As the Metallic Minerals exploratory mining project in the La Plata Mountains gains momentum, local opposition is growing.
On Saturday, the La Plata Mountains and Public Lands Coalition, a community interest group developed to oppose the mining project, hosted a Valentine’s Day panel focused on protecting the mountain range, and the region’s public lands.
The event featured local experts and stakeholder representatives, including Brian Eisenbraun, external relations manager for Metallic Minerals Corp. Eisenbraun spent much of the event fielding pointed questions from residents concerned about environmental risks, public lands use and long-term oversight.
The Vancouver-based exploration company acquired claims covering about 19 square miles in the La Platas roughly six years ago to study potentially profitable mineral resources.
About 90% of the project area, northwest of La Plata Canyon, sits on public land managed primarily by the U.S. Forest Service, while the remainder consists of private patented mining claims – a legacy of the 1872 Mining Law.
The project has drawn criticism from residents and environmental advocates who argue disturbance of the wilderness ecosystem and watershed contamination are inevitable consequences of drilling.
“Most of our headwaters are on public lands. So when we talk about La Platas, we’re talking about La Plata River and the Mancos River,” one panelist said. “Those support thousands of rural and Indigenous residents downstream. So water quality is absolutely vital.”
Chara Ragland, president of the Bonita Peak Superfund Community Advisory Group, pointed to the region’s mining history near Silverton as a cautionary example, warning that contamination can outlast both companies and regulators.
“We look at water quality, we see how mining for hundreds of years, over 100 years, has impacted water quality up there,” she said. “And I don’t think if everybody’s being honest … that mining does not have an impact, or won’t have an impact.”
After panelists spoke, the audience was invited to ask questions, and Eisenbraun quickly found himself in the hot seat when a resident pressed him on what tangible benefits locals might see if the project advances.
“My question is, why would the people of the area who are bearing all those risks ‒ but the potential benefits are almost entirely outside of this area ‒ why would anyone be a proponent for this project? So what would your response to that be?”
It stumped Eisenbraun.
“While I don’t have a specific answer for you right now, I am, and we are committed to communicating along the way while we begin to develop that story,” he said.
Dan King, the coalition administrator and panel moderator, said that while a full-scale mining operation could be years – possibly decades – away, he believes the company is underselling the scale of exploratory drilling.
He said operations could run around the clock and require road development for heavy trucks hauling equipment and water, which he argued could significantly affect the landscape even before any mine is proposed.
Another major concern raised was federal environmental oversight. John Rader, a panelist with San Juan Citizens Alliance warned that changes to the National Environmental Policy Act could reduce public influence over projects on public land.
“The way that we engage is through NEPA,” he said, explaining it requires agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service to disclose environmental impacts and take public comment.
“It’s kind of a look-before-you-leap premise that’s being attacked,” he said.
Rader urged regulators to require a full environmental assessment for the project rather than a categorical exclusion, saying more thorough review leads to better decisions.
Industry timelines commonly stretch decades; estimates discussed at the panel suggested it can take roughly 29 years from discovery to first production, Eisenbraun said.
Metallic says it is still in early exploration and has not determined whether the deposit is economically viable. So far, the company reports identifying about 1.3 billion pounds of “copper equivalent,” a combined estimate that includes copper, silver, platinum-group elements and gold.
Eisenbraun said the ore body appears tabular and vertical, making a large open-pit mine less practical. A more feasible method would be block caving, a method of underground mining. He added that a future operator, not Metallic, would ultimately decide extraction methods if a viable mine is pursued.
Metallic focuses solely on exploration; a separate company would likely purchase mining rights later. One major shareholder, Newmont Corp., owns about 9.5% of Metallic, and King said he believes that firm could ultimately develop the mine, a prospect he said concerns him most.
While Metallic has emphasized collaboration and transparency – including funding a third-party water study conducted by the Mountain Studies Institute – King argued those efforts could reset if a different operator takes over should the project advance to full mining.
jbowman@durangoherald.com
