Friday, October 12, 2012 By Aaron Brown
Sometimes you get tired of explaining the same thing, over and over, so here is a haiku describing the political, economic and geological issue of our time on northern Minnesota's Iron Range.
They say with new rocks,
mined clean, our kids prosper.
They speak truth, we hope.
People think that the issue of precious mineral mining in northern Minnesota comes down to "Jobs vs. the Environment." Maybe it does in some ways. But, besides "jobs," the central thrust of the argument to mine new minerals is two-fold:
- We can mine this stuff cleaner than ever before, nothing like those old mine sites that were closed down decades ago or ones that cause great damage today in other nations.
- There is so much mineral wealth down below northern Minnesota that we'd be stupid not to mine it; the world needs it and we can mine it cleaner (See #1).
Meantime, not unsurprisingly, vast wealth estimates of these ore reserves (copper, nickel, palladium, etc.) are also being released, though interestingly even the optimists know that not all of the ore is economically feasible to mine.
That is, fundamentally, the crux of this situation. The bigger issue is not whether the pro-mining guy or the pro-mining guy who hates the EPA win the Congressional election, but rather whether the technology works and whether companies have the financial incentive to make a long-term investment in these new plants. Inevitable costs ahead include proving the very environmental and economic claims developers use to settle environmental opposition to their projects.
So, let's prove it. Test it on a large scale with legitimate financial assurance against damages. The first permits go to the first company willing to do this. If that's too expensive, perhaps these companies aren't really committed to mining for more than just a few years, rendering all of this a tremendous misplacement of energy. That's the conversation we should be having.