As a geologist and Michigan resident concerned about the environment, I have attended some of the public forums discussing Kennecott�s proposed nickel/copper (sulfide) mine in Marquette County, and have been appalled by what I have heard. Not appalled by Kennecott nor by the State of Michigan DEQ, but rather by anti-mining �environmental� groups that seem bent on lying to the public at every turn.
The publication of Rachael Carson�s �Silent Spring� and the burning of Cleveland�s Cuyahoga River (so contaminated it caught fire) were turning points in the U.S. environmental movement. Born was a new ethic, a well-funded, organized presence with activism at its core, dedicated to ending corporate abuses of our environment. And there�s nothing wrong with that; our environment is essential to all of us. But all big business carries with it the potential for corruption, and this is exactly what has happened to much of the U.S. environmental movement. Let me give a few examples that hit close to home:
Anti-mining groups aren�t telling the truth about Michigan�s new mining laws. They claim that the discovery of a mineable uranium deposit in Michigan is �imminent� and that the State is being negligent for not drafting specific regulations governing this form of mining. What they�re not telling you is that the total amount of uranium �ore� ever discovered in Michigan would nicely fit into the back of a pickup truck (see the Mineralogy of Michigan textbook). We simply don�t have any significant uranium deposits in Michigan; several decades of uranium prospecting has found essentially nothing. Faulting the DEQ for not drafting specific rules governing uranium mining is like faulting the DNR for not drafting specific rules governing the control of wild elephant herds on the Baraga Plains. Why waste (our) taxpayer dollars writing regulations to govern hypothetical things that don�t exist?
Anti-mining groups aren�t telling the truth about Wisconsin�s mining laws. Several billboards scattered across Michigan say that Wisconsin has banned sulfide-type mining. That�s false; in fact, the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey has presented a PDAC lecture entitled, �There is no moratorium in Wisconsin� to address this misconception. Act 171 (s. 293.50, Wisconsin Statutes) simply requires any company permitting for a sulfide mine in Wisconsin be able to show a.) an example of a sulfide mine in the U.S. or Canada that has operated ten years without a pollution violation, and b.) a sulfide mine that has been closed ten years without a pollution violation. One company (Nicolet Minerals) did submit examples they felt met the Act 171 requirements, but they withdrew their permit application (they sold the property) before the Wisconsin DNR could complete the review.
|
