• Happy Birthday, William Shakespeare (1564-1616)! 2️⃣🅱️, 🚫2️⃣🅱️

Proposed Twin Metals Mine in MN near the BWCA

Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
2,740
Reaction score
4,465
Location
Minden, NV
This proposed mine has been in the news a lot lately. There seem to be conflicting reports of the distance from the mine site to the boundary of the BWCA. Has anyone followed this project and have knowledge of the project?
 
Thanks to Tryin.
I have worked on reclaiming mine sites for 30 years.
This a world class ore deposit. Most of the proposed activity is underground. The POO emphasizes minimizing impacts.

It is groundwater contamination and possible surface water contamination that are the obvious potential environmental impacts.
The deranged drainages of northern MN created by continental glaciation, are a huge complex of interconnected lakes and surface streams.
It is obvious why so many people are concerned about acid mine drainage from sulfide extraction. Potential surface drainage into the BMCA and the associated groundwater gradients have the potential to impact the wilderness area.

We need to see the mitigation plan for hydrology in order to get an idea of the probability of contamination. This is a tough one to be objective about. I am just stating the obvious here, but plan to investigate the hydrology further.
 
Last edited:
It's not worth taking the chance, on the mine not contaminating the BWCA.
There is No fix, if the BWCA is contaminated.
The BWCA is such a gem !
Giving a foreign country, the right to mine, smelt the ore, and sell it to China, is not in the interest of the USA.

Praying Minnesota will stop this insanity !

Jim
 
We need to see the mitigation plan for hydrology in order to get an idea of the probability of contamination. This is a tough one to be objective about. I am just stating the obvious here, but plan to investigate the hydrology further.
I’ve seen the proposed site plan. 653 acres for 1.5 million tons of tailings, water on both sides of the site, shallow water table.

IMG_1325.jpeg
 
This proposed mine has been in the news a lot lately. There seem to be conflicting reports of the distance from the mine site to the boundary of the BWCA. Has anyone followed this project and have knowledge of the project?
As far as proximity, I was on Gabbro some years ago and could clearly hear the test drilling. It was almost loud.
 
As a MN resident who has been to the BWCA over 200 times I'm torn. Mining if it can be done correctly does have a place but I would like to see it kept in the country. There are many hurdles to get past before any mining is done if ever, the Senate action did not directly open up mining. State DNR review and approval and lawsuits against the Senate action and local native tribes opposition (the BWCA and superior national forest fall within treaty rights) will probably delay any mining for years.
 
This proposed mine has been in the news a lot lately. There seem to be conflicting reports of the distance from the mine site to the boundary of the BWCA. Has anyone followed this project and have knowledge of the project?
Chilean company with a majority owner who is friends with the Trump family. Profits to Chile. We do not have the smelter capacity in the US, so the metal goes to China. Minnesota gets some (dozens, maybe 100-200 at most) decent jobs for 15-20 years...no complaints about that part.

The giant copper mine (in Chile) I visited was impressive; was also obviously sending colorful acid water into/through the local town where the workers lived. Antofagasta (the parent company) has a less-than-poor track record with this type of mine.

Twin Metals is their subsidiary that would operate this mine. This is important because once they are done they can just close that down (ie, bankruptcy): This avoids having to monitor forever or worse - clean up / mitigate a breach in containment...if it costs too much, just walk away from Twin Metals, and Antofagasta's owners are off any and all hooks.

It will have to be monitored, but that will be on the taxpayer's dime after the mine is closed - as would any cleanup costs.

In a desert environment it's a different risk profile; here we have a precious natural resource: some of the cleanest fresh water on the planet. The 'downstream' aspect is a long one...these waters flow through the BWCA/Quetico, Rainy Lake, Lake of the Woods, Lake Winnipeg and on to Hudson Bay.

I'm not anti-mining; have a kid working for a mining company and we have miners in the family going back generations to the 1800's.

Not all mining technologies are created equal, not all locations are appropriate and the risk profiles vary - details matter.

Jobs = good. But: Wrong owner. Wrong structure. Wrong location and risk. If/when it goes sideways, it's effectively forever.
 
As a MN resident who has been to the BWCA over 200 times I'm torn. Mining if it can be done correctly does have a place but I would like to see it kept in the country. There are many hurdles to get past before any mining is done if ever, the Senate action did not directly open up mining. State DNR review and approval and lawsuits against the Senate action and local native tribes opposition (the BWCA and superior national forest fall within treaty rights) will probably delay any mining for years.
This type of mine has a perfect record of failure to protect. It always pollutes. We can only hope that arm twisting from on high won’t fast track the idiocy. Why is everyone so intent on making everywhere into Ohio?
 
Back
Top Bottom