U.S. Rep. Julie Fedorchak, left, speaks with Talon Metals president Mike Kicis, center, and Jessica Johnson, Talon’s vice president for external affairs, on May 28, 2025, in Beulah, N.D., where Talon signed an agreement to process nickel at the Westmoreland coal mine. (Photo by Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor)
MINOT, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – This is the second in a two-part series about North Dakota projects that would process Minnesota mining materials. Read about a pig iron processing plant proposed near Minot here.
A ceremony last year celebrated a key step in converting a former North Dakota coal mine into a processing site for nickel mined in Minnesota.
But now the future of the project looks less clear, with a feasibility study also examining whether to send the nickel by rail to Michigan.
At an event last May, Westmoreland Mining signed an agreement to let Talon Metals use parts of an old coal mine in Beulah to transform ore into concentrate.
Joined by multinational mining company Rio Tinto, Talon Metals proposes to target a high-grade nickel reserve 2,000 feet underground at a site near Tamarack, Minnesota. Nickel is mostly used for batteries and stainless steel, often coming from foreign markets.
Support for the project is rooted in a national push to keep critical minerals on U.S. soil and out of “adversarial” countries. In 2023, the Department of Defense awarded Talon Metals $20.6 million for nickel exploration.
North Dakota’s governor and congressional delegation joined for the signing ceremony for the project that would be the first of its kind in the country.
One year after the Beulah signing, however, major details about the project remain out of public view — like who will use the material, where it will be processed and how much the entire operation will cost.
It was signaled in the May 2025 agreement the processing site would be in North Dakota.
However, according to the company’s external affairs manager, Jess Johnson, Talon Metals might instead use its existing Eagle Mine and Humboldt Mill site in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula for processing.
“We are evaluating both options for ore to either go to North Dakota or go to the already operating mill in Michigan,” she said. “It could be both.”
North Dakota regulators have not received applications for the project.
A Talon Metals press release from July 9 refers to both a Beulah processing facility and Michigan ore processing facility.
If the company opts for North Dakota, it would need to employ approximately 150 people for operations. Whereas in Michigan, it would use the existing 450-person workforce, Johnson said. But railing the ore through northern Wisconsin to Michigan will likely cost more than railing it directly to North Dakota.
After recent talks with Talon Metals, Beulah Economic Development Director Granville “Beaver” Brinkman is under the impression the company still plans on coming to North Dakota.
“The state has a lot to offer a company like Talon Metals. I hope they don’t go somewhere else,” he said, citing jobs and tax revenue as some major pluses of bringing the industry to small-town Beulah.
According to Westmoreland Mining External Affairs Director and Counsel Jon Heroux, Talon Metals isn’t bound to the land; it merely has an option to use it for the processing facility.
The decision is expected to come this fall as part of an overall feasibility study.
Other information will be folded into that study, according to Johnson.
The company held onto a $115 million Department of Energy grant amid a flurry of cuts made at the federal level, and entered an informal deal with Tesla.
According to public filings from 2024, the project would involve supplying the electric vehicle maker with 75,000 metric tons, or 165 million pounds, of processed nickel once operations begin.
Talon Metals vowed to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to begin production on or before Jan. 1, 2026. That hasn’t happened, but the agreement allows for both Talon Metals and Tesla to decide whether to move forward with the deal by the end of the year.
Talon Metals has also been in early talks with Fargo-based defense technology company Packet Digital.
As it stands, the 18-month construction of the mine in Minnesota would begin in late 2028 or early 2029; earliest production from a processing facility could begin in 2030, according to Johnson.
That timeline largely hinges on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources environmental impact study, which includes a public comment period that runs through Sept. 12. Additional permitting will follow depending on the results of the report.
Neither the North Department of Environmental Quality nor the Department of Water Resources has received any applications for the Beulah site. Deputy Director Karl Rockeman said earlier this month the department has had preliminary discussions with the company, but hasn’t heard from it in around a year.
Minnesota opposition
Paula Maccabee, executive director and attorney for Water Legacy, said she has never seen a project of such magnitude have so many details that are unavailable. Water Legacy is an environmental advocacy group based in Minnesota.
Maccabee has been holding onto documentation released to the public since plans for the nickel mine in Minnesota were announced, and has noticed that the initial environmental-forward plans outlined in the outset of the project are absent in recent communications.
Johnson confirmed those plans — from using electric vehicles on site to experimenting with carbon sequestration — are being evaluated in the feasibility study.
For some, the stagnance allows for more time to stop the project altogether.
On the Minnesota side, communities surrounding the site are scared of its potential impact on local ecosystems, said Kelly Applegate, natural resources commissioner for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
Documents submitted to Minnesota regulators show the mine could use up to 50 million gallons of water yearly and occupy around 380 acres.
Applegate said locals first learned about the project when it hit news headlines.
“Sadly, it’s a problem and a theme that happens within Indian Country,” he said of that timeline. “We become just a box on a checklist; they reach out and have a little conversation with us, and we bark back a little bit back and forth, and then they say ‘OK we’re done with the consultation.’ We want to be at the table at the beginning.”
The closest Band members live approximately 1.3 miles from the proposed mine site, which is tucked into wetlands, rivers, lakes and streams that surrounding people rely heavily on for sources of food and medicine.
Taking into account those concerns, Johnson said the company altered the mine design to be completely underground.
“Trust is something that is built and earned over time. And I think we’re very aware of that and want to continue open communication and work to engage as best as we can,” Johnson said.
Applegate said the community is concerned about the risks of transporting raw materials.
“When you’re railing it across all of these wetlands, train derailments happen, there’s the risk. Those sealed rail cars aren’t impervious to water and if they spill over and go into wetlands and whatnot, there could be some significant damage done,” Applegate said.
The biggest concerns are tied to tailings, the toxic byproducts leftover after processing ore, which have historically destroyed ecosystems and polluted drinking water.
Though, because the project hasn’t seen movement in North Dakota since last May, it hasn’t been as much of a hotbed topic in comparison to Minnesota, according to Scott Skokos, executive director of the Dakota Resource Council.
He said the council is generally against waste coming from out of state to North Dakota for processing or permanent disposal.
“A lot of the locals we’re getting calls from keep asking ‘Why does Minnesota keep sending its waste to North Dakota?’” Skokos said.
Water Over Nickel, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Dakota Resource Council, Friends of the Mississippi River and Water Legacy are groups leading the multi-state campaign against the proposed operation.
Anyone is able to participate in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ public comment period. More information can be found on its website.
Comments