In my opinion, the PolyMet mine should not be built. There are many reasons as to why I believe that the mine will result in more negative outcomes than positive. The first reason why is that the PolyMet company offered a land exchange with the government which contains an equal amount of land acreage; however, the two plots of land are not environmentally equal (BC Hydro, 2013, p. X). PolyMet did not offer an entire plot of land as an exchange, but instead they offered several spread out plots for the National Forest Land (BC Hydro, 2013, p. X). The plots of land that PolyMot offered are technically equal size wise, but not quality wise. If the government was to agree on the exchange, the wildlife that is currently thriving on the National Forest Land may be disturbed due to the …show more content…
Currently, there are numerous species who are threatened in the area where PolyMet wants to construct the mine. Both the Canada lynx and the Gray wolf are threatened species, as well as the long-eared bat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2016). The construction of the mine would disturb these endangered species and the habitats in which they live in. Another factor in the detrimental effects of the PolyMet mine construction is that by building the mine, relationships among Native Americans will be interrupted. A treaty that dates all the way back to 1854 would be compromised with the building of the mine (BC Hydro, 2013, p. X). This treaty, which was agreed upon by both the government and the Chippewa tribe, gave the Chippewa legal entitlement to the land in which PolyMet wants to build the mine (BC Hydro, 2013, p. X). The production alone will disturb animals and wildlife, which will leave the Chippewa with less resources on the land that they preserved for nearly two centuries. For these reasons and more, I believe that the PolyMet mine will ultimately cause more harm than
...plete report. Before this was done the mine blew up. In the end, the news story that broke was focused on union campaign contributions and not on mine safety.
The Alberta Oil Sands are large deposits of bitumen in north-eastern Alberta. Discovered in 1848, the first commercial operation was in 1967 with the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant opening, and today many companies have developments there. The Alberta Oil Sand development is very controversial, as there are severe environmental impacts and effects on the local Aboriginal peoples. This essay will discuss the need for changes that can be made for the maximum economic benefit for Canada, while reducing the impact on the environment and limiting expansion, as well as securing Alberta’s future. Changes need to be made to retain the maximum economic benefits of the Alberta Oil Sands while mitigating the environmental and geopolitical impact. This will be achieved by building pipelines that will increase the economic benefits, having stricter environmental regulation and expansion limitations, and improving the Alberta Heritage Fund or starting a new fund throu...
Throughout this mining process a byproduct is created called chat. The chat is leftover rock and waste from mining that did not contained the desired materials. The chat was left on the site because the Bureau of Indian Affairs thought it could be of value to the Quapaw tribe (1). This chat contained high levels of toxic lead and other harmful chemicals. It is estimated that there are 75 Million tons (150 billion pounds) of chat piles remaining exposed to the environment as well as numerous flotation ponds that haven’t been taken into account (4).
The Keystone XL pipeline continues dividing the opinion of the people and being a controversial issue. The precious “black gold”, represents one of the main factors that moves the economy, nationally and globally. This extra-long pipeline will transport oil all the way from Canada to Texas. Some experts and the private oil corporation, who is the one in charge of this project, point to the benefits of this project, for example, will make the USA more independent from foreign oil, will create thousands of jobs and improve the economy. Nevertheless, are experts revealing how the pipeline is an unnecessary risk and will be negative for the environment, dangerous for the population living close to the big pipes, and long-term negative for the
The standpoint on this view is that the mine could contaminate the water and hurt or damage the surrounding environment. Mining tends to rip up terrain and completely ruin the land and soil. Since the Bristol Bay region is very dependent on sockeye salmon for their way of survival, they are afraid of the consequences that might hurt the species, and other wildlife. If the mine damaged the salmon fisheries it could create a big economic problem, because many would lose their jobs. There choices lie between their current jobs, or not even guaranteed jobs. Even if the jobs were guaranteed, mining is dangerous. There are many problems that could possibly go wrong in the mining business. At this point in time, we still are not sure about earthquake activity in this region. Mining could potentially disrupt something and cause a catastrophic
...tes in each areas. Once a valuable natural resources is discovered on a reservation, the government desires they should be able to mine it, however the natives won't permit it. They are saying that it's their land which the government has no claim to that.
According to Gerald F. Hess, author of “The Trail Smelter, the Columbia River, and the Extraterritorial Application of CERCLA”, writes “the Trail Smelter emitted between 100 and 700 tons of sulphur dioxide per day.3 Beginning in 1925, Washington farmers located near the border with British Columbia began complaining to Consolidated Mining about emissions from the smelter.4 In 1928, the United States and Canada agreed to refer the dispute to the International Joint Commission (IJC).5 In 1931, the IJC issued its final report, recommending that Canada pay the United States US$350,000 in compensation for damages caused by emissions from the Trail Smelter and that Consolidated Mining install devices to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions”(Hess, 2005). This example strengthened international environmental laws and brought new developments to managing pollution across national borders. It is important to note that the establishment of an international tribunal environmental agreement by the both countries was a unique
To the northeast part of Arizona lay a conflict between two indigenous groups from the surrounding area and the world’s largest coal company formerly known as Peabody Coal (now Peabody Energy). The Hopi and Navajo reservations surround a region known as Black Mesa. Black Mesa is located on both the Navajo and Hopi Reservations which is a target source for underground water called the N-aquifer. The N-aquifer contains a great amount of pristine Ice Age water. As time drew on, many indigenous people were alarmed that the water was carelessly being depleted from their land. Mining on Black Mesa should be stopped because the inhabitants are affected by Peabody, livestock in the area must depend on the local springs, groundwater is being depleted at an average of 3.3 million gallons per day, and the water is being contaminated (SBMW Online par 1).
The aboriginal people live in reserves that are rich in minerals like oil and gas. Their traditional beliefs cannot allow them to benefit from an economic venture like mining. They believe that Mother Nature should and needs to be protected. In a bid to do so, they have rules against exploitation of nature like modern mining. This puts their traditional values at odds with economical developments like mining. This leaves them in a dilapidated state as poverty kicks in (Wilson and Macdonald, 2000). If the aboriginal people were to concede to mining, another issue like land ownership would still crop up. Aboriginal tribes vehemently believe in owning land communally. Mineral rights in Canada can only allow mining to take place in a piece of land that is owned by an individual. This makes any form of mining taking place in the aboriginal land a difficult task.
Even though many people feel that taconite mining will be good for the economy, community, and jobs, it will really only cause a lot of harm to the community. Taconite mining has a bad effect on the environment and health. Mining will cause community members to have cancer, such as mesothelioma. It will create a huge impact on the environment, in the water, air, and to living organisms. Wild rice beds may become extinct in the area. Overall it would just create a huge mess that may never be able to be cleaned up.
Why is there not a non-biased investigation and assessment done to determine the cumulative effects to the environment and to First Nation rights, when there are several different industries and resource extraction projects happening at the same time and in the same land base?
The more attention these protests get; the more individuals seek to have the federal government intervene. Politics are definitely highlighting on how ethical these constructions are to the tribes who live on these lands. Since the start of colonization indian tribes have been forced out of their lands, and moved westward. Is it right to create a pipeline, that has been proven have oil leaks into their water supply, so it is an environmental issue. Also these pipelines are being built on sacred land. Should we honor the tribe's traditions, or let into our greed, and seek economic
In recent years, deep ocean drilling and deep ocean mining has received a lot of criticism for its effects on the environment. Many of the mistakes made have caused irreparable damage to the wildlife and the economy that was based around it. In April of this year a multi-national company reached an agreement with Papua New Guinea that would allow them to open up the world’s first deep ocean mine. There are many groups who are against this agreement. One of the major ones being Greenpeace who argue that the marine ecosystem would never recover, and that the loss of species potentially unknown to science outweighs the need for raw materials. There are also those who welcome the agreement, citing that it could potentially be a new frontier in mining. This would allow for more raw materials to be extracted than other methods on land. This paper will analyze the legality of the issue, and the international conferences and declarations that have set the foundation for the agreement between Nautilus Minerals and Papua New Guinea. This paper will also analyze some of the major interest groups and governing bodies involved in the agreement to open the worlds first deep-sea mine.
The Positive Impact of Diamond Mining in the Northwest Territories - 1998-2012. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2017, from
Warhurst, A. (1999). Mining and the environment: case studies from the Americas. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Development Research Centre.