Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2007, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721

Advertisements

Hello

I just read an article in our local paper this weekend that said Rio Tinto may want to bring mining operations to the Upper Peninsula. In the article the there seems to be a few people that welcome the idea of the mining coming to the U.P. because it will help the local economy. But there seems to be a lot more Yoopers against mining in the U.P. Because the mining my ruin the landscape and/or threaten wildlife if there was ever a mishap in there mining operation.

to reference the article.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...per_peninsula/


So let me put this out to the Yoopers up there. Do you think it's a good thing to bring Mining to the U.P.? It may bring jobs and stimulate the economies of the towns up there. Or do you think that is going to cause more problems than it worth?

Thanks to all who respond.
baystater
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2007, 02:10 AM
 
Location: At the end of the road, where the trail begins.
760 posts, read 2,440,980 times
Reputation: 353
Yooper here. Brief answer.
Mining is what has created the U.P. as we know it. However the new company trying to do sulfide mining is BAD, BAD, BAD!!! At most it will create a few dozen jobs for less then ten years (whoopee, we're not that hard up!) and at best it will harm the *immediate* environment.
That's the positive spin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721
Default buried treasure

Buried treasure (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/NEWS06/710140648/1008/NEWS06 - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2007, 04:00 PM
 
Location: State of Superior
8,733 posts, read 15,938,824 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeeg View Post
Yooper here. Brief answer.
Mining is what has created the U.P. as we know it. However the new company trying to do sulfide mining is BAD, BAD, BAD!!! At most it will create a few dozen jobs for less then ten years (whoopee, we're not that hard up!) and at best it will harm the *immediate* environment.
That's the positive spin.
I would have to say you are correct. The short term gains are not worth it.
The UP has a long history of outsiders coming in , taking out the wealth , and , moving on. As long as the UP has something they want , they will take it. Maybe its a good time to think about forming another state again. The UP is not very high on the radar , nationally , however , it IS high on natural resources, mostly Tourists related. What a boom a new state would give to the awareness of the UP !.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2007, 06:47 AM
 
Location: Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan
78 posts, read 357,284 times
Reputation: 59
Default I'm for Mineral Extraction

I don't understand Yoopers who'd banish "tree-huggers" to the ninth-circle of hades but adamantly block the Kendecott mine.

The local municipalities need to form a Mining Board of Control that would assure local oversight of this, any other, mining operation, in the UP. They need to install permitting processes (ie taxes) to assure that a respectable portion of the profits stay in the Western UP, and not re-directed out of the area.

The mine's life would be relatively short (probably less than 10 years) but smart, local stewards could/should use this window of opportunity for infrastructure support of the local economies.

I believe if this mine wasn't anywhere near the Huron Mountain Club there would be no organized opposition .
Huron Mountain Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2007, 08:57 AM
 
Location: State of Superior
8,733 posts, read 15,938,824 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Lakes Pirate View Post
I don't understand Yoopers who'd banish "tree-huggers" to the ninth-circle of hades but adamantly block the Kendecott mine.

The local municipalities need to form a Mining Board of Control that would assure local oversight of this, any other, mining operation, in the UP. They need to install permitting processes (ie taxes) to assure that a respectable portion of the profits stay in the Western UP, and not re-directed out of the area.

The mine's life would be relatively short (probably less than 10 years) but smart, local stewards could/should use this window of opportunity for infrastructure support of the local economies.

I believe if this mine wasn't anywhere near the Huron Mountain Club there would be no organized opposition .
Huron Mountain Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I agree with what you have said also. However , there is some real effort opposing the Mine. ( At lease in the Marquette area )... I know about the Huron Mountain Club....... its a good thing they have been around , to have saved a most important area from development.
Its hard to organize any loosely connected peoples..... especially Yoopers ! Marquette , as a city is quite controlled, but , the County , is loose as a goose. Another reason for more local control of the UP, whether Statehood , or more representation in Lansing , and Washington.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2007, 09:58 AM
 
2,260 posts, read 3,881,181 times
Reputation: 475
Nah eh

and good luck with the DEQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2007, 02:51 PM
 
Location: At the end of the road, where the trail begins.
760 posts, read 2,440,980 times
Reputation: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Lakes Pirate View Post
I believe if this mine wasn't anywhere near the Huron Mountain Club there would be no organized opposition .
Huron Mountain Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think there would still be opposition due to the type of mining it is. Wisconsin banned it for a reason.
The main negative IMO, is indeed where they wish to do it. We love hiking and the most beautiful area of the U.P. in our opinion is from just north of Marquette to Big Bay west through the "Huron Mountains", through the McCormick Tract Wilderness area over to the L'anse area. Leave that area untouched by any progress/development of any sort. It's a little known gem and should be left that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Keweenaw Peninsula, Michigan
78 posts, read 357,284 times
Reputation: 59
Hi Jeeg,
You're right in recognizing there would Kennecott-mine opposition - but I think the wealthy & powerful members of HMC have done a lot to fund and organize the opposition.

I'm really not an expert on mining practices, so I don't how the sulfide method will or will not impact the enviornment.

I do think, however, if the UP is to ever be economically viable (providing stable employment, good education, etc) we need to strike a balance between utilizing our natural resources and admiring them for their beauty.

Part of this "balance" will have to include local oversight to assure proper stewardship of the resources (aesthetic, mineral, recreational, economic and ecological). That is, we can't have absent mine-owners or federal bureaucrats in charge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2007, 04:42 PM
 
1 posts, read 3,347 times
Reputation: 12
Default Avoid the knee-jerk response

If mining is done safely and cleanly, it will be a benefit to the area.

The tipoff in one of the responses above is the reference to "sulfide mining". That is the code phrase used by those who oppose the mine. They hope to capitalize on the idea that Kennecott will be digging for stuff that only industrialists want to use.

In truth, the proposal is to mine nickel and copper in the area. Sulfides would be one of the byproducts of the process.

The Michigan DEQ has adopted detailed regulations which will have to be met before the mine will be permitted. The option of just starting to dig, and come what may, is no longer available.

m
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top