March 11, 2012
Now you tell us!
The Wisconsin State Journal wanted a big mine in northern Wisconsin, so it appears the editors kept damaging information buried. Now that mining probably will not happen, the WSJ tells readers that it would have been incredibly expensive and dangerous. Thanks a lot!
Here are some facts just now coming to the surface. Extracting iron from Penokee would be very expensive and tough. One expert said that is why the company proposed a 1,000-foot-deep mine. She went on to say the rock holding the iron was tilted upright by geologic forces at a 60-degree angle. Getting at the deepest sections would require going deep into the earth. That being the case, Gogebic would have to remove an enormous amount of rock from above the iron deposit. Some 83 million cubic meters of rock would have had to have been removed to reach the iron. Yikes!
Most experts also believe the rock sitting on top of the actual iron deposit contains sulfides. When sulfides are exposed to water and air, toxic acid drainage is created. WSJ's editors' response: Hey, don't worryaboutit!
Forget about trout streams and the Bad River. As for the tribes? Oh well. Destruction of wetlands and on and on.
The Cap Times Wednesday print edition is going so well, why not a Sunday version?
Great crowd at the Capitol to celebrate the anniversary of the uprising. WSJ said 35,000, more reliable sources said 50-60,000. Whether it was 35,000 or double that, the fervor remains.
post a letter about this blog »
All that work and destruction to get to the ore body. Hmmm. Wouldn't it be easier to hire junkmen to go around the state and clean up auto junkyards? I know a dandy just outside of Sturgeon Bay where they could start.
-Griebnotz Doerkpfester | (Glad) I Escaped, WI. | March 11, 2012
That incredible expense could have practically eliminated a net proceeds tax. This is one of many reasons not to tax profits. Rather than tax the back end of the process, taxes should be on the front end where economic effort meets the earth. There at the very beginning the opportunity cost of the mine can be opined.
The low grade iron ore in the earth is better than money in the bank since fiat money only decreases in value as the Fed prints on. Conversely, the taconite will only increase in value being that Mother Earth is not making any more. Future opportunity costs will have to consider the compromising of the unique water wealth of the area that will only increase in value and perhaps in basin quantity in a warming world.
A series of severance and pollution taxes might be considered. First a severance tax on the total rock removed, in this case 83 million cubic meters. Then a severance tax on the actual paydirt. Any sulfides meeting the acid test would be the occasion for a toxic drainage pollution tax. Wetland loss would probably be mitigated at this point with the flight of the mining company to points where profits are taxed and natural resource inputs are gratis.
-Ernest Martinson | Hayward Wisconsin | March 11, 2012
Grieb---
Just cleaning up our ravines and fields of scrapped implements and appliances would provide jobs and resources for smelters.
-pietr haikuu | hurley | March 11, 2012
So true, Ed. The "science" of the fake distinction between "ferrous" mining and other kinds of mining was purposely ignored in the mining bill. We now know, as Sen. Fitzgerald has admitted, that the mining company wrote the bill. It was left to citizen geologists and those "nutty" UW and Lawrence U. professors to enlighten the Legislature about the sulfides in the rock over the taconite. But their testimony was (to quote one of the geologists) "too sciency" for the jobs and joint finance committees. They were intent on delivering the goods to Gogebic Taconite. These are the same folks who believe global warming is caused by sunspots. Or maybe that was US Senator Ron Johnson. GTac has made it clear from their hasty retreat that they had no interest in "responsible" mining, just a quick buck--thank you.
-Patricia K Hammel | Madison WI | March 12, 2012
current
--------
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003