report, non-federal forests in Mich. increased by 538,000 acres between 1982 and 1997; the volume of timber in Mich. has tripled in the last 50 years; bald eagle, wolves, bears and deer are plentiful; mercury levels in fish (a trace element btw) have dropped from 0.45 ppm in 1993 to 0.25 ppm in 2000; and stocking of hatchery-produced fish was continued in all but two areas of Lake Superior; and the Holy Waters of the Au Sable have seen brown and brook trout population booms. Nature and the environment are pretty robust, negative impacts can be reversible, businesses and environmentalists can reach reasonable compromises.

I see.  I think I'm getting a handle on what you're really on about.  Wolves, bald eagles, bear, deer up -- wilderness is reclaiming the land at an alarming rate!  Quick, to the local zoning board!  We're under attack by rampaging wetlands!

By the way, are you the same Bruce Walker who wrote this.

What can we do to hurry these new edonic age? We should begin by doing all in our meager power to help the planet warm. Repeal all wrong-headed treaties, statutes and regulations which were intended to stop global warming and encourage that behavior which helps warm the planet. Can any of us alone do much to make this happen? Probably not. But we owe it to the planet, to our children, and to the environment to do all we can to hasten global warming.

I thought maybe I'd maybe stumbled onto The Onion when I read that.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:57:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Best to stick w/ arguments presented (0.00 / 0)

Rather than those written by someone else and published elsewhere. The buffoon who wrote the piece you quoted is the main reason I usually use my middle name. In short, no, I did not write that. Nice try to discredit using secondary sources, though. And a pro-global warming quote at that! In debate, I believe we'd call that off-topic.

Too busy to respond fully, but I'll close by saying that your arguments seem to indicate that you do indeed consider all businesses but (presumbaly organic) agriculture as bad and that all risks to the environment should be eliminated rather than mitigated. How does the Morning Sun measure up to those standards?

---

by: Bruce Walker @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:43:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, fine... (0.00 / 0)

The buffoon who wrote the piece you quoted is the main reason I usually use my middle name. In short, no, I did not write that.

So, you use your middle name because it's associated with a buffoon who writes ridiculous things.

Too busy to respond fully, but I'll close by saying that your arguments seem to indicate that you do indeed consider all businesses but (presumbaly organic) agriculture as bad and that all risks to the environment should be eliminated rather than mitigated.

Talk about sticking to arguments presented.  I offered you a clearcut example of something where the benefits clearly exceed the costs, and then walked back this proposed mine project.  I'm sorry that it doesn't meet even the modest request that if we're supporting a project because it'll put people to work that the jobs not go away in less than a decade.

How does the Morning Sun measure up?  Well, your newspaper provides information that is a critical link between an informed public and wise democratic decision making.  There is environmental impact, of course, but the alternative the world is moving towards -- the internet -- is of questionable improvement.  Further, since most newspaper revenue comes from local businesses (Wal-Mart doesn't advertise), it serves as an integral, important component of a self-sustaining community ... something that a project that'll go away in a handful of years doesn't.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:55:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

All this stuff looks great at first... (0.00 / 0)

it might be an oil well, or international shipping on the Great Lakes, or it might be a little bitty fish brought into the country to help people keep their ponds clean, but it all looks great, until...  Until the oil well has a spill, as they all do, or until the sea lamprey swims in, or that 'salty' flushes it's ballast and we get zebra mussels and other invasive species, or until that little fish gets out and grows in size (both as an idividual and as a breeding population) and turns into a situation like the Asian Carp (which has the potential to be even more devistating to the Great Lakes than the sea lamprey) as soon as it gets by am electric weir located within a mile of Lake Michigan in Chicago.  After a life time, both personally and professionally, of watching this stuff happen, I am a firm believer in Murphy's Law.  The mining company doesn't care about our environment, politicians don't care because they are unable to look beyond the next donation or next election, and the DEQ Office of Geological Survey doesn't care because they are funded by the 'regulated community' and if they don't issue permits they don't get funded. 

All environmental protection laws are reactive--they are passed to address an existing problem--after the mess is made, if you will. And they are only as effective as the politicians let them be--the much touted regulations about flushing ballasts tanks passed last year doesn't really mean a thing.  I have a great fear that the mineral extraction rules will be equally ineffective.

I was taught many years ago that conservation is the wise use of limited resources over time. Our wisdom is sometimes lacking.

---

by: oldwarden @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:49:24 AM CST

Now is the time for everyone to step up and speak out (0.00 / 0)

Whether your interest in Michigan lay in protecting the environment, promoting tourism, building the workforce and the economy, or a number of other issues, Kennecott's plan for sulfide mining is not what's right for Michigan.

Now it's time for those of us who love Michigan to step forward and say NO to sulfide mining.

The DEQ just announced last week that there will be a public hearing in Lansing on March 12 from 1PM to 4:30PM and then another from 6PM to 9PM.

There will also be public hearings in Marquette on March 6-8 from 1PM to 10PM.

Now is when we really need people to step up and speak out. If you care about Michigan and its environment, its tourism, its economy, or you just want to see this state succeed, come to a public hearing and say NO to sulfide mining.

Committed to Protecting Michigan's natural environment from the threat of Sulfide Mining.

SavetheWildUP.org

---

by: SaveTheWildUP @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:38:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Their mind is made up.. (0.00 / 0)

and the public hearings are only so much smaltz to make you feel good about being able to vent your spleen. The only way to stop this nonsense now is from the top.

---

by: oldwarden @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 13:02:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Put it on the record (0.00 / 0)

DEQ geological won't listen, but the ALJs and the courts might.  Every scrap of opposition we put on the record might be of use later, because this WILL be tied up for years in court.

I still don't understand the legal source for Granholm's authority to stop the mine.  Can you tell me what it is?

---

by: eartha651 @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:50:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Questions for Bruce (0.00 / 0)

Bruce, you seem to have some knowledge about this issue. I'm wondering if you could answer a few questions:

1. Are you saying that our unspoiled wilderness is like our toes? Seems to me that stubbing your toe is a pretty tame metaphor for acid mine drainage. Have you considered using "having your face burned off by acid"? I think that might be a bit more accurate, and I know I would stay in bed to avoid THAT.


2. Speaking of the risks, can you give me a few links to sulfide mines that haven't contaminated their ground or surface water? You might also want to pass those along to the folks of Wisconsin who "banned" this mining by simply saying "show us a safe one". Or is it "boom" as in "and then all the jobs went BOOM"?


3. On a related note, has Kennecott done any research as to how many jobs would be lost through reduced tourism and how much money would be lost through depressing land values in the area?


4. Does Econ 101 also say that a company should make billions (that's with a "B" and an "s") while leaving behind a toxic timebomb for other people to take care of?

Full disclosure: My company built the new web site for Save the Wild UP. And I like to swim and fish and hike along beaches and rivers that are not choked with dead fish or stained with toxic pollution.

How about you, Bruce? What's your disclosure?

Absolute Michigan, All Michigan, All the Time

---

by: farlane @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:49:25 AM CST

I know I've heard this name before (0.00 / 0)

no time to google, but I think he gave testimony in favor of permitting, and there's a mining industry newsletter featuring a gent of the same name on the cover.  But then it's a pretty common name.

Help me out, somebody.

---

by: eartha651 @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:52:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I found him (0.00 / 0)

writing conservative columns online for someone.

He has a very good grasp of red herrings, but his sum-total argument is, "We should all find some reasonable middle-of-the-road course that involves you rolling over and playing dead."

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:00:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bruce (0.00 / 0)

Hey Bruce, are you the geologist from Molycorp?

---

by: northwoodswild @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 20:01:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope, not me (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Bruce Walker @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:52:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]