Letter to the Editor
Pebble Mine
Published Monday, March 31, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 26, 2008
To the editor:
The Pebble Mine project continues to creep along under the radar. As a commercial fisherman, I am opposed to the Pebble Mine. I am not going to write the long list of arguments against the project. I have not been surprised by radio ads which imply that foes of Pebble rely on “science fiction” to rally Alaskans against a multibillion-dollar operation.
Legitimate concerns about the mine and the corporations that would run the operation need to be addressed. The tired mantra of “wait and see” is a blessing. Mining corporation Anglo American has appeared in the news, and not in a good way.
The BBC reported Tuesday that Anglo American has reportedly forced the eviction of 20,000 South Africans in an effort to mine platinum. The report went on to note that drinking water in the region was found to be unfit for human consumption. The more I “wait and see,” the less I want Anglo American to be a partner in Alaska’s future. Pro-Pebble forces are relying on science fiction when they claim the mine can co-exist with the sockeye salmon.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Greens Creek is operating near Juneau. The water below Fort Knox is better than before it began operation. Kennecott operated for decades at the headwaters of the Copper River. The Yukon River and Tanana River basins have a long history of mining. Cook Inlet has more than a dozen oil platforms. Where has the fishing industry been destroyed? In fact all these areas get higher prices for their fish than you do and yet you would deny thousands of people the benefit of higher living standards to protect your interests. Maybe when your livelihood is rationalized away you will know why good jobs are important to others.
The more high paying of my two jobs is mineral exploration. I depend on mining for my living. I know, however, that mining does not take place responsibly, it won't have a place in the state. It is in everyones' best interest to make sure "Legitimate concerns about the mine and the corporations that would run the operation [are] addressed." Folks like Mr. Flora help to keep the mining industry honest by voicing their concerns. That can only help make sure that mining takes place as safely, responsibly and cleanly as possible.
at first i was very against the pebble mine being allowed to go forward. but these clean water act people, and the star trek style commercial people have scared me enough that all mining could get shut down if we give them a blank check, has made me undecided now. i'm waiting for more information....
Mining vs. fishing... both of which rape the natural environment. It's a wash.
"Mining vs. fishing... both of which rape the natural environment. It's a wash."
What an idiotic statement. So when I plant my garden this spring then harvest it in the fall is that like incest? Molesting those innocent potato's, cabbage, peas and carrots, denying them the chance to reproduce and live long, healthy lives...better turn myself in. Guess I better quit hunting and fishing too, crap, guess I might as well move to las anchorage or outside. What a load.
Mining and fishing can co-exist, both managed responsibly.
It is not an idiotic statement. Its clever!
Pebble mine is a horrible idea. I'm not against mining but large scale mines are not very appealing. I find it hard to believe that this mine would discharge cleaner water than what is already there. If you are a miner then go out and mine on your own, you would probably find more gold anyway.
Fishnhunter if you are not growing your garden organically, then in fact you are molesting your vegetables.
fishnhunter; I do agree that both commercial fishing and mining can co-exist when managed responsibly.
I was trying to concisely point out that the author of the letter, Jonathan Flora, states "As a commercial fisherman, I am opposed to the Pebble Mine." Commercial fishing has, in my opinion, a destructive history equal to that of mining. Countless fisheries have been closed in Alaska as a result gross overfishing practices. Many of these fisheries have yet to recover. Mining too has a sordid history here in Alaska. As you point out, the key is responsible management. But when has a large natural resource based corporation been responsible when left to its own devices?
My 'raping the environement' comment was an attempt to point out that a commnercial fisherman, who's trade has done some terrible environemental misdeeds, is whining about a mining company's potential for inflicting environmental misdeeds, only because of the potential impact on his trade.
And maybe 'rape' is an ugly word, but Merriam-Webster defines rape as "to seize and take away by force", which is exactly what resource extraction is, be it fishing or mining. (I am not saying resource extraction is necessarily bad)
Fair enough, both industry's no doubt have been abusive however, I believe both are policed much better now, lessons learned and such. I'm not saying I agree with the author of this letter either, I just see two groups of people trying to protect their way of life. I would never have even commented except for yours, I guess it came off to me as a pretty "green" statement with nothing to back it up. I just have no problem with harvesting ore nor fish. I think we're on the same page now, but I still don't think I'm molesting my veggies...take it easy.
A few differences between the fishing and mining industries to keep in mind when weighing our priorities:
Fisheries--People eat fish as a great source of nutrition. No, we aren't directly feeding salmon to the most undernourished humans, but Alaskan fisheries do add significantly to the world food supply.
Mining--People use gold for jewelry and other non-essential luxury items. (Yes a small amount is used for scientific purposes such as astronauts' helmets).
Fisheries--A RENEWABLE resource we CAN manage sustainably so that it provides food, jobs and revenue in perpetuity.
Mining--A NON-renewable resource that we can't sustain in perpetuity (once the ore is gone, so are the jobs and revenue, creating damaging ripple effects in our larger economy).
Some other thoughts:
The price of gold is quite high right now, but by the time Pebble opens (hopefully never), it probably won't be that high.
The US Mine Safety and Health Agency is about as corrupt as any agency under the Bush administration, so it's doubtful they'll have the interest or ability to do adequate oversight.
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_8757834 for some info.
Many Alaskans, indeed many Americans, like to talk about jobs for the sake of having more jobs available. I'm fine with providing more jobs, but we have the responsibility to ourselves and future generations to be as wise (truly conservative, actually) as we possibly can about development and sustainability. We could put people to work soon on Pebble Mine, but I for one will have no tolerance for the inevitable whining for replacement jobs when the mine is finished (that's life with non-renewable resources!).
Consider that some jobs are beneficial to the larger economy, while other jobs either add little or become a drag on the economy. If we put more people in prison, we could "provide more jobs" in the prison industry. But would that make us a better, smarter, wealthier society or economy?
Finally, I am most strongly opposed to the Pebble Mine proposal because it is either directly or potentially incompatible with too many other legitimate, established industries and resource uses, including commercial fishing, fresh and salt water sport fishing, tourism, subsistence living, and the value, tangible and intangible, of pristine wilderness.
Mining provides for a heck of lot more than jewelery and non essential luxury items. For crying out loud; your computer is full of mined materials, as is the car you drive to work, the wires that carry electricity through your house, the pipes that carry your drinking water, the stove or microwave you cook with, the school bus that carries your kids to school, and the bicycle you ride to your next Sierra Club meeting.
Price of gold going down? Not as long as environmental groups continue to be successful in supressing natural resource development and the Federal Reserve keep debasing the dollar.
As for mining jobs, indeed they may only last 10, 20, 30, or 40 years, but that's a heck of a lot longer and more lucrative than a seasonal, poverty-wage tourist industry job without benefits.
Finally, it's total bunk that mining has to be incompatible with wildlife or any other industrial use. Case in point is the Stillwater Mine in Montana, which is less than 50 air miles from Yellowstone National Park and literally straddles a blue ribbon trout stream(the Stillwater River). This mine, since it was established in 1987 continues to be the largest platinum/palladium sulfide mine in North America, provides about 1500 living wage jobs with full benefits, has a herd of Bighorn Sheep that winter on the mine property itself and in 31 years of operation HAS NOT KILLED ONE SINGLE FISH!!!!
Critical_reader:
Gold is also essential for the manufacture of telephones, televisions, medical equipment, and YOUR COMPUTER. It's not just jewelry and astronauts' helmets. Because of its physical properties (stability, conductivity, ductility) there are new applications all the time. Pebble would also provide copper and molybdenum-molybdenite. Don’t forget these industrial minerals.
I do see your point, and the mining industry needs to hear from people like you. Just make sure you're disseminating the whole truth. You would want that from the big mining companies.
My concern with the pebble mine is that the tailings ponds will be contained by earthen dams in one of the most geologically active places in the world. I find it hard to believe the dams will be engineered to withstand a massive earthquake. So it might be that the water quality and salmon habitat in the region will be fine as long as the earthen dams hold up, but it will only take that one big earthquake and all bets are off.
My other point of contention with this and all mining is Alaska is that, unlike the oil industry, the mining industry does not pay any royalties to the state on the minerals that are extracted. I understand that may be an issue for mom and pop mining operations, but I don't think it is right that large corporations can get rich by extracting Alaska's natural wealth and not compensate the state for it.
AKhusky
No compensation? 175 million to the state, 175 million to Native Corporations, 14 million to local government! This from 1 large and 3 smaller mines. How much does the fishing industry compensate the state for the wealth they extract? Or Tourism?
I am not informed enough on the mine it self but to look around the town of Fairbanks that was sluce (? spelling) mined a hundred years I can see what happens from irresponsible mining. There are very few trees in our valley that are over a hundred years old and that is one result from that mining. The same company doing the pebble mine project made the same claims about waiting and seeing right up until they had finished a mine in Canada and then left the community with the clean up. I will 'wait and see' what happens from the lawsuit filed against them for laying that cost on there community.
That being aside, I do know that if someone where to take a map of all the major natural resources that are in the state of alaska for gold, oil, zinc, and silver and then layed that right over a map that shows all of the parks and reserves in our state the borders would be almost identical. Why? Because the US is playing the game of he who has the most marbles at the end of the game wins and our state has a lot of marbles. The measures being proposed to stop the Pebble mine would cause future mines (that may or may not perform responsibly)barriers that could make them unprofitable or not even happen. We need responsible legislative actions coupled with information that is accurate in order to make this a success.
I agree the tailings ponds are a concern, AKhusky, but I'm willing to allow state and other non-biased civil engineers to fully evaluate Northern Dynasty's proposals before passing judgement on them. If they're not designed or built to take an 8.5, I won't support them either.
I agree that the state deserves just compensation for all petroleum and minerals extracted. That's a problem within our own state legislature however, not the mining industry itself.
The biggest problem with Pebble is it's location. SW Ak is a horrible place for a mine of this size and type. This property is most valuable left as is for fisheries and public recreation.
We need to show some foresight and protect these lands for future generations, our kids will find the incredible sport fishing opportunities in much shorter supply than gold.
Do we all want Salmon to be protected? Yes. De we all want the water to be clean? Yes. Do we all want our children to fish and provide for themeselves and their families for forever and ever? Yes.
But, do we want to pass the 'Clean Water Initiative' and pave the way for Northern Dynasty to sue the state for the full value of their deposit which is currently 500 billion dollars and increaseing every day? No, I don't think so.
Despite how you feel about the issues of mining. You must admit, the Renewable Resource Coalition has done a horrible job crafting such a punitive citizen's initiative.
There's got to be a better way.
I don't see how Northern Dynasty could sue the state, but that may just be my own ignorance. I could see Northern Dynasty suing for costs incurred to date, but it does not own the land or the resources that lie within it, so how can it sue for the cost of a deposit it does not own?
Akgold,
So I guess that means that the oil companies shouldn't pay royalties either. I think the out of state fishing fleets and tourism companies should pay the state for their profits as well. I believe that is the concept of a state income tax........
Northern Dynasty owns all the metal within their claim block.
When a mining claim is staked in the State of Alaska, all the locatable metals and minerals within the boundaries of the claim become the property of the person or company that staked the claim. Should the State of Alaska pass a law (the 'Clean Water Initiatives') that does not allow the owner of the claim to extract their minerals (a taking) they can then sue the State for the value of the minerals/metals lost. The Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article 8 - Natural Resources, paragraph 16. Protection of Rights, "No person shall be involuntarily divested of his right to the use of waters, his interest in lands, or improvements affecting either, except for a superior beneficial use or public purpose and then only with just compensation and by operation of law.
Even if Northern Dynasty was awarded a fraction of the full value I doubt the state could take the hit. There would be no more PFD, no more schools, no more infrastructure development, No more Denali Kid Care, no more student loans, no more Alaska State Ferry System, No more Alaska Railroad, nothing.
You may find a mine in S.W. Alaska to be scarry but I find the consequences of the 'Clean water initiatives' to be far more scarrier.
Mining companies pay royalties.
Mining Laws and Regulations, as contained in the Alaska Statues and Alaska Administrative Code, Section 38.05.212 (a) In exchange for and to preseve the right to extract and posses the minerals produced, the holder of a mining claim, leashold location, or mining lease, shall pay a royalty on all minerals produced from land subject to the claim, leashold location, or mining lease during each calendar year.
NFNP--Thanks for taking the time to educate those of us less knowledgeable on mining.
So it appears that as the law is currently written, mining activity can not be denied once a claim is staked, only the details of how the mine will operate can be modified. I'm not sure that is a smart way to go. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios in which it might be determined that a mine should not operate in an area. Then again, it could be argued that if a place is not suitable for mining, the area should be removed from the land base that is allowed to have mining claims on it. Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith in the government to be that proactive, or forward thinking.
The real problem here is with the name of the initiatives 'Clean Water'. It's a problem because the uniformed voter will simply think, 'Well, of course I want clean water, who wouldn't' and then will cast a vote for the inititiatives setting off a disasterous chain of events from which the state may never recover.
Please remember, passage of the initiatives will not only allow Northern Dynasty to sue the State but will also allow the owners of the Donlin Creek deposit to sue as well as any other owner of the tens of thousands of mining claims already staked across Alaska where a deposit has yet to be discovered.
Passage of the initiatives could allow all these stake holders to continue whatever exploration they desire, claim they found the 'big-one' and then simply sue the state, get a huge award, and never turn a spoon full of dirt or pay taxes, royalties, hire anyone or anything else that could possibly be thought of as a positive.
So, I must ask the question, 'Why would we do this to ourselves'?
There is nothing 'Clean' about the 'Clean Water Initiatives'. Infact they are just dirty tricks, smoke and mirrors, and, mark my words, possibly the very death of Alaska itself.
I have been to lake Clark and seen some of the surrounding areas. The experience exemplifies the word "Pristine." I have read the comments and opinions backed with structured reasoning and have come to the conclusion that if there is a mine, it must adhere to the strictest regulations seen in the mining industry! I really hope that this place is not polluted beyond irreparable repair in our lifetimes. By the way, I happen to like ALL the stuff made out of mined materials :)
There is a huge difference in denying an operator a permit to mine because their application/plans do not satisfy the regulatory requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Environmental Conservation, Mining Saftey and Health Administration, Department of Fish and Game Habitat Division, Division of Mining, Div