Mining project near the Okefenokee Swamp has stalled over a $2M permit requirement

A company that has spent years battling conservationists as it seeks a permit to mine outside the Okefenokee Swamp and its federally protected wildlife refuge needs to do just one thing before regulators make a final decision: set aside $2 million for future restoration of the mining site.
Sixteen months after being notified of the requirement, Twin Pines Minerals still hasn't submitted a surety bond or equivalent financial assurance to show the Georgia Environmental Protection Division that it has access to that amount of cash or credit.
That's brought an unexpected halt to a project that appeared on the cusp of winning final approval early last year. Georgia regulators issued draft permits in February 2024 despite warnings from scientists that mining so close to the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge could irreparably harm a national treasure.
Twin Pines of Birmingham, Alabama, has worked since 2019 to obtain permits to mine titanium dioxide, a pigment used to whiten products from paint to toothpaste, less than 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the southeastern boundary of the Okefenokee refuge near the Georgia-Florida line.
Within days of the draft permits being approved, Georgia regulators informed Twin Pines in a letter that it needed to submit a $2 million bond, cash or letter of credit that can be used as needed to pay for restoration of the 820-acre (332-hectare) site.
Regulators have finished reviewing thousands of public comments that poured in a year ago regarding the mining project in Georgia's Charlton County, said Environmental Protection Division spokeswoman Sara Lips. Now they're waiting on Twin Pines before moving forward.
'The financial assurance is the last piece of the permit package that will then get routed to our staff, up to the director, to make a final decision," Lips told The Associated Press. She said Twin Pines faces no deadline to put up the money.
Twin Pines President Steve Ingle declined to comment through a company spokesman. Ingle has insisted Twin Pines can mine without harming the Okefenokee. State regulators have agreed, concluding last year that mining should have a 'minimal impact' on the refuge.
The mining company's failure to set aside the $2 million after well over a year has opponents questioning whether it has the resources to mine responsibly in an ecologically sensitive area.
'When we're talking about the potential damage of this mine, it goes way beyond $2 million," said Peter Slag, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. 'It's sort of an alarm bell that they probably don't have the money to do other sorts of compliance and capital investment.'
The Okefenokee is the largest U.S. refuge east of the Mississippi River, covering nearly 630 square miles (1,630 square kilometers) in southeast Georgia. It is home to abundant alligators, stilt-legged wood storks and more than 400 other animal species.
Scientists have warned that mining near the Okefenokee's bowl-like rim could damage the swamp's ability to hold water and increase the frequency of withering droughts.
There are other signs Twin Pines may be struggling financially.
Danish shipping company Lauritzen Bulkers sued Twin Pines in federal court in Colorado last October, saying it's owed $9.3 million after contracting with Twin Pines in 2022 to transport minerals to Asia. A judge paused the case in April, at the shipper's request, amid arbitration proceedings.
Twin Pines' attorney in that case, Joseph Martinez, did not immediately return email messages seeking comment.
In March, a second company sued Twin Pines in a California state court. M&L Commodities says Twin Pines owes it $5.6 million stemming from a 2021 contract for M&L to store minerals for the mining company. Twin Pines denies wrongdoing in legal responses filed in court.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Auto Blog

17 minutes ago

• Auto Blog

Tesla Insurance 2024 Losses, Combined Ratio & Safety Score Data-Driven Risks

Customer complaints mount as payouts lag In May 2025, Tesla's insurance arm posted a combined ratio of 121% — meaning for every dollar in premiums, it paid out $1.21 in claims and expenses. For context, most insurers break out into a profuse, 'I am going to lose my job' sweat if that number nudges above 95%. Elon Musk pitched Tesla Insurance, a subsidiary of Tesla Inc. as the 'missing piece' in the Tesla ecosystem. He argued Tesla owners now crave more than torque — they want their insurance bill to shrink as fast as their 0–60 mph time. 0:07 / 0:09 2025 Audi S3: 4 reasons to love it, 2 reasons to think twice Watch More Tesla Insurance Loss & Combined Ratios versus Industry Average, 2023–2024. In this chart, you can see just how far off the mark Tesla is compared to the industry average. The loss ratio shows what portion of premiums is paid out in claims, while the combined ratio adds all expenses. Above 100%? You're losing money on every single policy you sell, even before you count the cost of keeping the lights on. For Tesla, that means underwriting losses — $42 million in the first nine months of 2024 alone. It might not look like a lot, but by insurance industry standards, year over year 2023-2024 Tesla are still bleeding profusely. These are very serious 'in the red' numbers for an insurance company. The chart highlights that Tesla Insurance's loss and combined ratios were much higher than the industry averages in both 2023 and 2024. Even as Tesla improved in 2024, it still paid out far more in claims and expenses than it collected in premiums — underscoring ongoing profitability challenges compared to traditional auto insurers. The Third-Person Cinematic Scene The Tesla Insurance sold by Musk offered a 'disruptor' view of car insurance, no doubt spurred on by asking himself what in the data they already collect from owners' cars could they captialize on. Picture a Model Y idling in a suburban driveway, the morning sun glinting off its glass roof. The owner sips coffee, scrolling through the Tesla app — not for a new FSD beta, but to check how must she will have to pay this month in car insurance. The number flickers, driven by last week's hard braking and that one questionable left turn. A push notification: 'Safety Score: 92. Your rate may decrease.' But as the birds chirp and the caffeine kicks in, a question lingers: Is Tesla's insurance experiment a revolution in risk or just another Silicon Valley mirage? Let's also not forget a Tesla Y is meant to also be able to go off-road. What happens to this month's premium if our owner decides to take the family for a spin to a favorite camp site? What about when you decide to go hands-free? The premium will surely spike. The Disruptor's Dilemma: When Data Meets Damage Claims Tesla Insurance launched with a promise: harness real-time driving data, reward safe behavior, and undercut legacy insurers. The pitch? 'We know our cars best, so we can price risk better.' For a while, it worked—sort of. By 2024, Tesla Insurance had reached a $300 million annual premium run rate and was available in 16 states (Tesla Q1 2025 Earnings). But then came the numbers: a combined ratio of 145% in 2023, easing to 'only' 121% by Q3 2024. Progress, sure, but still deep in the red. Any other insurer would be firing people hand over fist. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Safety Score: The Algorithmic Tightrope Tesla's secret sauce is the Safety Score — a real-time, black-box rating that turns every commute into a behavioral audit. Hard brake at a yellow light? That's a ding. Take a corner with a little too much verve? Another. Go off-road? God only knows. In theory, this should incentivize safer driving and lower claims. In practice, owners complain about 'phantom dings', lifestyle choices they didn't have to make before, and inscrutable penalties. Again, Tesla's monitoring feels both opaque and invasive. And then there's the repair bill. Teslas remain expensive to fix, with parts and labor often pricier than their ICE counterparts. And mostly VIN-locked. Even with all that data, Tesla Insurance can't escape the gravitational pull of high repair costs — especially as increased vandalism and accident rates tick up in urban markets. The Investor's Paradox: Growth vs. Gravity For investors, Tesla Insurance is both a carrot and a stick. The business is growing — fast — but the losses are stubborn. As Tesla expands coverage and refines its algorithms, the combined ratio is falling, but not fast enough. The industry gold standard is a combined ratio below 95 percent. Tesla's 121 percent is still a very long way from liquid. Tesla Insurance has kept being able to pay claims despite earning less than the costs by cash infusions from Tesla Inc, their parent company. Tesla Insurance lost $30 million in 2023, and $42 million for the first 9 months of 2024; so it will be well over $50 million for the full 2024 so expect the line for 2024 in the chart to rise. The stakes are real, of course. If Tesla cracks the code, using its data edge to drive down claims and costs, and its owners feel it adds to their life, it could rewrite the rules of auto insurance. It needs to do this without alienating the insured with premium increases on every hard brake. If they can't do these things, the business becomes a costly distraction, a cautionary tale for tech giants who think they can outsmart old-school actuaries. Real-World Rituals: The Human Cost of Disruption For owners, the promise of lower premiums is offset by frustration with claims processing and the opaque Safety Score, which nudges their premiums up and down seemingly at random. The ritual of checking your rate has become a new form of range anxiety. Will this month's premium spike because of a single swerve? Meanwhile, Tesla forums buzz with tales of denied claims and customer service black holes. So, is Tesla Insurance the promised disruptor? Is it a revolution in the making or a slow-motion fender-bender? The numbers say 'not yet' — but the experiment is far from over but shrouded in corporate blood lost. At 70 mph, with the Safety Score whispering in your ear, you have to wonder: is this the future of insurance, or just another beta test by a known conjurer? In the end, all we really want is a policy that's as smart — and as fair — as the car it covers. About the Author Brian Iselin View Profile

Reuters

18 minutes ago

• Reuters

Report: Rockets to acquire Kevin Durant from Suns

June 22 - The Houston Rockets are acquiring 15-time All-Star forward Kevin Durant from the Phoenix Suns in exchange for guard Jalen Green, forward Dillon Brooks, the No. 10 overall pick in the 2025 NBA Draft and five second-round picks, ESPN reported Sunday. Durant has one season left on his current deal and is set to earn $54.7 million in 2025-26. Durant, who turns 37 in September, played in 62 games with the Suns in 2024-25. He averaged 26.6 points, 6.0 rebounds, 4.2 assists and 1.2 blocks, not far off of his career averages. He also shot 43.0 percent from 3-point range. Selected to the All-NBA first team six times, Durant has appeared in 1,123 games with the Seattle SuperSonics/Oklahoma City Thunder (2007-16), Golden State Warriors (2016-19), Brooklyn Nets (2020-23) and Suns. He has career averages of 27.2 points, 7.0 rebounds. 4.4 assists and 1.1 blocks, shooting 39 percent from long distance. Once the new league year begins on July 6, Durant is eligible to sign a two-year extension worth up to $122 million. --Field Level Media

The Guardian

2 hours ago

• The Guardian

Oil prices expected to rise after US attack on Iran

Oil prices are expected to rise as the trading week starts, after the US attack on Iran stoked fears of an escalating regional conflict that could shut down the vital strait of Hormuz shipping route. A barrel of Brent crude was selling for about $77 on Friday, having risen by more than 10% since mid-June, when Israel's attack on Iranian nuclear sites prompted missile strikes from Tehran against Tel Aviv. President Donald Trump's decision to follow Israel in launching an attack on Iran over the weekend could drive prices up by a further $5 when markets open, according to forecasts from oil market analysts. Trading for the week begins at 11pm UK time on Sunday. 'An oil price jump is expected,' said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at the energy intelligence firm Rystad and a former official at Opec, the group of major oil-producing nations. 'In an extreme scenario where Iran responds with direct strikes or targets regional oil infrastructure, oil prices will surge sharply. 'Even in the absence of immediate retaliation, markets are likely to price in a higher geopolitical risk premium.' Brent crude, the traditional benchmark global oil price, could gain $3 to $5 per barrel when markets open, SEB analyst Ole Hvalbye said in a note. Wall Street bank JP Morgan has previously forecast that the oil price could rise as high as $130 in the event that a sustained Middle East conflict closes the strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials have previously threatened to block the Strait, the conduit for a fifth of global oil consumption, if Tehran's interests are threatened. Any such retaliation could have huge knock-on effects for the global economy, with the resulting oil price shock risking a period of high inflation, as motorists pay more for petrol and the cost of transporting goods soars. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Brent crude settled at $77.01 a barrel on Friday, while the US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark was at $73.84. Some analysts played down the risk of long-term disruption to shipping routes, pointing out that most of Iran's oil exports to China pass through the strait of Hormuz. If oil prices were to rise to $130, that would exceed levels reached in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The all-time high for Brent crude is $147.50, set in July 2008 just before the global financial crisis sent prices plunging.