Copper-Nickel Mining in Minnesota: Cartography of a News Media Controversy
For my master’s research, I analyzed 680 news articles from politically diverse outlets to map every policy argument made about the controversial proposal to build copper-nickel mines in Minnesota. This deep-dive “news cartography” revealed fascinating inconsistencies, biases, alliances, and common rhetorical tactics used by all sides to build political narratives and influence policy.
The excerpts below from my lengthy thesis include the abstract, the discussion summary, and my concluding statement.
— Will Beaton
Abstract
The Iron Range of northeast Minnesota became home to modern environmental controversies when logging and mining companies founded small communities there in the late 1800s. Ever since, news media have consistently engaged in public discourse regarding the management of the region’s world-renowned natural resources, such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Lake Superior (Searle, 1979; Paddock, 2001). But today, as state and federal governments consider approving a new, potentially environmentally risky copper-nickel mining industry, local news sources are under-equipped to produce coverage that can adequately communicate the complex legal, cultural, and scientific processes involved (Kojola, 2018; 2019; Phadke, 2018). Therefore, this master’s thesis uses a novel combination of qualitative research approaches — including a hermeneutic reading of 680 newspaper articles and an actor-network theory (ANT) controversy cartography (CC) analysis — to map the associations and arguments of journalists, stakeholders, and policymakers and provide them with a reference resource they may use to inform their coverage and decision-making moving forward. Ultimately, this study conveys the complicated nature of the controversy, describes patterns of polarization apparent in sampled news coverage, and establishes a platform to empower future academic research, journalistic application, and public deliberation.
…
Controversy Description
The approval processes of PolyMet and Twin Metals’ proposed mines are complicated, and their multi-faceted nature may not be communicated well by news media. As portrayed by sampled coverage, Twin Metals has faced three main challenges, including securing renewal of its federal mineral leases, navigating a potential 2-year USFS study, and submitting its mine plan application. PolyMet, deeper into the approval process than Twin Metals, has reportedly faced more challenges, including approving its environmental impact statement, securing investment from Glencore, finalizing a USFS land exchange, guaranteeing financial assurance to the state, and receiving most of its permits from state and federal agencies. For Antofagasta, the election of President Trump and the reversal of President Obama’s mining decisions gave Twin Metals new life as it neared the deadline to forfeit its federal mineral leases. For Glencore, its inevitable buyout of PolyMet in 2019 was part of a long-term strategy that persisted through consistent declines in international metals markets. Though both companies have made much progress, they must still face key reviews, approvals, and investigations. These chronological events, as observed in sampled coverage, make up the skeleton of the actor-network, upon which this final description of the controversy is developed.
The classic binary narrative frame common through sampled coverage reduces the wicked problem to a two-sided dispute and affects how stakeholder groups define their identities and inform their decisions. Reflecting analyses of similar controversies (Fahy and Nisbet, 2011; Lück et al., 2018; Schäfer, 2017; Sumner et al. 2014; Williams 2015), all sampled news sources in this case rely heavily on corporate, government, and activist sources, deferring consistently to certain actor groups or spokespeople to provide expertise and reaction to every news event. Often, news outlets predictably quote the same direct statements from actors’ press releases, rather than questioning the face value of these statements or investigating stories in unique ways. Though concepts of journalistic fair balance encourage reporters to give interview space to the so-called “both sides” of a controversy (Fahy, 2017), it may also be true that the objective, apolitical nature of news discourse of this debate obscures scientific perspectives and exacerbates the cultural and political tensions between groups (Kojola, 2018).
On the conservative side, the many distinct perspectives of international mining companies, national labor unions, and local economic support groups are classified as pro-mining. On the conservationist side, actor groups represent another wide array of conflicting values and objectives, from wilderness preservation and outdoor recreation interests to indigenous governments and environmental justice advocates. Whereas the former often frame wilderness as pristine, uninhabited, and at risk of being spoiled by land development, the latter emphasize the ecological value of the land as an important resource to be managed responsibly and equitably (Dousa, 2012; Spoel, 2018; Walker, 2017).
As the diversity of actor sub-divisions becomes clear, so too does the inappropriateness of the two-sided narrative framing that is undoubtedly ill-equipped to communicate the complexity of the controversy. It is likely responsible for over-simplifying the debate and preventing marginalized voices and nuanced discussions of compromise from being able to influence discourse or decision-making (Heffron & McCauley, 2018; Kojola, 2017; Rinke et al., 2013). Therefore, this study concurs with other assessments of Minnesota’s hard rock mining controversy that show how oppositional stakeholders refine and justify their arguments based on conflicting identifications and polarizing emotions more than on the potential material outcomes or relevant matters of fact (Fent & Kojola, 2020; Kojola, 2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2020a; 2020b).
Political polarization is likewise apparent in sampled coverage. While anecdotal evidence exists to suggest many Iron Rangers who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 may have voted for the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders if he had been the Democratic Party nominee — indeed, Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by a wide margin in the 2016 MN Democratic caucuses both statewide and in the Iron Range — Kojola (2018; 2019a) argues that “extractive populism,” a conservative political movement defined by its opposition to environmental causes and support of neo-liberal corporate nationalism, increased in popularity on the Iron Range around Trump’s election. But even though his Republican associates in Minnesota, like US Rep. Pete Stauber, won their races with his endorsement, Trump lost the support of Iron Range voters in 2020, further demonstrating the political complexity of the region.
Categorizing actors’ diverse arguments provides insight into the complicated spectrum of opinions that exist on either side of the debate and further exposes the binary narrative as an ineffective frame. Echoing other studies of mining controversies, classic arguments such as the “technological shell game” and “hypocrite’s trap” are shown to be used by mining supporters to discredit their opposition and attain social licenses to mine (Curran, 2017; Didyk et al., 2018; Paliewicz, 2018; Vela-Almeida et al., 2015). Actors argue most about the rules of public debate, in which opponents universally criticize one another for employing some of the same strategies they utilize themselves. Constant references to the allegedly fair “process” by which each side expects the other to obey are confused and unclear, made to criticize others for deviating from certain standards of transparency, committing process violations by acting out of turn, or utilizing unscrupulous tactics. Both sides only cast such accusations of conflicts of interest when their rivals — and not their allies — are expected to be implicated in wrongdoing.
Following these rules of public engagement, actors adopt various avenues of activism to achieve their goals. Lobbying efforts are dominated by mining companies and industry lobbyists, but the relatively minuscule fundraising of grassroots groups is also treated seriously by opposing sides. While PolyMet and Twin Metals use community charity contributions and advertisements at youth sporting events to earn support for their mining proposals, conservation groups organize media events to raise awareness for environmental protections. Protests, pickets, strikes, lawsuits, and boycotts are only some of the more aggressive strategies both sides have employed, while supporting the Congressional, executive, and judicial actions intended to suit their immediate interests.
Arguments about the rule of law have long been essential to the controversy (Maccabee, 2010). State agencies have spent tens of millions of dollars or more on lawyers and scientific studies to justify their political decisions, while they maintain extensive backlogs of uncompleted remediation projects statewide. Nevertheless, conservatives believe that Minnesota’s environmental regulations are among the best and most strict in the world, and conservationists argue they are both weak and under-enforced. Care must be taken to differentiate between the record of iron mining from the relatively more risky copper-nickel mining, though there are numerous examples of pollution and broken promises from both industries.
Arguments about scientific matters of fact are not the strongest drivers of political or cultural change, but they are nonetheless important to all actors involved. The effects of potential hard rock mining pollution ultimately make up the core argument against copper-nickel mining. If these effects did not exist, PolyMet and Twin Metals would likely be treated as any other taconite mine and accepted without much controversy. Instead, the risks of chronic pollution from tailings basins, dramatic failure and collapse of their dams, and numerous other ecosystem effects are limiting consequences that come as tradeoffs to the industry’s plans (Frelich, 2019; Meyers, 2016; Onello et al., 2016). More research is required to understand any potential effects of waste rock acid drainage, heavy metals pollution, dam collapse potential, and other environmental consequences (Jones et al., 2017).
As technology advances, mining processes could become safer, but automation and other manufacturing developments may also limit the job creation potential of future mines. The role of taconite mining on the Iron Range may continue to diminish, but many nevertheless have faith in the profitability of copper-nickel mining, despite the ongoing global super-cycle that has reduced the values of these metals in recent years. Numerous academic studies justify arguments on both sides, and an alliance could begin to develop between hard rock mining companies and proponents of the green energy revolution who need copper and nickel to build wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. Whereas some actors disparage the role of the outdoor recreation industry, many conservationists argue that it is the continued influx of permanent lifestyle residents — not seasonal tourism, nor temporary mining industries — that stands to benefit the local economy in the long term, on the condition that new mines do not poison waterways with pollution or divide small towns with political tension.
Arguments of ideology pose additional controversial challenges for those involved, virtually all of whom agree that harmful pollution from industrial projects should not be tolerated anywhere in the state. Despite their many shared values, opposing groups exhibit diverging attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs about the likely success of PolyMet and Twin Metals’ proposals. Most are skeptical of big money from corporations and special interests, and all acknowledge, to some extent, the potential environmental risks and the boom-and-bust nature of mining economics. Nevertheless, debate continues on the dozens of sub-arguments present throughout the controversy, as it may for a long time.
…
Concluding Statement
This thesis is undeniably overloaded with academic jargon and technical scientific details throughout. As a dedicated ANT cartographer, I have crawled through the controversy and reported on everything along the way in its original, complicated forms. But in the spirit of communicating with simplicity and clarity, this Conclusions chapter ends by describing this study in terms of two illustrative analogies.
On one hand, the journey of this study has been like embarking on a cartographic voyage through the Boundary Waters. Often the ride is easy, as currents of description carry the canoe of truth along swift channels carving out the story. But sometimes the river widens into calm lakes of all sizes, where the views are grand, but the pace of the water is slow. These are like the many subsections of the previous two chapters — the themes, patterns, and arguments of the controversy described in their entirety to map the progress of the researcher paddling through the dark waters of uncertainty. In hiking, it is not imperative to look at every cloud nor measure every tree on the trail; similarly, readers of this discursive cartography need not understand nor remember the significance of every set of associations provided in this paper. What matters most are the holistic impressions they may be left with by the end of the expedition. Portages between each section may have been difficult terrain to navigate, but hopefully they have still delivered some understanding of the controversial wilderness through which this thesis has explored.
Alternatively, this project may be more similar to the analogy of mining. Rather than passively mapping the controversial landscape as it passes by along the trail, this study has sought to extract deposits of truth from where they lay buried beneath mountains of confounding data, cemented in layers by decades of sociopolitical controversy that came before. Separating disingenuous arguments from well-intentioned public discourse has required great care, as does isolating waste rock from valuable metals deposits. Like PolyMet and Twin Metals’ mining proposals, this research has run the risk of two forlorn fates. In one, great expense may be paid for a poor return on investment — the metals in the ground, like the truth targeted here, may not prove as valuable as first expected. In the other, disaster may strike and topple the waste tailings dam — the study design could be flawed and misinterpret sampled news coverage completely. Nevertheless, with a careful strategy of excavation, this exploratory thesis went digging into the controversial discourse with high hopes and great expectations of being useful to the diverse communities who stand to benefit from the insights buried just out of reach.
Whichever analogy may be more accurate on its own, they are surely most insightful when considered together, as are the perspectives of each actor involved in Minnesota’s copper-nickel mining controversy. In conclusion, this paper provides an encyclopedic reference point from which to get a sense of the situation. Rich in conflicting lessons, the stories of PolyMet and Twin Metals, as portrayed by sampled coverage, speak to a grand divide that has polarized conservatives and conservationists in northeast Minnesota for decades and even centuries. Today, mining supporters wait to see if the Biden Administration will work against Trump’s reversal of Obama’s mining decisions, and the MN Supreme Court awaits a state review ordered to question PolyMet’s tentative plans to triple the size of its mine proposal. Whatever the fates of Iron Range society or the Boundary Waters wilderness, the lessons offered by their sagas may well inform the decisions of future generations, serving as an atlas to lighten their way through the complicated, controversial territory first explored by their predecessors in the dark.