REGIONAL— The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee advanced its portion of the congressional budget reconciliation effort this week, complete with major changes designed to benefit Antofagasta, the Chilean-based mining company that has proposed a copper-nickel mine near Ely.
If ultimately included in a final reconciliation package that moves through both the House and Senate, the measure would end the prohibition on mineral leasing in the upper reaches of the Rainy River watershed and would give Antofagasta perpetual rights to two longstanding mineral leases as well as issue new leases for prospecting permit holders without requiring a public process or environmental review.
The measure would also override a longstanding law that gives the U.S. Forest Service the right to deny consent to mining projects on the Superior National Forest. At the same time, the provision prohibits courts from reviewing any of the actions outlined in the measure, except for cases brought by the mining companies involved.
The changes, initiated by Eighth District Congressman Pete Stauber, would seem to clear the way for Antofagasta to advance its Twin Metals project, despite its potential impact to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, located directly downstream of the proposed mining operation. The U.S. Forest Service previously denied consent for the proposed mine, citing the high risk of impacts to water quality in the wilderness and the difficulty of mitigating such pollution should it occur.
The ore bodies in question are sulfide-based, and such ore inevitably generates acid drainage when exposed to air and water. Containing that runoff has proven to be a difficult engineering task at similar mines around the world, including in the U.S.
Supporters of the mine argue that the risks are worth taking for the several hundred jobs the mine could create. Opponents of the mine cite a Harvard study that determined that the mine would cost jobs and income to the area because of its negative effect on the outdoor recreation economy that has developed in the area.
The Twin Metals proposal has been a political ping pong ball for the past decade, as both the Obama and Biden administrations took executive actions to protect the BWCAW from the proposed mine, which were subsequently overruled by actions of the Trump administration. The new legislation, promoting and protecting Antofagasta’s interests in law, will make a future change in direction more difficult to achieve.
Ingrid Lyons, executive director of Save the Boundary Waters, called the measure a “reckless giveaway” for the benefit of a foreign mining company and a handful of special interests.
Shifts focus to state
regulators
With the battle in Washington, D.C. potentially resolved in Antofagasta’s favor, at least for now, the debate over the future of the Twin Metals mine is likely to shift to St. Paul, where the decision over the mine’s future will ultimately be made. It’s already been one of the state’s longest and most contentious environmental debates in decades, and that could well intensify now that the mine’s future could hinge on the decisions of state government.
While the Twin Metals mine would be located primarily on federal land, it’s the state of Minnesota that would issue key permits, including the all-important Permit to Mine, as well as the mine’s NPDES [water discharge] permit.
Antofagasta submitted a mine plan to state and federal regulators back in 2019 but pulled the plan from consideration after the Biden administration rescinded its mineral leases. Whether the proposed mine is economically viable is unclear since Antofagasta has never released financial projections for the project.
While state officials have generally been favorable toward development of the NorthMet deposit, now controlled by NewRange Copper Nickel, there has long been considerable skepticism by state politicians and agency officials about the risks associated with the Twin Metals project. In a Star Tribune interview in late April, Gov. Tim Walz again cast doubt on the project. “I just think you have to take it into the context of how special the place is,” Walz told the Star Tribune, referring to the proposed mine’s proximity to the Boundary Waters. “Is the technology able to do it? I don’t think it is at this point in time.”
While the Trump administration is moving to sharply curtail the environmental review process for many projects on federal land, it’s unlikely that state regulatory agencies will follow suit, and that means a lengthy state environmental review process would be undertaken if and when Antofagasta submits a new mine proposal. State regulators are likely to be particularly cautious given that several previous permits they issued for the proposed NorthMet mine were invalidated by state courts.