Saving from Harm Boundary Waters in Minnesota - Case Study Example

Geographic Issues in Minnesota (Environmental Issue) Research Topic: Save from Harm the Boundary Waters in Minnesota Introduction Boundary Waters also known as Quetico- Superior Country involves the area between Minnesota and Ontario. This region is situated in the west of Lake Superior and it is a part of Superior National Forests that are located in the northeastern Minnesota. The famous northern Minnesota Park- the Voyageurs National Park is also regarded as the part of Boundary Waters. The Boundary Waters area is termed as United States’ Wilderness Area with a huge network of water channels and coniferous forests, most often, consisting on larches, spruces and pines. The soil of the region is largely covered with dead plants like mosses. This area is considered best suitable place for recreationists and tourist who wish to pursue canoeing, camping or fishing. Moreover, it is also a good choice for those people who wish to relax and enjoy natural scenery. Due to its landscape and beauty, the region has special distinction among several other areas located in Minnesota. However, it is also significant to note that the present environmental condition near Boundary Waters seems quite alarming. Currently, several mining companies seem very excited to carry out a new type of mining known as sulfide mining in the area- outside Boundary Waters as well as near Lake Superior. According to various studies and researches, sulfide mining is a very toxic form of mining that produces poisonous and deadly sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid runoff may also cause serious consequences like mercury contamination in wet- lands, lakes, streams and reservoirs. This could further cause leaching in the affected region. Sulfide Mining in Northeastern Minnesota, 2014 Background of the issue Before going through further analysis of this environmental issue, it is very important to known the background of the ongoing trend- Sulfide mining in Minnesota. First of all, it is essential to note that the wild forests located in Northern Minnesota are the main focus of attraction for new mining proposals. It is widely thought that these mining proposals, when implemented, will definitely bring a big positive change in the area. The new sulfide mining techniques would bring clear difference when compared to the traditional mines of Minnesota- the iron mines. Sulfide mining would assist in the extraction of nickel, copper and several other metals. Keeping in view this development plan, two big projects are in pipeline. Several companies are engaged in drilling process across the northern Minnesota. It is also assumed that this exploration would definitely pave way for further projects in the area. The sulfide mining project in northern Minnesota is considered the foundation of sulfide mining region in the state that will absolutely give a boost to iron ore industry. Poly Met Mining Corporation is deeply engaged in sulfide mining with a project known as ‘North Met Project.” This project is carried out between Hoyt Lakes and Babbitt, Minnesota. Open- pit mining technique has been followed to extract nickel, copper and several other metals. The area of the Superior National Forest is the potential site for mining and this part of land has never been mined before. The ore that is being mined in the area is transported to eight miles away in west for further processing. In an environmental review carried out by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2010, it is clearly declared that PolyMet’s efforts are not only inadequate but also unacceptable because of the probability of high risk associated with the environment. Next to PloyMet Mining Corporation, Twin Metals LLC, is another mining company that is very much interested in proposing sulfide mining in northern Minnesota. This company is an out of state mining project- a joint venture of a Chilean based company, Antofagasta PLC and a Canadian mining company, Duluth Metals Limited. Twin Metals, LLC is trying to spot an underground mining project that is sited near Birch Lake, Minnesota. This area is just three to four miles from the Wilderness of Boundary Waters. The spokespersons on the behalf of Twin Metals, LLC consider this project as the biggest underground mining plan ever discovered in the history of Minnesota. According to them, it will be “like an underground city” whenever completely explored. Other than these two projects mentioned above, there are several other mining companies that are engaged in the process of exploration in the northeastern parts of Minnesota. The most focused areas are the southern edges of the Boundary Waters, Isabella and Stony River Township. This natural forest has never been considered main area of interest for mining in the past. However, current it is a focus of mining activity. It is thought if mines are expanded in the area; the forest will definitely experience a dramatic change. This will be seen not only in a sense that the forest will appear different but the ways it will be further used by the people (Mining Truth, 2014). As the paper deals with the environmental issues prevailing in Minnesota, it is essential to observe that the above mentioned proposals regarding mining outside the Boundary Waters surely produce a deep- hazardous impact on the environment of the area. Sulfide mining is considered a big threat towards the natural and clean environment of the area. This type of mining is a high risk factor to pollute the surroundings of the Boundary Waters. It is obvious, when we are fishing, hiking, camping or canoeing near Boundary Waters; we always try to leave the forests and lakes in the same condition we have found. So, why we are going to allow a new sort of mining in the area that is very toxic- the sulfide mining. A type of mining that creates toxic drainage composed of sulfuric acid that further results in the increase of mercury contamination in the water bodies. The story does not get an end here. This mercury pollution turns the water of the area extremely acidic, puts all the drinking water reservoirs in extreme danger, kills marine life and also wipes out the habitat of wildlife and fish present under the water. So, if mining companies are allowed to carry on their tasks related to sulfide mining then it is obvious that the poisonous byproducts could directly flow into the water and this will be a great risk for the natural vegetation and forests present in the area. It should be kept in mind that the Wilderness area of the Boundary Waters in Minnesota is a valuable natural treasure that the country possesses. Each year, hundreds thousand visitors escape to this area to enjoy the cool, fresh waters of its lakes and to canoe in the forests. This area is a source of tourists’ attraction for fishing, camping and hiking. Such combination makes it the most admired wilderness area in the whole region. Due to its beauty and dynamics, in 1978, the vicinity of the Boundary Waters was recognized as a protected and confined wilderness. However, this development is not sufficient to keep it secure from new intimidations like sulfide mining. The public and the officials should actively participate and join hands against the dangerous and hazardous effects of this mining before it gets too late. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clearly understands that sulfide mining is the great source of poisonous waste in different areas of Minnesota. This is the reason why PolyMet proposals are continuously opposed by EPA officials. The expected risks of pollution can be too great beyond expectations and the chances of leaching are too high in the Superior Lake. However, this debate is not over yet. The powerful and influential mining industries are thoroughly engaged to use their power and control in Washington D. C. and St. Paul in order to seek approval for their contaminated and harmful mining plans. Conversely, if such plans get approval, it will become easier for several other mining projects to take permits for toxic sulfide mining in the area. The permits will, surely, open new doors for mining companies that will be situated only miles away from the Boundary Waters and putting in danger the whole area. Here, it is also significant to note that there are many nearby states in the region that have allowed the companies to start sulfide mining. Such states are suffering from the outcomes. Sulfide acid and mercury contamination made the water extremely poisonous that it is undrinkable. Furthermore, the mining has also destroyed whole of the ecosystem. Now the cleanup is very costly at one end and sometimes it is impossible to clean the whole of the environment. As a result, the taxpayers are often asked to pay high taxes to get an access to clean drinking water and surroundings which is also unbearable pressure on public. On the other hand, the mining companies argue that they are advanced enough in technology to hold the pollutants produced during the mining process. However, this record seems incorrect when investigated in the light of peer- reviewed studies and researches. According to such studies, companies always claim that they would be able enough to hold up the toxic byproducts produced during the process but in most of the cases their predictions seem mistaken and they polluted the surrounding areas. History of the Issue The Executive Director, Paul Danicic writes in his Star Tribune Editorial in 2009 that, “Other states have suffered because their leaders saw dollar signs when they should have seen question marks. Leaders believed promises that the mines wouldn’t pollute, but ignored all the times those promises had been broken.” (Dombro, 2014) When we compare several other states like Nevada, New Mexico and Montana with Minnesota then it can be easily observed that sulfide mining process has deeply contaminated the waterways, lakes and streams of these areas as well. It has devastated their entire ecosystems. The companies who have involved in the clean-up process of such areas spent millions of dollars and filed bankrupt without achieving any fruitful outcome leaving behind the whole burden on the taxpayers. One such example is Brohm Mine project in South Dakota. This project was executed from 1988 onward to 1998. Mining during the process, suddenly, produced a very toxic and acidic drainage that results in turning the nearby waters more acidic. The company gave the assurance in term of financial assets that was not enough for clean- up process. The costs paid to the state were 1/8 of the whole clean- up process and that were too low. Finally, the mining company ruined and went bankrupt. The affected site was confirmed as a Superfund Site and this simply means that the taxpayers in America would pay tax for the clean- up process. So, failed assurances and predictions are the chief factors behind the gloomy history of sulfide mining. Mining companies wrongly portray without judging the impacts on the quality of water. One peer- reviewed research further concludes that all the projects that were assessed claimed before executing their projects that they would not harm the surroundings. However, 89% of the total mines polluted the environment. So, keeping in view the dark history of sulfide mining, the concerned authorities are worried in carrying out this mining plan in Minnesota. The industries and mining companies also say in case of Minnesota that they would not pollute the valued waters of the region but they have committed such things before and they proved to be wrong in their predictions. As already mentioned, the Brohm Mine is the best example in this regards. Before starting the project, the mining company confidently assured the government authorities that the mining process was designed keeping in view the environmental effects. They committed that the mining would not generate acid drainage as the ore present in the area was very low in sulfide contents, round about 1% in average. However, the predictions were wrong and this mine terribly polluted the surroundings, destroying the ecosystem and killing aquatic animals in the nearby streams because of the fact that the water terribly turned acidic. It is further seen that the mining companies discard and dump their polluted mines and simply walk away and finally leaving behind the burden on the taxpayers. So, the states including the areas of Boundary Waters are required to have financial security from the companies before the project gets start. In this way the clean-up process may carry on even if the company turns bankrupt. However, still there are two main issues that leave the burden on the taxpayers even after financial assurances. 1. First of all, it is very difficult to predict the extent and level of pollution before time and the clean-up costs that may be required. It is impossible to guess when and where acid drainage will happen. Moreover, it is also difficult to calculate to what extent this drainage may occur. So, linked with such conditions, it is obviously difficult to decide how much cost will be spent in clean- up process. This is the basic reason why the burden comes on the shoulder of taxpayers when the mining companies broke away and go bankrupt. The state simply declares that the funds and financial assurances provided to the state by the company are insufficient to tackle the issue. 2. Another scenario may be the time when a mining company becomes unable to pay for clean- up process and goes bankrupt. At such stage there is most often a long lasting line of creditors including investors, banks and vendors that attempted to get paid at their earliest. If financial guarantee is not provided by the state in the bankruptcy then the government just becomes another creditor for reimbursement. Solutions to the Issue Here are some solutions based on the examples of some other states. These can be the part of the policy structure if the state wants to allow sulfide mining projects in Minnesota. 1. In a U.S. State, Wisconsin, in 1997 a legislature was passed under title “Prove it First.” This laws clearly defines that a company who wants to open a mine must point out a similar mine that has operated for a minimum of 10 years without damaging the environment- polluting the surroundings. If the company is unable to point out any such example then it will not be allowed to open a new mine. Since that law passed in Wisconsin, no new mines have been suggested without keeping in view the law. 2. In response to pollution and environmental hazards, in New Mexico, the government raised the total sum of the financial guarantee. This is also a good way to minimize the risk of opening polluted mines. Keeping in view the legislative measures of other states, Minnesota also introduced a protection bill for upcoming mining companies in 2009. The bill focused on three things. 1. Ban those mines that require treatment of water just after closure. 2. The mining companies are asked to ensure enough amounts that may be used in clean- up process if the company goes bankrupt. Those who have not paid heed to the matter would definitely be abandoned. 3. Government is asked to increase the transparency levels so the local citizens may be informed as how the mines are controlled and regulated (Boundary Waters Wilderness, 2014). Conclusion In a nutshell it can be concluded that for the protection of the Boundary Waters and nearby areas, it is essential to join hands against the toxic sulfide mining. People should stick together with the officials of EPA to carry on the campaign for the protection of natural environment in Minnesota. In this regard, researches can be done, protest against poisonous sulfide mining can be recorded on the media and complaint can be filed in Washington D. C. and St. Paul against the harmful implications of such mining plans. The public should, overwhelmingly, resist deadly and noxious sulfide mining and in this way we can protect the natural treasures of the Boundary Waters (Environment Minnesota Resaerch and Policy Center, 2014). References 1. Environment Minnesota Research and Policy Center. News Release. Save the Boundary Waters. Web. 2014. 22 April 2014. . 2. Mining Truth. Sulfide Mining in Minnesota. Web. 2014. 21 April. 2014. . 3. Dombro, A. Staff Editorial- A World Debate in Minnesota: Mining and the Environment. Web. 2014. The Plaid Line. 22 April. 2014. . 4. Boundary Waters Wilderness. Sulfide Mining. Web. 2014. 22 April 2014. . 5. Sulfide Mining in Northeastern Minnesota. Web. 2014. 22 April 2014. Read More