Let's go back to the
the the 91 bill and
Explain what was the mentality that
pushed that through?
And you talked about it called it a
prove-it-first bill.
There's a talked about just being a
flat-out moratorium What was the
effect of that bill and then kind of
like bringing us up to the most
recent overhaul in the new?
Mining bill so kind of that timeline
of our legislative history
Yeah, um,
so, you know,
So that bill was, you know, it was
referred to at the time as a
moratorium, and
you know functionally it was never
a moratorium.
To be clear,
the tenets of the bill could have
been met by the industry.
It simply required that the industry
come up with
example mines to demonstrate,
you know, that metallic sulfide
mining could be done safely.
And it simply required
one mine.
That had operated safely for 10
years without environmental
damage, and a second
mine that had been closed and
reclaimed without causing
damage.
And it was a compromise.
It allowed a company to
propose two different mines when
in fact, that's not really
a complete mine proposal,
one that's operated safely and one
that has been closed,
that's also been closed safely.
The origin of the bill basically
came out of the fact that as
we researched metallic sulfide
mining across the U.S.
And Canada, we couldn't
find safe examples.
And so it became sort of a challenge
to the industry,
you know, put your money where your
mouth is. If you really are
proposing to do this in a way that's
safe, show where it's
been done before.
And I think that's a common sense
approach to
allowing a pretty damaging industry
to get established in Wisconsin.
So it was really more meant
to be a challenge to the industry,
but also a way to educate the
public.
And to be honest, I don't think
any of us thought that there was a
chance that the bill
would pass, but in
fact it did. And I think that was in
part because the legislature
did realize and did
understand that it was a compromise
and that it could be
met at some point.
What is interesting, just to fast
forward all the way to present day,
is that there is a
similar bill moving forward in the
Minnesota legislature,
a prove it first bill that
is modeled after Wisconsin's.
It's slightly different, but it
essentially functions as the same.
And a study was done,
the folks that are behind the bill
and Minnesota commissioned a study
in in 2023.
That examined example
mines that the mining industry
itself has proposed in
Minnesota to meet their
version of Prove it First.
The study found that all of
them have had issues, all of em have
had major environmental issues,
and none of them would meet
the qualifications required
in Minnesota's version of prove it
first.
That's modern day.
That's amazing to us that
here.
30 plus years later, you know,
the mining industry is still not
able to demonstrate that they can
mine safely in metallic
sulfides.
You know, our version, you know
really didn't hold up the industry.
There's no reason why they couldn't
meet the law.
It didn't function as a moratorium
only insofar as they didn't
have examples that could meet the
Law despite it
being a compromised law to begin
with.
So during the the Governor
Walker administration in 2017,
it was repealed and this had been a
major goal
of the industry all along.
And then since then, of course,
now it's taken a few years for
a new company, in this case the
Canadian junior mining company,
Greenlight Metals, to come to
Wisconsin and to try to
line up as many of
the potential deposits here as
possible.
So how would you describe our
current mining law?
How strong is it?
What were some of the weaknesses in
it?
And why did it take
this long? I mean, it was passed
almost a decade ago, or
years ago.
Well, um.
In terms of the delay before a
company came back after
Proof-it-First was repealed in 2017,
I think the major factor there
is that this isn't
a true mining company that
has come back into the state to try
to get Bend off
the ground, or at
least explore Bend to the point
where they can determine whether or
not it's even economic to go after
as a full-mind proposal.
What it does reflect is
that Greenlight Metals is not a
mining company. It's a so-called
junior mining company,
which means that these are basically
investors investing
in this company to try to
round up as many potential deposits
here and keep them from the
competition.
With hopes of being bought up by
an actual mining company or merging
with an actual mining company junior
mining companies are basically
speculators.
And they're playing with Canadian
investors' money while
risking none of their own to
try to develop the
Bend deposit.
I know this is a little aside from
your question, but I
think it's important to recognize
that Greenlight Metals.
Operating on a very small
budget and part
of the reason that they
didn't
come back right away after 2017,
after Prove It First was repealed,
was that they're
a small fish in a big pool of
these speculators,
mostly Canadian junior mining
companies.
Who were all fighting for some kind
of investment money to go
after and try to explore
deposits like Bend, Bend
that wasn't considered an economic
deposit in the past.
So.
I guess, let's go back to
the law from 2017, what
is the current law?
Yeah, so Prove-It-First here
was repealed, so that would have
been, the Prove It First law would
have made a mining company,
as a permit condition,
you know, demonstrate a mine that
had operated safely for ten years
and demonstrate another mine that it
operated safely, metallic sulfide
mine, that had closed
safely for 10 years.
So that law has been repealed
and in the same bill
that repealed the
Proved It First law.
Wetlands protections related
to mining permits
were gutted.
The public has been cut out of
the permitting process, making
challenges of mining permits
much, much more difficult,
putting the onus or the burden
of proof on the public and
taking it off the back of the
industry to prove
that their permits
meet state law.
They pulled down some
hurdles that were
barriers or things that were
more difficult to deal with for the
mining industry when trying to get
permits.
That comes on the heels of
other loss
of protections that were enacted
during the Walker administration
in the 2010s,
where we saw restrictions
and protections for groundwater.
Being eroded at the time.
And the other thing that is
important to note is that it's more
than just state law that's being
gutted currently.
The current federal administration
is now going
after the Endangered Species
Act and
trying to gut that.
There is a new rule moving
forward that would remove as
much as 80% of
the United States
wetlands.
From protections under the Clean
Water Act. That's a huge blow
to protections, and
it's a major hurdle for
the mining industry to overcome,
especially in Wisconsin,
where we are a water-rich
state, and where
wetlands are just a natural
treasure.
They filter our water,
they filter our groundwater,
they're important habitat
that we can't afford to lose.
So, at the same time that we've lost
some state protections...
Now we're seeing increasing pressure
on the federal side
to remove hurdles
to help support
the growth of the mining industry.
What's ironic in all of this,
especially coming from the federal's
side, is that a
lot of the removal of federal
protections are being done under
the guise of
promoting and propping up the
mining, mining industry at the same
time that this administration is
doing all it can to
attack renewable energy
development, which is
something that drives the
increased demand
for metals.
So there's deep irony in how
the current federal administration
is approaching propping
up mining industry.
So, in terms of
permitting any of this stuff that's
happening on the Bend deposit, for
example, it's in the
national forest, it is in the
ceded territory, so there's tribal
issues, it state and there's
federal.
How many different steps
or stages would there be to go
through to actually permit?
Yeah, it gets complicated insofar
as we have both federal regulators
and state regulators,
the DNR, doing the reviews
for this.
Greenlight would be the ultimate
decider
Yeah, so
I can say that this gets
complicated.
Because the deposit
is on public land in the
national forest,
the ultimate decision will
rest with,
it actually rests with both
agencies, both the federal and state
agencies.
And so there will be a certain
amount of cooperation, but
their permitting processes differ
and the requirements for,
you know, to approve
a permit or deny a permit are
slightly different.
So it's
a little bit unusual to
have both jurisdictions
in this case.
Bureau of Land Management will
be, along with the Forest
Service, will be the federal
decision makers and the state DNR
would be also a
decision maker on a permit.
So they'll cooperate to a certain
extent,
but it will ultimately be
different processes.
But we're years away from
any kind of permit decision on
bend, there's not even a
permit application into actual, you
know, to conduct actual mining so
far.
Green Light Metals is only at the
exploration stage still.
And they have a long ways to go to
even prove that there's an
economic deposit there,
that it's economically feasible for
them to mine it.
And they have to prove that
under Canadian regulatory,
especially securities regulatory
rules that protect
investors and stockholders.
So there's actually two different
federal governments they'd have to
deal with in that sense.
Yeah, on the financial side they
have to satisfy Canadian
regulatory authorities,
but Canada doesn't have any
control or regulatory
authority over environmental
side of permitting.
So one of the arguments that we've
heard is that
mining, especially in Wisconsin, but
in the United States, is important
because of national security risks,
that because we need these precious
metals, because they go into
renewable resources, whether it's
wind turbines or solar panels
or cell phones or whatever, getting
them here is better than
getting them from China or mining
that occurs in Africa or any other
parts of the world.
That seems to be a newer
persuasion that they're pitching as
opposed to the older one of jobs,
jobs, jobs.
Yeah, um...
The federal government has promoted
so-called mining
economic security based
on
the fact that we do import
a fair amount of our base
metals.
We also export a fair number of our
based metals.
Depending on the metal, those
percentages vary.
They vary widely.
Copper would be the most important
base metal band.
But I've run the
numbers on the total
amount of copper that could be
produced based on the estimates so
far, and it wouldn't even amount
to a single percentage
point compared to the overall
production in the U.S., so something
under 1% of total
production of
copper in the US, and only
for a short time because it's such a
small deposit. So it really wouldn't
make a dent, you know, any kind of
real dent in in the
supply of copper.
It's important to note that
in terms of the value
of the deposited band,
the amount of precious metals there
and the value the precious metals,
the gold and silver, are
roughly equal to, or probably worth
a little bit more now than the
value of the copper based
on the estimates from the company
itself.
I note that only because
copper and
gold, as precious metals,
are by no means critical
minerals that modern
society needs to
operate.
The vast bulk of precious
metals—gold and silver—are used
for coins, for investment,
for jewelry,
some small amounts for electronics.
But there's certainly no
shortage of them.
There's an economic incentive for
the industry to go after them,
obviously, because it's a profit
motive. That's simple capitalism.
But in terms of the amount
of
metals that a band deposit can
produce, it's not going
to dent or
make any real difference in terms
national security for the
United States.
One of the other things they've
talked about is the Eagle Mine in
the UP. They say that's an example
of a safely operating mine.
Yeah,
Yuppers who have looked at the
Eagle Mine would beg to differ.
There have been some water
contamination issues up there.
I don't think there's been anything
major so far, but again,
it's still an operating mine.
It hasn't been closed yet,
and a
big chunk of their waste materials
have been exported
off-site as well because they
process their minerals up
closer to Marquette.
In a former iron mine.
So we won't know the full impact
of the Eagle Mine
itself and then its
offsite wastes
for some time to come.
Has it been open for 10 years?
What I mean is how close is it to
qualifying under if the old proof
of law is in place?
Yeah, that's a good-
to being one of the exam.
That's actually a good question.
I don't think they've operated for
10 yet. I want to say 7 or 8.
Yeah, that I'd have to check.
Okay, but nothing so
far that would be disqualifying
under that, or would the...
Yeah, well...
So if we apply the old,
you know, our version of
Proof-It-First law to
something like the Eagle Mine,
actually it probably would have been
disqualified by now because any kind
of water contamination would
have counted towards whether or not
it was successful.
And I think that was the goal
of the Proof It First law in the
first place was, you know if
the industry is actually operating
safely, then it shouldn't have
contamination issues.
It shouldn't be spilling.
Any kind of toxics.
It shouldn't have water quality
issues.
And so if something like the
Eagle Mine is having water quality
issues or has demonstrated that it's
not been able to safely handle
its wastewater and
is causing contamination, then no,
it shouldn't apply when
you overlay something like a Prove
It First law on it.
And would that evidence be
in like the Michigan DNR or where
for some of the contamination?
Yeah, so they
may not have been cited,
and that I think would be the legal
requirement, would be some sort of
citation, so an environmental
enforcement action of
some sort.
That I actually don't know about.
Again, I've relied on folks up in
the UP to do that
monitoring.
We haven't had to think about it
just because we no longer have
a Proof-It-First law here.
And so I haven't monitored quite
as closely.
But I think that's the general, that
would be the general rule, would
actually have to be an actual
enforcement action.
The trouble is that,
this is the case with Michigan
mining law and with our mining law
as well, is that
on a mining property itself,
our laws allow companies a
certain amount of latitude to
pollute on site.
It's if the pollution migrates
offsite is
when the enforcement mechanisms
start to kick in.
So for
mining here in Wisconsin,
the companies are allowed something
like a quarter mile radius.
So imagine if you had a perfectly
circular tailings dump.
You make a quarter-mile radius
around it. And they're allowed to
legally pollute groundwater
up to certain levels.
The problem for them from an
enforcement side comes if
that pollution migrates outside of
this zone where
it's legally permissible.
In terms of the
exploratory drilling that's
happening now, how concerned are you
that it's actually happening?
Or is it more of a, well, there's no
evidence that they'll be able to
find anything, they can drill
and speculate all they want.
Yeah, no, it's a good question.
The current drilling,
the exploration drilling that
Greenlight Metals is doing at Band
is designed
to determine whether or not
there is enough ore there for
this thing to ultimately be
feasible,
economically feasible as
a proposal.
And so this is sort of the basic
first step before you'd ever see a
mine permit application.
So there's a new round drilling
coming up this winter.
Assuming it's permitted,
the company has proposed up to 20
new exploration holes,
as far as I know.
Whether or not that's even enough
yet to demonstrate feasibility
is unknown.
They're going to have to go through
a round of testing.
It's going to take some time period
to work through that.
I guess our concern with
somebody like Greenlight is
if
Ben proves to be
feasible economically for the
company to develop,
their business model depends
on developing
multiple or more
sites besides Ben.
They have a very small gold mine
or gold deposit called
Reef in Marathon County.
They have some exploration
prospects.
In the town of Schepke in Oneida
County in the headwaters
of the Wolf River.
They've done limited
drilling there, a subsidiary did
a limited number of holes there a
few years ago.
So they think they have some
targets.
But their business model,
you know, green light metals will
fail if it only
has a bend deposit to
develop. It's simply not big enough
and it's not high grade
enough.
For a single company
to exist on.
So their business model depends on
multiple projects across the
state.
And they're keen to
try to prove that they
can make a go of it as a company,
developing these multiple projects.
That's what concerns us about this
first step with the exploration, is
that if they somehow prove that
Bend can be possibly economic
for them.
It will embolden them to
get more investor money,
to do additional drilling elsewhere,
and potentially
discover new deposits.
So this is all years
out.
This is a baby step for the company.
They're nowhere near proving that
this thing, that BEND is economic,
but it's concerning to us because
that potential,
and they've described it as a
potential mining district across
northern Wisconsin, is
deeply concerning.
Every potential proposal
results in
risk to the environment, to air,
to water, to habitat,
in multiple locations,
and forever.
So that's concerning to us
more as a long-term.
In terms of the,
if you believe, or if
there's a widespread belief that
there really will be no way these
are all economically feasible,
and they're using some
Canadian investors' money to go
drill a bunch of holes.
Is it more of the drill to your
heart's content and you're never gonna
find it, or is it we'd rather not
know that it is?
It's a lot better for no one to know
so we don't have to worry about it,
or is that always in the back of
your mind that they may try and
really twist it and convince someone
that it's worth trying?
We can make it marginally.
Or is it the drilling itself, is
that, I mean, obviously
it's not the same as a mine, but is
it even the drilling the holes as a
concern?
Well, there's no question that
exploration drilling is not
anywhere near as invasive or
destructive as a full-scale mine
proposal.
It's not without risk.
One of the major risks or
potential risks is
groundwater contamination.
You're basically drilling holes
that are
overburdened into layers
of rock through aquifers.
And so there's the potential for
cross-contamination.
Of you're drilling through metallic
sulfites, for example, so there
can be acid production once
you drill a hole through the
rock and it's exposed to air and
water.
Generally that's not a huge concern
just because there are rules for
borehole abandonment that require
that they be filled
with cement and
as soon
as practical.
Uh... You know for for uh...
For the companies so again
it's not it's no super invasive
uh... But there are surface impacts
and if it's done uh...
You know if it is done poorly and
we've seen examples of that
uh...
In the U.P.
Just a few years ago uh...
Uh... Huge rutting uh...
Uh... Traffic problems with
with trucking uh...
Uh... You know bringing drill rigs
into the woods Just making a
huge mess.
So, if you get an irresponsible
operator, you can
make a lot of damage from
exploration.
So we rely on the regulators to
hopefully monitor that as well as
possible, and we try to monitor as
well to make sure that the companies
are doing their absolute best
not to cause issues while they're
doing this drilling.
It's a legal activity.
There's very little recourse for the
public, let alone the regulators,
to actually halt the activity,
provided they have...
Provided they meet the minimal
restrictions that are in place
for it.
So, yeah, there's always a
long-term concern,
but again, going back to the history
of mining here, where we had
major companies, major oil
companies, major mining companies
with deep pockets fail
to find significant
deposits other than the handful
that had been already identified.
So, It's hard to imagine
that the industry is going to be
successful at this, but it
seems to keep them from trying and
it doesn't seem to keep investors
from being willing to
speculate and take risks
on potentially
finding something big.
So we'll switch cards real quick.
I mean, with that.