Dear Mr. Biel,

Thank you for contacting me about Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and H.J.Res. 140, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would overturn the protections given to the BWCAW by President Joe Biden. As a Senator who strongly supports protecting invaluable public lands and ecosystems on behalf of present and future generations, I would strongly oppose H.J.Res. 140 or any other attempt to remove protections for the BWCAW, should they come to the Senate floor for a vote. I appreciate you making me aware of your concerns on this important matter.

As you are aware, BWCAW is world renowned destination that is the only lake-land wilderness in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Its 1.1 million pristine and spectacular acres are enjoyed by over 150,000 visitors every year who canoe along its 1,200 miles of canoe routes, hike its extensive beautiful trails and camp at its more than 2,000 designated campsites. BWCAW also provides critical habitats for fish, plants and wildlife, including several endangered and threatened species.

Given its unique characteristics and economic importance to Midwest communities in the region, the United States Government should continue to prohibit dangerous industrial operations, including copper mining, on Federal land in the Rainy River watershed that drains into the BWCAW. No mining operation is risk-free and it would be irresponsible and shortsighted to risk inflicting long-lasting, potentially permanent, damage on this invaluable ecosystem and recreational wildness area to further enrich wealthy private copper mining interests.

H.J.Res. 140 was introduced by Representative Pete Stauber of Minnesota’s Eighth Congressional District, and a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed this joint resolution on a 214 to 208 roll call vote. This CRA joint resolution of disapproval would repeal the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Land Order No. 7917. This would eliminate the rule protecting the BWCAW from mineral and geothermal leasing, empowering a mining company, owned by a Chilean conglomerate, to begin risky operations that threaten to permanently harm this pristine lake-land wilderness. Please know, I will strongly oppose H.J.Res. 140, should it come to the Senate floor for a vote.

Our Nation’s success in safeguarding the Boundary Waters is captured in the BWCAW’s famous crystal-clear lakes. That is why I am support legislative proposals like the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection Act, which Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota introduced to establish precise and permanent protection prohibiting new sulfide ore mining within a critical area of 225,504 acres that drain into the BWCAW. It is also why I oppose heavy-handed proposals, such as the misleadingly titled, “Superior National Forest Restoration Act,” which would greenlight copper mining operations on Federal lands in the Rainy River watershed.

As your Senator, I deeply value our Nation’s public lands and ecosystems. Improving our domestic critical mineral supply chain is an important national priority for expanding zero-emission technologies that will be vital in combatting the deadly climate crisis. However, I reject the false premise that enhancing critical mineral sourcing requires sacrificing our public lands. Please be assured that I will continue working to safeguard invaluable public lands, while supporting the development of responsible critical mineral production systems that feature strong environmental protections and robust public and Tribal consultation.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If you would like more information on my work in the Senate, please visit my website at www.duckworth.senate.gov. You can access my voting record and see what I am doing to address today’s most important issues. I hope that you will continue to share your views and opinions with me and let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Tammy Duckworth
United States Senator
Please do not reply to this email. The mailbox is unattended.
To share your thoughts, please visit my webpage.

My Senator, too.

It's very important to keep this ecosystem safe

while i'm happy you got a response to your letter, at least someone is reading the mail!
it seems like a form letter. i would hope for more from our elected officials.

Back in the day when Oberstar and Mondale were in office, they would write each letter and sign it. you could tell it was their "voice" in the words and were not a form letter created and sent by staff.

who knows, maybe AI is doing the work.

Here's the response I received from Amy Klobuchar. Less information, and just as likely a scripted reply, but she indicates she'll be voting against H.J. Res 140.

"Thank you for taking the time to write to me about legislation relating to the Boundary Waters and other public lands. I appreciate hearing from you and wanted to provide you with an update.

H.J.Res. 140 would reverse a Department of the Interior Public Land Order establishing a 20-year ban on mining activities in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This bill is an unprecedented use of a procedural mechanism that would have far-reaching consequences for the Boundary Waters and other public lands across the country. I oppose this legislation and will be voting against it when it comes before the Senate for a vote.

While I have long supported iron ore mining and other science-based environmentally reviewed forms of mining, this bill would have impacts on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and other public lands. Our state has cherished federal land devoted to outdoor recreation and wildlife preservation, from Voyageurs National Park along the Canadian border to the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge in Bloomington. We also have many state and local parks and wildlife refuges. We need to protect this natural land, water, and habitat so that our children and their children can experience it for generations to come.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I continue to be humbled to be your Senator, and one of the most important parts of my job is listening to the people of Minnesota. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Amy Klobuchar"

Thanks for all those that been sending letters or Emails to your representatives -Senators.

I do see they are trying to by pass the vote.

Does it have to be 60 votes to pass or just 51?

I'm from Illinois as well. The response Senator Duckworth is well researched. Way too researched in my opinion. Likely written by a staffer. I personally do not want mining near the BWCA, so please don't dump on me.

Tammy Duckworth is pretty much invisible in Illinois. We mostly hear about our other Senator, Dick Durbin, who is retiring this year.

Tom

Pinetree: "Thanks for all those that been sending letters or Emails to your representatives -Senators.

I do see they are trying to by pass the vote.

Does it have to be 60 votes to pass or just 51?"

Fifty + VP's vote to break a tie would pass the bill, however, it would take 60 votes to end a filibuster. Currently, no one in the senate is interested in going down that path. I am unclear on the mechanics of employing a filibuster and what the prospects of a filibuster keeping this from a vote by the whole Senate.

It’s great that the Dems are aligned, but at the end of the day I’m afraid it won’t move the needle on the issue. If someone has a well articulated letter on issue, please share it. I’m happy to send to my US Senators in Indiana (both Republicans - Todd Young and Jim Banks). Thanks in advance.

plander: "It’s great that the Dems are aligned, but at the end of the day I’m afraid it won’t move the needle on the issue. If someone has a well articulated letter on issue, please share it. I’m happy to send to my US Senators in Indiana (both Republicans - Todd Young and Jim Banks). Thanks in advance. "

I would keep it simple…

I am writing to you as a proud American that I am deeply concerned about H.J.Res. 140 or any other attempt to remove protections for the BWCAW.

I would expect you as a Republican Senator to not side with a foreign mining operation against the best interests of American citizens.

Historically Twin Metals has never been able to do a copper sulfide mine with out significantly damaging the watershed around it. Their history is to destroy the environment and pay the paltry fines, then leave the government…aka us taxpayers to clean up their mess. Please tell me you will not fall for their lies and leave America stripped of precocious metals for foreign profit, while our natural resources are destroyed?

I humbly await your answer if you will put America First or a foreign company’s profit?

maybe too strong :)

T

Works for me. Thanks!

timatkn:

I am writing to you as a proud American that I am deeply concerned about H.J.Res. 140 or any other attempt to remove protections for the BWCAW.

I would expect you as a Republican Senator to not side with a foreign mining operation against the best interests of American citizens.

Historically Twin Metals has never been able to do a copper sulfide mine with out significantly damaging the watershed around it. Their history is to destroy the environment and pay the paltry fines, then leave the government…aka us taxpayers to clean up their mess. Please tell me you will not fall for their lies and leave America stripped of precocious metals for foreign profit, while our natural resources are destroyed?

I humbly await your answer if you will put America First or a foreign company’s profit?

maybe too strong :)

T "

Well said!

Sunburn: "

timatkn:

I am writing to you as a proud American that I am deeply concerned about H.J.Res. 140 or any other attempt to remove protections for the BWCAW.

I would expect you as a Republican Senator to not side with a foreign mining operation against the best interests of American citizens.

Historically Twin Metals has never been able to do a copper sulfide mine with out significantly damaging the watershed around it. Their history is to destroy the environment and pay the paltry fines, then leave the government…aka us taxpayers to clean up their mess. Please tell me you will not fall for their lies and leave America stripped of precocious metals for foreign profit, while our natural resources are destroyed?

I humbly await your answer if you will put America First or a foreign company’s profit?

maybe too strong :)

T "

Well said!"

+1

I just wrote my Senator and will post his response IF received.

Mocha: "while i'm happy you got a response to your letter, at least someone is reading the mail!
it seems like a form letter. i would hope for more from our elected officials.


Back in the day when Oberstar and Mondale were in office, they would write each letter and sign it. you could tell it was their "voice" in the words and were not a form letter created and sent by staff.


who knows, maybe AI is doing the work."

SO True,I still got very long personnel letters from Oberstar, Paul Wellstone and Bruce Vento-very well written and long. They all supported the BWCA.

I just went through the US Senate website and sent an email to the majority of the senators there. Not sure how much weight it will carry with me not being a constituent, but at least I did a little something with the last hour of my time to protect a place I love

Thank you!

I think it's important to send your thoughts about the place that means so much, no matter where you are from!

The BWCA is a federal resource available to the entire nation. Everyone should feel free to comment.

My Senator's (Tom Emmer) response:
"The preservation of the BWCA should not come at the expense of our state’s economic development."

He said more than that, but that was the quote that pissed me off the most.

OCDave: "

Pinetree: "Thanks for all those that been sending letters or Emails to your representatives -Senators.

I do see they are trying to by pass the vote.

Does it have to be 60 votes to pass or just 51?"

Fifty + VP's vote to break a tie would pass the bill, however, it would take 60 votes to end a filibuster. Currently, no one in the senate is interested in going down that path. I am unclear on the mechanics of employing a filibuster and what the prospects of a filibuster keeping this from a vote by the whole Senate."

This is partially false. The Congressional Review Act preempts the filibuster from being used on this bill.

Soledad: "My Senator's (Tom Emmer) response:
"The preservation of the BWCA should not come at the expense of our state’s economic development." "

Wow, now there's a US Senator who cares about the natural resources of his own state. (extreme sarcasm)

Jackfish: "

Soledad: "My Senator's (Tom Emmer) response:
"The preservation of the BWCA should not come at the expense of our state’s economic development." "

Wow, now there's a US Senator who cares about the natural resources of his own state. (extreme sarcasm)"

EMMER'S BACKGROUND

I don't like him. Wonder if he or how many of the Washington DC crowd have ever been to the BWCA?

Soledad: "My Senator's (Tom Emmer) response:
"The preservation of the BWCA should not come at the expense of our state’s economic development."


He said more than that, but that was the quote that pissed me off the most."

Isn't Emmer a Congressman? It already passed there

I hope this thread doesn't get locked like the previous two. Let's focus on protecting the BWCA and not tilt the Red/Blue opinion needle too far either way so we can discuss this important legislation.

Blatz: "

Soledad: "My Senator's (Tom Emmer) response:
"The preservation of the BWCA should not come at the expense of our state’s economic development."

He said more than that, but that was the quote that pissed me off the most."

Isn't Emmer a Congressman? It already passed there."

Yes, he represents the 6th district.

MN Legislature Bill: State protections touted recent meeting

The event, which included comments from three state lawmakers, also highlighted efforts in the Minnesota Legislature to provide state protections of wilderness watersheds. On Feb. 13, state Sen. Steve Cwodzinski and state Rep. Alex Falconer introduced the Boundary Waters Permanent Protection Bill, which would prohibit sulfide-based copper mining operations on any state lands within the watersheds that feed directly into either the BWCAW or Voyageurs National Park. The bill would not affect any existing taconite or iron ore mining, or the mining of sand, gravel, or granite.

If you're here, you likely share some appreciation for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Whether you paddle its waters to fish for walleye, listen to loons call across the lakes, or simply find peace in one of America's wilderness areas, the BWCA is a treasure worth protecting for generations to come.

Is protecting our wilderness a pure partisan issue? We can hold strong political views while still evaluating individual issues on their own merits. I appreciate the restraint and members have shown in this thread in not letting broader political frustrations derail this conversation. The proposed Twin Metals copper-nickel mine, located just miles upstream from the BWCA in the watershed that flows directly into it, raises serious concerns that warrant attention regardless of your political affiliation.

The Scale of Operations - This could be massive: potentially mining of the estimated 478 million tonnes of ore in the Maturi and Maturi Southwest deposit over 30 years would produce 5.8 billion pounds of copper. To put that in perspective visually, if you spread that amount of excavated rock evenly across the entire BWCA, it would be enough to cover the entire BWCA. Daily operations would transform quiet Highway 1 from a scenic wilderness corridor into an industrial route potentially handling 1,000-1,700+ truck and vehicle trips per day: workers commuting, ore being hauled, concentrates shipped out, supplies delivered.

The Environmental Risk - The ore contains less than 1% valuable minerals, meaning 99% of what's mined becomes sulfide-bearing waste rock. When exposed to air and water, these sulfides create sulfuric acid (the same as battery acid) which leaches heavy metals into surrounding waters. This acid mine drainage can persist for centuries. Here's the troubling math: 20-30 years of mining operations, followed by hundreds of years of required environmental management and water treatment. Cooper has different risk then gold, iron ore, or coal.

Who Bears the Risk? - Twin Metals is, as best that we know, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Antofagasta, a Chilean mining conglomerate with no vested interest in Minnesota's wilderness legacy or even the long term economy of Minnesota. Financial assurances for cleanup would be paid in incrementally over the mine's life, while environmental risks begin on day one. If something goes wrong, or when the mine eventually closes, who ensures the watershed stays protected for the next 500 years?

The Irony- Global demand for copper is driven largely by technology, data centers, electric vehicles, and the electrification of everything. Yet many of us visit the BWCA precisely to escape that hyper-connected world: to find silence, see the Milky Way undimmed by light pollution, and reconnect with something elemental.

Be a Thoughtful Skeptic- No matter your broader political views, healthy skepticism is warranted when foreign corporations propose industrial-scale mining in watersheds. Once contaminated, the interconnected waters of the BWCA cannot be "fixed." This isn't about stopping all mining. It's about whether this particular location, with its unique vulnerability and irreplaceable value, is the right place for America's most toxic form of mining.

I understand the risk and love the area but just so I am clear - are you guys just saying "Find another job - people of Tower/Ely, Find another wilderness to mine much needed copper. I spend a week per year up there and nobody is going to wreck my vacation spot to improve lives and provide much needed resources to the US economy."

Is that what you are saying?

I received an email this morning from BWCA.com promoting this thread. In my experience, every single thread on this topic has been closed.

sgthulka: "I understand the risk and love the area but just so I am clear - are you guys just saying "Find another job - people of Tower/Ely, Find another wilderness to mine much needed copper. I spend a week per year up there and nobody is going to wreck my vacation spot to improve lives and provide much needed resources to the US economy."


Is that what you are saying?"

sgthulka, I don't think that is what is being said.

We are not dismissing local jobs or saying communities like Ely or Tower don’t matter. They absolutely do. This isn’t “my vacation vs. their livelihood.”

What we are saying is:

The BWCA watershed is a fragile, interconnected system where pollution doesn’t stay contained.

Sulfide-ore copper mining has a well-documented risk of acid mine drainage when exposed to air and water.

Once water is contaminated, cleanup is extraordinarily difficult and expensive- and the damage can last generations.

The BWCA supports a long-standing tourism economy that depends on clean water; outfitters, lodges, guides, restaurants, property owners. That’s not trivial or seasonal to the people who rely on it.

It’s reasonable to ask:

Is this the right location for this kind of mining?
Is it worth risking a globally unique wilderness for a mine with a finite lifespan?
Can critical minerals be sourced in lower-risk locations?

This isn’t about saying “don’t improve lives.” It’s about asking whether this specific project, in this specific watershed, is the right tradeoff.

I modified slightly and sent it to both Iowa Senators Ernst and Grassley.

Dear Senator,
I am writing to you as a proud Iowan and lifelong midwesterner. I am deeply concerned about H.J.Res. 140 or any other attempt to remove protections for the BWCAW.

I have spent time over the years in the B-dub on a number of kayaking, canoeing and backpacking trips. It is simply an amazing area of our country. I have always reverently appreciated the forethought our government had in protecting this natural resource treasure.

I would hope and expect you as a Republican Senator to not side with a foreign mining operation against the best interests of American land and citizens.

Historically Twin Metals has never been able to do a copper sulfide mine without significantly damaging the watershed around it…watershed areas impact our neighbors to the north of Iowa and eventually make its way into Iowa. The repeated behavior of destroying the environment and getting off with paltry fines, then leaving the government…aka US taxpayers to clean up their mess.

Please tell me you will exercise judicious care in putting America first and not blindly following a path that leaves the BWCAW irreversibly wrecked in order to strip precocious metals for foreign profit, while our natural resources are destroyed.

I appreciate your consideration and await your answer: will you put America First or a foreign company’s profit?

Sincerely,
Xxx
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

I am someone who loves the BWCA and opposes the proposed mining. But ...

1. This battle is to be fought exclusively on the red side of the ledger. Blue politicos might set the stage, as I get to below, but it is red votes in Congress that matter at this moment. That is neither a vilification or an endorsement of either team. Just a hard fact that the malleability of blue votes is not at all an issue, so my analysis focusses on the red ones;

2. It is an election year, worse, it is primary season. If you think nuanced communications with incumbent, candidate senators on the red team are going to sway them, you're mistaken. Congressional staff during election season triage every communication in one way: is it worth the effort to win or save this family's vote. Also, if you cut and paste any of the text posted here your communications will likely be filtered by a bot as AstroTurf of some category. Use your own, succinct words. Worried about industrial mining? Understand industrial politics;

3. Politically, at least half the nation has Minnesota Fatigue. Please don't kill this post by going off on that particular bundle of topics or even ranting about this label. This is a view from outside the state. No red politician, up for re-election or not, is going to fall on his or her sword for something that looks and smells to the outside world like yet another affluent Minneapolitan complaint. I'm not calling you an affluent Minneapolitan or questioning the validity of those prior issues, I'm talking about national perception on the red side of the ledger. If you don't nationalize this issue you will lose. Moreso, you have to strip it of any Minnesota context. Sorry;

4. Speaking of what things smell like to the outside world, all the ecological mojo at the moment, ripe for red exploitation and therefore attention, revolves around the overflowing toilet that is the Potomac River. Maybe you could call the Kawishiwi the next Potomac, but don't underestimate the national newsworthiness of poo (if you are a Gutfeld! fan you really understand) or overestimate the national concern over sulfides;

5. Don't talk about jobs unless you really know and can convey something quantitative and first-hand about jobs in the region. You'll look amateurish (and therefore more dismissible) to a staffer. If you quote a think tank's numbers you will again look like AstroTurf. If you really care about eco-tourism jobs in the region, or if you want to increase national awareness of the BWCA, stop squatting on BWCA reservations, which really does inhibit people more than a day's drive from experiencing this treasure, as I've articulated elsewhere on this forum. We need a stronger national awareness, and that requires more national visitors, who as an aside also spend more money in the region. There are a lot of part-time seasonal workers up there who would be full-time seasonal workers if twice as many permits were actually used. Everyone here is good at appreciating the ecological impact of small actions. Please try to understand the economic and political impact of your actions as well. This is a long fight even after this legislation. There is still time to build a stronger base of national support among people, red or blue, who "get it."

6. The foreign exploitation angle is the only one I see that has a chance for short-term impact. The game plan should be to either contact your red team politico and demand that they stop foreign exploitation; or contact your blue team politico and ask them to ask their red colleagues why they support foreign exploitation.

That's my six-point way of saying keep it short, honest, and effective. And invite more people to the BWCA!

- Gary

sgthulka: "I understand the risk and love the area but just so I am clear - are you guys just saying "Find another job - people of Tower/Ely, Find another wilderness to mine much needed copper. I spend a week per year up there and nobody is going to wreck my vacation spot to improve lives and provide much needed resources to the US economy."


Is that what you are saying?"

No, what we are saying is we do not trust this Foreign company that has the mineral rights. I don't trust what people tell me, I trust what they have done. This company has decimated every area they have mined. They have not one time done cooper sulfide mining without significant harm to the land/water around them. Once they are done mining, instead of doing an environmental clean up, they do a cost analysis...and it is always cheaper to just leave and pay the fines.

Those costs are paid for by me and you as taxes.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me 20x shame on me...

This is who Twin Metals is...we know the end result of this mining operation because they have shown us in all of their previous operations. Is this good for our economy? I guess that's where we might disagree. I don't think fronting taxpayer money to increase the profits of a foreign company, most likely destroying part of a National Wilderness area benefits me as an American.

T

People want their cake and to eat it too. Push for more electric vehicles and the "Green" energy narrative but when it comes to mining the necessary materials to needed they want it done in someone else's back yard.

sgthulka: "I understand the risk and love the area but just so I am clear - are you guys just saying "Find another job - people of Tower/Ely, Find another wilderness to mine much needed copper. I spend a week per year up there and nobody is going to wreck my vacation spot to improve lives and provide much needed resources to the US economy."


Is that what you are saying?"

This argument ignores the fact that mining impacts on the BWCAW would devastate the tourism/recreation jobs that are there right now.

sgthulka: "I understand the risk and love the area but just so I am clear - are you guys just saying "Find another job - people of Tower/Ely, Find another wilderness to mine much needed copper. I spend a week per year up there and nobody is going to wreck my vacation spot to improve lives and provide much needed resources to the US economy."


Is that what you are saying?"

I don't think this is a fair or accurate way to frame the situation and purposefully simplifies or ignores key aspects.

But if you want to look at it through this lens, which in my experience many local mining advocates do, then yes. The anti-mining argument is preserve the BWCA at the expense of potential benefits to the local economy. The pro-mining argument is to risk the BWCA to obtain those benefits.

sgthulka: "I understand the risk and love the area but just so I am clear - are you guys just saying "Find another job - people of Tower/Ely, Find another wilderness to mine much needed copper. I spend a week per year up there and nobody is going to wreck my vacation spot to improve lives and provide much needed resources to the US economy."


Is that what you are saying?"

Yup. Choose.

I will not:

Fish in waters that have even higher warning levels for eating fish than already exist.

Wake up covered in heavy metal dust.

Wake up in the night to what used to be one of the great dark skies environments to watch the lights from the mine ruin the night sky.

Watch as the flora and fauna of the BW slowly wither and die from heavy metal/sulfuric acid poisoning.

Wake up in the night to the sound of blasting below us.

I will take my, meager though it is, tourism dollars elsewhere. The positive for you is that you will have one less person to compete with for a permit.

My career has included working for mining companies. And the company I worked for (retired now) works extensively with mining companies. We were not a small business but had a very large footprint supporting the industry.

I can say this, more than one time were were left with substantial outstanding invoices north of millions of dollars when a Minnesota mining company went bankrupt.

My co-workers were well aware of financial gain with risk of environmental damage. What I mean is we knew that what was being proposed was vulnerable to fail and we had moral and ethical hesitations which included passing on opportunities due to risk.

The only, and I mean only thing on the mind of Twin Metals is making money, everything else is noise. The only, and I mean only reason they are updating their environmental assessments and procedures is due to public and political pressure. If this was not such a contentious issue, there would be no environmental controls at all. They would rather have it that way but they can’t.

Even the working class in Ely has reservations about this. They have moral and ethical hesitations. At what point do you say, ‘No this is not worth it?’.

I need to be clear, there are many blue collar workers that want nothing to do with this. Not everyone will do -anything- to make a living. Do not think that Everyone in Ely is cheering this on. I can say unequivently that a good chunk of MN and especially northern MN is vehemently opposed to this contrary to a vocal minority.

Finally, remember that the tailings and potential toxins must be protected in perpetuity.
That’s >> Forever<<
These mine tailings never become non-toxic. Ever. Last I heard they only modeled tailings protections out 200 years. I can’t remember if that is right but who is going to pay for monitoring in perpetuity except the Governemnt. Not the mining company.
Tom

plander: "It’s great that the Dems are aligned, but at the end of the day I’m afraid it won’t move the needle on the issue. If someone has a well articulated letter on issue, please share it. I’m happy to send to my US Senators in Indiana (both Republicans - Todd Young and Jim Banks). Thanks in advance. "

Simple statements such as:

This mining will create pollution sources that will last 400-500 years.

It will pollute the part of the BWCA that the Ely, MN outfitters serve the most.

There is no known, proven way to mine copper-nickel without polluting the watershed in which the mine exists. Every one in existence is polluting it's watershed.

Pollution will flow north into Canadian waters. Will the US be obligated to mitigate the impacts?

When, not if, this pollution damages fish populations, the primary attraction for thousands of people will be lost. What will be the impact on Ely wilderness oriented businesses?

Thank you GaryInTexas for some thoughtful points from outside the MN region. I agree that short, national, talking points are likely the most effective.

It is clear to me that it is not worth the risk. If they think technology has improved enough to prevent harm - then prove it elsewhere first. Do not risk our treasure as a proof of concept.

The fact that a Minnesotan sponsors/authors this is misleading to many outside Minnesota. Stauber is a disgrace and maybe I will try to support his next opponent.

My senators (MN) and representative already oppose this. How best can I help fight against it? I forward things to relatives and friends out of state and have encouraged them to contact their legislators... any other ideas?

BWPaddler: "How best can I help fight against it? I forward things to relatives and friends out of state and have encouraged them to contact their legislators... any other ideas?
"

Invite them to join you this year if your current party is under 9/4. Has anyone ever met a person who went into the BWCA and came out saying, "meh?" Make it as easy as possible for them to join you. If you can't get a permit that works, get close, camp in a nearby campground and take day trips in. Don't preach to the choir - get out there and make converts.

I don't know if this is helpful or not,but it is something I think about.

Go on Google Earth. Look at the Berkeley Pit in Butte Montana. Why is such an ugly, toxic scar in such a beautiful area allowed to remain. It is not an active copper mining operation anymore, it hasn't been for 40+ years.

It looks like that because nobody knows what to do to fix it. There are efforts underway, but they are at best, stop-gap measures and experimental attempts.

Maybe we could make a deal the mining companies. If they can clean up the mess in Butte, at their expense, ....?

Unas10: "I don't know if this is helpful or not,but it is something I think about.

Go on Google Earth. Look at the Berkeley Pit in Butte Montana. Why is such an ugly, toxic scar in such a beautiful area allowed to remain. It is not an active copper mining operation anymore, it hasn't been for 40+ years.

It looks like that because nobody knows what to do to fix it. There are efforts underway, but they are at best, stop-gap measures and experimental attempts.

Maybe we could make a deal the mining companies. If they can clean up the mess in Butte, at their expense, ....?"

They have had like a 1000s of geese land there at once. All died due to the toxicity of the acid water. Usually now they have some constant hazing method so most won't land.

I drove the back county of the extreme northwest county of Colorado and you see numerous sites of copper leaching-looks pretty sterile. now and they the
they got underground copper mines now that have water coming to the surface and draining out of the mine-very toxic and they can't stop the flow. Like a huge spring got opened up.

Maybe a retired person with time on their hands could research all the mines from this particular South American company and find photos of the aftermath and also data on failures.

it is most certainly the ugly truth that does not get discussed in washington

Well said.

I remember a different situation when going to school at South Dakota State University. The wildlife students wanted to see if the trout streams in the Black hills from the Homestead gold mines had recovered.
They put some metal screen gages in the streams to see what fish and aquatic life was there.
Well what happened was the streams were so acidic toxic that the metal screen dissolved-evaporated from the toxics in the stream decades after mining was over.

Pinetree: "I remember a different situation when going to school at South Dakota State University. The wildlife students wanted to see if the trout streams in the Black hills from the Homestead gold mines had recovered.
They put some metal screen gages in the streams to see what fish and aquatic life was there.
Well what happened was the streams were so acidic toxic that the metal screen dissolved-evaporated from the toxics in the stream decades after mining was over."

HEY! i'm a Jackrabbit, too!

I believe it's important to point out a rather fictional indictment that's been propagated throughout this discussion. The accusation that Twin Metals is miner with a track record of polluting and paying fines. That is simply untrue. Twin Metals does not own or operate any mines. Nor has it ever. Ergo, it has not suffered a mining accident nor paid any fines resulting from phantom environmental transgressions.

Also, a company like Twin Metals could likely never develop this project without some kind of financial heft - a partner or parent. This is where Antofagasta - the Chilean mining giant comes in. Vilifying this company as an alien outfit robbing the US of critical resources is another outright fiction. They are operating entirely within established norms. As an example, the USA imports the majority of its copper from Chile. The Chilean component comes from Freeport McMoRan's open pit mine in El Abra. Freeport McMoRan is an American company mining Chilean copper and exporting home to the USA. All perfectly within the established norms of the mining industry.

I don't have a dog in this hunt but I find the subject interesting. But please stick to the facts and avoid the flag-waving. No doubt most of the folks on this board are against this mining proposal. But let's not turn this place into a mindless echo chamber of tall tales and half-truths.

Come on Argo…

Some technicalities are correct. Twin Metals has never run a mine. it is US based…But it is essentially owned by the Chilean Luksic Family for all practical purposes. It’s not only a foreign owned it is a single family owned and controls a lot of the Chilean Government. The Luksic family controls the Chilean Bank. One family owns 90% of the major Business assets in Chili. In addition to Banking, they control energy and shipping in that country as well. This amount of centralized power by one family/company would never be allowed in a country like the US or Canada. This Family/Company would be in charge of the metals mined and the profits…it is foreign.

The Luksic family has a history of paying off politicians. Some proven, some legal, some alleged…it now has monetary ties to US Government officials..legal or not… There is a complete lack of trust.

Why does all that matter? Antofagasta has polluted the environment, has been fined, was just fined again by a government they largely have control over. They have either operated their mines corruptly, as alleged or are incompetent. Take your pick. If that’s operating as normal, I would say that’s another check against them.

The US mining company Freeport McMorans doesn’t have any connection to Twin Metals but it has a poor mining history as well…it has almost 200 Million in environmental fines and almost another million in Government Contracting fines against them. Their record is often cited as an example that copper sulfide mining hasn’t been done without damaging the watershed. Which it hasn’t whether in Chili or the US.

T

Mocha: "

Pinetree: "I remember a different situation when going to school at South Dakota State University. The wildlife students wanted to see if the trout streams in the Black hills from the Homestead gold mines had recovered.
They put some metal screen gages in the streams to see what fish and aquatic life was there.
Well what happened was the streams were so acidic toxic that the metal screen dissolved-evaporated from the toxics in the stream decades after mining was over."

HEY! i'm a Jackrabbit, too!"

Awesome I loved that college.

I have read this entire thread. I also support not having a copper mine feeding in to the BWCA area.

That said. . . without copper there would be no electric cars, battieries, ammunition and almost all of the electronics we use. None of our hybrids would work. We can't depend on foreign mines in the current geopolitical climate. So the question is: Whose back yard are you willing to build a copper mine in? Or if the answer is not in the US, are you willing to give up all your electronics?

Im so against this happening in or near the BWCA.But to everyone who pushed virtue signaling of the need for electric cars,well,we warned you.They are not as environmentally clean as you think.These elements necessary to build them have to come from somewhere.I am and will alway be happy with my V8 internal combustion pick up truck.

Agree with the above. I don't want a copper mine near the BWCA either. However if we all drive EV's and hybrids the mines have to go somewhere. Where would you suggest?

Venezuela
Greenland
Antarctica

Hey you asked

scat: "Venezuela
Greenland
Antarctica"

Or.

Link

Lithium Ion Batteries will hopefully be made obsolete with this new type of battery that is way friendlier to the environment.

Link

Link

Its all about wealth, and the power it bestows. The powerful have the wealth to buy off those in authority who are responsible for granting mining approvals, as well as other regulated activities. It seems the Constitution has been revised to state ...government of the people, by the wealthy, for the wealthy... Time to take the original words '...government BY THE PEOPLE...' seriously by getting actively involved in issues like protecting the BWCA. There are citizen organizations that work to protect natural parks and wilderness places like the BWCA. When these groups have high membership and ample resources to challenge the powers to be, they have been and can be effective. Join up or organize your own group. Otherwise, prepare to chain yourself to a tree in front of an oncoming bulldozer. ;-)

P.S. Nothing against sending letters to elected officials, but if they do not receive a volume so great that it threatens their electability, little attention or a lip service response will be the result.

I'll leave it for someone else to get the current numbers, but my understanding is we are exporting close to 50% of copper scrap (recycled) from the US to other countries (China taking the largest percentage). The amount of scrap we produces is not some small percentage of what we consume each year. If we kept this scrap in the US and reclaimed the copper, would we even need to expand any mining for the foreseeable future? It seems with copper in particular that if the goal is be independent, then why are we not expanding our scrap refining capacity and putting export restrictions in place?

Putting it another way, why are senators taking the time discussing a mine that might produce 100 million pounds of copper per year, when we might be shipping 5+ times that amount overseas each year?

Waste Not, Want Not - B. Franklin.

I think its important to point out that wealth, power and politics are simply responding to the demands of the market and we can't insulate ourselves from these issues by simply not exporting recycled copper or mining it elsewhere. Globally the demand for copper is expected to increase by 50% by 2050 a market which is currently serviced by 700 plus copper mines world wide. By themselves, these mines only supply roughly 70% of the worlds needs with recycling making up difference. And with that said, there is still shortage each year which in turn has pushed the value of copper to its current record high. By 2030 the current system is expected to hit peak production, which means increasing production requires introducing better technics of recycling and opening up new mines. The good news; we have 200 plus years of untapped known and unknown copper reserves scattered all over the globe. The bad news; the copper that is left is increasingly more difficult to mine. The core of the problem is our collective need to consume. We are 340 million Americans who want everything, everywhere, all the time. Capitalism and its perpetual growth model at the expense of everything else is just doing what it does best, converting nature into dollars the cheapest and quickest way it can. ALL of us contribute to this cycle everyday and because it has been so successful at protecting us from the hardships of our ancestors, we look the other way when we compare "progress" to the pollution it creates. Naively, I think we all believe or secretly hope that technology can somehow fix all these problems for us so we won't suffer from our excesses. I would be happy to tie myself to a tree or stand in front of a bulldozer if it would stop mining in the BW. Unfortunately, I think that the best case scenario is delaying what may be unstoppable.

BWCA: "
I'll leave it for someone else to get the current numbers, but my understanding is we are exporting close to 50% of copper scrap (recycled) from the US to other countries (China taking the largest percentage). The amount of scrap we produces is not some small percentage of what we consume each year. If we kept this scrap in the US and reclaimed the copper, would we even need to expand any mining for the foreseeable future? It seems with copper in particular that if the goal is be independent, then why are we not expanding our scrap refining capacity and putting export restrictions in place?


Putting it another way, why are senators taking the time discussing a mine that might produce 100 million pounds of copper per year, when we might be shipping 5+ times that amount overseas each year?


Waste Not, Want Not - B. Franklin.


"

Good point. There are lots of moving parts. My understanding is that the USA's ability to refine copper is maxed out. And the copper produced in Twin Metals' mine would need to be shipped to China for refinement.

Which illuminates another problem. It takes years or decades of red tape, approvals and construction not only for mines but for smelters too. As for scrap, it's not a simple matter of melting it down and pouring it into moulds. And new projects will likely be proposed in the backyards of some other states where the locals will put up resistance and extend the life of approval and viability.

Thus, the work needs to start now in order to be able to produce a mine and refinery in ten or twenty years. And it's not entirely about local resistance and red-tape that slow these projects. It's also fundamental issues like surveying, engineering, roads, rail access and shipping capacity, power etc. How long has Twin Metals been at this and there's still no guaranty of production.

Adding copper to the Critical Minerals list was a step in the direction of faster-tracking approvals for a variety of projects like Twin Metals' proposed mine and additional refinement projects. The USA is not alone in recognizing the urgency of producing these minerals and the unwelcome reliance on hostile foreign actors.

As Thomas Sowell famously said, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs".

Speaking of hostile foreign actors, why should Americans support Antofagasta Minerals' efforts to send our copper to Chinese smelters? Have they promised to sell the minerals only to us and our allies? Of course not. They will sell these minerals to our enemies if they have the highest bid. I agree that these minerals are needed. I am glad that they are there, and they aren't going anywhere. If an American company could show that the benefits outweigh the risks associated with a mine, it would have a lot more support. Based on the public comments received, it has very little support. A large majority of the 100,000+ public comments received oppose this project, and that deserves consideration. The disregard of public comment here is a huge departure from American public land policy's history of reliance on robust public input.

There is still many massive copper deposits worldwide that are away from precious water sources, less chance of pollution.

KarlK: "Speaking of hostile foreign actors, why should Americans support Antofagasta Minerals' efforts to send our copper to Chinese smelters? Have they promised to sell the minerals only to us and our allies? Of course not. They will sell these minerals to our enemies if they have the highest bid. I agree that these minerals are needed. I am glad that they are there, and they aren't going anywhere. If an American company could show that the benefits outweigh the risks associated with a mine, it would have a lot more support. Based on the public comments received, it has very little support. A large majority of the 100,000+ public comments received oppose this project, and that deserves consideration. The disregard of public comment here is a huge departure from American public land policy's history of reliance on robust public input. "

China has abundant refining capacity but not enough domestic deposits. So they are kind of like a go-to for processing. The USA has too little of both to meet its needs.

I'm sure Antofagsta would be happy to ship Minnesota ore to local smelters. It would be cheaper and more profitable. But they can't as US refining capacity is stretched.

This is the norm for how copper gets to market. It's the same for other fungible materials. They are often extracted in one location and refined in another. A lot of Alberta oil is piped to the gulf coast owing to Canada's lack of refining capacity vs production. Sudbury ON is a huge integrated (mining and refining) copper and nickel hub. Even so, some of its ore is processed in Europe.

Viscerally, it's tempting to get one's back up about the international machinations of (in this case) copper production. But that is the world as it is and how it's evolved. If you're insisting this copper stay State-side from mining to refined product, then you need more smelting capacity. Now who wants a copper smelter in his back yard?

If the proposed Twin Metals project had never existed, I bet a survey of most people here would be happy to know that China does the dirty, combustible business of smelting copper in their backyard.

Just to add... if China was to hoard its production of refined copper, how long do you think it would take for the US and elsewhere to impose an embargo on copper ore shipped to China? If that were to occur, the price of copper would skyrocket and the downstream effect would be shortages and the inflation of all copper based products like EVs and electronics.

As was stated, the US exported 518,000 tons of copper last year.
We need a smelter, not a mine.

The United States is the world's largest exporter of gasoline, exporting approximately 900,000 barrels per day.
I find this interesting since many people think we import Gasoline.

Commodities are sold on the open market, to the highest bidder. Copper mined in the US would be sold to the highest bidder. It is false that the US would benefit from the mining of the copper. There are many laid off miners in northern MN right now. All minerals go through boom and bust periods.
No long-term wealth is created by mining.

I love Minnesota, and do not wish ill will on anyone. But some of poorest towns in our state are mining towns. Even during boom years, the bust comes. It is tough career to me a miner.
Tom

The world "as it is and as it has evolved" is leaving Americans with less security, prosperity and natural heritage, and I expect our leaders to correct course and put our interests first. I also expect leaders to listen when 100,000 taxpayers weigh in on a project on public land. In 1908, the world as it was and had evolved had been devastated by pollution from mining and industry. In 1909, Theodore Roosevelt established the Superior National Forest and began the work of protecting this landscape. The world as it was and had evolved was corrected by morality and wisdom. We could have a reasonable amount of minerals for our use and an intact watershed if we had more of those two scarce resources.

tumblehome: "As was stated, the US exported 518,000 tons of copper last year.
We need a smelter, not a mine.


The United States is the world's largest exporter of gasoline, exporting approximately 900,000 barrels per day.
I find this interesting since many people think we import Gasoline.


Commodities are sold on the open market, to the highest bidder. Copper mined in the US would be sold to the highest bidder. It is false that the US would benefit from the mining of the copper. There are many laid off miners in northern MN right now. All minerals go through boom and bust periods.
No long-term wealth is created by mining.


I love Minnesota, and do not wish ill will on anyone. But some of poorest towns in our state are mining towns. Even during boom years, the bust comes. It is tough career to me a miner.
Tom"

The estimated mine life for the Twin Lakes project is estimated at 25 years. That's pretty good as mine lives go as fifteen years is about the average. And it's based on drilling from surface. Once a shaft is sunk, drilling out at depth often produces assays that extend the mine life beyond initial projections. Plus, technologies to profitably extract minerals from lower grade ore are constantly improving. Thus it's too soon to accurately predict the life of this proposed mine. But it's not at the low end initially at twenty five years.

I’m not going to write a letter to a politician but I am against the mine.

And since reading all of this have started hoarding pennies…

scat: "I’m not going to write a letter to a politician but I am against the mine.

And since reading all of this have started hoarding pennies…"

Have to look for pre-1982!

Your reply made me curious so I googled it.
Pre 1982 pennies were 95% copper & 5% zinc
Post 1982 to now they are 2.5% copper & 97.5% zinc

That’s good to know. Why does that make me sad…

Now ya got me thinking, I’m sure there is some kind of conspiracy or criminal enterprise that is actually the ones doing the hoarding of the valuable pennies. I have a big Utz pretzel jar that is 3/4 full of coins. I wonder what is the percentage of pre to post 1982 pennies in the batch. Hmm…

Ok I’ll shut up while I work on that, back to serious mine talk.

Cheers, scat

"Improving our domestic critical mineral supply chain is an important national priority for expanding zero-emission technologies that will be vital in combatting the deadly climate crisis"

There is no zero emission technology that doesn't use critical minerals.

For those who think the mine will bring jobs I did a little research and pulled this off the web:
Antofagasta Minerals is aggressively driving automation and digitalization across its Chilean copper operations to boost safety, productivity, and sustainability. Key initiatives include utilizing AI for operational decisions, deploying autonomous haulage fleets, integrating private 4.9G/LTE networks, and implementing Trolley Assist technology to reduce diesel consumption by up to 90%.
Key Automation and Digitalization Initiatives:
Autonomous Haulage and Drilling: Centinela mine uses a fleet of 11 autonomous trucks and two autonomous drill rigs to improve efficiency.
AI and Data Optimization: The Integrated System of Operational Recommendations (SIRO) uses AI,, data analytics, and sensor technology at the Antucoya mine to optimize processing based on real-time data.
Wireless Connectivity: Partnered with Nokia to deploy private 4.9G/LTE networks, enabling reliable, low-latency communication for automated vehicles and sensors.
Decarbonization Technologies: Collaborating with ABB on Trolley Assist systems at Los Pelambres to reduce emissions and testing battery-powered solutions.
Digital Twin and Remote Ops: Implementing advanced digital tools to improve mine planning, equipment monitoring, and decision-making.

Strategic Objectives:
Safety: Removing personnel from high-risk environments.
Efficiency: Improving operational productivity through precise, continuous, 24/7 operation.
Sustainability: Reducing the carbon footprint by decreasing diesel dependence and increasing electricity usage.
Competitiveness: Lowering operational costs through optimized processing and reduced equipment downtime.

Antofagasta’s long-term plan aims to integrate these technologies for a, fully connected, efficient, and sustainable mining operation as part of its goal of achieving carbon neutrality.

Not sure how many local jobs will be created in the age of automation and A.I.

I'll talk pennies. Since I was a child I collected one of every mint since the 1930's. Most are worthless, so I probably should pick someone to pass this down to in the future.

I also have Canadian pennies pre the 1980's.

inspector13: "
I also have Canadian pennies pre the 1980's.
"

How can you talk about pennies when the fate of the entire Boundary Waters is at stake. We might not ever be able to go back ever

Just kidding. Great discussion btw. I know the Minnesota DNR will have a say. I have faith