It is a simple story about mining, high politics, and international diplomacy. It involves the citizens of Montana versus the people of British Columbia. It roused the passions of politicians as high as Obama, and as mundane as Bill Bennett. It involved trips to Paris to negotiate away from the rabble. And it involved the British, who even at this advanced stage of history, have no qualms about invading the United States and Canada for profit.

At stake are new mines for coal in the southeast corner of British Columbia. Problem is the river into which the mine effluent would flow travels south into Montana. And that pesky river passes by Glacier National Park, as beautiful a place as any.

The people of southeast British Columbia essentially live off mining, and support new mines. The people of Montana used to; but now they are wary of new mines. The rich people who live in the state are powerful, well-connected, and oppose mining.

The tale is not yet fully spun out. The outcome will change day by day as the value of the resource fluctuates, as the relative power of supporters on either side of the border waxes and wanes, and as the British flex there mining muscles here and in other remote regions of the dispossessed and barbaric.

I have collated all I wrote on this story at this link. It is not a coherent, sequential development. Rather it is a series of reports, thoughts, and opinions that flesh out a very simple tale: should you mine or should you not mine when you may negatively impact another country?