Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

DICK DALY: We've prepared this presentation from more than two hours of discussion at the well-attended copper-nickel session in Coffman Union. Much of the information emerged in the question-and-answer portion of the program. Some of the speakers used slides to illustrate their discussion. Such was the case with Miron "Bud" Heinselman of the US Forest Service North Central Experiment Station.

MIRON "BUD" HEINSELMAN: I do work for North Central Forest Experiment Station. This is the research arm of the US Forest Service in this part of the country. I am in no way connected administratively with the Superior National Forest which manages the general area in which INCO is interested. And I have nothing to do with the administrative decisions that are being made here. I'm not speaking for the Superior or for the station.

I want that perfectly clear. Today, I'm on annual leave this afternoon, and I'm speaking strictly as an individual. I am, however, familiar with the area for a number of reasons, partly because I've spent most of my life in the North, and secondly because our field laboratory sits right between two of the potential developments that INCO has in mind. And also I've been doing my research in the Canoe country for the last eight years or so since 1966.

The three areas of most promising mineralization are shown in red on this map. This is based on a conversation that I had with Paul Sims, the former Director of the Minnesota Geological Survey several years ago. Now, one thing I want to show you with this map which is quite important to potential environmental impacts is the water flow patterns in this area.

The waters of the Kawishiwi River rise back in this general part of the Canoe area-- some down in here-- and flow outward through the South Kawishiwi to Birch Lake, at which point they turn northward, go through White Iron Farm, and Garden, Fall, and back into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area via Basswood, Crooked, and Lac La Croix. So we are talking about the Boundary Waters Canoe Area water system, even though the area in question is just outside.

Now, the proposed open pit mine that's been announced in the papers, the edge of it after it's developed would be approximately one mile from this edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. It would be not more than 1,000 feet or so from the Kawishiwi River when the pit is completed. And we should also realize that we're talking about a very large mineralized zone.

We don't know how good the ores are, but potentially, if these ores should prove out and developments are allowed to go forward, we may be looking at the beginning of a new Mesabi Range which could stretch all the way across this country. Well, there quickly, the rest of the story. This is a map showing logging history. The green areas are the remaining virgin forests. Some of them were very close to the proposed mining area. These are the largest blocks of virgin forest left in the Eastern United States.

Nearly all of them are within a possible radius of influence of air pollution should a smelter be built anywhere in this general area, and should our smelter technology be no better than that now being used by INCO and other companies in the Sudbury country. And right now in the country adjacent to Sudbury, they are getting acidification of the lakes and kill-out of fish up to 40 miles from the smelter due to sulfur oxide acidification of the rainfall. And this is not just a wild story. There are technical papers published on this question, which I have here.

We are talking about a unit of the national wilderness system right on the edge of this development. It's famous for its canoeing, of course. It's good game country and wildlife country. One of our largest moose populations, the only really significant one in the Eastern United States, occurs in this general area. And the moose is abundant enough so that we've had an open season here just East of the mining proposal to out of the last three years.

Some of that land, of course, would be totally removed from wildlife habitat if this development goes forward. It's loon country. The loon is a bird with rather low productivity, just lays a couple of eggs a year. And it is our state bird, a symbol of the canoe country. The timberwolf, of course, as you realize, is an endangered species, quite controversial, but a genuine member of the identified list of endangered species in the United States. And its principal population, of course, centers in Northeastern Minnesota, and particularly right in this very area where the mining proposal is now on the books.

Much of the research done by Dr. Dave Mech-- who I believe is in the audience today-- has been done right in this very area. The field laboratory out of which Dave has conducted all of his research which is known throughout the world, for, I think, perhaps the best work on wild canids anywhere in the world-- it's a radio-telemetry approach-- is being done right out of this lab which is located between the two INCO proposals. So the very animals that Dave has been studying live and have their territories in the area that we're talking about.

It's good bear country. It's got some other very rare and interesting and some endangered animals-- the fisher, the pine marten. It's tremendous fishing country. This fish did come out of the river. It's a 25-pound northern, caught just a few years ago. Lake trout, the lake trout is extremely vulnerable to acidification of the lakes. It's lake trout populations that are being wiped out in the Sudbury region now quite some distance, as I said, 40 miles from the smelter. And a 40-mile arc around Ely or around the proposed mine site would include about 60% of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, including most of the good trout lakes.

I'm not saying we'll make these kinds of mistakes again, but we'd better be darn sure we don't. This is the site of the proposed pit that would be a mile and a half long, 3/4 of a mile wide, and 1,000 feet deep, right on the edge of the Canoe country and right on the edge of the Kawishiwi River. Now, eventually, of course, when mining is ceased, we're in a region where precipitation exceeds evaporation, and eventually, a pit like this will fill up. When it does, the slope of the land is straight to the Kawishiwi River. There's going to be runoff from this pit.

The same applies to the tailings basins and mine dumps, which an article in the Duluth paper suggests might be located just to the South and cover 6 or 8 square miles. Now, all of those areas have a tremendous potential for giving us water pollution problems. As you may know, copper is one of the heavy metals that's extremely toxic in aquatic ecosystems. 30 parts per billion is toxic to the reproduction of some species of fish according to work in our Duluth EPA laboratory.

I don't have a good picture of 1,000 foot-deep copper mine. This would be a much deeper mine than any now existing in Minnesota. Most of our Minnesota mines don't go to more than 500 or 600 feet. Many of them, not even that. It might be about this size, however, in terms of area. But that'll give you some idea of the kind of operation we're talking about. This is Sudbury. This is the way the scene looked to me some 20 years ago. These two children are mine. Now, they're both grown and married today.

But it still looks pretty much the same in most of the Sudbury area. Those are the stacks that were used for emitting the sulfur oxide at that time. Now, high stacks have been used for many years. But I would want to point out-- I meant to point it out on this slide-- this very massive damage to the vegetation in close to the smelter is the result of smelting at ground levels early in this century. And heaven forbid that we would ever let anything like that happen again. We don't do it that way anymore.

We do smelt it in enclosed furnaces and we emit the effluent through high stacks. But high stacks are really not the answer. And I think we're beginning to learn this the hard way worldwide. The stacks up until a few years ago were 500 or 600 feet high. The effluent did not meet Ontario air-quality regulations, and INCO has recently built the tallest chimney in the world.

This is 1,250 feet tall. It's about the same height as the Empire State Building. It's almost twice the height of the IDS tower here in the Twin Cities. And it's still emitting a great deal of SO2 as nearly as I can determine. I understand there's relatively little actual sulfur removal equipment on it. There may be some other kinds of equipment on it. I've tried to get the details from the company, but I've not had much luck.

I do understand, however, that according to a seminar given on the St. Paul campus just yesterday by Dr. Gene Likens of Cornell on the subject of acid rain, that the Sudbury complex-- this is INCO, I believe, plus Falconbridge Mines-- emits approximately the equivalent of 9% of all the sulfur oxide being emitted in the United States. So we're talking about enormous emissions of SO2.

Now, this is really necessary if you go for conventional pyrometallurgical smelters. If you roast the ore, getting rid of the sulfur is what it's all about. You've got to burn off that sulfur. And when you burn it off, you get sulfur oxides. And we, of course, have to understand that this is necessary to produce these metals. But nevertheless, the getting rid of the sulfur oxides is a horrendous problem. Now, there are technological approaches to these, and some are now being applied in some areas, particularly to power plants.

And I understand one smelter in the United States may be going online with sulfur-scrubbing equipment this year. And Bill Brice tells me there's two or three in Japan. But so far, essentially, all North American smelters are still emitting most of their SO2 to the atmosphere. And this is a real big problem. I mentioned this copper toxicity problem in close to the smelters. Of course, the waters are totally dead, both from heavy metals and from acidification.

Now, this is a shot of some Indian pictographs not in the immediate area, but I wanted to make one point here. This, according to Sig Olson in Battle For a Wilderness in his recent book Open Horizons, is the spirit land of the Chippewa. This is what the Kawishiwi was all about to the Indians. The word Kawishiwi apparently means no place between, and Sig has his last paragraphs in Battle for a Wilderness, I think give one some feeling for the depth of the problem and the meaning for those of us that are concerned about the Quetico-Superior today.

And I'd like to close by just reading the last couple of sentences from that. He ends it on the note of copper-nickel development, specifically on the Kawishiwi. He starts out like this. There's a couple pages. I can't read it all, but here's what he says. "Not long ago, I was snowshoeing a few miles from home on the Kawishiwi in the area the Indians knew as the spirit land of No Place Between. The river looked as it did the first time I ever saw it-- old glaciated rocks, spruce, fringed forest, et cetera."

I won't go on with that. There's a lot more detail about running into the drill rigs on the Spruce Road, which is the very area we're talking about. And then he says this in closing this chapter. "The drill purred on and the lights twinkled brightly against the black spruces, the beginning of a new era, a bonanza perhaps, or a requiem for the spirit land of the Chippewa." And those are not my words. Those are Sig's. He addressed the Izaak Walton League convention in a very spirited fashion three times just two weeks ago up at Brainerd. I was there, and I can vouch for the fact that Sig is very deeply concerned about the present situation.

[APPLAUSE]

DICK DALY: Then a spokesman for International Nickel made one of the first public expositions of that firm's plans in Northeastern Minnesota. Dean Ramstad spoke for INCO.

DEAN RAMSTAD: Certainly, discussions such as this are necessary and invaluable means if we're going to have any possibility of getting some mutual understanding. This happens to be something of a homecoming for me. I was born and brought up in the Twin Cities, and I happen to be an alumnus of the University of Minnesota. I entered as a freshman in 1940, the year in which this very building opened.

And since our discussions today seem to center on environment, I might say that this indoor environment in the union was much more pleasing to my eye in 1940 than it is today. And I say this not as a criticism, but rather to point out to you that our standards in all areas, like everything else in life, are continually changing, both for better and for worse and at rapidly accelerating rates.

Now, I'm not going to suggest to you that private enterprise is in the vanguard of these changes because it's not. I will submit to you, however, that private enterprise continues to be a living, responsive organism in our political, economic, and social lives, and it survives and prospers and will continue to survive and prosper so long as it has the capability to relate and adapt to changing situations.

Industry, like individuals, learns from experience. I do not think it realistic or constructive of the consequence to contend that copper-nickel development in Minnesota will repeat all of the errors and actions of the past. Those were the products of different times. The world changes, and I dare say if all of us were to be charged with the sins of our forebearers, as the mining industry sometimes appears to be, we might be more careful about the stones we throw.

Now you've all heard second or thirdhand what our plans are. Let me tell you firsthand where we stand. The first copper-nickel discoveries in Minnesota were made over 25 years ago near Ely. My company was among the first to follow up on them. Our exploration proved up large tonnages of copper-nickel mineralization. The copper-nickel content was fairly low, but it was nonetheless higher in mineral and metal values than much of the copper ore then and now being mined in the southwestern United States.

We concluded that this was an important resource and we applied for leases from the federal government, from which we had earlier obtained prospecting permits. The location within the Superior National Forest was then, as now, a sensitive point, and rightfully so. As a result, the granting of our leases was delayed until 1966.

In the meantime, the Wilderness Act was passed. The Selke Committee Report concerning the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was adopted, and the policy of multiple use, including mining in the national forests was reaffirmed. With this added consciousness of responsibility for the environment, many environmental safeguards were written into our leases.

With the granting of our leases, we renewed our exploration work, sank a shaft at which you saw the headframe, and took samples. We did our laboratory and pilot plant work and consulted with experts, both here at the University of Minnesota and elsewhere. The Bechtel Engineering firm prepared a feasibility study. In the end, we found that we could not proceed for economic reasons.

Years have now gone by. The situation has changed again. Costs are up, but so are prices, and so also is the demand for raw materials essential to the United States industry. At the same time, many foreign sources of copper and other raw materials essential to such industry have been nationalized and availability of supplies threatened. Our balance-of-payments situation remains precariously precarious. Clearly, it's time to take another look at this major resource in Northeastern Minnesota.

This is precisely what we are doing. We have taken a 10,000-ton sample, which is only now arriving at our pilot plants. We will work on this material. And as a result of our work and the inputs from the governmental agencies and from discussions such as this one, the best possible plan will be formulated for turning this resource into a producing mine to supply copper and nickel to US industry, and in so doing, contribute to the economy of Minnesota and the nation, and hopefully, a profit to our company.

Now, this is a very complex undertaking. There are no easy answers of the sort I'm sure you'd like to hear from me. This effort will involve the contributions of experts in many fields-- mining, metallurgy, environmental protection, in marketing, finance law, probably many others. And we may or may not succeed. The challenge is a real one. It will be met if we are able to proceed with full recognition of our obligations to meet the environmental requirements now and in the future.

I would be less than frank if I did not tell you that I am concerned about the many inaccuracies which have appeared in the press about our activities and their possible effect on the environment. Too often, we see purported statements of fact which are incorrect. The facts concerning our activities are these. First, we are reevaluating the economic feasibility of a copper-nickel project in Minnesota. We will not make a decision whether or not to go ahead with the development until this feasibility work has been completed.

Second, the body of mineralization we think likely capable of economic development at this time is one we call the Spruce Road Deposit, and it would have to be mined as an open pit. Over a 20-year period, based on our projected plans, this pit would be about 3/4 of a square mile at the surface, and as you just heard, about 1,000 feet deep.

That mine operation would require a waste rock disposal area. The mined ore would have to be concentrated in the vicinity of the mine, and an area for tailings disposal would also be required. The concentrates would also have to be treated somewhere, either in or out of the state of Minnesota, and in either facilities to be built or in existing facilities someplace.

Now, all of these activities will have an impact on the environment. Under existing federal and state laws and regulations, these impacts must be determined and analyzed in detail. Alternatives are to be studied. Interested parties, such as the organization that's sponsoring this meeting today, will be invited to express their attitudes in the review in development, the environmental impact statements.

The result of all of this will be final plans which we hope and expect will be environmentally acceptable and economically productive. The preparation of these plans and their analysis will take time. As the work in our laboratories, pilot plants, and engineering offices progresses, we will be furnishing information to the government agencies concerned and obtaining their inputs.

That process is now starting and it will go on for several months before it is completed. I can assure you that despite what you have heard or read, our proposed activities will not pollute the waters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They will not destroy the forest. They will not turn Northeastern Minnesota into what's been called another Sudbury.

Now, they will not do these things because we will comply with the federal and state laws and regulations, and because we are not dealing with the attitudes, the economics, or the technology of a century ago. We also know that success of our efforts will depend upon our ability to solve these environmental problems in a manner consistent with the reasonable standards, not only of today but of tomorrow. Thank you very much.

[APPLAUSE]

DICK DALY: The State Planning Agency is taking the lead role in studying the copper-nickel situation. Vic Arnold is in charge of the project.

VICTOR ARNOLD: I'd like to describe for you a copper-nickel study plan which was funded by the Minnesota Resources Commission, which is a committee of the Minnesota legislature. First, let me give you a couple of caveats. One, the copper-nickel study that we're engaged in, we do not perceive, nor does the MRC perceive it to be an environmental impact statement. It is, however, I think, complete enough to provide, at least in concept, complete enough to provide at least a benchmark for an environmental impact statement, both state and federal if that is necessitated at some time in the future.

And the second thing about the study and the second caveat is that the copper-nickel study itself will not make a decision regarding whether the state of Minnesota should engage in copper-nickel, exploitation and development or not. All too often, public decisions are made in the absence of good knowledge or good information. That is what the copper-nickel study is all about. We're trying to bring the best available knowledge, the best available information in an open and systemic way to the question of copper-nickel development for the state.

The Minnesota Resources Commission appropriation to the State Planning Agency is $100,000. Let me read to you the legislative mandate in the appropriations bill. As I say, it was appropriated to the State Planning Agency, but the Department of Natural Resources, the University of Minnesota, and the State Planning Agency will report to the legislature on the economic needs and problems related to the development of a copper-nickel industry in Minnesota and environmental impact of various development proposals.

Well, until this very last week, we haven't had a proposal to evaluate, so we have been doing some benchmark data gathering. Let me describe to you the four major components. I will assume complete responsibility for the validity or the completeness or not of those four components. But as I see it on a public policy question of the dimension of copper-nickel, we must evaluate four separate components.

One, there has to be a component of socioeconomic impact, and I'll describe these a bit in greater detail later. The second, we need an environmental impact assessment, that is to say some benchmark data. The third thing we need is a technology assessment, at least information brought to bear on the technologies available for mining, for concentrating, or extraction. What are the options before us?

And four, monitoring system, the design of a socioeconomic and environmental monitoring system with a built-in control area if we were to engage in copper-nickel-- that is the state of Minnesota, were to engage in copper-nickel-- how could we assess at any point in time what the socioeconomic and the environmental impact is of an operation. Those are the four components of the copper-nickel study.

We would anticipate that we will be able to report to the legislature sometime, hopefully, before the next legislative session, but if not before, then during the next legislative session, and provide them, I think, with some very, very good information, at least benchmark information, arraying for them what some of the alternatives are as they deliberate and debate the question of copper-nickel yay, or copper-nickel nay, in Minnesota. Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

DICK DALY: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is also deeply involved in the copper-nickel study, chiefly in the person of William Brice of the Division of Mines.

WILLIAM BRICE: Today, if a mining company were interested in developing a mine such as INCO is, there are approximately 39 permits or approvals that presently would be required. This includes both state government, federal government, and local units of government. Probably the most significant of these approvals that would be required are the federal and state environmental impact statements, air and water discharges of any proposal, any water appropriations that might be necessary.

And the one that is probably the most comprehensive is the Permit to Mine under the 1973 Mineland Reclamation Act. As far as mining is specifically concerned, the Mineland Reclamation Act is probably the most comprehensive mining act that's ever been passed. It requires both consideration of the natural environment and the land use problems that would be associated with any type of development, and also the social-economic kinds of impacts that would be associated with the development. Briefly, the reclamation program requires that rules and regulations be developed, that a company must obtain a permit to mine.

Some essential requirements of the Permit to Mine would be that a comprehensive Mineland Reclamation Program be developed by each operator. The reclamation program must then be carried out as a part of the normal everyday business of mining, which has not occurred in the past, I might add. It also requires that the Commissioner of Natural Resources do some annual review of each permit that may be outstanding, and it provides for bonding and civil penalties if the permits are not met as they originally were developed.

The regulations under this law have not yet been developed, but they're presently being promulgated. The other program that's of particular interest today is called a program that was started about a year ago. It was known as the Mine Site Study, and probably a lot of people have already heard of it to some extent. The study essentially is composed of three steps. First, a regional assessment of the area, land use plan, and finally, a project evaluation.

The step that's probably of most significance at this time is the regional assessment. And essentially, what we're trying to do is develop a series of models that will help us get an idea of the capability of the land in this area to be used for certain types of uses. Of particular interest are the uses of the wildlife in the area, the recreation, the aesthetic values in the area, timber production, and also to look at some of the mine facility feasibility sites that could be chosen.

In the past, many of the alternatives that have been considered by mining companies have been alternatives that have been selected by the mining companies. And it seems to me to be a fundamental wrong that the alternatives ought to be a type that are selected by the governmental agencies who ultimately have to determine which of those alternatives will be selected. The regional assessment also includes environmental sensitivities, such things as the land's ability to resist erosion and sedimentation, water availability, water level fluctuations, accessibility, and that type of consideration.

It also includes an overall regional look at some of the mineral resource potential. Essentially, what we're talking about here is not a specific mine. What we're talking about is a series of companies, International Nickel being the first that will ultimately request to develop what is commonly known as a mining district. And rather than look at a specific proposal, I think we first have to look at the overall mining district and what the problems that might be associated with that are first.

The second step of the regional environmental study is to look at some of the land use conflicts and ownership conflicts and try to develop a land use plan that would fit the capability of the land with the needs for the land. This would include setting aside certain areas that would be most suitable for recreation, most suitable for wildlife, and also setting aside certain areas that could be considered for mining facilities someday in the future.

The last phase then is to take a specific project such as International Nickel's and try to determine how that project fits into the scheme of things on a regional basis. In addition to the Mine Site Study that we're presently working on and also the reclamation program, I believe that the Department feels that there are a number of other programs that are essential that should be completed before any mine proposals are decided on.

These would include essentially, regional and individual mine site monitoring programs, environmental impact statements, and also comprehensive mine planning. In the past, I think most mine planning has been specifically economic mine planning, in addition, also community plans for population influx. A great deal of the pressures to develop mines in this area have been coming from the people of Northeastern Minnesota who are interested in having these mines.

And an obligation I feel that they have is to do the community planning necessary so that the influx of population that might be associated would essentially minimize the environmental impacts that might result. In closing, I'd like to give you a little idea of what at least the department's policy is in the resource development area.

Basically, the mining company is no longer responsible only to its stockholders. Mineral development today can be compared to a partnership. I know many people get scared when they hear that. As in all partnerships, however, the risks and liabilities, as well as the benefits, are held jointly by all the participants. In addition to the mining operator, this partnership consists of the public through its many levels of government interest groups and individual citizens.

Mining is considered a high-risk venture. The risk on the part of the operator and the lending institutions has long been recognized. However, the risk to the public and its government is now being recognized and has to be considered. People and their government have learned that they inherit through abandonment or forfeiture the mistakes and problems of individual mining operators.

In looking through a new publication that just came out by the Society of Mining Engineers, I noted there's a discussion of liability for excavations. The authors quoted from the Book of Exodus, Chapter 21, where Moses said to his people, "when a man leaves a pit open or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it and an ox or an ass falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make it good and he shall give money to its owner and the dead beast will be his."

Unfortunately, when the owner has long since abandoned the pit or left, the area, government has often been forced to become the proprietor. The meek shall inherit the earth, including the problems and mistakes that are made and are too costly for an individual or company to correct. We must recognize that the public is no longer content to be meek.

[APPLAUSE]

DICK DALY: The final panelist to make a formal presentation was John Herman, an attorney for the Sierra Club.

JOHN HERMAN: I think to start out what Minnesota really has to ask itself at this particular point in time and over the next two years in terms of the decision-making, is whether or not ultimately we are going to make a choice between mining this particular area and not mining this particular area. I think it's fine to talk about extensive studies. I think it's fine to talk about companies with new awareness about problems and new technology that makes solutions to some of those problems available to us.

I think the ultimate question, though, of whether there is a possibility for a decision not to mine hasn't been answered by Minnesotans, probably hasn't really been asked by most of them. Right now, we have on the part of the elected officials in the state and the statutory law of the state, a clear policy oriented towards the development of minerals generally. And in particular, with regard to copper-nickel development, there's been a general policy on the part of elected officials, the governor, and state agencies, that we should go forward with development in this area with the caveat that there be adequate environmental protection.

I think over the next two years, in terms of pre-operational monitoring, in terms of detailed evaluation of plans and proposals for mining, and in terms of the specific evaluation of the economic effects, and in terms of drafting a 1,000-page environmental impact statement, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the ultimate decision, and perhaps the only decision that really makes any difference, is whether we're going to allow the development to take place at all in that particular area.

I think from an environmentalist point of view, the position that you have to be in at the present time is one of saying we don't have enough information to really say absolutely we're against something or absolutely we're not going to be against it. I think there may be circumstances where some environmentalists in Minnesota might be willing to live with a mine in that area. There may be no circumstances under which some of the environmentalists could be willing to live with a mine. There may be no circumstances under which a majority of the population of the state could live with a mine.

Of great concern to me is the level of evaluation that we'll undertake in determining whether mining should take place. I think next to me are the two people who've done more than anyone else to try to tell the legislature it's a big problem and to try to do some creative thinking about it. But the fact is that these two people sitting next to me have been working with a couple of $100,000, a couple of $100,000 to decide whether we should build a mine that will exist for 20 years, that will cover hundreds of acres with tailings, that will provide a few hundred jobs and will inevitably scar a particular part of the state in perpetuity.

And I don't think that's an adequate response for the state. I would venture to estimate that International Nickel has spent a dozen times that much already in terms of their evaluation of what they're going to do there, in terms of their exploratory program to date. I think that the state has to match that kind of effort in terms of its evaluation, regardless of which way it decides to go. If it decides to go forward, then it needs to do that in order to decide whether the controls that are proposed are adequate. If it decides not to go forward with development, it has to have done that to have a reasonable basis for doing it.

Right now, to date, we've done no monitoring of the water quality of the Kawishiwi area. We wouldn't really know how much worse it was if copper levels did start to go up. We've done very little evaluation of what kind of smelter technology would be available and where a smelter might be located. I know that INCO is very interested in not using the kind of method that's been detailed here for you that took place at Sudbury-- the pyrometallurgical method. They're talking about new kinds of technology-- hydrometallurgical smelting.

I don't think we know very much about that. I don't think we have any idea if it has unknown risks to the environment in terms of water pollution. And I think perhaps the most fundamental question that hasn't been looked at very closely is the question of land use in this particular part of Minnesota. When you have a wilderness area, should there be a buffer around the wilderness area? Should mining be restricted in this area until we've had experience with mining in a similar. Setting but somewhere further away from the Boundary Waters to determine if there are adverse effects?

About a year ago, I suggested at a hearing before the Department that the state have a policy of not allowing mining North of the Laurentian Divide-- which crosses just South of where INCO has been looking near the town of Babbitt-- but allow mining only South of that area until we see what kind of experience mines would have in this particular environment. Is that a viable policy for the state? I don't think there's been a decision on it.

I think Bud has told us some of the kinds of problems people are concerned about, the long-standing concerns about smelting technology and the adequacy of controls. And obviously, that to a large extent is a function of where you put the smelter and whether or not the smelter is pyrometallurgical where we have some idea of what kind of controls are possible-- and they may well be adequate in terms of air pollution-- or if it's hydrometallurgical where we would have to evaluate new kinds of controls, and then the more important questions about water pollution from the mine itself, water pollution from the tailings and waste rock areas of the mine.

And I think all of us are concerned about that because this area is a water resource area. It's the only canoeing country in the United States. If something happens to the water quality, the most important value of the whole wilderness area is lost. I think we also haven't evaluated what the importance of the scientific experiments on wolves and on the forests that are going on in that particular area, what the scientific value is.

And I don't think we've made any attempt at all to try to decide as a society in a situation involving only public lands, or almost exclusively public lands, whether it should be the policy of the state to develop that particular area for copper-nickel, or whether it should be the policy of the state to exclude development from that area because the other values, most particularly the land-use values of having it as a recreation area, of providing a buffer to a wilderness area, of ensuring the aesthetic and scenic resources of the area are unharmed, will take precedence over a 20-year open-pit mine in that particular location.

In this context, I think people have already pointed out some of the decision-making points where these kind of decisions will have to take place. I think that in terms of specific compliance with pollution control standards, we'll have to look to the pollution control agency which has direct licensing responsibility for that. And I would imagine that that agency, which has, to date, not done anything in terms of evaluating its water quality standards for the area or of evaluating any possible smelter emission standards that it has, will probably do that in the next year or so to determine whether those standards are adequate.

I think in terms of the mine itself, the reclamation of the mine, we have to look to the Department of Natural Resources. We don't know yet what kind of standards will be imposed in terms of mine reclamation. We don't know whether there'll be standards that can be met in this particular location or whether the standards will be designed to be attainable rather than desirable.

And unfortunately, that's one of the problems with resource availability for that department. They haven't had enough staff to put in a major effort into this kind of development of reclamation standards. But in terms of the policy decisions, I think the responsibilities are much broader. Obviously, the Forest Service will be the lead agency at the federal level, and they'll make their decision in the context of an environmental impact statement.

Similarly, the Department of Natural Resources, the Pollution Control Agency, the Environmental Quality Council will be the agencies involved in the decision and the preparation of a state environmental impact statement. In both cases, there are some substantive standards in the law about preservation of unique areas, protection of endangered species of wildlife, ensuring compatibility of various kinds of human activities.

Well, obviously we can't prejudge what that decision will be. But I guess the question that I have is whether anyone else on the panel, except perhaps for myself, can contemplate any situation at all in which the state and the federal government might decide that the resource should not be exploited either now or for perpetuity, or now for an indefinite period until we have further information, or now for an indefinite period until we see what kind of development we would have in terms of copper-nickel mining by looking at, say, Exxon's or Amex's experience somewhere further South on the gabbro contact.

I don't know. I think that is the critical question to be posed now in the context of a very sensitive environmental situation and very large potential environmental harm with probably offsetting very likely technological solutions to parts of that harm. Maybe we could go to questions. Bill said I was last and should be shortest. Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

DICK DALY: The symposium then moved to a question and answer period. Vic Arnold of State Planning was asked whether a no-growth policy was an alternative being considered in regard to copper-nickel and for the state generally.

VICTOR ARNOLD: In the copper-nickel study, yes, that is an explicit alternative to be considered. I don't think, however, it's going to be a reasonable alternative to consider when you look at the development already under construction or already committed. Then you'd have to say how much further do we want to go after that. That's why we want to bring as much good information to bear on the socioeconomic, on the environmental, on the pre-monitoring-post-monitoring questions that John referred to to the attention of the legislature. OK? Is that sufficient?

ATTENDEE: Yes.

OK. Let me turn then to the no-growth question. The no-growth question is being considered as an alternative, not necessarily by state government, but by the Commission on Minnesota's future, which was created by the Minnesota legislature in the '73 session. That's comprised of 40 citizens plus the chairman of each one of the regional development commissions, plus 12 legislators-- six senators and six representatives-- minority and majority parties represented, of course, 50/50.

That is an overall overarching question that the Commission on Minnesota's Future is addressing because in the legislative mandate, number one is to develop alternative growth and development strategies for the state of Minnesota. Well, if you're going to develop alternative growth and development the strategies, it seems logical to include no growth in that context.

In that context, I think, however, we're going to have to follow through and say, what are the ramifications of that, how many things are currently in place or being put in place that might detract from that.

DICK DALY: Another question for Planner Arnold, is the public going to get a chance to contribute to the copper-nickel discussion, or is the decision going to be rushed through?

VICTOR ARNOLD: I don't think you can rush a copper-nickel thing through, especially when you look at all of the points that you have to touch base with. There are, what? 26 permits you have to get?

ATTENDEE: 39.

VICTOR ARNOLD: 39 permits you have to get. There are 39 separate checkpoints

ATTENDEE: Well, just using that as a starting point and--

VICTOR ARNOLD: --to slow the process. There's a legislative session coming up in '75. Hopefully, the copper-nickel study will be done in time for the Minnesota Resources Commission, at least, to consider the information. That's another checkpoint. There's a Federal Environmental Impact Statement. There's a State Environmental Impact Statement. So I don't think it's such a rushed if-we-don't-make-a-decision-in-the-next-week situation or we go. I don't think it's that way at all.

DICK DALY: Then a member of the audience raised the question of a government study in New Brunswick on water pollution problems associated with a modern copper operation there. Dean Ramstad of INCO responded, which led to a dialogue with Heinselman of the Forest Service.

DEAN RAMSTAD: I think what we ought to do if you want to reach a decision here in Minnesota based upon the facts in relation to the Minnesota area, let's go to work and put them all together for Minnesota and not something that someone has done someplace else.

ATTENDEE: Wow.

ATTENDEE: Oh.

[LAUGHTER]

ALL: Whoa.

ATTENDEE: Wow, that [INAUDIBLE].

MIRON "BUD" HEINSELMAN: Could I comment just a little bit on that too? I've read a great deal of the literature on handling of water with base metal mining throughout North America, and particularly in the north, in Ontario, in New Brunswick. And I'm familiar with the paper that Dr. Loper had. And in the far north up in Great Slave Lake Country and so on, there have been a lot of problems with handling of water in operations that are in settings geologically similar to Minnesota, and in some cases, the vegetation, also similar, areas where precipitation does exceed evaporation.

And I must say that after reading this literature, I personally have grave doubts that it will be possible to have major open pit mines right near a major stream like the Kawishiwi, tailings basins, massive mine rock dumps, and avoid copper contamination of these waters and perhaps several other heavy metals. There's also some other problems that haven't been mentioned here. A number of chemicals are used in the processing of the ore prior to going to the tailings.

These are chemicals used in the flotation process and so on. I've read about some of these things. I don't claim to be an expert on it. But what I read raised major questions in my mind as to what kinds of chemical outputs we're going to get with tailings if we have any accidents. Now, I'm well aware that there's a possibility of almost total recirculation during the operation, except in the event of a breakage of the tailings dams.

And I understand this kind of thing does occasionally happen, except in the event of massive spring runoff in a spring like the spring of 1950 when you got 50 or 60 inches of snow on the ground and it starts to rain, the snow hangs on until early in May, and then it starts to rain. And during the snow melt, you get this enormous runoff. The water levels in most of the lakes in Northeastern Minnesota rose 4 or 5 feet that year.

And that kind of thing will happen once every 50, 60, 80 years. What are we going to get in the way of runoff from tailings basins, from mine pits, and rock dumps, and so on when this kind of an event occurs? These kinds of things really have to be planned for because they do happen.

DEAN RAMSTAD: One comment. I think what Mr. Heinselman said as a conclusion is exactly right. These things all do have to be planned for. And I don't think that-- quite obviously, we have to really cut out for us.

DICK DALY: And then the discussion turned to the matter of International Nickel's social conscience. Ramstad was asked what happens to the Ely mining area 20 years from now.

DEAN RAMSTAD: Well, I would hope that we'd finish 20 years and go on for another 20 and more. Obviously with the resource, it depends upon how long the resource lasts. Now, what we have done in our existing mining areas is we have tried to organize our efforts. We're trying to make mining plans. We're trying to work near our production in order to sustain the communities of which we are a major employer for just as long as possible. And thus far, we have never, up to this point anyhow, had to shut down anything. Our towns have continued to grow.

DICK DALY: And Ramstad was asked if his firm would be willing to put up a large deposit, perhaps $25 million to take care of any residual environmental effects. Both Ramstad and Heinselman reacted to the question which included the phrase fill up the hole.

DEAN RAMSTAD: I think it's a matter of determine for State Policy. I'm not going to comment on that. I think if the state depends upon how you consider the function of the state government, what should it be doing, and how should it handle the problems. There are undoubtedly, any number of solutions that they can work.

MIRON "BUD" HEINSELMAN: Could I comment real briefly on just the last aspect of his question? I don't think you fill 1,000-foot holes. I think that we have to accept the fact that an open pit mine 1,000 feet deep is going to be there forever. And I think that we also have to accept the fact that those mine dumps are going to be there forever. I think you don't reclaim that kind of land,

DEAN RAMSTAD: Obviously. I don't know that a performance bond is the way do it. I'm not sure what is the way to do it. Now, obviously, all of these things are something that we have to think about. State governments have to think about them, and we all have to think about them. I think that one of the difficulties in assessing any of these proposals, such as a performance bond which someone else also suggested here, of course, is whether you put the requirements of that sort of thing so high that you automatically make any possibility of development uneconomic. In other words, you assess a penalty from the beginning that stops the development from going ahead just as surely as if you had said, no, we are going to, as a matter of policy, not have any development in this area.

DICK DALY: Bill Brice of the Department of Natural Resources, toward the end of last week's symposium, had this to say about possible development of the copper-nickel deposits. And I quote, "This is considered the largest nickel sulfite resource in the United States at this time. We presently don't produce hardly any nickel at all. And this is a major question the state of Minnesota certainly has to answer. And it's a question that the government of the United States should be concerned with also."

So said Bryce, "I don't think at this point, we should arbitrarily turn it down. I think we have an obligation to do the necessary environmental evaluation to determine if the risk is too high and to make a decision on this proposal," unquote. This is Dick Daly.