adn.com | The Pebble Blog : More about clean water

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.

More about clean water

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: June 3, 2008 - 6:11 pm

For those who are interested in seeing how Alaska industries and individual companies stack up in terms of past violations and enforcement by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the following web site is useful.

It's the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Compliance and History Online (ECHO) database.

Here's a short quiz based on some things I found on the web site:

1.) Which six Alaska firms spent the last three years - 12 quarters in a row - out of compliance with federal clean water regulations? Well, I found six; it's possible there's more.

2.) How many Alaska companies spent over 80 percent of the past three years out of compliance with federal clean water regulations?

Answers tomorrow, unless somebody beats me to it and posts the correct information.

login or register to post comments

4 June 4, 2008 - 11:58am | jcn7vc

Answers

Here are my answers to your questions based on the ECHO data:

1.) 12 consecutive quarters in non-compliance-
Alyeska Seafoods Inc.
Coeur Alaska Inc.
Icicle Seafoods Inc.
Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co.
Peter pan Seafoods Inc.
Trident Seafoods Corporation

That's six, plus these cities:
City and Borough of Juneau
City of Haines
City of Kenai
City of Kodiak
City of Petersburg
City of Soldotna
City of Unalaska
City of Valdez

2.) Number of companies with over 80% of past 3 years out of compliance (10 or more quarters)-

6 from above plus:
Cook Inlet Pipeline Co.
Kodiak Fishmeal Co.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
Teck Cominco Alaska Inc.
Teck-Pogo Inc.
Trident Seafoods Corporation

12 total. Of those, 3 are mining companies, 2 are pipeline companies, and 7 are seafood processors. Interesting, huh? I guess fishing does have somewhat of an effect on the water quality in Alaska.

June 4, 2008 - 2:23pm | ebluemink

You got it

Much like the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, the ECHO database doesn't grade polluters based on actual risk posed by the discharges, but it does tell you who isn't keeping up with federal water quality standards and which pollutants are involved.

3 June 4, 2008 - 9:39am | NoBob

For number one I'm going to guess . . .

City of Juneau
City of Unalaska
City of Kodiak
City of Kenai
City of Valdez
City of Adak
City of Soldotna
City of Haines
City of Petersburg

Oops. That's more than six. And perhaps those aren't firms. I'll try
Alyeska Seafoods
Westward Seafoods
Peter Pan Seafoods
Trident Seafoods
Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp
Alaska Railroad

There are more too . . . . including most of the mines and some oil and gas producers. The fact is that when one runs a complex operation, 100 percent compliance is tough. But the question is really whether the system we have in place is preventing harm. And harm is different than violations. If the level of violation is set at the level of harm, then there is no safety factor. Our system doesn't work that way. Some of these situations could be cause for greater concern and some may be of lesser concern. Right now we employ experts to make these judgments. That would be the folks at DEC.

The question of few inspections was raised . . . how in the world can the EPA report 12 violations with one inspection? The answer is that all of these folks monitor themselves and submit the data to the regulatory agencies. (Falsifying reported data is a crime.) In the case of spills, reporting is immediate--as is response.

And what do the initiatives have to do with this? Well, Water 1 would shut down the mines, but leave all the other polluters alone. Water 3, according to Judge Blankenship, would continue existing regulation and existing regulators. He opined that the cost of Water 3 would be zero because the same scheme would continue. That's fine. The scheme works in its bump-along way. But of course one could ask why we need to put that in an initiative.

June 4, 2008 - 10:39pm | CingRed

Water 1- is not going away

I believe that's what the citizens of Alaska will vote on come August. The sponsors simply can not retract an initiative once they've obtained the necessary signatures and submitted it to State. At that point the initiative belongs to the people of the State and not the sponsors.

If the sponsors could have pulled it off they would have already done so by now.

Gillam is planning on shutting down mining period! Vote NO on all CW initiatives August 26th!

June 4, 2008 - 10:46pm | Sockeyemark

Sky is not falling

Vote yes across the board, Anchorage will carry the state in this vote!!
Clean Water for All Alaskans, and plenty of fish to catch.
It's the responsible vote to make. Protect your water
and food source,,,,DAHHHHH

June 5, 2008 - 9:33pm | njalo99

......

moron

June 6, 2008 - 9:50am | ebluemink

OK folks

no name calling.

June 6, 2008 - 9:34pm | njalo99

sorry....my bad

June 4, 2008 - 12:46pm | pmjusa

Question

NoBob – I still don’t see how CW 3 will not have shutdown effects on existing mines at permit renewal time. The “no measureable amount” (who knows what fraction of ppb we’ll eventually measure), and the legal weasel-words in Section 5 would seem to have mining shutdown effects. Sorry if I’m asking you to repeat yourself here, it just doesn’t seem so clear.

June 4, 2008 - 1:10pm | NoBob

Is Water 3 a shutdown?

The answer--so far as I can discern--is no. The operative wording is "a measurable amount that will effect (sic) human health . . . etc." The Attorney General and the superior court interpreted this to mean a measurable amount that will "adversely affect" health and aquatic life. Courts make this kind of interpretation all the time so that awkward wordings (or misspellings) can make sense. (BTW, industry lawyers disagree on propriety of the court's interpretation, but I think the supreme court is likely to uphold it.)

Anyway, the court--that is Judge Blankenship--went on to explain that the state already had regulations to this effect and these would be the same as the initiative called for. (He did misinterpret the law on non-point sources, thus approved Water 3 when he shouldn't have.) On this basis the judge ruled that Water 3 was not a shutdown. If he had found a shutdown, he would not have approved the initiative. I hope that helps.

June 4, 2008 - 11:36pm | pmjusa

Yes, and Thanks

Now it remains to be seen if the very people that wastefully promoted CW 1 are able also to have it removed from the ballot. (All part of a plan?!) Whatever. Until then it seems better to assume CW 1 will be there.

June 4, 2008 - 11:30pm | PuckFebble

One wonders...

What the Alaskans Against Mining Shutdown folks will have to say about it after CW3 is shown not to shutdown Red Dog, or any exisiting mine. The ad I saw tonight during the news was as blatant an attack as I have seen of any of them. Just played again during Leno.
Anyways, when they are proven wrong, will they retract thier position or continue to spout lies like the rest of the mining industry?

June 4, 2008 - 11:42pm | pmjusa

Speaking of Retracting...

and spouting lies...

Who's been retracting CW1?

One wonders!

June 4, 2008 - 11:58pm | PuckFebble

Not me

Im not involved either way. I am quite surprised your making this an issue and instead would be relieved the strongest measure wont be pushed through a campaign at the very least. So if the destruction committees keep up thier lies and utter fabrications, it could result in passage anyways.
Shame that in a matter of good faith and avoid unintended consequences of a bill that would cause less hurdle to development, the sponsors decide to support its withdrawal.
Tell me PMJ, would do you want CW1 on the ballot?

June 7, 2008 - 8:56am | pmjusa

I See.

For someone not involved either way, Puckfebble (ha), you seem pretty confident that CW 3 will not be open to litigation and further interpretation by the courts in the future re. the mining shutdown effects. However, CW 1 supporters stand to lose nothing by disavowing it, and besides, there’s no mechanism in place for the state to remove it from the ballot. It may however be found to be a taking and removed by the Supreme Court later this month. That remains to be seen.
Why would anyone want CW 1 on the ballot? I may be pro-development, but I am marginally smarter than Pavlov’s dog. I think there’s better ways to ensure that industry is compatible with fisheries than to tie the issue up in the courts, or make science-based decisions subject to initiatives hyped with hysteria. Those are two very expensive alternatives that are eventually paid for by the average bear like me and my family, just as with our current energy situation. If either initiative passes, the costs to all Alaskan’s will be tremendous.
Perhaps an initiative that further ensures compliance for all user groups would work. Current reg's already address fish issues, and certainly violations should not be viewed as a cost of doing business - but that is not the direction this thing has taken.
From the beginning of Northern Dynasty’s explorations at Pebble, when they discovered the Pebble deposit was as rich as it is, the anti-development groups knee-jerked to fight it. They sent bright young grad students, photographers, and writers to the villages in the region to gin up fear about the mine with local folks. They were not interested at all in discussing the possibility that Pebble could be anything but a disaster for all of Bristol Bay. So started the anti-Pebble publicity campaign in preparation for these shutdown initiatives. Bob Gillam telegraphed this plan way back when Jay Ramras openly told the AMA group in Fairbanks he’d bring down the industry if they wouldn’t as much as disavow Pebble.
The Fish Refuge proposal was a headfake, and about as useful as the weasel refuges we already have for anti-development environmentalists and their spokesmen in our leading cities.

June 7, 2008 - 9:04am | NoBob

The supreme court

removed 07WATR from the ballot on Friday. It's gone.

June 7, 2008 - 9:06am | pmjusa

Good.

Thanks for the update, Nobob.

June 5, 2008 - 8:36am | asrcp9

Once again you are making

Once again you are making the assumption that all of alaska, or for now, Anchorage, is going to vote yes for either of these initiatives. You don't speak for me and for others in the area that are voting this August 26.

As for the sponsors of the initiatives, funny how they have been getting so much negative ads for their intiatives, then decide that it's their choice to take one of the initiatives down. Weren't they the ones who were pushing the fact that 60,000 signatures were taken to pass these initiatives? I don't know how they think they can legally stop this initiative from going to a vote, but it makes me wonder if it really was something that would only stop Pebble, especially after all the advertisement RRC spent saying it wouldn't shutdown other mines. But now RRC is no longer updating their website and now another website, akcleanwater.org is now pushing these initiatives.

I'm not saying that either side is not stretching things out of context, but what I'm saying is that you sure are making one side seem like the saint and the other as the sinner. You don't vote for me, I have my own mind, and I want the truth from both sides before I make my decision this August 26.

June 5, 2008 - 4:11pm | NoBob

As a practical matter

the sponsors of Water 1 might not have to do anything to withdraw it. The latest court decision was to kick it off the ballot. If they don't defend the initiative in the supreme court, that decision's unlikely to be reversed--especially considering that it is so constitutionally deficient that it is certainly doomed.

But right now we're in limbo. On the one hand we have Art Hackney saying on a radio show that Water 1 is out. And, on the other hand, we have the against the shutdown people assuming in ads it's in. Neither one of these is right, but Hackney might be closer to what will happen in the end. If I was running the anti-initiative campaign, I would play it straighter. But I'm not.

2 June 3, 2008 - 10:37pm | PuckFebble

Quite Surprising...

In looking through there. Considering the earlier news, I found it quite telling just how few inspections actually happen. Only the largest cities in the state and Red Dog had 8 in a five year period with the most.
I was lead to believe by the mining interests that there was constant on site EPA monitoring. I was also told by various people that such non-complaince would cause them to cease operations. The fines are simply another operating expense and this shines on why the current system we have is broken and it it going to take the residents of this state to stand up and say it.

June 3, 2008 - 11:32pm | Sockeyemark

Can't wait for pms to chime in here, it's just not SO;she'll say

mining is such a clean operation that they need little oversight. If left alone they'll govern themselves.
That is really what's at the crux of the whole clean water 3, it brings to light there operation. And they don't want the world to know what they've been getting away with.
Gigs up, there is no mining shutdown. They just want to be left alone with their little cyanide ponds that will leech into the water table for future generations to deal with....

June 5, 2008 - 9:41pm | njalo99

what A Crock

and you should know this one MARK. How many spills has Big oil had....just in this last MONTH?>???????? puhlease tell me your not an idiot.... and respond..... you work in the oil field....you know what goes on.... I DO just by my family....have a brother that has been in the oil field for 22 years.......I Know what goes on....so please untill you can keep your garbage out of our Systems....than you shouldn't JUDGE my system.....
or my livelihood.....

June 4, 2008 - 7:26am | pmjusa

Mining needs you, girlfriend.

And fishing needs me, not for shutdowns, just to help keep honest people honest. Pebble won't be permitted in a manner that validates your scare stories or effects your livelihood as a Red Salmon fisherwoman. That's just a red herring.

I suspect when we see the violation results posted, we're going to hear a lot of...

...

/crickets chirping/

June 4, 2008 - 1:49pm | Sockeyemark

Fishermen and miners can cuddle too !!

looks like everyone has some water issues. But I would bet that the difference between the two industries infractions is ; one has to do with toxic chemicals and the other with fish waste.

June 5, 2008 - 9:47pm | njalo99

I call bullshit, it isn't just fish waste....it is waste period...I have been in the canneries, the slime line, tossing halibut, tossing salmon....the freezers..... and the ice......geez the ice.... I have seen both sides there and i prefer the responsibly mining corporation..... AT Least!!!!! They try and help communities other than shut them down........

June 4, 2008 - 2:06pm | jcn7vc

Downplaying the Results

So would you like either of those (toxic chemicals and fish waste) in your drinking water? Looks like your trying to downplay the fact that more fish-processing centers are putting forth bad water than mining operations.

Not only that, but look how many enforcements there have been for those centers that have been out of compliance compared to mines. Why the big discrepancy there? Shouldn't all places that are out of compliance be enforced to clean up?

June 4, 2008 - 2:37pm | demorgan33

No Fish Plants Drain

into a salmon spawning ground or drinking water supply. That is one difference, Canneries drain off organics back into the food chain, not heavy metals or toxins. I agree, the canneries do need to take every step neccessary to insure that they meet the standards put forth. Everyone should play by the rules.

June 4, 2008 - 11:11pm | CingRed

To answer your question...

"No fish plants drain directly into salmon spawning grounds or drinking water". Deep Creek Packing Co. was fined heavily by the EPA for dumping salmon carcasses and entrails directly into the Ninilchik River. (by the way this is an extremely old native and Russian settlement community). As I recall at the time, the EPA made claims that the oxygen level in the stream was too low for fish rearing. I don't know if the citizens use the river for drinking water or not, but I wouldn't drink downstream or upstream from the plant.

I agree with you on one thing, everyone should play by the rules, unfortunately the CW Initiatives singles out one particular industry and demonizes it. I guess that's what we're debating isn't it?

June 4, 2008 - 11:48pm | Sockeyemark

An not to mention the millions of salmon that swim up the

river and die naturally, oh my!!! Let me see, dead fish or cyinide,,,,Hmmmmmm tough choice you got me there.

June 5, 2008 - 12:18am | CingRed

Biology major your not...

Sure salmon carcasses in the river are healthy part of the eco-system but adding more than the stream can substain will not make it healthier.

June 5, 2008 - 1:03am | Sockeyemark

The cannery is down at the tidal mixing zone, you know

the one Frank Murkowski said was ok to dump your mining waste into!! Got your eco system right here, what was Frank thinking. He wasn't and that's why he's out....Frank was in bed with the miners, no! tell me it isn't so Ms Red not you??

June 4, 2008 - 11:25pm | PuckFebble

Hi CingRed

Hope all is well with you...
Your last two sentences are among several larger issues that we all must weigh when we go to the ballot booth.
I think we can all agree that enforcement needs to happen on all industry, and even government, especially governments actually in my opinion. I was quite surprised to read the information on the various local governments around the state. Pleased to report my community, while not perfect, was better than most.

When it comes to pollution and discharges, one needs to consider what is the pollutant involved. Certainly you would agree that a ton of fish guts is preferable to an ounce of cyanide.

June 5, 2008 - 12:07am | CingRed

Right back at ya'

I hope you, Ms. Sockeye, Joe, and all the other BB fisherman have a prosperous and safe fishing season with many more to come.

Back on topic. EPA enforcement in Alaska is very inconsistent. At times they are completely clueless to our issues (they are located in Seattle) and at other times they come down with a steel fist.

Although an ounce of cyanide sounds extremely toxic and has the shock factor to it, I am not sure the ton of fish guts is that much better. I'm no chemist, but when the City of Valdez spews the fish waste directly in their harbor, the smell was overwhelming. Seriously, I thought I had a propane leak and had asked the harbor master for help to fine my propane leak. He laughed and told me it's the city dumping decomposing fish entrails in the Arm. Mind you this was 4am in the morning they were doing this, so most were asleep when it occurred. I'm telling ya', it made pulp mills in the lower forty-eight smell like a breathe of fresh air. Aside from that, I do agree the severity of the toxin along with the quantity needs to be considered when delivering punitive fines.

June 5, 2008 - 12:32am | PuckFebble

Its a start...

I always knew we could agree on at least a few things.
Speaking to the specifics of examples mentioned, those sound quite bad and I will agree that I have seen some and smelled some very unpleasant things on the beach. Peter Pan Cannery at low tide in July, I have always claimed it smelled like money. But either way, my point in the original post I made was utter surprise at the state of the EPA. No Alaska office is a joke and ought to be a high priority for our Congressional delegation. The inspection numbers are a shameful joke.
I have had on a few different occassions spoke frankly with reps from Pebble. What I was enthusiastically lead to believe has turned out to be not true at all when it comes to the mining industry in Alaska. That might be the biggest line of BS I have heard from them yet.
Also, thanks for your well wishes.

June 5, 2008 - 12:18am | Sockeyemark

We'll have many more to come, right after CW1 and 3 pass

and I'm sure you'll miss us while we're out fishing. To bad we don't have broadband out on the fishing grounds. Would be great to blog in while we're delivering boat loads of toxic free Wild Alaskan sockeye.
you don't know what you've got till it's gone, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot......dang there's that 70's song singing in my head again.....could you sing it for me Ms Sing Red???

June 5, 2008 - 12:35am | CingRed

ooo la la la...

Could have been the first environmentalist song written and recorded...right up your alley no? Must have been your first song you remember growing up in California.

Though I like all salmon, I prefer chinook and cohos. Sockeye aren't that bad canned, especially in chili.

There will be many years of great fishing left. Who knows maybe Pebble will put BB reds on the map. They may be the next Copper River Reds or maybe you can even call it by the same name too. Since their's Copper in them their hills and a fishing river which goes by the same name is located there.

Seriously, I mean no malice about your fish season. Your Initiatives are another matter.

June 5, 2008 - 12:56am | Sockeyemark

Thanks, Joe could use some encouragement though!!

he just put in one of those high dollar refrigeration systems and needs to catch a lot of fish to make it pay. But Bristol Bay has A LOT of fish, at least for now. So with you and pms wishing him well ,he'll at least have hope for seasons to come.
Maybe we'll see you all at the voting both come August, Puck,Joe and Mark......and their generations of fishermen to follow..,,, guess I'll have to cook you all up some sockeye, in a can with some chili? What's up with that! Surely you can think more out of the sluice box than that, otherwise your stuck with open pit mining and that will never fly either.

June 4, 2008 - 3:54pm | Sockeyemark

Do you want to cuddle JOE ??

all the dirty little business secrets are coming out, thanks to Pebble Mine....

June 4, 2008 - 2:25pm | Sockeyemark

They should, but they won't

case in point from this whole blog. Industry will just pay the fine, business as usual.
If you had more teeth in the regs you might get a little quicker response and action.
But thanks to Pebble for bringing this all to light. Many people out there didn't know much about the mining industry in Alaska. They are getting an education now.
An educated voters will go to the polls in August. 60 thousand have already made their voices heard. In this state, in an August election that might be enough to win with CLEAN WATER 1 or 3.....

June 4, 2008 - 7:33am | demorgan33

Aren't all the listed projects Permitted

And aren't many of them in violation of stated permit requirements? This is the problem, NDM can make any promises they want and then, just not follow the rules with little or no punishment. Why would Pebble be managed any different than existing operations?

June 4, 2008 - 11:59pm | Sockeyemark

Hey Joe, we're in the promising stage of permit process

don't ya know. We'll give you anything you want, just give us the OK to do it.
Then we'll deal with our Booboos later, you know a little under the table and you get a small fine and slap on the wrist.
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot,,,,don't it always seem to go.....excuse me I got caught up in a 70's song.....

June 4, 2008 - 12:42am | CingRed

"Left alone they'll govern themselves"

Commercial fisherman are not impervious to violating laws and regulations too. I've witnessed a lot ruthless fishing practices, some that darn near wiped out an entire salmon run. Would you quickly react and say the system is flawed and fisherman are getting away with it? Many fisherman have skeletons in their closet and carry records from past fishing violations, should the same litmus test you apply to mining apply to fisherman also?

June 4, 2008 - 3:28am | Sockeyemark

I thought this arcticle was about mining?

singred and pms keep talking about fishing? Bristol Bay fishery is alive and well. Talk about obfuscate, Pebble Mine and mining is the blog here. Salmon fishing in Alaska has been the envy of the world. Our fish and game biologist have done a pretty fair job of keeping our runs healthy. They make the rules and we follow them.
But screwing up their spawning grounds is out of the fisherman's control. Leave that up to state laws and regulations, that we need to strengthen with Clean water 3 by the way!!

June 4, 2008 - 11:34pm | CingRed

Specifically, this thread is about clear water

among other things like regulations, violations, and healthy fish stock. What makes you believe mining is the sole industry that threatens fish stock? Their was a truck that spilled all kinds of fertilizer in the Kenai River drainage this past weekend. Where was the uproar to ban trucking contaminates near salmon streams? The AK Railroad derailed and dumped thousand of gallons of fuel and the spill response by the State was atrocious at best. If private industry behaved in this fashion they would have been fined a whole lot more than 150k. Are you speaking out against the railroad industry? How about perhaps the biggest catastrophe in Alaska history in PWS by the oil industry? How come they get a pass on the CW Initiatives?

This is about one man's mission to shut down an industry. Shut Gillam down, vote "No" on intiative I & III.

June 4, 2008 - 11:37am | jcn7vc

You're Kidding, Right?

YOU are the one that keeps bringing up how mining will end all fishing in Bristol Bay and kill every salmon that ever comes in contact with water that once touched Pepple, an operation which is still going through the planning stages and not even made it to ground breaking. YOU are a hypocrite to suggest we are trying to change topics when you all along have been whining that the fish are the state's biggest resource, using that to derail mining everywhere.

By the way, I am just curious, what percentage of the state's fishing revenue comes from Bristol Bay? I am not familiar with that industry, so that is why I ask.

June 4, 2008 - 11:43am | jcn7vc

DELETED

DOUBLE-POST DELETED

June 4, 2008 - 2:14am | PuckFebble

Hi There,

Cingred,
I am the first to say there could be improvements in the fisheries and its enviromental standards. The fisheries in BB have long had its issues, I wont deny that. What concerns me about the issues you raise is that you forget the subsistence factor, and the overall ecosystem health. Making this a salmon versus gold issue is far to simple.
All of a sudden it has become necessary to place a monetary value on things that are priceless to justify ones existence. Its shameful what Pebble has brought into the Bristol Bay mix.
With a dramatic raise in the cost of living and people spend less in the stores, they rely more on the fish from our healthy rivers. Pebble puts those opportunities at risk and doesnt do much to reduce the cost of living for the average resident. Pebble isnt going to lower anyones fuel bill.
You are begining to justify harming one industry to gamble on another, this is a little alarming to me.

June 5, 2008 - 1:14am | CingRed

Now were talking!

I didn't forget about 'subsistence factor' I have only omitted it from this thread, but I am happy you brought it up, because in my belief this is one if not the largest issue here. The fact of the matter is mining will create opportunities for the locals and help anchor the locals there. We've all read the statistics lately about how rural Alaskans are moving to the urban communities (ie Anchorage & Fairbanks) by the droves. We are talking about a double digit exodus. Dillingham, King Salmon, Non-Dalton are not immune from this statistic. How about substance abuse, alcoholism, depression, violence, high drop out rates etc...in the communities. We need to build strong local economies, fishing is one avenue, mining can be another. It's all about choices...fishing brings pride to some in the community and that's great, but let's face it, not all kids want to grow up being an ole' salty dog. Maybe some would like the opportunity to become a geologist, engineer, heavy equipment operator, or a consultant.
The mining industry offers outstanding pay and benefits too (retirement, quality insurance programs etc..). One agency states: "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". I don't know about you but that isn't a bad average wage. I'd like to comment about your statement about the Native culture vs. monetary value but it's late and I need to hit the sack.

June 5, 2008 - 1:30am | Sockeyemark

One fellow on this blog that is from the Bristol bay Area said

we don't need your mining money, been doing fine without it. In other words, everyone thinks they have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
The reason they are moving out is because they want the urban lifestyle, and they'll soon find out that the grass is not always greener on the other side.
Hungry mans a thinking man, urban man is soft in the middle. Both lifestyles have their own problems and mining is not the answer to their ills...in fact will probably make it worse.

1 June 3, 2008 - 7:55pm | Sockeyemark

It's been said here already, rules and regs have no teeth

this is why the mining industry is whining so loudly and crying about clean water initiatives will shut them down. what it really does is shine a light on their business that would have otherwise stayed in a dark closet...
clean water 3 is only a step in the right direction

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

More about clean water