adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Baseline data to be released soon?

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.

Baseline data to be released soon?

Posted by pebble_blog

Posted: April 21, 2008 - 4:43 pm

I'll try to flesh out this blog post when I'm off deadline, but for now, I'm attaching a letter from Anglo American chief executive officer Cynthia Carroll responding to recent requests from a Alaska Native coalition representing some Bristol Bay village corporations.

Here's one interesting part of the letter:

"You ask to have access to all scientific data: publication of raw data, in the absence of context and analysis, can (and I understand has in the past) lead to misunderstandings and even deliberate misinterpretations in a context in which there are interests whose clear purpose is to discredit the Pebble Project. However, I believe you are right that Pebble should make a greater effort on this front and can therefore confirm that the Partnership will institute a process of baseline data release on a discipline specific-basis. To this end, the Partnership expects to issue a detailed schedule for the progressive release of our environmental baseline data later this month."

She doesn't actually say how soon the Partnership will begin releasing its data.

The Carroll letter is attached. I'm still trying to find the Nunamta letter in my archives...

Attachment	Size
Carrollletter.pdf	147.34 KB

login or register to post comments

6 May 1, 2008 - 1:12pm | ThorZone

Pebble Data

To my knowledge no project like Pebble has released the raw data before the required regulatory filings are complete. Based on other projects in Alaska and in other parts of the world, it seems to me Pebble is being more open about their project than any other mining projects I am familiar with.

Clearly Pebble is under a microscope even before the project begins. How many people really think any company making as large an investment as Pebble would do so on the basis of cooked data. There are just too many people watching this project for them to do anything but play it straight. The raw data is based on soil, water, drilling and air samples. With the possible exception of drilling data, any yahoo with a bucket and a shovel can get the same samples and do their own research.

The regulating agencies (both federal and state) will also do their own spot checking of the data. Think about the improbability of success of improperly influencing regulators from Iliamna to Washington DC. Someone along the way will break the story and that would be it for Pebble. There is far too much risk in it for Pebble to do anything other than play it straight.

Based on what I have seen from the anti-Pebble people so far, it seems to me that no matter what Pebble does it will be "wrong", "incomplete" "corrupted" or whatever other bomb they can throw in Pebble's direction. No matter how they do it this project will not be an easy one to complete.

May 3, 2008 - 7:37pm | Sockeyemark

I want what your smoking

There's and old saying "Figures lie and liars Figure"

It's all about the Benjamin's, greed makes the world go round.

Don't give us the Holier than Thou stuff

5 April 23, 2008 - 10:53am | fskc18

saw a cloud in the sky yesterday

it's pebble's fault!

4 April 22, 2008 - 2:57pm | FreshWater4all

Data integrity

It is my understanding that the Pebble Partnership has drawn up a Quality Assurance Plan Program draft, but that draft has not yet been approved for use. My question then, is whether any of the data they collect is actually falsifiable and defensible? If they aren't conforming to the rules and guidelines EPA, DNR, DEC and other agencies set, then they really don't have much credibility. If the QAPP is expected to get rubber stamped sometime in the near future, then I think a case can be made for agency capture. Either way, the baseline data should be collected not by the Pebble Partnership and its self-selected environmental contractors, but by a truly independent third party that has legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the state and the stakeholders in the region.

3 April 22, 2008 - 9:50am | AKFlyFishGal

Pieces Only Tell Part of the Story...

The excerpt of Cynthia Carroll’s letter was unrepresentative of the letter as a whole, which I found quite open and forthcoming. Just prior to the posted excerpt, she says “Detailed annual study plans, including filed study protocols, are already available on the Pebble Partnership website. Beyond that, Pebble’s baseline scientific studies are still ongoing in virtually all disciplines. Pebble’s scientific work has not yet been completed and the process of collation, quality control, assessment and analysis of all data will not be finalized until much later this year at the earliest.” Nevertheless, Pebble’s promise to issue a detailed schedule for release of environmental baseline data this month is testament to their commitment to stakeholder outreach and a direct response to their request.

April 22, 2008 - 11:50am | ebluemink

the reason this section of the letter was highlighted

is because sharing of data has been a topic of interest for readers of this blog and has also been one of the major demands from the Pebble opposition.

so to me, at least, this is a little more newsworthy than the baseline study protocols that have been on the Pebble Partnership's Web site for at least the last few months, if not longer.

it's also interesting because it might or might not be unusual for a company seeking permits to publish its data before a study is completed. (still not sure if that's exactly what the Partnership intends) I'm not sure.

I queried a environmental-oriented list-serve about this last point and so far, no one has offered me an example. Even many academics aren't very good at sharing their data, one professor pointed out.

2 April 21, 2008 - 6:37pm | mckittre

Context and Analysis

"publication of raw data, in the absence of context and analysis, can (and I understand has in the past) lead to misunderstandings and even deliberate misinterpretations"
Misinterpretations in her words - perhaps just different interpretations than Anglo would like to hear.

What Anglo appears to be saying is this: The conclusion a scientist draws from raw data depends on that scientist's perspective

This is absolutely true. Scientists can draw very different conclusions from the same set of numbers - and their conclusions can be influenced by their initial biases.

This is also exactly why that information needs to be public. So we can hear the conclusions not just from those scientists employed by Pebble, but from as many different scientists as possible.

The only way science can approach the truth, and the only way it ever has, is by an open sharing of data, where people of all perspectives can disscuss the implications.

If the data implies what Pebble Partnership believes it does, they have nothing at all to lose.

Erin McKittrick, Ground Truth Trekking

April 21, 2008 - 11:20pm | pmjusa

My Interpretation

of what she said is that while those whose clear purpose is to discredit any development at Pebble may have the right to their own opinion, they don't have a right to their own facts. And those facts need to be released in a manner that provides the proper context. Those against the mine have and will again twist whatever facts they can obtain to achieve their ends. Hopefully the Pebble Partnership can mitigate that deceptive strategy.

April 21, 2008 - 9:18pm | Sockeyemark

Their data will look good I'm sure

DO you think they're going to release something that says "LOOKS LIKE WE CAN"T DO IT". No, it will be minimalized and the solution will be simple.
We just need to make up our minds as ALASKANS, do we want this mine or do we want salmon.Where it sits
you will not have both. They have found soo much ore that when they start digging they will not stop. It's the way it works in this business. And when they leave our kids will deal with the mess.....
Take a Stand!!

April 23, 2008 - 10:52pm | njalo99

take a stand

ok I'll stand for Pebble right now, I know the work will be difficult, but the rewards for everyone will be worth it. Take a min Sockeye, and check all the facts before negating everything You THINK Pebble Might Do. I could get hit by a truck next week, doesn't mean i still won't walk to the store, I could have a minor mishap with a wildlife animal...I.E bear, doesn't mean i still won't hike......life is worth taking chances and working for what you believe but Not at the exspense of everyone else.

May 10, 2008 - 12:34am | Sockeyemark

Your Standing almost ALONE

Bristol Bay sockeye run,,,,,,,Don't screw it up,,,,,NO CHANCE,,,,,,Vote for the Clean Water Initiatives

April 26, 2008 - 7:13am | Sockeyemark

Your right, not at the expense of Bristol Bay industry

Several thousand jobs are in danger if the Bristol Bay salmon run dwindles...... I take a chance every year when I go out to fish in Bristol Bay. Our prices are on their way up. Fish from Alaska are believed to be from pristine waters of Alaska, Pebble Mine will change that mind set therefore tainting all of the seafood from Alaska.
I've got a new mantra " Fishermen Against the Fishing ShutDown"..............................

April 21, 2008 - 7:20pm | pebble_blog

but also...

it is a bit unusual for a company or academic researcher to distribute its/his/her own raw data for collective public review before publishing a study.

that early data sharing *seems* to be on pending for the Pebble project goes to show the extraordinary amount of public interest and concern about the project.

1 April 21, 2008 - 4:55pm | PuckFebble

looking forward to it.

I eagerly await the information they release. I wonder if they will release the information from thier stakeholder engagement with the communities they have displaced in Africa and South America.
Mrs Carrol needs to realise that with AA's efforts at Pebble, that thier entire track record comes into play.

DeBeers conflict diamonds anyone?

April 22, 2008 - 8:31am | rfn

Are you saying

DeBeers owns a stake in Pebble?

Source?

April 22, 2008 - 10:57am | PuckFebble

Corporate shell game

Anglo American owns %45 of DeBeers. It is no secret.
Anglo owns %50 of Pebble. Pebble is a single mine, DeBeers is the largest diamond company in the world.
It is a source of massive profits for AA.
So, I would say yes.

May 4, 2008 - 9:39am | jcn7vc

WHAT???

DeBeers is 45% owned by AngloAmerican. This does not mean that every place Anglo invests in has diamonds in it and is going to send DeBeers to run it. They are a company that believes in diversifying, obviously. They own coal mines and intustrial minerals companies as well, but that doens't mean they are going to be mining that at Pebble.

DeBeers has nothing to do directly with Pebble, what are you people thinking?

May 4, 2008 - 5:51pm | PuckFebble

Anglo American

The point being of me mentioning the ownership issue, is that AA is a huge corporation, as Mark points out. I mentioned DeBeers because there was a time when thier hands were thick in civil wars in Africa. It wasnt until 1999 that they could finally certify being conflict diamond free. But there is plenty more than DeBeers. Angloplat, thier platinum mining arm has displaces tens of thousands of people from thier tribal lands, provided poor water quality and have a very poor safety record.
Thier Rustenberg mine along had 16 miners die on the job in 2007 alone. A total of 29, for all thier mines. This is a lower number for them.
My point in raising awareness about this sort of nasty aspect of mining is that AA plc is among the worst mining companies when it comes to not only the safety of thier workers, but also the compensation payed to the families of those workers.
Just do a google search on it and look for yourself.

May 4, 2008 - 1:51pm | Sockeyemark

Think you've had too many of De Beers today!!

Don't think that's what they are saying, AA is just a huge conglomerate. Got their hands in everything, gold in your mouth to the diamond on your wife's hand....
Probably Da beer your drinking too....

April 23, 2008 - 11:59am | rfn

So there's some chance

the test borings might have come up with diamonds, too?

In retrospect, not impossible. Though geology suggests that if there are any the might be industrial grade rather than gem grade. That would seem a dis-incentive since that sort of diamond is most usable in drilling for oil or gas and, goodness knows, there won't be any of THAT going on much longer as environmental rules are strengthened.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Baseline data to be released soon?