Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Familiar arguments at hearing to rescind mineral withdrawal

Marshall Helmberger
Posted 5/17/23

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Familiar arguments filled a House committee room here last Thursday as the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee heard testimony and more than a bit of grandstanding on a …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Familiar arguments at hearing to rescind mineral withdrawal

Posted

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Familiar arguments filled a House committee room here last Thursday as the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee heard testimony and more than a bit of grandstanding on a proposal to rescind the recent mineral withdrawal in the Superior National Forest. The measure, authored by Minnesota Eighth District Congressman Pete Stauber, who chairs the subcommittee, would also restore two federal mineral leases key to the development of the proposed Twin Metals mine, near Ely, and require that all environmental and regulatory review for the proposed mine be completed within just 18 months.
The measure, known as the Superior National Forest Restoration Act, would also prohibit judicial review of the issuance of new mineral leases or permit, which would eliminate rights that Americans have long held to challenge most significant federal decisions in court.
Testifying on behalf of the measure were former state Sen. Tom Bakk, Dave Chura, chairman of Jobs for Minnesotans, and Dr. Harvey Thorleifson, chair of Center for Mineral Resource Education. Testifying against the bill was Becky Rom, the chair of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters.
The GOP majority on the House subcommittee repeated arguments familiar by now to those who have followed the debate over sulfide mining in the Rainy River watershed, upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Stauber, in his opening statement, said the United States is overly dependent on foreign sources for strategic minerals, including those that would be needed for a conversion to clean sources of energy, and he argued that the minerals found in the geological formation that includes the Twin Metals mine have the potential to address much of the country’s needs.
“The Duluth Complex contains 95 percent of U.S. nickel, nearly 90 percent of cobalt, and a third of our copper,” he said. That was a claim echoed by Bakk, who said the withdrawal removed the Duluth Complex and its mineral resources from consideration and argued that the Biden administration is being hypocritical in promoting an aggressive agenda to transition to green energy while locking up the country’s largest unexploited mineral deposit that could provide metals to fuel that transition.
The withdrawal, in fact, encompasses no more than 20 percent of the Duluth Complex and does not impact the proposed PolyMet mine or other potential copper-nickel deposits located outside of the Rainy River watershed. Economics remains the biggest factor limiting exploitation of the Duluth Complex. At about 1.2 million acres, the complex contains a vast amount of mineral resources but it is extremely low grade and not currently economical to recover, except in a few isolated pockets of slightly higher grade ore. Even in those pockets, the concentration of metals is less than one percent and the economics remain marginal.
While members of the committee each had time for questions, most used their time for speeches or rhetorical questioning of witnesses. Those on the Republican side frequently targeted Rom for sharp questions or political jabs, only occasionally allowing her time to respond. “If you believe, Ms. Rom, that mining in the United States is bad, then you have not been to China because the labor standards and environmental standards in use around the world are much, much worse,” said Congressman Matt Rosendale, of Montana.
Congressman John Duarte, of California, questioned how the Twin Metals mine could impact the Boundary Waters when it was so large and too far away to be visible by canoeists.
In response, Rom noted that the primary issue is water quality and that the wilderness is 24 percent water, all interconnected, both at the surface and below. “All that water is flowing north,” said Rom. “Peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that the Twin Metals mine, in ordinary operation, would flow into the Boundary Waters. People may not see it, because it’s pollution in the water.”
Duarte had a followup. “So, just north of this, in Canada, there’s open pit mines and other mining going on in Canada that’s adjacent to these same waters,” he noted.
“In areas that flow away from protected areas, that don’t flow into protected areas and that’s a key distinction,” responded Rom.
Others supporting the bill argued that mining jobs pay very well and provide good employment for raising families. Chura argued that typical employment in the tourism industry pays less than a third of what mining jobs pay. Stauber said the withdrawal effectively ends a project labor agreement that Twin Metals had signed with local labor unions for the construction of the mine.
Questions of
conflict of interest
Democrats on the committee raised issues of their own. Ranking member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned why Bakk was identified as a former state senator when he was, currently, a paid lobbyist for Twin Metals, a fact that she noted Bakk had not mentioned in his opening statement. Stauber, intervening, said that it had been disclosed in written testimony provided by Bakk, but Ocasio-Cortez said it should have been in his opening.
Ocasio-Cortez also noted that while Chura said he was representing Jobs for Minnesotans, he works for Minnesota Power, which is heavily dependent on the mining industry for its sale of electrical power. She questioned why two of the three witnesses for the bill had a financial stake in the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez also took issue with the congressional veto of the mineral withdrawal included in Stauber’s bill. “This bill would use an authority widely viewed as unconstitutional,” she said, an issue reported in detail in the May 5 issue of the Timberjay.
Rep. Jared Huffman, of California, was equally critical. “We appear to be paving new frontiers in gaslighting,” he said, arguing that the GOP members were creating a false choice by suggesting that protecting any special place from mining would end all efforts to enhance the country’s mineral security. “We don’t talk about places where we can mine sustainably,” he added. “We don’t talk about the opportunities to recycle… What we do talk about are undeniably wild places that are beautiful and unique and threatened by an extractive industry that the Trump administration gave access to.”
Huffman noted that he is supporting mineral extraction in his home state using brines from the Salton Sea, located east of Los Angeles, to extract lithium and manganese. He joined Ocasio-Cortez in criticizing Stauber’s effort to make an unconstitutional end-around through his attempt to veto the mineral withdrawal.
Political theater?
While the measure has the potential to pass the U.S. House this session, given the narrow Republican majority there, the measure stands little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, at least for now.
Yet the Twin Metals proposal faces another significant hurdle even should the politics in Washington turn more in favor of foreign mining companies, like Antofagasta, which controls the Twin Metals project. The state of Minnesota, where public opposition to the Twin Metals proposal is especially strong, according to polling, had already indicated its Department of Natural Resources would undertake its own environmental review of the project, separate from the federal review. That was before the project was suspended due to the cancellation of the project’s two mineral leases.
Past Minnesota governors, including DFLer Mark Dayton and Republican Arne Carlson, the late Vice President Walter Mondale, and the state’s largest newspaper, the Star Tribune, have been highly critical of the Twin Metals proposal and its potential to impact the Boundary Waters.
Polling has consistently shown that 60-70 percent of Minnesotans are opposed to copper-nickel mining within the watershed of the Boundary Waters.