Cleveland-Cliffs & Northshore Mining, for shame

Where the rain never falls and the sun never shines,
It's dark as a dungeon, way down in the mines.

Nothing, but nothing, epitomizes the greed of big corporations more than the innocuous-sounding "surface mining" that is destroying Appalachia just to pull more tons of filthy coal from the mountains. Filthy coal, that sends megatons of carbon emissions into the air along with other pollutants, filthy coal that Minnesota Power burns at Taconite Harbor and releases into our airshed, filthy coal that could within a decade or two choke all of us trying to breathe. This we knew, or at least True knew.
But the merger of Cleveland-Cliffs with the Appalachian coal mining company with the Orwellian name of Alpha Natural Resources makes us accomplices. Last year alone in Kentucky, 50 million tons of coal were dredged from the surface of the Appalachian mountain range by, among other methods, cutting off the tops of the mountains and throwing them down into the valleys. The mountaintops are called "overburden." I shit you not.
Compare this with the five million tons of magnetite pellets being produced annually by Northshore Mining, a subsidiary of Babbitt-based Cleveland-Cliffs, now to be known as Cliffs Natural Resources, "A Leading Diversified Mining and Natural Resources Company."
It is time for residents of northern Minnesota to admit their culpability. The mountaintop leveling now supported by the merged company surely ranks right up their with the proposed Polymet copper-nickel mine that will create dead zones in our watershed.
Where is your outrage, North Shore citizens? What will you leave of earth, water and air to your children? Here's a link to the Duluth Tribune story that conveniently glosses over the devastating truth:

Duluth News Tribune | Cleveland-Cliffs announces merger with Appalachian coal company in $10 billion deal

Let them eat Triscuits

Dear readers,
Who will speak for those of us devastated by rampant inflation of food, gas, heat and electricity? Hmm, looks like it is up to little old me...
What is the deal here in Cook County? While the busy-ness elected officials continue to seek new sales taxes-a regressive burden on the poor-look out! Prices are rising at alarming rates.
Maybe not so surprising, since the world we know is also disintegrating (carbon emissions, melting Arctic permafrost releasing methane that humans can't breathe...)
Back to the point: True tries to eat right while respecting sustainable agriculture. For True, this does not mean buying organic fruits and vegetables! Ya ya it is the right thing to do BUT...
True is broke. So far not reduced to seeking macaroni from the food shelf, but no way being able to afford organic produce. Is that a sin?
There's a disconnect here. The rich can afford to buy organic, but I can't. I still owe big bucks for my winter fuel bills. My well water line doesn't work.
And yet I get guilt-tripped by the organic PC club?
Hello, folks. I used to have Triscuits and (Wisconsin, no hormones) cheese for dinner. Ya? When you are old and creaky maybe this will look good to you too.
Somehow I manage to buy fairly healthy food for myself and my beloved companion animals.
But, I won't be buying any more Triscuits, my former fave, 100 percent whole wheat with no trans fats.
Last week the price of a box was $3.19 for 9.5 ounces (a reach, by the pound this would buy some very fancy cheese at the coop); this week it is $4.00....
Like lots of poor folks, I can still get fat on the cheap stuff: white bread, pasta, potatoes, and corn chips. Nobody in Cook County need go without Kraft Dinner! Yum yum, everybody loves comfort food...
But what to do to make a difference in this world where people in Burma starve without even empty calories? True can't afford to make a difference!

Scrubbing the air

True hates ugly, smelly, polluting and global-warming coal plants. Minnesota Power's Tac Harbor project was reviewed in this Strib story. Two points of interest:
One, "air shed." This means the area covered by polluting toxic emissions from Tac Harbor and it covers all of Cook County including our national and state forests. The glowing PowerPoint presentations by MP don't really say much about this damage. They are basically trying to keep their filthy coal plant going far into the future by posing as cutting edge clean.
Two, "scrubbing" to reduce mercury and other toxic emissions has ZERO effect on global warming. Read the story below.
True

Scrubbing the air

Congressman James L Oberstar -- National Bill Supports Minnesota Kids and Families

Good news from our great Rep. Oberstar:

Congressman James L Oberstar -- National Bill Supports Minnesota Kids and Families

The Earthquake That Screamed “NO NUKES!!!” - CommonDreams.org

If there are any folks in Boreal Land who still think nuclear energy is clean and safe, check out this post from Common Dreams today:

The Earthquake That Screamed “NO NUKES!!!” - CommonDreams.org

Japan nuke plant leak worse than thought - Yahoo! News

Here's a late-breaking story that proves my point. "Worse than thought," Ha! Worse than admitted is more to the point.

Japan nuke plant leak worse than thought - Yahoo! News

Ice Nine

The so-called "clean" nuclear energy is a fraud perpetrated by the powerful energy industry and their well-paid Bushco apologists. The truth has been, would you believe, concealed from the public consistently over many years.

Nuclear power is the closest we have yet come to Ice Nine, that destroyer of life posited by dear Kurt Vonnegut: adding a molecule to ice enabled it to bond to every molecule of water, and guess what? Ice Nine took over everything.

True will be hammering the horrors and dangers of nuclear power home early and often from now on.

Beginning with this news story today:


Nuclear Power No Panacea, Critics Say - CommonDreams.org

Reasons Not to GlowOn Not Jumping Out of The Frying Pan Into The Eternal Fires - CommonDreams.org

True is nearly as old as Woody Guthrie. Surely old enough to remember Chernobyl and angry NIMBY debates about nuclear waste disposal.

Shock and awe, to learn that some Sixties apostates ala Newt G and Gang are now trumpeting nuclear power as the "clean" energy solution. Not, not, not. Nuclear power is even more dirty than coal mining, even more invasive than carbon emissions, even more evil than the Iraq war for oil.

There is NO safe nuclear power, whether to nuke Iran with or to create radioactive peacetime waste that won't self-destruct for a zillion years. I would have thought that we might have learned by now the dreadful lessons of Hiroshima, But. Maybe not, since the Japs were the enemy. Does it make a difference that in the 1950's American civilians were the innocent subjects of military experiments in nuclear and chemical weapons in schools and neighborhoods? That some of these citizens, including one dear friend of True, have died or nearly died from the toxic results of these cruel games akin to pulling the wings off of butterflies?

Reasons Not to GlowOn Not Jumping Out of The Frying Pan Into The Eternal Fires - CommonDreams.org

Better living through electricity in the 21st century

Dear True,
When I was a kid in the 1950's "Better Living Through Electricity" was a watch word. In class we saw movies made by General Electric about the wonders of dishwashers, refrigerators, washing machines, and even vacuum cleaners that transformed the life of the family.
There's been a lot of water over the dam in the last half-century or so. We've learned about global warming, carbon dioxide emissions, dirty plants that rely on filthy coal, and the terrible risks of nuclear energy. We've been told to decrease our carbon footprint on the earth, and to start by buying new light bulbs. We've done our best but blaming the victims doesn't really solve the problem.
We've been fed a fat lot of fluff about .... for example, the Minnesota Power cutting edge technology to reduce the damage from its Tac Harbor coal plant emissions which does not address the crucial issue of using coal in the first place.
Anyway, to the point. Yesterday the Grand Marais Public Utilities Commission announced a day-long shutdown of power in the west end of its service district.
I am a recipient of power in this district. I am given to understand that power will be shut off during at least 10 hours of the day tomorrow.
Insult to injury? Also yesterday the PUC invaded my land and cut down trees, more trees than we had agreed upon, in order to allow their Bobcat access to my power line. I was still grieving for the loss of my trees, and for the destruction of my footpath to the power line.
When I realized that a path at least double the four feet I agreed to had been cleared, leaving no vegetation or trees between my cabin and the power line, it was too late. My personally owned woods were utterly destroyed.
So. To proceed to tomorrow, when the PUC has announced its intention to cut off my power for at least 10 hours beginning at 9 a.m.
What can possibly justify such a long shutdown?
I am the unfortunate victim of the Better Living lobby; I can't do a single damn thing without electric power. I can't brew a cup of coffee, or give well water to my pets to drink, or cook on my stove, or turn on a fan, or work at my computer, or make a phone call, or check my email, or ensure the safety of the food in my refrigerator, or even tell the time. My friends and clients won't be able to reach me...
Some years back the PUC trashed the residents of Rec Park and demanded fantastic fee increases. They got away with it despite letters to the papers from dozens of long-term summer friends. This in fact was a gambit in a larger play to get rid of Rec Park and replace it with a super-sized marina, which thanks to our new and wise City Council has failed. Cheers to the new City Council!
Still. Today I am only writing to protest the 10-plus hours in which I can neither work nor eat nor drink water nor cook nor wash nor use the accoutrements of my home office business.

Nancye Belding
Grand Marais

Why am I not surprised?

Dear True,
I have been reading with interest the recent posts that taconite dust can cause cancer and that the public officials charged with public safety have withheld this information from workers.
Hmm, I just have one comment. This concerns the statements by some powers that be that there is no reason to suspect any culprit other than asbestos in the killer cancer.
I am a descendant of Appalachian coal miners from the Kentucky mountains. From my earliest memories I heard about "black lung disease." The lungs turn black from exposure to coal dust. Let's not quibble about coal, taconite, or asbestos. They all are poisonous.
Duh, it seems like a no-brainer to me. In the 50 years since my childhood, other poisons have entered the environment freely and what was once "only" a lung affliction has now turned to the deadliest cancer.
Nancye Belding
Grand Marais

Dirty Mines? Mine water quality predictions often wrong

Dear readers,
Please bear with us on mining pollution, it ultimately affects the North Shore in a multitude of ways. To name only one: the filthy use of coal in the power generation that provides our electricity.
True


By CHRISTOPHER SMITH Associated Press, December 7, 2006

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Conservationists say water quality predictions prepared by federal land management agencies as part of the permitting process for precious metal mines during the past 25 years were routinely off the mark in concluding the mines would not cause water pollution.

"When we compared the government's predictions with actual water quality reports we found the predictions did not generally agree with reality," said Ann Maest, a water quality geochemist from Boulder, Colo., who co-authored the study released Thursday by the Washington, D.C.-based conservation group Earthworks. "Over three-quarters of the mines we reviewed in detail had pollution exceedances over water quality standards.

"Mining industry officials said they were still reviewing the conservation group's analysis, but questioned \n the inclusion of mines in the study that went bust, were abandoned \n and may not have been built to agreed-upon environmental protection standards."There may be some things in this report that we certainly need to act upon, but it looks to me like a quarter of the mines they decided to look at are abandoned and that may be a little unfair," said Carol Raulston of the National Mining Association in Washington. "There are some mines in their database that are not characteristic of modern mining."

James Kuipers, a Butte, Mont., mining engineer who also authored the conservationists' study, said the findings that water quality protection predictions seldom hold true should prompt regulators to better scrutinize proposals for new mines, including northeast Washington state's Buckhorn gold mine, and the gold and copper Pebble mine in Alaska.

"Mines like the Rosemont copper mine in Arizona and the Atlanta gold mine in Idaho, at least as they are presently being proposed, appear to suffer from many of the same failures as those that were permitted years ago," he said. Kuipers compared the proposed Atlanta mine to the closed Zortman-Landusky mining complex in northern Montana, where taxpayers must foot the bill for treating contaminated water for decades to come.

Atlanta wants to use cyanide to leach gold from the ore left from old mines on a tributary upstream from the Boise River. Environmental groups have warned it could pollute the source of drinking water, irrigation and recreation for the state's most populous river valley.",

"The \n Boise River is more precious than gold," said John Robison of the \n Idaho Conservation League.Many of the failures of the water \n quality predictions in the permit-approval studies were due to \n regulators ignoring previous experiences with hard rock mines, \n relying on private consultants who have a bias toward satisfying \n mining clients and failing to take adequate samples to determine \n overall impacts, Maest said."At the proposed Rock Creek Mine \n in Montana, under a designated wilderness area, they have used only \n a handful of ore and waste samples from the site to predict the \n amount of acid drainage," she said. "They need to look at more \n samples."Raulston said the mining industry has launched an \n acid drainage initiative to find ways to better prevent the \n discharge of acidic pollutants and heavy metals such as arsenic, \n cadmium, mercury and lead that are leached out of rock during mining \n and can be deadly to stream ecosystems. And, modern mines are \n continually monitoring water quality and adjusting operations to \n prevent pollution discharge, she said."They are required to \n look at what is happening on the ground and recalibrate those \n prediction models if the assumptions don\'t match what they are \n seeing," she said. "This notion that these prediction models are \n faith-based initiatives is just not something that really happens in \n our experience."___On the Net:Earthworks \n mine water quality report: http://www.mine-aid.org/National \n Mining Association: ",1]
);
//-->
"The Boise River is more precious than gold," said John Robison of the Idaho Conservation League.Many of the failures of the water quality predictions in the permit-approval studies were due to regulators ignoring previous experiences with hard rock mines, relying on private consultants who have a bias toward satisfying mining clients and failing to take adequate samples to determine overall impacts, Maest said."At the proposed Rock Creek Mine in Montana, under a designated wilderness area, they have used only a handful of ore and waste samples from the site to predict the amount of acid drainage," she said. "They need to look at more samples."Raulston said the mining industry has launched an acid drainage initiative to find ways to better prevent the discharge of acidic pollutants and heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead that are leached out of rock during mining and can be deadly to stream ecosystems. And, modern mines are continually monitoring water quality and adjusting operations to prevent pollution discharge, she said."They are required to look at what is happening on the ground and recalibrate those prediction models if the assumptions don't match what they are seeing," she said. "This notion that these prediction models are faith-based initiatives is just not something that really happens in our experience."___On the Net:Earthworks mine water quality report: http://www.mine-aid.org/National Mining Association:
http://www.nma.org/\n \n http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53303.html#\n \n \n http://www.mine-aid.org/\n Groundbreaking research indicates the mine \n permitting process is \n broken.\n \n Dec 7 -- \n New scientific research unveiled \n today finds that faulty water \n quality predictions and regulatory failures result in the approval \n of mines that create significant water pollution problems at \n more than three quarters of mines studied. \n \n \n The first-of-a-kind reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water \n Quality at Hardrock Mines, and Predicting \n Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art",1]
);
//-->
http://www.nma.org/

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53303.html#


http://www.mine-aid.org/
Groundbreaking research indicates the mine permitting process is broken.

Dec 7 -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems at more than three quarters of mines studied.
The first-of-a-kind reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines, and Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art
, by Jim Kuipers, \n P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality \n predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted \n in the United States during the last 25 years. \n A white paper authored by EARTHWORKS, \n Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock \n Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good \n Practice summarizes these reports and \n provides policy recommendations for \n regulators.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nNOTE: These reports are embargoed until 12/7. By \ndownloading these reports, you are agreeing not to distribute/share/publicize \nthem until that date.\n\n Comparison \n of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock \n MinesThe reliability of predictions in Environmental \n Impact Statements(1,418KB pdf document. Right click to \n save to your hard drive) \n Predicting \n Water Quality at Hardrock MinesMethods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art(1,005KB pdf \n document. Right click to save to your hard drive)",1]
);
//-->
, by Jim Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
A white paper authored by EARTHWORKS, Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good Practice summarizes these reports and provides policy recommendations for regulators.





NOTE: These reports are embargoed until 12/7. By downloading these reports, you are agreeing not to distribute/share/publicize them until that date.
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock MinesThe reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements(1,418KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive)
Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock MinesMethods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art(1,005KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive)
\n Predicting \n Water Quality Problems at Hardrock MinesA Failure of \n Science, Oversight, and Good PracticeAn EARTHWORKS white paper \n summarizing and analyzing the groundbreaking studies by Ann Maest PhD and Jim \n Kuipers, P.E. (350KB pdf document. Right click to save to \n your hard drive.) \n Independent \n reviewers of the research and conferences where the research has been \n prsented.(A 12KB pdf document. Right click to \n save to your hard drive.) \n Major \n mine databaseData on all mines considered for inclusion in \n the Maest-Kuipers research.(A 2.5MB excel workbook. Right \n click to save to your hard drive.) \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \nhttp://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm#KMREPORTS\n \n \n2006 Press Releases \nNew Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep \nMines from Polluting Water",1]
);
//-->

Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock MinesA Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good PracticeAn EARTHWORKS white paper summarizing and analyzing the groundbreaking studies by Ann Maest PhD and Jim Kuipers, P.E. (350KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive.)
Independent reviewers of the research and conferences where the research has been prsented.(A 12KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive.)
Major mine databaseData on all mines considered for inclusion in the Maest-Kuipers research.(A 2.5MB excel workbook. Right click to save to your hard drive.)






http://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm#KMREPORTS


2006 Press Releases
New Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep Mines from Polluting Water
Regulatory and Scientific Failures in Mine \nPermitting Result in Widespread Water Pollution, Increased Public Health Risks, \nand Costly Taxpayer-Funded Cleanups\nDec 7, Washington, DC -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that \nfaulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures \nresult in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution \nproblems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that \nmines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of \nstudied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and \ngroundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, \nand exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by \nthe Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups \nin as many as ten western states affected by mining.\n"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial \ncosts of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are \npermitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where \npredictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process \nis broken and must be fixed." \nThe first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual \nWater Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at \nHardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by \nKuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality \npredictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the \nUnited States during the last 25 years. \nThe scientists found that predictions of mining\'s impact on \nclean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They \nalso found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, \nincorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the \ninaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.",1]
);
//-->
Regulatory and Scientific Failures in Mine Permitting Result in Widespread Water Pollution, Increased Public Health Risks, and Costly Taxpayer-Funded Cleanups
Dec 7, Washington, DC -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that mines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of studied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and groundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, and exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by the Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups in as many as ten western states affected by mining.
"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial costs of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are permitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where predictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process is broken and must be fixed."
The first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
The scientists found that predictions of mining's impact on clean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They also found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, incorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the inaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.
\nAmong the researchers\' findings for the 25 mines examined in \ndepth:\n\n 76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or \n surface water quality standards \n 93 percent of mines that are near \n groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant \n leaching exceeded water quality standards[1] \n 85 percent of mines that are near surface \n water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching \n exceeded water quality standards \n Water quality standards for toxic heavy \n metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 \n percent of mines. \n Mitigation measures predicted to protect \n clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.\n"Regulators and mining companies have a \nresponsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, \nstate-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said \nMaest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines \nto keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable." \n\nThe researchers also found that mines located near surface or \ngroundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or \ncontaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in \nwater pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for \ncontroversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting \nincluding:\n\n Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska \n at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world\'s largest salmon \n runs. \n Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the \n Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal \n water",1]
);
//-->

Among the researchers' findings for the 25 mines examined in depth:
76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or surface water quality standards
93 percent of mines that are near groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards[1]
85 percent of mines that are near surface water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards
Water quality standards for toxic heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 percent of mines.
Mitigation measures predicted to protect clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.
"Regulators and mining companies have a responsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, state-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said Maest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines to keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable."
The researchers also found that mines located near surface or groundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or contaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in water pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for controversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting including:
Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world's largest salmon runs.
Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal water
\n Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest \n Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains \n Wilderness.\n"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, \nthis report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director \nof Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these \nfindings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, \nhealthier economies, and more responsible mining." \nSustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing \ndemand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines \nand mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed \nin 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple \nsince 2002.\nBased on the researchers\' findings, the groups releasing the \nstudies offered the following recommendations:\n\n Better screening of high-risk mines -- \n particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create \n pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching. \n Take a precautionary approach to mine \n permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios. \n Undertake a thorough review of water quality \n predictions at all existing mines. \n Keep the public informed, make risks \n transparent. \n Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine \n proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and \n analyses.\nThe reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at \nfive major conferences, including: U.S. EPA\'s Hardrock 2006 Conference in \nTucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration\'s 2006 Annual \nMeeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in \nFairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006. ",1]
);
//-->

Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, this report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director of Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these findings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, healthier economies, and more responsible mining."
Sustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing demand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines and mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed in 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple since 2002.
Based on the researchers' findings, the groups releasing the studies offered the following recommendations:
Better screening of high-risk mines -- particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching.
Take a precautionary approach to mine permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios.
Undertake a thorough review of water quality predictions at all existing mines.
Keep the public informed, make risks transparent.
Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and analyses.
The reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at five major conferences, including: U.S. EPA's Hardrock 2006 Conference in Tucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration's 2006 Annual Meeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006.
\n\n \n\n\nPredictions vs \nReality reports\n\n Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock \n Mines \n Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art \n \n Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of \n Science, Oversight, and Good Practice. An EARTHWORKS white \n paper.\n\nEarthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite \n808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org\n \n",1]
);
//-->


Predictions vs Reality reports
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines
Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art
Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good Practice. An EARTHWORKS white paper.
Earthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org

.org/cvJeanieAlderson.cfmn \nCuster National Forest, \nMT\n\nRancher Not Informed about \nMineral Leasing\nBy Jeanie \nAlderson\nMy father and two sisters own Bones Brothers Ranch, a \ncow/calf ranching operation in southeastern Montana. Like many ranches in this \npart of Montana, ours has been built over the last 110 years. We own and pay \ntaxes on 8,435 acres, and lease grazing land on the Custer National Forest. \nWhile we own some of the minerals below our land, other family members and the \nfederal government own the rest. Many of the federal minerals are under land \nthat is very close to our homes.\nI knew that the federal government owned \nminerals below our ranch; however, I knew nothing about the process of federal \nmineral leasing. In December 2000, I called a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) \nofficial in Miles City to find out if the minerals under our ranch had been \nleased for coalbed methane development. From the information I eventually \nreceived from this BLM official, I learned that five companies and individuals \nhad leased the federal minerals below our land. Although the BLM does not \ndistinguish between regular oil and gas leases and coalbed methane leases, all \nindications point to these minerals being leased for coalbed methane \ndevelopment. \nBLM never informed me they were leasing \nminerals under our ranch. BLM never asked for input regarding lease \nstipulations. I was never told about the leasing process, nor did I receive any \ninformation about the relationship between surface owners and mineral owners in \nregard to the development of federal minerals.",1]
);
//-->
http://www.earthworksaction.org/cvJeanieAlderson.cfm

Custer National Forest, MT
Rancher Not Informed about Mineral Leasing
By Jeanie Alderson
My father and two sisters own Bones Brothers Ranch, a cow/calf ranching operation in southeastern Montana. Like many ranches in this part of Montana, ours has been built over the last 110 years. We own and pay taxes on 8,435 acres, and lease grazing land on the Custer National Forest. While we own some of the minerals below our land, other family members and the federal government own the rest. Many of the federal minerals are under land that is very close to our homes.
I knew that the federal government owned minerals below our ranch; however, I knew nothing about the process of federal mineral leasing. In December 2000, I called a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official in Miles City to find out if the minerals under our ranch had been leased for coalbed methane development. From the information I eventually received from this BLM official, I learned that five companies and individuals had leased the federal minerals below our land. Although the BLM does not distinguish between regular oil and gas leases and coalbed methane leases, all indications point to these minerals being leased for coalbed methane development.
BLM never informed me they were leasing minerals under our ranch. BLM never asked for input regarding lease stipulations. I was never told about the leasing process, nor did I receive any information about the relationship between surface owners and mineral owners in regard to the development of federal minerals.
\nHad we been able to be involved in the leasing \nprocess we could have provided helpful information about our ranching operation, \nand how leasing decisions will affect our ranch. We have an intimate knowledge \nof the landscape and could have provided information about wildlife habitat, \nnative plants, unstable slopes, watersheds and so forth. We could have provided \ninformation about where not to allow drilling, and where it might be acceptable. \nThis information could have guided the leasing in a more reasonable and, \nultimately more effective, manner.\nIn the present situation, we had no input into \na process that will ultimately affect our land, water, business and lives \nforever. It seems like common sense that landowners should have more say in what \nhappens on their property, but the simple truth is that oil and gas rights take \nprecedence over surface rights.\nReprinted with permission from the Western Organization of Resource \nCouncils\n\n \nEarthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 \nWashington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org\n \n \n \n\n\n",0]
);
//-->

Had we been able to be involved in the leasing process we could have provided helpful information about our ranching operation, and how leasing decisions will affect our ranch. We have an intimate knowledge of the landscape and could have provided information about wildlife habitat, native plants, unstable slopes, watersheds and so forth. We could have provided information about where not to allow drilling, and where it might be acceptable. This information could have guided the leasing in a more reasonable and, ultimately more effective, manner.
In the present situation, we had no input into a process that will ultimately affect our land, water, business and lives forever. It seems like common sense that landowners should have more say in what happens on their property, but the simple truth is that oil and gas rights take precedence over surface rights.
Reprinted with permission from the Western Organization of Resource Councils

Earthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872

Congressman James L Oberstar -- Global Warming Bill Passes Committee

Trust our congressman Jim to be in the forefront of global warming issues:

Congressman James L Oberstar -- Global Warming Bill Passes Committee

Arrowhead Electric Cooperative Rate Hike Out of Line

It is time the member/owners of the Arrowhead Electric Cooperative ask for some accountability. The last straw for me was in a story in the January 26, 2007 Cook County News Herald where Jeanne Muntean was quoted as saying the new building for the Cooperative offices will be funded by the sale of the Direct TV business. "We will not raise rates."

In case nobody noticed, the fixed monthly charge on your electric bill just jumped from $24.00 to $28.00 per month. This charge was $20.00 per month for years and then in January of 2003 it jumped to $21.00 per month. In June of 2005 it was raised again to $24.00 per month. Now a year and a half later it is raised again to $28.00 per month. this is almost a 17 percent hike from $24.00. This is way above the inflation rate for the last year and a half and is an operations charge and not an energy charge. With the great amount of new construction that has occurred in Cook County over the last several years I think this fixed charge could have been held steady or even declined. The meters per mile of line surely has gone up over the last five years and the cost per individual meter should have gone down with careful management.

A person has no recourse but to pay this monthly fixed charge which is just for the privilege of being hooked up to the grid. The Cooperative is a monopoly and there is no other choice. This hits people of fixed income especially hard and you can conserve and freeze in the dark buy you still have to pay this fixed charge.

It is time to hold the management's feet to the fire. The board of directors seems to have become a rubber stamp to the staff and management and asks for no accountability. Those of us who struggle to keep our costs within our means are not represented. A few years ago there was a blood letting at the Cooperative and several people got laid off. I think they have hired them all back with extras.

I know the Cooperative has many good and dedicated employees who perform their job well and I don't want to cast anyone in a bad light but the jobs at the Cooperative are very good jobs by most standards with excellent pay and benefits. A little belt tightening once in a while is necessary to keep business competitive. Oh, that's right, the coop is a monopoly and has no competition.

The Arrowhead Electric tried LP gas sales some years ago and found it wasn't such a good deal with competition and all. They got out of the Direct TV sales and told us they were not making any money on that venture. Did anybody get laid off after they left the Direct TV business? I think not. Now they tell us the sale of the Direct TV business is to pay for the new office complex and they will not raise rates.

I heard an unsubstantiated fact that the Cooperative speculated in putting service to the Tom Lake area at much expense to us owner/members. Who benefits from that but the developers. As an owner/member I see no benefit in it for me. It should have been part of the development costs for the land owners and the Cooperative should not be speculating in real estate developments.

The news letter that comes with my monthly bill is waste paper. Any important information that needs to be passed on to us owner/members could be put in the local papers at much less expense than the newsletter and most people probably throw it away without reading it anyway. It used to give us a little financial information and insight on the operation of the Cooperative. It is a waste of time and money. I find it of no value to me as a member and most of what I see in there is trivia. The unhealthy high energy recipes are trivia too. Perhaps some information on eating healthy would be more worthwhile. But is this part of the mission of Arrowhead Electric Cooperative?

Has the board and the staff read the mission statement lately?
MISSION STATEMENT:
Through the power of human connections, we will provide quality utility services in a
reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally safe manner.

What is the real purpose of the proposed 18 megawatt power plant they want to construct near Colvill? Is this a peaking generator or a back-up generator? I think we have a connection to the Taconite Harbor Energy Center so we are not really that far from a reliable energy source. Who is paying for this? What will the fuel source be? Why are they proposing to build in that location?

Let us rattle the elected board of directors to place us, the member/owners a little higher on their priority list. Cut the fat, hold the line on expenses and hold the line on expensive new building projects unless they are truly necessary and fall under the blanket of the mission statement, or get a new mission statement.

Name withheld so I can keep my electricity.

Coal Plants Prompt Warning

Here's a national story about the impact of coal-fired power plant emissions. We have a proposal from Minnesota Power to mitigate the damage but so far as I know it does not affect global warming. The latest word from international scientists is that fossil fuels are the biggest culprit in the imminent collapse of world ecosystems (i.e., within the next century).

Let's think twice or three times about expanding present energy consuming plants or even mitigating some of their negative environmental impacts. Let's think: do we want to leave a good planet to our children and grandchildren?

-True

Coal Plans Prompt Warning