We welcome your ideas and suggestions about other actions, and your participation in any part of the community education work that lies ahead. Please be in touch with any questions cleanwater@greenhorns.org
No More Mining
in Maine!
Edge Venuti | Rural Youth Organizer: Washington County
Last year, locals from Pembroke sprang into action to protect their precious water. Wolfden Resources Corporation, a Canadian mining company had descended from the north with the hopes of constructing a silver mine in the small rural town. Pembroke lies on Passamoquoddy territory. It is a beautiful place, home to gorgeous natural waterways including the Pennamaquan river. It was no place to industrialize.
Mines, even when conducted “safely,” pose a substantial threat to the natural world. When water is exposed to the sulfide deposits and tailings it becomes saturated with poisonous metals such as mercury, arsenic, and lead. Those poisons then choke up the surrounding aquatic animals and plants before they enter your own drinking water.
Grassroots organizers - from the Pembroke Clean Water Committee, to Passamaquoddy tribe members, to retired folks, to young folks - came together to attend the public hearing event that Wolfden was required to hold. They spoke against the mine, advocating for the land they wanted to protect and keep pristine. As a high schooler, Joey McGlaughin said, “Maine is beautiful and I want to keep it that way.”
With an overwhelming majority, Wolfden was voted out of that small town and the water was protected. The threat had been squashed, for now.
Earlier this year, on January 18, Wolfden submitted another proposal to build yet another mine farther north on Pickett Mountain. They have actually owned Pickett Mountain and the surrounding acres of forests and wetlands since November 16, 2017. They claim that it is one of the “highest grade undeveloped polymetallic massive sulfide deposits in North America.” It is also home to an incredible amount of biodiversity, beautiful trees, and lakes that are all connected to the other great landscapes in Maine including Baxter State Park and Mount Katahdin. Putting these lands at risk for a mining project that has a possibility of being conducted completely safely and securely is not worth it.
The public is encouraged to share their thoughts on this project. If you want to submit a letter please send it by the close of the record after the hearing in August 2023. The Land Use Planning committee can be reached at Wolfdenrezoning.LUPC@maine.gov. Written comments submitted on paper should be sent to the
Maine Land Use Planning Commission
Attention: Tim Carr
22 State House Station
18 Elkins Lane, Augusta
ME 04333-0022
Wolfden Submits New Application for Pickett Mountain Project - Jan 18, 2023
Photo by Ryan Malagra
Pembroke Passes Anti-Industrial Mining Ordinance 129-48!
Read the latest from Maine Public and the Bangor Daily News
Read the Bangor Daily News article on the mine fight: “Canadian company’s plan for a Down East silver mine runs into opposition from locals”
Drummond Woodsum Guidance on May 4th
Pembroke Town Meeting and Vote
You can also read this copy of the Maine Moderator’s Manual Guide to Town Meetings
February 20, 2022
John Banks, Penobscot Nation
Winona Laduke, Honor the Earth, introduced by Wayne Tomah, Passamaquoddy
Moderated by Dwayne Tomah, Passmaquoddy cultural historian and Dawn Neptune Adams of Sunlight Media
Learning from communities where mining has occurred in other states.
Learning from the Penobscot experience of environmental contamination of the Penobscot river.
Sharing an indigenous perspective on building a movement to regulate mining in Maine
January 2, 2022
3pm- 4.30pm
Stacey Caulk, Drummond Woodsum, Environmental & Natural Resources Attorney
Ralph Chapman, former legislator
The purpose of this event is to share information with Pembroke citizens and adjoining communities so that everyone knows what we are facing with metallic mining, its implications and regulation.
January 30, 2022
3pm- 4.30pm
Andrew Stanicoff, retired Geologist
Jan Morrill, Groundworks mine tailing specialist
Bruce Taylor, Board certified Pediatrician and Anesthesiologist
February 20, 2022
3pm- 4.30pm
John Banks, Penobscot Nation
Winona Laduke, Honor the Earth, introduced by Wayne Tomah, Passamaquoddy
Moderated by Dwayne Tomah, Passmaquoddy cultural historian and Dawn Neptune Adams of Sunlight Media
Read Jason Barett’s Letter to the Editor on the mine in the 2/11 edition of The Quoddy Tides!
Geologist’s Report on Pembroke Aquifer
Stephen H. Emerman, Ph.D., Malach Consulting
Prepared for Pembroke Clean water committee, December 2021
There are many types of environmental risks associated with mining, ranging from air pollution to greenhouse gas emissions to soil contamination to excessive traffic. However, in the case of silver mining, the problem of acid mine drainage is so pervasive and destructive that I would like to devote this entire memo to this subject. Acid mine drainage can occur with all sulfide ore mining, that is, from ore bodies that include sulfide minerals. It is occasionally still possible to find native silver in the form of nuggets or flakes. However, these are only artisanal or hobby mines and all modern industrial mining of silver involves the extraction of silver from sulfide ore bodies.
Sulfide minerals are typically stable when they are beneath the surface. Mining involves the excavation of these minerals so that either tailings (the crushed ore that remains after the commodity of value has been removed) or waste rock (the rock that must be removed to reach the ore body) are left on the surface. Acid mine drainage occurs when these sulfide minerals are exposed to oxygen and water on the surface, so that the oxidation reaction converts the sulfides into sulfuric acid. The generic reaction can be written as a balanced chemical reaction as
2FeS2 + 7O2 + 2H2O → 2Fe+2 + 4SO4-2 + 4H+
or in words as
pyrite + oxygen + water → dissolved iron + sulfuric acid
Pyrite (iron sulfide) is the most common sulfide mineral, but many other metallic elements form sulfides, such as arsenopyrite (iron arsenic sulfide or FeAsS), chalcopyrite (copper sulfide or CuFeS2), galena (lead sulfide or PbS), or sphalerite (zinc sulfide or ZnS). Silver can occur as the sulfide mineral argentite (Ag2S), but it is more common for silver to be contained within the crystal structure of another sulfide mineral. All of the sulfide minerals typically include other heavy metals as part of the crystal structure. Therefore, the oxidation of sulfide minerals also releases all of the heavy metals that were part of the crystal structure.
The consequences of acid mine drainage are acidity, dissolved heavy metals and dissolved sulfate in surface water and groundwater downstream of the mining operation. These consequences can have detrimental impact upon municipal or private water supplies, as well upon aquatic health and the health of plants. It is important to note that acid mine drainage can induce a positive feedback in that the downstream load of dissolved metals can greatly exceed the dissolved metals that result from the oxidation of the exposed sulfide minerals. Stream sediments typically include clay minerals, whose surfaces have negatively-charged sites that bind cations (positively-charged ions). Most dissolved metals are cations, although there are some exceptions, such as arsenic, molybdenum and uranium, which occur in dissolved form as oxyanions (polyatomic negatively-charged ions that include oxygen). When acidic water interacts with these stream sediments, the hydrogen cations displace other cations (such as metallic cations) from the negatively-charged sites, so that metals are no longer fixed onto sediment, but are mobilized in the stream column as dissolved metals. For this reason, mine tailings or mining-affected sediments in stream beds are often referred as a “chemical time bomb.” These mine tailings or mining-affected sediments can be sequestering a substantial load of metals that can be mobilized into the stream following an increase in stream acidity, which could occur after sulfide exposure due to a new episode of mining.
There are a wide variety of means for mitigating acid mine drainage. For example, the tailings or waste rock can be mixed with crushed limestone, which could neutralize the acidity, although it would not remove the excessive sulfate or dissolved metals. Tailings or waste rock piles could be underlain by liners, although all liners will eventually leak and degrade. The acid mine drainage could be collected and treated, although perpetual collection and treatment is not realistic, even though the tailings and waste rock will exist on the surface in perpetuity. The tailings can be permanently covered with water, although this is no longer a recommended practice because it can lead to instability of the tailings pile. Some acid mine drainage can be prevented by converting the waste rock and tailings into a paste and returning it to the exhausted underground mine workings. This does not guarantee that none of the tailings or waste rock will ever be exposed to oxygen and water and, because of expansion of the waste rock and ore after excavation and processing, only a fraction of the waste materials can be returned to the exhausted underground mine. In summary, no single mechanism suffices for the mitigation of acid mine drainage and a mining project must consider a variety of mechanisms.
Although it is theoretically possible for a silver mine to operate without water pollution, such a silver mine has never existed. As an illustration of this, in 1997, Wisconsin passed a “Prove It First” law for sulfide ore mining. According to this law, a sulfide ore mining operation could be approved only if the proponent presented evidence that sulfide ore mining could in fact be carried out without adverse environmental impacts. Specifically, the proponent had to find at least one sulfide ore mine in the US or Canada that had been operating for at least 10 years and at least one mine that had been closed for at least 10 years without contaminating ground or surface water from acid mine drainage at the tailings site or mine site or from the release of heavy metals.
On various occasions, the sulfide mining industry presented seven model mine candidates with claims of no history of water contamination. These seven mines were the Flambeau copper-silver-gold mine in Wisconsin, the Eagle copper-nickel mine in Michigan, the Baghdad copper mine in Arizona, the Raglan nickel mine in Quebec, the Cullaton Lake gold mine in Nunavut, the Sacaton copper mine in Arizona, and the McLaughlin gold mine in California. All of these applications were unsuccessful because, in fact, all of these mines had a history of water contamination. New sulfide ore mines were able to open in Wisconsin only after the repeal of the “Prove It First” law in 2017.
Right now, the state of Minnesota is debating its own version of a “Prove It First” law. One surprising aspect of the debate is that the sulfide ore mining industry and its supporters are presenting the same list of seven model mines, even though those mines have already been discredited. In other words, no new model mine candidates have emerged in the last 24 years.
At this point, it should be clear as to why silver mining would be particularly problematic in the region near Cobscook Bay and Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine. The worst-case scenario for the consequences of acid mine drainage would be the following:
private and municipal water supplies downstream from the mining operation
fishing and shellfish industry downstream from the mining operation
prior history of mining (so that stream sediments could already carry a high metal load)
I believe that the Cobscook Bay and Passamaquoddy Bay areas include all elements of the worst-case scenario.
Steven Emerman
Why the DEP rules governing exploration of metallic mineral mining are inadequate, and how they should be updated
Regulatory deficiencies addressing the exploration stage of mineral mining written by Stacey Caulk December 2021.
Under Maine DEP’s rules for metallic mineral mining, permissible mining activities are divided into three categories: (1) Exploration; (2) Advanced Exploration; and (3) Mining. There are significant deficiencies in Maine’s regulation of those activities that are categorized as Exploration Activities under the law. Exploration activities are those conducted to determine the location, extent, and composition of metallic mineral deposits, test boring, test drilling, hand sampling, digging of test pits, trenching or outcrop stripping to remove overburden with a maximum surface opening of 300 square feet per test pit or trench, or other test sampling techniques.
· No Authorization Required - All of the above-mentioned activities can take place without any authorization by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) or any other regulatory body. Although an exploration work plan must be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection, there is no mechanism for the DEP to approve or reject this exploration work plan.
· No Notice - An individual or company conducting these activities is not required to provide notice to abutters (landowners whose property abuts the property at which exploration activity is being conducted) nor to the municipality in which the activity is being conducted, as is commonly required for other DEP-regulated activities. As is often the case with sites that have a high potential for the location of metallic minerals, the mining rights to the property may be owned by someone different than the individual that owns the surface rights (what we think of as the landowner). The DEP’s rules do not require that notice be provided to the landowner when the landowner does not own the surface rights.
· Lack of Public Information - There is no avenue for a submitted exploration work plan to be made public. Only the DEP is aware of where and when metallic mineral mining exploration activities are being conducted in the State. Without abutter or municipal notice, and without a requirement that exploration work plans be posted in a central repository (e.g., on the DEP’s website), there could be scores of companies conducting mining exploration activities around the State – right now - with no public knowledge of their activities besides the mining officials at the DEP.
· Undefined Period for Restoration - The DEP’s rules require an individual/company to restore the exploration work site within 30 days after completion of its exploration activities. However, there is no time limit as to how long these exploration activities can take, nor a limit on the duration of “breaks” between bouts of active exploration without restoring the work site.
· No Required Exploration Reports – During a company’s exploration activities, it is not required to provide updates to the DEP until after cessation of its activities unless there is a discharge or an event that could damage public health or the environment. DEP may require submission of self-inspection reports, but this is not required. By not requiring these reports, the DEP has little to no information about on-going exploration activities unless it conducts its own site visits, which is not always feasible, and it limits the public’s understanding of the exploration activities.
· Bulk Sampling – DEP set limits for bulk sampling under Advanced Exploration – no more than 10,000 tons of mine waste – and states that no bulk sampling may take place during Exploration activities (as distinguished from Advanced Exploration activities). However, in its definition of Advanced Exploration, the DEP specifically exempts samples taken as a part of “exploration” activities from the definition of “bulk sampling.” Essentially, this allows a company to have no cap as to its sampling or mine waste while undergoing exploration activities, as long as it adheres to the remaining standards applicable to exploration activities. The implication is that exploration activities will not reach the quantities envisioned under “advanced exploration,” but there are no legal parameters to ensure this transpires.
Recommendations to Reform Maine DEP’s Rules for Metallic Mineral Mining as Applied to Exploration Activities:
· Require the Exploration Work Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Department before exploration activities may occur.
· Require companies submitting an Exploration Work Plan to be subject to a more fulsome application process, including providing notice to abutters, the landowner (when applicable), and to the municipality.
· Require materials submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection to be posted in an accessible central repository.
· Limit the duration during which a company may conduct exploration activities before restoring the exploration work site.
· Require regular exploration reports that must be made public.
· Set specific sampling limits for exploration activities.
Latest From Wolfden: Update on Findings
Read the full document below:
Two drill programs are underway in Maine and New Brunswick
THUNDER BAY, ON / ACCESSWIRE / November 1, 2021 / Wolfden Resources Corporation (TSXV:WLF) ("Wolfden" or the "Company") is pleased to provide an update on two separate exploration drill programs that are underway in Maine and New Brunswick both targeting large-scale silver-rich hydrothermal systems. In addition, the Company has resource estimates underway for its two significant nickel-sulphide deposits in Manitoba.
Big Silver Project- Maine
Wolfden is earning up to a 100% interest in a property package in Washington County of south-east Maine close to the New Brunswick border.
Historic drill intercepts include 133.5 g/t Ag, 1.86% Zn, 0.22% Cu and 0.59% Pb over 40.5 metres (TW ~32.0 metres). All historic drill holes (+100 holes to an average depth of 125 metres) were anomalous in silver and most were not assayed for gold. One hole contained 8.0 metres at 13.5 g/t gold (TW unknown).
Eight recent confirmatory holes (1,708 metres) have been completed to a maximum depth 458 metres down-hole. All but one of the holes has intersected wide intervals of mineralization containing trace to 15% combined sphalerite (zinc mineralization), galena (lead mineralization), tetrahedrite (silver and copper mineralization), chalcopyrite (copper mineralization) and pyrite. The mineralization is hosted within fracture zones and as disseminations in intermediate composition intrusions and volcanics, sedimentary rocks and debris flows, local breccias (see core photograph) with stronger zones of mineralization in the more porous host rocks. Alteration manifests as bleaching, sericitization and silicification. It is expected that those rocks exhibiting pervasive silicification with tetrahedrite and those enriched in galena, have the potential for silver enrichment as well. Assays are pending.
Exploration data, including drilling, mapping and soil sample results, indicate that the Big Silver mineralization event was quite extensive (open 2 km by 2 km area) with base and precious metals being deposited within primary, and structurally enhanced, permeable zones in both mafic volcanics and sediments. The core of the system is copper-rich with late-stage vein-controlled gold enrichment that is flanked by a zinc-lead-silver zone, flanked again by a silver-zinc-lead mineralization. Silicified breccias and coarse sedimentary rocks are important hosts for the mineralized zones.
Strong silver (up to 20.4 g/t) and zinc + lead + copper values (to 6,188 ppm) have been received from a recent 2021 soil sampling survey in the area (see Figure 3.).
An induced polarization (IP) geophysical survey, designed to see to a maximum depth of 400 metres, and to indicate the potential for the style of mineralization described above, will be completed before the next drill program.
Silver Projects - New Brunswick
The program is centred on our wholly owned California Lake, Woodside Brook and Carroll properties.
Historic drill intercepts include 534.8 g/t silver and 0.52 g/t gold over 4 metres (TW ~3.2 metres)
Eight holes have been completed to date (1,273 meters). Four of the holes tested the California Lake Zone. One hole tested the Woodside Brook Zone area. Three holes tested new geophysical (IP) and soil geochemical anomalies. All five holes drilled into the California Lake and Woodside Brook areas intersected variable sulphide-mineralized hydrothermal breccias and banded hydrothermal veins over narrow widths. Sulphide minerals include sphalerite, galena, tetrahedrite, arsenopyrite and pyrite.
One to two more holes will test a felsic intrusion-hosted silver-gold zone as well as geophysical/soil anomaly targets. Additional holes may be drilled pending results.
Nickel Projects - Manitoba
The Company is earning a 100% interest in its Rice Island project in Snow Lake and holds a 100% interest in its Nickel Island project in Island Lake Manitoba.
Modelling of the both projects is complete using historical drill data bases, as well as all of the Wolfden drilling completed at Rice Island.
A site visit by the independent consultant and Qualified Person was completed in September. A resource estimate for both projects are expected before year end.
A highlight of the check sampling of the historical Nickel Island deposit drill core exhibited better than expected, values of palladium and platinum that averaged 0.72 g/t and 0.21 g/t, respectively in 11 samples with highs of 2.72 g/t Pd and 0.67 g/t Pt in a sample that returned 7.43% Ni and 0.49% Cu. None of the historical drilling was assayed previously for PGE's and could represent some significant upside.
Geophysical surveys will be carried out over two additional gabbro hosted nickel-copper occurrences after freeze-up on the Rice Island Property. One of the occurrences is associated with a 3 km by 1 km, magnetic feature (mapped as a gabbro intrusion) and an airborne electromagnetic anomaly. In comparison, the Rice Island nickel deposit is associated with a 300 m by 200 m gabbroic body that remains open down-plunge along strike.
The Company plans to be in a position to drill both projects in the winter of 2022.
About Wolfden
Wolfden is an exploration and development company focused on high-margin metallic mineral deposits including base, precious and strategic metals. Its wholly owned Pickett Mountain Project is one of the highest-grade polymetallic projects in North America (Zn, Pb, Cu, Ag, Au). This relatively advanced project in northern Maine is well-located near excellent infrastructure that will support near term development as detailed in a Preliminary Economic Assessment date September 14, 2020.
For further information please contact Ron Little, President & CEO, at (807) 624-1136 or Don Dudek, VP Exploration at (647) 401-9138.
The information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Don Dudek, P. Geo., VP Exploration and Ron Little P.Eng., President and CEO, who are Qualified Persons' under National Instrument 43-101. For further information on the Pickett Mountain project, see technical report entitled "National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment Pickett Mountain Project, Penobscot County, Maine, USA" dated September 14, 2020 on Sedar.
Wolfden adheres to strict Quality Assurance and Quality Control protocols including routine insertion of blanks and certified reference standards in each sample batch of drill core that is sent to the lab for analyses. Drill core samples are split in half using a diamond saw with one half saved for reference and the other half shipped via secure transport to Activation Laboratories sample preparation facility in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Core samples are analyzed for zinc, lead, copper and silver utilizing 4-acid dissolution followed by ICP-OES (Code 8). Gold is analyzed by fire assay (30 g) utilizing AA finish (Code 1A2) and samples with over 5 g/t are analyzed by fire assay with gravimetric finish (Code 1A3). Silver over 100 g is analyzed by fire assay with gravimetric finish (Code 8-Ag).
Note that the historical grade and width data presented for the New Brunswick projects is generally not from Wolfden work and while the Company has reasonable confidence in the quality of the data, the Company cannot guarantee the accuracy of the drill results at this time without carrying out further work.
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information
This press release contains forward-looking information (within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation) that involves various risks and uncertainties regarding future events. Such forward-looking information includes statements based on current expectations involving a number of risks and uncertainties and such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance of the Company, and include, without limitation, metal price assumptions, cash flow forecasts, projected capital and operating costs, metal or mineral recoveries, mine life and production rates, and other assumptions used in Preliminary Economic Assessment dated September 14, 2020, information about future activities at the Pickett
Watch the recording of Sierra Club Maine's Community Conversation— Wrong for Maine, Wrong for Cobscook Bay: The Dangerous Downsides of Large-Scale Polymetallic Sulfide Mining
Sierra Club Maine Mining Discussion on December 7th. Sign up Here!
THE PENOBSCOT: Ancestral River, Contested Territory traverses the landscape of deal-making and deal-breaking that has largely defined tribal-state relations in Maine. Watch Here.
Site Work Begins on First Exploratory Well
Will Maine’s anti-mining laws keep needed minerals underground? - Andrew Cline Boston Herald
Wolfden LUPC Review Hearing
UPDATE: Read Wolfden press release here!
You can listen to the hearing using the audio transcript link above.
Wolfden claims they “ continues to receive tremendous support from local and regional communities.”
As you will notice, there was no mention of Pembroke “Big Hill” exploration or mine permitting, there was no mention of citizen comments, which we know to have been overwhelming.
Quoddy Tides, September 24,2021
“Petition opposes exploratory drilling for mine in Pembroke”
Washington Spectator, June 30, 2021
Quoddy Tides, May 14, 2021
Ellsworth American, April 30, 2021
