Thursday, October 31, 2013

Mining Conflict Claims Scientist

Round one goes to GTAC mining, which alleged a government researcher was biased:

A geologist with the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey who found himself in the middle of a controversy over a proposed open-pit mine in the north woods says he's resigning after enduring weeks of on-the-job pressure over a rock containing asbestos-like material found at the mine site. 
Let's hope round two doesn't go to asbestos. It doesn't discriminate between the lungs of pro and anti-mining downwind and downstream. 


Anonymous said...

I recently spoke with two senior geologists. Neither is anti-mining. One worked many years with Kennecott mining and the other has ancestors he proudly dates back to Cornish miners in Wales. Both are frequently asked to consult with mining companies.

They think GTAC is nuts if they think can operate this open pit mine in any sort of responsible manner. Neither was surprised by the asbestos as it was not a secret this strata was loaded with asbestos. The pyrite (iron sulfide) in the capstone assures problems with rain creating sulfuric acid from the wasterock. One noted the millions of dollars in Federal fines that the Cline Group has amassed due to its disregard of mining laws. They mocked GTAC’s idea to pump the water out of the long closed Montreal Mine under Hurley to then fill with wasterock. The water in the mine is highly toxic due to the metals. They wondered where the water would go. Lake Superior?

These two mining experts said was not to expect more than 150 jobs to be created by the mine because of modern mining methods.

GTAC has gone far bribing and bullying. They must be stopped. Otherwise the “certain disaster” predicted by these two senior geologists will come true.

James Rowen said...

I would be glad to publish their views.

Anonymous said...


I can ask. But I don't think this is how these two operate. They seem apolitical to me, which is why I was rather shocked when they opened up on GTAC.

I would expect them to directly express their professional analysis to those involved with the decision whether to permit this mine or not. They do have a high level of professional respect among geologists because these two really earned it. I don't think they would choose the public arena where politics would drown out scientific facts, such as what happened to Huberty.

But I will ask.

Anonymous said...


Let me tell you a bit more about them. Neither is shy and both are willing and able to say what they think, as their heavy criticism of GTAC testifies. I remember the one ranting last year when a judge fined Flambeau Mine at Ladysmith something like $300 in a lawsuit brought by environmentalists. This is considered a victory for the owners of Flambeau Mine. This geologist in a public meeting opened up on the environmentalists for pursuing this lawsuit. He felt that the Flambeau Mine owners did an excellent job at responsible mining and post-mining remediation of the land. He noted how they fastidiously did not violate the rule to mine closer than 70 feet of the Flambeau River even though there was a rich vein of gold exposed there.

If they won’t speak publicly about their concerns for GTAC, I will urge them to express their analysis to parties involved with the permitting process.

Anonymous said...

If this mine is so viable, why didn't they mine it in the 1950 when they were doing exploration?