Most arguments against the proposed copper/nickel mines in northern Minnesota center around the high risk of environmental damage associated with those mines and the resulting long-term cost to the public because of the potential water and air pollution. 

In my opinion, an equally strong argument against the proposed mines is that they are simply not needed and that prudent, conservative resource management dictates that the minerals should be left in the ground and extracted only if needed by future generations and if the environmental risks can be eliminated.

The reason why the mines are not needed is that there is no shortage of copper and nickel.  According to the International Copper Association and the U.S. Geological Survey, “Since 1950 ... there has always been, on average, around 40 years of copper reserves (which are defined as ‘deposits that have been discovered, evaluated and assessed to be economically profitable’) and over 200 years of resources left.”  Resources are defined to “include reserves, discovered deposits which are potentially profitable and undiscovered deposits that are predicted based on preliminary geological surveys.” 

The U.S. Geological Survey further reported in its February 2014 Mineral Commodity Summary that, “The International Copper Study Group predicted that global refined copper production in 2013 would exceed demand by about 390,000 tons.”  It went on to state that, “Global production of refined copper was projected to increase by 3.9 percent and consumption was projected to remain essentially unchanged.”  In another report issued on March 6, 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey stated that, “Geologically-based global assessment of undiscovered copper resources estimated that 3.5 billion metric tons of copper may exist worldwide.”  PolyMet’s website says that they estimate 275 million tons of reserves and 694 million tons of resources - a tiny fraction of what the U.S. Geological Survey estimates may be available.

What is important to note, as well, is that “copper is one of the few raw materials which can be recycled repeatedly without any loss of performance.”  (International Copper Association)  If the recycling of copper already in the waste stream, or slated for it in the future, could be increased, it would significantly reduce the need for newly-refined copper. 

At present, the U.S. Geological Survey states that “about 32 percent of the U.S. copper supply” comes from recycled copper.  Each year, however, we recycle only a fraction of the waste copper available.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that the U.S. generated 3.412 million tons of e-waste (waste from old computers, cell phone, TVs, wires and other electrical items) in 2012.  We recycled only 29.2 percent of it.  The EPA also estimated that there are probably 100 million old TVs in storage, resting in people’s closets and basements, ready to be thrown out.  And that doesn’t include the number of old computers, printers, phones and other devices.

Clearly there is a huge potential for increased recycling, and the value of that recycled material exceeds the value of newly refined metal.  According to the United Nations University (Sept. 17, 2009), “A ton of used mobile phones ... - or approximately 6,000 handsets (a tiny fraction of today’s 1 billion annual production) - contains about 3.5 kilograms of silver, 340 grams of gold, 140 grams of palladium and 130 kg of copper ... The average mobile phone battery contains another 3.5 grams of copper.  Combined value: over US$15,000 at today’s prices.”  On July 11, 2014, the COMEX spot copper price for newly refined copper was $3.27 per pound.  The price for copper scrap was $3.021 per pound.  And that price does not factor in the enormous benefits achieved by recycling, such as the reduced pollution and the costs of landfills.

Accordingly, when there is excess production of newly-refined copper and large supplies of scrap, why would any prudent steward of our natural resources allow environmentally risky and highly expensive mining to occur?  It doesn’t make economic sense.  We should save the resource for our children and future generations.

John M. Roth