My expectation would be that differences would be minor but telling. I expect Olson would have a more detached view, apart from jobs-for-the-Iron-Range being a myopic and governing concern. However, his advocacy of energy independence and energy alternatives - such as wind energy's potential for weaning foreign oil dependence and for creating manufacturing job potentials in Minnesota, is an advocacy that has to realize that copper and nickel are important for plant and equipment bearings, stainless and other specialty steels, and for equiping wind turbine generation sites and for arranging transmission grid access and management expansions. Any wind turbine, even a single small scale site, would involve clutching and control, generator internals where nickel might be a permanent magnet alloy component, and copper is the element of choice for coil windings. Without mining, recycling alone would be relied upon, and with an expanding world and competing nations, growth of the metals in use and available would be necessary. From that practical perspective, Olson would more likely be in favor of a studied and cautious approach - with minimized long term environmental downside, whereas Tinklenberg would want more jobs in Oberstar's district yesterday with myopia toward downside risks.
Indeed, Olson is solid on sustainable / renewable energy sources, in an effort to both, protect the environment and to end our reliance on foreign oil.
With the amount of traffic I am seeing with Tinklenberg Taconite, I think something deeper may be coming on this isssue soon!