adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Water discharges at Rock Creek Mine

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.

Water discharges at Rock Creek Mine

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: June 2, 2008 - 5:26 pm

Muddy water: Muddy water flows through Lindblom Creek culverts that receive runoff from the Rock Creek mine site. Photo courtesy of The Nome Nugget. Muddy water: Muddy water flows through Lindblom Creek culverts that receive runoff from the Rock Creek mine site. Photo courtesy of The Nome Nugget.

The Nome Nugget published a story in its current edition about stormwater compliance inspections and past water quality violations related to construction at the Rock Creek mine.

A similar sort of compliance problem erupted at the Kensington mine construction site a few years ago.

In fact, builders around Alaska seem to have chronic trouble complying with state and federal laws involving stormwater and erosion.

As these two examples from the mining industry demonstrate, the violations aren't always minor paperwork infractions.

On a related note, here's an article from this week's Alaska Journal of Commerce about the Associated General Contractors of Alaska, a trade group that represents building contractors, setting up "erosion school" for its members.

login or register to post comments

6 June 19, 2008 - 8:21am | jokeener

Endorsement of muddy water

This is called "break-up". It happens every year in Alaska.

Seasonal and intermittent turbid waters are a benefit to benthic and ichthy organisms. Biology 101 folks. It's required for healthy food chains. Thus, the reason why every so often dams are let loose to allow silt to flood river plains. People used to know this back in our grandfather's day, but contemporary public is growing increasingly stupid and removed from "where things come from" and "how things work".

Besides, it looks like laws and permit stipulations are being enforced. So, what's the problem?

If you are truly concerned about discharge of turbid water and sulfide rich effluent, you'd better start a campaign to clean up the Susitna, Copper, and thousands of other streams and rivers draining the Chugach, Wrangell, Alaska, and Brooks Range glaciers. These drainages dump billions of tons of "toxic discharge" every year. Rock Creek is so insignificant that it makes your gripe look very, very small.

5 June 3, 2008 - 12:18pm | PuckFebble

Is this a joke?

Seriously, something cant be right here. Certainly with all of the science and engineering that is required to operate mines in Alaska, this cant happen.
Surely Rock Creek has all of the few hundred permits required, kinda like all of the other mines were problems occur are already permitted. My point being is that permitting and the process involved despite what miners and thier zealot supporters claim, clearly isnt enough.
This apparently has been ongoing. How come nobody heard about it before? Plus talk about a slap on the wrist as a penalty. $7,600 merely another business expense, just like all the other permit violations that occur.
This also raises another notable concern surrounding Pebble, and the oft mentioned unthinkable tailings dam failure. Looking at the causes of most other dam failures, it comes from water spilling over the top. Often from storms or high levels of snowmelt.

4 June 3, 2008 - 10:56am | ThorZone

This is not right...

The photo here is showing discharge from mine construction, not operations. I am not familiar with water requirements for construction, I am sure they are not the same as mine operation requirements. That being said, my guess is that this is still not legal under any circumstance. It certainly is not a good way to operate a mine in any event.

“Results from turbidity meter analysis for these two samples were greater than 1,000 and 1.65 nephelometric turbidity units,” says the DEC’s report.

If this is true and it looks like it is, this is a serious problem for Nova Gold and the DEC. Someone needs to get their act together fast and solve this problem.

As a side note, if this was from operations, it would be a big fat violation of discharge regulations. No matter…..the regulators and the mine operator should fix this problem ASAP. This is not acceptable for a number of reasons.

3 June 3, 2008 - 7:34am | whataboutmyjob

Working well?

That is from one of the mines that is within regulation and working within standards?

Imagine the environmental and economic impact when thousands of jobs are lost because of a single cyanide spill seeping into Bristol Bay.

Is Anglo going to give me a job then when I can no longer fish to support my wife and three kids?

June 3, 2008 - 12:26pm | PuckFebble

Anglo?

Well if thier treatment of other employees in thier operations is an indication, you wont get much from AA. Miners in Africa make less than $4,000 annually on average, despite thier billions in profit. But if you get killed, your family probably wouldnt get more than the equivalent of your annual wage. After 20 years of having thier workforce devastated by the AIDS epidemic, they are finally offering up anti-retroviral drugs to the family members of those effected as well.
Tens of thousands of thier miners dead from AIDS. 14,000 currently infected, tuberculosis and scoliosis are rampant. Those who turn a blind eye to the treatment of others by the same people and believe thier promises not to inflict the same pain here, are bound to be subjected to it in one way or another.
Time to Wake Up Alaska! There is to much at risk concerning Pebble and we need not reward bad behavior elsewhere with billions in profit here.

June 4, 2008 - 1:02am | CingRed

Last time I checked...

we're not in Africa. According to one statistic:

The mining industry provided some of Alaska’s highest paying jobs with an average annual wage of $80,000, 90 percent higher than the state average for all sectors of the economy.

Are you insinuating Anglo spreads AIDS, tuberculosis and scoliosis to their employees? Do you believe they will spread these diseases to Alaskans?

Do you hold Trident Seafood responsible for the fishing communities high alcoholism, suicide, and HS drop out rate?

I really do not follow you here.

June 6, 2008 - 12:37am | PuckFebble

Hi Cing Red,

Ill just reply paragraph to paragraph to make it easiest.

I know first hand the benefits of mining in Alaska.

If one looks at the track record of AA, did they spread AIDS directly? Not exactly. What they did do according to what I have read is not provide the necessary prevention education, then treatment under thier health care plans? Yes I am saying that. From what I have read, Anglo American plc has the deaths of thousands at thier feet, from safety issues, or through a seriously and tragically flawed AIDS policy. Yes they were apart of it. Nor am I saying they are doing or will do that in Alaska. What I am saying is that through thier actions, the values that company has shown is not in line with Americans and especially Alaskan values. We value our workers and appreciate thier hard work, Anglo rakes up the profits, ships it elsewhere and leaves death and devastation in its wake. If Pebble goes forward, it may not be as tragic as tens of thousands dead, but I will say I told you so when these issues get raised.
It is very very niave for us to assume they wont do X,Y,Z here when they have done worse elsewhere.
I would encourage you to read the following link.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200805160187.html?page=2

As for the fishing industry and the issues you raised, they are also unfortunate happenings. They need to be worked on, I agree. But fail in comparison to the issues mining has wrought.

June 3, 2008 - 10:59am | ThorZone

Not Really

I don't know about construction requirements, but I am pretty sure they are not in compliance with water discharge regulations. This clearly needs to be cleaned up.

2 June 3, 2008 - 12:39am | Sockeyemark

Picture says a 1000 words

I see that this picture has kept cingred,pms,nj99,rfn
from chiming in,,,,what are they gona say....that water your seeing actually passes our current clean water standards!! Ha Ha Vote yes CW3

June 5, 2008 - 9:00pm | njalo99

not a Prob Mark

I will still stand by the Companies I have worked for and who support my family....obviously this isn't one.....not sure what the picture is of, mine const., mine working's???? runoff from the surrounding area???? a picture may say a 1,000 words but this one leaves lot's of questions....... this isn't the Normal operating practice's of any mine that I know of.........

June 3, 2008 - 12:45am | pmjusa

I'll defer to NoBob

He pretty much covered this one just fine for me.

pms? HA!

VOTE NO!

June 3, 2008 - 12:56am | Sockeyemark

Yes Bob did a great job

I suppose that will be the excuse when they get a month of rain, or winds of 100 mph , or a shake from a quake.... NOBOB quote (for that matter--is tough to keep under control during breakup or other key times.)
Don't worry folks, except for Key times we've got er all under control, it's in the PLAN!!

June 3, 2008 - 1:14am | pmjusa

How Shallow...

Cherry-picking NoBob's post. Your out of your depth. Maybe even out of the Frying Pan. We'll see - vote no.

June 3, 2008 - 1:43am | Sockeyemark

Shallow is the waters of Bristol Bay after Pebble

lowers the water tables of Frying Pan lake and Talarik and Koktuli rivers.....the depth to which this mining company will go in order to get their permits have yet to be seen,,,,,pms may even be on the dole

1 June 2, 2008 - 6:05pm | demorgan33

Apparently Clean Water is overrated

This looks to be a shining example of current mining practices in Alaska. Let's hear some more about how clean the operations are now, and that the rules only get bent in third world countries.

June 2, 2008 - 9:28pm | NoBob

The water quality rules didn't get bent

It's pretty clear here that laws are being enforced, as they should be. Mining--or any construction, for that matter--is tough to keep under control during breakup or other key times. Experience will iron this out. Fines and citations will make sure it happens. There is no indication that a few days of muddy water really hurt anything anyway.

I was at Kensington not too long after they were cited for surface water violations (muddy water) that happened during a record rainfall. The corrections were nothing short of astounding. I have been to many construction sites and none was better managed for water than Kensington after this incident. The fact is that we demand more of mining than we do of any other kind of construction.

And what of surface water . . . In approving the third water initiative, Judge Blankenship ruled that the initiative could go forward because surface water was not regulated under current law. This is a plain mistake as anyone reading these articles can see. (I am not sure why industry lawyers didn't correct this.) We have laws and regulations that cover this subject without a duplicative initiative.

With water quality, as with other laws, if there is a violation, we need enforcement, not more laws that say the same thing. If a rich fly fisherman like Bob Gillam accidentally catches more than his limit, the answer is not to shut down fly fishing, it's to cite him for a violation. Same goes for mining.

June 3, 2008 - 12:31pm | PuckFebble

Flat out broke them

is what happened to the laws here. But those downriver from Pebble are just supposed to believe the promises, and trust in a process that is clearly broken.
You can make this about Bob Gillam all you want, but what you are failing to understand is that Alaskans have real concerns about this sort of thing happening at the very headwaters of rivers that have been and are critical to the economy of Bristol Bay.
The process is a joke, permits obviously dont prevent this from happening and enforcement is lax.

June 3, 2008 - 2:24pm | NoBob

You're right

Looks like the permit conditions were violated. I'll mark you down as solving this by banning mining. If you're not living in your cave now, I expect you will be moving there soon. For me, that's not a reasonable solution.

And I will add, that both permits and regulators have a different attitude about muddy water than they do about true toxics. I think that permit conditions should be enforced, but we have to be realistic too.

June 3, 2008 - 2:50pm | demorgan33

Alright NoBob let's be realistic

If Pebble mine is allowed to go forward, this is exactly what we will see. Tiny fines for damages and long periods of no or lax compliance to the rules. The Pro-Pebble folks talk about all the lessons they have learned from past mistakes and that there is no way anything could happen now. That is a load of B.S. and this article is a good example of current mining practices here in Alaska. Where will the Pebble staff come from? Won't they be drawn from the same pool of geniuses that can't even account for spring melt and heavy rains? In closing, Yes we do have to be realistic, this proposed mine will do nothing but damage many for the profit of few. Keep your current mining jobs and leave the Pebble project alone.

June 3, 2008 - 3:04pm | NoBob

You anti-Pebble people need to be honest

I can understand your fear of Pebble. Bob Gillam didn't spend the millions on ads without any effect. But if it's just about Pebble, then quit trying to kill Pebble by messing with statewide mining regulations. If this is just about Pebble, then start a campaign to have the state buy Pebble. If it's as bad as you say, this should be no problem. That's the only fair, honest, and possibly legal way out of this.

June 3, 2008 - 3:16pm | demorgan33

I sure hope you aren't calling me a liar

for pointing out the truth, that this mine, if allowed to go forward, will hurt the fishery in the area. I have paid for the rights to fish Bristol Bay and I feel that entitles me to an opinion on this matter. State some facts, not just Bob Gillam is a bad man. I don't know Bob from Adam, but I sure appreciate his input into this matter. We can't let this go forward without asking some real questions, and getting honest answers. Where is the guarantee that Northern Dynasty won't make mistakes and leave us all bankrupted. If one cannot be produced, and I don't just mean some ridiculous statement about "zero loss policies", then this projects should stop here and now!!

June 5, 2008 - 9:12pm | njalo99

Your Right's

I am sure if you asked anyone from AA or NDM you would get an honest answer.....not just the fluff for the media. The mine isn't even planned Yet.... the best, most viable way for All Alaskans...... won't be for a few years but we will know.... I believe this Mine will be vary beneficial to ALL Alaskans.....not just Miner's or to the people of NW Alaska, I just want the process to work.
You do realize that this mine has to comply to over 60 state and federal permitting processes just to be opened.... and then reapply every 2-5 years after the mine is operating......Mining in Ak is strict.... I think more strict than any other state in the US, so I know the people of Alaska will always have a say in what we do.

June 6, 2008 - 12:12am | PuckFebble

Hi There,

When it comes to regulation, Alaska is far from the top. From what I understand it is in the middle of the road. But the enforcement and compliance here are near the bottom for western states. Pebble would not be permitted in modern times in California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, most of Canada and not in Romania, at minimum. But there is not even an EPA office in the state. The inspection levels in Alaska for all industries has shown to be a flat out joke.

June 6, 2008 - 10:08am | ebluemink

actually

there is an EPA office in the state. In fact, there are a couple of them. Check out this link: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/aoo.nsf

I visited the office in Juneau a few years ago. And I visited the larger one in Anchorage last year. It's in the federal building downtown. Quite a few people work in that office. Many of them are involved in permitting though their bosses are in Seattle. At least one EPA guy runs inspections out of the Anchorage office. He's appeared in AK newspaper stories when EPA announces fines related to demolition and asbestos. I'm not sure if or how many EPA compliance officers for mining or seafood are based in Alaska. Usually when I have a question about a mining inspection/water violation, I end up talking to folks in Seattle and/or DEC regulators, who also do inspections at mines.

June 6, 2008 - 10:11am | PuckFebble

Thanks

Miss Bluemink. I think you have proven my point. Would you agree with the rest of the post concerning Alaska not being at the top of the list when it comes to the strength of the permitting process? At one point I saw a ranking, of western states and how much protection is put in place against large scale mining compared to others. Alaska was at best in the middle. Montana, Nevada, were ranked lower, but others with still strong mining operations were ranked higher than Alaska. I am trying to find a link to it.

June 6, 2008 - 10:26am | ebluemink

once

you provide a citation of who produced this ranking, that would be helpful.
But I don't really have a strong basis for ranking the strength of the permitting process in Alaska against other states at this point. In any case, it doesn't make sense that Montana would rank lower than Alaska - if your criteria is protection AGAINST large-scale mining. Montana, through citizen initiative, has flat out barred open-pit cyanide heap leach mines. Alaska doesn't prohibit any mines, as far as I know.

June 6, 2008 - 10:42am | PuckFebble

I thought

the cyanide ban was still being fought in courts? Either way I will post the link when I find it, it has been months since I saw it. Im gonna need to find out more on Montana. CW3 goes down, look for a cyanide ban iniative next.

June 6, 2008 - 9:26pm | njalo99

of course

if it isn't one single thing it is another.... Why the developement hatred???? what is all that about??? Alaska Is a Resource State....we use our Resources????? what is wrong with that???? I know we can do it responsibly.....Why don't you try and at least look at our point of view?????? It isn't always black and white, the have's and have not's....... there has to be a middle ground....just me asking

June 7, 2008 - 9:26am | rfn

It's good, old fashioned

NIMBY.

Resources in the ground can't magically be moved to somebody else's back yard so they must never be developed. Of course that other location, could the resources be "transported", would be in somebody else's back yard.

So all natural resources must be locked up forever.

It's no longer "NIMBY" - it's "BANANA". Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

It's what will make China the world leader in jobs and all forms of economics in just 2-3 more years. But don't worry. They'll have money for $40/pound salmon when nobody here in Obamanation does. And that's just for the farmed variety!

June 6, 2008 - 10:06pm | PuckFebble

Hi there,

I have no hatred of development by any means. I have long said we need to develop ANWR and timber and mines in areas that are not as sensetive as Pebble.
As you have asked to look at your side of view, I understand as best as I can. I am quite empathetic, and I would ask you to consider the same views of the residents, visitors and fishers/processors who depend on having a very high volume of salmon to make thier livlihoods. It does go both ways. But it is more than just salmon, it is the other game animals and fish, and birds etc.
My issues with Pebble are 3 of them, as I said above is its location. It is at the very headwaters of two large rivers that support a sustainable and renewable resource that provides income and subsistence for locals. Simply removing those rivers that currently exist in what would be the pit, and then effecting the surrounding areas with water quality, and the often overlooked water QUANITY, is simply not acceptable. There is nothing that I have ever heard of, despite asking many people, is that those issues cannot be reliably mitigated.
I have read everything I can about open pit mining and it has a horrible track record. I hope you will understand my scepticism when there have been literally hundreds of pit mines and only a handful have been successfully reclaimed. Plenty of them have had utterly disasterous results. The gamble, which you think can be done, and I dont think it can be, is there and in my opinion and those who live downriver from Pebble the gamble is simply not worth it.
The type of mining to be done. Which will be the largest pit mine in North America. It is a low ore content type, spread out over a large area. The only reason this is now economical as compared to before is that the price of metals is high right now and the value of the American dollar is low when compared to other currencies. When that market hitch is corrected, the gawdy numbers that Pebble likes to talk about are as hollow as thier promises of protection.
Lastly, the companies involved. Anglo American and Rio Tinto have alarmingly bad track records in thier other operations and surrounding communities. Rio Tinto is in the midst of a major lawsuit concerning thier actions in supporting the appartied policy in South Africa. Anglo American has forceably removed people from thier homes and taken over grazing lands to expand thier mining operations. I have said before, but deem it worthy of mentioning. That AA has the blood of tens of thousands if not more Africans on thier hands. This is from utter inaction when 14,000(twice all the residents in BB) of thier employees currectly are infected with HIV/AIDS. They have had 10s of thousands die from it while doing little to deal with it. They have a horrible safety record with thier mines in Africa where dozens die in unsafe conditions annually.
Then of course there is the civil wars fueled by DeBeers policies in the 90s, in an effort to keep a monopoly in diamond trading, they bought up every diamond they could with little regard as to where it came from and who the revenue was going to. Which turned out to be rebel groups committing human rights atrocities.
Then of course comes engineering firm, Knight Piesold. Who is doing the prelim. tailings facility work for Pebble. They were also the ones who designed a faulty dam that failed in Romania in 2000. That dam failure utterly devastated the surrounding waters. This is the worst case scenario everyone dreads, but it does happen, and it happens in places that have less precipitation and less siezmic activity.
When it comes to the companies developing Pebble, and thier past actions, Anglo American and Rio Tinto are the worst possible players.

June 5, 2008 - 11:13pm | alaskaman15

Buy the looks of this picture I'm not to sure of any compliance

being done by the mining industry. But of course it doesn't happen where you work. No thank you on the Pebble Mine

June 3, 2008 - 2:42pm | PuckFebble

I usually am right.

But you need not pidgeon hole me into anything, especially one wanting to ban mining. If you would take a bit and read some of the things I have said about shutting down mining then you would know more about my position and how you are incorrect about your assertion. You can save your cave man scenarios for someone who cares. I dont.

Your second paragraph though, raises an interesting concept in this whole issue.
"Permits should be enforced, but we have to be realistic too."
This is the crux of the whole argument. Can we realistically believe that Pebble can be done within the permits they would need to be issued? I havent seen nearly enough evidence to sway me yet. It is failures like Rock Creek that keeps popping up that drive home the issue.
Despite all the permitting in the world, and even better than the obviously already lax enforcement, it does not prevent incidents like this happening, it could have been much worse as other hugely disasterous failures have shown. Which also had all the permits and regulations in place as well.

June 3, 2008 - 3:43pm | tosona

it aint even started yet

Rock Creek has yet to pour the first gold bar from development ore, and oh yah their rock handling plan is not yet complete, and they haven't even fired up the carbon furnace, I just hope they will be able to destroy all the cyanide they say they can, if you ask EPA where they are in the approval of their injection galleries, you may not find it. Yes folks they haven't even really started mining yet and here we are, it is the story of things to come that interest me, I believe it will take citizen sponsored monitoring to get the job done because the regulators simply won't do it unless you SCREAM in their ear.

June 3, 2008 - 2:55pm | NoBob

I guess I might owe you an apology

But if permitting and enforcement aren't a viable system, then what is? I would be interested in knowing. I've spent too much time on this already today to want to go though all of your back posts to find out.

June 3, 2008 - 3:49pm | PuckFebble

Looking elsewhere...

in various places, there is a viable mining industry and salmon by law clearly come first. Home of Northern Dynasty, British Columbia would not permit Pebble. The location is to critical.
In Wisconsin, they have seen and fought successfully development of mines. We need to take a good hard look at the industry in this state, and apply the Hammond test to it. Which Pebble fails.
So, make permits more than the formality they are nowadays, put some real teeth into punishment and get rid of court enforcable rights until all the permits are in place. Then lastly, have enforcement be constant.

June 3, 2008 - 4:17pm | NoBob

Okay, let's look at BC . . .

BC permitted NovaGold's Galore Creek project on the Stikine River--a major salmon stream. Same for Eskay Creek earlier. The permitted Tulequah on the Taku just recently--another major salmon stream. The jerking around the Canadians do is way less than here. They understand mining. And then there is the case of Windy Craggy--huge world class massive sulfide on the Alsek River. (A favorite of white water rafters.) More powerful people didn't like that one, I guess, so they bought it out for a pile of money. That's the honest way.

Sure, sometimes it's possible to use petty bureaucratic harassment and overlapping, duplicative and overly stringent rules to drive away business. I don't think that's what we want here. But that seems to be the way things are done. And mark my words, someone is going to use this tactic against the fishermen too. In fact, it's already started.

June 3, 2008 - 8:35am | tosona

NO but the regulators are bent

The water violation at the Rock Creek mine has been going on for over a year, the water is still extremely turbid, spring break up is over, and the diversion water is still in excess of water laws. The May 2008 notice of violation is the second one to come for the mine in addition to other violations, it wasn't addressed the first time, if you wish you may refer to file number 400.62.001 and then read the enforcement action reference number 2007-0703 the following year. IT took the regulators months to even fine them. The regulators do not inspect the mine often enough, it was the citizens of Nome who brought the violation to the attention of the regulators, there was no record rainfall, it is there fault, they don't care, and your post does not take into account the 100 years of corrupt mining laws that Nome has experienced.

June 3, 2008 - 9:01am | NoBob

And your answer is . . .?

Shutdown mining statewide? (Water 1 initiative)

Pass the same law again with the same regulators? (Water 3 initiative)

Perhaps making a fuss and bringing this to the attention of people with the authority to do something is just what's needed. Perhaps you are the solution. I wish I could say mining companies are perfect, but I know better.

June 3, 2008 - 10:25am | tosona

the violation

the issue is the violation... people like you think that there is some ultimatum at stake I didn't talk about the initiatives. There is a tremendous of amount of information about the rock creek mine and a tremendous amount of regulatory enforcement that is required. there is a lot of misinformation about the initiatives. 2 initiatives are on the ballot and the signatures by the Lt. Gov has certified them and they would add to provisions in AS 27.20 and AS 38.05 that will help law not duplicate it, read them!! the unconstitutional initiative the only one that is truly a no-mining initiative can not make the cut for the ballot but the pro miners are all over that one seemingly oblivious to the fact that there are 2 ballots certified. My answer is mining needs to be held accountable I think the level of enforcement is corrupt, the agencies have never denied a mining project although they say they say NO they only disapprove certain design aspects. I'll bet DNR would approve mining for gold under the state capital if given the opportunity.

June 3, 2008 - 2:48pm | NoBob

Sorry . . .

I didn't mean to drag you off track. I thought I was encouraging you to help get this mess straightened up. NovaGold needs to clean this up and DEC needs to be sure they do it. I think we can agree there.

That said, I think it's too much to accuse the regulators of corruption. Sometimes they need a push to let them know what's important. They have a lot on their plates. There is a system and it can work to accomplish its stated goals.

As for the two initiatives. I have read them along with many of the AG Opinions, court decisions, and briefs. I wrote a fairly long explanation of what I think is going on on the previous thread (the one about Cynthia Caroll).

And finally, you are right about denying permits. Once the state or federal government grants a property right in mining property a reasonable permit has to be offered. Outright denial is not really an option unless the government wants to pay for the mining rights--that's what the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says. Buying Pebble would be very expensive. Some folks who oppose Pebble have taken the position that the rules should be changed to solve this "problem." This is a dangerous course since if it is done wrong, the state might still end up buying the place. A more reasonable solution is a safe and viable mine plan.

June 3, 2008 - 11:32am | ebluemink

speaking of confusion

Clean Water 1, the initiative that you call unconstitutional and "truly a no-mining initiative" may indeed make the cut for the ballot depending on the Supreme Court.

Clean Water 1 is one of the two that was certified.

Unless you were talking about Clean Water 2, which was never certified. No one has ever spent any advertising dollars on that one, as far as I know.

Last time I checked, the state had not withdrawn Clean Water 1 from the ballot though the sponsors have asked them to do so.

June 2, 2008 - 10:12pm | demorgan33

Okay Ignored then

All we hear from the Pro-Pebble people is how clean this mine will be and that new mining and construction practices have improved. This article and photos show current condition in a local mine. Please don't insult peoples intellegence with guarantees that next time will be different and that a $7600 fine taught any lessons. I'll quote an old phrase, "Prevention is the best cure". The Pebble mine will harm an extremely sensitive area and there is no way around that fact.

June 2, 2008 - 7:56pm | Sockeyemark

The Mining Shutdown folks will say this is a slight aberration

don't worry will never happen at Pebble. it's not in their PLAN !
in reality runoff such as this will make this picture look like a garden hose left on. The water hydraulics of the Bristol Bay watershed are quite complex. They have put radioactive tracers on one side of the mountains water table only to have it show up miles away on the other side.
on the north slope every spring they reinject water from run off as to not disturb the natural flow of waters. And their footprint is miniscule compared to Pebble's footprint.
the Clean Waters of Bristol Bay are about to be muddied...Vote yes Clean Water

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Water discharges at Rock Creek Mine