Insurance companies are in business to make money, and they do a good job at it. They do well because they do their homework, reviewing the science and mathematical probabilities associated with risks they are willing to take on.
PolyMet's proposed plan for a copper-nickel mine in Northeastern Minnesota includes 20 years of production. But, according to the company's own research, wastewater and tailings from the operation would need to be treated for more than 200 years and contained for as long as the waste materials remain toxic.
As of this date, every sulfide mine in a water-rich environment has contaminated surface water and/or groundwater. The largest source of Superfund liability to U.S. taxpayers are mines similar to the one PolyMet is proposing. With the EPA concluding that the probability of potential failure of water collection and treatment for copper mining is 93 percent, is there really a question of its viability?
The risk is clear but is being clouded by the promise of money. How much is a clean environment worth to you and your descendants?
I don't believe there is an insurance company on earth that would take on this risk and neither should Minnesota and U.S. taxpayers.
ADVERTISEMENT
A viable alternative is to mandate copper recycling, which uses 10 percent of the energy required to mine new ore, is cheaper, and doesn't endanger our Lake Superior watershed. The problem with this option is that it does not provide some people with the promise of getting rich quick.
Julius Salinas
Esko
