Boundary Waters Situation

[Dos Perros]

Why does this mine need to be American owned? What's your reasoning for that?

So I'll admit I'm not up on the laws/regulations...I'm just sharing where I am personally if I were to be asked the question by someone that polls "do you support a mine on the edge of the Boundary Waters Wilderness?"

I do think people ought to be able to do what they want with their own land and property, up until the point it negatively impacts others. If I was 100% certain a mine could be operated without impacting others then I'd have to support. Understanding we can't be 100% about anything, and that sometimes unexpected and bad things happen despite our sincere and best efforts, it'd be nice to have accounted for that potential going in, either with some sort of third party insurance policy or self-insurance meeting some logical requirements. I think the likelihood of everything being on the up and up is higher with an American owned firm.

Also, not necessarily a requirement for me personally but more of a bonus, it'd be nice to know any profits derived from this mine may be spent/invested here. Similarly, I wouldn't want a foreign mine operator bringing their dudes in and paying them shit and then they take their shit pay home and spend it in Chile. If the mine is only viable with slave wages then perhaps it shouldn't go forward anyway. Fully admit that there are some regulations that are a bit ridiculous and drive unnecessary cost. We should work to fix those.

I also reserve the right to consider new information and change my mind.

 

[cq0302]

Using modern technology (iPhones) and not supporting the twin metals mine are not mutually exclusive!!!

Show me the case where we have to choose or the other. It’s a simple, lazy argument that misses all of the important details unique to this specific situation. A lot like the national security one.

I know this will fall on deaf ears.

Well said. I was extremely fortunate to learn from, in my opinion, one of the greatest trappers that area has seen in the modern era. He grew up in a mining family in Babbitt Minnesota, lived there his whole life. trapped an untold number of furbears in the region. had pictures of several hundred beaver pelts from a season trapping in there when you could still ride a snowmobile in. He also taught environmental science at the college and was an avid protector of the region. Someone that knew the region better than anyone on this forum can dream of and forgot more than any of us know about it. He’d be rolling in his grave seeing this. Honestly, if you are not familiar with the area, your opinion is null and void in my opinion. Come spend a fall grouse hunting, a winter bobcat trapping and catching beaver through the ice, listening to the wolf’s howl at night, or a summer day catching a few walleye. Your opinion will likely change quickly. If it doesn’t change to oppose the mine, your iq likely doesn’t exceed the temperature of the water you’re fishing.

End of rant and last comment lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poser]

All these anti mining peeps furiously texting away on their iPhones which contain rare earth minerals such as neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium, terbium, europium, yttrium, gadolinium, lanthanum, and cerium.

This statement is hinged on fallacy.

1. The proposed mines near the Boundary Waters are not rare-earth mineral mines. They are sulfide-ore mines looking primarily for copper, nickel, platinum, and palladium. You listed a bunch of rare-earth elements (neodymium, dysprosium, etc.) that have nothing to do with the Boundary Waters debate.

2. Owning a smartphone does not disqualify someone from wanting to protect pristine ecological reserves from highly toxic industrial practices.

3. Your statement implies that we only have two choices: mine everywhere, including our most pristine national wildernesses, or give up technology. In reality, we can source minerals from places that aren't interconnected watersheds, and we can heavily invest in e-waste recycling.

4. The primary danger of the Boundary Waters mining proposals is Acid Mine Drainage. When sulfide-bearing rock is brought to the surface and hits air and water, it creates sulfuric acid, which leaches heavy metals into the water. Because the BWCA is entirely interconnected water, a single spill or leak cannot be contained.
--
The idea that we have to destroy the Boundary Waters watershed for tech is based on outdated thinking. First, tech is already moving away from these metals. Automakers are shifting to LFP batteries that use iron instead of nickel (Tesla and Ford are both examples). Second, there are millions of tons of copper and precious metals sitting in landfills right now and a ton of e-waste has vastly higher concentrations of copper than a ton of raw ore. Recycle the landfills -it is a very rational alternative.

If we want to secure materials for the future, we should be investing in next-gen battery chemistry, material substitution (like aluminum and graphene), and massive e-waste recycling. We should drive technology forward, not rely on the 19th-century solution of digging toxic sulfide pits in our most pristine water reserves.

Lastly, I suspect this is yet another example of just being contrarian to the logical, sensible and ethical position because you perceive an attachment to a certain political ideology when it comes to considering which position to take. You can choose to beyond those parameters. If you choose not to, then at least present informed and rational arguments.

 

[wowzers]

Well said. I was extremely fortunate to learn from, in my opinion, one of the greatest trappers that area has seen in the modern era. He grew up in a mining family in Babbitt Minnesota, lived there his whole life. trapped an untold number of furbears in the region. had pictures of several hundred beaver pelts from a season trapping in there when you could still ride a snowmobile in. He also taught environmental science at the college and was an avid protector of the region. Someone that knew the region better than anyone on this forum can dream of and forgot more than any of us know about it. He’d be rolling in his grave seeing this. Honestly, if you are not familiar with the area, your opinion is null and void in my opinion. Come spend a fall grouse hunting, a winter bobcat trapping and catching beaver through the ice, listening to the wolf’s howl at night, or a summer day catching a few walleye. Your opinion will likely change quickly. If it doesn’t change to oppose the mine, your iq likely doesn’t exceed the temperature of the water you’re fishing.

End of rant and last comment lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a silly statement. By that metric most Americans opinion would be null and void on anything to do with land management on public lands.

 

[CJ19]

We don’t NEED mines to survive, they make virtually any and all modern Conveniences possible. Not having this mine probably changes absolutely nothing for any of use in the form of missing out on access to a modern convenience. As someone that spends a ton of time in the boundary waters, why would you even consider it. I work in the oil industry, I’m not against mining or drilling oil. But, if someone told me there was a definite reserve of oil under the boundary water watershed, and I could own the company, the answer would still be no….

Despite being accused of simply shilling for the trump administration (a false accusation), I oppose this mine for environmental reasons. Despite my objection to permitting this mine for environmental reasons, I have pointed out that mineral demand persists. That means denial of the boundary water mine means minerals are coming from some other mine. My opinion on that statement is based on the subject matter of the most relevant scientific report that I can find on this which I have linked but people continually gloss over it as though it does not exist. The critical minerals program was started during obama administration, the last report was published during the biden administration is the governmental task force designated to investigate critical mineral supply and demand. As far as I can, not a single person in this thread has provided a substantive response as to why supply and demand data is not overwhelming pointed in the direction of more mineral mining. Thats not my opinion. Thats the science and data that I have reviewed from that work group and those reports. Please link a report or some science, anything, if the data points somewhere else.

Critical Minerals and Materials Program

The DOE Critical Minerals & Materials Program coordinates RD&D into strategic resources across DOE.

www.energy.gov

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/doe-critical-material-assessment_07312023.pdf

I have made it pretty clear that my ire for much of this mining push lays with energy policy because that is a policy direction that was and is pushed as the environmentally friendly option for conservationist and public land users and hunters. Lets look at it from another "we don't need mining" perspective, You do not even need to go as far as cellphone technology for the consumptive users of copper such as that coming from the Boundary Waters mine. The users and staff here and on places hunt talk should consider what their business is based around when visualizing mineral supply and demand. Shooting high powered rifles is a virtually 100% consumptive use of lead or copper with no possibility of recovery for recycling. The boundary waters mine is primarily driven by demand for copper. Much of the Hunttalk community, the conservation community, environmental community have decided that copper is the environmentally-friendly alternative to lead for bullet construction. If not copper, lead is the bullet material of choice. The in-permitting AK mine that many in the conservation world are objecting to has a large lead production component. As end users of copper and lead, the shooting community should ask themselves the question, Where is this bullet I am sending down range coming from? If people say, we will just recycle to get copper and lead. You shooting that bullet down range removes it from the supply chain. So shooting is not compatible with the recycled materials model for lead and copper. People would be correct to point out shooting is very small component of copper and lead use; however, sustainability is a core tenant of conservation and environmental policy. It does not appear that a case can be made that shooting lead and copper ammunition is sustainable in a long term recycling model for mineral supply and demand. The only generative source of these material that I see in development is AMD leachate processing and that technology and supply stream is not close to adequate for demand. (I saw a "land fills will meet copper demand" case in this thread. Mining landfills is an interesting concept and one i would fully support. Is difficult and often impractical in terms of environmental liability. And completely uncertain in terms of the amount of recoverable product that will result).

Again, I am not shilling for Trump. I am not endorsing either one of these mines. I object to the boundary water mine because I do not think the juice is worth the squeeze. The truth is that I don't even really have a particular love of mines having grown up in mine and legacy mine issue country. But for the people saying..."we do not need mines or i am just not seeing how this mine helps the supply chain or i am just looking for nonbiased information", please read the report and look at the links. As far as I can tell the DoE series of reports and program is as nonbiased and comprehensive as you will find. The conclusions of the reports from those multiagency collaborations appear obvious in regards to supply and demand as well as national security to me. Most people recognize pretty quickly when someone just does not want a project to go through by any means necessary and when they are actually looking for facts or data. In this case, its the former not the latter for many of the people in this thread in regards to the supply and demand data based on the reports and data I am looking at. The environmental aspect and natural resource protection for users and benefactors of the boundary waters seems like the objection with obvious substance in this case, not a "this does not increase domestic mineral supply" case.

Where are other perspective US copper mines located? Here is a primarily copper mine I could find in the mining permits pending. If your objection to mining is that it has to be a US company, this mine appears to meet that criteria although I have not fully reviewed their corporate structure.

https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/fast-41-covered-projects/contango-ore-johnson-tract-critical-metals-project

When people ask "Why does it seem like you are supporting the mine if you object?" The answer is simply. I am providing a critical analysis of the data in front me. If asked about the mine, my response might be similar to any canned response you might see an NGO put out, "I don't like this mine from an environmental perspective mainly because the potential water quality issues disproportionally outweigh the potential financial liability of a long term environmental issue. It presents a lot of risk to a resource that is reliant on exceptional quality. An exceptionally high number of citizens cherish this publicly available resource and it creates a sustainable long term income stream for many citizens in that area. Most of the people I hear voice concern of the mine share that sentiment. A serious environmental problem in this type of area has the potential to create extremely negative public sentiment towards the domestic mining supply chain which appears to be important commercially for a wide range industries within the United States. Just public sentiment may slow permitting or development or outright cancel other projects that have substantial ore deposits with less environmental risk."

As far as supply and demand as well as national security goes. I see very little substance for what anti-mining posters have presented here. Adding another mine increases supply. There is little distinction between mines owned by a foreign conglomerate or a domestic 1 for the supply chain. Processing the mined ore is one of the limiting constraints to a fully us supply chain and no one is going to spend 100s of millions of dollars to permit, build, and operate a smelter in the US unless there is a sustainable stream of product that can be smelted and sold on to customers at a competitive rate with foreign based processors. Maybe someone with first hand experience in this industry can correct me.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Using modern technology (iPhones) and not supporting the twin metals mine are not mutually exclusive!!!

Show me the case where we have to choose or the other. It’s a simple, lazy argument that misses all of the important details unique to this specific situation. A lot like the national security one.

I know this will fall on deaf ears.

Super easy to create a false dichotomy to dismiss the very real complaints, especially when those complaints assume that the person reading them has some level of rationality.

Mining isn't inherently evil. Copper mining is problematic in how it is conducted. There is no real way for the chemistry and volumes to work without some level of pollution, so we really need to decide how much toxic chemical we want in our pristine wildernesses and weigh that against the value of allowing a foreign mining interest to take these raw materials and ship them to china to make cheap baubles for our entertainment.

I'm sure that they'll do better this time, though...

https://environmentamerica.org/minnesota/updates/chile-fines-multinational-mining-company-antofagasta-for-environmental-compliance-violations/

 

[cq0302]

This is a silly statement. By that metric most Americans opinion would be null and void on anything to do with land management on public lands.

As it should be. A VAST majority of Americans should not be allowed to make decisions in this regard. Particularly almost all politicians and corporations whom stand to gain monetarily through its use. I’m not saying I’m a SME, but I trust people that are, such as my mentor, frank. People that have experience and know what the hell they are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cq0302]

[mention]CJ19 [/mention] hell of a response my man. I’m with you, I’m just unwilling to expend as much energy as you for the sake of an online forum lol. Which does make it har to understand my true pov. Thank you for putting the sources out there. If I wasn’t clear, I’m also not opposed to mining. I am opposed to this mine. My comment about need was more deeply rooted in the fact that people mistakes needs and desires. Humans only need food, shelter, water. Necessities of to maintain modern life, economics, national defense are another topic. It’s a bit of a rage bait, but fundamentally true in my opinion, and a very long discussion at that. I would have it in person, not online.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roosterdown]

Why does this mine need to be American owned? What's your reasoning for that?

So when it goes sideways, I can light my torch, grab my pitchfork and get a-pokin' without an overseas flight.

 

[Dos Perros]

So when it goes sideways, I can light my torch, grab my pitchfork and get a-pokin' without an overseas flight.

I wish I could have said it as succinctly as this, but this.

 

[CJ19]

[mention]CJ19 [/mention] hell of a response my man. I’m with you, I’m just unwilling to expend as much energy as you for the sake of an online forum lol. Which does make it har to understand my true pov. Thank you for putting the sources out there. If I wasn’t clear, I’m also not opposed to mining. I am opposed to this mine. My comment about need was more deeply rooted in the fact that people mistakes needs and desires. Humans only need food, shelter, water. Necessities of to maintain modern life, economics, national defense are another topic. It’s a bit of a rage bait, but fundamentally true in my opinion, and a very long discussion at that. I would have it in person, not online.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand what you are saying and appreciate you taking the time to read all or part of it. I have low confidence that many people read an entire post that long or click on the links.

Here are 2 additional figures for anyone interested not direct at you cq0302. I forgot to include them in my post.

 

[cq0302]

I understand what you are saying and appreciate you taking the time to read all or part of it. I have low confidence that many people read an entire post that long or click on the links.

Here are 2 additional figures for anyone interested not direct at you cq0302. I forgot to include them in my post.

View attachment 1056363

View attachment 1056364

Interesting, based on the critical minerals study it seems there certainly will be a need for more mines in the not so distant future. I’m not sure I understand how much more is needed just looking at that and what that actually means for number of mines. Coming from the oil industry it’s easy for me to conceptualize what a barrel is and how many wells it takes to run the country. It’s harder for me to conceptualize mining volumes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ19]

Interesting, based on the critical minerals study it seems there certainly will be a need for more mines in the not so distant future. I’m not sure I understand how much more is needed just looking at that and what that actually means for number of mines. Coming from the oil industry it’s easy for me to conceptualize what a barrel is and how many wells it takes to run the country. It’s harder for me to conceptualize mining volumes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure either as I am not a expert in mining. I think the generalized answer is obvious though. It depends on what scale and productivity of each mined asset look like. I will link some sources I found helpful and interesting. Here is a link to a WEF article which some people will think means I am tinfoil hatting or some such thing.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/05/critical-minerals-energy-transition-supply-chain-challenges/

I am less interested in the article's commentary than I was in the amalgamation of figures which are relevant to your question and are from sources I would consider generally reliable. So for instance, when asking "why this mine?", posters might consider that canceling this mine means...years until the next permit comes through. There is also some copper specific material in the article as well. One piece of commentary in the article that I found interesting was this line in regards to the "How Many More Mines? questions: "The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that demand for critical minerals will need to triple by 2030 and quadruple by 2040 if we are to achieve net-zero emissions." .

When skimming through the prefeasibility report published in 2014 for this mine, I examined the Markets portion of the report. The report relied upon Wood Mackenzie for the Markets portions of the report, so I went to WMs website to learn about WM. Others may also find it insightful so I will provide a link. It seems very clear as to what Wood Mackenzie think is driving this type of mine development forward.

Energy transition | Guide

The energy transition is well underway. Discover what the future holds for renewable energy and what clean disruption means for your business.

www.woodmac.com

I would examine the prefeasibility study for the mine to get technical information on production. That study is easily searchable and publicly available. Maybe something I posted will help you with your comment.