adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Ad Dollars

The Pebble Blog

The gigantic Pebble copper and gold prospect in Southwest Alaska is one of the touchiest topics in Alaska today.

In this blog, I'll track news that is significant or interesting about the Pebble project. I'll also try to generate discussion and information sharing about some of the claims and counterclaims about the project, and mining in general.

Please keep your comments courteous and on topic. If you violate the ADN comment policy, your posts will be deleted.

------------------------------------------------

About Elizabeth Bluemink ebluemink@adn.com

I've been writing about mining in Alaska since 2004 and without a doubt, it is one of the most interesting topics that I cover at the Daily News. I've been a newspaper reporter for the past 10 years. In the Deep South, I specialized in reporting about environmental conflicts and pollution cleanups. For two years, I covered commercial fishing, mining and logging in Southeast Alaska. In my current job as a Daily News business reporter, I write about mining, tourism, Native corporations and other businesses.

Ad Dollars

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: May 8, 2008 - 1:24 pm

So far, I've only noticed a few reports of contributions to groups created to campaign on the Clean Water initiatives.

So how are the groups funding all those pro- and anti-mining ads and how much are they spending?

The first reporting deadline for groups isn't until July 28, 30 days before the August election.

At least some of the primetime ads that we've been seeing on TV may not need to be reported, according to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

For example, the ads that the Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown are running appear to be "issue ads" that do not tell people to vote up or down on a particular initiative, according to APOC acting director Chris Ellingson.

The Shutdown ads clearly say the initiatives are bad. So if you don't say, "vote no" or "vote yes," you aren't campaigning?

* UPDATE * I talked to Willis Lyford with the Shutdown group and he said the group does plan to report the expenditures on those ads.

This was after Ellingson told me that only one of the Clean Water initiatives was certified. While initiatives are in court, "they are not really initiatives" and thus, contributions to the groups do not have to be reported, she said.

But we then looked on-line at the Division of Elections' initiative page, both Clean Water 1 and Clean Water 3 are listed as certified for the ballot in 2008. (Both of them are being appealed to the state Supreme Court, not just one of them, by the way.)

So wouldn't the groups need to report their expenditures after all?

This is pretty confusing, huh?

So what about contributions to the groups? Are the ones reported so far really the only contributions they've received?

Lyford said his understanding is that the contributions do not need to be reported until July 28.

There's also been some questioning about the Renewable Resources Coalition ads about Pebble and "clean water."

APOC recently issued an advisory opinion on what kinds of activities the pro-initiative Renewable Resources Coalition can do. The coalition has not registered as a ballot group. The group that has registered to campaign on behalf of the initiatives is called Clean Water Inc.

Here's the links to the contributions that have been reported so far:

https://webapp.state.ak.us/apoc/individ.jsp?filer=ALASKANS+FOR+CLEAN+WATER+INC&pagesize=20

https://webapp.state.ak.us/apoc/individ.jsp?filer=ALASKANS+AGAINST+THE+MINING+SHUTDOWN&pagesize=20

login or register to post comments

4 May 9, 2008 - 12:36pm | GrizzleyGal

Full Funding Disclosure

Much was made about the Pebble Partnership's $14 million budget for community engagement/public affairs. Now that the public is inquiring about the funding sources behind the anti-pebble campaign, it's only fair the RRC demonstrate equal transparency by obliging. The very ones who criticized Pebble for their budget are saying it doesn't matter how much it's costing to oppose it. Level the playing filed and show us the money.

May 10, 2008 - 12:44am | Sockeyemark

It's 140$$$ MILLION

Were I come from that's a Lot of money, don't think the fight against Pebble will spend that much,,, do you think so?
We’re talking about multi billion dollar company here, they could probably by our whole government off and never look back.Palms might be getting greased as we speak!! Well maybe not Vick's or Kott's......

May 13, 2008 - 10:01am | ThorZone

What??

Hey Sockeye, get your facts straight! $140 million is the entire Pebble Partnership operating budget for the year. That's for everything.....drilling, accounting, transportation etc.

May 13, 2008 - 11:16am | Sockeyemark

There are no straight facts

I have friends in Iliamna that Pebble rents their housing and nobody even stays in them. That is probably part of their 140 million operating budget. But in actuality it is just another form of bribery.
All this so called facts being thrown around on this site is just that, both sides spewing half truths.
The real truth will happen in August when voters head to the booth.
Vote yes on Clean water to protect your Bristol Bay Water shed......

May 13, 2008 - 1:06pm | asrcp9

wait a minute...

So you just want people to read these half truths from both sides, then vote the way you're voting? Why not learn more about the clean water initiatives?

As for you friend in Illiamna, I wonder how long Pebble is renting the housing, could it be for all summer? If so, then maybe Pebble rented the housing the entire summer so that their employees don't have to look for a place to stay during the tourist year. I think maybe they recognize that the area has a tourist population, and they are just being prepared for it.

Besides, what does this have to do with the Clean Water Initiatives?

I urge everyone to look at both sides of the issue, figure out how you personally feel about the issues that both of these sides are fighting for, and then decide for yourself, not because some guy on a blog said to vote one way or the other.

May 13, 2008 - 1:43pm | Sockeyemark

They've been renting several of their housing units for 3 years

Hardly anyone stays in them, but year round income for them.
That's all they are going to get off this blog.
They don't have to listen to me. But 60 thousand signatures for the clean water initiatives.....gives you a window of what people of Alaska think about mining in Bristol Bay, heck mining in general.

May 13, 2008 - 2:00pm | asrcp9

so 60,000 signatures that

so 60,000 signatures that were given to paid employees, not volunteers, who were paid by the signature validates a person's blind voting for the Clean Water Initiative. I'm pretty sure some of the people collecting signatures would say anything to get a signature to earn a few extra dollars, and it's not something you can't disprove, unless you stood next to each signature collector all over the state. The people getting these signatures weren't scientists, and some of whom didn't understand the permitting process in Alaska. I asked one of them at the 5th Ave Sky bridge during this winter and he never even read the initiative. And I think that if you questioned every single person who signed this paper, you will find that some of them just did it because they thought it would only stop Pebble Mine, and now they are questioning the validity of the intiative.

May 13, 2008 - 2:03pm | Sockeyemark

I gathered signatures and I wasn't paid

guess you are saying that there are 60 thousand ignorant Alaskans out there.
Well I may be ignorant but I'm voting for the clean water initiatives.
Nothing wrong with clean water and salmon in my book.
I think they'll taste better without the cyanide seasoning!!!

May 13, 2008 - 2:21pm | asrcp9

It's great to know that

It's great to know that people volunteered for this, but it's no secret that there were some people paid to get signatures.

I'm not saying you or anyone else who signed this is ignorant, but maybe they were misled. That can happen to anyone, I don't care how smart you are.

I'm not against clean water either, but I'm definitely for the process. I have yet to see a mine that is so detrimental to Alaska, to the point where the fish are dying and the water is filled with "cyanide seasoning." Give me examples of places in Alaska that has had these problems of fish dying, the water undrinkable, etc.

You say your for clean water, but funny thing is, the way the initiatives are written the drinking water from my home town is not allowed in any water ways. In fact most of the towns and villages drinking water in Alaska is not allowed in the waterways. So the drinking water in our state is ok for you and me to drink but not for fish to live in? You are not going to have perfectly clean, distilled water for fish to live in. There are minerals, organisms etc in all water in the wilderness, but there are levels that the water must maintain, which I haven't seen any data on mines not keeping to those expectations.

This is a tough decision for each individual Alaskan to decide, I just wish we could get clear answers on these initiatives. Maybe we'll get one when the courts have ruled on the wording of these initiatives.

3 May 9, 2008 - 6:13am | Sockeyemark

does it matter REALLY

who cares where the money is coming from, I for one am glad someone is stepping up to the plate to help out. Otherwise Pebble would be a foregone conclusion.

2 May 8, 2008 - 5:17pm | CingRed

Sound like the Renewable Resouces Coalition

are not coming clean. Let's see your expenditures!

May 8, 2008 - 5:36pm | pmjusa

See More on this subject

in this Fairbanks News-Miner article. Some pretty revealing info. here.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/20/take-time-dig-truth-mining-initiatives/?opinion

May 8, 2008 - 5:49pm | CingRed

Pretty ugly stuff

Gillam and Bernie (Pharmacy) have put up 10k to obtain exclusive use for their fly-fisherman buddies and clientele'.

Did you also know after five years when mining permits expire, DNR has to come in with a team of scientists/engineers and complete an environmental study in order for any permits to be re-issued? Mind you MSHA and EPA are consistently reviewing the mining sites.

May 10, 2008 - 12:50am | Sockeyemark

Pretty UGLY is what Pebble will leave behind

DNR,MSHA AND EPA have about as much oversite as Alaska's VPSO's do......and they could use some help too...

May 10, 2008 - 1:16pm | CingRed

Dead Wrong

MSHA & EPA can close your operation down in a heartbeat, obviously your dealings with these agencies has been quite limited.

Quite the opposite, and in case you didn't know, DNR is adding staff personnel.

May 10, 2008 - 7:48pm | Sockeyemark

On paper they can

On the slope we have to beg them to come, FedOsha, State OSHA even the EPA. We deal with
them all the time. I have lots of dealings with them.
They are Government bureaucracy at its finest.
DNR is adding staff Ohhhh more office space to fill
up.
Maybe if the IRS could get involved, then we might get
something done.
There hasn't been anything closed down in this state by any bureaucratic office.

May 10, 2008 - 8:44pm | CingRed

Which is it...

Government bureaucracy at it finest (sarcasm) or IRS get something done? Last I knew the IRS is a governmental agency.

I guess the Hazardous Materials Safety Administration had no decision on BP shutting down their pipeline last year. Just Google OSHA BP fines and you'll see the impact safety has on big oils decision to implement safety into their workforce, it's not a coincidence. That's the only reason why your begging them to come, it's because it defers liability. So you prove my point.

May 12, 2008 - 11:43pm | Sockeyemark

IRS; only ones that could get Al Capone!

Actually BP shut the pipelines down themselves, wasn’t any agency at all. Though they knew they would probably be forced to. We shut the pipelines down as soon as we knew of the leaks. And we are replacing them as we speak; though they didn't need to be replaced they just did the right thing in the public's eye.
The point to make here is that the oil companies make enough money to do it right and or make it right.
Not so with the mining outfits, one disaster and they’re gone leaving us with the mess.

May 13, 2008 - 5:53am | Sockeyemark

Also, the government agency that controls the pipelines "DOT"

More layers governmental bureaucracy, hardly a hands on approach. Mining has less oversight, otherwise how could Red Dog keep operating with being the nations number UNO polluter!

May 13, 2008 - 2:50am | pmjusa

pmj's nightmare

It’s late, there’s bogeymen in the closet, “disaster” & “mess.” And they’ve got my hip-boots! What to do?

May 10, 2008 - 6:49pm | rfn

Please.....

those facts are so confusing when minds are already made up.

1 May 8, 2008 - 1:26pm | pebble_blog

formatting problem

you'll have to scroll down to get the entire link for the second APOC filing

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Ad Dollars