adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Hot off the press

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.

Hot off the press

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: June 11, 2008 - 3:31 pm

The Alaska Law Review, based at Duke University, has just posted an article titled "Pebble Mine: Fish, Minerals, and Testing the Limits of Alaska's 'Large Mine Permitting Process."

The authors include two Anchorage attorneys, Jeff Parker and Francis Raskin, and two former agency biologists, Carol Ann Woody and Lance Trasky. All of these folks have been weighing in on Pebble or raising concerns about development and water quality for quite some time.

I'd include excerpts but I'm pretty busy today on another story. When I dig into it a little more, I may update this post.

Here's a link to the article, which will appear in the law review's upcoming edition.

And no, I don't know why the Alaska Law Review is based at Duke, but it may has something to do with the fact that Alaska does not have its own law school!

login or register to post comments

11 June 18, 2008 - 9:27am | bigdabber

little rock

No on Pebble. ...Daniel A. Berry

10 June 13, 2008 - 6:28am | whataboutmyjob

Risks Too Great

I agree with Minewatcher the risks are simply too great. Why risk 200 temporary jobs for the thousands of permanent jobs in the fishing and tourism industry? It seems like too great of a risk.

Also, I have been concerned of the news lately that a number of the states scientists have gone onto the payroll of these foreign mining companies. It makes me uncomfortable that they are trying to buy my vote with their millions in ads and trying to trick me. Their behavior really is disgusting.

How many people on this board are getting paid by the Pebble Partnership? I am sure many if all of those in favor of this project.

June 16, 2008 - 11:45am | gparker2

job data and risks

The salmon of the Bristol Bay drainages generated 5540 full time equivalent jobs in 2005, according to the economic study cited in foonote 34 of the law review article. The lead author of that economic study, John Duffield, is one of the more respected natural resource economists in the country. In contrast, NDM asserts that Pebble will create 1000 full time equivalent jobs and other spin-off jobs, but that estimate may or may not be reliable. Also, people have different opinons about how much Pebble would risk existing jobs. However, it is undenialbe that the track record on mines susceptible to acid mine drainage is very poor. Pebble is at groundwater in wet environment. That is very risky.

June 18, 2008 - 10:09am | NoBob

This "data" is just more Gillam-financed BS

--just like the law review article that cites it. In fact, the two are so closely related it is incestuous. The report is by Trout Unlimited, an outfit that joined in Gillam's lawsuit (G. Parker, counsel) claiming that Gillam's civil rights were violated by a bridge that allowed people near his lodge. TU did a phony takings analysis on Pebble that was submitted to the legislature. Brian Kraft and other Gillam cronies are prominently mentioned in the report. I would love to know how much money Gillam gave to TU.

I won't get into the survey method used to come up with these phony numbers except to say that it has huge problems that are obvious to anyone with a lick of sense. More later, perhaps.

In the end, the report (and the law review article) doesn't have any more credence than the posters on this blog. It's just someone's opinion cloaked in a bunch of phony baloney.

June 16, 2008 - 9:10pm | njalo99

how about some more recent data, sayyyyy 2007?

June 13, 2008 - 11:09am | njalo99

nice facts

but it won't be 200 temporary jobs.....for a few years.....try close to a 1,000 for a hundred years???? Done responsibly I think this would benefit all Alaskans. And as for your fishing and tourism jobs????? how great is that when 76% of your workers aren't even Alaskans...and they head back down south???

June 16, 2008 - 5:52am | whataboutmyjob

Oh great!

Oh fantastic, 1,000 jobs! Oh boy am I excited. Where will the remaining 15,000 or more people who work in the commercial fishing industry work? Or the thousands who work in the hospitality industry?

June 19, 2008 - 7:39pm | njalo99

that's easy

they will go back to the lower 48

June 19, 2008 - 9:36pm | CingRed

..like they do every summer.

Taking their few dollars with em' too!

(I finished your post njalo, hope you didn't mind=)

June 20, 2008 - 2:14am | njalo99

no problem

I did leave it kind of open ended, but thanks

June 18, 2008 - 7:40am | jokeener

No brainer...

They will continue to work in the flagging fishing industry or make a choice to work at the mine. Fishing and mining are not mutually exclusive. In fact, fishing is far more reliant on mining than the converse. Eating fish is a privileged choice, whereas, utilizing minerals is an everday necessity.

June 13, 2008 - 3:50pm | gparker2

job data

You might look at the chart in footnote 34 of the Law Review article. Footnore 34 provides resident-Alaskan/nonresident data on jobs in the Bristol Bay drainages that are attributable to salmon. Footnote 34 even breaks the resident data down for "local" Alaska residents and "nonlocal" Alaska residents. The data uses the regional economic model developed by the University of Alaska, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

June 13, 2008 - 2:00pm | Sockeyemark

So your saying that Pebble will be hire all Alaskans...yea right

Red Dog has a high rate of out of State workers also. Won't be any different with Pebble, in fact I would say the out of state workers will be higher with Pebble. Since Pebble will be ruining the area of Bristol Bay the local people who live there now will probably want to move out because their region will no longer support their lifestyle. So they will take the bait with a higher paying job only to move out of their once rich area.
It's all about money with the miners, the heck with the fish and game...

June 13, 2008 - 2:32pm | asrcp9

I think you may be wrong...

with the percentage of Red Dog Employees being from out of state.

"Production began at Red Dog in 1989 after shareholders decided to accept the large industrial development as a method of providing local jobs for an economically challenged, remote region, according to Helvi Sandvik, president of NANA Development Corp. Of the mine's 450 workers, the percentage of shareholders employed at Red Dog ranges from 57 percent to 62 percent, she said. 'About $21 million in annual wages are paid to shareholders who work there.'" (Patricia Liles, "Partners Of Choice," Alaska Business Monthly, September 2007)

Now, I'm not saying there aren't any out of state empolyees at Red Dog, but it looks like they aren't the majority.

June 13, 2008 - 2:46pm | Sockeyemark

Most businesses that are seasonal or remote and inclement

in Alaska have a fair share of out of state workers, it's a fact. Pebble won't be any different. Wrong or right it's just the way Alaska has always been. Even the original Gold Rush of the early years in Alaska, people came to strike it rich and go home. But due to the majority of them finding little or nothing they were somewhat forced into staying.

June 13, 2008 - 3:40pm | asrcp9

Yes, but thankfully

Yes, but thankfully technology has allowed us to better understand what is under the ground. So the people that will be working in these mines will be given the opportunity to have more than just a seasonal job such as fishing or tourism. Today, a company is not going to invest millions of dollars on the "hopes" that there is something under the ground.

June 13, 2008 - 5:14pm | Sockeyemark

we all know that there is ore there, a bunch of it in fact

but due to the remoteness and conditions most workers will live somewhere else. It's the nature of Alaska. They won't be seasonal workers, just not many local workers. The local people will drift away from the area over time, there traditional way of life will change. Money and the quest for it will change the fabric of Bristol Bay. With the fishery on decline from the effects of the mine, the area will take on an urban lifestyle. The conflict between tradition and urban life will fester like a open wound.
This is just the start of the spiral downward from a once great fishing region to a mining town....
The lure of big money, greed will win over the area.

June 13, 2008 - 2:18pm | rfn

It's all moot anyway.

Not only will fishing be entirely outlawed when justice prevails and our finned friends get their proper recognition. More, all those places now making their living off the senseless slaughter of fish will be deserted due to high energy prices. Checked the price of diesel fuel for the high-polluting fishing boats lately? Or home heating oil?

Perhaps thinking the villages might be kept as sort of museums where people can return for the commercial fishing season from their new public housing outside or in the city formerly known as 'Anchorage'? Consider the cost of getting there. Nope. Except for those people Pebble and other mines fly in to work and to live in company housing, it's all going to be a ghost-region. Soon.

Of course, with no development, read that "very, very soon".

June 13, 2008 - 2:54pm | Sockeyemark

Nonsense

If left alone, Bristol Bay's renewable resource will supply food and jobs for thousands of years.
If fuel prices continue to soar we'll all be at home in our tents trying to keep warm. But at least we'll be able to reach in a river and grab a sockeye for dinner.

June 14, 2008 - 10:56am | rfn

When all resource development

is thwarted and our finned friends are adequately protected that atrocity can never occur. Not without a fish & game trooper "grabbing" the murderer and trundling him/her off to a cell.

Fish are people too! If we're going to protect them from mining we must also protect them from home-invasion killings. Hooks should only be used to drag bad actors off the stage!

July 20, 2008 - 4:14am | pmjusa

Bad Actors Lied, Salmon Died

This just in: The ADF&G website reports that more than 200 million salmon died in Alaska as a result of commercial fishing related incidents in 2007. More than 1.3 million salmon died in Alaska from recreational fishing related incidents in 2006. No salmon deaths were reported from mining related incidents for 2006 or 2007. However, if Ballot Measure #4 passes and puts miners out of work the number of salmon deaths is likely to increase due to hungry miners.

July 20, 2008 - 1:10pm | rfn

We may have to bring back

the death penalty if the murder of defenseless salmon in this fashion is ever to be brought under control.

June 13, 2008 - 6:52am | NoBob

I'm pretty sure you're paid by Bob Gillam

But that's not really an issue here. Your faulty facts and logic are issues since they shared by so many. Faulty numbers--underestimating Pebble jobs by an order of magnitude. Faulty risk--assuming 100 percent chance of wiping out the fishery. (Got that from one of Bob's ads?) Many orders of magnitude error here. Faulty assessment of the the scope, value and importance of what is being risked. Here again, it is missed by an order of magnitude. There will be no reasoning with you, I'm afraid.

Gotta go work on my claims. Back in a few days, I hope. Hope everybody here stays well.

July 27, 2008 - 3:16pm | Sockeyemark

I was wrong, hope the initiative fails

Bristol Bay will be just fine with Pebble Mine, clean water and sockeye salmon are overrated. This has been a big waste of time for all Alaskans.
Just put the mine in as you want and we'll deal with the problems if any later on. I'm sure they'll do it right without any outside intervention.
What were we thinking!! I'm really sorry all you miners out there. Go back to your digging and carry on with your business, you all are the epitome of mining for the world.

July 27, 2008 - 3:32pm | rfn

Regardless of the outcome

of this initiative, we've got to convince our national government that clean water is important to everyone. The pollution from hosing down filthy decks, oily exhaust and the droppings of the crestfallen white-butt (observed as they utilize the rail in time of need) are no longer acceptable. Fish live in that water and people who depend upon them for subsistence need those fish to be free of those impurities. The commercial fishing loophole in federal law clean water laws must be closed and quickly!

July 27, 2008 - 10:56pm | Sockeyemark

Absolutely, close the loopholes

Don't imagine there are any loopholes in the mining industries laws. Otherwise there is no way you could leave a cyanide laden sulfuric acid laden earthen dam behind for eternity. No loopholes there!
Nothing but well written laws to govern the mining industry. A true shinning star in the northern sky for all to follow.

July 28, 2008 - 11:00am | rfn

It seems what we really

need is a law to stop the flow of water.

Sulphuric acid comes from naturally occurring sulphites in the soil. Every time water flows it erodes those sulphites and they become sulphuric acid.

So, to save the salmon, we must stop water from flowing.

Of course that does introduce a bit of an issue but since the laws of nature are of no importance to so many of us who wash filth off the decks into the ocean and trundle sewage about in fragile tanks......

9 June 12, 2008 - 12:16pm | minewatcher

that's just nonsense

Listen, if I die next week in a car crash...it would certainly be a bummer (especially for me), but only a small universe of people would be affected. Given the huge number of folks/animals/industries who stand to be negatively impacted from this mine, I think a different standard should be applied. Particularly given the gigantic nature of this proposed construction project and the long term impacts, common sense would seem to dictate that every caution should be considered.

Be that as it may, are you on the Anglo, Rio Tinto, or Northern Dynasty payroll?

June 12, 2008 - 5:48pm | njalo99

haha

That's just fine MW...But if you spend all your life worrying about What..."could" happen you'll never accomplish anything in your lifetime.... I prefer what to think about what i "could" do..... I know this can be done right.... just waiting for Alllll the naysayers to start up......

June 12, 2008 - 12:35pm | NoBob

Perhaps you and I can agree . . .

I too think every caution should be applied. But I see that as different than nixing this project before the facts are even considered. (And nixing is what I hear from the folks that don't seem to know that we even have water quality regulations.)

My point with the analogy was to say that we all assess risks and make choices based on those assessments. What are the risks of Pebble? Are they what we read in Bob Gillam's ads? Are they accurately portrayed in this very deficient law review article? I don't think so.

And for your information, I don't work for any of those companies or any other mining companies. Are you on Bob Gillam's payroll?

June 12, 2008 - 5:40pm | Sockeyemark

We are not to believe Bob Gillam's adds, but we are suppose

to believe all the mining shutdown adds. We all know there is a huge amount of risk that comes with Pebble Mine.
Do we want to put the Worlds Greatest Salmon run at risk? For what, some jobs and money that will not last a lifetime like the salmon will !

June 12, 2008 - 6:23pm | NoBob

The idea that this matter would be settled with dueling ads is

ridiculous. We have a process to sort out the facts--that's the permitting process. It may be a bit bureaucratic at times--cumbersome for sure. It doesn't always get where everyone wants to go. But it's the best we have--and it's a darn sight better than the misleading ads from either side.

8 June 12, 2008 - 9:44am | minewatcher

If it doesn't talk about acid drainage, it should

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials estimate that 40% of western U.S. watersheds are affected by mining pollution. There are more than 25 mines, some of them active, on the U.S. Superfund list...and chief among these problems is acid mine drainage.

Both the mining industry and environmentalists agree on the dangers of acid mine drainage...are you really comfortable risking that given the critical importance of this salmon fishery?

June 16, 2008 - 9:18am | jokeener

You overlook the greatest polluters

100% of all U.S. waterways are affected by recreational pollution. Fisherman (commercial and recreational) are a primary source of water pllution. Therefore, by your logic, we must ban all recreational/commercial use of U.S. waterways. There are no active mines in the U.S. that are causing AMD. These superfund sites are located on historic and closed mines. None occur in Alaska.

June 12, 2008 - 10:10am | NoBob

Let me clarify . . .

It does discuss acid drainage in about the same depth as your post. That's insufficient to convey an understanding. In the end, it's just rhetoric.

To analogize to your question: Some people were killed in a traffic accident last week. Given the dangers of driving and the critical importance of your life, wouldn't it be best to stay home?

7 June 12, 2008 - 8:14am | NoBob

This thing is full of problems

I loved the part where they blamed greedy mining entrepreneurs for ruining fishing with their business practices—not water discharges—prior to statehood. C’mon. The intro reads like a political tract—and that’s just what the whole thing is.

The “science” in this piece is sort of a bumper sticker science. Much of it is speculative—e.g., ‘we don’t really know, but assuming the worst . . .’ And it is out of scientific context. For example, it doesn’t discuss the situations where acid drainage occurs and doesn’t occur in sulfide tails or waste rock. And, more importantly, it is out of context of the engineering solutions (legally required engineering solutions in many cases, I might add) that address and resolve these issues. This very unfair. This kind of worst-case speculation without considering magnitude of harm or mitigating solutions can be used to argue against anything—including fishing in Bristol Bay. After all, those boats release copper and oil and other bad stuff. In the end, it isn’t science. It’s just rhetoric.

The legal part just stinks. Sure, DNR is the lead agency for the EIS and permitting, but that’s not the end of mining regulation. The big deal for environmentalists and miners alike is water. Isn’t that why we have these half-baked water initiatives? The miners will tell you that the biggest hurdle of permitting and operating once a permit is issued is the water permit—the NPDES permit (soon to be APDES permit). This governs water discharges from the end of the pipe and from runoff from roads, tailings, or anything else at the mine site.

The article gives no consideration—nada, nothing—to water permitting and regulation. Stunning! Without considering the most important issue, this article is just a bunch of words on paper. Meaningless.

The legal analysis is lame too. They assert that the state can just take away mining rights without compensation. For authority, they cite a case where someone staked some claims on Mental Health Trust Lands. The court said they couldn’t mine because the Trust was improperly dissolved and thus the title to the land was defective, thus there was no taking. That doesn’t have anything to do with taking state mining claims on state land designated for mining. Parker would be laughed out of court for asserting that. (Like he was on Gillam’s bridge “problem.”)

Bottom line: Gillam hired some lawyers and biologists to write a political tract and this is it.

6 June 12, 2008 - 6:43am | minewatcher

It's right there in black and white

The article says,

(1) scientific findings demonstrate toxic affects on fish below established limits for copper, (2) multiple parameters affect toxicity of copper alone and in synergistic combination with other metals, and (3) the understanding of synergistic effects is developing.

So all things being equal, and without all the evidence being in...shouldn't we err on the side of caution and hault the Pebble Mine Project rather than risk the potential damages?

June 12, 2008 - 5:53pm | njalo99

just my opinion

But if we always Err on the side of caution what will we accomplish???? more regulation, more people willing to listen to the enviromentalist's who don't even live here tell us how we can work, live and recreate in our own state?????
The agencies are there ALREADY! I say let the process work, it won't be for years yet untill we hear everything about Pebble, but we, as Alaskans will have our say.... these initiative's aren't the right way to regulate an INDUSTRY.

June 12, 2008 - 6:01pm | Sockeyemark

Everybody's got one,,,,an opinion that is!!

When it comes to putting the worlds largest sockeye run at risk to Error on the side of caution is the prudent thing to do.
These initiatives are not Error's, just some protection from an industry that leaves a path of destruction behind when they leave.

June 16, 2008 - 10:26pm | njalo99

????

You keep say the worlds Largest Sockeye run,,,,,,, what about Kings, silvers, humpies and dogs???? they just don't make any money for you or you just discount them?????????

June 16, 2008 - 9:28am | jokeener

The greatest threat to salmon

are the fisherman themselves. They slaughter millions of them each year using despicably violent methods of mass murder and ichnicide. You should turn your ignorant rants on those who commit this crime against nature. Not those that have yet to murder a single fish.

June 13, 2008 - 11:04am | njalo99

obviously

your not talking about any New developement are you Mark??

5 June 12, 2008 - 3:50am | Sockeyemark

Do you want our fishery in tact or not

as much as we need ore to build business.....this food source is much more valuable. Lets not @%^*& it up for the next generation.

4 June 11, 2008 - 10:10pm | NoBob

Wow! This is the worst law review article I have ever read!

(Or I should say skimmed--more detail later.) How could anyone write on this topic and ignore Alaska's state/federal scheme for regulating water quality and water discharges. That's what this whole thing is about! Good grief. There are many other elementary or dishonest mistakes too. I'll write more tomorrow.

June 11, 2008 - 10:58pm | PuckFebble

So...

just as a question. Are we supposed to just believe claims being made by Pebble, now and in the future?
I honestly am not sure who to believe on the issue. Which is why I spend considerable time looking at plenty of other information about mining and the practices various companies involve themselves with. Including those involved with Pebble. The consistent thing I have noticed is deception, distraction, or flat out lies.
Considering the track record of AA, Rio, and Knight Piesold, Alaskans should be very very concerned about the honesty portrayed by them. Slam Bob Gillam all you want, it doesnt change piss poor stewardship shown by the three Ive named. At this time I will refrain from naming names on this blog, but there are some very dirty secrets to be told yet about the companies and the players they have imported, and also hired instate. When the time comes, youll know.

June 12, 2008 - 1:40am | watchman

Good question

It is not a matter of who we trust, but how we trust. I do not know if the Pebble Partnership can be trusted, nor do I know whether you can be trusted. I do know that innuendo accompanied by automatic polarization is not the way to get things done. It does not lead anywhere but into gridlock. I am not following anyone into gridlock anymore.

We Alaskans ought to be able to get this right. After all, the predecessor of the Environmental Impact Statement was first composed in Alaska, during the Project Chariot studies. We Alaskans were first in this, before NEPA.

I think we are looking for a social contract with Pebble Partnership, a contract in the sense of establishing a tentative trust relationship based upon a process of independent verification of the values we, the public, need from Pebble, and of the values Pebble needs from us. We extend trust because we hope to accomplish a thing, and we let the objective outcome of the process tell us whether it is reasonable to proceed, or not. We need to allow our trust to be objectively earned, or not.

Within reason, I really do not care how AA, Rio, and Knight Piesold have acted elsewhere, neither good nor bad. In like fashion, I really do not care how ConocoPhillips, BP, and Exxon have acted elsewhere, neither good nor bad. I am most interested in how they actually behave here and now. I am not interested in innuendo, nor in dirty secrets. I am interested in letting these companies know the terms for doing business in Alaska, and in finding out whether they are going to respect those terms. We start with a tentative relationship, a process for establishing trust, and see how it goes. I think that was the real value at the core of AGIA - we Alaskans will join you in a little risk on a reasonable venture, if you, TransCanada (or you, Pebble Partnership) can prove you may be trusted.

Success is sometimes harder to handle than failure. What are you going to do if we Alaskans are actually able to find a working, independently verifiable trust relationship with a resource extraction company? Examine your motives. Are you willing to allow a project to proceed if the trust relationship is successful?

June 12, 2008 - 9:27pm | PuckFebble

Hi Watchman

I hope all is well with you, you make some interesting points that I think merit a response. So in kind, I will just respond to each paragraph with a space between them to make it easier.

Firstly, I am not the one attempting to buy your trust or saying you should trust me as Alaskans, and the residents of Bristol Bay have had from the Pebble Partnership. the proof of trust needs to come from Pebble and if thier past history is any indication of future performance, it is my opinion they cannot be trusted. I certainly encourage you to form your own on the subject based not on what either side the propaganda has to offer, but looking deep into thier actions, the things they have to say that are not presented in thier polished media pieces.

I am proud that Alaska was at once by your account a leader in this field. But I think unfortunately, this is no longer the case. There are two issues here for me. The permitting process is not all it is cracked up to be, and that process does not in any way prevent failures in the operations of it. Except for fines that are written off as another business expense. A good example of a failed permit process is that Red Dog, clean or not, still violates thier permits often. Illinios Creek mine, went bankrupt just a few years into operations and the state was left with the bag. Then various smaller incidents, such as the cyanide spill at Fort Knox last year, or the
recent news about Rock Creek mine.

In terms of any sort of contract...financial, social, enviromental or otherwise, I would feel quite comfortable in saying that the far majority of Nushagak Drainage residents arent interested in any sort of contract with Pebble, short of them contracting thier own way back to where they came from. They want to put potentially the worlds largest tailings system at the very headwaters of the rivers we depend on. One slip(despite thier promises not to) and you would have disaster. There are plenty of examples of this happening elsewhere. Why all of a sudden they say this can never happen there is a concern of mine.

Ah the issue of the companies. You certainly are entitled to take a laissez faire approach to them, I have little problem with that. Though I think it wise for Alaskans to have a look at past and current practices exhibited by these companies as an indication of future behavior. One cannot hide the fact that AA has thousands of deaths that are directly responsible for. And tens of thousands they are indirectly involved with, this within the last 20 years. I do care how companies extracting resources in Alaska have conducted themselves elsewhere. There is little holding them back from thrusting those tragedies on us. I will shortly be compiling the information I have collected on these companies and I think Alaskans will be quite surpised at what these companies have to say, and then what they actually do.

Your last paragragh and the final question is what I will deal with here. I have said before, I have 3 issues with Pebble,
The players involved as I mentioned before and wont bother repeating.
The type of mining, meaning open pit, and cyanide heap leaching. An underground mine, that still uses cyanide is a bad idea to me.
Lastly, is its location. I know there are other mining claiming being bought up for similar development nearby Pebble. Without knowing enough, I dont feel right making a decision on those locations. But the location of Pebble is a non-starter for most Bay residents I have spoken with.
Yes I know one cannot move those resources to a different location to be mined, but I think the wisest thing would be to put a moratorium on Pebble for a few decades when we can see better how other mines in Alaska and elsewhere can be looked at from a more long term view. In 20 years, you might see me quite supportive of Pebble, but there are very few examples of mines of this type being successful in protecting the environment throughout its operations, and a successful reclamation.

So thanks for the response. I hope further dialogue will come from this. I am always willing to debate the merits of Pebble. I hope to hear from you soon.
-PF

June 15, 2008 - 9:22am | Victor67

Clean water initiative

I am curious about your statement "I know there are other mining claiming being bought up for similar development nearby Pebble. Without knowing enough, I dont feel right making a decision on those locations."

The "Clean Water Initiative 3" has so many negative ramifications for other existing mines and prospects throughout the state that a vote for the initiative is the same as "making a decision" "on other locations".

This is the problem.
Every potential mining proposal should have the right to be heard based on it’s own merits and not defeated by overreaching blanket prohibitions before the proposal can even be heard.

This initiative would arbitrarily override science-based processes and standards established through proper legislation and reflected in extensive laws governing permitting and mining that are in place today.

The question of the Pebble should be addressed in some other manner that is not detrimental to every other potential project in the entire state!

The idea that it is either mining or fishing, that some folks proclaim, is simply fear mongering at it's worst.

There need not be a tradeoff.

June 15, 2008 - 9:42am | Sockeyemark

Is it impossible for the mining industry to discharge

Clean Water? It may add expense but I don't not impossible.
Be positive and make it work ...clean up the water and your good to go.

June 15, 2008 - 10:35am | rfn

A reasonable standard

for water quality should not be a problem.

It's demands that discharge be cleaner than the drinking water that flows from the taps in Seattle-North that invite ridicule.

But, on the other hand, really smart goldfish oppressors in the big city filter their tap water before allowing their prisoners to soak in it.

Fish will only be free when fishing is classified as murder.

Mr. Gillam: TEAR DOWN THAT LODGE!

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Hot off the press