Chippewa National Forest Essay

What some people may be worried about is the fact that this mine could destroy the wonderful peace of the Boundary Waters, for at least 20 years while PolyMet does their mining. The Boundary Waters are located in one of the 12 places on Earth where you can go 15 minutes without hearing human noise. You can ask pretty much anyone who has been to the Boundary Waters, and they will tell you just how peaceful and serene it is. I honestly think 20 years worth of jobs in that area cannot match up to the amazing environment that is already there.

The first reason is the pollution. Any major mining excavation creates a huge amount of waste. This waste is toxic to the environment, and the method for containing it is not 100% guaranteed. They store this waste in large man made holes called tailing dams. There have been many reports of these storage structures breaking and spilling the waste all over the land. This waste would pollute the land and make it uninhabitable. The most affected would be the salmon. Salmon fishing is huge part of the Alaskan life and if the salmon were affected by the mining, a lot of people would lose their jobs.

In addition to concern about changes, was if drilling were to happen the negatives it would create to the tundra. Drilling on any form of earth is harmful in general. But because of how beloved the terrain is to the native, it only creates more conflicts.

PolyMet is a mining corporation that is based in Minnesota. The corporation has proposed a mining location on what is currently National Forest Land. If the proposal goes through, there will be an 18 month construction period and a 20 year period of mining copper and nickel. It will be an open-pit surface mining operation, and 322,000 tons of rock will be processed a day. After the mining process is completed, the land (which will turn into a pit due to the mining process) will undergo reclamation and be filled with the excess sediment that was gathered during the mining.

There is an ongoing battle over the everlasting debate of mountain top removal mining. With every object at the center of a controversy there are bound to be many arguments by all sides. Most arguments are biased and others lack efficient sources or credibility to obtain a reasonable conclusion. This paper will dissect all angles of the meaningful arguments and help develop a conclusion on the aspects of mountain top removal mining and its effects to its surrounding environments.

I found it interesting that the acid produced from the mine can burn fabrics and skin. Also that the acid created by the mine is known for having the worst concentration of acid in the world and is about 500 times more acidic than any other mine. The mine is so dangerous that they have to pump air in just so people don't pass out. The greediness of humans and their action caused this catastrophe and its us that need to stop it from creating any further damage. People can help by donating to charities or being green. I think that if everyone works together this problem will be shortly minuscule as I believe the EPA will be able to bring acid levels down with

Sulfide mines extract copper, nickel, and other metals, but they have a bad history. The Mount Polley Copper Mine in Canada went wrong, causing the public to pay $500 million. There is a 100% track record of pollution for sulfide mines, which means that the public had to pay each time a mine failed. No sulfide mine has ever operated without polluting nearby bodies of water. Pollution isn’t predicted. The Mount Polley Copper Mine assured people that there was no pollution, yet the drinking water became undrinkable, rivers became toxic, and hundreds of millions of people’s money was wasted. Wildlife

Hopkins and Jordan C. Roush, researched the effect that mountaintop mining with valley fills had on six different fish species. This research project also examined the change in landscape, noting that while this change is more obvious, it could also negatively effect the different fish species being researched. In this study, it was found that four of the six different species reacted negatively with influences spanning from 5.9-12.7%. The species in the Kentucky River system that responded negatively were: The Southern Redbelly Dace, the Sharpness Darter, the Eastern Sand Darter, and the Shorthead Redhorse (Hopkins, Roush). What these results tell about mining near America’s irreplaceable natural resources is that while a mining site is in use, it hurts the resource badly, but it also hurts the watersheds around that region after the site is removed from that particular area. This is yet another example of why mining should no longer be allowed near precious natural resources that cannot be replaced. Americans have continually taken the land for granted that was given to them, which has caused significant damage to natural resources all around the

The EEPP is designed to allow Canadian interests to transport the crude oil produced from its oil sands in Alberta to other international markets. Therefore, understanding how the EEPP is merely a reflection of the oil sands development is a prerequisite to understanding the EEPP itself. Data and information already suggest that the negative environmental and health effects associated with the Alberta oil sands development are significant in which the Woodland Caribou is projected to become extinct within the entire Alberta region due to the destruction of its habitat and also the cancer rate for the First Nations people at Fort Chipewyan is 30% higher over previous levels.[5] These and associated developments over the past decade or so are revealing just how poorly managed the environmental aspects of the oil sands project are. There is a clear lack of oversight, environmental management and accountability for these types of negative outcomes. The supposition is such that if the oil sand fields are so managed so poorly from an environmental perspective then there can be little doubt that the EEPP will likely be just as poorly

I learned that mines were abandoned and in this case we have the responsible helping out. In other cases like the Gold King Mine in Colorado that it was used in the early 1900’s, the responsible that abandoned the mines were from Canada and are no were to be found. The problem with these mines is that when they extract all the uranium and there is no need for the mines, these mines need to be abandoned and closed. Unfortunately, there was no cleanup process when the mines were abandoned. Leaving the areas contaminated and the water from the rain transporting the contamination to other areas. 100 years ago, there was no standard on how to properly abandon a mine. Now days, the EPA and the state environmental departments are responsible to enforce the proper abandonment procedures and make sure the closure will not contaminate nearby areas or the water used for drinking, crops, and other human and animal uses. The runoff of the mine contamination can increase the total dissolve solids (TDS) in the nearby waters, making it non usable for human consumption and fish

If this ended up being true, the opposition’s argument of the mine expansion harming the habitat of endangered species may not have been strong enough to stop the expansion. A document was released in 1999 which summarized the environmental conditions of the site at the Maury Island Mine and the impact the mine may have on the site (Pacific Groundwater Group, 1999). The document stated that the potential threats to marine life of the Puget Sound consisted of: shading, sand and gravel spills, petroleum spills and water quality impacts (Pacific Groundwater Group, 1999). The likelihood of these same “potential threats” existing at the site where the mine would expand to would seem plausible since the same operations would probably happen there as they do at the existing mine. Based upon this report and taking into consideration the claim made by Glacier Northwest of causing minimal damage to the environment, the opposition’s concern does not seem invalid. Should these “potential threats” occur at the site the mine would expand to the impact on the marine life would probably be

As humans we rely on the resources around us because we do not have fur coats to protect us from weather, or fast speed to keep us safe from predators. The resources we need have to be mined, and thus the PolyMet mine debate is born. The PolyMet mine is a great idea, and we should follow through with it.

A company called PolyMet wants to build a copper-nickel mine in Northern Minnesota. It would infringe on Superior National Forest, where many species and geographical elements would be disrupted. PolyMet plans on mining for 20 years, and afterwards will do its best to repair and return the land to its original state. There are numerous debates and arguments over whether they should be allowed to mine on the land. The state owns the land, but the company owns its mineral rights. (BC Hydro, 2013, p. X) This causes conflict with many different groups and clashes between what is more important: economic opportunities or the effects on the population. My opinion is that the dangerous effects far outweigh the gain.

Great environmental, ecological and physical damage was caused due to the magnitude involved in the release of the content of the trailings pond. However, considering the world wide demand for Copper and the mine’s willingness to rectify the error the decision was made to re-open the mine. Should this particular mine, not have been allowed to re-open another mine elsewhere would have been developed to supply the demand for Copper. Should the Mount Polley mine, not have reopened the mine would not have needed to carry the responsibility to rehabilitate the damage done to the ecological system by the said disaster. Thus the re-opening of the Mount Polley mine is justified.

The polymet mine by the boundary waters is a bad idea! In this letter I will explain my reasons.