MiWater

Letter to the Marquette Mining Journal Editor by Jack Parker

Posted by Maura on January 23, 2010 · Comments 

To the editor:

It seems that, in their haste to push the permits through in the absence of a director for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Kennecott conveniently forgot several factors which will eventually render the permits void.

1. Mining experts for the NWF and for the DEQ agreed that the February 2006 application was not acceptable.

If you have trouble believing that just read the one-page Executive Summary of Sainsbury’s report, which was suppressed by the DEQ, and has now been restored to their site, but has subsequently been ignored.

The application should have been rejected almost four years ago.

2. The “Mining Team” at the DEQ is not qualified to evaluate a technical mining application, having no applicable expertise or experience. They admitted as much in court. All permits granted should therefore be revoked. We could test their level of expertise in public if that would please them. A full hour on TV?

3. The Team admitted no familiarity with the law as it pertains to applications for a permit to mine, and

illustrated that point by not requiring the applicant to actually demonstrate that their planned activities would perform as claimed. The pertinent Part 632 is available on the DEQ site and it is not very difficult to read and understand. They should have done that.

So don’t get excited yet. Don’t start your engines. And don’t harm a single tree in sight of Eagle Rock, the place of worship – which is protected by the law.

Thank you for your attention.

Jack Parker

Baltic

Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged with

  • rbmaki
    I wouldn't want you to forget the rest, where Jack Parker states he mislead people... (http://lsmnopinion.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/kennecott-mine-not-done-deal/#more-118).



    Addendum: Confession to the Houghton Mining Gazette’s Managing Editor (following day)

    Good morning Larry [Holcombe]:

    This is not a normal Letter to the Editor, but a correction, an apology to you and your readers.

    My letter, which you entitled “Kennecott mine not done deal” was written in haste and so was misleading. You were considerate enough to call me and point that out, but I didn’t listen. You even gave the piece a title more accurate and descriptive than mine. I appreciate that.

    I will try not to use this as an opportunity to preach my usual messages.

    On Thursday Jan 14th the DEQ announced that they were issuing the permits required by Kennecott. Most of the press accepted that news as a signal to get started. So I fired off the letter to the Gazette, intending to point out that the permits were not legal and to head off any preemptive action by Kennecott. That was my intent, but …

    In particular I wanted to ensure that nothing would be done to desecrate the “place of worship” – Eagle Rock. I am not speaking for KBIC but assume that the top of the bluff, facing west, would be the seat of worship, and that any cutting and bulldozing in front of that place would do irreparable damage to the place of worship.

    I could tell that I was in trouble when I came home yesterday and was attacked by my wife, who figured that I had gone over to the fanatic treehugger side. My last paragraph sounds a lot like it: ”And don’t harm a single tree in sight of Eagle Rock.”

    Phew! That statement was a bit strong.

    I am sorry, and wish to reaffirm that I am “for” mining the Eagle orebody provided that it is done legally and responsibly.

    Thank you for the guidance,

    Jack
blog comments powered by Disqus
MiWater