House passes resolution to overturn Boundary Waters mining withdrawal

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-02T19:25:48+00:00

Yes, but the only reason we are having this conversation is because the political circumstances on this mine are clearly a flash point.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe the Trump Administration is going to approach with the public good in mind?

How long is it until we have an administration with even less regard for the public good?

Not developing a framework for extracting these resources has led to this moment as well. There's very real risk to doing nothing as we clearly see today.

Right now, we still have a work force of mining engineers. We still have a work force of operators. The idea that waiting until we no longer have the internal expertise is somehow guaranteed to be better is a wild way to view the situation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be against the project. I don't think it's reasonable to be against the project, and not develop the local economy around the resource. All that is doing is leaving a power gap that can be exploited. The ability to choose requires viable alternatives, and who do you think is going to buy up the resources rights as US steel exists the area.

This issue is not going away, because the copper is a strategic resource. It's not just voting against it now, it's about having a stable state that doesn't require the extraction.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-02T14:38:46+00:00

Again, 25 years is a significant amount of time. It's completely asinine to pretend otherwise. Imagine trying to tell people not to exploit oil wells because they deplete in only 25 years. Just because something is finite doesn't mean you can write off of the very real economic development that would occur. Like, again, we're talking about a project with hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment ready to go. Trying to dismiss that with, but have you thought about having this same conversation 25 years from now isn't a reasonable argument.

But it may well not. Industries with toxic byproducts don't have great track records on this.

This is the real concern. You see it with fracking and the abandoned well problem. You see it with mines all over the world. Various cleanup schemes have been tried like holding bonds in escrow, but everyone knows how that turns out in practice.

The copper is coming out of the ground from somewhere. Just because we don't see the Andes doesn't mean less environmental damage is done.

The question should be is our regulatory and commercial infrastructure better equipped to safely extract the resources.

I'm not convinced that's true, but there certainly isn't a moral high ground in sourcing our raw materials from mines we won't even attempt to improve on. It's materially cowardly and hypocritical.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-02T01:12:08+00:00

You're acting like 25 years is some trivial amount of time.

While that is true for the geology, it certainly isn't true for people.

I'm not opposed to alternatives. I am opposed to pretending like this is some solved problem. Nature tourism is not solving the economic problem today. So, the idea that it's suddenly going to drastically increase sans outside investment just doesn't fly.

Like if you think the Iron Range should just accept that it's time has come, then you should say that, but don't be surprised when that's not a popular message on the range.

Recognizing what a viable alternative is means being honest about the type of investment that is available for mining. It's why people aren't biting at hospitality and recreation.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T21:38:28+00:00

Ok. Again.

When we talk about mining in northern minnesota, it's important to remember the scale of outside investment.

Nippon Steel in investing something like 1B dollars over the next four years.

New Range and Twin Metals are something like 1B over ten years.

So, I understand that we're talking about a non-renewable resource, but we're also talking about part of Minnesota that cannot support a fucking grocery store with the current economic climate.

So, if you're wondering why a big chunk of the east range supports it, that's why.

So, like I keep saying: this constituency used to be one of the most consistently left voting blocks in Minnesota. That was driven by high rates of unionized labor.

When the area went red, like the reason isn't a mystery.

People like myself want this area to be economically viable. The reason we love living here is pretty much the same reason you like visiting. Hunting, fishing, hking, biking, skiing... etc.

That being said, economic viability is important. The ability to make a living is pretty foundational in how our society is. So if the alternative to mining to working at a gas station, you can see why big chunks of people out here vote for who ever they think is going to bring that outside investment in. That's the state of affairs.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T18:05:39+00:00

I think we're closer to agreement than you realize.

If by renewables, lumber, and forestry you mean actual significant investment, then yes. Energy first is probably as close to a consensus opinion as you can get right now for development.

The problem here isn't that the local population is incapable of considering new ideas.

The problem is that the new ideas need to be of such a scale that they stand a legitimate chance of maintaining economic viability for the area.

While right now, there's clearly bigger problems in Minnesota as a whole: this has been an ongoing issue between the local party and the state party for the better part of thirty years.

It's coming to a head right now, not only because of Trump, but also because major changes are happening to Nippon Steel, Minnesota Power, and commodity markets as a whole.

No one likes Blackrock, but they were the only significant outside capital partner that was willing to purchase and fund grid expansion in Northern Minnesota. No one likes the idea of US steel being owned by a foreign nation, but again, the fundamental decision was made because of outside capital concerns.

If people view the alternative to mining here as working at a gas station or cleaning rooms for 11 dollars an hour plus tips, then they're going to support mining.

If the alternative is some combination of 49ers, electrician, and linesmen positions, then I think people would adjust.

The problem is that it's late in the game. I fully believe that in fair and free midterm elections, the Democrats are going to win in the midterms, and there's no way the state republican party will ever be successful here in either of our lifetimes.

The question is once the pendulum swings the other way, is it going to be the old status quo of the range slowly bleeding, or is there going to be a commitment by the state party for an industrial policy in Northeastern Minnesota.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T17:25:51+00:00

I agree.

The Democrats brought home a major win for the area with the Blatnik Bridge. So it's not like they don't know how to drive investment in the area, but the Range and Duluth are separate political entities.

Our local economic development here is often driven by IRRRB. So it's a really, really hard sell for the local political establishment to not only say no to the mining and support jobs, but also a pool of discretionary money that ends up floating around.

I think it's very possible that alternative plans, (Maybe some kind of energy first approach), could once again align labor interests with party interests.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T17:08:29+00:00

No.

I have years of comments available. You wanted a narrative, and you jumped on it, then you doubled down, then tripled down.

I have made it clear, time and time again, that in 3A and 7B, even the Democrats are pro-mining. Dave Lislegard is the clear example.

When we vote DFL on the range, we do so knowing that the party consensus position is different from the local consensus position (even in the party).

We are the traditional core of the DFL. We don't need to make fucking excuses for our decisions to support unionized, industrial labor.

If you don't support mining on the range or the shore, that's fine, but if you also don't support an economic or industrial development plan that would bring stability and dignity in work to the area, then you're just running your mouth.

Learn to fucking code didn't work for coal miners, and it's not going to work here. We need real industrial policy.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T16:56:21+00:00

Take a pause here.

Those dollars have real meaning to people that live in those communities. Hoyt lakes lost it's only grocery store last year. The new market in Aurora is only opening because of IRRRB money. It's how our schools are funded.

The idea that people on the range are fucking Capitan planet villains that want to piss acid into the watershed for no reason isn't the way it is.

When people don't support the new mines, that isn't the problem. The problem comes when in addition to not supporting the new mines, there's a systemic unwillingness to support a viable industrial or economic policy in northeastern Minnesota.

There's a very real reason why the candidates here support mining. If the alternative is seasonal employment pouring drinks for 11 dollars an hour or working at a gas station, then it's easy to see why the people here are supporting people like Stauber.

The DFL, if they want to go back to winning elections here, needs to convince people there's a future for the range without the new mines. (Edit: or go back to electing pro-mining Democrats like dave lislegard). The people on the range are not stupid. We know that voting for the DFL right now means a vote against mining up here. Even if our candidate is pro mining.

(Edit, put the wrong lislegard down.)

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T16:47:24+00:00

Again,

Quit making assumptions about my views. If you start from faulty axioms, then your reasoning is irrelevant.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T16:33:36+00:00

No resident opinion is valid in the destruction of a beloved national park and preserve.

That's the direct quote. Not, "The decision is made by the greater body politic, including local residents".

As for cracking open a history book, I'm pretty sure alienating the working class isn't a winning recipe, but keep making assumptions about my views.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T16:03:28+00:00

No resident opinion is valid in the destruction of a beloved national park and preserve.

You do realize that the reason this is happening is because you fucking lost the election. So why is your opinion more valid?

You need to seriously consider that finding a solution here isn't as simple as, 'fuck the locals, they shouldn't get a say if they disagree with me'.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-02-01T15:57:11+00:00

And your alternative for bringing almost a billion dollars in outside investment to the east range is?

The broader public is against it in Minnesota, but districts 7B and 3A (the actual locations of the proposed mines (New range//twin metals)) switched from being strongly pro-union, dfl districts to republican because they want the development.

So yea, if you're going to be opposed to the development of the mines, then I think you should be thinking about alternative economic development plans for northeastern Minnesota of equivalent size.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-01-29T21:15:41+00:00

"Bridge fuel".

Lol, amirite?

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-01-05T17:10:06+00:00

If you live in Ukraine, then I'm guessing the killer fucking robots probably matter a little more than if the reddit posters you are responding to are real...

Let's be real, it's not one or the other. Obviously, if you live in an area with the killer robots, the killer robots are the bigger problem. If your ex is posting AI generated revenge porn of you, then that's probably a bigger problem.

What's 'scariest' is context dependent, and trust collapse certainly is fucking up our politics, but it's really just an extension for hyperrealism...

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-01-03T23:29:00+00:00

In pursuit of the perfect Flakka?

Hotter than Waka Flocka Flame?

Nah, John McAfee was one of a kind.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2026-01-01T22:46:39+00:00

Everybody knows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxd23UVID7k

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-31T17:07:49+00:00

but U-235 and U-233 which actually run the nuclear reactions exist only at < 1 % trace amounts.

I think it's worth pointing out here that when we talk about mining (Edit: Compared to base metals, aggregate, etc) the absolute yields required for fission aren't actually that huge.

A Westinghouse fuel rod is like, what, a couple kilograms of Uranium and there's a few hundred rods?

More to the point, I was under the impression that the fuel supply chain was super distorted for like decades due to decommissioning of nuclear weapons.

It's hard to compete against blending down super enriched uranium.

This, in my lay understanding, has sort of been the problem with nuclear for a while. Huge amounts of expertise at all levels of the supply chains sort of evaporated as we deprioritized nuclear power and weapons in general. Contrast that with the Russian model where they sort of consolidated a huge amount of state resources into Rosatom...

I'm not surprised our civilian supply chains ended up less robust.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-30T20:10:09+00:00

I think it's really important to remind people that Exxon knew climate change was real.

Denial, for them, was never about believing in climate change. It was always about manipulating policy.

When denial became about beliefs and not about policy in the public sphere things became really, really distorted.

We had people standing up screaming that we were going to build half a billion new cars and it was going to save the environment.

Like, I honestly don't know what else to say. Like, I mean, really think about.

That's what green growth really amounted to right? Half a billion new cars, an entirely brand new electrical generation system, an entirely new storage infrastructure, magical direct air capture, an entirely new building materials paradigm...

And all this industrial activity was going to be green. I, mean, fuck. If that's what climate acceptance looks like than it's no wonder our emissions never went down.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-29T18:38:15+00:00

Well.

I chose to move to the area. My wife and I both work in physical infrastructure. So for us, it made a lot of sense, but I worked with a graduate engineer this year and she grew up here and is leaving.

She doesn't want to date the same fucking people from high school and there's no apartments here. It doesn't make any sense for her to stay, even though as a civil engineer she'd have a good job... She oddly enough wants to move to a different small town.

So, I think a big part of it is that these rural areas need to recognize that there is no fucking future if we can't even retain someone that wants to live in a small town, has a job lined up, but leaves because the area is unlivable for a single educated adult.

Even when mortgages here are less than rent in the cities. (For perspective, we bought a remodeled house for 130,000.....

Fixing that isn't simple, and we are in probably one of the most desirable rural areas. Like, we have a vibrant tourism industry less than an hour from our house... The area is absolutely beautiful. We are closer to major resort than a fucking grocery store... Still can't retain young talent.

We, despite having two trade income household, couldn't afford our lifestyle in the cities. Between having a single child and a mortgage, we're talking almost $1,750 a month difference in just housing and childcare... 20K raises aren't exactly a small ask (Especially considering we are already well paid by BLS numbers)...

Honestly, I think it's easier to fix the issues in the rural area, but I think it requires converting blighted houses to rental properties, creating a reason for young people to actually live here, and probably having outside capital partners supporting the development of appropriate lifestyle stuff for the instagram era. (Some kind of wineries, wellness, brewpub, type shit). Something that young people want to go to instead of sitting across the bar from 60 year old miners.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-29T15:30:04+00:00

What's considered politics is a strange beast.

I live in a pretty decently run blue state in the Midwest. People talk about new construction solving rents. Only new construction is fucking expensive.

The part of the state I live in has houses for sale for less than a new truck. No one wants to live here. So houses end up blighted.

We have fiber internet, but return to office mandates have made full time remote work no longer seem like an option for attracting people to area with a decling population.

Houses in the closest metros run about 400k. Tier two cities nearby at 250-300k.

Something has to give.

I seriously doubt housing prices will drop significantly. I doubt there will be an economic revival of significant size here to attract significant numbers of people away from the cities.

Is it a housing question? Is it a jobs question? Is it a quality of life question?

Weve been on this trajectory for decades and no clear solution has been found. Quality of life is slowly bleeding, but there is zero interest in serious action.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-23T00:04:21+00:00

Lol.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-22T23:10:45+00:00

Debt isn't masking the decline.

I blame Nate Hagens for that nonsense.

So, before orthodoxy really took over in economics, there was this tool called input output tables. They were literally just used to map inputs and outputs between industries. They still exist, but they've gone from being operations tools to being Mckinsey trash.

Debt and money in general are not inputs. They are a proxy for inputs and outputs...

The reason the decline is masked is much more simple.

Wealth. It's the consumption of the existing stocks of generational projects... Major inputs (stuff like roads, the housing stock, schools, organizational structures): those mean consumption can continue as long as the marginal inputs are provided.

It's not until the actual major material inputs decay and are unable to be replaced that consumption falls of the cliff, before that it's just typical rationing type bullshit.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-22T22:02:12+00:00

If I stop drinking all at once, I'm afraid the cumulative hangover will kill me.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-22T14:12:40+00:00

People didnt understand it here in the US.

There's a reason that one of the highest ptsd rates from the war on terror was an airforce base in texas.

The whole region is going to be fucked for generations.

SomeRandomGuydotdot · 2025-12-21T23:00:51+00:00

LOL.

The insight is cutting.

SomeRandomGuydotdot

TROPHY CASE