Mining applicants would have to pay more for permits and licenses, supply more detailed plans to state regulators, and work around a new list of areas deemed off-limits under regulations the state Department of Natural Resources is developing.
The DNR has proposed new permanent administrative rules that would increase fees for nonferrous mining exploration and operation permits, licenses and fees by about $502,000 per project. Applicants also would be required to provide substantially greater detail in feasibility reports, operational plans and construction documentation as conditions for permits.
The rules include a list of areas where mining wouldn’t be allowed, including wilderness areas designated by statute; wild and scenic rivers; national and state parks; areas with unique geologic features; wildlife refuges; state natural areas; properties of historical significance; and endangered species habitat.
Evers, liberals destroying jobs.
Awful. Just awful.
Sure, safe drinking water and clean air are low priorities with “conservatives” nowadays.
Maybe this will clean up the mess walker etal made with the ge-tac fiasco.
Explain how increasing fees and licenses makes cleaner water? It makes it more expensive for businesses to operate, but it doesn’t keep anything cleaner.
Far to simple of a dismissal there, Owen. Those proposed fee/license increases are peanuts compared to the scope of these projects. The important changes are to increased detail in application materials, sensitive area considerations, operation and abandonment requirements and conditions.
I guess the Sociopath just made Owen’s point.
Bad for business. Bad for jobs.
Bad for employees.
But good for bureaucrats.
Nord,
Nothing was “unsafe” during Walker and he created jobs.
Is this more liberal trope without facts again?
>Those proposed fee/license increases are peanuts compared to the scope of these projects.
Hey, not to be a bit picker here, but that doesn’t come close to answering the question asked.
“Peanuts” only to someone used to spending from Government’s checkbook.
By the way, a license plate for a Suburban costs the same as a license plate for a Sonic. By your “logic,” that’s just wrong.
j:
The question from Owen was regarding fees. Were you able to comprehend the written word you would understand the answer I gave. That lack of comprehension is all on you.
k:
walker didn’t create any mining jobs, but he did get $700K for his campaign from g-tac. Could you point out where those 13000 Foxconn jobs are located?
Nord,
So is this liberal nonsense/BS more likely to create mining jobs?
Could someone please tell me specifically what it is about these changes that you find objectionable & view as job-killer? ’cause otherwise it sounds as if ya’ll are simply against any/all regulations and/or fees in general.
If the latter is not the case, then can you perhaps explain why the regulations/fees you do approve of wouldn’t harm any jobs and/or drive businesses away from our state? Thanks…
And this was Walker’s mess? Please explain. Because that was one I am pretty familiar with and it was an utter Legislative branch fail. Full on proof of brain damage in the WI legislative branch, all Dems and just enough Republicans to prove stupidity.
“ya’ll are simply against any/all regulations and/or fees in general.”
Typical liberal babble.
>he question from Owen was regarding fees. Were you able to comprehend the written word you would understand the answer I gave. That lack of comprehension is all on you.
So often you come here and act like you want science, facts, truth, and to enlighten your fellow man. When I shared my opinion in a completely neutral and respectful way you respond with snark and insult. Way to go, you’re really changing the world. That last sentence was sarcasm since you won’t understand that.
BTW, the question from Owen wasn’t “regarding fees”. He asked you to share how increasing fees and licenses makes cleaner water. Who has the comprehension issue after all? That last question was not sarcasm.
That isn’t what I said at all, but knowing that you have difficulties with reading other peoples’ statements make it easier to understand why you have the opinions you have, as well as why you call other other people so many childish names.
It’s been repeatedly proven, on other threads, that you have a huge problem with reading comprehension. Tho, I don’t understand why you think others can’t either…for example, Mar just made it crystal-clear that s/he also has problems in that area.
Would be happy to explain how that is connected, but before it is explained I need to know if you actually beleive it is possible for water to be made cleaner or if that is something mankind simply isn’t capable of doing. Please clarify…thanks.
Pot calling kettle Black, he penquin?
Mar said:
On this, we agree.
(Is this how your lil’ game is played? Ain’t sure what rules you kiddos follow now-a-days, and wanna make sure I’m doing it correctly.)
>It’s been repeatedly proven, on other threads, that you have a huge problem with reading comprehension
Wrong.
Oh course, penquin is now just acting a liberal ass. Lacking in respect and engaging in hate.
2nd time you have done this to me and yet I never criticized you.
I guess the game has changed.
Hell, look at how triggered he got when I responded to him with a “I’m hopeful, yet reserved”. Hahaha he got frantic for two days.
You quoted my words out of context, and then accused it of being “liberal babble”.
Are you sure that is what happened? ’cause you’ve been sure about other things as well which were later shown to be completely untrue…
Still wrong.
“cause otherwise it sounds as if ya’ll are simply against any/all regulations and/or fees in general.”
Did you say that?
Or did someone write that for you?
How is that taken out of context?
You never explained why it is out of context.
So, come on show, instead complaining, actually show us how it was taken out of context.
Though, I’ve noticed you like to take people out of context or just completely lie what a person says.
Not very respectful.
’cause by quoting only part of my statement it changes the entire meaning.
In this thread I did make it a point to show you how using only part of a person’s statement can change the meaning of what they are actually saying.
If you have an actual example of me completely lying about what a person says then please link to it…thanks.
Care to defend your Walker attack comments concerning G-tac? Either you are just slurring Walker or ignorant, I am curious which.
You still didn’t explain what I quoted took you out of context or changed what you said.
Thought it was pretty clear, but will be happy to spell it out for ya.
You claimed I made a statement which said “ya’ll are simply against any/all regulations and/or fees in general”. However, I asked the following question: Could someone please tell me specifically what it is about these changes that you find objectionable & view as job-killer? ’cause otherwise it sounds as if ya’ll are simply against any/all regulations and/or fees in general.
Those are two very different things. Should also be noted that you didn’t even bother to answer/address the question that was asked, and instead you decided to personally attack me with this strawman you dragged into the room. Would you like to answer the question or do you wanna keep playing silly games?
Meanwhile, you still haven’t provided any examples of me completely lying about what a person says. Are you gonna do so?
“Meanwhile, you still haven’t provided any examples of me completely lying about what a person says.”
I did, last week.
And the first part of your question was already answered by Owen
But to add, there is no reason to increase fees, especially over a half a million dollars right out of the gate.
And then imposing where they can mine is quite limiting. Now, You cannot mine everywhere and some places should be off limits. But depending how you interpret it, it’s possible to stop mining all together.
And then the people who decide whether you get a permit is also subjective. If a person doesn’t like mining, they will make applicants jump through so many hoops.
Or of course, mining applicants just might go elsewhere, taking the jobs, the fees and tax money with them.
He’s both, although sometimes he just alternates from one to the other.
Link, please
I found his answer to be rather broad, hence my request for specifics. am also interested in learning more about other folks opinions, rather than only his.
Why do you beleive the current fees are adequate? Reading through the article, it appears that these fees haven’t changed since 1982 and thus are overdue for an update.
Isn’t that true of any/all permits?
“Link, please”
I’m not your personal librarian.
Look it up yourself, if you remember, unless you really are the sociopath in drag.
Only paid librarians should be asked to provide their sources?
*rolls eyes*
Good day, sir and God bless.
Another liberal hack.
So sad.
So pathetic.
So predictable.
T:
No “mining” jobs were created by G-TAC in WI. The most of the folks that worked on that proposal were exploration geologists and lawyers. Lots of smoke, no fire. Folks in the business knew that it was a low grade deposit, expensive to extract, LOTS of environmental issues, many outside of walkers control, etc… Was was accomplished was getting some laws passed that severely weaken the mining regulations in WI.
walker ended up with ~$700K in campaign donations from G-TAC funneled through a couple PACs. All over the news back in the day, and no one ever denied it.
You can google scott walker g-tac in wi and get dozens of hits. Enjoy.
Yeah-ha…
Did you actually read the bill or proposals and look up the meanings (a lot of legal jargon)? I did. The proposed mining law relaxations were specifically mining for iron ore. WI has stupid laws that require haz mat suits for all mining endeavors regardless of whether chemicals are used in mining that ore or not. Every state that has significant iron mining has separate rules for mining processes that use or do not use chemicals in the separation of the ores. WI does not. The proposed laws were not relaxing regulations across the board, just for mining iron that does not use hazardous chemicals. Democrats made a big public stink of dangerous mining law relaxations specifically and only to deny Walker a huge positive jobs win in our poorest areas of the State. Shock of shockers, Dems lied. They did such a great job I had to dig pretty deep into the proposed mining methods and the bill itself because each side had such different ‘facts’.
But wait, there’s more. We’ve only hit petty and stupid, we still have ridiculous. The Dems got a big public ad push from the DNR. The area that the mining was being proposed was ‘wetlands’. Of course, in the early 20th century it was a giant forest that was heavily logged and left a wasteland, and that is how it became a wetlands…unregulated logging.
The G-Tac proposal had extensive requirements to re-plant the land after mining and leaving it a viable forestland after mining was completed in their proposal, (the greatest threat of damage from iron mining is leaving the land stripped bare after completion).
So let’s see, a mining project that would provide billions of income to the State, much of it going to the poorest people in the state, that would not be tinkering with the environment, rather it would be draining and restoring the original environment in the area. Sounds too good to be true, so what was it missing? Why something for Democrat politicians, of course! Otherwise it was pretty perfect for the dirt poor northern Wisconsinites whose biggest problem is not poverty from lack of jobs apparently, it is that they didn’t vote Dem enough.
You can’t google the truth, I am afraid, just the gotcha hits you have looked at. You will have to look up the dead bill and mining proposals if they are still out there. There was nothing there that a responsible representative in a state Gov should have hesitated on, just for corrupt pukes whose only purpose was to get re-elected and continue trough feeding.
Enjoy?
And the sociopath loses again.
Lefty Treehuggers despise mining.
Unless, of course, it’s in some out-of-sight foreign country that provides the lithium and cobalt for their Prius and Tesla batteries.
Fixed it for you.
Sure thing T, g-tac was an iron ore proposal. I never said otherwise. But that one, like non-ferrous projects in the above article, are found in sulfide rock, nasty stuff when exposed to water and O2.
You will have to point out where in WI statutes haz-mat suits are required for “all mining endeavors regardless of whether chemicals are used in mining that ore or not.” And I’m not sure you understand the regulatory changes that occurred for the g-tac project. Much of what you say isn’t making sense.
“and that is how it became a wetlands…unregulated logging.” And that is utter nonsense.
There were a myriad of issues with the g-tac proposal; wetlands, acid runoff, surface water, endangered resources, Native American land, etc. Replanting/abandonment was a much lesser concern.
Anyone with any knowledge of the deposit knew that there was little chance it would be mined; low grade ore, sulfide inclusions, depressed ore market, lots of environmental issues, etc. Part of the problem was that the proposed developer was a coal company, and had no prior experience in iron ore.
“that would not be tinkering with the environment, rather it would be draining and restoring the original environment in the area.” That, too, is absolute nonsense.
And what walker etal couldn’t get a grip on was that, regardless of how weak they made WI mining regulations, the Feds still had the final call on surface water discharge (NPDES), wetlands (COE) and BIA.
And how is the failure of g-tac the fault of Democrats? Like foxconn, this was a walker boondoggle right from the git-go. But at least scotty got $700K out of Cline.
dad:
Keep current.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteries-be-recycled.htm
>Keep current.
Ironic that he cites an article that is a month shy of 9 years old and full of promises and no science.
>”and that is how it became a wetlands…unregulated logging.” And that is utter nonsense.
http://www.badriverwatershed.org/index.php/bad-river-watershed
>Originally, the Watershed was covered by large white pine forests. A large logging enterprise grew up in the area. By the early 1900’s, the logging industry had completely depleted the forests. There are old photographs of the area devoid of trees and historical anecdotes of clear views from the Lake to Park Falls. Burning stumps led to erosion of the soil with snow melt and heavy rains. The forests are recovering but are not of the original quality. Aspen has become a major forest component replacing the original conifers. Some river bottoms retain the original character.
Are you going to contact those local dedicated citizens that the above is also utter nonsense?
j:
If you think cutting white pine creates wetlands, bring it. Nothing you provided proves anything of the sort. Most of the cutover mature white pine land in the Lake States reverted to early succession aspen. I can show you 1000’s of acres of similar forest.
And thanks, you proved dad is just shy of 9 years out of date.
Sorry dude, when this was going on the reports by Dems and Reps were so literally opposite concerning the issue that I had to go to sources for a lot of my info. The above is what I found. Dems can be blamed because the Legislature shot down the mining reforms until G-tac pulled out, but that must be utter nonsense too, because you say so. Fun fact, if you look up Chapter 295 on mining regulations you will see a separate section for mining ferrous ores in it. If you look at when it was updated (you can see the cross outs and additions), it was right after the deadline G-tac gave WI to have the regulations updated in 2013. Here are a few examples:
Everywhere it just said ‘mining’ or ‘metalliferous’ materials was changed to ‘non-ferrous’ in the upper section and then Section 41m was CREATED TO READ, i.e. added to the Chapter in 2013. They were sensible reforms that everyone agreed on…as soon as we lost G-tac as a potential private industry investor in WI.
So here is my conclusion, don’t bother with facts for Le Roi. Damned if I will do a bunch of research over again because you say it is utter nonsense, in provable ignorance, I may add. We can stick with opinion topics.
Aw, the cross-outs went away when I posted. In the first section mining was crossed out and Nonferrous metallic was added. The second line had metalliferous crossed out and nonferrous metallic was added. Dammit.
I can’t link it, but you can find it easiest by entering: 2013 Wisconsin Act 1 in your browser if you would like to read about the nonsensical additions and amendments of mining regulations that had previously read simply ‘mining’, which meant that all mining operations had the same set of regs until 2013.
Le Roi’s reference to sulfide materials was also a crank. In the Act above under Legislative findings was this:
(2) That mining for nonferrous metallic minerals is different from mining for ferrous minerals because in mining for nonferrous metallic minerals, sulfide minerals react, when exposed to air and water, to form acid drainage.
That was specifically one of the items identified as one of the differences between ferrous and nonferrous mining. Provably. Incorrect.
T:
Sorry I didn’t get to you sooner, been busy.
I never disputed that the G-TAC proposal a Fe deposit. It was, and still is. But there is a difference at the G-TAC site.
The problem with the change to the Fe mining regs for G-TAC was that it did not address address the sulfides (in the form of pyrite) in the Tyler shale above the iron deposit. When that pyrite oxidizes we have the problem. Private, state, and federal agencies and geologists all testified to the presence of the pyrites, G-Tac never rebutted them, nor addressed how to handle the problem. And that issue would have been critical to getting a WPDES/NPDES permit.
As far as wetlands, just cutting off the old-growth forest won’t create a wetland. I don’t know where you got that idea, but it isn’t backed up by any science. But if you have some proof, I’m all ears.