The Pebble Blog : The state weighs in

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.

The state weighs in

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: August 19, 2008 - 3:07 pm

Here's today's announcement:
__________________________

OFFICE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT & PERMITTING
CONTACT: Ed Fogels
RELEASE DATE: August 18, 2008

SUBJECT: The State Releases Information on Ballot Measure #4

The Department of Natural Resources, working with the Departments of Law and Environmental Conservation, has prepared a review of Ballot Measure #4 on mining. The information is available on the state’s website here.

“There has been a tremendous amount of publicity about this ballot measure, but little discussion about how the State of Alaska and federal agencies currently protect water quality and salmon when we permit a mine. Through this website, the State provides factual information on the current mine permitting requirements and process, and what effect passage of Ballot Measure 4 might have on them. Our goal is to help answer some of the key questions Alaskans will be asking themselves as they prepare to vote on Ballot Measure 4 in August,” said Ed Fogels, DNR’s Director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting.

The website provides information on current regulatory requirements for mining in Alaska, and the potential effects of the ballot measure on the permitting of existing and future mines. This includes information on:

* Existing statutory and regulatory protections for water quality including existing protections for salmon and human health;
* How these standards are incorporated into permits to prohibit or limit the amount of specific pollutants that may be discharged;
* Issues that could arise due to the differences in language between Ballot Measure 4 and existing statutes and regulations;
* The ballot measure’s likely application to existing and future large metallic mines, besides the proposed Pebble Project; and
* Websites containing more detailed information on mine permitting in Alaska.

login or register to post comments

11 December 7, 2008 - 2:10pm | charlierotario

The state weighs in

This should be the right choice!
Do you have any idea about what to expect when you quit smoking?
Charlie R
quite smoking | how to quit smoking | free hypnotism

10 August 21, 2008 - 7:59am | jokeener

Sarah Palin

will vote NO on BM4.

August 21, 2008 - 12:33pm | BD

A Fisherman Voting No?

This is the worst nightmare for all of you frequent bloggers on here. The No voters have been busy badmouthing fishing as a dirty industry (as if this helps mining look good) and the Yes voters claim all fishermen are on their side.

August 22, 2008 - 6:37am | Victor67

No on 4

I am a fisherman and I like it that way. I am also greedy in thinking Alaska is the best and we can "Have it all".
Contrary to the CAVE people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything). I am yes on Alaska, fishing and mining.

The Mark Niver, Hackney, Gillam, crowd are the ones pitting the producers against each other.
NO ON 4

August 22, 2008 - 7:26am | Sockeyemark

Another Jensen sells his soul

to the Pebble Partnership, while your in the pockets of Big Mining take the Agnason's with you. Disgrace to your family name.....if you look into their eye's they'll steal your soul

September 11, 2008 - 7:11pm | stick_ah_bag

Jensen?

hey I read a federal crime report about a Jensen with quite a rap sheet. Something about sealing money orders from a post office. Is this the same one? It said Pedro Bay PO.

August 22, 2008 - 8:57am | Victor67

No on 4

Just what we need...More poetic junk.
No on 4

August 21, 2008 - 10:50am | akadvocate59

Interesting that the Daily News hasn't reported that

or added it to the blog. Not that the Daily News is biased or anything.

All the other media had the story yesterday.

August 21, 2008 - 11:33am | ebluemink

it's not that interesting

I've been much busier working on stories for the print edition.

August 21, 2008 - 11:50am | Sockeyemark

How about a story on the Governor campaigning for the miners

I'm impressed with the Sky is falling mining industry, they've got our Governor in their pocket....not bad.

August 21, 2008 - 8:18am | Sockeyemark

Unethical for Governor to campaign for a proposition

There will be a NO vote from me come re election time.

9 August 20, 2008 - 3:52pm | Oblivion

Ballot Measure 4 Vote Yes

I say we vote yes. Let them extract the minerals, and if an accident happens, god forbid, I need a good job in the cleanup business. Too bad Veco is gone! I'm really tired of the debate over this issue. In 1000 years, no one will care. Mother earth will have cleaned herself, the fish will thrive and people will be gone because we're SO STUPID! Get over it people, you'll never understand the whole truth so why bother listening to either side? Let's get the gold and the copper and the fish! GREED IS GOOD! LOL

August 20, 2008 - 4:47pm | Sockeyemark

Good Job another Yes Vote, keep them coming

Thanks

August 20, 2008 - 5:16pm | rfn

Typical of the ethics

we have come to expect.

The person has obviously misread the intention of the measure and here we see an attempt to keep him misguided.

Typical, indeed!

August 20, 2008 - 5:39pm | Sockeyemark

....How do you know he misread it, he could be sarcastic

you obviously are clairvoyant,

August 20, 2008 - 7:32pm | rfn

....How does anyone know what was truly meant?

Yet some choose to take advantage of the lack of clarity to mislead.

Does not require clairvoyance; just ethics.

August 20, 2008 - 7:44pm | Sockeyemark

If ypu read any of his other postings, I think he knows

how he is going to vote.

August 21, 2008 - 1:40pm | rfn

You think he knows.

But cannot know for certain. Therefore, mislead and hope.

Typical of the ethics previously displayed.

August 20, 2008 - 4:23pm | jcn7vc

Review the Ballot Measure

You better read the Initiative again. Voting yes keeps "mineral extraction" or mining from happening. Voting no allows them to go through with the permitting process and allows other mines to get permits in the future as well.

8 August 20, 2008 - 2:21pm | ThorZone

Ballot Measure 4 is unpredictable

What the DNR is saying is:

1. BM 4 does not add any value to making Alaska water any cleaner than it already is.

2. It will open the doors to endless law suits.

3. It is ambiguous and unclear. This is something lawyers love and regulators and industry hate because the rules are impossible to follow out in the real world. We will take a clearly worded set of regulations and throw them out, only to be replaced by something that is meaningless in the complex world of water quality regulations.

Get a clue and vote no on BM 4

7 August 20, 2008 - 8:34am | jokeener

Fuzzy words

Dermot Cole, in today's Fairbanks Daily News Miner, sums up the big problem with BM4. He points out that state agencies find the language vague, imprecise, redundant, and grammatically, incorrect. He also learned from Hackney that Hackney hasn't really analyzed the initiative and that "some lawyer wrote it".

People -- never, ever, ever let a lawyer write the terms of an agreement. They don't know anything about mining or biology and they will always devise the agreement to benefit themselves. Layyers are only useful when bad faith is intended or suspected. In the case of BM4, bad faith is clearly intended.

Cole's final words, to the effect: For a lawyer, fuzzy words are what dream$ are made of.

6 August 20, 2008 - 12:10am | PuckFebble

Systemic Failures

They wait a week before the election for this? Thanks for finally doing it! What a sorry state DNR must be in for them to wait this long to chime in. I certainly am not the only one who thinks there needs to be some leadership change there. Hopefully our Governor will wake up to this. Might as well not prevent Crawford from going to work for Pebble either, sooner the better.

The fact they have had the language of the measure for nearly 6 months and they finally make this clarification. It makes me question the entire effectiveness of the Office of PM&P. These are the people entrusted with the livlihoods of Alaskans. The same folks who bungled badly with Illinois Creek.

I am sure the various media outlets appreciate the injection of revenue though.

August 20, 2008 - 5:07am | jokeener

You haven't been paying attention

Or you're intentionally misprepresenting yourself. DNR and Ed Fogels has been saying this for several months now. It's been posted on this blog and elsewhere.

Try harder.

August 20, 2008 - 11:06am | PuckFebble

You Try Harder...

Firstly, I have been paying attention. I think you know that as well. What I am referring to is the folks who havent taken the time, and are only subjected to the bombardment of misleading ads on both sides of the issue but no easily accessible state information. Which coming from DNR is questionable anyways. But no worries, this whole fiasco is going to lead to some personnel changes over there I am sure.

August 22, 2008 - 4:53pm | Victor67

No easily accessible state information

The proponents do not want anyone to hear the truth. Right...In case anyone missed it tho:

By DNR/DEC 8/19/2008

“There are existing federal and state laws that prohibit discharges and other activities that would adversely affect salmon and human health. State water quality standards specifically prohibit discharges and other activities that could cause adverse effects on aquatic life, including salmon. The standards also protect water quality for drinking water use.”

“In the event that new science suggests that water quality standards need to be changed to fully protect salmon, human health, or other uses, the standards must be modified so that they are fully protective. State water quality standards must be reviewed every three years to insure they stay current.”

“Unlike existing laws and regulations. The ballot measure does not address matters such as how the law is to be applied or the penalties for violating the law.”

“The Ballot Measure appears to exempt existing large-scale metallic mines that have all their permits. However, existing mines will likely need changes to their permits to accommodate future changes in their operations. All future changes in facilities or operations at existing mines would fall under the initiative.” (end)

Yes on Alaska, fish and mining.
No on 4

August 20, 2008 - 1:00pm | jokeener

incoherent rambling

You sound hysterical and can't follow your own posts.

Take a pill.

August 20, 2008 - 12:57pm | jokeener

incoherent rambling

You sound hysterical; and no, I don't think you've been paying attention. You're making things up as you teeter along. Why would there be personnel changes at DNR? They've been acting like professionals and doing their jobs.

August 20, 2008 - 1:49pm | jokeener

Please excuse

sorry for the double post. There was a problem with the proxy server.

August 20, 2008 - 1:13pm | Sockeyemark

DNR, public employees.....60 thousand people signed these two

initiatives. DNR should keep their opinion to themselves, they can speak out in forums as individuals but should not display a biased opinion.

August 21, 2008 - 6:12pm | Cookie1

What Nonsense

Alaska has the strictest permitting regulations in the nation. This is just another example of how the ballot initiative process has been hijacked by well-funded special interests.

August 21, 2008 - 7:54pm | Sockeyemark

Obviously you haven't look at our regulations

your just spouting what the rest of the mining industry tells you. This mine wouldn't even be considered in the lower 48, put Alaska got this "we've got land to burn" mentality that they'll risk our salmon and water for a quick buck and a few jobs.

August 21, 2008 - 7:26pm | PuckFebble

Nonsense

Alaska does not have the strictest laws concerning mining in any way shape or form. You need to check out your facts. Pebble wouldnt even be considered in most other states. The only state that would even think about doing as dumb as Pebble would be Nevada, but thankfully it is largely desert and not the very spawning grounds of the largest salmon runs in the world.
You see most states have learned thier lessons when it comes to salmon resources and large scale industrialization. Its just a shame Alaska hasnt learned from thier mistakes and we need to have another catastrophe and get screwed over by the government and industry again before we wake up and then wonder why.

Cookie, your post is factually incorrect. Whoever told you that Alaska was the toughest permitting place, is wrong and probably misleading you for thier own gain.

August 21, 2008 - 9:31pm | jokeener

You got nothing

Let's see your facts. Contrast Alaska's water quality regulations with those of the other mining states: Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Minnesota. We're the ones carrying the ball for all the deadbeat non-mining states.

August 22, 2008 - 1:19am | PuckFebble

Western States...

Pebble would be a non starter in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, and probably wouldnt be permitted in BC even. The states you mentioned are largely desert or arid and produce zero salmon.

Bristol Bay, the ones carrying the ball for all the other places salmon runs have been impacted by industrialization of the rivers.

August 22, 2008 - 8:46pm | njalo99

.....

minnnesota .....arid???

August 23, 2008 - 7:12pm | PuckFebble

OK...

I am aware of the climate in Minnesota, and also aware that a sulfide mine in Minnesota doesnt exist. The other states mentioned certainly fall into my point.

Even more important, is the lack of salmon in all of those states. Or signifigant commercial fisheries of any kind. Massive industrialization has ruined fisheries all down the coast. Why put the last great one at such a risk?

August 22, 2008 - 12:51pm | rfn

So Measure 4 is part of the effort

toward the "Californication" of Alaska!

Thank you for having pointed that out.

August 22, 2008 - 1:27pm | Sockeyemark

Californication will be when our rivers are devoid of Salmon,

but we'll have our mine! That seems to be the short sighted goal here.

August 22, 2008 - 8:48pm | njalo99

.....

probably near a 1,000 jobs for about a 100 years....Yeah damn short-sighted.........

August 22, 2008 - 8:20pm | rfn

The way it works

is you drive industry away.

You kill off jobs.

You force rural residents into urban areas.

THEN you ban commercial fishing.

That's "Californication".

August 22, 2008 - 10:12pm | Sockeyemark

The way it REALLY WORKS

Put in a mine that kills off fishing.

54,000 jobs gone.

Residents have to move no more fish and game to subsist off of.

No need to ban fishing, nothing to catch.

That's " Repeating the same mistakes we've made in the lower 48"

Then move to California with the millions you take from mining in Alaska.....

And if you don't like the way it REALLY WORKS then vote yes on 4

August 23, 2008 - 9:29pm | rfn

Please help us all to understand

why there are NO major fish processors that are 100% Alaskan owned.

Mining and fishing can coexist peacefully with the sound regulations already in place. It is difficult, however, when a few wealthy sport fishermen decide they want it all...all the land...all the water...all the fish...for themselves.

Of course a festering number of outside environmental groups have jumped on the bandwagon and are secretly funding what they perceive as a wedge to shut down all industry in Alaska entirely. Just don't forget, commercial fishing is next on the list of targets. Please do not feign surprise when the lawsuits start to protect the salmon as they protected the spotted owl. The regulations that could not possibly harm the timber industry in Alaska. Remember when there actually was a timber industry?

Lie down with dogs; wake up with fleas!

August 20, 2008 - 7:49pm | Sockeyemark

Neither does our Governor

Due process lines are totally blurred in this state....no wonder the Governor is in hot water

August 20, 2008 - 1:48pm | jokeener

Mentalism

DNR, Dept. of Law, and DEC are offering professional opinions, unlike the ridiculous, emotional, fact-free opinions you post. Does it surprise you that there are 60,000 naive and uninformed Alaskans out there who never read the ballot initiative and can't be bothered to learn about existing regulations?

5 August 19, 2008 - 8:48pm | CingRed

What a waste of time...

Proposition 4 sponsors wasted all time, money, and resources for this:

"The difficulty in determining the impact of the Ballot Measure is that while it seeks to prevent mining discharges that would adversely affect human health or salmon, existing federal and state laws already do so. It is the opinion of the Alaska Department of Law that passage of the initiative would not require a change in either the rules or practices that apply to mines in Alaska.

By introducing new terminology, however, the Ballot Measure creates room for differing legal interpretations. The Ballot Measure’s language is general and less precise than language used in current federal and state law."

Maybe the initiative sponsors will learn to engage Alaskan citizens, Native Corporations, scientists, and the mining industry before drafting this piece of poo in some dark lit backroom. What a waste.

Flush this toxic proposition down the drain---> Vote NO and lets move on.

4 August 19, 2008 - 5:27pm | Sockeyemark

Ballot measure 4 is an addition to our current regulations

our current regulations leave lots of room interpretation. It has it's fair share of gray areas also.

August 20, 2008 - 2:15pm | ThorZone

What are you talking about....

There is not a lot of room for any industrial water user to slip out of the water regulations the feds and the state already have on the books. Sockeye, you clearly do not understand how water discharges are regulated in Alaska.

If you are hooked up to city water in Anchorage, you are drinking water that does not meet the current discharge standards mines and all other industries are required to follow. That is not to say our drinking water is bad. It has been voted as some of the best drinking water in the entire country by people in the drinking water business.

I do not think it would be a bad thing for mines to discharge water that is cleaner than our drinking water. Thats how it works today. Based on your posts Sockeye, it is clear to me you are ignorant of these facts.

BM 4 will put all of our industries in Alaska at risk, and open the door to law suit after law suit. Even your fishing business would be at risk. Currently as written, there is no fish processor who can comply with BM 4. If you want to shut down fishing - vote for BM 4. If you like it when lawyers get involved in this stuff, gumming up the works, vote for BM 4. If these things are not what you want, you need to vote no on BM 4 and get everyone you know to do the same.

August 19, 2008 - 7:12pm | jokeener

Foolishness

Your clowning around simply takes up space and further discredits your side.

Please quote one statute from State Mining Regulations that is rife with "gray".

August 20, 2008 - 7:41am | Sockeyemark

) RESIDUES, FOR FRESH WATER USES:

(May not, alone or in combination with other substances, be present in concentrations or amounts that: form objectionable deposits or result in undesirable or nuisance species.)
One of many gray areas in our current regulations.

August 20, 2008 - 8:27am | jokeener

Citation please

Please quote the section and paragraph that your post is drawn from.

How is this less precise than the word "measurable"?

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

The state weighs in