When Susan Sommer, Phelps, WI, one of Senator Tom Tiffany’s constituents, requested his explanation of GTac’s apparent attempt to mislead the public by presenting two different mine diagrams, she received this email response. Following are our comments on his talking points inserted in red within the original letter. He never did answer the question, but rather submitted this canned propaganda.
Thank you for contacting my office with your thoughts on Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) relating to the regulation of mining. I always appreciate hearing from the people I represent.
Senate Bill 1 will create new regulations for taconite mines, more commonly known as iron ore.
Semantically speaking, Iron ore is not a taconite mine. And the new law does not just cover taconite mines. It covers all types of iron mining.
Currently, Wisconsin has two different types of mining regulations; one type that regulates the mining of non metallic deposits (sand and gravel) and metallic mining standards, including copper, gold, and silver. From a purely scientific standpoint, it does not make sense to regulate iron ore in the same way as other metallic minerals. Taconite mining targets iron in the ore body, not sulfides. “From a purely scientific standpoint,” it DOES make sense to regulate iron mining with the same rules as sulfide mining. Just because one targets iron, not copper, zinc, gold or silver, does not mean sulfides won’t be encountered. It is now widely known, for example, that both the overburden and the ore in the Penokees contain acid-producing sulfur compounds.
If sulfides are encountered, the bill necessitates the DNR to require a management plan to prevent acid drainage. If sulfides are encountered, when? If a permit has already been issued and then during the mining process, sulfides are encountered, it is possibly too late to do anything definitive about it. The current law has adequate requirements for the mining company to show how they will treat the sulfides before a permit is issued.
(Sulfide based mining generally processes metals using hazardous chemicals whereas ferrous mining extracts sand using water and magnets). Extracts SAND? You can pick up SAND with magnets. A breakthrough.
Blasting and unleashing. It is not in the actual mining, extracting the iron ore from the ground, but in the processing plant that the water and magnets are used. At that point, the overburden and the ore have already been removed by the same method as sulfide mining— blasting, shoveling, trucking—and if they did contain sulfides, they have been unleashed—exposed to the elements to form acid drainage.
The iron field that is the site of the proposed mine is part of the rock formation called the Duluth Complex, which sweeps from Upper Michigan and Northern Wisconsin, up to Hibbing, Minnesota. The Duluth Complex is the single richest field of iron ore in the world.
Wrong. The ironwood formation in the Penokee Range is not part of the Duluth Complex . . .it occurred 800 million years after the deposition of the iron formation and is totally unrelated. Tom is only 800 million years off. A million here, a million there, no big deal from a "purely scientific standpoint."
Susan,
Thank you for contacting my office with your thoughts on Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) relating to the regulation of mining. I always appreciate hearing from the people I represent.
Senate Bill 1 will create new regulations for taconite mines, more commonly known as iron ore. Currently, Wisconsin has two different types of mining regulations; one type that regulates the mining of non metallic deposits (sand and gravel) and metallic mining standards, including copper, gold, and silver. From a purely scientific standpoint, it does not make sense to regulate iron ore in the same way as other metallic minerals. Taconite mining targets iron in the ore body, not sulfides. If sulfides are encountered, the bill necessitates the DNR to require a management plan to prevent acid drainage. (Sulfide based mining generally processes metals using hazardous chemicals whereas ferrous mining extracts sand using water and magnets).
The iron field that is the site of the proposed mine is part of the rock formation called the Duluth Complex, which sweeps from Upper Michigan and Northern Wisconsin, up to Hibbing, Minnesota. The Duluth Complex is the single richest field of iron ore in the world. The mine proposed in northern Wisconsin has enough iron ore to be mined for the next 100 years, bringing thousands of living-wage jobs (salaries and benefits of approximately $80,000 dollars a year). These mining jobs have a multiplier effect that could create up to two to three jobs in other industries in northern Wisconsin, an area that has been devastated by the decline of the timber industry and economic recession.
My two goals in advancing this legislation are to ensure that Wisconsin’s high environmental protections are maintained and that an applicant has certainty. SB 1 does not change air quality emission limits, groundwater quality standards, safe drinking water standards, or effluent limitations. This bill does not automatically permit a mine, and any applicant looking to locate a mine in our state will have to meet a rigid set of environmental protections. The Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency will need to approve the necessary permits, but these regulatory agencies will not issue permits unless environmental protections are met.
We all want to have a clean environment because it is important for us now and for future generations. We must have a balanced policy that protects the environment and allows for the utilization of natural resources. In order to maintain and enhance our standard of living in Wisconsin, it is critical that we allow for the utilization of material resources in an environmentally friendly manner. I believe Senate Bill 1 will allow that to happen.
A twelve hour public hearing was held on Senate Bill 1 on January 22, 2013 in the Senate Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue. The committee took executive action on February 6, 2013. After working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and listening to testimony at the public hearing, I introduced a number of amendments. These amendments are not only bipartisan, but they also make the environmental protections included in SB 1 even stronger. The amendments were adopted and the bill will now move to the Joint Committee on Finance for a vote.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
The mine proposed in northern Wisconsin has enough iron ore to be mined for the next 100 years,
No proof that this can or will be mined for 100 years. In fact, no details have been provided to show that a mine is even economically feasible at all. When asked for specifics, GTac declines to answer. They could, for example, choose to take only the top 100-150 feet, the easy stuff to get, a process called high grading, which would only take a few years. Point is, we simply don’t know cuz they’re not sayin.
bringing thousands of living-wage jobs (salaries and benefits of approximately $80,000 dollars a year). These mining jobs have a multiplier effect that could create up to two to three jobs
Ask GTac to prove this one. First, when we did ask what the jobs would be, they either wouldn’t talk or at one point they said something like, “oh, we don’t know that yet.” Second, GTac officials continue to tout the fact that the technology of a modern mine will make it more competitive than the older mines in MI and MN. Does that mean, then, that driverless trucks will be used instead of truck drivers? Once again, no specifics. We’re being asked to change our laws quickly and to blindly believe what they say, which isn’t much.
in other industries in northern Wisconsin, an area that has been devastated by the decline of the timber industry and economic recession.
Here Tiffany strategically avoids the controversial problem of boom and bust. It was the closing of the mines in the ‘60’s that caused an economic downturn in the area. Today it is the recession combined with a cultural attitude. While a small portion of the county may be "devastated," though nothing like Appalachia, the majority is beautiful and prosperous. Those who wish to stay in the area and find work, do so by tailoring their education to career fields in demand by the community. There are employers who can’t find qualified people to work for them. How many of the unemployed in northern WI will be likely to find work in a mine, especially when mines in MN and MI have been laying off qualified workers?
My two goals in advancing this legislation are to ensure that Wisconsin’s high environmental protections are maintained and that an applicant has certainty. SB 1 does not change air quality emission limits, groundwater quality standards, safe drinking water standards, or effluent limitations.
So in order to maintain standards of air and water quality, do we simply tell people they shouldn’t drink their water when its concentration of toxic substances exceeds the standards? Do we then provide, like they did in the shale fields in PA, bottled water for them? Furthermore, permission to fill wetlands, streams, and lakes with mining waste because that’s where the ore is hardly seems like high environmental protection.
This bill does not automatically permit a mine, and any applicant looking to locate a mine in our state will have to meet a rigid set of environmental protections. The Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection Agency will need to approve the necessary permits, but these regulatory agencies will not issue permits unless environmental protections are met.
The state should be the first line of defense to protect our environment..
We all want to have a clean environment because it is important for us now and for future generations. We must have a balanced policy that protects the environment and allows for the utilization of natural resources. In order to maintain and enhance our standard of living in Wisconsin, it is critical that we allow for the utilization of material resources in an environmentally friendly manner. I believe Senate Bill 1 will allow that to happen.
Lofty goal; why rush into a law change without fully understanding the implications and without the transparency so vital to our democracy.
A twelve hour public hearing was held on Senate Bill 1 on January 22, 2013 in the Senate Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue. The committee took executive action on February 6, 2013. After working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and listening to testimony at the public hearing, I introduced a number of amendments. These amendments are not only bipartisan, but they also make the environmental protections included in SB 1 even stronger. Representative Bewley and Representative Clark are on record as being dismayed that their names were mentioned at the Tiffany, Honadel, Suder press conference on the amendments as having been part of the bipartisan effort to produce same. Both indicated this was a distortion of their contact with the mining committees.
The amendments were adopted and the bill will now move to the Joint Committee on Finance for a vote.
Yippee
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. But I won't bother to answer your question