Sulfide mining? Mr. Rational Man says, ‘bad idea’
Posted on October 3rd, 2007 by Todd Sears in From Routes to Roots
This whole donnybrook up in the U.P. regarding proposed sulfide mining on the Yellow Dog Plains has me a bit bewildered. Working in the federal government for over 20 years I have a good feel for how bureaucracies work, or don’t. Granted, my experience has been with defense and defense-related organizations and not environmental ones, the lessons learned are applicable to any large organization.
I don’t buy into the commonly made assertion that organizations act or don’t act in a certain way. Organizations are made of people. Typically these peoples’ actions are bounded by mission and vision statements, and guided in their day to day activities by policies, regulations, standard operating procedures or other governance, and plain old common sense when required.
People (bureaucrats) are motivated by different things. It could be power, opportunity to be contrarian, money, attention, ambition, influence or something else entirely. What I think we should hope for in the case of a bureaucrat working in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), is that he or she is driven by emboldened integrity, and dedication to protect the State’s water, air and land resources, and in so doing, protect the health of, and maintain the quality of the natural environment for all of Michigan’s citizens.
The point is that organizations, be they bureaus, departments, divisions, branches, or whatever, don’t do anything, not really, as they are only lines, blocks and spans of control represented on some chart. The people do the real stuff. For every positive action taken or well thought-out initiative spawned from an organization, I can point to a man or woman with vision, leadership, and resolve who worked to get it done. And if you take a hard look at the decision-making process, you will see it most likely reflect a crisp, well-reasoned coherence of thought, well-communicated. Usually it will pass the common sense test with flying colors.
Likewise for the stupid and ridiculous. Deconstruct a bad decision, and you’ll find a feeble attempt at reason, an argument loaded with myriad fallacies and inconsistencies, and a profound lack of common sense, usually personified in one or two individuals. How many times when questioning a bad call, have you heard, “Well, it made sense at the time.” The trick is to get it right while you are going through the process, and demonstrate sound reason through every step.
I like the idea of the Rational Actor model. The Rational Man would dive into the most intractable problems, look at arguments for and against, weigh nuance and subtlety of the supporting and countering evidence and proclaim, “Okay, if it were me I’d do X.”
In the case of the U.P. sulfide mine issue, Mr. Rational Man would come in and say, “Hey people, I’m just not getting why you need me on this one. Seems like kind of a no-brainer.” True, IMO. The folly of this proposal is about as subtle as a steel pipe to the head.
Here is some basic top-level info:
- Rio Tinto is a huge mining concern based out of London.
- I’m not sure if it is their namesake, but here is a picture of a section of the Rio Tinto (a river in Spain). Can you say “irony?”
- Kennecott Minerals (KM) is a Rio Tinto-owned subsidiary
- KM is in the planning and approval process for a nickel and copper sulfide mine on the Yellow Dog Plains in the U.P.
- Metallic sulfide mining is different from the kind of mining, iron primarily, the U.P. is accustomed to because the process is infinitely more dangerous to the environment, on several levels
- This particular mine is intended to go in directly beneath the Salmon Trout River
- Subsidence and Acid Mine Drainage are the two hazards which give most pause, though noise and air pollution, and infrastructure stress damage are also significant downsides
Acid Mine Drainage forms when water and air come into contact with the sulfide ores. The water and air create a chemical reaction with the ore that releases large quantities of acid water mixed with heavy metals. Think battery acid. That polluted water will leach down into the groundwater as well as surface flow into rivers and lakes. There is no quick fix or easy decontamination process once AMD begins. KM says that cleanup will not be an issue because AMD will not occur. This is simply disingenuous. The water will be polluted, like with all sulfide mines over the past 25 years. Read the Maest- Kuipers report and judge for yourself.
Subsidence is collapse of the mine roof (crown pillar). In the case of this proposal, since the mine would be dug directly beneath the Salmon Trout River, even a partial collapse would result in a very high probability of the river simply draining out and disappearing. The subsidence issue has been fraught with controversy since it was discovered earlier in the year that an MDEQ-sanctioned report, which was critical of KM’s technical dig plan, focusing specifically on insufficient crown pillar height, seemed to have been somehow not included in the public record.
Did you know that the State of Wisconsin has considered approval of sulfide mining, too? Mr. Rational Man helped out here, I think, because Wisconsin effectively put into place a moratorium on sulfide mining via enactment of a permit law which says to the proposing mining company, “If you want to mine for sulfides give examples of three other mines which were active for 10 years or were reclaimed for 10 years and which did not have acid mine drainage or heavy metals discharge.” No company has passed that test, thus no permits have been approved in Wisconsin.
Who would benefit from approval? This mine really only benefits Rio Tinto-KM significantly. To the tune of more than 2 billion dollars over the life of the mine, and that is a low estimate. For the Michigan economy it means about 150 jobs, only some of which will be for people of the U.P., and all of which will last 7-10 years, the life of the mine.
What’s the bottom line? This mine is a bad idea. The risks are high for the environment and the people who live and travel there to enjoy it. Probability of acid mine drainage is exceedingly high, so contamination of the watershed is likely as well. Subsidence is a cause of significant concern due to its direct proximity to the river. Additionally, if MDEQ approves the permit, we will have started down the slippery slope, and can expect more proposals from KM, and others, to be approved.
Citizens have until October 17th to communicate with the MDEQ, MDNR, State reps, congressman and members of the public to get their voices heard, whether for or against.
I don’t know Michigan politics well enough yet to predict an outcome on this one, but I do know that we all have a responsibility to act if we feel strongly about the issue. Maybe the state will make the right and rational decision to not grant the permit. Perhaps the state will, due to fear of follow-on litigation by the mining corporation, obfuscate the issue enough to justify approval of the permit. Or, maybe they actually think the proposal is sound, despite citizen outcry, and will approve.
Some useful links:
- Savethewildup.org is THE place to go for up-to-date information and great background on this issue.
- Looks to me, from the MDEQ Office of Geological Survey orgaanizational chart, that the key decision-makers who will have the most profound impact upon the outcome of this debate are Harold Fitch, Thomas Godbold, Steven Wilson, and Joseph Maki.
- More good stuff from the Sierra Club.
- For the intrepid soul who would like to deal direct with Kennecott Minerals or Rio Tinto, have at it.
- Here’s a great article written by MLUI’s Glenn Puit.
- Write a letter. They work. Use this form as your own.
If you don’t feel like commenting below, but want to flame, bludgeon, or otherwise chat, please feel free to contact me at sears.todd@gmail.com. Be well.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I am from Traverse City but go to school at Northern in Marquette. I was recently hiking on the yellow dog plains and actually drank some of the ground water from the springs. The water there is some of the cleanest in the world and have a large amount of beautiful wildlife. It would be no good for Marquette county when and if this mine starts production. I also attended the DEQ forums at the University center at northern. Almost everyone who stood up and spoke were against this mine. It seems as if the DEQ and Granholm are turning a blind eye to the UP. I know the state is in need of money, but this mine will hurt the environment even if it is just a little bit. What would happen if their was a mine disaster and the chemicals used in the mine got into the ground water and flowed into Lake Superior. Why even take a chance with this? Is the largest fresh body of water in the would worth the gamble???
October 4th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Hello Todd
There is a simple rational solution to this in my opinion. Require KM to purchase private performance bonds guaranteeing completion of any environmental clean-up required as a result of their actions or inactions on the project. Base the value of the performance bonds at the current value of the ore the mine is projected to contain or the actual cost of cleanup at similar mining projects which ever is higher.
Then we can trust the bonding agencies to do a better job of evaluating the risk as it is a risk they will be taking on. If Rio Tinto/ Kennecott Minerals are a bad risk they will know about it and price the bonds appropriately and the project just won’t go forward.
In my experience the MDEQ is a rogue agency that has long since succumbed to Pournelle’s Iron law. Look at the ridiculousness it has perpetuated with respect to beach grooming in the recent lake level fluctuations. The first house we put an offer in on and were going to buy when we moved back up north fell through because the poor Coastie that owned it never could get the DEQ to sign off on the fuel oil tank leak cleanup. I didn’t fear the contamination from the fuel oil, but I sure did fear the DEQ and their power to drag the situation out indefinitely.
On the subsidence issue it is an engineering problem humans have been dealing with for quite some time and I see little evidence that it is not a manageable one in this case. I am more inclined to believe the failure to include the reports was an intentional tactic of the DEQ to delay/stop the project rather than an attempt to sneak one by the public.
You reference a link to the Sierra Club. I would postulate that they are in no way a rational actor. They are religious zealots who would impose their beliefs on all of us.
You hold out Wisconsin as an example but there is nothing rational about their law it is just a backhanded taking. Mining is messy dirty work and I can understand that many people would prefer it not be done here. But let’s be honest about it and have those people vote to pay the reasonable value of the mineral rights we are taking.
I think you overestimate your military experience as a predictor of the perniciousness of bureaucracies. The military while not immune to the faults of bureaucracy at least has a chain of command that makes everyone answerable to someone. The MDEQ behaves as if they are not answerable to anyone, and to date they get away with it.
Russ Harding previous DEQ head under previous Republican administration on this DEQ action:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8360
How the current Gov. values a “Rational Actor”
http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?p=780#more-780
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Thanks, Ryan. One guy who agrees with me. I should claim victory and sign off now.
And Bob, as always, very insightful and considered. Since I am writing this at work (don’t tell) I’ll be brief on my response.
I think you overestimate the role of the chain of command in a mil
organization. You are correct about accountability, when it comes to
line and combat units, but absolutely wrong when it comes to support
organizations, big intel orgs being part of that lump. I’ve been in
both, many times. The drivers and motivators are exactly what I
described, and so is the intrigue.
Pournelle’s Law- I don’t buy it. Way too simplistic. Dichotomizing
organizations like that buries the actual nuance of individual
motivation, which in my view is the prime driver. Simple taxonomies
of (in the case of my org) Progressives vs Traditionalists, or, Fringe
vs Intellectual Luddite, is okay to a point, but at the end, you need
to drill down into the details and identify personal motivations.
Introducing bonding agencies and the risk dynamic therein is adding an
entirely unnecessary level of complexity to a situation that needs
Occam, not Weber. If you buy a consequentialist ethical model, and
deal with the (predicted) outcome of an action, you are forced into
the position, given the facts in this case to say, “No. The
consequence is Net Bad.” And in the case of AMD, the cleanup is not
as simple as wiping the kitchen counter. We’re talking generations.
Wisconsin, to my mind is rational. It is not a veiled “taking.” It is
a requirement of the corporation to do its due diligence, and attempt
to mitigate its lack of altruism, by backing up their claims of
predicted operation and reclaim effects.
Subsidence as risk in this case is not the norm because of the river’s
location, so it merits further consideration.
Fair point on the Sierra Club, though totally ad hominem, you must
admit. They can be hyperbolic at times, but that fact sheet was
pretty straightforward, I thought.
This is a good dialogue. I appreciate it.
Cheers.
Todd
ps. I voted for Harry Browne twice, and I appreciate your Libertarian
optics. I am just not satisfied that the free-market can deal with
increasingly important environmental issues satisfactorily. And this
is not the same thing as saying that I believe the State can……
October 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
There are at least three fundamental problems with these discussions concerning extraction of natural resources (and not necessarily just sulfide mining).
First, everyone who throws out the takings card should be required to actually study what a regulatory takings actually is under the law. There seems to be an enduring myth perpetuated by the strident property rights sector that our country was founded on the principle of property in private ownership, to be used in virtually any manner the owner sees fit. This is a philosophy that has no basis in the law and never has.
The historical legal record has proven that many of our founding fathers were subject to fairly stringent land use regulations. Regulatory takings (when government regulations “go too far” as to diminish the economic value of property) was invented by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, who, ironically, was otherwise a firm adherent to the concept of judicial restraint. But the founding fathers saw nothing wrong in land use regulation because it not only restricts your uses, but protects you and your land values from the otherwise deleterious uses by your neighbors. (Think about it. What would a landfill on your neighbor’s property do to the value of yours?) It was an acceptable trade-off.
As a result, the Constitution limited “a taking” of land to be defined as 1) government acquisition; 2) for a public purpose; 3) for which just compensation (e.g. fair market value) must be paid. Period.
Since that ruling in the early 20th century, there has been a long string of takings cases which have literally and figuratively been all over the map. Nevertheless, the long and short of takings law is that a an illegal regulatory taking of land only occurs when the regulation is so onerous is to to leave the owner with virtually zero economic benefit.
In other words, Wisconsin’s sulfide mining law is not a taking–backhanded, front-wise or upside down. If you have 200 acres in Wisconsin you’d like to mine for sulfide-imbedded minerals and can’t, you are certainly not deprived of virtually all economic benefit. That land may (and very likely does) have significant value for any number of things, such as residential development, timber, agriculture, etc. If you can still benefit economically from these activities, there’s no taking, even if you can’t make billions of dollars mining it. Spread the word. Please.
2) The free market has done some good things. Promoting a sustainable economy/sustainable environment has not been one of them. The when the free market stops treating our natural resources (air, water, land) from which we all must benefit, as a business in liquidation, I’ll stop believing we need regulation to protect public health, safety and welfare. I won’t go as far as saying regulation is good. There are bad regulations out there too. What’s good regulation and what’s bad? If you’re looking for a simple answer, you won’t get one. Not from someone who is reasonable knowledgeable. Like most things, the world of government regulation is complex. But by its very nature, it must be–there’s no “one size fits all as much as some would revel in such simplicity. Still, I’ll be the first to admit there’s plenty of room for improvement. That said, in the case of sulfide mining in Michigan, the state needs more (or certainly better) regulation, not less. Wisconsin got it right.
3) “Rational thought” is sometimes overrated. I’m not suggesting we begin behaving irrationally. However, the first question is whether something that sounds rational really IS rational. The precautionary principle seems rational, but our culture tends to ignore it. Meaning, if a thing poses a reasonable threat of harm to health, safety and welfare, don’t do it. And yet, we do do it. Often. Unless there’s PROOF of harm. Then, by golly, maybe we’ll think about it. Take global climate change, something that the majority of scientists believe we’re contributing to and forecast a high likelihood of planetary harm, if not calamity. We’re seeing strong evidence already. Ah, but prove it, right? So it is with sulfide mining, but more so. KM says they can do this safely, but can’t show us a single sulfide mining operation where there wasn’t significant ecological degradation. (Hence, no sulfide mines in Wisconsin since the law was passed. That’s why KM came here.) But then, the burden seems to fall upon those opposed to the mining operation to prove that KM is either not telling the truth or is just wrong. It’s the opposition’s burden to prove the operation will in fact degrade the environment. What’s wrong with this picture?? Must there actually be significant degradation before we will believe it? Do we have to wait to see it first? You want simple? Don’t allow the mine. Sometimes going with your gut makes more sense.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Hello Tom
First IANAL but, I am aware that the current state of takings law does not go as far as I would have it. I know of Kelo (Fed.) , Poletown, Hathcock (MI). It is not much of an accomplishment but I can claim to have read the full opinions of the latter two. Thankfully Michigan is stricter when it comes to takings than the Kelo would allow. I think that you do not due justice to our founding fathers thoughts on the matter. They were pretty well read guys and would have known their Locke from a hole in the ground.
We may get takings law closer to my views on the subject yet at least here in michigan.
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2007/s2007-02.pdf
Ownership of mineral right are often held separately from the ownership of the land and in this case you are certainly depriving the owner of the mineral right of virtually all economic benefit.
So in answer to your first point I plead not guilty.
To your second point I will strongly disagree. The western free market economies lead the world when it comes to a sustainable economy/sustainable environment. Who would you hold out as better? I am not opposed to all regulation, but I am inclined to believe that less is better than more.
Again to you third point I disagree. If you will not use rational thought who will you put your blind faith in the government bureaucracies, Gore, Hanson, the Sierra Club? The human race has a pretty long history with mining, and it is replete with disasters. Despite all that we have found it in our best interest to go ahead. I don’t see this changing any time soon. We have not shown the will yet to develop the energy to start extracting all of our mineral needs from sea water and shut these stinking deathtraps down. I hope that changes.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:11 am
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/09/mining-vasty-deep-iii.html