Mining Company Says It's Pulling Out Of Wisconsin

[hue]

http://www.channel3000.com/money/30624538/detail.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

MADISON, Wis. -- The head of a mining company that had been considering opening an iron mine in northern Wisconsin said it is dropping the project after the state Senate failed to pass a bill the company wanted.

Gogebic Taconite president Bill Williams said in a statement released Tuesday that the Senate's inability to pass the bill easing regulations to speed licensing of a new mine "sends a clear message that Wisconsin will not welcome iron mining." Williams said the company is ending plans to start the mine near Lake Superior.

Republican senators failed to gain enough support for the bill earlier on Tuesday after one GOP lawmaker joined Democrats in opposition. The bill remains alive, but time is running out as the session ends next week.

Lawmakers unanimously voted Tuesday to send the issue back to committee. A spokesman for the Senate majority leader said they will continue to try to find a bill both houses can agree on.

[exboyfil]

1. No iron mining

Upside: Less environmental damage, less CO2 counted against us
Downside: Less employment in mining, increase in trade deficit from buying foreign iron, possibly steel and the products made from that steel made in a foreign country as well, and possibly less employment for equipment manufacturers like Cat and Deere

[AleksS]

2. It's just a bullying-move

There's no reason, no reason for them to require the fullscale elimination of major environmental, but more importantly citizen-protection measures the major Republican bill is proposing.

The only "clear message" being sent here is by the mining company to its bought-and-paid-for republican stooges: Our way or the highway.

WI welcomes iron mining. WI does NOT welcome destroying our environment and putting the lives and health of our citizens at risk without recourse.

This makes me madder than just about anything I've read lately, on the local front.

[exboyfil]

5. Why are not other mining companies stepping up

to mine the ore with correctly priced externalities? It may be that, until other locations (including foreign ones) correctly price their externalities, that mining will not be in the cards for this region.

Upside is that over time your iron resources will become more valuable (assuming that technology/better recycling procedures do not replace iron ore as a better option.

[Scuba]

3. This attempt to permanently despoil or environment and foul our water...

... in exchange for a handful of temporary jobs is NOT a good deal for Wisconsin.



We need 200,000 jobs, at least. A mere 700 is a drop in the bucket and certainly not worth the cost of our clean water.

Let's make sure this never returns.

[exboyfil]

4. A reasonable decision

A CBA which includes the externalities is the reason for regulations. I would point out that ultimately more jobs can be involved than just the immediate ones of the mining (for example the steel manufacturers and the equipment/vehicle/other manufacturers who will use the steel).

Classical economics include resource extraction as one of the sources of wealth creation. Other methods include farming, ranching, productive labor, and utilization of intellectual property.

[Scuba]

6. The reason for the bill was to exempt Gogebic from environmental protections.....

... and without that exemption, Gobegic backed out. It's that simple.

[sybylla]

7. Good news as far as I can see.

This was going to be a decision between tourism jobs/small businesses/farms/healthy communities (the latter two needing clean water) and mining jobs/megacorp.

Let the mining company pout and take their ball home. We'll be the better for it in the long run. We can do better at creating jobs in the northwoods than some hasty, reckless scheme that had the potential to harm a 1/3 of the state's population and half of it's natural environment - and that's if we could keep it from contaminating the Great Lakes.