A Case Study of the Proposed Northmet Mine on Minnesota's Iron Range
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2020 RHETORIC AND PERCEPTION: A CASE STUDY OF THE PROPOSED NORTHMET MINE ON MINNESOTA’S IRON RANGE Sophia J. Frank Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Frank, Sophia J., "RHETORIC AND PERCEPTION: A CASE STUDY OF THE PROPOSED NORTHMET MINE ON MINNESOTA’S IRON RANGE" (2020). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11609. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11609 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RHETORIC AND PERCEPTION: A CASE STUDY OF THE PROPOSED NORTHMET MINE ON MINNESOTA’S IRON RANGE By SOPHIA J FRANK B.A., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2011 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Studies The University of Montana Missoula, MT May 2020 Approved by: Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Neva Hassanein, Chair Environmental Studies Jill Belsky Society & Conservation Steve Schwarze Communication Studies ABSTRACT Frank, Sophie, M.S., Spring 2020 Environmental Studies The struggle for social license: A case study on public perceptions of the NorthMet controversy in northern Minnesota Chairperson: Neva Hassanein Northern Minnesota is rich in natural resources, perhaps most uniquely the expansive mineral deposits of the Mesabi and Vermilion Ranges. The steel and taconite mining opportunities along these veins helped facilitate the rapid growth and infrastructure development of the area and is an important part of the identity of the region northwest of Duluth, aptly known as Iron Range. In addition to iron deposits, The Iron Range contains large deposits of copper and nickel. Recently proposed copper- nickel mining projects by PolyMet and Twin Metals have garnered a great deal of public controversy, especially around issues of economic revitalization of the region and potential pollution associated with this type of mining. This thesis considers public perceptions of the proposed NorthMet mine in the Arrowhead Region of Minnesota. By considering the strategies both pro-mining and environmental groups have used in an attempt to sway public opinion, analyzing public comments, and conducting interviews, this research addresses how considering the NorthMet controversy in terms of the concept of social license to operate helps to frame a conversation about public perceptions of PolyMet and the proposed mine itself. A term coined by the mining industry, social license to operate (SLO) refers to a society’s general acceptance of a corporation or project, based on considerations of legitimacy, credibility and trust. SLO is considered separately from regulatory acceptance. While a social license to operate is not strictly required for a mining project to succeed, failure to achieve SLO may affect the efficient progress of a project through resulting protests, blockades, litigation, and other methods. In the following research, I consider a breadth of data, including rhetorical strategies implemented by PolyMet, pro-mining groups, and environmental groups to sway public opinion about the project, a random sampling of public comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and a handful of semi-structured interviews with individuals from the Arrowhead region of Minnesota. Presented as a case study, this thesis contributes to a growing body of academic literature about social license to operate and community perception of extractive industries. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work brings together one of my oldest loves—the northern wilds of Minnesota— with the rural sociology, qualitative research, and place-based storytelling that I have spent the last three years exploring at the University of Montana. Without the following people I never would have been able to complete this work, and I extend my greatest thanks to: Neva Hassanein who, without really knowing it, got me to go back to school in the first place and has been my biggest advocate and cheerleader throughout my meandering explorations in graduate school. My thesis committee—Neva, Jill, and Steve—who asked hard questions and helped me push and prod this project to completion. My family—Nancy, Rod, Eric, Emily, and Isaac—my oldest and always adventure partners to whom I owe my love of the northern wilds of Minnesota. My dearest Missoula community, who saw me through the past three wild years of work and anxiety and joy and exhaustion, always ready with a board game or a glass of wine or a quiet walk to share. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Environmental Studies department, through the Linduska Scholarship Fund, the Byron and Bernice Dawson Award, a travel scholarship to attend the NACIS conference, and a semester- long teaching assistant position. iii RHETORIC AND PERCEPTION: A CASE STUDY OF THE PROPOSED NORTHMET MINE ON MINNESOTA’S IRON RANGE Sophie Frank University of Montana iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................8 Analytical Framework .............................................................................................................. 8 Rhetorical Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 8 Social License to Operate .................................................................................................................... 10 Case Study Background .......................................................................................................... 15 PURPOSE & METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................30 Research Goals ......................................................................................................................... 30 Data Sources & Collection ...................................................................................................... 33 Public Comments ................................................................................................................................. 34 Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................................................. 36 Limitations & Personal Bias ................................................................................................... 39 RESULTS & DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................41 Rhetorical Strategies and the Struggle for Public Support ................................................. 41 Defining the Issue ................................................................................................................................ 42 Identification ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Circumference & Simplification .......................................................................................................... 52 Leveraging rhetoric to affect social license to operate ......................................................................... 53 Social License to Operate ........................................................................................................ 56 Legitimacy ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Credibility ............................................................................................................................................ 72 Trust ..................................................................................................................................................... 80 Community Dynamics ............................................................................................................. 87 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................94 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 94 Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 98 Future Research and Concluding Thoughts ......................................................................... 99 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................102