There is ample reason to be skeptical about mining companies' and promoting agencies' promises that sulfide mining can be done without polluting the water.  One can merely search the internet for "Acid Mine Drainage", and find numerous examples all over the world of environmentally devastating and costly damage.   Perhaps the worst place to disturb sulfide rock is in a water-intensive environment like northearstern Minnesota, because the acidic drainage with its leached toxic metals becomes mobile, affecting groundwater and surface water  It can persist for centuries and for long distances from the discharge. 

Minnesota's Dunka pit -- decades of non-enforcement

Even though there are no metallic (copper or nickel) sulfide mines in Minnesota, we have our own acid mine drainage (AMD) or acid rock drainage (ARD) hot spot near Babbitt.  At the Dunka open-pit taconite mine, LTV Steel removed some sulfide overburden to get to the orebody of interest.  The sulfur-bearing waste rock was piled up and ignored at first.  For decades, known AMD has been produced by the waste pile and pit walls, polluting Unnamed Creek, which flows into Bob Bay of Birch Lake, which flows into the Boundary Waters Canoe area.

Despite mitigation efforts by the company (Cliffs Erie) and Minnesota DNR "studying" the site, it is now polluting under an expired Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit.  WaterLegacy has requested of the agency historical and background information on the Dunka pit.

MPCA is processing a requested revision of the water-quality variance for some of the known seeps.  Releases from these seeps can be in lethal concentrations for certain aquatic species.  Yet, for several years, the MPCA Commissioner has not required the existing water treatment plant to operate (even during the warm months), citing cost considerations for the company.  

The U.S. EPA has  emphasized that contamination levels at the Dunka Pit are due to Duluth sulfide rock formation, like that in a copper or nickel mine.  "The mine waste rock may be, therefore, more analogous to a copper-nickel mine, rather than an iron ore mine."    ( Tech Res. Doc. Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores & Minerals, Vol. 3 1994).

WaterLegacy members are concerned that if companies are allowed to operate under such variances, there is little point in establishing permit conditions to protect water quality.  Regardless how "stringent" Minnesota's regulations may appear on the books, they are worthless if not applied in practice.

More information on non-enforcement at Dunka ...

U.S. Superfund sites

"One of the biggest factors in the dark history of sulfide mining is how frequently mining companies are wrong about what their impacts on water quality will be. One peer-reviewed study found that, while all projects that were reviewed predicted they would not pollute, at least 76 percent of the time they still did.  The same study found that 89 percent of mines that have polluted said they would not.

"The industry’s track record of not paying to clean up its messes is long and shameful.  A few examples include:

• Zortman-Landusky Mine, Montana – $33 million and counting 
• Summitville Mine, Colorada – $185 million and $1.5 million/year
• Grouse Creek Mine, Idaho – $53 million"   (-- from Friends of the Boundary Waters' Sulfide Mining page)

These and other factual horror stories on the damage already being done by acid mine drainage are well-documented.  For one national source, see EARTHWORKS website search on 'acid mine drainage'.  Policy-makers should be very careful to guard against repeating these mistakes.

In our region, there are few if any examples of successful pollution prevention, especially long-term.

• On Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula, copper mills discharged an estimated 200 million tons of copper-contaminated waste directly into Torch Lake, reducing its volume by 20 percent and leaving a toxic threat to fish and anyone who eats the fish. Information can be found in the Mining Waste National Priorities List Summary Report, Torch Lake, Houghton County, Michigan.
• In Ontario, the Geco and Willroy mines, owned by Noranda Minerals Inc., near Manitouwadge generate acidic runoff laced with heavy metals that must be treated in perpetuity. Metal loadings will steadily increase downstream over time. Geco operated from 1957-1995 and Willroy from 1955- 1977.
  According to reports in 1995, Inco's Shebandowan Mine west of Thunder Bay contributes nickel loadings from the minesite (including mine drainage to creeks on site) that are ten times higher than background inputs.
  From: "under Mining Superior: A Report on Mining Activities and Impacts in the Lake Superior Basin," by Northwatch (Summer 2001). northwatch@onlink.net

Flambeau Mine   

In Wisconsin, the Flambeau Mine has been held up as an example of a clean sulfide operation, but after partial closure, it is sitll polluting the Flambeau River, for over 10 years since mining operations ceased.  The mine was enormously profitable.

In July,  Wisconsin Resources Protection Council filed intent to sue to force the Wisconsin DNR to enforce water quality regulations and monitoring requirements.  The lawsuit holds the agency and company accountable for ongoing pollution at  Kennecott's Flambeau Mine are in violation of Wisconsin law, as well as the federal Clean Water Act.   (Note:  Kennecot is exploring heavily in Aitkin County, Minnesota.)

Press Release        June 18, 2009    Flambeau Mine Causing Illegal Water Pollution
Conservationists announce intent to file lawsuit over water pollution from Flambeau Mine

Wisconsin media coverage