If you read one thing today about this issue, read his article, here:
Prior to investing in new resource colonies, multinational mining corporations frequently change a country’s mining laws to remove restrictions on foreign ownership, reduce taxes, ease environmental protections and guarantee access to water supplies needed for mining.
During the 1990s, under pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, over 90 states in the Global South changed their mining laws to attract foreign mining investment. These neocolonial measures, often called “neoliberal reforms,” are now being used to open up new mining projects in the Lake Superior region of Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
Nothing like a sociology professor getting all the facts wrong. There will actually be very little overburden removed from the penokee mine and any sulfides are minimal (just above detectable levels according to geological testing) and are easily managed so that they will not affect the surrounding waters. A federal judge concluded the amount of pollution at the Flambeau mine was minimal and the company’s environmental practices were “exemplary.”
ReplyDeleteLets get this mining bill passed and get Wisconsin back on the road to economic recovery. The sociology professors can continue to profess their nonsense, while the rest of us drill, blast and dig.
No real information here, just another nutty professor living off the public dole opposing industry which ultimately provides the prosperity that allows society to hire professors.
ReplyDeleteAh, there they are. The anonymous commenters who attack the messenger. Gedicks knows his stuff. The science he references was presented at state legislative hearings.
ReplyDeleteImagine that! Wisconsin being colonized by The Cline Group, of West Virginia. Of course, our Native Americans are on to them, due to a sorrowful history of trusting the white man; Tom Tiffany and Mary Williams can't wait to be sodom- I mean colonized. They're stupid enough to think they are the colonizers.
ReplyDeleteThe “science” he references is easily debunked by anyone with a google search engine. You Madison liberals are really funny.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the right-wing anonymous trolls posting here do not bother to tell us where they got this dubious information they've been posting.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the basis for the claim that overburden from the mine (900 million tons, from what I've heard) is "minimal?"
Who says the sulfides in the overburden are "barely detectable?" (And even if they are, what would be the effect of 900 million tons
of this "barely detectable" stuff?).
And who is the Federal judge who said the Flambeau mine's environmental record was "exemplary?" Last I heard, Judge Crabb had rules that the mine was still in violation of the Clean Water Act. (http://standfortheland.com/2012/07/25/court-rules-flambeau-model-mine-in-violation-of-clean-water-act/)
Someday, perhaps, a mining advocate will actually tell the truth about something. But I'm not holding my breath.
Stand with the Bad River tribe and oppose the mining bill in Ashland next Saturday 9am at the AmericInn. miigwech
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteThe “science” he references is easily debunked by anyone with a google search engine."
Well, you have a Google search engine. Find a debunking, big boy.
Except you won't. The Penokees have a top layer that is loaded with pyrite: the Ironwood Formation. Shaving it off means acid mine drainage.
This isn't rocket science. This is high school chemistry. The GOP's science denial has gotten that thorough.
I’ll make it a little easier for you. Google: mining engineer debunks liberal
ReplyDeleteLet me make it even easier: The ore body is over twice as wide as the opponents say and they will not be taking all of the ore out of the north wall and the mining opponents failed to realize that the mine is on a hill, not level ground, and so there will be very little overburden, which by the way contains very little sulfide.
It is also interesting that they are missing the point about the laws that protect our water being changed.
ReplyDeleteExcellent informative article
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteLet me make it even easier: The ore body is over twice as wide as the opponents say and they will not be taking all of the ore out of the north wall and the mining opponents failed to realize that the mine is on a hill, not level ground, and so there will be very little overburden, which by the way contains very little sulfide. "
Care to explain, Mr. mining engineer, how the mine being on a hill takes care of the overburden? This is an open pit mine. It's not like they will just tunnel underneath the overburden. They fully intend to shave it completely and dump it. As to the sulfide content of the Ironwood Formation, Gogebic has samples. If they want to make the claim that there isn't a lot of pyrite in it, they can present proof. Everything I've found indicates the place is loaded with it.
Today's NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE has
ReplyDeletelots of info on what oil 'mining'
is doing to North Dakota. Scary to say the least. And exactly what
will happen Up North should Walker and Company's proposed legislation becomes law.
James, you have continually provided links to excellent information on the mining bill. Al Gedicks's piece gives a superb detailed summary of the mining issues in Wisconsin over the past few decades. To all the anonymous trolls displaying ignorance on this blog, all I can say is you get no respect when you don't point to any actual detailed information anywhere on the web to support your claims. Your ravings are empty and your choice to post under anonymous betrays your cowardice as a citizen.
ReplyDeleteLet me just say that,whether the mine goes thru or not , the area in question needs jobs. So maybe if you so called intellects would put all this effort into finding ways to create jobs instead of this bs then we the people of this area will have some quality of life and not depend on entitlement programs
ReplyDeleteA.) The fact that the area desperately needs jobs should provide the best argument against the mine. There are many times more jobs that depend on recreation, local food independence, and sustainable technique than the mine will ever provide, cleanup at taxpayer expense included.
ReplyDeleteB.) Gocebic Taconite Corp has the cores, taken on public lands, that are the only evidence available.
Yes, the state should take some cores, but that would require strengthening the regulations, and funding, in the public interest.
If these proprietary cores contain information that proves the mine tailings will not leach sulfides, then why doesn't Gogebic release such information to bolster their case?
The corporation that has written the new bill, and owns all the information that might support their claims has not released the relevant information, and have revealed a history of lying to us.
Last year they said they were not going to mine the area after their bill failed to pass, yet they are still working to pass such a bill.
In what manner does any citizen expect such obfuscation and lying to be perpetuated in the interests of Wisconsin's citizens and workforce?