Yellow Dog River and Marquette (UP) health in jeapordy

M

michaeladams

New member
hope they can keep it clean but lord knows they need jobs up there. if you want to make a cake ya gotta break some eggs. with every up side there is a down side and you can't please everyone. i think i covered all the cleshays.nash, did i spell cleshays correctly?
 
P

Polarice

New member
michaeladams said:
hope they can keep it clean but lord knows they need jobs up there. if you want to make a cake ya gotta break some eggs. with every up side there is a down side and you can't please everyone. i think i covered all the cleshays.nash, did i spell cleshays correctly?
Click to expand...

It's only going to bring about 100 jobs for only 7 years. Is it worth it?
 
I

ill marty

New member
Our camp is in Ishpeming. Alot of people we know are in the mining line of work. The point of view is everything we use is either mined or grown. If the mine says they have a certain amount of materail to mine, you can prabably count on it being 4 times what they say.The road they are building will allow access for the public to use. Happens to be in our secret spot. Treehuggers? That area needs the mine . To say the mining company does not care is silly. The epa watches them very closely the public demands it . If you have ever been up wolf lake road its an awesome area very rocky and hills our boondocking paradise. Not much up there a few camps. We met some pretty cool people up that way. I say letm mine there are only so many places you can mine.
.
 
B

booondocker

New member
Mining operations brought on to this chunk of very wild area is similar to putting a subdivision in an area that was once all farm land. Everything else aside here...it is a sad day for those who grew up with this wild area to explore and play in. Trucks, men, jobs, blasting, roads, train tracks...all exact a toll to what was once totally wilderness. Lumbering doesn't seem to do that...in and out a decade and you barely know they were there.


I wish it had remained that way.
 
F

frnash

Active member
Is there anyone that does not know about this by now? The dispute over the Kennecott's Nickel mine near the Yellow Dog Plains has been going on for at least four years already.

I'm no expert when it comes to the "environmental risk", but I will say that at least the mine at Yellow Dog Plains is a tunnel/shaft mine, thus considerably less of an eyesore, and a far smaller "footprint"/scar on the landscape than Cliffs Natural Resources' (formerly Cleveland-Cliffs) open pit Empire and Tilden Mining operations (opened in 1963 and 1974 respectively) in Marquette County (Photo by E. Neil Harri, courtesy of Pasty Cam"):
b0908.jpg
 
Last edited:
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
This sure has been a hot topic in the UP for the past 5-6 years. Lots of emotion on either side of the argument. Just some facts to keep in mind, the two publications linked to at the start of this topic lean very far in one direction as far as their personal feelings on the subject go, so not everything stated is 100% fact, or is stated in a manner as to paint things in a certain way.

Also, 100 jobs does not sound like much, but in this neck of the woods, it's economic impact would be similar to a company coming in and providing 10,000-15,000 jobs to the Chicagoland area. So it will have a rather large economic impact in not just the jobs at the mine itself, but in jobs it supports by creating so many new economic events (folks buying food, clothing, gas, schooling, healthcare, etc...).

I suppose in a perfect world, 100 high-tech jobs that had as minimal ecological impact as possible would be the best, but I agree with nash 100%. This will be a shaft mining operation and not a pit mining operation and once the mining at a shaft site is done, mother nature reclaims things nicely, just like in logging. About the only things left behind will be some roads- just like logging. Proof of that all over the place up here with old mining sites totally reclaimed by nature and someone would never know they were standing on one if they were there now.
 
4

440_chazz

Member
A very similar debate is occurring in Wisconsin right now in Iron County. The number one concern that comes is water quality based on an impact with a mine that is set up. But my god, this is not the mining era at the turn of the 20th century where there were no regulations on the environment. If I am not mistaken but is that a wastwater treatment facility in the picture? If so then what does that tell you of mines of the modern era?
 
P

Polarice

New member
I'm going to have to disagree that this is good for the UP. This may be a temporary band-aid for those that don't have jobs. Perhaps comparing apples to apples for the amount of jobs in the Marquette area compared to Chicago that is a reasonable comparison. Also, comparing this type of mining to the previous mining is not apples to apples.

Here's some more info:

The mining application admits that it will discharge polluted water to aquifers; the mine will emit at least 20 tons of pollution into the air each year, which will end up in surface and ground water. According to National Wildlife Federation, our "new mining law and regulations require that the DEQ reject any sulfide mining request unless the mining applicant demonstrates clearly that it will not 'pollute, impair or destroy' land, air, water, or groundwater." Identified risks include:

-collapse of the roof of the mine, which lies directly beneath the Salmon Trout River.
-acid mine drainage (see information on Sulfuric Acid Mine Drainage below)
-air pollution from a 50-foot tall stack (annually "at least 20 tons of dust containing sulfides and metals")
-loud noise levels from mining and rock crushing at the site
-80 ore truck trips a day impacting the region's roads (including spreading acid dust on roadsides)

http://sweetwatervisions.com/Pages/sulfidemine.html

For 100 temporary jobs folks from the local community are "okay" with damaging our precious Northwoods? 20 tons of dust going into our rivers, lakes including the largest of the Great Lakes.

There is always damage done by this type of mining which has NOT been done in the past in the UP. This is not an emotional argument. It has to do with the fact that this is going to destroy part of the environment and fishery. I'll admit that I'm more adament about this not going on because I love to fish in the UP as well as ride my snowmobile. Human beings continue to destroy natural resources for selfish gain. I feel for those that don't have jobs but I don't for those that can get jobs and won't take them because they're not up to their standards (aka fast food for example).
 
B

blutooth

New member
I agree that comparing taconite (iron ore) mining (Wisconsin) to copper and nickel mining (the proposed above) is not really a fair comparison.

Taconite mining has very controlled water use system, and water cleaning systems are in my understanding much easier to accomplish.

The mine above will need much stricter water quality guidelines and I'm sure will have vast scrutiny by all gov't agencies.

The upper penninsula has only 2 true industries: tourism and natural resources, and over the last 50-100 years has all but stopped utilizing one of them. How is that working up there?

Polarice, in the website you posted aove, you cite that the mine is going to emit 20 tons (if dust that is about one dump truck) of pollution into the air a year. The article isn't clear as to what it is emitting, but let's say it is a CO2...

According to this website (http://www.greenprogress.com/carbon_footprint_calculator.php), I create almost 30 tons of CO2 per year (and it didn't even ask about my snowmobile), should I be forced to sell my car, or get a new job where I don't fly? And believe me, I couldn't create 100 jobs - even for one week. But what I do does affect the economy in a very small way. Everything has a small price, and the trick is to maximize it. This mine seems to a great way for the UP to maximize what it has.

The UP has a company coming in willing to invest in the area, and do it responsibly and many who will benefit from it.

Everyone says they want products "Made in the USA", but no one wants the industry that makes it in their backyard.
 
M

mride460

New member
Administrator said:
This sure has been a hot topic in the UP for the past 5-6 years. Lots of emotion on either side of the argument. Just some facts to keep in mind, the two publications linked to at the start of this topic lean very far in one direction as far as their personal feelings on the subject go, so not everything stated is 100% fact, or is stated in a manner as to paint things in a certain way.

Also, 100 jobs does not sound like much, but in this neck of the woods, it's economic impact would be similar to a company coming in and providing 10,000-15,000 jobs to the Chicagoland area. So it will have a rather large economic impact in not just the jobs at the mine itself, but in jobs it supports by creating so many new economic events (folks buying food, clothing, gas, schooling, healthcare, etc...).

I suppose in a perfect world, 100 high-tech jobs that had as minimal ecological impact as possible would be the best, but I agree with nash 100%. This will be a shaft mining operation and not a pit mining operation and once the mining at a shaft site is done, mother nature reclaims things nicely, just like in logging. About the only things left behind will be some roads- just like logging. Proof of that all over the place up here with old mining sites totally reclaimed by nature and someone would never know they were standing on one if they were there now.
Click to expand...

Very well said, John. Those who claim "its only 100 jobs for 7 years" are getting most of their info from the above mentioned newspapers who do lean far to the side of not wanting the mine here in OUR neighborhood. Once up and running this mine like others in the area will subsequently employ many 100's directly and indirectly for decades. Rio Tinto does claim they will only be mining for 7 years, but as history has shown, if there is ore there to be mined the mining will continue.
As a miner with Cliffs N.R. I know how the DEQ and MSHA monitors our site. If they hold the Eagle Mine to the standards that they hold us to, there shouldn't be water pollution problems. Its up to the DEQ to do their job and keep Rio Tinto accountable, because they do not have a good track record.
 
M

mride460

New member
440_chazz said:
A very similar debate is occurring in Wisconsin right now in Iron County. The number one concern that comes is water quality based on an impact with a mine that is set up. But my god, this is not the mining era at the turn of the 20th century where there were no regulations on the environment. If I am not mistaken but is that a wastwater treatment facility in the picture? If so then what does that tell you of mines of the modern era?
Click to expand...

AS a Cliffs NR miner, I can tell you there are no waste water treatment plants visible in that picture. The tanks you see are concentrate thickening tanks. The Tilden and Empire mine site covers almost a 200 sq. mile area. (much of which is not in the pic)
At the Tilden concentrator we use about 300,000 gallons of water per minute in the process. Most of the water we use is cleaned in treatment facilities not shown in the picture then reused. Additional water needed is piped in from the Greenwood Reservoir (built by Cliffs in the 1970's) and any water discharged out of the reuse system is cleaned to DEQ standards at our on site water clarifying plant.
 
M

mride460

New member
frnash said:
Is there anyone that does not know about this by now? The dispute over the Kennecott's Nickel mine near the Yellow Dog Plains has been going on for at least four years already.

I'm no expert when it comes to the "environmental risk", but I will say that at least the mine at Yellow Dog Plains is a tunnel/shaft mine, thus considerably less of an eyesore, and a far smaller "footprint"/scar on the landscape than Cliffs Natural Resources' (formerly Cleveland-Cliffs) open pit Empire and Tilden Mining operations (opened in 1963 and 1974 respectively) in Marquette County (Photo by E. Neil Harry, courtesy of Pasty Cam"):
b0908.jpg
Click to expand...

An eyesore maybe, but far far less environmentally risky than a sulfide mine.
As a Cliffs NR miner I can say for fact that the 1800+ jobs paying $75,000+ per year plus the 2000 or so indirect support jobs that all pay well to, make a HUGE impact on the UP economy and we that live and work here are glad to have the eyesore to go to everyday.

164 years of mining iron on the Marquette range without a major environmental accident. A pretty good record Cliffs has...
 
Last edited:
F

flatlandassn

New member
With or without this mine the demand for copper and nickel will be met. I would rather have resources from the U.P. go into the goods and services I consume, as opposed to Australia or China. Polarice does not want his “backyard” messed up due to mining, I sympathize with that. However at the end of the day, someone’s “backyard” on this planet will get messed up, and they will get the jobs that go along with it.
 
P

Polarice

New member
The fact is that the company that is doing the mining has destroyed many different areas.

I've been told that the application that was signed off by the Michigan DEQ has the company admitting that it won't adhere to the application's exact laws causing it to pollute underground aquifers, but yet, it was still signed off! The company even admits that it will pollute underground aquifers. Still signed off on! This is our Michigan government at work folks! For how many temporary jobs???

Unbelievable that this is good for Michigan and especially the UP.

More facts about this type of mining:

http://www.menomineeriver.com/images/stories/pdf/mining_facts.pdf

That would be nice to see as we're cruising down a nice groomed trail.
 
Last edited:
R

radsrh

New member
I don't think it will have a large impact on the environment and fishery, will it change it some? One would have to say yes there will be some short term limited change but it will also change itself back to how it was before the mine was ever there. Take a look at the UP back in the old mining days, the pictures I have seen mostly on pasty net show miles of clear cut land, stacks pooring out jet black smoke, steam engines used for moving the materal around dumping out black coal smoke, raw used water being dumped anywhere and running anywhere. Heck the waste rock was dumped into the lakes and later they made the dredge's to go pull it back up because they found new ways to extract more copper from the waste. The pictures show a haze thicker then what you see over LA today, and the land barren of any signs of life other then the people shown in them. I think we need to use what natural resourses we have and do it in a way that leaves as little foot print as possible to the land that gave them too us.
Polarice said:
I'm going to have to disagree that this is good for the UP. This may be a temporary band-aid for those that don't have jobs. Perhaps comparing apples to apples for the amount of jobs in the Marquette area compared to Chicago that is a reasonable comparison. Also, comparing this type of mining to the previous mining is not apples to apples.

Here's some more info:

The mining application admits that it will discharge polluted water to aquifers; the mine will emit at least 20 tons of pollution into the air each year, which will end up in surface and ground water. According to National Wildlife Federation, our "new mining law and regulations require that the DEQ reject any sulfide mining request unless the mining applicant demonstrates clearly that it will not 'pollute, impair or destroy' land, air, water, or groundwater." Identified risks include:

-collapse of the roof of the mine, which lies directly beneath the Salmon Trout River.
-acid mine drainage (see information on Sulfuric Acid Mine Drainage below)
-air pollution from a 50-foot tall stack (annually "at least 20 tons of dust containing sulfides and metals")
-loud noise levels from mining and rock crushing at the site
-80 ore truck trips a day impacting the region's roads (including spreading acid dust on roadsides)

http://sweetwatervisions.com/Pages/sulfidemine.html

For 100 temporary jobs folks from the local community are "okay" with damaging our precious Northwoods? 20 tons of dust going into our rivers, lakes including the largest of the Great Lakes.

There is always damage done by this type of mining which has NOT been done in the past in the UP. This is not an emotional argument. It has to do with the fact that this is going to destroy part of the environment and fishery. I'll admit that I'm more adament about this not going on because I love to fish in the UP as well as ride my snowmobile. Human beings continue to destroy natural resources for selfish gain. I feel for those that don't have jobs but I don't for those that can get jobs and won't take them because they're not up to their standards (aka fast food for example).
Click to expand...
 
W

whitedust

Well-known member
When you look at Vilas County WI & know the lumber companies clear cut the entire county 80 to 100 years ago you know mother nature can adjust to man's overuse of the resouces & heal the land. No Epa or government controls back then. Just buy the the land & do whatever..... make money & discard the the land & on to the next thing. We have come along way in a 100 years to keep land, water & air clean. Do it & bring on the jobs!
 
S

scottd

New member
The UP probably wouldn't even have a road in it if it weren't for mines, don't forget that. As someone that has ACTUALLY spent a lot of time up and around that area it is pure wilderness and still will be even with that mine there. Ok there might be a road to cross now. It brings jobs and $$$ to the area so i'm all for it. Plus i'd rather this stuff be done in the US where the companies will be forced to do things better and actually bring money into our economy rather than some foreign country.

For the people that are SO opposed to this and other mines then truly be opposed and stop using anything that contains steel, copper, etc......because by buying this stuff you are just adding to the demand for such materials and therefore give these companies the need/ability to mine the resources to make the product that you want to buy. Otherwise it seems pretty hypocritical to me when you just want it out of your area but would be fine with it in someone elses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top