adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Red Dog, anti-Pebble ads and the Legislature

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.

Red Dog, anti-Pebble ads and the Legislature

Posted by pebble_blog

Posted: April 9, 2008 - 2:58 pm

Here is a letter sent by House Speaker John Harris to Gov. Sarah Palin and copied to the House Resources co-chair Craig Johnson and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation chief Larry Hartig.

The letter references recent anti-Pebble TV and radio ads that claim that a river near the Red Dog Mine has become filthy and dirty because of the mine.

In the letter, Harris asks that the state's regulatory agencies cooperate with a hearing in the House Resources Committee to "determine the truthfulness of the information in the ad. If the information is accurate, I am asking the committee to determine if there is a problem with inadequate statutory protection, or a failing on the part of regulators to enforce the law."

The letter also says, "As adults, we can agree to disagree about whether mining is a good thing or not, but we cannot allow the truth to be debauched."

He also talks about the role of Pebble in generating bad vibes about mining, in general.

According to a House Majority spokesman, the requested hearing on Monday was canceled because of a caucus meeting.

FYI, Larry Hartig has recused himself from Red Dog matters because he previously served as an attorney for the mine. DEC's chief decision-maker on matters involving Red Dog is the deputy commissioner, Dan Easton.

Attachment	Size
Ltr to Palin on Kivalina ad.pdf	71.23 KB

login or register to post comments

7 April 13, 2008 - 9:20am | dunawaydmb

Speaking of lies and liars.....

I take exception to the TV ad claiming the Clean Water Initiative was a behind-closed-doors operation.

What could be more public than standing in public places, asking people to read it and to sign the petition if they supported it?

I participated in that effort and encourage follks to read before signing so they could form their own opinion. Not many folks did read it but the initiative was available to ALL.

April 13, 2008 - 5:45pm | rfn

None of the several

people who thrust the petition at me expressed any interest in having anyone read anything. In fact, one just snatched back the clipboard and shoved it at another person with a sort of snarl when asked for a copy to read.

In fairness, that was in Anchorage so it might have been OK to assume that anything that was for "clean water" might have something to do with tap water. Or to expect people to automatically so assume.

Nice to hear that at least one person was offering to let people read before signing. Or perhaps there was only one doing it improperly. Perhaps blinded by the need for speed and maximum number of signatures. Would be sad if just one person were poisoning the well, so to speak.

April 13, 2008 - 10:39am | batman2

not many folks did read it?

my guess is all that they were told was it was for clean water now theres the lie! and i saw this intitiave nutjobs bothering people outside the bookstore, some people apparently dont know how to say no and signed that garbage!

April 13, 2008 - 5:44pm | PuckFebble

Signature not the same as a vote

Signatures/petitions are only the methods to get a measure on the ballot. Then everyone votes for it if enough valid signatures are gathered. You can sign any petition and still vote against it.

6 April 10, 2008 - 7:24pm | Vitez

Lies and liars

If you've ever lived in the region close to Red Dog, you know who these people speaking out against Red Dog are. Their motivation is cash. The Wulluk is not polluted. Red Dog is not polluting the region. Go out there and see for yourself. Talk to local people who work there. There's all sorts of documentation you can read for yourself.

5 April 10, 2008 - 12:59pm | AlaskaNational

Please Read the Initiatives prior to speculation!

OK, so to those that seem to wonder if the clean water initiatives will affect existing mines with all current permitting, please read the initiatives. In section 1 of the Clean Water Initiative I (CWI), the Purpose is discussed, and says the following:

"Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to protect the statewide public interest in water quality by ensuring that Alaska's waterways, streams, rivers and lakes are not adversely impacted by new large scale metallic mineral mining operations..."

In Clean Water Initiative III (CWIII), section 1 reads like this:

"Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this act is to protect the statewide interest in water quality by limiting the discharge or release of certain toxic pollutants on the land and waters of the state, and by establishing management standards and other regulatory prescriptions to ensure that Alaska's waterways, streams, rivers and lakes, an important public asset, are not adversely impacted by new large scale metallic mineral mining operations and that such prospective operations are appropriately regulated to assure no adverse effects on the state's clean waters."

So here in plain view, for everyone to read, is what I would consider pretty convincing proof that the idea is to limit NEW MINES in certain sensitive areas where public interest in water quality applies. This is very straighforward, easy-to-read language. While the language of section 1 differs between CWI and CWIII, they both clearly say NEW LARGE SCALE METALLIC MINERAL MINING OPERATIONS. And this is in the section of the initiatives describing purpose! This is not as complicated as some would love for you to believe!

To further clarify, we should now again look at section 3, which reads as follows in CWI

"...does not apply to existing large scale metallic mineral mining operations that have received all required federal, state, and local permits, authorizations, licenses, and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act."

Now recall that CWI is for the time being, off of the table, and look at the language of section 3 of CWIII, which reads as follows:

When you consider what section 1 (THE VERY FIRST AND FOREMOST SECTION, DISCUSSING PURPOSE!!!!) and section 3 say combined, it should be very clear that initiatives are not going to affect existing large scale mines. The idea that the sponsors of these initiatives, who I have met and are as Alaskan as they come, are trying to take down large scale mining, is ridiculous. That is propaganda fabricated by a multi-billion dollar foriegn parnership whose motive IS NOT to come up to Alaska and create jobs.

If The Pebble Partnership gave half-a-shit about Alaskans, they would put some promises about protecting our salmon fishery in writing. They refuse to do that. While they are trying to demonize the local people trying to protect a multi-million dollar state resource (your back yard folks!), remember that they seem to be unable to do this on our terms.

And one more thing, dont be so easily fooled by their little PR stunt team, Sean Magee and Paul Henry. Dont forget that those guys are, well, PR guys. Here to give you a warm fuzzy about 2 companies, 1 with no mining experience, and one whose global mining track record reads like a rap-sheet.

April 10, 2008 - 3:07pm | ebluemink

not to belabor this point or anything....

but you fail to address the issue of new permits for "existing mines."

In order for it to be a true statement that Initiative 1 will not affect any existing mine, it also has to be true that any mine when it applies for new permits is no longer considered "an existing mine."

Right?

Otherwise, the sponsors' statements are in conflict with Initiative 1 (which is on the ballot even though it's still under litigation).

If I were to do an "accuracy in advertising" type post, this is probably one of the main things I would critique:

Miners' ads make it sound like the mines would be shut down immediately; the initiative sponsor's ads make it sound like any mine operating now would be able to go on blissfully forever without any impact from the initiative and anybody who says otherwise is lying.

April 10, 2008 - 3:49pm | AlaskaNational

That was addressed...

Hi,

That issue is addresses. I am a bit surprised you dont see my point, maybe I muddied my argument with volume of text.

The purpose (sec. 1) of the initiatives specifically says it is to apply to new mines. This is reinforced by the statement in section 3, which says the initiatives do not apply to currently permitted mines.

So it seems that the issue of existing mines is addressed twice in the initiatives. Ultimately the intent is identified in section 1 (purpose). If the very purpose is to affect new mines, how could it legally apply to existing mines?

If Red Dog applies for new permits, and expand their operation, do they become a new mine? While the mine may change, it is certainly not new. No, its still an existing mine, which according to the purpose statement in the CWI's, since it is not a new mine, is not within the effective scope of the CWI's.

Do you follow what I am saying? If the purpose of the CWI's is to affect only new mines, and furthermore says it cannot apply to existing mines, it would be an inconceivable legal stretch to try to apply it to an existing mine simply obtaining new permits.

April 10, 2008 - 4:13pm | ebluemink

i don't think it's inconceivable

but I suppose it's more useful to find out how lawyers in the executive branch and the regulatory agencies interpret the initiatives, since the agencies are the ones who would be implementing them at the behest of voters. I pulled my huge file on legal filings related to the initiatives a minute ago.
Here's a relevant part of Department of Law's Mike Barnhill's analysis of Initiative 1 of June 21, 2007: "we think that it is likely (my emphasis) that given the wording of the initiative, several existing projects may become subject to the initiative once existing permits and authorizations have expired thus requiring new permits and authorizations...."

Already, enough of this from me today. You all can keep discussing it, of course!

4 April 10, 2008 - 10:13am | ThorZone

Enviro's Ads are Deceptive

The anti Pebble people are trying to shut down mining across the state. It is the Responsible Resources people who brought this whole idea forward that Red Dog is the largest polluter in North America. The Responsible Resources group is the moost vocal anti-Pebble group out there, and as far as Red Dog is concerned, what they say about Red Dog is nothing but distortion. The things they have said about Pebble are not based in truth or facts either.

It is a fact that the water flowing down Red Dog creek below the mine is far cleaner than it was before the mine started operation. Red Dog has cleaned up Red Dog Creek from its natural condition of qualifying as toxic waste to a water body that now supports a natural fish run right to the mine and meets clean water discharge regulations. It is better now than it was in its natural state. That is not what the noise-makers trying to stop mining with the so called clean water initiatives are loudly proclaiming to all Alaska. They are simply lying, and they know it.

April 10, 2008 - 10:51am | PuckFebble

False Information

Wait a minute there Thor. Take a few minutes and go read the clean water iniatives. It states specifically that this will not effect existing mines. Right there in fine print. It is the against the shutdown people who are lying through thier teeth. They are claiming the initiatives were done behind closed doors blah blah blah.
When in fact a citizens iniative is the most public process there is. They twist the facts and spread misinformation. All the clean water iniatives do is put in paper and make enforcable all the promises they are already making. Wouldnt it seem fishy to you if you wanted a loan someone your entire life savings, and they wont sign a loan contract? That is what is going on here.
As for Red Dog. You can point out about fish that were or werent in place XYZ. The FACT of the matter is, that according to the EPA Red Dog is the largest producer of pollutants in the nation.
In 2002 alone they created more than 480million pounds of pollution with thier tailings. Nearly double the next nearest polluter. The twin creeks mine in NV had 290million lbs. The very nature of Pebble will cause potentially more. The ore concentration at RD is far higher than is found at pebble. Nearly a 1:1 ratio for ore to waste at Red Dog. It is 100:1 at Pebble.

April 14, 2008 - 10:00am | jcn7vc

Get your facts straight

I like the fact that you brought up Red Dog as being the largest polluter in North America, because that means you have no clue what it really means. It doesn't mean that Red Dog is hurting the environment at all. These numbers mean that Red Dog is, in fact, creating what the EPA deems as hazardous waste. It does not, however, state how much is realeased into the environment.

For 2006, for instance, EPA has measured a total of, are you ready for this amount, 24 lbs of hazardous material into the atmosphere. Overall, Red Dog has produces well over hundreds of millions of pounds of hazardous material, but only 24 lbs of that has been realeased. (http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/facility.htm) If you look further, that amount is from a trace amount of dissolved metals in discharge water, well below the EPA limits, and below levels that existed before the mine was there. Click on the link I put in there and Red Dog won't even come up on the top 100 sites releasing toxic material off-site.

So don't go saying that Red Dog is the largest polluter until you explain that creating hazardous material and releasing hazardous material are two totally different things. In fact, if you look at why they must report so much hazardous waste produced, it is because they define the Red Dog tailings as hazardous. This is because it has "touched" lead or has small amounts of lead present. Far less, mind you, than the concentration of the lead when it is untouched in the ground. However, once Red Dog touches it and extracts the lead, it becomes their waste. They must take account for it, and they have.

If any of you have any data that contradicts what I have shown here, please post it. I am tired of people talking about lots of numbers, but not showing where they get the numbers. At least I have posted EPA data showing that Red Dog is not releasing hazardous material into the environment.

April 10, 2008 - 11:52am | ebluemink

This doesn't seem accurate to me

There's a lot of conflict and controversy about Red Dog and its pollution. Laying that whole matter aside for a moment, Initiative 1 does appear to affect Red Dog in the future. The mine discharges its wastewater into a stream that runs into a drinking water supply for Kivalina, as per Section 2 of the initiative. The mine is applying for new permits. Section 3 of Initiative 1 says that it doesn't apply to existing large scale mining operations that have ALL their permits. I don't see any exemptions in the initiative for mines that have current permits but need new ones to continue to operate. Anyone disagree with my interpretation?

April 10, 2008 - 12:20pm | PuckFebble

I dont disagree

I didnt say anything at all about future permits. If Red Dog and others are factual in what they claim about thier water discharges and it being safe, then what is thier concern?

Also, in terms of having ALL the permits required, you should listen to former Senate President Halford in his statements about the permitting process in Alaska. If you are interest Miss Bluemink I will email you the audio. It is quite interesting the insight an otherwise pro-development person like Halford has to say about Pebble.

April 10, 2008 - 3:16pm | ebluemink

sure, send me the Halford thing

I thought someone was going to send me that audio but I never got it.

As for Red Dog, I don't get the sense that the mine's current water discharge permit, its draft revised water discharge permit or any other future discharge into Red Dog Creek would be allowable under Initiative 1 (which bans all discharges of certain things into certain water bodies), though it would seem to be allowable under Initiative 3.

They'd have to find a new place to discharge into....

But you should probably get a regulator's point of view on that. I'm just reading it as a laywoman.

April 10, 2008 - 6:08pm | PuckFebble

AlaskaNational covers it pretty well

In terms of the issues surrounding CW3. I am not a lawyer or a regulator, but am fairly legaliese literate.
Either way, I will get the audio clip to you.

Also, I am sure they can find another way or place to discharge thier water that would not be in violation.

3 April 9, 2008 - 7:06pm | batman2

no answers

once again no answers for a place with no real jobs no roads no way to sustain itself year round.roads arent going to get built unless there is some kind of devolpment,bristol bay continues to get more expensive to live every year and half the fishing companys that are up there are bankrupt and the ones that are around pay 50 cents a lb real livable wages! that area is going to need some kind of devolpment to survive or its just going to turn into a playground for the rich sportfisherman and headhunters!

April 10, 2008 - 8:12am | akharvester

keep it honest Batman2

The average base price for fish last season was well over .$60 a lb not including bumps, bonuses etc. Your comments would be more meaningful if your facts were straight. Many small local processors, especially looking ahead to this season, are not bankrupt rather, they can't supply the demand of fresh wild salmon to the hungry market. Bristol Bay can have it all as long as the habitat is kept intact. Wind, thermal, tidal, energy, clean water, and healthy seafood are all marketable commodities that will only become more and more valuable into the future.

April 10, 2008 - 2:34pm | batman2

fishing at 60 cents a lb

you do the math 60 cents alb 100,000lbs= 60,000 minus fuel minus nets minus all the new eqiupment the coast gaurd reqiures and then no taxes taken out, average crew share 3 to 5 thousand, real livable wages! and no more good old days where the cannery gave you anything you wanted before the season even started, if you live in bristolbay no way you can make a living off of fishing!

April 12, 2008 - 10:59pm | Sockeyemark

Most people I know caught well over 200,000 last year

And it's suppose to be better this year. Bristol Bay fishery will produce forever if we let it.....oh, the price so far is .78 a # and it looks like .90 before it's all over.. you do the math. Yes I live in Alaska

April 11, 2008 - 7:08pm | bswenson

fishing

Cali Fishery closed today, price is already rising and maybe you should join a boat with a better Captain, then you'll makes lots of Money.

April 11, 2008 - 7:47pm | batman2

every proccessor is going to get plugged up

youre going to be on limit and anchored half the summer!

April 18, 2008 - 12:41pm | Sockeyemark

Not the case

I fish for Leader Creek Fisheries and we were never shut down last year and don't plan on this year either.
With all the bad news coming out about farmed salmon Alaska's salmon industry has a bright future. Was one of the smartest things we'd ever done, to ban farm salmon in Alaska. Just as we should ban mining in the Bristol Bay watershed!!

April 10, 2008 - 1:41am | PuckFebble

Pebble isnt the answer

Firstly, you are incorrect about your numbers on the fisheries. They have increased capacity and the returns have been strong and will be for the forseeable future.
Secondly, the road they are talking about, they have said will not be for public use.
Prices are on the raise in the fishery. I wont deny that the fishery has seen tough times, it has also seen great times. There is considerable efforts and capital by individuals from the processors and fleetwide to improve quality. Slushbags, fresh frozen product and market conditions such as the collapse of the California fisheries this year and the American consumer being educated about the difference between famed and wild salmon, all add value to this resource that has been here forever and if taken care of, will always be here.
I live in Bristol Bay and if you want a job, especially a fishing job, you can find one. So I dont buy into that argument. Unless someone lives in Iliamna/Newhalen they will most likely work on a system similar to the slope, and will be away from home half the time. If someone is willing to work at this mine, why havent they applied for work in other mines or on the slope? They are going to be leaving home regardless. The unintended circumstances of that working situation is there.
Thirdly, the values of the mine and its life span are purely speculative and based on historically high prices of the metals they want to exploit. Copper has risen well over %400 since 2003. Those numbers wont stay that way, especially after they start bringing the amount of copper that is supposed to be there into the market.
The same is happening with gold.
Supply and demand anyone?
Dont think for a minute that this mine wont cease operations as soon as it drops below a profit threshold that the companies have deemed what is viable to themselves.
Lastly, this is about far more than salmon and jobs for you or I. This is about what will be there for our grandkids, and thier grandkids.

2 April 9, 2008 - 6:22pm | PuckFebble

I concur AlaskaNational

The reason Red Dog is brought up is to show the flaws in the permitting process as it exists then and still today.

I am tired of the pro-pebble people saying all of us against Pebble are enviro-nazis. Not the case at all. I dont mind the existing mines as long as they comply with the laws, hire locals, and have an adequate reclamation bond in place.
I say build the gas line, and open ANWR.
This isnt about rich lodge owners only. The residents of the Bristol Bay and especially the Nushagak are concerned, and rightfully so. They are being tasked with much of the risk of the project with getting none of the reward.
The way the mining companies are going about this is heavy handed. And the companies involved, especially Anglo American has a troubled track record in human rights, enviromental concerns and mining safety.
Why do we Alaskans want to deal with a company that has fueled conflict, trashed Africa and South America and talks about great mining safety progress when only 11 miners were killed in thier operations in the second half of 2007 alone. The lowest ever for them.

So they promise us they wont do it at Pebble. They told the locals there the same things. It is perfectly justifiable to them to move a village so they can mine the ground underneath it, as long as they give compensation to the locals.

This isnt about scare tactics against mining. This is ensuring our current resources are protected.
By the vigirous opposition to the clean water iniatives the mining companies alone goes to show me that despite thier promises not to kill salmon, they cant do it and they know it.

April 10, 2008 - 7:19pm | Vitez

Only weasels "concur"

That's a word for snake-oil salesmen.

April 11, 2008 - 7:07pm | bswenson

Funny you should use the word OIL

Sounds like your ready to Cutt'er down and Pave Paradise. I am not and perfer to keep paradise and say to hell with OutSide interests trying to ruin the Great Land.

I am all in favor of responsible development, this is NOT it.

1 April 9, 2008 - 4:30pm | AlaskaNational

Hypocritical Statement

John Harris is guilty of "debauching truth" when he suggests that those opposed to Pebble are trying to stop large scale mining. This is a common approach to scaring the public, suggesting that those who dont favor Pebble actually are opposed to all mining.

If one could actually turn off the TV (or radio) for 10 minutes, maybe it would be possible to read the Clean Water Initiative (I or III), and see section 3, which states "...does not apply to existing large scale metallic mineral mining operations that have received all required federal, state, and local permits, authorizations, licenses, and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act." This should help erase any confusion about whether or not the entire current large scale mining industry is under attack. Then again I know those who would accuse anti-Pebble folks of being against mining might not have the capacity to acknowledge (or read) the truth they so commonly refer to.

Before I digress much further, Harris's makes this following statement: "However, large scale mining is under serious attack by those who are using the Pebble discovery to scare Alaskans into stopping such mining. If the opponents of mining are determined to bring the issue to the front burner for Alaskans, they must be held to a standard of truthfulness."

So immediately he is grouping all of the Anti-Pebble folks in with the anti-mining folks. So he is either ignorant, or deliberately using the same tactics the Pebble Partnership is using to scare Alaskans into believing large scale mining is under attack. (And god forbid Alaskans move issues "to the front burner" as relevant as the development happening in their own back yard!) If there is anyone out there that still doesnt understand this, it takes about a second grade education to understood that you can support mining and be opposed to Pebble. I think Red Dog is most likely brought up by the Anti-Pebble group to acknowledge that mines in Alaska touted by the industry as flawless might actually have problems. So why wouldnt we expect the same from Pebble, especially considering it is in an area even more ecologically sensitive than Red Dog?

This letter from Harris seems like an obvious attempt to use his position to throw a line to the public. There is hardly a doubt that it was know that his letter would receive media attention, hence the statement in there seems more like a message to the public than to the Governor. Do you really think Sarah Palin needed a reminder about the economical significance of mining in Alaska? That whole paragraph, if not the entire letter, was meant for public eyes. Makes me wonder who Harris has been hanging out with during recess...

April 10, 2008 - 11:23am | jcn7vc

Problem with Initiative

The one thing you guys fail to realize with your initiative is that it does affect all mining in the state, current and future. You guys think that just because a mine is established, that they don't ever have to reapply for permits, authorizations, licenses, etc. This belief is false. In fact, all mining operations must continually apply for permitting. If this wasn't the case, a mine could obtain a permit and then do whatever it wanted as far as environmental stewardship goes. However, by making mining operations continually apply for the permitting, we are able to maintain that mines are continually improving the environment around them. If they are not, then their permits are able to be revoked. What the initiative plans to do is to stop giving permits to any metallic mining operation. It doesn't matter if it is an established operation started before the initiative passes. Because of this initiative, when they reapply for their permits, they will be declined because of this initiative.

This is the underlying reason why Red Dog is trying to stop the initiative. Right now, as it is written, it will stop all metallic mining operations around the state, whether you agree with doing that or not. Whoever wrote the initiative didn't realize that just because a mine is in operation doesn't mean they don't have to reapply for permits.

April 11, 2008 - 11:15am | rfn

Not so much that

they fail to realize the long-reaching effects.

More that they want YOU to not realize the long-reaching effects.

Even small operators, having read the initiative, know that they'll be out of business next time any permit comes close to expiration and needs renewal.

April 11, 2008 - 12:19pm | AlaskaNational

Long-reaching effects

Which long reaching effects do "they" not want you to realize? That the people of Alaska might sucessfully implement legislation that might protect our water in the future? Sounds like some real scary folks to me...

Once again, I am convinced you must not have read the initiatives completely, (or are deliberately trying to distort the truth). Small operators are not affected (small being defined in the initiatives as less than 640 acres, which is what, 1 sqaure mile?)

Additionally, renewing a permit does not equate to becoming a new mine, so your argument is wrong there as well.

Here is a link to CWI for anyone who cares to read it...

http://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/Clean_Water_Initiative_1.pdf

and CWIII too!

http://www.elections.state.ak.us/petitions/07wtr3.pdf

April 11, 2008 - 2:56pm | rfn

Having read them,

I am convinced that the folks I know who operate small mines should be (as they are) afraid. Very, very afraid.

But that's OK.

Alaska will be so much better off when all development is prevented and our state can become a pristine wilderness with countless minimum wage jobs as bearers for eco-tourists.

Of course most of those will be college students from out of state and that's good because they won't be eligible for the PFD.

If others elect to read, pretend you're the owner/operator a small mine while you read.

April 10, 2008 - 12:10pm | PuckFebble

Last paragraph

If what they say about Red Dog and Pebble and all the other large mines in Alaska is true then this wont be a hurdle at all.
I cant tell you how many times I have heard Sean McGee and Paul Henry tell large groups of people that Pebble wont pollute our waters. Well if thats the case, lets go ahead and put that in writing.
Red Dog is already in litigation for not meeting thier promises. Thankfully there is not the commercial fisheries there that are found in BB.
The clean water iniatives come as a result of mining companies throwing massive amounts of money around to avoid further regulation. I bet if HB 134 were to pass, which is very specific to BB, the CWIs would die quickly.
So if NANA and the others were smart they would be encouraging thier political contacts to push that bill through in an effort to save themselves.
But again, this is about taking the promises they make and turning it into a law.

April 9, 2008 - 4:38pm | ebluemink

fyi

this wasn't distributed to the media. I had to ask for it.

April 10, 2008 - 12:10pm | AlaskaNational

I figured...

Hi Elizabeth,
I am quite confident that certain materials (such as Harris's letter to Palin) do not need some variety of press release to guarantee it might find some public exposure, as in this case here. That being said, nice snag...how did you know to ask for this?

April 10, 2008 - 12:56am | markaniver

let the facts speak for themselves

we can see what side Mr Harris is on. There are many Alaskan's against Pebble but not against mining, I am for one.
The industry had been under the radar until Pebble came along. So now let the facts speak for themselves.
If they can do it without changing the watershed of Bristol Bay, have at it.
If not, let the millions of salmon continue to run for generations to come....THE REAL RED GOLD....

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Red Dog, anti-Pebble ads and the Legislature