adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Scorching letter

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.

Scorching letter

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: April 3, 2008 - 5:48 pm

This morning, a former federal fisheries biologist who has aligned with the anti-Pebble cause sent a letter to Alaska regulators demanding to know whether they have properly evaluated the impact of Pebble's exploratory drilling on fish streams.

Dr. Carol Ann Woody said "greater transparency by (the Alaska Department of Natural Resources) regarding permitted water use and water quality monitoring would further the public's trust."

Woody copied a lot of folks on her letter: everyone from Gov. Sarah Palin to Trident Seafoods.

The letter is attached below.

She has a laundry list of items she's concerned about, including: How much water is drawn out of streams by the exploration drill rigs during the winter when fish are incubating; whether anyone is assessing the impact of drilling on groundwater or local water chemistry; and if company or independent monitoring results are available to the public.

All of the permits and DNR's inspection reports are public records. The permits stipulate that Pebble rigs can withdraw a total of 130,000 gallons per day from the upper Talarik Creek drainage.

But the monitoring data done by Pebble consultants is not public yet. Some people in the Bristol Bay region and elsewhere are pressuring the mining companies to release their information now, but the companies don't plan to until they apply for permits to build a mine.

I did some checking today related to Woody's letter. Not all of the DNR staff who work on these matters were available. On the monitoring issue: One DNR staffer said the agency has asked Pebble to provide all of its stream gauge data, which would presumably bring that type of information into the public sphere.

Woody isn't the only one who has raised questions about the impact of exploratory drilling on fish in the Bristol Bay region. DNR staffers said they are taking a look at these questions and will provide responses.

Hopefully tomorrow.

Attachment	Size
Woodyletter.pdf	1.71 MB

login or register to post comments

2 April 4, 2008 - 10:40am | RedGold

Share Now, Apply Later

The Pebble Partnership should share the scientific data produced by their consultants now, not when they apply for permits. Anglo CEO Carroll is calling for more communication with locals ... sharing scientific data would be a great way to get the conversation started.

Otherwise, releasing data that took years to develop only when applying for permits is the equivalent of a document dump. No one will have the time to read and analyze all the data. Or maybe that is Anglo's goal?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 11:03am | rfn

Data?

I'd be happy just to have the veil of secrecy lifted concerning who the members of the warring advertising factions might be!

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 11:15am | pebble_blog

It isn't really a secret

Go here
https://webapp.state.ak.us/apoc/listactivity.jsp?filer=ALASKANS+FOR+CLEAN+WATER+INC

here
https://webapp.state.ak.us/apoc/listactivity.jsp?filer=CLEAN+WATER+III

and here
https://webapp.state.ak.us/apoc/listactivity.jsp?filer=ALASKANS+AGAINST+THE+MINING+SHUTDOWN

and click on "REGISTRATION"

none of the groups had met deadlines for filing reports, last time I checked with APOC.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 12:08pm | rfn

When the reports are not filed

(and I did check to see if you were right about deadlines) it sure smells like secrecy.

I'm curious about the group with the "L Street" address that's featured in some of the ads. Who is putting up the money? The "against the shutdown" is rather obvious but information about the actual donors is equally obscure.

On any issue with big advertising expenditures it's always nice to know the other interests of the heavy contributors. It gives a glimpse into what they're REALLY all about.

Surely there must be penalties for not meeting deadlines? Or is it still the laughable $15/day we heard about on other matters recently? (rhetorical question)

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 12:22pm | ebluemink

which ad?

Just curious. I haven't noticed the L Street address on ads, probably because of my small TV screen.
Also, I miss some of the ads because I don't watch a lot of TV.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 12:59pm | rfn

Set in tiny print;

visible only on a big screen.

I believe the address was: 500 L Street.

I've driven L street many times since seeing the ads (those highlighting the potential dangers of a dam in an earthquake zone) but have never dared slow down enough to check the address. Maybe when I have to go over that way in a week or so I'll walk over and see if I can find it and, if I do, see if "anybody's home".

If I've mis-remembered the street number, I hope I haven't sent people checking out somebody's home!

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 1:10pm | ebluemink

that's the Renewable Resources Coalition

I'm not sure about its APOC status.
It is a 501 c (6) non-profit corporation and thus does not have to disclose its donors.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

April 4, 2008 - 3:29pm | rfn

Which would seem to

equate to secrecy.

Gotta concede, they have vivid imaginations.

Overstatement leads to ridicule and to one's cause being invalidated in the eyes of many.

login or register to post comments | flag this »