Discussion
The State of Minnesota was made by mining. While we also got a lot of our early economic start from forestry - the MAJORITY of our early financing was possible through the mineral deposits in the Iron Range. While we played out the purest form of the iron deposits a while ago (we don't dig pure iron ore out of the ground anymore - rather we produce taconite) there is still the opportunity for plenty of mining in the northern part of the state.
These three articles look at the mining and different sides of that mining. Take a look at the same issues as last week - the geologic, the economic, and the social issues - and apply them to these articles. One last question - is there any bias in these articles?
"Minnesota's Next Mining Boom has picturesque Ely Divided" June 2013 Minneapolis Star Tribune
https://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/211709631.html
"Nickel Mining Divides Ely Residents" May 2013 MPR Dan Kraker
https://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/05/31/environment/ely-copper-nickel-mining
Poly Met Copper Mine in Northeastern Minnesota gets Cautious EPA Approval
https://www.startribune.com/local/250138951.html
And respond to this response to the same question
The main concern geologically with this mining proposals is that it may potentially contaminate the water in the area. Obviously water is a valuable resource and we should main basic necessarily resources such as water.
The mining opportunities create enormous upside economically as hundreds of millions of dollars could be made and many jobs provided. Economically this is a very good opportunity for the community. As, long as they can create a safe way to get the job done, this could help many Americans and their families.
Socially, it's people who believe mining isn't worth the potential environmental risks vs. people who believe it is worth the environmental risk. This can be more accurately determined as the mining companies continue to work with the EPA and find a safe way to mine the land. As far as my knowledge goes, if the EPA believes it to be safe enough, there's a good chance it is. I'd guess, generally speaking, the EPA knows more than the average citizen.
I felt some bias while reading these articles, but not much. I would say the writers were leaning to the side of the anti-mining demographic. Whether that be because that's how they themselves felt as authors while writing, they felt there was a higher number of people on that side and did it as a PR move, or whether it spiced up the story some. It could have been unintentional even (unlikely). Like I said, I didn't see an extreme amount of bias though.
Notes
- Answer whats needed in the first section
- Respond to the section indicated
- Write your answer in first person point of view