Pebble backers and other large mining firms finance ballot measure opposition
Published Monday, August 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!While a secretive Republican-leaning group from Washington, D.C., is dumping most of the money into the campaign for Ballot Measure No. 4, the source of the opposition funds is easier to track.
I wrote here Sunday that even though Anchorage political consultant Art Hackney is a board member of the secretive group, Americans for Job Security, he said he does not know where the $1.2 million that the group gave to the campaign Hackney is leading on behalf of the ballot measure came from.
Hackney, who is getting much of his financial backing from wealthy businessman Bob Gillam, is leading the campaign to stop the Pebble Mine, a copper and gold prospect that is not far from his remote vacation home.
One possible explanation for the interest of Americans for Job Security is that Gillam gave the group money to invest in the Alaska campaign, so that it would not seem as if he is the only one spending a sizable amount of change to promote the initiative.
Americans for Job Security says its funding sources are secret and Hackney says he won’t try to find out where the money originated.
Pebble opponents have drafted a measure, which will appear on the Aug. 26 ballot, that would require a new regulatory scheme for water discharges from mines.
Even though the state Department of Natural Resources says the ballot language is almost the same as current law on water quality standards, the act of creating new regulations would almost certainly lead to court battles that would stop the implementation of new regulations.
And this would not only stop Pebble, but the expansion of existing mines, according to the mining industry.
I’ll have more on the details of that part of the controversy later this week.
Regarding the funding for the campaign against the initiative, the details are easily accessible on the Web site of the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
The mining industry is financing this fight.
As of late July, The Council of Alaska Producers had raised $9.8 million, going back to February. It had spent $7.2 million, according to a report filed 30 days before the primary election with the APOC.
The Pebble Partnership, which includes Anglo American and Northern Dynasty Mines, had pumped $4.4 million into the campaign as of late July.
The next campaign expense report, which is due at the APOC on Tuesday, will show any additional contributions from the companies backing the Pebble project in the past few weeks.
The donations from the Pebble Partnership were to a group called the Council of Alaska Producers, a organization that has also received $650,000 from Teck-Pogo, more than $1.5 million from Teck Cominco, $1 million from Fairbanks Gold Mining, $1 million from Donlin Creek LLC, $800,000 from Greens Creek/HECLA and $200,000 from Kennecott Greens Creek/Rio Tinto.
Those multi-national companies operate, or hope to operate, large metal mines in various parts of Alaska.
Backed by the largest mining companies doing business in Alaska, the Council of Alaska Producers has been the biggest financial supporter of Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown. Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown had taken in $6.5 million and spent $5.5 million as of July 25.
Most of the large mining companies with operations in Alaska are owned by entities based in foreign countries.
The chairman of the Council of Alaska Producers is Karl Hanneman of Fairbanks, a veteran in the Alaska mining industry.
The campaign treasurer is Larry Radford, while Lorna Shaw is the deputy treasurer.
The chairwoman of Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown is Cynthia Toohey of Anchorage.
According to the Anchorage Daily News, the “no” vote has also received about $235,000 from a political action committee of Alaska Native corporations and $140,000 from the NANA Regional Corp., which has the Red Dog mine, the world’s largest zinc mine, on its lands.
For more information on campaign contributions, go to the APOC Web site. The site has been improved in recent years, though more work remains to be done to make it as useful as it should be for those who want to track campaign spending.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Thanks Dermot for clarifying this initiative.
Vote NO on 4
No to Bob Gillam and No on 4!
Must be "one sentence comment day", so I'll say Vote YES on 4.
Let's see, Dermot - your idea of "Balance" is one article devoted to slamming a part of one side, and a second article devoted to slamming one part of the same side and then reporting some of the information about the other...
I'd call that a 75% "against" editorial, 25% straight reporting.
I'd suggest applying to Fox News if that is your idea of fair and balanced... And this is from someone who still hasn't decided how to vote on this one. Although I do appreciate reading that almost the entire corpus of money opposing the measure is from foreign corporations, and almost all of the money supporting it is from Alaskans - a point that you kinda skimmed over fast, but did report if one reads deeply enough.
Did you know?
More grayling are coming out of Fort Knox's 'fresh-water impoundment' (located directly down stream from their 'tailings impoundment') than from any other area in the Chena River drainage. This proves when mining and fish interact, fish can win.
On the other hand, the pollock industry destroys 50% of the Yukon River salmon through bycatch on an annual basis. It's called business as usual.
VOTE.
And, please consider voting NO on 4.
Mr Loury -
Don't bother having a differing opinion than Mr. Cole -
If you do he will spam your email address with his views on honest discourse
Has he done this with anyone else?
Yet another reason to be anonymous in name here I think...
Maybe he will drive me away from commenting anymore since it seems an obsession with him
As a union member in the construction industry over the past 33 years I have had the chance to work on 2 mines in that time, barely. I did 2 short calls at Ft Knox and 6 miserable weeks at Red Dog. My experience tells me that these big mega mines like to hire on the cheap and AK labor usually isn't cheap enough for them. I remember when Ft Knox was "hiring" it was said you stood a better chance if you applied from outside the state. During my time at Red Dog the union job I was on was with 5 or 6 other guys and we were surrounded by non-union folks from Idaho who were in the vast majority. These guys had barely touched ground in AK in Anchorage to change planes, and again in Kotzebue. It seems like the major "No on 4" theme is jobs but I have to ask, jobs for whom? Will Pebble brake with tradition and hire within state? Or are they just another multi national that doesn't give a crap about "local hire". My experience tells me the "Alaskans" that they hire wont be Alaskans when they get hired but after 30 days it don't matter anyhow, because everybody is a resident after 30 days. The jobs issue alone wouldn't be enough for me to vote yes however but the environment (there goes that evil word)for spawning salmon and the jobs created in that industry would seem to trump any new hires for a new mega mine. I am voting Yes on 4 along with the commercial and sport fisherman who know that once a fishery is lost it wont be back and promises made by big corporations I am afraid, especially in the wake of Exxon (and others) carry little weight with this lifetime Alaskan.
akguy: Interesting. Perhaps you could share more details about Dermot emailing you?
I find it rather funny that he won't engage me.....
no_fro_no_po: Knox is not a copper mine. You're not even comparing apples to oranges.
You're comparing apples to a dog crap sandwich and saying that because the apple tastes better than the dog crap, so the apple must be the best thing to eat.
But when you really look at the apple, it's full of worms.
Mr Woods -
Since the emails were sent to me directly I will consider them a matter of privacy at this point, as I do my legal name.
However, I will say that in regards to the use of a handle instead of a Legal Name - Dermot thinks us anonymous users are damaging our community - - -
In general terms I can accept his fact - I only take issue with the fact that he brought it up in yesterday's column only after IUR posted criticism against him directly. The many times blatantly racist comments against natives, white people, etc are brought up - no comment by him is found....a double standard or just hurt pride - I guess that is for the reader to decide
I enjoy Dermot's columns, for the most part, although I don't agree with him a lot. They are usually well written and fun to read. I am not sure what the DNM though would happen in these forums but it is surely a place where one has to leave the thin skin at the door and try to have discourse from all sides.
I love the fact that there are people here I consider 'wing nuts' and others I wouldn't agree with if they were the last Imusuallyright on Earth! Doesn't that make the forums more informational and fun in the end - - -
Dermot - If you are so worried about the identity of the user - change the policy at the paper - - - but please don't blame us for being anonymous if given the option BY YOU AND YOUR PAPER for doing so!!!! Hello - - -
I can tell you that if you require names, the number of comments will decrease dramatically and your exercise in Free Speech will probably fail...but I could be wrong - - I surely am a lot.
have a great day all and Godbless
"no_fro_no_po: Knox is not a copper mine. You're not even comparing apples to oranges."
WHAT?? I have been accused of being rather dense at times but this post I can't understand at all. Yes, FT Knox isn't a copper mine. What does this have to do with dog feces sandwiches and wormy apples?
akbearable: Yeah. I know. It's OK. It's called targeted demographics. Just move on.
oh - and I must apologize - as Dermot has helped me to understand in his latest email to me
He has not spammed me - he has only sent me three personal emails on his point of view.
Looking up spam I find it is defined as "flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it."
In honestly - his multiple messages were all of different topic and he wasn't flooding the internet - only me. I think I could probably debate the second half of the definition in my favor, however - but then it would only be half a can of spam I think...
maybe I should ask my network guy for further guidance on this
Not_from_North_Pole, Yes, there may be more grayling downstream from Ft. Knox - but those grayling are probably laced with arsenic. I'd be careful how many you eat.
Mr. Cole, You're so openly biased your articles aren't even worth reading.
Vote YES on 4.
We are lucky to have Dermot's help. Alaskans deserve to know who provides financial backing for and against this measure.
My understanding, from speaking with a staff person at the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, is that this measure is directed against the Pebble Mine. It will not necessarily shut down other mines but will certainly make them less profitable.
I will vote YES on 4 despite my disappointment in some of the funding sources backing the measure.
For myself, I am trying to live my beliefs by minimizing my own consumption of metals.
Susie H
"For myself, I am trying to live my beliefs by minimizing my own consumption of metals.
Susie H"
Don't worry Susie, you can buy as much gold as you can afford, this world has huge stockpiles of this shiny metal hoarded up in depositories around the world. There is enough gold already mined to keep us in gold, both for commercial (cosmetic) and industrial applications to last for generations.
But Will it be Profitable? (from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_...)
"The key decision that will determine whether Pebble will become a mine is whether it is possible to mine the deposit at a profit. There are so many factors that go into determining the economics of a deposit that it is impossible to predict whether it is profitable without that data," he said. (They're talking about drilling)
Some of those other factors include infrastructure and transportation costs. Like most of Alaska's rich natural resources, Pebble is located in a remote region with very little existing infrastructure and few residents.
Developing a large mine that would employ up to 1,000 workers year-round, requiring more than 200 megawatts of electric power daily and millions of tons of supplies and ore moved annually are all economic factors to be closely evaluated.
With that in mind, be sure to vote 'NO' on 4.
Imagine, changing all the rules for a mine that may never be?
Insert Donlin Creek as example.
OF COURSE the people that want to develop the proposed Pebble Mine would want to put a stop to what most of us know is a vague and deceptive ballot measure written by self-serving special interests. As would NANA and other Native Regional Corporations. We also know that the Renewable Resources Coalition is the brain child of Bob Gillam to protect his remote 10,000 s.f. mansion so he can entertain his clients and live the highlife privately. And what a cast of characters he has assembled! Did anybody read the whole article? Reading who all is involved, at least those we can find out about, makes me want to take a shower. A national stealth PAC that refuses to say where the money comes from, keeps its members secret and stirs up controversy wherever it goes. Trent Lott tells lobbyists to funnel money thru AJS to defeat a Michigan candidate. One of his henchmen was involved in the shameful attacks on John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which they had previously pulled on John McCain. In Montana in 2006 they fought against creation of a fund to pay health costs for people exposed to asbestos because it would create bigger government. In 2004, they defended the right on miners to just chop off the top of mountains in Appalachia. No fish there, AJS? They fought against removing dams on the Snake River to revive salmon runs, so that’s how much they give a damn about salmon. I'll bet that's just the tip of the iceberg. And Art Hackney? He’s making at least a cool $240,000 off this debacle. And the final nail in the coffin for me, Hackney claims he doesn’t know the identity of the group’s members or its source of money for the Measure 4 fight. Really? He's the TREASURER, for the love of GOD. Does everyone send in their pennies? Come on folks. Are these the folks you want influencing Alaska elections?
I know I am voting on Ballot Measure 4, I don't like all of the deceptive tactics practiced by proponents of this measure.
This is not to say that mines and those who oppose ballot measure four aren't for clean water. Alaska already has a set of laws, BASED ON SCIENCE, not political interests, that these mines have to follow very carefully concerning water quality. Pogo alone has a full time team of scientist that are constantly monitoring the water up the Goodpaster River, along with 4 wells drilled in the immediate vicinity.
AKbearable I'm sorry your experience was so negative, I think there are alot more Alaskan families who rely on mining than you might think. The surrounding communities are not just benefiting from the jobs or the revenue, but the grants and funds that these mines are handing out.
There are alot of Alaskans who benefit from these mines and don't even know it!
Lets not take mining for granted! VOTE NO ON FOUR!!!!!
It's obvious that the opposition would be funded by mining (it's an anti-mining initiative, duh). The interesting part is who is funding the sponsorship... and it's not very black and white.
When you support an initiate and claim it is for the benefit of the fishing industry, it's a little sketchy when it turns out you just have "Not In My Backyard" syndrome, and certainly makes the intentions of your arguments a little less honorable.
"AKbearable I'm sorry your experience was so negative, I think there are alot more Alaskan families who rely on mining than you might think"
Yes, a lot of Alaskan families rely on mining for their livelihoods. Of these other existing mines does anyone have hard data on just how many jobs now supporting an "Alaskan Family" were from people who moved here to take their mining job? In other words, who will get most of these 1000 jobs that Pebble mine will need? If it is indeed how I suspect from past experience it will mostly go to Alaskans who are not even Alaskans yet, have never heard of Pebble mine or even really give a rip about Alaska. Don't get me wrong, I think everybody on the planet should have a job, but to say that this bill is going to effect Alaskan jobs is misleading in my opinion. Sure, there will be some jobs taken by Alaskans, but there is always a hidden cost. Always. To what end do we keep ripping this place apart so people from the lower states and foreign companies can benefit? I was born here and I have about zero desire to live anywhere else. It is because there are large tracks of unspoiled territory that I can stand living here. If we continue to dig up the state with mega mines owned by outsiders then one day Alaska wont be so appealing a place to live. Call me a low down tree hugger or whatever you want, most people who are here for something besides the money are here for the same reasons I remain. They are sick of progress for the sake of a few jobs. It is an old mentality to continually foul a place just for its raw resources alone.
Imagine a State of Alaska completely devoid of morals, integrity or accountability and Pebble was allowed to proceed unchecked. You know, I’m talking about the old ‘wink-wink’, ‘nod-nod’ and ‘show me the money, honey’. Under those circumstances, just what would Northern Dynasty have to do to cough up enough copper into Lake Iliamna to cause a salmon to wonder, even for an instant, ‘Where am I’?
Most salmon know where they are going, despite the elevated, naturally occurring, back-ground level of copper found in all the notable salmon runs of Alaska that is far greater than the government accepted standard of around eight micro grams per liter of water. Turns out, before a salmon gets confused, it needs to encounter a significant change in the amount of ‘bio-available’ copper.
The vast majority of copper swimming around in water is not bio-available. It’s stuck to other stuff and fish could care less.
So, how much ‘bio-available copper would the miners at Pebble need to discharge in order to raise all 13 trillion gallons in Lake Iliamna by 8 micro grams? I figured two tons, and never once gave a thought to how the miners were going to mix all of Lake Iliamna fast enough before all that ‘bio-available’ copper wasn’t ‘bio-available’ any more. ‘Do I take a left now’?
Sure why not? Before the water that leaves Pebble enters Lake Iliamna it has to first make its way through a significant amount of wet lands that are known for their filtering abilities. A decrease in suspended metals, including copper, of up to 80 % is common. So, our two tons of ‘bio-available’ copper in Lake Iliamna would have to start out as ten tons at the mine.
Mines are notoriously stingy with water. Too much is not the norm. Often they impound as much as they can get, recycle it over and over and constantly fret about how to get more. So discharge from mines is more or less restricted to the amount of rain that drains off the tailings piles. It’s a no-brainer. Let’s say Pebble’s tailings pile is a whole square mile and the average yearly rain fall is 24 inches. That figures out to nearly seven and half million gallons. Cram in ten tons of ‘bio-available’ copper and convert it to something that makes sense and you get three thousand milligrams per liter. Add in all the copper that would not be ‘bio-available’ and I think you get the picture, ‘That’s a lot of copper’. Even with nobody looking, I’d think someone at the mine might think about pumping that stuff back to the mill to re-process it.
Vote ‘NO’ on 4
A reader who followed my advice and went to the APOC Web site called my attention to an error in my column.
I appreciate the help.
The relevant information is that it is the Council of Alaska Producers, which consists of the large metal mining companies in Alaska, that raised $9.8 million from February to late July.
The council, in turn, has been the main financial backer of Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown. These groups overlap, but their finances are not a dollar-for-dollar match.
The revised paragraph is:
"As of late July, The Council of Alaska Producers had raised $9.8 million, going back to February. It had spent $7.2 million, according to a report filed 30 days before the primary election with the APOC."
The seven-day reports showing the most current numbers are due Tuesday in Anchorage.
I was hired locally to work at Fort Knox. I had no experience in mining, they trained me to drive haul trucks. While there I trained numerous drivers, hired locally with no experience.
I am now at Pogo Mine. I hired in there for a job in the mill, no experience. They trained me to be a mill operator. In less than 1 year I was able to go from the mid 60's to over 100K a year.
There are numerous people there hired locally with no experience. I know of one young Native lady who Pogo sent to the Delta Mine Training Center. Pogo paid for her training, provided room and board while training and paid her while attending training. After successfully completing the training she was hired as an underground miner. She will be able to make 150K+ in a few years time. I know others who came to Pogo the same way.
If out of state workers are hired it is because Alaska does not have a large enough pool of workers for the jobs available. You can not hire a workforce of totally inexperienced people. Would you want to be underground with people who had not had time enough on the job to recognize potential hazzards? Yes we have people who live outside, we have a large number who have moved to the state after being hired. They have bought houses, boats, pay taxes, pay to charter fishing trips. Their money is now staying in Alaska. 75% of people in the fishing and processing industries come from outside. They make little money, have no benefits and take virtually all their money out of Alaska when they leave. And, they will still have their jobs if 4 loses. Will we still have our jobs if 4 passes?
Steven Phipps
P_Davenport,
The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and it is therefore non-binding. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_proto... for details and a list of sources.
So, it has no bearing on Alaskan soil (some states have individually agreed to it) other than symbolically.
Pogo, Kennicott, Ft Knox----none of those are sulfide mines that require a 4.5 mile long 700 foot high dam to contain the poison from the rock waste. We're talking a sulfide mine in the largest natural salmon incubator on earth. What part of this is a good idea?
Yes on 4 and if you don't know what you're voting on just leave it blank.
P_Davenport,
I'm looking (honestly) but don't see anywhere that it states that the U.S. formally ratified the agreements, or accepted any binding engagement in those agreements. If you have the sentence, please quote it and I will look again. Otherwise, it still appears that the U.S. made no formal agreement, but rather symbolically only.
Additionally, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COP7#COP-7.... it specifically states in several places that the U.S. has continually refused to ratify the protocol.
The same organic compound used in some mines to extract gold (cyanide), is one of the same chemicals that many would have you believe will destroy all of Bristol Bay with a single drop, is produced naturally by some 1,000 different plants including choke cherries.
In regards to the toxicity of cyanide to humans, cyanide will cause slight ill effects at exposure levels of 20–40 mg/m3 of body volume. Add 120–150 mg of cyanide to our metric person and the sole might be dead after 0.5–1 h. Dump in 200 mg and in just 10 min you can call a hearse. Throw in 300 mg of cyanide and our guy isn’t even going to get out of the box
Cyanide can kill you. But, how much is important when you compare the amount to what is used to extract gold and to what you can find naturally all around us in choke cherry trees.
When deemed uneconomical to recover by other means gold can be put into solution by using cyanide. The amount of cyanide in solution required may be as low as 30-50mg/l at most deposits. The solution is often referred to as the pregnant solution.
Now, in order for a 70 kg adult, to keel over dead immediately from cyanide, they would have to consume between 2.5 and 4.2 liters of ‘pregnant solution’ all at once. There is no way a single drop of pregnant solution could kill you, never mind all of Bristol Bay.
On the other hand, the larger succulent leaves of choke cherries (prunus virginiana) are the most toxic part with concentrations of cyanogenic glycosides reaching 368 mg/100 g of fresh leaves (around the size of a dinner salad), easily consumed at a single setting and you would be dead as a door knob before you could ask for seconds
I don’t know how many salads you can get from an average choke cherry. But, based on the full grown choke cherries you see around Fairbanks, maybe, about 300? So, in just the leaves, each choke cherry tree contains somewhere around 110 grams of cyanide. Multiply that number by the number of choke cherries in Fairbanks, maybe 5,000? Every fall, all those leaves drift to the ground, decompose and 552 kg of cyanide goes somewhere? That’s more than enough to instantly kill every single person in the entire borough, the entire state of Alaska, and a whole lot more.
Somehow we are able to get along just fine with choke cherry trees in spite of all the cyanide. We live side by side with them. They don’t represent any real threat at all.
But whenever the subject of the use of cyanide and mining comes up, some people go way out of their way to scare the hell out of everyone. They cry, ‘Foreigners are going to dump cyanide all over the place and poison everything around for all eternity’. Well, they’re not. They couldn’t even if they tried.
Vote ‘NO’ on 4
P_Davenport,
International laws that we have not agreed to don't supercede State or National laws. We are an independent nation and have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. No matter how many nations do, we have not, and therefore are not bound by it.
Vote YES!
no-fro-no-po.
You seem to have a lot of words to say about cyanide, which, when faced with reality of a copper and molybdenum mine, have nothing to do with production or extraction. It's people like you, either through malice or ignorance, that confuse the masses.
So, you want to talk about mines? Sure. What about acid production from chalcopyrite and other metal sulfides? Talk to me about acid rock drainage. Talk to me about Acidithyobacillus and how it aids in anaerobic breakdown. Talk to me about ionic exchange. Talk to me about calcareous stratus filtering.
Hell, talk to me about anything, but please, make sure it's related to the issue at hand.
And vote yes on 4.
For fish.
And for science.
smap99712
I am glad that Ft Knox got there act together and tried hiring genuine AK residents. My experience working at both Ft Knox and Red Dog was before the mines were in operation. I remember at the time when people wanted to go to work there (Ft Knox) and were told to go to Job Service but when they went, there were no jobs to be had from the mine in Fairbanks. I'm sure that they were trying to man up with experienced people and like you said there isn't any here in state. Of course they might have found experienced drivers and operators, electricians and the like right in Fairbanks had they went union with their mine.
"Yes we have people who live outside, we have a large number who have moved to the state after being hired. They have bought houses, boats, pay taxes, pay to charter fishing trips. Their money is now staying in Alaska"
And I am glad for that. One thing should also be mentioned concerning money staying in state and that is gold mine corporations pay very little in the way of royalties for the gold they extract from the state lands. This gold mine will provide jobs, but unless the law is changed the mine owners will get the gold without paying much to the state (compared to the oil industry). While some people say that the state has too much already, that may be so but this money is all we are going to have now that the Stevens dynasty and the funding that man brought to the state will be drying up, money from royalties will go to boat harbors, road maintenance, airports and every other kind of infrastructure. I am certain that if we try to change the law so the mines will have to pay for the right to mine the gold they will fight it with as much zeal as they are fighting the clean water initiative.
As for 75% of the fishermen living stateside, your figures seem way off.
P_Davenport,
No rudeness taken. I understand that these are important issues as well that have long term effects on all Alaskans.
My Disclosure: I am not legally employed or professionally educated as a legal expert, and have no particular professional experience relating to the legal field. I am merely a voter that goes to great lengths to be informed about the issues. Now for my opinion...
While I understand the reasoning behind looking at long term agreements, it is difficult to base any current law on the potential agreements that nations may come to in the future. We have a long history of differing with the international community on many issues.
I was merely attempting to show that under current international law, we have not made any agreements, and that we should not base law on the potential decisions of future world governments. If we take such precautions, we will rarely make any progress. However, in the future, should the U.S. come to agreement with the U.N., at that point a decision would have to be made to either grandfather the mining industry as it stands, or reduce emissions/byproducts at that point in time.
skinfish,
Interesting information on the dam. Where did you get it? It would be more believable if it were included in the application plans that are still years away. It has not even been determined if the mine will be open pit or underground. People reading your description might think that it is holding water that is hundreds of feet deep. Since it has not been put forward to be evaluated all I can say is dams at mines tend to hold very little water. There is a thin layer of water on top of tailing's to prevent weathering, the reservoir is made up of almost all solids that will not relocate if a breach WERE to occur. Cyanide compounds go through a destruct circuit that breaks it down to trace levels. At my mine, even after neutralizing, the CN contacted materials is not put into the tailing's area. The water used in all processes is continuously recycled, not released at all. It may well be that a decision to use autoclaves(heat and pressure vessels) would be used to separate minerals from native rock. Autoclaves like those used to sterilize instruments in hospitals. It is premature to say what Pebble will mean, it has not been decided what methods will be proposed or used.
If this were truly about Pebble only why does it not mention Pebble anywhere?
The 2005 catastrophic acid crater lake drainage, lahar, and acidic aerosol formation at Mount Chiginagak volcano, Bristol Bay, Alaska, USA: Field observations and preliminary water and vegetation chemistry results
Janet R. Schaefer
Alaska Volcano Observatory, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 3354 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709, USA
A mass of snow and ice 400-m-wide and 105-m-thick began melting in the summit crater of Mount Chiginagak volcano sometime between November 2004 and early May 2005, presumably owing to increased heat flux from the hydrothermal system, or possibly from magma intrusion and degassing. In early May 2005, an estimated 3.8 × 106 m3 of sulfurous, clay-rich debris and acidic water, with an accompanying acidic aerosol component, exited the crater through a tunnel at the base of a glacier that breaches the south crater rim. Over 27 km downstream, the acidic waters of the flood inundated an important salmon spawning drainage, acidifying Mother Goose Lake from surface to depth (approximately 0.5 km3 in volume at a pH of 2.9 to 3.1), killing all aquatic life, and preventing the annual salmon run. Over 2 months later, crater lake water sampled 8 km downstream of the outlet after considerable dilution from glacial meltwater was a weak sulfuric acid solution (pH = 3.2, SO4 = 504 mg/L, Cl = 53.6 mg/L, and F = 7.92 mg/L). The acid flood waters caused severe vegetation damage, including plant death and leaf kill along the flood path. The crater lake drainage was accompanied by an ambioructic flow of acidic aerosols that followed the flood path, contributing to defoliation and necrotic leaf damage to vegetation in a 29 km2 area along and above affected streams, in areas to heights of over 150 m above stream level. Moss species killed in the event contained high levels of sulfur, indicating extremely elevated atmospheric sulfur content. The most abundant airborne phytotoxic constituent was likely sulfuric acid aerosols that were generated during the catastrophic partial crater lake drainage event. Two mechanisms of acidic aerosol formation are proposed: (1) generation of aerosol mist through turbulent flow of acidic water and (2) catastrophic gas exsolution. This previously undocumented phenomenon of simultaneous vegetation-damaging acidic aerosols accompanying drainage of an acidic crater lake has important implications for the study of hazards associated with active volcanic crater lakes.
Received 16 November 2007; accepted 22 May 2008; published 24 July 2008.
And still the salmon return.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:juW...)
Not even a boiling lake of acid can keep them away.
Vote 'NO' on 4
akbearable,
The 75% figure comes from the state, it includes all in the industry(processors) not just the fishermen. Many of those fishermen and their boats come from Oregon and Washington but I don't know the exact percentage on that breakdown.
The royalty numbers are very misleading if taken by themselves. Do you believe you only pay 19 cents a gallon tax to drive your vehicle? You have excise taxes on your tires, licence and registration fees, there are corporate taxes, property taxes, business licence fees.
Total mining payments to state and local governments are some 195 million a year. Native Corporations receive another 170 million a year and NANA's percentage is contractually set to rise on an annual basis now that capital costs have been recovered by the operator. Over 350 million a year from basically 4 mines. Mines very small compared to what Donlin and Pebble might bring in. The state has projected a loss of billions of dollars if mining were to be shutdown. Taxes were just raised on the oil industry here, the same could be done to mining if the feeling is payments are to low.
" akbearable,
The 75% figure comes from the state, it includes all in the industry(processors) not just the fishermen. Many of those fishermen and their boats come from Oregon and Washington but I don't know the exact percentage on that breakdown."
Most of the 75% are cannery workers, crabbers and the big processor ships which go drag nets for fish OTHER then salmon. The debate is about SALMON and there are lots of fishermen, both commercial and sport who deserve to have a stake in their future. The wild salmon industry here in AK is a big deal and they have worked extremely hard to differentiate their fish as superior to farmed fish and other fish that are now loaded with toxins such as mercury. Let this mine go forward and when accidents happen we put that all that in jeopardy. If this happens will the foreign corporation step forward and try to make things right or will they pull an Exxon and walk out the door? Everything I know about huge corporations tell me they will walk, or rather skate out the door. After all making things right isn't profitable for their shareholders.
akberable,
"Let this mine go forward and when accidents happen we put that all that in jeopardy. If this happens will the foreign corporation step forward and try to make things right or will they pull an Exxon and walk out the door?"
They can't walk. It’s called bonding. They're already tied.
Fort Knox $12,150,415
Red Dog $11,010,250
True North $2,536,874
Greens Creek $26,238,518
Kensington $7,354,000
Pogo $26,654,432
(http://www.csp2.org/reports/Alaska%20Rec...)
Vote ‘NO’ on 4
I do believe the state was speaking specifically of the Bristol Bay fishery.
Cook Inlet has gas and oil rigs off shore, the South-East has a copper/gold mine on Admiralty Island, Copper River has Kennecott tailings leaching into it (and has for decades), the Yukon River has Ft Knox and Pogo(plus Canadian operation in the Yukon Territory) upstream in its drainage. All those waters produce SALMON with higher purchase prices than Bristol Bay. All of those waters have greater sport fishing industries than Bristol Bay.
"Fishermen deserve to have a stake", I could not agree more. Do you think they have a right to deprive thousands of Alaskans of THEIR existing jobs?
I’ve asked at least 10 people what the definition of a ‘New Mine’ would be. Everyone basically said, ‘A mine where none had been before’. Makes perfect sense doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, this is not how ‘new’ is defined in government. For example, the Alaska Coastal Management Program would define the word ‘new’ as meaning, “Any change in existing plans at a currently permitted mine”.
Ding, ding, ding, that’s one way existing mines would fall into the trap.
Vote ‘NO’ on 4
"They can't walk. It’s called bonding. They're already tied.
Fort Knox $12,150,415
Red Dog $11,010,250
True North $2,536,874
Greens Creek $26,238,518
Kensington $7,354,000
Pogo $26,654,432"
These figures are not near adequate for the damage that they could cause the fishery.
davenport- I think you are missing the simple fact that our own president has said that we are not abiding by the Kyoto mandate because we never agreed to the terms, we are a stand out country that has not conformed to the rest of the United Nations on this issue. Its not argueing, we have not ratified this agreement, period.
Why did Dermot write all this and not include the the actual proposition. Its simple and short so here it is:
"This bill imposes two water quality standards on new large scale metallic mineral mining operations in Alaska. The first standard does not allow such a mining operation to release into water a toxic pollutant that will adversely affect human health or the life cycle of salmon. The second standard does not allow such a mining operation to store mining wastes and tailings that could release sulfuric acid, other acids, dissolved metals or other toxic pollutants that could adversely affect water that is used by humans or by salmon. The bill defines a large scale metallic mineral mining operation to mean a metallic mineral mining operation that is in excess of 640 acres in size. The bill defines toxic pollutants to include substances that will cause death and disease in humans and fish, and includes a list of substances identified as toxic pollutants under federal law."
If the mining industry does not release toxins into the water then
what is the problem? This doesn't say you can't mine, its says
you can't pollute. If you can prove that redundant liners and the like will keep tailings from polluting then that would elliminate problems with the second part of the bill. The trouble here is lots of mines say they will never pollute, but anyone who has been here for the last 20 years remembers the the cyanide release at the mine on Henderson Rd that killed the whole hillside of birch trees there and flowed into Happy Creek, and the Golden Eagle mine in Ester that sucked down the water table on Ester Dome and also undermined the Parks Highway requiring over $1 milllion in state dollars to repair after the mine went bankrupt.
The mining industry needs to prove it can mine in a clean manner to counter these real mine created problems right here in Fairbanks. What better way to prove it than by agreeing to laws not allowing pollution?
At one side, a lobbying group from washington, DC (AJS) backs Proposition 4, but this group does not make the list of donors public. At the other side (the ones that oppose Proposition 4), have made it all public. It would be nice to know who the donors are, from both sides, although I already made my mind to vote NO to Proposition 4. It's too vague, as vague a Bill's statements, "all depends on what the definition of is, is"
to the "akguy," instead of complaining about getting spammed in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner's comment section- perhaps you should deposit YOUR spam in the community perspective because instead of reading insights from readers, I am feeling assaulted by your worthless drivel. Dermot knew what he was doing when he wrote the article and when people write misinformed slanderous personal attacks on the comment forum, I think its fairly clear he will address them to the person. And as for him not paying due to the racist comments against native alaskans, as a journalist- thats not his place and a terrible comment like that should not even be addressed! good day!
I am a resident of Alaska and citizen of the United States. I am not a citizen of the world. International law be damned.
And by the way....why is it that existing clean water regulations aren't good enough for the Yes on 4 group? It is already illegal to pollute the water.
WJunior -
way to not have a clue - maybe you should read the comments by another user and Dermots response to that user before you blame me, dude
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.