Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Trump clears the way for Pebble

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has settled an ongoing lawsuit with the Pebble Limited Partnership and says the company can apply for a federal permit for its proposed massive gold and copper mine in the Bristol Bay watershed.

Friday's announcement reverses the Obama administration's efforts to prevent progress of the world's largest undeveloped trove of gold and copper. The settlement ends several legal battles ongoing since the EPA issued a proposed determination in 2014 that would have put the area off-limits for a federal mining permit.

Salmon fishermen, Alaska Native organizations in the Bristol Bay region and environmental groups have been fighting the proposed gold, copper and molybdenum mine for more than a decade, saying it imperils the world's largest salmon run, a significant source of income for Alaskans. The groups said they were dismayed by the Trump administration's decision.

Mining advocates say the gold alone is worth more than $300 billion, and that the federal government should allow the process to advance without early intervention from the EPA. Mine companies have already spent roughly $800 million on the project.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said early Friday that the agency is committed to allowing the process to move forward, but isn't prejudging the outcome.

"We understand how much the community cares about this issue, with passionate advocates on all sides," Pruitt said. "The agreement will not guarantee or prejudge a particular outcome, but will provide Pebble a fair process for their permit application and help steer EPA away from costly and time-consuming litigation. We are committed to listening to all voices as this process unfolds."

The new approach promised by the Trump administration offers significant hope for the Pebble mine purveyors, but the process ahead will take years. Depending on the timing of the permit application, federal review and public input, the ultimate decision could easily sit with a new administration if President Donald Trump is not re-elected in 2020.

The Pebble Limited Partnership plans to recast its plans, focusing on a smaller mine footprint, requiring new field data and infrastructure plans. And the company needs new investors, a process which could slow plans to apply for a permit by years. Funding partners for parent company Northern Dynasty Minerals pulled out of the project in 2013.

Ron Thiessen, president of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., the sole current owner of the Pebble Limited Partnership, said the mine company is now planning a "smaller project design at Pebble than previously considered, and one that incorporates significant environmental safeguards."

Opponents to the mine were not swayed by promises of a smaller mine footprint.

"Pebble can tell you what they want, you just need to look on their website, they're going to mine it until the end until the last dollar until they can extract the last dollar out of that resource," said Russell Nelson, committee chairman for Bristol Bay Native Corp. "They can tell you it's small, but look at the cost of developing. They need to get their money out. They're in it for the money."

Bristol Bay Native Corp. was one of several Native organizations that went to the EPA for help stopping the mine, which led to the agency's proposed determination that the mine could not likely be built without significant damage to important salmon spawning waters in the Bristol Bay watershed.

Since then, Pebble and the EPA have been mired in litigation.

As part of the agreement, the EPA will be allowed to use "use its scientific assessment regarding the Bristol Bay Watershed without limitation," the agency said in a statement. It is not clear just how they will use it.

[Pebble opponents call on EPA to deny developer a deal]

On Friday, Pebble and the Justice Department jointly asked the U.S. District Court in Alaska to dismiss ongoing litigation.

The EPA plans to soon start the process of withdrawing its proposed regulation.

The EPA said it agreed to hold off on any follow-up to its proposed determination until four years after the settlement "or until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues its final environmental impact statement, whichever comes first."

Pebble Partnership CEO Tom Collier said the four-year time limit was meant to follow a federal standard known as the "Meese Rule," by avoiding a settlement that constrains federal discretionary authority. The Justice Department wanted a set time period, he said.

Pebble, in exchange, will have to file its permit application within 30 months (2 1/2 years).

Pebble claimed for years that its permit application was imminent, but never filed. Once the EPA got involved and made its determination, after crafting an assessment of the watershed where the proposed mine would be, the mine company said they would have to wait until litigation was resolved.

Pebble also agreed to drop its lawsuits and fee requests in the courts, and agreed it wouldn't file any more Freedom of Information Act requests for several years, according to the EPA.

The mining company was thrilled with the turnabout offered by the Trump administration.

"From the outset of this unfortunate saga, we've asked for nothing more than fairness and due process under the law — the right to propose a development plan for Pebble and have it assessed against the robust environmental regulations and rigorous permitting requirements enforced in Alaska and the United States," Thiessen said.

Pebble Partnership CEO Tom Collier promises changes on behalf of the mine company going forward. "Not only will we be rolling out a project that is smaller, with demonstrable environmental protections, we will also be announcing a number of new initiatives to ensure our project is more responsive to the priorities and concerns of Alaskans," Collier said.

Thiessen and Collier were optimistic Friday that the company would easily find new investors, speaking on a call with analysts. The Alaska deposits offer a politically stable environment, compared to many African mines; there is no permafrost; the deposit is near tidewater and Asian markets; the assets are of a coveted kind; and the mining industry has regained an interest in partnered projects, Thiessen said.

"I feel very confident that there's a very high level of interest in the project," Thiessen said.

When it comes to filing a federal permit application, Northern Dynasty is "ready to jump on it with vigor," Collier said. But the company expects to take a few years to give potential new partners time to weigh in first.

But Northern Dynasty firmly expects a speedy permitting process to come out of the Trump administration, Collier and Thiessen said Friday. They said they expect it to be one of the first projects to go through an expedited permitting process, which would allow them to complete the process in "record time."

Native, environmental and sportsmen's groups were distraught at EPA's change in direction.

"There were literally dozens of public hearings. Thousands of people in Bristol Bay testified and spoke. Tens of thousands of people in the state of Alaska spoke. Hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. spoke," said Norman Van Vactor, president of Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp. He said that stood in stark contrast to Friday's decision, an agreement between "bureaucrats and foreign mining executives."

Leaders from Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp., tribes and Native corporations groups all expressed a sense of exhaustion with the decadelong fight, but pledged to continue their efforts to stop the mine.

Robin Samuelsen, Curyung tribal council chief and a commercial fisherman, said he would "continue to fight Pebble for as long as Pebble wants to build a mine in Bristol Bay. I'm 66 years old and I'll give it my last breath."

"Endangering America's greatest salmon fishery to enrich a mining conglomerate shows Pruitt's complete contempt for the EPA's mission," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director with the Center for Biological Diversity. "This massive mine will be a catastrophe for the people and environment of Bristol Bay and the whole state of Alaska."

"The sport fishing community, which supports a $250 million-a-year economy in the Bristol Bay region, depends upon the continued sustainable health of the region in order to operate our businesses," said Brian Kraft of Alaska Sportsman's Lodges. "The science behind the EPA's proposed determination has been through two massive peer reviews and countless public testimony."

Nelli Williams of Trout Unlimited in Anchorage said the project would risk thousands of jobs and "half the world's sockeye salmon." Williams said the group will "be looking to our elected officials and decision-makers to ensure they don't turn their back on the people of Alaska. We have said, and will continue to say, that Pebble is not welcome here. Alaskans aren't going anywhere, we are in this fight for the long haul."

But reactions from Alaska's congressional delegation were mixed. All three said that EPA should not stand in the way of the permitting process, but that protecting fisheries should be a priority. The senators also expressed overall reservations about the Pebble mine project.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan said that he has always held concerns about the EPA's proposed "pre-emptive veto of a potential economic development project on state land" and thought it could set "a precedent that could undermine jobs and economic opportunities in other parts of Alaska."

But he was clear that Alaska "will not trade one resource for another" (copper for fish), and said he "reiterated this in a discussion with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week."

Sullivan said he also shared concerns held by Alaskans in the Bristol Bay region, "including tribes, health officials, fishermen and community leaders — regarding the delicate environmental balance that exists within the Bristol Bay Watershed."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski reiterated opposition to swapping resources, and "advocated for a fair and consistent permitting process," through spokeswoman Karina Petersen.

But it "is critical for Pebble to tell Alaskans whether and how they will proceed — the company's failure to do so thus far has created uncertainty and anxiety among" Alaskans, Petersen said. "If Pebble intends to move forward with this project, it should enter the permitting process expeditiously so that all stakeholders can have the details needed to make informed decisions about a potential mine," Petersen said. And, she added, "if the company can't prove the mine will be safe, the mine shouldn't be built."

Congressman Don Young had strong words for the Obama EPA, saying the agency's "pre-emptive veto" of the project made "a mockery of the federal permitting process" and that "it sent a chilling message to any and all future development in Alaska — on state and private lands."

"If allowed to stand, this tactic would have been used across our state and nation to kill countless projects requiring (similar) permits. Ultimately, I believe this process should be allowed to move forward — permits should be filed and scientific reviews should take place," Young said. The EPA cannot be allowed "unilaterally dictate what we can and cannot do on state lands," he said.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/0...deal-with-bristol-bay-gold-mine-company/

How do you guys up there in AK feel about it?

When so many pro-development people are against something like the Pebble Mine, it isn't hard to figure it out. Then again, the pressure from the 'greenies' to risk the land and ocean might be more than the State can stand...and we know the State could use the revenue.

The project is in an unstable geographic (earthquake) zone, in permeable substrate, at the headwaters of the two largest salmon producing watersheds in the world (one king, one sockeye, IIRC), highest earth-filled dam in the world proposed to hold back toxic wastewater, 90 mile road to tidewater (that facility in Cook Inlet is a whole other can of worms endangering a THIRD major salmon producing area), plus crossing a number of salmon producing streams on the way over there, 100 year production run with several thousand (or more) years of toxic waste threat, produced by a foreign owned company who will undoubtedly leave (via "bankruptcy", probably), when the production runs out, leaving the toxic waste facilities unmaintained or in the bag for Alaska/Federal managers for millennia.

What could possibly go wrong? All this for something like 1% royalties to the State.

It was a bad idea to start with, and remains so. But it will get done. Pebble is simply waiting to get all the right approvers in place or bought off, but it will happen. Might take a century, but it will happen.

If it goes, there needs to be a higher royalty rate (say equal to oil), and a $30 billion cleanup bond posted in perpetuity. Royalties as production happens, bond up front.

Start diggin'.

Fuggin eh

Two folks obviously lacking any semblance of an understanding of very basic Physics, very basic Finance, very basic Economics, or very basic Biology...

The prospect of a 'Pebble Mine' does make a 'Rampart Dam' seem considerably more palatable. Or nuking out a harbor up by Point Hope. Or hiring Joe Hazelwood to lead the DEC and the AMCO.

It probably is not possible to find a location with greater risk for major disaster in which to build a mine

Nor a bigger batch of sleazebags doing it...

Nor a smaller return on the risk...

Which all begs the question... "why not?" (on some insane level where only major "pro-develop everything" and the most rabid "greenies" happily reside in perfect harmony.)

"It's for the planet; gotta get those 4 tons of copper up and running for each of our thousands of whirlygigs!"

Was thinking risk:reward ratio has to be close to 1.

Here's the problem. If Pebble can be stopped without going through the usual lawful process, then any future project can be stopped before the lawful process for such a development is complete.

The eco-trash disrupts plenty of projects as is. We don't want to set a precedent where we can't keep them in check any longer on future development. Lower 48 dsmf trash financing the opposition doesn't endear me to them either.

If a guy is pro-resource-extraction then there's only one answer: dig it up.

Seems like a terrible idea from here, but if there's treasure, goldbugs are GONNA dig it up, that's just reality talking, and those in power will justify and facilitate. Quit yer bitchin'. The salmon will be "fine". Wild spaces are a bunch of liberal hooey. Caribou will figure it out. Ptarmigan are stupid anyway. Sheesh....... It's just trees and critters, why should AK be different than Appalachia, really? Down there they cut off the hilltops and throw them in the streams. Seems like perfectly good SOP to me. Follow that model in AK.

Dig it up. If you complain you are a soft greenie. If you resist, a terrorist.

Dig it.

You are obviously clueless on Pebble history as well as all the other aspects.

Start with Frank the bank, father of that bitch I despise, and his interference through ordering the use of marine ecological asset templates to describe the area... how better to overlook moose, caribou and other animals than to not ask the question? And then you also get to correctly state there are no walrus haul-outs in the area. It took a suit by a Native Corp to correct that one.

When the project is so bad they have to resort to those kinds of bullshit dealings in the early going it is easy to see why so many oppose the plan.

Is the idiot trying to tell Alaska how to open Nosler boxes again?

I am certainly not a liberal, wacko-environmentalist, and although not an expert, I am a geologist and a pro-resource individual and I believe I understand the dynamics of the situation. I am also someone who could potentially benefit from the operation, should the permit be granted.

One the one hand, the need, or rather the ‘want,’ to extract these minerals, and the interests that back Pebble, have placed enormous pressure on government to green light the application process. Once complete, the likelihood that the project will go forward is high, especially with the billions upon billions at stake. But so too is the opposite - the permitting process will consider both sides of the equation. Stevelyn is correct in this regard, Pebble must be allowed due process under the law to go through the legal permitting process – if for no other reason than to prevent the eco-wakos from stopping any and all projects they view as environmentally unfriendly, which is damn near everything.

On the other hand, Bristol Bay lies in the balance. The issue is, how can the people of Alaska (and by extension, the people of the world) be assured that Bristol Bay will be protected from contamination. The answer is a simple: they cannot. The odds are 100% that Bristol Bay will see some level of contamination. Add to that, geologic instability in the region, coupled with a certainty of destabilization due to earthquakes and the odds of contamination increase exponentially - regardless of the “Environmental Protections” put in place by Pebble.

I’m not going to tell you that Prince William Sound has fully recovered from the Valdez spill, that the Gulf has fully recovered from the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, or that Colorado has fully recovered from the King Mine waste water spill, but Mother Nature is far more resilient than the Liberal, Progressive, anti-development enviro-wakos would have you believe. While these events were certainly tragic, none of these incidents were even close to the catastrophes they would have you believe they were. Certainly, the economic losses were horrendous, but Mother Nature will eventually recover - after all we’re not talking about radioactive contamination with isotopes that have half-lives measured in thousands or even hundreds of years.

We must weigh our need for mineral resources against our need for protecting our natural resources. I am not advocating for or against the development of the Pebble mine, but I will say that when measured against the almost incalculable benefits Bristol Bay provides for not only Alaskans, but also the world, it seems like a bad idea that will benefit the few, while putting the many at risk. In other words, the economic benefit to Alaska pales in comparison to the economic benefit of the mining conglomerate and Alaska would be extremely foolish to concede to a ~ 1% royalty.

Perhaps, in the interest of compromise, should this project pass the permitting process, it should be tied to just a few (2-3) small-scale operations over a decade to prove that the mines can be responsibly handled with a bare minimum of infractions and can be restored to their former state. Only then would larger scale operations be considered.