adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Acid mine drainage

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.

Acid mine drainage

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: August 6, 2008 - 5:56 pm

Acid mine drainage in Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey photo

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Anchorage recently commissioned a report to assist with its review of a number of upcoming mine developments in Alaska, ranging from Pebble to the Chuitna coal project.

The report, a rather sobering overview of the available scientific literature, is titled "Acid Mine Drainage and Effects on Fish Health and Ecology: A Review." It can be read here.

Here are some snippets from the report:

* "Accurate prediction of the onset and aggressiveness of low-quality acidic water discharge is perilously difficult using the best available science. Multiple complex geochemical, biological and hydrologic factors create a daunting task for mining engineers to profitably recover mineral resources while preventing discharges of metals and acidity to surface and ground water."

* "The U.S. Forest Service estimates that between 20,000 to 50,000 mines are currently generating acid on lands managed by that agency; with negative impacts from these mines affecting some 8,000 to 16,000 km of streams (USDA, Forest Service 1993). Many of these mines are small abandoned facilities located in remote areas of the western United States and originating prior to modern environmental controls. However, several large scale mines developed in the latter half of the twentieth century have declared bankruptcy and left taxpayers with the responsibility of treating acid waters in perpetuity. Examples include the Zortman Landusky Mine in Montana, the Summitville Mine in Colorado, and the Brohm Mine in South Dakota."

* "Acidic drainage has been identified as the largest environmental liability facing the Canadian mining industry and is estimated at $2 to $5 billion dollars."

* "... no hard rock surface mines exist today that can demonstrate that (acid mine drainage) can be stopped once it occurs on a large scale. Evidence from literature and field observations suggests that permitting large scale surface mining in sulfide-hosted rock with the expectation that no degradation of surface water will result due to acid generation imparts a substantial and unquantifiable risk to water quality and fisheries."

login or register to post comments

10 August 18, 2008 - 9:55pm | njalo99

Thunderstorms dumped 3 to 6

Thunderstorms dumped 3 to 6 inches of rain Friday and Saturday in northern Arizona and about 2 inches more on Sunday. In Supai Canyon, the deluge was only made worse by the breach of a small earthen dam upstream that is used to provide water for livestock.

The dam isn't a "huge, significant" structure, and its rupture was only one factor in the flooding, Blair said.

Another round of showers added almost an inch of rain Monday morning, and slow-moving storms were expected to sweep over the canyon later in the afternoon, the National Weather Service said.

August 19, 2008 - 1:10pm | Sockeyemark

Good thing we never get rain like that in Alaska!!

Not to worry, the PLAN will take care of all those little details...

9 August 17, 2008 - 2:02pm | Sockeyemark

Another engineered dam fails

PHOENIX - Officials are evacuating hundreds of people from the Grand Canyon after an earthen dam broke following heavy rains.
This would happen at Pebble too......Yes on 4

August 19, 2008 - 8:33am | jcn7vc

Scare Tactics

You, along with your Pro-BM4 cronies, really think that you can scare us into passing your initiative. However, those of us that actually look into the facts and stories you're presenting know the truth. The "dam" you're talking about was a small "engineered" wall for watering livestock on a ranch in the desert. Please post sources when you decide to make a huge conclusion like that, because otherwise you won't convince any of us. You're turning into the boy who cried wolf.

August 19, 2008 - 1:49pm | demorgan33

What will the dam in pebble be made of?

This is a good example of how "engineered" dams made of mud and pebbles function, not very well. If this pile of junk was holding back toxic mine waste, we would be looking at a preview of the inevitable pebble dam failure. The pebble people have already stated that there would be a dam of this nature, only much, much larger, as part of the "not yet proposed" mine, and that failure was unnavoidable. They hope to contain the leakage as best as possible, but with no guarantees.

August 18, 2008 - 12:02am | CingRed

Pebble Dam?

Maybe I missed something, what dam has Pebble built? Maybe you have the blueprints to share with us on the size and construction.

August 18, 2008 - 7:25am | Sockeyemark

Dam is what will hold the toxic waste that's left behind for

ETERNITY, size will be determined by the size of the mine. Pebble would more than likely be the largest in the world.
We want good clean water in the Bristol Bay watershed, not green glow in the dark toxic reservoirs to leach into the watershed for eternity. And when the dam breaks like the engineered one in the Grand Canyon they'll cry "It won't happen again" you right it won't happen again...We Must Vote Yes or have a Mess

8 August 11, 2008 - 11:36am | BD

How is Chuitna impacted by this?

Elizabeth
You state USFWS commissioned this to assist with its review of proposed mines, and you included Chuitna. Did USFWS state that somewhere? I do not see any mention of it in this "report." I thought Chuitna was a shallow deposit under strippable overburden, not rock. Is there an acid drainage concern at Chuitna also?

August 11, 2008 - 12:02pm | ebluemink

check out the first paragraph

in the "Purpose" section. I named Chuitna because it's the only proposed coal mine in AK I know of that USFWS is reviewing now. Possibly they will end up reviewing others, too - there's discussion of developing Arctic coal deposits, for example.
This report didn't actually mention an "acid drainage concern" at any proposed projects in Alaska. The subject is just not covered.

August 11, 2008 - 3:46pm | BD

Thanks Elizabeth

It is a fact that Chuitna is a large mine that USFWS is or will be reviewing. However, I would hesitate to connect the first sentence of the purpose paragraph with the last and conclude that USFWS will use this report to assist with its evaluation of Chuitna. Doing so implies that Chuitna has a potential for acid mine drainage and I don't think it does.

7 August 11, 2008 - 12:30am | pmjusa

Remarkable Timing

This report being released just now is intriguing. Reads like another made-to-order report. It also reads like it was vetted by lawyers - no offense to my good lawyer friends, but hedging weasel words and negative moral overtones are shot through this thing.

The process that the State has in place to protect fisheries has a proven record of improving fish habitat downstream from Alaska's large mines. This is a verifiable fact.

Measure 4 would throw out that process and do nothing to insure habitat improvement.

Save Wild Salmon. Preserve our economy. Vote No on 4.

August 11, 2008 - 1:17am | Sockeyemark

Preserve Alaska Waters, Yes On 4

It's time to Stop the Pebble Mine!!

August 18, 2008 - 9:23pm | njalo99

lol...... I have to say this Mark

you are like the village idiot that everyone wants to bop on the head but doesn't because "your special".......You might want to try decaff or another line because you are starting to sound desperate.... and voting is only 8 days away.... sorry I tried to stay away but you make it only too easy to jump in and shed some light on Reality............

August 11, 2008 - 1:26am | CingRed

Amazing thing...

the proposition doesn't even name Pebble Mine, but it will impact all mines for sure, it will close them down until courts and lawyers can define words like "measurable" and "any other itoxin known or unknown" and "impact directly or indirectly" and so on. It's like someone with no mining experience, credentials, or without outside input had wrote this initiative...oh wait, that's because it was written like that. Just face the fact, this proposition is lame and vote NO on Prop 4-- the deceptive and defective proposition.

Vote No

August 11, 2008 - 6:16am | jokeener

Precisely, CingRed

Imagine an anti-fishing/hunting initiative written by PETA. They have their experts, too.

August 11, 2008 - 1:40am | Sockeyemark

The only SURE thing, if prop 4 passes there will be no Pebble

mine. The rest can keep operating

August 12, 2008 - 12:03am | CingRed

Same rules which apply...

to Pebble will be applied to other mines. Your right Mark, their will be no mining at Pebble or in AK. Like I've stated many times, this lame initiative DOESN'T even name Pebble in the document.

Let's face it, Prop 4 is backhanded slap to not only the mining industry but to all Alaskans. Gillam should have asked for collaborative effort with his pet initiative rather then ramming it down everyone's throat with no public input. But he didn't, he went forward with this without any due process from the State, industry, or Alaskans. I hate to say this, but this initiative was spawned from Bob's ego, it's all about HIM. If you see Bob coming to help, just say no thank-you. And say no-thank you to Prop 4.

August 12, 2008 - 12:57am | Sockeyemark

I HAVE to support proposition 4

If I WANT to keep fishing. In life we do what we HAVE to so that we may do what we WANT to.
YOU may not like prop 4 , but since this isn't about YOU it's about taking care of what we got. YOU"VE got your mining I've got my fishing.
Keep Alaska's watershed clean for ALL to enjoy

August 13, 2008 - 12:47am | CingRed

I'm not a miner...

and your bread-n-butter is that of an oilman. I know I keep on stating this, but I think it's silly to state mining needs to clean up its act when you work for Big Oil. To continue, you contributed countless hours in sponsoring and writing this initiative and you didn't even include the oil or fishing industry to its specifications. It's like a skunk walking up to a miner and saying: 'you stink!'.

Say NO to stinker Prop#4

By the way, I was fishing and making money in the fishing industry before you could point out Bristol Bay on a map.

August 13, 2008 - 1:57am | Sockeyemark

Yes you "WAS " now your on the offensive against your roots

Now your on Big Mining side of things. At what point in your life did that change? When did money cloud sound reasoning for you?
Prop 4 will protect the Bristol Bay watershed,,,and keep the mining industry going....
I didn't think you were that old, I would have figured you to be younger. Surely and elder women would be wiser.

August 13, 2008 - 11:17am | rfn

I'm much more concerned about the filth

that comes from the runoff of money laundering. Yes, "Money Laundering". That's the term The ADN used editorially in discussing where the millions of out-of-state dollars are coming from to fund this "protect the lodge" initiative. Of course we needn't worry since the runoff apparently will occur in Virginia where the group is headquartered. But, hey, Virginia has rivers and fish, too....so does all the worry about clean water not care about them, too?

August 13, 2008 - 6:48pm | PuckFebble

Interesting to note

That the ADN Editorial page has already come out long ago in the opinion that developing Pebble is a bad idea.

But your concern about outside money goes both ways to say the least. But Ill ask anyways, if it is an Alaskan that put up the money to get spent here, how is that outside money? Either way, the money coming from the mining side of this battle comes from overseas. By your account of Virginians worrying about clean water, BM4 doesnt apply to mines in Canada and the UK where the Pebble cash comes from.

August 14, 2008 - 10:55am | jcn7vc

Come on Now...

Sure, their companies are based in Canada, Austrailia, UK, or where ever, but at least they employ Alaskans and have offices in the state. The money comes from Alaskan resources. The results have a direct impact on their employees, which are Alaskans. People from Virginia could care less if it eliminates the way of life for many Alaskans and Natives. That is a pretty poor arguement.

August 15, 2008 - 11:14am | Sockeyemark

People from Virgina are concerned about fishing jobs

and they out number the mining jobs 4 to 1....pretty much a good arguement....

August 13, 2008 - 6:56pm | rfn

If it were an Alaskan,

why launder the money through an outfit in Virginia? Afraid of the real reason for the initiative becoming too widely known.

And then there's the matter of the new revelation that what was supposed to be a local effort is tightly linked to an outside activist group dedicated to turning Alaska into a pristine, gun-free, vehicle-free National Park for the exclusive use of wealthy eco-tourists. Or don't those rich "sports fishermen" whose private lodges threaten the livelihoods of thousands of Native Alaskans count as "eco-tourists"?

Face it, the people who think they're in favor of 'Clean Water' are being used!

August 13, 2008 - 12:18pm | ebluemink

Wow

I was too busy to read the paper's editorial section this morning.
But not too busy to quit monitoring the blog, of course!

August 11, 2008 - 1:05am | CingRed

Indeed...

Measure 4 would throw out our current process and close down mines and jobs throughout the State.

The conspiracy theorist believes mines and the Alaskans that work them are out to poison our waters and our salmon. Unbelievable! Maybe those fisherman have been isolated on their boat too long to trump up such hype. What an imagine they have.

Stop the madness, vote No on 4.

August 11, 2008 - 9:52am | ebluemink

If you talked to state regulators recently...

you'd know that they aren't planning to rewrite any of their regulations.

So how exactly is the current process going to be thrown out?

Oh yeah, a lawsuit.

Kind of speculative, eh?

August 14, 2008 - 7:31am | Victor67

Acid lawsuits

One might ask the proposed "Kensington" mine people what they think about lawsuits being speculative.

August 14, 2008 - 7:57am | Sockeyemark

Pebble removes a salmon lake and two rivers,

don't suppose there will be a lawsuit there?! Prop 4 or no prop 4......Kensington will lead the way there....

August 11, 2008 - 2:34pm | jokeener

Simple

Through a review of existing regulations and definitions and subsequent litigated modifications and re-definitions. Current wording of BM4 implies that mines less than 640 acres would be exempt from the terms of the initiative. Current statute and regulations apply to all mines, regardless of size. Why do the authors of BM4 arbitrarily choose 640 acres as the trigger? A small, poorly run mine can do far greater damage to habitat than a large, well-run mine. The problem with BM4 is that it is written by NIMBYs who could not pass the constitutional test by banning a particular mine, therefore, they've drafted an initiative that infers Pebble, but applies to any project with a surface disturbance larger than 1 square mile. Why does this only apply to mines, when other developments like a city, oil facility, or military base can have the exact same, if not, worse impact? The initiative is aribtrary, capricious, deceptive, and intentionally vague. Lawyers prey on such laws.

August 11, 2008 - 3:07pm | Sockeyemark

You think this is the first law with some grey area

I'll bet the lawyers could have a hay day with the current set of laws. But as long as your doing your business in the manner in which it was intended you haven't a problem.
So if stated in another post that BM4 is no different than what we have, what's the beef.
Smaller mines will still have to follow other water rules.

August 12, 2008 - 9:50am | Victor67

Grey area?

Here we go then vote for grey area.
NOT!
No on 4
So if stated in another post that BM4 is no different than what we have?
Why bother with it then?
No on 4.

August 11, 2008 - 6:00pm | jokeener

You agree then that BM4 is redundant and unnecessary

"So if stated in another post that BM4 is no different than what we have, what's the beef."

Okaaaaayyyyy. Why BM4? Why are we going through this very expensive exercise?

If the BM passes, what's to stop Northern Dynasty from leasing out portions of the Pebble deposits into numerous 639 acre aliquots operated by different companies using different mine plans and permits?

August 11, 2008 - 6:03pm | Sockeyemark

Won't be cost effective for one,

I wasn't the one who made the statement about being redundant, I believe it was one of the other mining experts on here.

August 12, 2008 - 5:27pm | jcn7vc

Redundant?

No, but you are implying that voting for a redundant law is fine.

August 11, 2008 - 12:47am | Sockeyemark

Conspiracy Theorist, always some out to get you !

Do not let them take away the watershed of Bristol Bay, vote yes on 4#

August 11, 2008 - 6:13am | jokeener

In and out

"Do not let them take away the watershed of Bristol Bay"

and how, pray tell, would "they" do that?

6 August 9, 2008 - 1:32am | Sockeyemark

Check out the Peninsula Clarion web site, opening page

has an opinion poll...are you for or against the clean water proposition.......Nana corp. has been telling their people to vote on it. Can you imagine that! ?
I thought for sure there would thousands of people from the East coast tree hugger association on telephones ringing up the masses.
Guess it's just concerned Alaskans wanting to protect their investment that are voting for it.

August 12, 2008 - 5:30pm | jcn7vc

NANA Investment?

It's more than NANA's investment, it's their life! What other way of building schools, community centers, or paying for health care do they have?

5 August 8, 2008 - 8:51am | akharvester

Asking myself about Pebble:

This will be so effective at holding the potential Pebble project to a higher standard of protection of water quality because, like no other environment in Alaska, like no other mining project in Alaska the Pebble deposit is surrounded by one of the more complex hydrological systems anywhere. There is surface water, ground water, springs, and everything flows from one aquifer to lake to stream to pond to spring to river and eventually to sea. Hence the worlds richest salmon habitat, hence this mine poses the greatest risk to salmon than any mine ever has. Other mine projects will be less affected because they are not looking at operating in such a sensitive, pristine, water-logged environment. The lies are coming from people like you, the measure clearly states that if passed it will become state law that all existing mines and future expansions of them will not be affected, so why do you insist they will?

August 8, 2008 - 10:45am | Victor67

Not my words

Significantly, the top legal advisor to the Alaska Legislature wrote that this measure is highly ambiguous, its affect on existing mines is unknown, and it could 'prohibit prospective large scale mining operations' in Alaska.

4 August 8, 2008 - 7:48am | Victor67

Pebble or no pebble

I don't know and until the mining plan is completed and submitted I will not have a clue.
Proponents of ballot measure 4 claims that there will be no impact on any other project in Alaska. This is an outright lie.The impact on the entire mining industry has yet to be determined but it will not be a good thing.
Ask yourself how this initiative will be so effective in stopping the pebble and not affect anything else?
Let the pebble and all other mining proposals be heard based on their own merits. A blanket prohibition is not the answer.

August 8, 2008 - 9:46am | Sockeyemark

Your statement " I will not have a clue"

Kinds of sums it up on your knowledge base about mining and mines in general. It would probably be best if you did not vote at all.
Or do a little research on open pit mines, mining company track records. Cyanide leeching, tailings reservoirs failures, the list goes on.
You want to be an educated voter when heading to the voting booth.
One of the fellows I work with has a brother who is working at Mystery Creek mine out of McGrath. The mining company broke into the water table, and is now in the process of trying to figure out a way to seal it off. Very expensive, so they are trying to find someone to buy it from them! So the current clean water regs have not kept incidents like this from happening. And their answer is to try and sell their problem to someone else.
Mr. Victor it's time for you to get a clue.

August 8, 2008 - 10:37am | Victor67

No on 4

A little testy are we Sockhead?

August 8, 2008 - 10:35am | Victor67

Funny stuff

A little testy are we Mr. sockhead?

August 8, 2008 - 7:54am | jokeener

Thank You Victor67

Voters with brains like yours are needed if we're going to make smart decisions for our state's future.

August 8, 2008 - 11:30am | Sockeyemark

He already said he was clueless

that's the type of guy you want making decisions for our state????

August 8, 2008 - 2:27pm | jokeener

Of course

Victor admits that he wants to learn more about this before he makes a decision. That is an intelligent postion. Have you seen ND's proposed mine plan? What do you know about the geochemistry of the Pebble depsosit? Do you know that they will be using cyanide? They could propose a froth flotation process. Maybe it will be an underground operation. You, me, and Victor don't know. You are willing to make assumptions based on words fed to you by professional fearmongers, I am basing mine on 20 years of working as a professional earth scientist, and Victor has an open mind. Your vote is a foregone conclusion, as is mine. Victor and hopefully, other smart people like him will be making the difference. You can either talk to Victor with respect and dignify him with cogent, informed responses or you can continue to act like a thug and knock him around. Which do you think will be the effective method of argument?

August 8, 2008 - 3:28pm | Sockeyemark

Anglo can't hide behind their "Plan is in the making " forever,,

Which ever process they decide to use it will require first, removing the ground water. Then be it cyanide or floatation this too will require huge volumes of water.
We can talk all we want around the subject, but one has to come to the conclusion that this mine will ultimately be close to the largest open pit/ or underground mine in the world.
It will disrupt an very large area of land and water that just so happens to be in the spawning area of the one and only sockeye run of this type and size in the world.
An one doesn't have to look too far is this world to see what this will do to the area.
Mr. Victor can speak for himself, I'll not kick him around anymore.
I don't think either of us can be that naive to think that Anglo American doesn't have a pretty good idea of how they want to develop this mine already.
They just didn't realize that they were going to run into this much resistance. They have backed off, and are now in the process of trying to sell this to the public.
Your a miner, and I'm a fisherman but we have both been around and know what side of the toast our butter is on.
Pebble Mine if developed, will come at a cost. The people of Alaska need to make some tough decisions. We both know this, everything is a trade off.
Clean Water 4 says it will not harm mines that are in place. Miners are afraid of their livelihood and your probably right that some court time will be needed to iron out the details.
But new laws are challenged in court almost daily, even old laws for that matter.
But since Anglo is trying to develop a mine of this nature, in this area I think it only prudent to have some extra restrictions to protect the investment that is already there.
Please think about clean water 4 when heading to the voting booth on the 26th
Please accept my apologies for kicking you Victor67, I'll save it for rfn and jokeener. ( the softer side of sockeye )

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Acid mine drainage