adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Miners still nervous about initiatives

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.

Miners still nervous about initiatives

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: May 23, 2008 - 6:36 pm

Here's a statement that came today from the Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown.

After months of posturing in state superior courts, an extensive media campaign, and just days prior to the Supreme Court reviewing the legality of the CW1 and CW3, the initiative proponents have asked Lt. Governor to drop CW1 from the ballot. This measure had already been declared unconstitutional by the state Attorney General's office and a Fairbanks superior court judge. In dropping the measure, the proponents admitted that it had unintended consequences. Despite their claims to the contrary, they are acknowledging that this initiative was overly broad and would have imposed restrictions that would have shutdown Alaska's large metal mining industry.

At this time, it is unclear whether this request to halt the legal proceedings on CW1 is within the purview of the Lt. Governor or the Court to grant. The decision on what will happen to CW1 may remain with the Alaska State Supreme Court. Given that there is still a real threat that CW1 could be placed on the ballot, AAMS will continue its campaign against this dangerous and deceptive measure.

The status of CW3 also rests with the Supreme Court. The Attorney General's office has written that, if CW3 were to be interpreted according to its plain meaning, it would have the same effect as CW1 and would be unconstitutional. Instead, the Attorney General has expanded the interpretation and construed CW3 to be not significantly different than the existing statewide water quality standards. The proponents incorrectly claim that this measure will not effect existing mines and will only serve to establish a regulatory structure that protects water and salmon. This begs the question of why the measure's proponents would go through an extensive campaign solely to ask voters to affirm existing standards. Under one legal interpretation of CW3, it would prohibit any release of water, similar to CW1, and would have the same drastic consequences: a mining shutdown.

The only way the conflicting interpretations of CW3 can be resolved is when the Alaska Supreme Court reviews this measure and offers its interpretation sometime in late June. The Court's ruling will provide clarity for the voters and enable the industry to evaluate the likely impact of this measure. Until then, AAMS will continue to inform Alaska voters of the potential risks and dangers from CW3.

login or register to post comments

5 June 9, 2008 - 8:11pm | bspederson

shut down everything

all you liberal idiots are going to pass so many initiatives, laws, and file lawsuits against any type of growth or progress in this country and pretty soon there will be no jobs, food, or warm places to live in 20 years and eventually mankind will kill each other off but at least the liberals who don't believe in mining or guns should be pretty easy to take out at 100 yards.

June 12, 2008 - 6:08pm | Sockeyemark

A 100 yards!!, what a chicken

There will be plenty of food though from the Bristol Bay Sockeye Run

June 14, 2008 - 11:00am | rfn

Only

until all fish are properly protected from human predation.

Mr. Gillam....TEAR DOWN THAT LODGE!

It attracts human predators to pillage the freedom-loving fish of Alaska!

June 14, 2008 - 12:29pm | Sockeyemark

This may be news to you, but those fish go up the rivers to die

every year, millions of them can you believe that!! Probably best if we catch a few of them before they commit solmoncide....

June 14, 2008 - 2:04pm | rfn

And deny them their rightful

resting place?

So wrong! So very, very wrong!

Those fish die that their bodies might decay naturally and continue to feed the lower parts of the food chain.

When they are plucked from their home and torn apart by predatory humans the cycle cannot complete.

Besides, their souls will come back to haunt!

June 14, 2008 - 3:03pm | Sockeyemark

The Mine will take millions from the food chain when the rivers

dry up and the lakes removed, Mr. Gillam and a few dozen fishermen catching some rainbows hardly compares to the devastation the mine will bring down on the area.
I have spoke with the Ravens on this and our souls will be spared, except for the miners who mine the Pebble Mine that is.....

June 14, 2008 - 5:55pm | rfn

If they really caught only rainbows!

The wonderful kind of rainbows that brighten the sky during a gentle rain.

But, alas, rainbows, salmon, and (some might hope) northern pike. All victims of man's insatiable hungr.

Mr. Gillam: TEAR DOWN THAT LODGE!

June 14, 2008 - 8:01pm | Sockeyemark

Catch and Release for most of Bob's fishermen

unfortunately Pebble Mine will just release: a slew of toxins into the environment, taking it with it millions of salmon.....your right so very wrong

June 14, 2008 - 8:08pm | rfn

Catch and release!

Injure and abuse, the more likely.

No fish should ever be torn from the warmth of its' home for the amusement of sociopaths!

Mr. Gillam: TEAR DOWN THAT LODGE!

(Hey, it worked when Reagan spoke similar words about "that wall".)

June 14, 2008 - 8:52pm | Sockeyemark

If the mine goes in he just may tear it down

then again there will be others tearing down their homes who live out there too. Might as well live in Anchorage than live in Nondalton or Pedro Bay with the mine influencing your once peaceful lifestyle.

June 15, 2008 - 8:25am | rfn

Especially since

Nondalton remains isolated, without a bridge. Wonder why!

A bridge that might be built with salvaged (think "recycled") materials....

Mr. Gillam: TEAR DOWN THAT LODGE!

Allow the actual residents of the area recycle rights so they might have an opportunity to build, for themselves, the bridge they need.

June 15, 2008 - 9:30am | Sockeyemark

Many villages are isolated in Alaska, I would say most of them

The only ones they are isolated from Illiamna? They both have runways, not sure the need to have a bridge is really all that important. Then you have to maintain it, inspect it.
It's really more of a want than a need. That bridge has been talked about since the 70's, guess if it was really needed it would have been put in. The same kind of talk has been going on in Naknek forever about the need for a bridge over the Naknek river connecting North and South Naknek.
They have a cheap winter bridge for part of the year!!

June 15, 2008 - 11:42am | rfn

So,

denying one village the bridge they need is OK because other villages are in similar situations!

That Nondalton has been denied a bridge since the 1970's does not make it right that they should be denied a bridge forever!

Not when the materials are so near to hand to allow it be built while recycling! Of course when that unnecessary lodge is torn down there might be enough recyclable material to build not only the one bridge but perhaps enough for at least one more!

Save the salmon; outlaw fishing entirely! Just as prohibiting mining might contribute a tiny bit to their salvation a total ban will really help ensure fish thrive!

4 June 3, 2008 - 12:33am | pmjusa

No net loss plus a paycheck

for many in the region has to be some benefit for local commercial, subsistence, and sport fishing community members. As I’ve said before, people need economic security to even begin to think ecologically. That will be one great positive effect on the fishery.

Since you are an interested stakeholder, and a creative thinker with a potential oriented mind, I suggest you contact Margaret King directly at the Alaska Community Foundation. She is the independent facilitator for the Pebble Fund that the Pebble Partners set up to support programs that enhance the fishery.

Guiding principles for The Pebble Fund include:
- It should provide financial support to new or existing community-led initiatives, rather than
developing and managing its own programs.
- It should support programs that enhance the health of Bristol Bay fisheries (commercial,
subsistence and sport) and the social and economic contributions they make to local
communities, as well as those that enhance the social and economic sustainability of
local communities.
- It should give priority consideration to initiatives led by Bristol Bay residents and
communities, rather than those conceived and managed outside the region.
- Funds shall not be used for advocacy purposes, including initiatives in support of or in
opposition to mineral development in Bristol Bay.

I have some ideas of my own, such as putting a mine at the headwaters of Squaw Creek in Dillingham, but that might be met with some skepticism (I jokes). Besides, I don’t know of any mineral deposits in that region aside the high iron content. However, there is good (although largely ignored), evidence that fish populations have increased and are healthy below several mine sites in Alaska. I’d sure eat ‘em.

One poster here noted the conditions for salmon in Squaw Creek were improved by Fish and Wildlife having cleared some obstacles, etc. to make for a more viable run. There are many such streams in the region where similar work such as improved oxygenation, stream cover and spawning channels would improve conditions without even having to reintroduce salmon. Of course F & W would have to be willing to collaborate.

There are probably at least as many ideas for improving the fishery as there are people involved in it. Feel free to share your inventive, creative solutions with all. Oh, and vote NO on the “Clean Water” mining shutdown initiatives that seek to stifle those solutions.

June 3, 2008 - 6:53am | demorgan33

Crossing fingers

and hoping to lessen the impact is NOT enhancement. This is an absolute load of propaganda garbage. Bristol Bays runs can NOT be enhanced by this mine!! We have the best run in the world here and there is no reason to put it at risk. We don't need solutions to problems that will never exist. I repeat, THE FISHERY IS HEALTHY, WE AREN'T LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION TO A CURRENT PROBLEM, WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID ONE. The fish are healthy and the runs are strong. How would A "NO" vote on the Clean Water initiative stifle solutions, when it was written to prevent the problems that you claim need solving. Your argument defies logic.

June 3, 2008 - 12:48am | Sockeyemark

Not taking the bait

I can't be bought that cheaply....They're buying your vote folks.
The best way to enhance the area would be for ND and AA to pack up and go home. They've already created a mess with their core drilling program....
Oh , and Vote Yes for Common sense Clean Water

3 May 28, 2008 - 9:57am | ebluemink

Thanks folks...

for keeping the blog highly entertaining while I was off for a few days.

2 May 27, 2008 - 8:59am | lotsofpipe

That guy Gillam and his Fishermen Cronies

Have killed more fish than the Pebble mine ever will. I wish I was a billionaire Permanent Fund Manager too so I could take the money I get off managing Alaska's oil wealth to shut down Alaska's Mining industry. Am I the only guy around here that sees a huge Conflict of Interest?

May 27, 2008 - 10:47am | Sockeyemark

Yes you are the only one who sees this

Nobody is shutting down mining, just Pebble.

May 29, 2008 - 7:46am | NoBob

Here's a question

that I got a hoot out of--asked at the Anchorage Democratic Club when Gillam's hack, Art Hackney, spoke: (to paraphrase) 'you say this is only about Pebble, but why do all your ads attack Red Dog?' Errr . . . figure that one out. There is an answer and it isn't pretty.

May 29, 2008 - 9:39am | PuckFebble

Ask the Partnership...

Why they keep touting that particular mine in thier presentations. But please do share with us what Mr. Hackney said in response. I am curious as is probably everyone else. What was the answer?

May 30, 2008 - 9:05am | NoBob

Why is this about Red Dog?

I wasn't at the meeting myself, but heard about it. My understanding is that Hackney choked on this one and didn't have a real answer. The underlying fact is that Red Dog is a major initiative of NANA and a major Native employer in Northwest Alaska. All-in-all, these initiatives are the most anti-Native legislation we have ever seen in Alaska.

Now I will tell you the not-so-pretty story about why this is about Red Dog. In December, before the initiatives were filed, Gillam sent his henchman, Rep. Jay Ramras, to an Alaska Miners Association Meeting to tell them that if the industry didn't disavow Pebble, then Gillam would take them down with initiatives. A bold and bald threat plain as can be--reported in the Daily News, News Miner, and recorded on tape.

What we are seeing is exactly what Gillam treatened. He is going to take down the industry--Red Dog included--to get the industry to agree to kill Pebble. It isn't going to happen.

So all you anti-Pebble-pro-initiative cheerleaders are nothing but pawns--less than pawns really--in Gillam's grand scheme to keep the neighborhood of his vacation home "pristine."

This is dirty stuff. Dirtier than the Pebble Mine will ever be. That's the reality of it.

May 29, 2008 - 11:43am | asrcp9

The partnership is having

The partnership is having include Red Dog Mine in their presentation because the RRC brought it up first in their ads earlier this year. They are having to respond to the accusations of the RRC

May 29, 2008 - 8:24pm | PuckFebble

Interesting to note

That the NDM folks have been talking about Red Dog for longer than RRC has. I sat in a presentation by NDM in Dillingham in 2005 and it was mentioned. Then last summer at a similar meeting, I asked specifically for the names of a few mines where fisheries and mining coexist. They said Red Dog, Fort Knox, and Gibraltor mine in BC.
Red Dog and Fort Knox dont have commercial fisheries to speak of and Fort Knox hasnt been mentioned by them since they had thier cyanide leak in 2007 either. As for Gibraltor, it sits near a Fraser River trib...not in any similar location at headwaters like Pebble, but either way, the Fraser salmon run has been devastated by large scale industrialization to a fraction of what it was.
So, I resectfully tell you, you are incorrect on your notion about the RRC starting this debate. It was NDM.

May 31, 2008 - 1:08am | pmjusa

Your stack of straw will never run out.

There’s no needle in that haystack for you to jab with, never was.

The Frazier salmon run was predicted to collapse back in 2004, but not for the reasons you cite. Then in March of 2005 a report by a "fisheries committee said spawning levels were so low in 2004 that the commercial, recreational and aboriginal sockeye salmon fisheries on British Columbia's Fraser River could be wiped out in 2008.

The report blamed a failure by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to crack down on sockeye poaching in the region and implement previous recommendations designed to save the stock, as well as unusually warm water temperatures in 2004."

Just another of many subjects that have little bearing on the mining shutdown initiatives issue.

May 31, 2008 - 2:23am | PuckFebble

Interesting to note:

Pebble, if located in BC would never be permitted. The Canadian laws, especially those in BC would not allow it, nor would the land been designated as available to large scale mining there. Matter of fact, BC laws prohibit destroying fish, specifically salmon through other methods than fishing. There is no question, even through the vast scientific fisheries data that Pebble has apparently collected that fish habitat would be destroyed in this mine, as per thier evidence. I find it quite telling that in most states and provinces in America and Canada, that Pebble would simply be a non-starter for the permitting process.
But what the Fraser does show, as well as the Columbia, Snake, Sacramento, and Salmon rivers show, is that large scale development and salmon do not co-exist well.

May 31, 2008 - 10:15pm | njalo99

lol

another reason why Everyone will think Canada will always take a second seat to AMERICA.....

May 31, 2008 - 12:18pm | rfn

Regulation of fishing

has proven ineffective. Look at California, Washington and Oregon. They tried regulation and it FAILED. The only way we can be sure to have fish for future generations to marvel at is the same approach those states took.

SHUT IT DOWN.

Until we close ALL of Alaska's waters to the senseless slaughter of fish they'll always be at risk.

No, regulation doesn't work. It's proven.

Same school of thought as wants to shut down mining...get used to it!

May 27, 2008 - 2:17pm | rfn

If we want to "save the salmon"

It's not just Pebble that must be shut down.

It's FISHING that must be terminated. Halt the senseless slaughter by rod, reel, net and, yes, even predatory bears.

Salmon are more intelligent than most people!

May 27, 2008 - 10:46am | jcn7vc

Check Out His Past

Not only did he get rich off oil companies, but he held lots of Teck Cominco stock. Now that he is a billionaire, he can preserve his precious fishing waters by using Red Dog and Teck Cominco as examples, even though they helped make him rich.

Thought this was interesting: http://www.bob-gillam-cant-buy-alaska.com/

May 27, 2008 - 2:18pm | rfn

How do Permanent Fund managers

get replaced?

1 May 23, 2008 - 7:09pm | Sockeyemark

Hail to Clean Water 3

One thing else clean water 3 will do is let the State Of Alaska know just how important clean water and salmon are to Alaskans, Dam Important

May 31, 2008 - 10:13pm | njalo99

yup

it is interesting to read, that Only mining company's will be regulated to this Standard. When Every town, city and subsidy of the city has a WATER TREATMENT PLANT. Do You know where your water comes from????? do you trust them????, or is it blind faith that guides you???? Do you know Where Your Clean Water comes from????.....open your eyes Alaskans....we shouldn't be this easily fooled.......Read and decide for yourselves.

May 27, 2008 - 6:28pm | njalo99

all hail

clean water is one thing Mark, shutting down My industry for yours is just stupid

May 28, 2008 - 6:01am | demorgan33

No one is shutting down your industry

According to all the hype, no one works on Pebble yet, everyone is just waiting for a magical plan to be submitted. The CW3 won't effect existing mines, so if you are already employed, your job is safe. Most that I have talked to understand the benefit of mining in Alaska, unfortunately the Pebble project puts an existing, renewable resource at risk. If this particular mine can't go forward living up to the clean water standards put forth then it should be tabled until a clean method of extraction can be found. There is a lot at stake for both sides of this conflict, but in all reality it's simple, you can't jeopordize an existing,well managed renewable resource for a non-renewable, short-term gain.

May 29, 2008 - 12:04am | CingRed

No one is shutting down the mining industry you say?

How short to do you believe our memory is? Wasn't it just a short while ago the CWI & II sponsors (aka Gillam & Co) promised us their initiatives wouldn't shut down mining. Only to find out later their poorly written initiatives violated constitutional law with one superior court judge proclaiming that the initiative would shut down mining. So now we are in round three with CWIII and what are the proponents for the initiative stating yet again? You guessed it the same ole' regurgitated rhetoric 'we not shutting down mining'. Heck of a track record RRF & Gillam and Company.

I do agree with you though on one point though, if Pebble can't move forward and build it responsibly, let's can it (pun intended).

May 29, 2008 - 9:04pm | Sockeyemark

Yes I agree, can it....

No one wants mining shut down, and I don't believe Mr Gilam does either. I just don't trust who makes the decision about responsibly??? Money will ultimately make the decision//

May 31, 2008 - 12:52am | CingRed

Mr. Gillam's

words and actions say otherwise!

As for the responsibility quip, the same State who regulates the BB fishery (who you suggest is the envy of the industry) will regulate mining.

May 24, 2008 - 8:09am | jcn7vc

What else does it do?

So you are passing an initiative to make a statement? What else besides shutting down mining are you guys trying to with this initiative that isn't already being done?

May 24, 2008 - 9:11am | Sockeyemark

IN A WAY ALL INITIATIVES ARE STATEMENTS

Most laws are passed by elected government officials, this law will be passed by thousands of people. So yes, in a way a STATEMENT will be made...

May 26, 2008 - 10:02am | jcn7vc

The purpose?

So you're passing an Initiative to make a statement, but it will still have to be enforced by the government. Or are you and your thousands of friends going to enforce it with your own funds and manpower? I think not.

It looks to me like you want add to the already large load of monitoring and testing that already goes on, increasing taxes in the meantime. In addition, you know these initiatives are going to be fought on all levels, costing taxpayers millions of legal fees. On top of all that, if it goes through, you will take away from Natives their main source of income.

Sounds like a sound plan: Take away the Natives' main source of income and increase taxes for everyone, including taking away thousands of mining jobs around the state.

And you still didn't answer my question: WHAT WILL THESE INITIATIVES DO THAT ISN'T ALREADY BEING DONE?

May 24, 2008 - 9:42am | rfn

We need a "statement"

about how fish are sentient beings, too and should be protected from predatory "fishermen".

A total shutdown of the exploitation of our finned friends is long overdue.

May 24, 2008 - 11:55am | demorgan33

Commercial fishing in Alaska,

with Bristol Bay as a leading example, has proven itself as a long-term, renewable resources that if left alone will support families for the rest of time. The fisheries are subject to stringant government regulations and guarantees of escapement to insure future harvests and availabilty of subsistence stocks.

No one in the fishing industry us suggesting anything that will hurt anyone's existing lifestyle or income. That being said, the same cannot be said for the proponents of this mine. Fishermen have worked too long and hard as an industry to gamble it's future on the promises of a mining company with no experience in this region and on a mine of this proposed magnitude.

This confused arguement of attacking fishermen for their means of employment is beyond ridiculous, we have proven ourselves and our increasing run strength can attest to this fact. I am not opposed to the mining industry, but I am opposed to this mine.

May 27, 2008 - 6:32pm | njalo99

ok so the plus 75% of the fisheries workers stay in alaska????????? don't think so , please..... Mining jobs for over a 100 years>>>> do you know this number?? a 1000 people over a 100 years??????? yes I think pebble is worth it

May 28, 2008 - 11:00am | demorgan33

Once again

no one is questioning the value of mining to the state of Alaska. However there are questions regarding this mine and it's proposed location. The argument here has nothing to do with current mining operations, it is about the Pebble Mine which definitely will put an existing resource at risk. The fishing industry isn't the one proposing a change here, it's a private, foreign owned mining company. I've heard their speeches and met some of their players only to be insulted by their unachievable guarantees. The mining operations in this state should continue to operate unhindered, but the Pebble mine should not be allowed to go forward.

May 30, 2008 - 9:42pm | njalo99

you need to read more

if you sponser this initiative you will stop all mining in alaska.. This not only stops Pebble, BUT get this...WHEN the other mine's ALREADY operating NOW go to RENEW their PERMITS....they will not be able to follow these strict, and as of yet undefineable guidelines for Clean water.....THUSLY being SHUT DOWN?????? which part should don't you understand?????

May 30, 2008 - 10:47pm | demorgan33

I've read enough

to know that the proposed mine will undeniably put my livelihood at risk. As far as I know the "Plan" for Pebble is as of yet undefined and yet, I am asked to have faith in the process. I don't have anything against mining and in fact I respect the hell out of anyone that works for a living. That being said this mine site is a Bad idea at this time, and if it is bringing unfair regulation to an industry, perhaps that industry needs to make the decision not to pursue this find at this time. Yes, there is a lot of money to be made there, but can't it wait until cleaner and safer methods of extraction can be found. There has been many claims on this blog about the vast piles of money mining currently provides the state and all their employees, what's the rush if everything is going so well?

May 31, 2008 - 10:06pm | njalo99

ok I'll take your point

Yes there are ways to extract this ore body Without harming the BB fishing industry....unfortunately the way these inititives are written We wont" even get a chance to prove them. As for "putting your livelihood at risk" Well this MIne will be Near 1 of the 5 rivers that feed Bristol Bay, I think it was about 7 miles from one of the rivers.....sooo this would not " Decimate a whole fishing industry", i.e see Sockeyemark..... All I am asking for is to give this Mine a Chance to prove what it Could do, without Harming anyone...... Then go with the Plan, and MINE RESPONSIBLY!!...Unlike some of the stereotypes of miner's....we Don't Rape, Plillage, Destroy, and the Leave, back to the lower 48, most of us up here live, work, recreate, and raise families here Too.....

June 1, 2008 - 4:02pm | Sockeyemark

Pebble Removes a salmon producing lake!! Dries up 4 rivers

there is that mind set that( It will only effect 1 in 5 rivers ) Actually it's two rivers systems. So we are already negotiating how much salmon we are willing to sacrifice for the good of the Mine.
This is were it all starts folks, just give us a chance to do it right. And if we make mistakes it really only effects one or two of the Bristol bay's river systems...and surely they have enough fish in the other systems to take up the slack for our oversight and mistakes.
This is why we want water standards that are second to none. We are at the crossroads with mining in Alaska, it can continue but it must be in a different mindset than ( What we are willing to sacrifice ) in order to extract ore from our great State.
No Shutdown, just responsible mining in Alaska.
Vote Yes on Clean Water, your Kids depend on it!!

June 1, 2008 - 5:57pm | NoBob

Holy Cow! What misinformation

There's no removal of a lake and drying up of rivers. Sheesh!

07WATR is a shutdown. You can't have a mine without tailings and one that can't release water with "any" copper or zinc. 07WTR3 is just the same as current law (See AS 43.03.070) according to Judge Blankenship. (He would have struck initiative 3 for that reason except he thought that current law didn't regulate non-point sources. That's a plain mistake of law that the parties should have asked him to correct. More on this later.)

The net result of all of this is that after a bunch of jerking around we are going to have the same water quality standards we have now--whether the the remaining initiative passes or not. And I might add that they are good standards.

This whole thing is an effort by Bob Gillam to get the industry to repudiate Pebble. He has failed. And despite some inept execution by his opponents, Gillam has been seriously outmaneuvered.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Miners still nervous about initiatives