If a link in a post doesn't open correctly hold down the CTRL (or Control) key and then click on the link. Then choose "Open in a new window (or tab)".

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Line 5 is bent and deformed where Enbridge wants to anchor it

Gallery: Enbridge Line 5 west leg anomalies

MACKINAW CITY, MI -- What happened to the west leg of Line 5?
Of the 22 anchor supports that Enbridge Inc. is seeking permission to install on the twin 20-inch pipelines crossing underneath the straits of Mackinac, 17 of them are on the west leg.
Of those, five of the proposed anchors are clustered along several hundred feet of the west leg just north of where inspection reports show the pipeline is bent and "ovalized," a term for a section of pipe that's been misshapen enough to lose its roundness.
Documents show that section of pipe is bent in five places and ovalized twice. It's not known for sure how the deformities happened, but Enbridge says they are nothing to worry about, pointing to recent pressure testing as evidence the pipeline is in good shape.
However, inspection reports show that both ovalizations have worsened slightly since 2013.
The anomalies are documented in 2013 and 2016 inspection reports generated by sending "geoppig" robots inside the pipeline to check for problems. The anomalies are also referenced in the 2017 draft analysis of Line 5 released by Dynamic Risk Assessments, which speculates the bends occurred during 1953 construction.
But a retired fluid dynamics expert who has exhaustively studied Line 5 suspects that underwater currents long ago scoured a large section of lake bottom from underneath the pipe, leaving it free-spanning with nothing underneath to support its weight.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Michigan's wind energy farms whip up plenty of praise and complaints

Gallery: The wind energy farms of Michigan

SAGINAW, MI -- In the past decade, rural landscapes in the Thumb and elsewhere in Michigan have been radically altered by the advent of utility-scale wind farms.
Even if you haven't seen wind turbines towering over farmland, you might have seen the trucks hauling massive, white turbine blades on freeways.
Up close, the whirling blades of wind turbines stretch for miles and miles across parts of Mid-Michigan and the Thumb.
They are renewable energy signs of the times, welcomed by some, reviled by others.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Line 5 Alternatives Study - Fact Sheet

Fact Sheet – July 2017

Dynamic Risk’s Line 5 Alternatives Study: 
The Oil Industry’s View of Protecting the Great Lakes

  1. Background on why Gov. Snyder and Attorney General Schuette should decide that the risk of an oil spill is unacceptable.
  2. The Dynamic Risk study neglects to provide the state with an independent, fair analysis of the alternatives to Line 5.
  3. Dynamic Risk’s study does not provide a credible worst-case scenario spill and cost analysis and grossly underestimates the impact on Michigan of a Line 5 spill.
  4. Dynamic Risk’s study fails to analyze existing pipeline infrastructure as an alternative to Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac.
  5. Dynamic Risk’s study overestimates the impact on propane supply of decommissioning Line 5.
  6. Dynamic Risk wants a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac.
  7. Cost of A Straits Tunnel: Two Years of Massive Disruption to Tourism; Emmet, Cheboygan, Mackinac Counties; and Tribal Fishing.
  8. The Study’s Authors and Enbridge: Oil Industry Friends.
1. Background

How much risk is acceptable when it comes to an oil spill in the Great Lakes? When it comes to the aging Line 5 oil pipelines in the Mackinac Straits, the State of Michigan now must decide.

Even oil industry firm Dynamic Risk, which in late June produced a state-commissioned report on alternatives to Line 5 embraced by Enbridge and panned by Great Lakes advocates as blatantly biased and flawed, says that the prospect of a Line 5 spill in the Straits is very real.

Dynamic Risk’s analysis concludes there is a 1-in-60 chance of a Line 5 oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac by 2053, when Line 5 turns 100 years old. And independent experts think a Line 5 disaster is even more likely given its age and deteriorating condition. While we don’t know the exact odds, we do know that a 1-in-60 chance of an oil spill in the Great Lakes not acceptable.

The state of Michigan has a duty to protect the Great Lakes, which provide drinking water for half of all Michigan residents and define our way of life. There’s no reason for Gov. Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to keep delaying action to decommission Line 5.

The underlying assumption in Dynamic Risk’s study is if Enbridge says it can sell 23 million gallons of oil that is now being transported daily through Line 5, then it is Michigan’s responsibility to figure out how the private Canadian company can continue to do that. That is a false assumption. So let’s set aside Enbridge’s profits for a minute and focus on Michigan.

It is the State of Michigan’s responsibility to protect the Great Lakes from a Line 5 oil spill, and the report’s Alternative #6— decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits—would do just that (and in the process, create 2,000 construction jobs). According to Dynamic Risk, the impact of eliminating Line 5 oil in Michigan would be tiny—about a two-cent a gallon increase in the price of gasoline. That’s because the vast majority of Line 5 oil goes to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.

What about liquefied natural gas that is transported through Line 5? According to Dynamic Risk less than 5% of LNGs are transported to Rapid River in the Upper Peninsula for conversion to propane. The remaining 95% goes to Sarnia. The amount going to the U.P. is so modest that it could be supplied by installing a new 4-inch pipeline from Superior, Wisconsin, to Rapid River.
The Dynamic Risk Study: Deeply Flawed and Not Credible

2. The Dynamic Risk study neglects to provide the state with an independent, fair analysis of the alternatives to Line 5.

The report, authored by oil industry firms with business ties to Enbridge, is biased. It promotes building new oil infrastructure in the Straits of Mackinac that would allow Enbridge to continue transporting oil in the Great Lakes when there are other, reasonable alternatives. The Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force called for an alternatives study that was “wholly independent from any influence by Enbridge.” Dynamic Risk and other study contractors have worked for Enbridge, and they are in the business of supporting and building oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. Those businesses depend on companies like Enbridge to keep operating. They should not have been put in charge of a study whose results are tilted toward Enbridge and building new pipeline infrastructure in the Straits of Mackinac.

3. Dynamic Risk’s study does not provide a credible worst-case scenario spill and cost analysis, and grossly underestimates the impact on Michigan of a Line 5 spill.
When the State of Michigan, at the 11th hour, fired another oil industry contractor doing a major risk evaluation of a Line 5 oil spill it was left solely to Dynamic Risk to provide a credible worst-case oil spill analysis. This was a specific requirement of its work agreement with the state. Instead, Dynamic Risk uses assumptions of risk and an averaging model of all oil spills that are not credible. It estimates that:
  • Only 20-miles of shoreline would be impacted by a spill. This is 3% of the 720-mile area the University of Michigan found vulnerable to a spill in its 2016 study.
  • An oil spill would cost $100 to $200 million even though Enbridge’s cleanup costs of its Kalamazoo River Line 6B pipeline oil spill in 2010 cost more than $1.2 billion. 
The Dynamic Risk report grossly underestimates a worst-case release from Line 5 limiting this number to 4,500 barrels (coincidentally the number Enbridge uses to estimate worst-case spill). A different analysis done by an independent engineer involving an anchor strike that removes both 20” lines under the Straits (a distinct probability) concludes there would be a release of 60,000 barrels or 2.5 million gallons of crude oil in comparison to the 24,000 barrels released into the Talmedge Creek tributary to the Kalamazoo River (Enbridge’s Line6B Marshall spill).

4. Dynamic Risk’s study fails to analyze existing pipeline infrastructure as an alternative to Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac.
This was a requirement of Dynamic Risk’s work agreement with the state and was an essential recommendation from the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force. Yet Dynamic Risk says it made an early decision to eliminate from its study a comprehensive analysis of transporting Line 5 oil through other existing pipelines, a decision that skewed study results. It failed to even consider the fact that Enbridge’s Line 6B capacity was doubled after Enbridge’ massive 2010 oil spill.

5. Dynamic Risk’s study overestimates the impact on propane supply of decommissioning Line 5.
What we know from Dynamic Risk’s study is that data provided by Enbridge says more than 95% of liquefied natural gas transported in Line 5 goes to Sarnia, Ontario. Less than 5% stays in Rapid River in the Upper Peninsula for processing into propane. Yet the flawed report finds that up to 35 railcars per week or 15 truckloads per day would be necessary to transport propane in the UP. A different, independent study found it would take only one railcar or 3 - 4 truckloads per day to replace Line 5 propane supply to the U.P. and the study admits that it would only take installation of a 4-inch pipeline to continue supplying liquefied natural gas to the Rapid River processing facility.

6. Dynamic Risk wants a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac .
In its April 2016 proposal to the state, Dynamic Risk expressed enthusiasm for the idea of putting a tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac, a project that could potentially benefit oil industry contractors and consultants like Dynamic Risk. Dynamic Risk’s alternatives study delivers on that enthusiasm with a projected cost estimate for a tunnel that is much lower than other estimates for this type of infrastructure. Dynamic Risk would have us believe that constructing a tunnel would cost $50 million less than decommissioning Line 5. At the same time, they admit they did not have the site-specific information about the underlying rock formations to determine the conditions and depth for the tunnel. Of course underground oil pipelines still rupture and a tunnel would still leave the Great Lakes vulnerable to oil spills, including other portions of Line 5 along the Lake Michigan and its tributaries.

7. Cost of A Straits Tunnel: Two Years of Massive Disruption to Tourism, Emmet, Cheboygan, Mackinac Counties and Tribal Fishing
Tourists visiting the tip of Michigan’s mitt and permanent residents would find their lives, communities and economies unnecessarily upended for more than two years because of massive tunnel construction, including drilling and blasting, that will impact everything from air pollution to traffic congestion to police, fire and medical services. At each end of the tunnel up to 7 acres of land would be set up as a construction and staging area, potentially impacting local parks. Seasonal workers and construction workers would compete for limited rental housing; during the lengthy construction period and everyone in three northern Michigan counties would experience a steady stream of 18-wheel trucks hauling massive amounts of rock and soil excavated to make room for a proposed 30-inch pipeline. Dynamic Risk, which admits all of this in its report, predicts police and medical services “could be stretched beyond their limits.” Moreover, the Straits are, by treaty, fishing grounds for native tribes in Michigan and would likely see large areas impacted by the construction project.

8. The Study’s Authors and Enbridge: Oil Industry Friends
Enbridge paid for the $3.5 million alternatives and risk analysis and serves alongside Marathon Petroleum on a board that is advising Gov. Snyder about Line 5. But Enbridge’s reach goes beyond paying for studies that are supposed to determine the fate of the Great Lakes. Instead of turning to one of the state’s university to lead the study, officials chose Dynamic Risk even though the firm has worked for Enbridge on pipeline projects and is a leading player in the pipeline infrastructure industry. Dynamic Risk worked for Enbridge on the Midwest Sandpiper project and it was recently disclosed that while working on Line 5 studies for the State of Michigan, Dynamic Risk was also working for Enbridge on its Line 3 project in Minnesota. Dynamic Risk also conducted studies for Canadian officials that led to the approval by Quebec authorities of the reversal and expansion of 39- year-old Enbridge Line 9B, which in March 2016 began transporting heavy crude oil from western Canada to Sarnia, Ontario.

Other companies with direct ties to Enbridge are playing key roles in the alternatives study. The Stantec Company, which designs pipelines from engineering to construction, provided design support for the Keystone Pipeline and has been involved in the construction of multiple tunnels. According to Dynamic Risk’s proposal to the state, G.A. Purves, Director of Oil & Gas for Stantec, and a member of the Line 5 Project Team, has provided engineering support for six Enbridge pipeline projects over two construction seasons. Harold Henry, another Line 5 Project Team member for Stantec, was project manager on Enbridge’s Line 4 pipeline expansion. Riyaz Shiyji, Stantec director, provided support for multiple Enbridge projects in Canada.

Kelly Geotechnical Company was selected to participate as a key Line 5 Project Team member while also providing engineering work for Enbridge pipelines in Minnesota and North Dakota on the same Sandpiper project involving Dynamic Risk. In addition, Kelly worked on an Enbridge gas pipeline project in 2015, the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project from 2005-2015, and Spectra Energy projects from 2009 to 2011. Enbridge recently merged with Spectra. Line 5 project team member Shane A. Kelly, senior engineer for Kelly, worked in support of two Enbridge pipeline projects and two Spectra Energy projects.


Oil & Water Don't Mix Campaign 148 E Front Street, Suite 301, Traverse City, MI 49684. 231-480-4112.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Tsuga’s View: Part 9

A Long-Term Look At Environmental, Political, and Social Issues, From The Perspective Of Michigan’s Oldest (and Most Optimistic) Tree Species

By Marvin Roberson

In a recent installment, I described the difference between Ideology and Values, and noted that the Right operates on Ideology, and the Progressives operate on Values, and I claimed that Values will always triumph over Ideology in the long run.

This plays out in how the two movements operate. The Right is generally opposed to things, while the Left generally advances an agenda which is positive, not reactive. This is made a more severe contrast by the fact that the Right (Ideologically) bases their opposition on people, while the Progressives base their support on outcomes.

What do I mean? A friend used to say “We hated what Bush did, but they hated who Obama was”.

In other words, the Left based their opinion of Bush on what he did, and the outcomes. The Right based their opposition to programs proposed by Obama based on the fact that he supported it.


Senator Kennedy worked on “No Child Behind” because he supported the aims of the program, and he did not oppose it simply because Bush was behind it (now, ultimately, it was not a success, but that’s a different matter).

Obama proposed a slight variation on “Romneycare”, which was a Republican-based program, which was widely praised by the Right when it was implemented in Massachusetts. However, the moment it became “Obamacare” (simply by being proposed by Obama), the same folks who had praised it to high heaven now opposed it.

In other words, Kennedy (who epitomized the Left) supported a bill promoted by Bush, because Kennedy supported the aims of the bill. Republicans opposed a bill which they invented, because Obama supported it.

As an aside, speaking of Kennedy - the first time I ever went to DC to lobby on behalf of the Club, I was being shepherded around the Capitol by Anne Woiwode. As we were racing through the basement of the Senate, we rounded a corner and I bumped into Ted Kennedy. I said to Anne “That was Senator Kennedy!”. She smiled a bit sadly, and pointed out “Well, Marvin, you are in the basement of the US Senate, you might expect to see Senators here”.

In that same trip, I learned the lessons of this installment at my first lobbying training. One of the most important things I was told is that “We do not have friends and enemies in Congress. We have allies and opponents, and an ally on one issue may be an opponent on the next”.

What that meant, in practice, was that because we agree with some Congresspeople on some issues, and disagree with those same people on others, we should concentrate on the issues, and not the person. Expressing disagreement on an issue is fine, but demonizing the opponent on one issue might jeopardize their help on the next.

It’s also simply an example of how the Progressives have a consistent vision of what we want, and it’s based on outcomes which reflect our values. Whereas the Right often bases their position on who supports or opposes it (remember the Republicans indicating that they would oppose anything Obama did, regardless of whether or not they has previously supported it?).

This must be exhausting for the Right. First they have to figure out who they hate (that smart Black guy. That experienced, talented woman). Then they have to figure out what those people support. Then they have to oppose it, even if that means changing their own position until they twist in knots.

For some great examples of this, see “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks”, by Thomas Mann and Norman Oresnstein. Both authors are with the American Enterprise Institute, hardly a left wing think tank. They document a number of bills which were introduced by Senator McConnell, which he later filibustered after Obama supported them. Let me repeat that: the Senate Majority Leader filibustered his own bills based upon the fact that Obama supported them.

I have a cousin who once told me “If Obama supports it, that’s good enough for me, I oppose it”. When I pointed out that this meant that he was letting Obama determine his position on issues, he just looked at me blankly.

But this is a perfect example - we have long-term values, and we work for outcomes which will promote those values. They have people they hate, and their positions twist in the wind based on what those people support.

Of course our path is the long-term winner.

Next Time:

False equivalency, and how it fits into all this.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Despite Trump, Sierra Club urges business to take action on climate

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - The head of the Sierra Club stressed the importance of adopting sustainable practices in an address to West Michigan business owners Friday evening.

"We're in a challenging time where we have an administration that is mostly aligned with Congress on arguable the biggest problem our society faces -- climate change -- where the federal government is working in the opposite direction of where we need to go," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

More ....

Friday, May 26, 2017

Eagle Mine Conceals Underground Collapse



Gregg Bruff, UPEC Coordinator, upec@upenvironment.org  (906) 201-1949
Kathleen Heideman, UPEC Mining Action Group, gadmin@savethewildup.org  (906) 662-9987
Alexandra Maxwell, UPEC Mining Action Group, grassroots@savethewildup.org  (906) 662-9987
Nathan Frischkorn, UPEC Mining Action Group, nfrischk@nmu.edu  (906) 251-0113
Eagle Mine Conceals Underground Collapse
Marquette, MI — Concerned citizens are publishing the details of an underground collapse incident at Eagle Mine, citing grave concerns with the company’s lack of transparency. The revelations follow several “Eagle Mine Community Meetings” in which the company failed to disclose the details of a significant incident that happened in 2016.

“I attended Eagle Mine’s meeting anticipating some honest discussion of their 2016 underground collapse. Instead, they demonstrated how to use a virtual fire extinguisher to fight a virtual fire. Their 2016 safety review mentioned only medical incidents: a contractor who fell from a ladder and sprained an ankle, an employee who experienced a heart attack, etcetera. Eagle claims that ‘providing transparent information is important to the way we do business,’ but Eagle Mine’s behaviour is anything but transparent,” said Jeffery Loman, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community tribal member and former federal oil regulator.

"Representatives of Eagle Mine failed to address the collapse until they were asked by a concerned citizen at a community meeting in Big Bay, at which point they tried to claim it was an insignificant and harmless incident,” said Nathan Frischkorn, a resident of Marquette.

“Eagle Mine’s failure to disclose a serious underground collapse is outrageous, in light of their request for more permits to expand mining into the new Eagle East orebody. Permitting hinges on public accountability. At the same time, Eagle Mine wants to remove more ore from the very highest levels of the Eagle Mine – a move which experts have long warned could cause the mine’s ceiling or ‘Crown Pillar’ to cave in,” said Kathleen Heideman, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC) board member and a member of the Mining Action Group.


Rumors of the underground collapse at Eagle Mine first surfaced in fall of 2016, when a story circulated that some “mine contractors” had quit over an underground incident they felt was “dangerous.” Responding to the direct question “Was there a partial pillar collapse?” Eagle Mine confirmed that an incident had taken place, but did not use the term “collapse” and provided only a few details:

“In early August, there was a fall of ground incident that occurred during a routine blast in an active stope. The fall of ground occurred due to an unidentifiable natural horizontal feature that failed during a blast, causing a section of ore to fall. Eagle Mine safety standards require all employees to be on the surface during a blast, therefore no employees were underground or at risk at the time of the incident. The situation was identified by employees during the post-blast inspection. Eagle Mine notified the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) who conducted an investigation.  MSHA notification is required whenever an unplanned fall of ground occurs at or above the anchorage zone in active workings where roof bolts are in use.” 

Documents received in May of 2017 from the federal MSHA via a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request filed by a local concerned citizen make it clear: the unplanned “fall of ground” was a significant “large block failure.”
  • Eagle Mine’s Wilhelm Greuer told the MSHA investigator, “this was a wake up call.”
  • A large portion of an underground stope unexpectedly collapsed. The mining term used by the company is an “unexpected fall of ground.” It was described by MSHA  inspector as a “substantial” event, and could have happened at any time.
  • While no one was working in the drift below the stope when it collapsed, a crew of Cementation employees had been installing rock bolts into the stope prior to the collapse. It could have been a fatal accident. 
  • The “unidentifiable natural horizontal feature that failed” (as described by Eagle Mine) was actually a fault, a critical fracture or flaw within the orebody. Was it truly unidentifiable – or simply unidentified? The geological fault or crack ran diagonally through stope 1485 on level 215, which is a “secondary” stope (unit or compartment of ore) contained between two primary stopes, which were already mined out and backfilled. A large quantity of ore below the fracture collapsed without warning. Mining experts describe these fractures as “rock discontinuities” and have warned that the Eagle orebody is filled with hard-to-map “smaller-scale discontinuities that could weaken the rock mass.” 
  • The blast that “triggered” the collapse actually took place elsewhere in the mine, in another stope. Eagle said the collapse took place in an “active” stope, but it was not targeted for blasting when it collapsed. 
  • The stope dimensions were approximately 33 feet wide by 80 feet high. A working access drift (tunnel) had been widened to the full width of the stope, further destabilizing the ore block. MSHA’s report states “the back broke approximately 9 meters (30 feet) above the existing 20 foot cable bolts.” 
  • According to the MSHA investigation, the bolts that were installed “represented approximately one-quarter of the capacity” that was actually necessary for supporting the ore block.


Alarmingly, MSHA concluded that “because the planar discontinuity (...) was unanticipated, and the failure block was too large to support with a reasonable bolting system, it must be assumed that similar discontinuities could be encountered, any time.” 

For greater stability, MSHA recommended leaving ribs of ore in place between stopes: “rib pillars should be left in place in secondary stopes to provide physical, standing support.” According to Parker, this mining method was recommended from the beginning. Why was this common sense safety practice (leaving ribs for better support) not done? Simply put, the company did not want leave behind valuable ore. Full-stope mining means taking everything – leaving no ore behind.

While questions were raised about the integrity of cemented backfill, MSHA concluded “this event is not considered a backfill failure issue.” In the wake of the incident, however, several changes were made to Eagle Mine’s backfill regime: changing the cement recipe, heating water before adding it to cement, and even the method of cement placement. Edges of backfilled stopes were found to contain voids and loose material, which may have further contributed to the instability of the ore block.

It is not clear whether MSHA’s recommendations were suggestions or requirements, or whether Eagle Mine has modified their mining practices to avoid future unexpected collapses.

"Criminally defective decisions made by the Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) caused the permit to be issued despite obvious and serious legal and technical shortcomings. Eagle Mine's permits were built upon false design and false data provided by amateur consultants who blatantly fabricated numbers, maps and sections which are in no way representative of the conditions in and around the orebody. The mine owners and their consultants still share responsibility for these errors, some of them life-threatening, all of them jail-worthy," said Jack Parker, a veteran miner and mining consultant.

“Lundin and the Eagle Mine management have demonstrated to the general public what we have known all along: they will withhold information from the public if it might be damaging to their image. Lundin could have disclosed this information at the Eagle Mine forums held last fall or last week. They chose not to,” said Gene Champagne of Concerned Citizens of Big Bay.

“It is incomprehensible why Lundin would widen the access drift below the stope without providing additional support. The MSHA report indicates that the affected area was only 28% supported. Greed is indeed a powerful force. This was not the fault of some overactive employee trying to impress the bosses and become employee of the month, as suggested by Matt Johnson’s comment in the Big Bay meeting. Someone gave the order to widen that stope. The public needs to know who. This was an accident waiting to happen and possibly could have happened without a blast occurring and while our working neighbors and relatives were still underground,” said Champagne.


Prior to the collapse, Eagle Mine submitted a stability report to the MDEQ, seeking to revise the mine’s critical “Crown Pillar” design. Lundin wants to extract an additional two levels of ore from the top of the orebody. The Michigan DEQ reviewed and quietly granted their request, with no opportunity for public comment. Reports were made available only recently, after a request made by the Upper Peninsula Environmental Stakeholders Group.

Lundin Mining acknowledges in their most recent Technical Report on Eagle Mine that “due to the location of the mine under a significant wetlands area and overburden cover, a crown pillar is necessary for the Eagle Mine to prevent surface subsidence and/or large-scale collapse.” The precise thickness and strength of the mine’s “crown pillar” or rock roof has been a hotly debated issue for more than a decade. Several mining engineers, after examining drill cores and rock quality data, have concluded that Eagle Mine’s design is fundamentally unstable, based upon flawed or falsified stability data. Some stated under oath that a crown pillar less than 300 feet thick would be likely to collapse. Eagle Mine, with DEQ’s approval, has now thinned the crown pillar from 287 to only 95 feet, in order to extract more ore.

“Eagle’s secretive behavior, in the wake of the collapse, is alarming. Is Eagle Mine stable, as the company insists, or will unmapped faults prove catastrophic, as experts have warned? Nobody wants to see a serious collapse at Eagle Mine. That would devastate the headwaters of the Salmon Trout River, directly above the mine,” said Alexandra Maxwell, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve administrator.

“No one in the Upper Peninsula should feel comfortable about the planned activities at Eagle until the financial responsibility assurances required by government regulators are at least an order of magnitude greater than what they are today," said Loman.

“In light of last year’s significant underground collapse, which was hushed-up and passed off as a minor fall of ground incident, an independent professional review of the Eagle Mine’s data and design is needed. Ultimately, the Michigan DEQ must take steps to correct this unfortunate situation and forestall others. Mining of the Eagle East orebody must not be permitted until Eagle Mine’s design and rock data finally pass muster,” said Parker.


Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Incident Report on Eagle Mine 2017
Corrected images from MSHA report (received from Chris Hensler, MSHA) 2017
Jack Parker: Eagle Mine - Bad Design 2017
Lundin Mining’s Wilhelm Greuer addressing "Stability of Backfill in Secondary Stopes” transcript 2016
Crown Pillar Technical Report 2016
Mining Expert Jack Parker Says Eagle Mine "Likely To Collapse" 2010
Jack Parker Report Calls Eagle Project "Unstable" 2010
Final Report on Crown Pillar - Parker and Vitton 2007

FOIAd-MSHAreport-on-EagleMinecollapse - Page 36 2

“Diagram illustrates Eagle Mine underground collapse, page 36 of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's Report on Eagle Mine incident."

Founded in 1976, the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition’s purpose remains unchanged: to protect and maintain the unique environmental qualities of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan by educating the public and acting as a watchdog to industry and government. UPEC is a nonprofit, registered 501(c)(3) organization. For more information, call 906-201-1949, see UPenvironment.org, visit our Facebook page, or contact: upec@upenvironment.org.
The UPEC Mining Action Group (MAG) is a grassroots effort to defend the clean water and wild places of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from the dangers of sulfide mining previously known as Save the Wild U.P. (SWUP). Contact the UPEC Mining Action Group at info@savethewildup.org or call (906) 662-9987. Learn more about the Mining Action Group at miningactiongroup.org or follow MAG’s work on Facebook or Twitter.