An aerial view of River Point Resort on Birch Lake, not far from where the Twin Metals underground mine would be built. (Bob King for the Star Tribune/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

There is a side to the Twin Metals Minnesota story that is far less dramatic and conspiratorial than portrayed in "Mining firm again threatens the BWCA" (Editorial, Oct. 15). And yes, there are some points where those of us who think the proposed project should get a fair shake at environmental review would agree with the Star Tribune's Editorial Board.

Let's start with the other side of the story.

Twin Metals' choice to continue exploring for minerals on private land where it holds valid mineral leases is not, as the online headline said, an "end run" around anything. Twin Metals is exercising a right it acquired years ago when it purchased the mineral leases from the state of Minnesota and private landowners to explore potential mineral deposits.

The real "end run" around the process was the federal government canceling legal federal mineral leases and declaring a mining moratorium on land designated for mining without allowing for a full environmental review process that is specified in state and federal law.

Despite what the Editorial Board suggested, Twin Metals is not proposing to mine its state minerals. It is planning to drill no more than nine holes on private land so it can study core samples for its mineral content. For decades, geologists have conducted studies of this kind without environmental damage all over the world including in the Superior National Forest and in the Canadian side of the Rainy River Watershed. It's how we learn about the makeup of the earth.

If exploration finds mineral deposits that appear to be accessible in an environmentally sustainable way, the mining company has to decide if it will engineer and submit a detailed mine plan to government agencies. That plan is subject to an exhaustive environmental impact study process. If the regulators decide the plan can prove it's possible to safely access the minerals while protecting the environment, they can decide to issue permits to mine. If the plan does not hold up to this review, the mine will not be permitted and will not be built.

This is not unreasonable; it's how the state and federal evidence-based process is supposed to work.

But when it comes to the proposed Twin Metals project, all the barriers that continue to be stacked up against it — including last Sunday's editorial — are not supported by evidence that would come from an environmental impact study. Important decisions are being made and editorials are being published based on theories and fearmongering instead of objective facts.

Here's where I agree with the editorial.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a precious wilderness area that must be protected. It is a place surrounded by communities populated by people who choose to live year-round in some pretty harsh conditions because we love it.

We would never advocate for any activity that would threaten the future of the great wilderness that is the center of our communities.

But we also cannot ignore the reality that the minerals in the area — both those that have been discovered and those that have not yet been explored — could be part of how we address the greatest threat to the Boundary Waters: global climate change. This can only happen if and only if the minerals can be mined responsibly.

I also agree with the editorial that it is time for Gov. Tim Walz to weigh in.

Gov. Walz is clearly committed to addressing climate change and to making sure we follow scientific evidence. He now needs to help turn down the non-science-based rhetoric by leading the conversation focused on making sure Minnesota supports the fair, predictable and timely fact-based review of each individual mining project in Minnesota based on its own merit.

The objective fact is that Minnesota mining projects could supply the minerals needed to realize his goal for our state — transitioning to clean energy to combat climate change.

Making decisions about protecting our environment that are rooted in science and supported by real evidence is the best and only real way to protect the Boundary Waters and will increase public confidence in those decisions. That is critical for our future generations' well-being.

Julie Lucas is the executive director of MiningMinnesota.