MinnesotaReformer has not been silent in criticising sulfide mining and the proponents of doing it. Instead, they have been helpfully risk averse in their published thinking. Most recently, they question the integrity of the process and players over time, while suggesting just start over. Kind of.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/08/22/after-20-years-of-failure-a-risky-mining-plan-doesnt-deserve-the-benefits-of-its-past-permits/ 

That self explanatory item ends with links to three earlier items the outlet has published. One, 

https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/10/10/stop-the-risk-of-damage-to-the-boundary-waters-watershed-with-a-permanent-ban-on-sulfide-ore-mining/ 

Or as Nancy Reagan, (different context), said, "Just say no." 

On balance, MinnReformer editorial-think is sulfide mining proposals are bad policy ideas.  

Or as Crabgrass summarizes, the safest most risk averse outlook, is leave the ore where nature placed it.

So why not do that? I await Harry Niska and Tom Emmer to show what could be wrong with that. If they have any real ideas at all. Besides vouchers for their kids' school (Harry and Jen there, not Emmer).