When we are told mining or pipelines are safe, we are really being told that the people doing the mining or building the pipeline have the ability to get insurance to cover any foreseeable damage that they may be liable for. Pipelines always rupture.
When we are told mining or pipelines are safe, we are really being told that the people doing the mining or building the pipeline have the ability to get insurance to cover any foreseeable damage that they may be liable for. Pipelines always rupture. These things come under risk management. You spread it around and figure the cost in when building the pipeline then buy insurance. However it doesn't mean that you won't damage the environment.
Lake Superior holds 10 percent of the world's fresh water, it is forecast that within a few years fresh water will be more valuable than oil; is it worth the possibility that you might pollute this resource for a few dollars? I don't think so and I don't think that it is wise to have elected officials that would either. Both of the other large lakes in the world are heavily polluted. A couple of years ago I took the tour of the coal mine electrical generating complex in North Dakota, they harvested all the pollutants, packaged them and sold them separately, and they were worth in the vicinity of the same amount as the electricity. Maybe some regulations that required that all the pollutants had to be separated out and removed from the state would give some incentive to run a clean operation. The money from Polymet goes first to Switzerland then to Polymet in Canada then to the clean-up fund. What is the chance that when it is all said and done Polymet goes bankrupt and the funds can't be touched in Switzerland and Minnesota will be stuck with the clean-up, the big wild rice area won't be able to grow rice and Lake Superior will still be polluted.