Listened to a presentation yesterday on opposition to this mining operation near Bristol Bay.
The presenter currently works for TU, but I'd like to hear some input from those familiar with that area of AK and the proposed mining. Thanks.
Opinions from the region are running near 90% in opposition to the mine and the commercial fishing fleet is virtually all opposed.
If it happens it will dramatically effect the entire region with them majority of profits going overseas and the resulting mess left for the locals to deal with.
I don't think profits leaving the state is as big as an issue as what it would do to the environment. If profits was a big issue, then maybe we should regulate the fishing fleet since most are from WA and the money is leaving the state anyway.
That is true but I was trying to stay somewhat neutral as I am not ready to argue yet this morning
I'm not neutral. I think thy should axe the whole thing and walk away. I understand both sides, but this world is losing wild land at a very fast pace. We gotta keep what we can. Am mine of this size would destroy the area.
I like to think that I am generally cautiously pro-development. However, I have had, except for a very brief time, a very tough time getting excited about a mine as big as Pebble located in the headwaters of a watershed the size of this. Perhaps if the company would promote the successful results they have had with large mining operations in other parts of the world under similar conditions, it would be easier to swallow. The potential to screw up a lot of things even beyond the Bristol Bay area seems tremendous in this instance.
I have worked for mines here in Alaska, including on one of the last running dredges, and can attest that mining is a destructive endeavor as far as the environment is concerned. I will admit that we need it but sometimes there are places more valuable than simply how much money can be extracted from them.
A Cree Indian in the late 19th century summed it up best when he said;
" Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we can not eat money"
while im not an Alaskan and i am very pro mining in general from everything ive seen the negatives FAR out weight the positives with this mine......it shouldnt be allowed to happen......
When you look at it on a world scale, some of those super-fund sites in Montana are but small examples of what happens after the money has evaporated. Imagine that happening at the headwaters of the largest run of wild Salmon in the world!
I am totally opposed to this mine, and would be even if it was totally US-development. Given that we will make very little out of the total effort, it's totally wrong.
Hard to believe anyone would be in favor of developing the mine, but some are. Very few, but still some.
Dennis
As a long time Alaskan, I am bitterly opposed to the proposed Pebble mine and the sleazy campaign to overpower the will of the people of that region, by both state and corporate interests. Must all the most pristine and beautiful places on Earth be sacrificed for corporate wealth? The world market is awash in copper ... and there are far less risky areas for a copper mine.
I'm not a "tree hugger", but there are places that should remain as they were created. And Bristol Bay and it's headwaters are one of those places.
The Earth doesn't belong to us; we belong to the Earth. That's not a religious or spiritual statement, it's a fact. We are merely the stewards of the Earth for our children, grandchildren and future generations.
The Pebble Project is a no-brainer NO.
I hunted Upper Togiak Lake last fall and it is breathtaking country. If there's anything we can do, a petition we can sign, congressmen/women we can write let me know.
I have no problem with the mine. I support it or at least I support the process that'll decide one way or another on whether it'll get developed or not.
It's mostly DSMFs in the ocean-raping commercial fishing industry that's against it.
Well, if you go by the letters (for and against)in ADN, we in opposition are in the minority, almost to the vanishing point..
Write some short, polite, thoughtful letters and see if they get published.
"Besides, we should all wait for the permit applications" and "state of the art" and people advocating against Pebble at this point are just plain wrong (according to the Attorney General) Significantly, he did not denigrate in a similar fashion those pushing for the fiasco before the permitting comes up..
The fix is in, boys...
According to the presentation and accompanying materials, national TU/Alaska TU are drumming up support from conservation orgs in other states, to oppose this mining operation.
Most of the emphasis was on preserving the local watershed, primarily as it pertains to salmon and other critters.
We're having our own major dust up here in PA over deep natural gas drilling vs the environment, so our org is fairly well up to speed on habitat conservation vs resource exploration haggles.
Thanks for the inputs. Wanted to get more local info, rather than just rely on the opinions of a travelin' peddler.
When you look at it on a world scale, some of those super-fund sites in Montana are but small examples of what happens after the money has evaporated. Imagine that happening at the headwaters of the largest run of wild Salmon in the world!
X2
biz is risk vs. reward when it's summed up.
there's always risk in business
sometimes the potential reward is worth it
this time I don't think it is from what I can glean
if they could prove that we could double the world's reserves of gold by opening Pebble mine, I still believe the potential risk outweighs the potential reward.
for my money salmon migration is one of the true mysteries left in our world, best not to F with it imo
I suspect that 50 years of salmon generated in that watershed and worth far more in profits than a one shot run at gold extraction.
Selfishly, (not that I actually look at it that way), I could care less about the specific area or the fish that come back there. My bigger concern is how 'a problem' there could affect the fisheries farther north. Even if you only view this from a very self-interested angle, there's lot of reasons to be concerned. As salmon are concerned, it is similar to high seas drift net issues. There's a lot we don't know and can't or haven't proven about how 'we' can screw things up. What isn't so mysterious is the fact that 'we' have managed to do that, where salmon are concerned, more than a few times.,
I am not from Alaska but have fished the area several times since the early 1970's. I did grow up in the Appalachian Mountains and have unfortunate knowledge of the long term effects of mining on an area, of the disregard for the land by the miners, and of the shady dealings of the government agencies.
I would hope that people would look real hard at the long term negative effects of the proposed mine and ask whether a short term profit outweighs them.
I would be very surprised if it does.
Personally, I do not see how a mine of this magnitude could be a safe bet. There's too much at stake and the risks are to high.
Carefully read and research what you read. About 50% of it is BS from both sides. I've hunted/fished that area for 40+ years. I have camped where the dam is to be located. It is not the "headwaters" of Bristol Bay. It is a small creek that runs into the Kaktulik river which runs into the Mulchatna. The Mulchatna runs into Bristol Bay. It is only one of several rivers that dumps into Bristol Bay. If the mine kills that river, it will have a small effect on Salmon in Bristol Bay.
Most of the negative publicity comes from a Millionaire who has a Fish Lodge near by. He of course wants the area to accessible only by his expensive float planes.
Some of the locals do not want the mine because they will lose their guvment tit. They may have to go to work.
Nondalton and Illiamna are the closest villages to the mine. There are no jobs there except guvment jobs. None. The people who would like to have a job are in favor of the mine.
I'm neither for nor against the mine, yet. However I will say this, Watch the Money! If the mine Co. crosses the correct palm with money (politicians), the mine will be. If not, it will fail.
If it boils down to the salmon or the money, money wins.
Side note...The Fed. EPA is investigating the mine. Their first public meeting was in SEATTLE! Guess where most of the commercial fishermen who oppose the mine are from? Yep, not Alaska.
My advise, for what it is worth, before you make up your mind,follow the money.
Looks like someone won the 'google me Elmo' door prize.
Carefully read and research what you read. About 50% of it is BS from both sides. I've hunted/fished that area for 40+ years. I have camped where the dam is to be located. It is not the "headwaters" of Bristol Bay. It is a small creek that runs into the Kaktulik river which runs into the Mulchatna. The Mulchatna runs into Bristol Bay. It is only one of several rivers that dumps into Bristol Bay. If the mine kills that river, it will have a small effect on Salmon in Bristol Bay.
Most of the negative publicity comes from a Millionaire who has a Fish Lodge near by. He of course wants the area to accessible only by his expensive float planes.
Some of the locals do not want the mine because they will lose their guvment tit. They may have to go to work.
Nondalton and Illiamna are the closest villages to the mine. There are no jobs there except guvment jobs. None. The people who would like to have a job are in favor of the mine.
I'm neither for nor against the mine, yet. However I will say this, Watch the Money! If the mine Co. crosses the correct palm with money (politicians), the mine will be. If not, it will fail.
If it boils down to the salmon or the money, money wins.
Side note...The Fed. EPA is investigating the mine. Their first public meeting was in SEATTLE! Guess where most of the commercial fishermen who oppose the mine are from? Yep, not Alaska.
My advise, for what it is worth, before you make up your mind,follow the money.
I would also place your comments in the 50% bracket as well. One of the primary arguments against the mine is their plan to place the settling ponds for tailing waste just above lake Illiamna, which has the largest run of Salmon in Bristol Bay. The three settling "ponds" will each be formed by the three largest dams in the world. They will probably never leak in our life time but in fifty years, when the money has all either left the state or all been spent, who will maintain the dams and clean up the mess?
One of the primary arguments against the mine is their plan to place the settling ponds for tailing waste just above lake Illiamna, which has the largest run of Salmon in Bristol Bay. The three settling "ponds" will each be formed by the three largest dams in the world. They will probably never leak in our life time but in fifty years, when the money has all either left the state or all been spent, who will maintain the dams and clean up the mess?
Considering the our regions seismic features, idunno about earth dams being very reliable for any length of time. They might just be good until the next quake and then turn to jello.
Seismic Risk at the Pebble Mine
I've hunted/fished that area for 40+ years. I have camped where the dam is to be located. It is not the "headwaters" of Bristol Bay. It is a small creek that runs into the Kaktulik river which runs into the Mulchatna. The Mulchatna runs into Bristol Bay.
That is the DEFINITION of "head waters".
One of the primary arguments against the mine is their plan to place the settling ponds for tailing waste just above lake Illiamna, which has the largest run of Salmon in Bristol Bay. The three settling "ponds" will each be formed by the three largest dams in the world. They will probably never leak in our life time but in fifty years, when the money has all either left the state or all been spent, who will maintain the dams and clean up the mess?
Considering the our regions seismic features, idunno about earth dams being very reliable for any length of time. They might just be good until the next quake and then turn to jello.
Seismic Risk at the Pebble Mine But they promise to "restore" all the wild salmon with hatchery or pen raised fish if that happens. Just liked they promised to never do the mine if locals were against it - and then tried to block the election from happening.
The Pebble Mine reminds me of the Rampart Dam idea, both are damn
ideas which belong in the same place, unfulfilled ideas in the annuls of history.
Remember the McKinley Park dome-idea?
Looks like someone won the 'google me Elmo' door prize.
Nope. Never heard of it before Saturday, when the TU feller showed up at our statewide sportsmen's org "summer" board meeting, looking for national support against this mining operation.
He's just a "hired gun" working for both the national and Alaska TU outfits, near's I can tell? Think he said he's originally from the UP of Michigan. And we all know how mercenary and excitable them Youpers can be. ;O)
But thanks to him, I now have a spiffy decal. 'Bout a six inch round one: Pebble Mine, with the red circle/slash on 'er.
Carefully read and research what you read. About 50% of it is BS from both sides. I've hunted/fished that area for 40+ years. I have camped where the dam is to be located. It is not the "headwaters" of Bristol Bay. It is a small creek that runs into the Kaktulik river which runs into the Mulchatna. The Mulchatna runs into Bristol Bay. It is only one of several rivers that dumps into Bristol Bay. If the mine kills that river, it will have a small effect on Salmon in Bristol Bay.
Most of the negative publicity comes from a Millionaire who has a Fish Lodge near by. He of course wants the area to accessible only by his expensive float planes.
Some of the locals do not want the mine because they will lose their guvment tit. They may have to go to work.
Nondalton and Illiamna are the closest villages to the mine. There are no jobs there except guvment jobs. None. The people who would like to have a job are in favor of the mine.
I'm neither for nor against the mine, yet. However I will say this, Watch the Money! If the mine Co. crosses the correct palm with money (politicians), the mine will be. If not, it will fail.
Since the mine will practically be in my backyard, I've more than a passing interest in it. I catch some heat from this, but the import of jobs will have minimal effect on the local villages in Bristol Bay. Those persons that live here and will work, are working. Those without jobs largely do not want consistent employment. The jobs and monies will primarily effect those living outside of Bristol Bay.
Your quote "It is not the "headwaters" of Bristol Bay." displays vast ignorance about the watershed and the impact an inevitable failure in the necessary retention system will cause. The mine will immediately disrupt the region where it is built and has immeasurable potential for destruction throughout Bristol Bay. There is no conceivable long term upside for Bristol Bay or AK.
I don't have a lodge there, I have never fished or hunted there, my place in AK is about as far away from the site as possiable, and I live half a world away. I have been supporting the efforts to ban the mine since the get go. There is no world shortage of gold or copper. It is a strip mine, to all you for the mine I will simply put it like this. How would you like a strip mine next door to your house, favorite hunting or fishing spot, or any of your favorite outdoor recreational areas?
Most cring at the thought of a jail or military base being constructed in their neighborhoods. Just imagine a hugh swath of land being stripped clean and to never look the same again. Now add to it the local of this, a pristine wilderness area. Oh have I mentioned that we are lossing pristine wilderness areas at an alarming rate?
Anyone for the mine go [bleep] yourself
Over the past few years the only honest argument I have heard was that there is much more money to be made from the precious metals that can be extracted from the area than the salmon industry could ever possibly generate.
So, as far as I am concerned that's what needs to be decided. Are we willing to trade our fishery for the more lucrative mining industry?
If we rid the area of salmon many locals, such as myself would probably switch to the mining industry for work, sooo long term, residents might find their income being more mining dependent than they presently may think.
The recently released External Review Draft from EPA is anything but supporting of the mine.
I don't see it posted on line just yet but it should be soon, it was released late last month.
It's titled EPA 910-R-12-004d "An assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska"
The whole idea seems to be gambling with catastrophic environmental disaster. Alaska's salmon fishery has been around long before the United States was involved in the region but ever since the US has been involved the money involved in gold mining has been a large factor. State wide, mining employs more people and brings in more money so it's hard to tell which way this will go.
All of Americas resources should be set aside for the next conquering army.
Are the Nips thinking about invading the Aleutians again?
Looks like someone won the 'google me Elmo' door prize.
Nope. Never heard of it before Saturday,
I was referring to the spammer who found your thread...teasing just a bit.
No relation 'tween me and that doudou mofo.
All of Americas resources should be set aside for the next conquering army.
What was the first conquering army?
Originally Posted By: watch4bear
All of Americas resources should be set aside for the next conquering army.[quote/]
[quote]What was the first conquering army?
That'd be the Liberal Democrats (CommieLibs), who have been gradually taking over the nation for several generations now.
Some have yet to take notice.
Im an underground hardrock miner by trade. That is my living.
There is no way that this mine plan should go forward. We have enough destroyed watersheds and big cities that blight the land in North America.
Theres not that much land left that's undeveloped by man and machines. No matter how much gold is extracted an pristine and clean place to visit and live is far more valuable.
When it's all said and done, the mining companies go bankrupt and leave the taxpayer to pay the tab for their huge enviro cleanup messes. Reference for example Montana's Butte/Anaconda lode and Idaho's famed Silver Valley, and the chat mounds of Oklahoma, and Montana's absbestos mining.
I make a living in the Bristol Bay fishery so I'd rather not see the mine get started. But at the same time i am pretty supportive of people being able to do as they damn well please with their own land.
If the option of extracting the precious metals from this site is blocked, where does this leave those who invested in the project?
Northern Dynasty legally purchased the mineral rights to the land, they find that they are sitting on the largest gold deposit on earth let alone the other metals involved. The project is bigger than they can take on so they set out to attract investors and Anglo American buys in for a half a billion dollars. Through a joint endeavor in research and development they come up with a plan to mine the area. Everything they have done so far has been legal as well as transparent. Should they just be left holding the bag, out millions of dollars due to a long list of "what if's"?
If I was the one paying the bills I'd fight like hell to push the project through.
I make a living in the Bristol Bay fishery so I'd rather not see the mine get started. But at the same time i am pretty supportive of people being able to do as they damn well please with their own land.
If the option of extracting the precious metals from this site is blocked, where does this leave those who invested in the project?
Northern Dynasty legally purchased the mineral rights to the land, they find that they are sitting on the largest gold deposit on earth let alone the other metals involved. The project is bigger than they can take on so they set out to attract investors and Anglo American buys in for a half a billion dollars. Through a joint endeavor in research and development they come up with a plan to mine the area. Everything they have done so far has been legal as well as transparent. Should they just be left holding the bag, out millions of dollars due to a long list of "what if's"?
If I was the one paying the bills I'd fight like hell to push the project through.
I'm all in favor of doing what someone wants to do with their own land, but I can't see that this fits that idea. The land that will be developed will be entirely and completely ruined. The undeniable dangers that will accompany this mine must also enter the equation. When they do what they want to on their land, then in the next few years it may become impossible for me to do anything on mine. This kind of mining, in this location, mustn't be allowed. If the investors are concerned about their dollars, let them grab a pick and pan and mine what they can by hand.......
When placed in proper perspective, the real costs are to the environment, the state of AK and the residents of Bristol Bay. The investors have only placed their money in the deal and someone will always print more money, but once developed that area will be forever destroyed.
I make a living in the Bristol Bay fishery so I'd rather not see the mine get started. But at the same time i am pretty supportive of people being able to do as they damn well please with their own land.
If the option of extracting the precious metals from this site is blocked, where does this leave those who invested in the project?
Northern Dynasty legally purchased the mineral rights to the land, they find that they are sitting on the largest gold deposit on earth let alone the other metals involved. The project is bigger than they can take on so they set out to attract investors and Anglo American buys in for a half a billion dollars. Through a joint endeavor in research and development they come up with a plan to mine the area. Everything they have done so far has been legal as well as transparent. Should they just be left holding the bag, out millions of dollars due to a long list of "what if's"?
If I was the one paying the bills I'd fight like hell to push the project through.
Jeff, If you take time to read the reports from both Norther Dynasty and Anglo- American you will see that all the investors were warned that this was a high risk venture so they know that they may not make a cent . As a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay I am sure you are well aware of that concept.
...... you will see that all the investors were warned that this was a high risk venture so they know that they may not make a cent . As a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay I am sure you are well aware of that concept.
Exxxxactly!
As far as the "my own land" thing goes, if you happen to personally own 40 cares someplace and you decide that a certain low spot that harbors standing water occasionally would be a perfect place for your shop or garage and you'd like to build it up and build there, look out. There are plenty of government regulations which can deter that simple act. I'm not crazy at all that money, especially big money, somehow equates to making a huge endeavor right.
Bristol Bay is the greatest wild salmon fishery remaining on the planet. It's not like we can relocate this fishery if it becomes polluted.
...... you will see that all the investors were warned that this was a high risk venture so they know that they may not make a cent . As a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay I am sure you are well aware of that concept.
I think they were and are more than aware of what they are up against for local resistance and political obstacles but the kind of money they have behind them offers them a position of power as well as seemingly like arrogance. It's not as if this is really a lot different than any other project they have taken on. Mines are seldom welcome with opened arms.
Exxxxactly!
As far as the "my own land" thing goes, if you happen to personally own 40 cares someplace and you decide that a certain low spot that harbors standing water occasionally would be a perfect place for your shop or garage and you'd like to build it up and build there, look out. There are plenty of government regulations which can deter that simple act. I'm not crazy at all that money, especially big money, somehow equates to making a huge endeavor right.
The financial resources these guys have can buy a lot of persuasion in the right places. Especially in a gold mining state like Alaska.
The financial resources these guys have can buy a lot of persuasion in the right places. Especially in a gold mining state like Alaska.
Exxxxactly!
And that bothers me more than just a little.
I'm not crazy at all that money, especially big money, somehow equates to making a huge endeavor right.
I think it was sitka deer that said 'building retention ponds on a giant sponge' wasn't such a great idea.
I see no reason to disagree. Phvck Pebble!!
Had a lengthy discussion with the lead attorney representing several Native corporations (Jeff for those curious) and found a number of new things to be pissed about...
Apparantly Frank the Bank smoothed some stuff for Pebble by getting the land there redesignated as having no fish or wildlife value. They did this by using a seashore format which only asked for things like "How many walrus haul-outs are there?"
It did not ask for moose or caribou so they claimed no wildlife value leaving mining as highest and best use. Getting that set to right will require a lot of work.
Just one more reason to despise every Murkowski that ever drew breath.
I had been in the "Let the permit process work so we do not have to pay for the to-date costs" camp... No more.
The attorney emphasized the need for a premanent solution so the mining project does not come back in five years or ten years. He suggests the best plan is to buy out the mining company by purchasing the land and setting it aside. Seems he thinks wasting lots of money to fight it would be counter-productive compared to a simple buy-out... Especially since the price should not be high based on risks...
We just returned this afternoon from fishing the Kvichak River which drains Lake Iliamna. The rainbow trout fishing is not easily matched anywhere. The Talarik and Upper Talarik both dump into the big lake and are very much at risk. A spill in their direction would have the potential to kill a lot of fish for a very long time...
The rainbow trout fishing is not easily matched anywhere. The Talarik and Upper Talarik both dump into the big lake and are very much at risk. A spill in their direction would have the potential to kill a lot of fish for a very long time...
A SPILL ?? Anglo purchased the entire water rights to Talarik creek and that will be one of their three settling ponds !!!
I understand and agree fully! My point about the spill is that a settlement pond is supposed to allow the heavies to settle out... if it fails water rerouted North would go South to Iliamna and take heavies with it...
And you are right in that my statement dismisses Talarik Creek fish which is utterly wrong on every level... The Talarick Creek fishery is World class!
I find it ironic that we "ultra conservatives", in favor of less government regulation, and more free-capatalistic enterprises - are fighting what appears to me to be a losing battle for a liberal-agenda "environmental" cause....without much noticable apparent support from the left....
Maybe we should reverse direction, then cave......?
You will notice the absence of a smiley face...
I suppose there are times when "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't hold true.
This appears to be one of those times.
That only applies if we assume liberals to be the enemy of conservatives.
Had a lengthy discussion with the lead attorney representing several Native corporations (Jeff for those curious) and found a number of new things to be pissed about...
Apparantly Frank the Bank smoothed some stuff for Pebble by getting the land there redesignated as having no fish or wildlife value. They did this by using a seashore format which only asked for things like "How many walrus haul-outs are there?"
It did not ask for moose or caribou so they claimed no wildlife value leaving mining as highest and best use. Getting that set to right will require a lot of work.
Oil companies use that walrus haul-out trick for permitting drill sites in the Gulf of Mexico. That was exposed during the BP spill investigation. It seems to be an effective paperwork maneuver...
He suggests the best plan is to buy out the mining company by purchasing the land and setting it aside.
Seems he thinks wasting lots of money to fight it would be counter-productive compared to a simple buy-out... Especially since the price should not be high based on risks...
Uhhh, what? The state of Alaska owns the land, Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited has owned the mineral rights since 1987. Watch out if that dude starts collecting donations to "buy the land".
In recent years they have applied for water rights permits to Upper Talarik Creek and the Koktuli River for use in mining operations. A year or two ago they were fined for 25 or 30 violations of extracting water outside of the areas allowed by those permits. After those violations were more closely looked at it was found to be more of a surveying error, they were less than 100 feet at most from their mark.
We just returned this afternoon from fishing the Kvichak River which drains Lake Iliamna. The rainbow trout fishing is not easily matched anywhere. The Talarik and Upper Talarik both dump into the big lake and are very much at risk. A spill in their direction would have the potential to kill a lot of fish for a very long time...
We fly over to the mouth of the Upper Talarik to fish the Bow's after the Red's start spawning. The Rainbows that come up out of Iliamna and lay in the shallows of the Talarik sucking down eggs are absolutely spectacular. They are very similar to Steelhead. Some of the best Wild Rainbow fishing Alaska has to offer.
I can wade across the Upper Talarik at most any location. The amount of water they are permitted to use from the headwaters would dry out the mouth if they used their limits. If they dry these drainage's out it really will not matter if they damn the head water basins for use as tailing retention ponds. That is until the seepage is realized or the dam fails.
If I am recalling right it was the Talarik head-waters retention/sediment pond that was to be 10 square miles in surface area created by a 400 foot in height earth dam. Pretty simple plan, just dam up the top of the basin and dump their schit into it.
Jeff, If you take time to read the reports from both Norther Dynasty and Anglo- American you will see that all the investors were warned that this was a high risk venture so they know that they may not make a cent . As a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay I am sure you are well aware of that concept.
Had a lengthy discussion with the lead attorney representing several Native corporations (Jeff for those curious) and found a number of new things to be pissed about...
Apparantly Frank the Bank smoothed some stuff for Pebble by getting the land there redesignated as having no fish or wildlife value. They did this by using a seashore format which only asked for things like "How many walrus haul-outs are there?"
It did not ask for moose or caribou so they claimed no wildlife value leaving mining as highest and best use. Getting that set to right will require a lot of work.
Just one more reason to despise every Murkowski that ever drew breath.
I had been in the "Let the permit process work so we do not have to pay for the to-date costs" camp... No more.
The attorney emphasized the need for a premanent solution so the mining project does not come back in five years or ten years. He suggests the best plan is to buy out the mining company by purchasing the land and setting it aside. Seems he thinks wasting lots of money to fight it would be counter-productive compared to a simple buy-out... Especially since the price should not be high based on risks...
We just returned this afternoon from fishing the Kvichak River which drains Lake Iliamna. The rainbow trout fishing is not easily matched anywhere. The Talarik and Upper Talarik both dump into the big lake and are very much at risk. A spill in their direction would have the potential to kill a lot of fish for a very long time...
Sitka Deer,
On the issue of "Let the permit process work so we do not have to pay for the to-date costs" camp...;
When the Windy Craggy copper cobalt deposit in the Alsek-Tatsenshini was expropriated into a National Park, the BC taxpayers got a $144 million dollar bill which was the negotiated market value of the deposit (1993) and not the cost of development.
Last year, when NDs sister company Taseko had their environmental application turned down for the Fish Lake project (Pebble sized) by the Feds based on environmental and aboriginal concerns, there has been no mention of compensation, just talk of reapplication.
Just something to think about.
From the sounds of it, money is buying a lot of 'science'
Im an underground hardrock miner by trade. That is my living.
There is no way that this mine plan should go forward. We have enough destroyed watersheds and big cities that blight the land in North America.
Theres not that much land left that's undeveloped by man and machines. No matter how much gold is extracted an pristine and clean place to visit and live is far more valuable.
When it's all said and done, the mining companies go bankrupt and leave the taxpayer to pay the tab for their huge enviro cleanup messes. Reference for example Montana's Butte/Anaconda lode and Idaho's famed Silver Valley, and the chat mounds of Oklahoma, and Montana's absbestos mining.
As a lifelong environmentalist-50+ years- and one who made some of his living in the mining industry, I agree. We have situations like these in BC and WE end up paying to clean them up.
HOWEVER, most of the towns in my beloved Kootenays were started because of mining and it has made a HUGE contribution to BC's evolution and economic wealth...and we are filthy rich.
Soooooo, we North Americans need to seek a balance here and I think that is possible. It is people like you with your trade and yet your care for the planet that will be at the forefront of this and I greatly admire you for your position.
Had a lengthy discussion with the lead attorney representing several Native corporations (Jeff for those curious) and found a number of new things to be pissed about...
Apparantly Frank the Bank smoothed some stuff for Pebble by getting the land there redesignated as having no fish or wildlife value. They did this by using a seashore format which only asked for things like "How many walrus haul-outs are there?"
It did not ask for moose or caribou so they claimed no wildlife value leaving mining as highest and best use. Getting that set to right will require a lot of work.
Oil companies use that walrus haul-out trick for permitting drill sites in the Gulf of Mexico. That was exposed during the BP spill investigation. It seems to be an effective paperwork maneuver...
He suggests the best plan is to buy out the mining company by purchasing the land and setting it aside.
Seems he thinks wasting lots of money to fight it would be counter-productive compared to a simple buy-out... Especially since the price should not be high based on risks...
Uhhh, what? The state of Alaska owns the land, Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited has owned the mineral rights since 1987. Watch out if that dude starts collecting donations to "buy the land".
In recent years they have applied for water rights permits to Upper Talarik Creek and the Koktuli River for use in mining operations. A year or two ago they were fined for 25 or 30 violations of extracting water outside of the areas allowed by those permits. After those violations were more closely looked at it was found to be more of a surveying error, they were less than 100 feet at most from their mark.
We just returned this afternoon from fishing the Kvichak River which drains Lake Iliamna. The rainbow trout fishing is not easily matched anywhere. The Talarik and Upper Talarik both dump into the big lake and are very much at risk. A spill in their direction would have the potential to kill a lot of fish for a very long time...
We fly over to the mouth of the Upper Talarik to fish the Bow's after the Red's start spawning. The Rainbows that come up out of Iliamna and lay in the shallows of the Talarik sucking down eggs are absolutely spectacular. They are very similar to Steelhead. Some of the best Wild Rainbow fishing Alaska has to offer.
I can wade across the Upper Talarik at most any location. The amount of water they are permitted to use from the headwaters would dry out the mouth if they used their limits. If they dry these drainage's out it really will not matter if they damn the head water basins for use as tailing retention ponds. That is until the seepage is realized or the dam fails.
If I am recalling right it was the Talarik head-waters retention/sediment pond that was to be 10 square miles in surface area created by a 400 foot in height earth dam. Pretty simple plan, just dam up the top of the basin and dump their schit into it.
I realize AK owns the land, not ND... The idea would be to purchase the land from the State to set aside... or less effectively to get the State to set it aside. Legislation could make that happen more easily than any other way... But it will continue to come up over and over again in reapplications if the permit is simply turned down and the combined costs of repeated efforts will greatly exceed a reasonable starting price...
Jeff, If you take time to read the reports from both Norther Dynasty and Anglo- American you will see that all the investors were warned that this was a high risk venture so they know that they may not make a cent . As a commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay I am sure you are well aware of that concept.
Had a lengthy discussion with the lead attorney representing several Native corporations (Jeff for those curious) and found a number of new things to be pissed about...
Apparantly Frank the Bank smoothed some stuff for Pebble by getting the land there redesignated as having no fish or wildlife value. They did this by using a seashore format which only asked for things like "How many walrus haul-outs are there?"
It did not ask for moose or caribou so they claimed no wildlife value leaving mining as highest and best use. Getting that set to right will require a lot of work.
Just one more reason to despise every Murkowski that ever drew breath.
I had been in the "Let the permit process work so we do not have to pay for the to-date costs" camp... No more.
The attorney emphasized the need for a premanent solution so the mining project does not come back in five years or ten years. He suggests the best plan is to buy out the mining company by purchasing the land and setting it aside. Seems he thinks wasting lots of money to fight it would be counter-productive compared to a simple buy-out... Especially since the price should not be high based on risks...
We just returned this afternoon from fishing the Kvichak River which drains Lake Iliamna. The rainbow trout fishing is not easily matched anywhere. The Talarik and Upper Talarik both dump into the big lake and are very much at risk. A spill in their direction would have the potential to kill a lot of fish for a very long time...
Sitka Deer,
On the issue of "Let the permit process work so we do not have to pay for the to-date costs" camp...;
When the Windy Craggy copper cobalt deposit in the Alsek-Tatsenshini was expropriated into a National Park, the BC taxpayers got a $144 million dollar bill which was the negotiated market value of the deposit (1993) and not the cost of development.
Last year, when NDs sister company Taseko had their environmental application turned down for the Fish Lake project (Pebble sized) by the Feds based on environmental and aboriginal concerns, there has been no mention of compensation, just talk of reapplication.
Just something to think about.
From the sounds of it, money is buying a lot of 'science'
And that is exactly the way I understand the probable outcome for AK if it is turned down on enviromental grounds... But the fact the State assessment lists only minig as highest and best use will require significant behind the scenes stuff in addition to what is going to happen on the permit application.
Just to clarify a couple above posts. ND (a shell company) is after the copper. Gold is a by-product.
Gold is inert.
Copper in very small amounts f*cks up salmonoids (professional scientific terminology). So does many of the other released by products of either gold or copper mining, depending on the composition of the ores. Reference Homestead Mining operations in the Black Hills, or along the Clark Fork of Montana, or those 2,000 year old Roman mines in Great Britain, still leaking toxins into the watersheds downstream. Or, or.. the list goes on. Which isn't to say we don't need to mine - just NOT HERE!
There are almost no, if any, Alaskan BB fishermen in favor of Pebble. So the first hearing was held in Seattle, for obvious reasons. Big Deal! It could have as well been held in SF- where there is a sizable amount of "Little Italy" BB permit holders... Hell - they even have their own generally respected dock space in Naknek. Some of them are 4th or 5th generation. Bet on any of them being in favor of Pebble?
As to economic bottom lines - 100 years of copper extraction, or thousands of fish extraction? Plus the marine mammals and other life that depends on those salmon, and the land animals that will be affected by such a massive project.
When you see someone referencing Red Dog or the Fbks mine ( Murphy Dome? I forgot the name at the moment), those are entirely different situations.
It's like saying - "Go ahead, take a bite of this poisoned apple - they've been growing good oranges in California for years". (Yeah, I know that doesn't make sense - that's the point.)
locally the Pebble folks have run ads comparing the Kenicott mine to Pebble and the fact that red salmon run the Copper river in perfect health.
makes me burn to think they believe we're really that stupid. From what i can garner info wise Kenicott is a pimple on Pebble's azz.
speakin of, I need to get a license and get my azz to the Copper and get some reds
I find it ironic that we "ultra conservatives", in favor of less government regulation, and more free-capatalistic enterprises - are fighting what appears to me to be a losing battle for a liberal-agenda "environmental" cause....without much noticable apparent support from the left....
Maybe we should reverse direction, then cave......?
You will notice the absence of a smiley face...
I was thinking the same thing myself,don't understand you yanks sometimes. Wasn't Sarah all for it? I'm a miner and find the oil patch gets a freer ticket than miners. They usually get their permits overnight, miners take decades to do the same thing. And their aditude is just do it ans we'll pay the fine.
Neither miners nor environmentalists are completely wrong -- but it takes a complete idiot not to understand that you don't crap in your own nest.
That is why the majority of those who live here voted against the mine - those who's only interest is to maybe make a few bucks -- or a lot of them -- and then leave don't care about the mess they will leave.
Once something is destroyed, it stays destroyed for a very long time. The few bucks (or whole bunch of bucks) will be long gone and forgotten fairly soon, but the negative effects of a mine last and last.
edit: I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue.
If the proposed mine is so safe and such a good idea, attach all Board of Directors/management/stockholders/etc, personal assets to any damages caused by its operation.
...and the project was scraped.
Shoving the true costs of doing business on to the taxpayer is freeloading... Screwing someone seems to be the new business model for many corporations and individuals.
Saw this on Frontline last night and it was a very interesting show. From what I saw it looks like a terrible place to put a giant open pit mine.
therein lies the trouble, most conservatives are against OVER regulation
but even though the left would like to paint conservatives as against all regulation, it doesn't mean we're for NO regulation
it's a case by case basis, measured by risk vs. reward
in the Pebble Mine case it seems to me (and apparently others that normally identify themselves as conservatives) the risk outweighs the reward
Frontline showed the locals panicked and ran to the EPA for help which ticked off the conservatives in Anchorage who don't want the Feds telling them what to do.
I remember seeing a show on the phosphate mines in Idaho. The rancher, a life long republican, who lived next to the proposed mine found no friends in his party and ran to the democrats to help him save his home. Most are pro-growth until it's in their backyard.
The Frontline program was well dona as expected. I thought it was a little slanted towards the conservation side but maybe that is just me. I lived outside Butte MT a number of years ago and the Berkley Pit is a life time commitment towards controlling Acid Run Off and Butte is fairly dry. The thought of a pit that dwarfs the Berkley Pit 10x and in a wet area with so many people depending on the return of the salmon is just a no brainer.
Jeff- a couple more points- ND et al does not "own the land" - or even the mineral rights, the latter is only being leased to them by the state, for insignificant royalties down the line, if developed. Beyond the lease price, there is no significnt monetary benefit to the state - and even the benefits (and numbers) of "jobs created" for state residents for 50-100 years is questionable. Especially considering any spill/leaching damage will last for several millineum, at best.
Second, fugging up their "own" leased land/mineral rights isn't really the issue. When the inevitable chit happens, it's fugging up all the stuff downstream that is NOT "owned" by ND that is the issue.
Try building a "state of the art" cyanide production facility just upwind of a 5,000 population school in a large city.....
The thought of a pit that dwarfs the Berkley Pit 10x and in a wet area with so many people depending on the return of the salmon is just a no brainer. [/quote]
How exactly did you arrive at this figure..as it pertains to the volume of the Pebble pit??
This is a very interesting one. I am a retired environmental consultant who specialized in mining projects, and worked on Quartz Hill out of Ketchikan in the early 1980s. It was a world class molybdenum mine near the salt water in what is now Misty Fjords Nat Monument. We worked on that project for years, with a crew of divers, and wandered over 12 sections of bush with not a single road. The environmental review process ran its course and the project was never allowed to commence largely because of the long-term potential impacts to the salmon fishery. We used to herd the salmon with the prop wash on the helicopter. We saw bears every day. And wolverines, mtn goats, etc.
Even though Alaska is a radically pro-development state, this project seems to really upset people. Even long-time conservative types are against it. I would encourage people to make their voices heard with letters and attend hearings. Trust the environmental review process. The operators will be forced to put a large bond if they get permission to proceed. It is hard to imagine this project ever being approved to go forward. Make sure your voice is heard.
The world needs enough gold to have a stable gold backed currency or else we are all going to starve so the Central bankers can fly from Yacht vacation to Yacht vacation.
My heart is with commercial fishing, it was a job I am proud to have done once upon a time, and I look into opportunities to do it again.
I believe the mines impacts can be mitigated - in a watershed that large the mines true impact is small.
Siskiyou,
There is a good chance that you are right. The proposed mine is also a long way from the saltwater. Miners are very careful about hanging on to any material that has gold in it, including pregnant solutions.
Public sentiment seems to be very much opposed to the project, uncharacteristcally so by Alaska standards. The public's opposition may still be enough to halt the project in its tracks.
How many of you fellers that are against this are democrats? im bettin not one of ya (dont worry i aint either) but what are your thoughts if the EPA is controlled by conservatives and they slackin the rules for mining pollution.
I know I would still be against it. I could care less who's running the EPA. To many risks involved.
acooper,
The EPA is not run by conservatives, far from it. There are very strict rules in place regarding air and water pollution under EPA guidelines. It takes years to get a mine permitted. There is ample opportunity for public imput as part of the EIS process. The environmental review process is not corrupt, but it has been politicized. The EPA promulgates (defers) authority for meetin standards to the states. I don't know who the lead agency for the Pebble Mine probably USFS or BLM. Does anyone know?
Ppine thats what i mean, the dems are generally more stringent (screw business) vs the more pro corp conservatives. If the conservatives take over the epa my worry would be that they would allow more because of polical reason
Show me one large open pit mine where the runoff from the tailings pile hasn't been an environmental disaster?
If only one out of 100 of these types of mines had problems with toxic runoff, it might be worth considering. But when the industry is batting near 100% on toxic runoff and the mining company going out of a business and walking away without paying for the cleanup, it's pretty much a guranteed bad bet.
It's the last place in the world the industry should be allowed to create the worlds largest open pit gold mine "hoping" that this time they get it right.
The environmental review process is not corrupt, but it has been politicized.
That's a contradiction.
maybe im just a conspiracey theorist, but i honestly see for the residents of that area, it being a bad thing if repubs gain political control or the W/H, congress, and as they say poo rolls down hill right to the EPA. It could be a disaster for that area all for political gain/money. This is one of my major sticking points with the GOP and why i get so much chit on here for being a fence sitter.
Lott,
Nevada leads the US in gold production and is fourth world-wide by itself. It is also dry country with little run-off. Few mines here have had environmental disasters, especially after regulation began in the 1970s. Note that many open-pit mines have no tailings piles because they have no mill-run ore only heap leach technology.
Ironbender,
Your observation is a good one. What saves the process, is that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) it is possible to stop a project in its tracks with public comments.
Lott,
Nevada leads the US in gold production and is fourth world-wide by itself. It is also dry country with little run-off. Few mines here have had environmental disasters, especially after regulation began in the 1970s. Note that many open-pit mines have no tailings piles because they have no mill-run ore only heap leach technology.
Ironbender,
Your observation is a good one. What saves the process, is that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) it is possible to stop a project in its tracks with public comments.
Lott,
What saves the process, is that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) it is possible to stop a project in its tracks with public comments.
You lost all creditability with that gem. The pebble is located on state land and there are no federal dollars being spent on direct development of the mine; therefore, NEPA does not apply.
Now the Clean Water Act is another story . . .
The proposed mine is also a long way from the saltwater. Miners are very careful about hanging on to any material that has gold in it, including pregnant solutions.
salt isn't the problem. The problem is the mine, tailing piles, and waste ponds are IN spawning grounds.
It's like a pregnant woman douching with benzene.
wow...now there's a metaphor!
Damn...I was trying for an analogy!
It's like a pregnant woman douching with benzene.
Aaiyh-aiiygh-aaouiy!
wow...now there's a metaphor!
My point, however poorly made, is that the mine is to go where the salmon are "birthed".
Better?
Oh great, now we have a "birther" amongst us!!!
As a mining engineer, there are so many different things I could say. Sadly the one screaming in my head, is where is the sierra club? Seriously, we can't get a coal mine permitted in southern illinois because it "might" impact "potential" habitat for the Indiana bat.
You've got a metal mine proposed in the largest salmon run of North America? Can't believe the Sierra Club isn't having a stroke over this.
Oh, and for the record, I could probably point out several metal mines who's tailing haven't been a environmental disaster. However, they are located in a 4"-6"/year precip zone, i.e. Nevada.
So, not held back by "the worlds largest earth dam"?
...in a seismic zone.
Oh great, now we have a "birther" amongst us!!!
Muskeg,
With you maybe. Thirty years of working with miners says otherwise. You are correct that the proposed mine is on State land, so the lead agency is DNR in Juneau. Isn't that preferrable to working with Wash DC and a bunch of people that don't know squat about AK?
In 30 years I can not remember a mine opposed by rural people or conservative types like on this forum. Maybe it has to do with the scale of the mine, and the foreign ownership by Northern Dynasty and Anglo American. The public's perception of minimg seems to affected very much by old mines before the 1970s that were pre-law.
Does anyone else out there see the level of irony in having the US Environmental Protection Agency as a key player in the review of the Pebble Mine? Some Republican candidates for president urged that we eliminate EPA.
Eliminating a mine by the environmental review process is relativelly easy. Getting one permitted and turning dirt is exceedingly difficult, expensive and time consuming. The people will speak and be heard when the time comes.
"Oh, and for the record, I could probably point out several metal mines who's tailing haven't been a environmental disaster. However, they are located in a 4"-6"/year precip zone, i.e. Nevada."
So then, what is your point?
Jeff
I think Jeff was trying to point out that precip matters.
YMMV.
As does the porosity of the substrate.
I think Jeff was trying to point out that precip matters.
YMMV.
I believe you are correct!
J
As an aside, got KP plans?
As an aside, got KP plans?
Unfortunately no. We have a crew headed down there tomorrow, but I'm heading north. May have to pester Randy? I'd much rather be working down your way at this time of the year. Will be working up around Pump 6, and it won't be long before chilly weather sets in. The interior ain't for sissies in the winter, and each winter, I become more sissified
There was a time when I would deliberately climb in stupid cold, just to see who was a quitter......I don't do that anymore!
Jeff
Your lads bear kill was way cool!
Hell, I was there!
Pretty sure Randy owes me a beer (well, maybe) so, I give you my proxy!
Proxy beer......is there a permit for that?