Who We Are

We review information regarding manganese and manganese mining from as many sources as we can find. We then make that information available to the communities that are affected, or will be affected, by the mining proposed for Emily. We do this because the information provided by those with financial interests in a mine are, by their very nature, biased in favor of a mine. This is not surprising since they are the ones who will benefit from it.

By comparison,  the surrounding communities, if past experiences with manganese and other types of mining are a guide, will be the ones to bear the costs. These almost always take the form of damage to the existing local economy, environment, way of life, property values and last, but not least, health.

We also have spent a lot of time speaking with experts in the fields of mining, hydrology, mining law and regulation, and neuroscience, to name a few. We do this because we are not scientists or otherwise expert in this process. We all need this additional expertise if we want to be able to weigh the claims made by the financial interests backing an Emily Mine to come to a good and informed decision whether a mine would be good for Emily.

You will notice that the large majority of what we post about the prospect of a mine is cautionary and concerning. That’s because the history of manganese mining has not shown that it benefits the communities in which it occurs. This is especially true in areas like ours: ones with developed recreational economies, a water-rich environment and drinking water dependent on the same water source the mine will use to facilitate its operations. As a result, the history of mining does not provide a basis for it being a good idea for our communities.