Response to PolyMet's Press Release

A note from MCEA CEO Kathryn Hoffman

Tuesday, August 15th, PolyMet delivered a press release that was an impressive display of misdirection. The statement outlines several aspects of its flawed proposal they say they are choosing to research and possibly redesign. All under the guise of making their proposed mine more cost and energy efficient if it passed environmental review. 

But you and I know better. 

We’ve been on the frontlines of holding PolyMet accountable. We’ve been challenging them in the courts and telling the true story to decision makers and the press. We know this change was not voluntary. As I told the Associated Press, PolyMet is only rethinking every aspect of their mine plan because the courts told them they have to.

I want to say that again, PolyMet is seriously considering redesigning every aspect of this flawed mine proposal because they have finally yielded to the repeated court losses mounting against the company for years. 

It’s the first time the company has publicly acknowledged shortcomings with its proposal. Redesigning the plan will take years if not decades. It’s time for PolyMet to withdraw its application and stop wasting any additional state resources on its current proposal.

Legally, any of the changes they’re considering will result in a new environmental review process. Components the company is considering changing include: 

• Tailings storage: They're rethinking how to store the mine waste, also called tailings. This was always one of the biggest problems with the proposal. The Minnesota Supreme Court sent this permit back to the DNR because it was insufficient.
• Upstream dam: They're recognizing that the dangerous upstream dam they’d been planning needs to be reconsidered. Dam collapses around the world have shown that upstream dams are extremely dangerous. For example, the 2019 Brumadinho dam collapse in Brazil that caused 272 fatalities involved an upstream dam. 
• Water quality: The Minnesota Supreme Court also reversed PolyMet’s water pollution permit because it had not been proven that the permit would protect surface waters. The court also said their current plan violated rules protecting Minnesota’s groundwater, because it would sacrifice at least 2,000 acres of groundwater underneath the site to pollution. PolyMet’s statement mentions increased water monitoring to evaluate water quality impacts, but monitoring the pollution in our water is not the same as protecting it. 
• Increased production: When we challenged PolyMet’s air permit, we told DNR and the courts that all along PolyMet planned to secure a permit for a smaller mine, and then immediately pivot to a larger mine. Now PolyMet is acknowledging that they are planning to mine more tons per day than they admitted to DNR. 
• Wetlands destruction: One thing missing from PolyMet’s statement is any mention of the massive amount of wetlands that would be destroyed under their current plan. The US Army Corps of Engineers revoked its wetlands destruction permit after agreeing that there was no way that the current plan could advance without violating the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s water quality standards. 

In 2018, they told us this mine was a done deal and to give up. Together, we refused to let our state put corporate mining interests over our water. PolyMet doesn’t want this news to seem important, but it is. It shows what’s possible when we combine expertise in the law and unwavering public scrutiny.