Two sides far apart in mining debate
The chances of finding common ground in the debate of copper nickel mining in the Ely area are slim and none, whether you’re talking about surface and underground common ground.
Sure, we all can agree on the importance of clean water but from there the histrionic behavior gets a bit ridiculous at times, especially for those in opposition.
For some people, there is no chance for a mining operation to exist without decimating the water. If that’s what you believe, fine, there’s no common ground for you to stand on.
Conversely, to say that it’s impossible for a mine built today to pollute also leaves you with very little common ground.
We believe the time is now to draw the line on rhetoric and continue the quest of finding what is the truth and what is simply hogwash.
Starting this week we will no longer include the term “sulfide mining.” This is used by the opposition groups to incite and bias the reader. It is not based in truth or fact.
Unless there is a company proposing to mine sulfides, we’re going to use the correct term, copper mining. Or copper-nickel mining. Or copper, nickel, platinum and palladium mining.
But the term “sulfide mining” is being used mainly by groups who are trying to get their point across by misrepresenting the issue and using scare tactics. Enough is enough.
Listen folks, there’s a long way to go here in these discussions. PolyMet may be getting closer but Twin Metals Minnesota is years away from happening, if it ever does. There’s plenty of time for debate, discussion and discovery.
Our hope is we can have those discussions in a civil manner without fear mongering. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, let’s start with doing so in an honest and respectful manner.