So let's go back to the 91 bill and explain what was the mentality that pushed that through.
And you talked about it called an improvement first bill. There's a talk about it 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 and the new mining bill. So kind of that timeline of our legislative
history here. Yeah 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 we're you know that's not really
a complete mine proposal one that's operated safely and one that's been closed that's also been closed
safely. The origin of the bill was basically came out of the fact that as we researched
metallic sulfide mining across the US 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 you know 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 of 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's essentially functions is the same.
And a study was done the folks that are behind the bill in Minnesota commissioned a study in
2023 that examined mines 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 them
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 you know 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. So 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 compromise
law to begin with. So during 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? I mean how strong is it what where some
of the weaknesses in it and you know what why did it take this long? I mean it was passed almost a
decade ago. Well you know in terms of the delay before a company came back after prove 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 banned off the ground or at least explore
banned to the point where they can determine whether or not it's even economic to go after
as a full mine 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 ban deposit. I know this is a little aside from your question but I think it's important to
recognize that Greenlight Metals is operating on a very small budget and part of the reason that they
were the first part of the reason that they didn't come back right away after 2017 after
proof it first was repealed was that they're fighting for they're a small fish in a big pool
of these speculators, mostly Canadian junior mining companies, who are all fighting for some kind
of investment money to go after and try to explore deposits like Bend, a Bend that wasn't
considered an economic deposit in the past. Let's go back to the law from 2017. What is the
current law? Yeah so proof at first here was repealed so that would have been the proof at
first law would have made a mining company as a permit condition. You know demonstrate a
mine that had operated safely for 10 years and demonstrate another mine that had 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 proof at 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.
So you know they've 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. And 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 percent
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 you know wetlands are just a natural treasure.
They filter our water. They filter our groundwater. They're important habitat that we can't really
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. And you know what's ironic in all of this especially coming from the federal side
is that a lot of the removal of federal protections are being done under the guise of promoting and
propping up the 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 you know this deep irony in how the current federal administration is approaching
propping up the 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's in the seated territory
so there's tribal issues it's state and there's federal. How many different steps or stages would
there be to go through to actually permit a mine? Yeah it gets complicated in so far as we have
both federal regulators and state you know regulators the DNR doing the reviews for this.
Green line would be the ultimate decider there. Yeah so I can say that this gets complicated
because the deposit is on public land in the national forest. The ultimate decision will
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 process is
differ and the requirements for you know to approve a permit or deny a permit are slightly
different. So they're you know they it's a little bit unusual you know to have both
both jurisdictions in this case. The 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 at bend 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. Okay so they've actually two different federal governments they'd have to deal with in
that sense. Yeah on the financial side they have to they have to satisfy Canadian regulatory
authorities but Canada doesn't have any control or regulatory 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 resource whether it's wind tower turbines
or solar panels or cell phones or whatever getting them here is it's 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 so the federal government has promoted you know so-called mining economic security based on
based on the fact that we do import you know a fair amount of our base metals.
We also export a fair amount of our base metals and depending on the metal you know those 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
estimate so far and it wouldn't even amount to a single percentage point compared to the overall
production in the US. 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 the in in terms of the
value of the deposited band the amount of precious metals there and the value of the precious
metals the the gold and silver are roughly equal to or probably worth a little bit more now than
the value of the copper you know based on the estimates from the company itself. And I note
that only because you know copper and silver are I'm sorry silver and gold as precious metals are
by no means critical minerals that the modern society needs to operate. You know the the vast
bulk of precious metals gold and silver are used for coins for investment for jewelry.
You know some small amounts for electronics but there's certainly no shortage of them.
So you know the there's an economic incentive for the industry to go after them obviously
because there's a profit motive that's you know that simple capitalism but in terms of the amount
of minerals that or metals that a band deposit can produce it's not going to dent or make any
real difference in terms of national security for the United States.
One of the other things they've talked about is that the Eagle Mine in the UP they say that's
an example of a safely operating mine. Yeah. Uppers 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 you know it's still an operating mine. It hasn't been closed yet
and so 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 it's you know off-site wastes you know for some time to come.
Has it been open for 10 years? What I mean is it how close is it to qualifying under
if the old proven law is in place? Yeah it's good to be one of the examples. That's actually a good
question. I don't think they've operated for 10 yet. I want to say 7 or 8. Yeah I do that. I'd have to
check. Okay but nothing so far that would be disqualifying under that or would the. Yeah well
so if if we apply the old you know our version approve 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 proven 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
toxic. It shouldn't have water quality issues. And so if you know if something like the Eagle Mine
is having water quality issues or is demonstrated that it's not been able to safely handle
its wastewater and is causing contamination then no it shouldn't apply you know when
when you overlay something like approve it first law on it. And would that evidence be in like
the Michigan DNR or were for so the contamination issue? Yeah generally 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 you know 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 approved it first law here. And so I haven't monitored it quite as closely.
But I think that 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 off site 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 the current drilling the exploration drilling that Greenlight
Metals is doing at band is designed to determine whether or not there is enough or there for this
thing to ultimately be feasible you know economically feasible as a proposal and so that this is sort
of the basic first step before you'd ever see a mine permit application. So there's a new
rounder drilling coming up this winter assuming it's permitted the company is proposed up to 20
new exploration holes as far as they 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 this if band proves to be feasible economically for the company to develop.
Their business model depends on developing multiple or you know more sites besides band
they have a very small gold mine or gold deposit called reef in marathon county they have some
exploration prospects in the town of Shepke in Oneida county in the headwaters of the wolf river
they've not done any drilling or 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 Greenlight metals will fail if it only has a band deposit to develop
it's simply not big enough and it's not high grade enough for you know a single company to
exist on so their business model depends on multiple projects across the state
and you know they're they're keen to try to prove that you know 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 band can be possibly you know economic for them
it will embolden them to you know get more investor money to do additional drilling elsewhere
you know and potentially you know potentially discover new deposits
so you know this is all years out this is a baby step for the company they're nowhere near
proving that this thing that band is economic but it's concerning to us because you know that
potential and they've described it as a potential mining district across our other
Wisconsin is is deeply concerning every potential proposal results in risk to the environment to
air to water to habitat in you know in multiple locations and you know forever so you know that's
concerning to us more is a long-term view 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 you're never going to 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 like in
the back of your mind that like they may try and really twist it and convince someone that it's
worth trying that we can make it marginally or is it the drilling itself is that I mean obviously
it's not the same as in mine but is it even though drilling the holes is a concern
well you know 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 you know and one of the major risks
or potential risks is groundwater contamination you're basically you know you're drilling holes
that you know through our overburden into layers of rock through aquifers and so there's the potential
for cross contamination of you're drilling through a metallic sulfide for example so you know there
can be acid production once you drill a hole through the rock and it's exposed to air and water
um generally that's not a huge concern just because there are rules for for borehole abandonment
that require that they be cemented fill you know filled with cement and as soon as as soon as
practical you know for for for the companies so again it's not it's not super invasive
but there are surface impacts and if it's done you know if it's done poorly and we've seen
examples of that in the UP just a few years ago a huge rutting you know traffic problems with
with trucking you know bringing drill rigs into the woods just making a huge mess
so you know if you get an irresponsible operator you can make a you know you can make a lot of damage
from exploration but 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 you know 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 you know again going back to the history of mining here where we had major
companies major oil companies major mining companies with deep pockets fail defined significant
deposits other than the handful that have been already identified so it's hard to imagine that
the industry is going to be successful at this but that doesn't seem to keep them from trying
and it doesn't seem to keep investors from being willing to speculate and take risks on
you know potentially finding something big so such cards okay I mean with that