The Pebble Blog : New York Times

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.

New York Times

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: August 22, 2008 - 8:13 pm

Here's an article the New York Times published today on Pebble and Measure 4.

And here's the first few lines:

DILLINGHAM, Alaska — Just up the fish-rich rivers that surround this tiny bush town on Bristol Bay is a discovery of copper and gold so vast and valuable that no one seems able to measure it all. Then again, no one really knows the value of the rivers, either. They are the priceless headwaters of one of the world’s last great runs of Pacific salmon.

“Perhaps it was God who put these two great resources right next to each other,” said John T. Shively, the chief executive of a foreign consortium that wants to mine the copper and gold deposit. “Just to see what people would do with them.”

login or register to post comments

13 December 7, 2008 - 2:34pm | charlierotario

New York Times

We just lost some more precious time looking at worthless human activities.
quit smoking prescription

12 October 27, 2008 - 2:20am | anitas

Devastated Peter takes a

Devastated Peter takes a Hawaii vacation in order to deal with recent break-up with his TV star girlfriend, Sarah. Little does he know Sarah’s traveling to the same resort as her ex … and she’s bringing along her new boyfriend.
download online movies

11 October 14, 2008 - 9:09am | anitas

It’s very good

It’s very good article.
shit around

10 August 27, 2008 - 7:18am | rfn

Now begins

a new round of initiative petitions.

With the failure of the effort to outlaw mining in Alaska it's time to move on. If the land can't be monopolized, then on to the resource! If those fish didn't have to be shared with those commercial fishermen there'd be oh-so-many more for the guests at those exclusive lodges.

Brace for a new onslaught of clipboard-waving semi-pro initiative signature gatherers!

August 27, 2008 - 8:42am | demorgan33

Let's knock off the nonsense

You are completely off-base here, there was never an effort to shut down mining in Alaska, the courts made it impossible to target a specific project with an iniative. The writers of the initiative did their best to work within the wording allowed by the legal system, unfortunately this left room for misinterperetation and confusion. There has been no move to ban commercial fishing in this area, the only real threat here is the Pebble Mine. I personally have stated all along that I have no issues with the current mining in Alaska, just Pebble, due to it's location and the false promises being offered by it's representatives.

We need industry and development in this state to keep our economy moving, but how can we justify trading a renewable resource that provides employment and subsistence to so many for a non-renewable one that promises little financial gain for the state with an inevitable clean up bill. It's just common sense. Both sides of this proposition have been guilty of sensationalism and fear-mongering, it's time to focus on the real issue, the Pebble Mine should not be permitted.

August 27, 2008 - 11:00pm | njalo99

huh

I can tell by your tone that you would accept mining ...anywhere..but Here....Ok we go where the Ore is.... and as for your other comments, A. we are not trading mining for fishing.....WE just ask to work along side with You to make this project work!!...B little finiancial gain????? ...Ok this prospect will have close to a Thousand (1,000) job's for about a hundred years.....HOW little is That??? C as for the cleanup.....OBVIOUSLY this has been stated before BY Me and Others..... there will be a bond, to make sure that If, an accident were to happen then the company or State would have the resources to handle it!!!
You are right tho- the BS has been spread on both side's we just need to work it out.... You can't shut down a whole area just because of something You Think Might happen............Hell you could be hit by a car next week, I could be struck by lightening....... Allow ourselves to make this work and the whole state prospers.... otherwise it's just the lawyers making money now....................

August 28, 2008 - 6:08am | demorgan33

That all sounds really good

Except that I have sat in the meetings with the Northern Dynasty reps and have heard that yes, there will be salmon producing creeks and lakes removed. Also the tailings dam suggested is guaranteed to leak and the main issue from their end is containing the leaks and hoping for no seismic activity. As we have seen, as recently as this summer to fall with multiple volcanic eruptions in the surrounding or nearby areas, this area is a hotbed for seismic events.

As to the promise of a bond, what dollar amount would you put on this bond? We have seen what happens when a large company profits from the resources of this state has an "accident", i.e. Exxon, they hide behind lawyers for twenty years while the people who have lost their livelihoods slowly die off. History has a way of repeating itself, we won't be blind this time. There is too much at stake.

I can understand the excitement about this mineral find by those who stand to gain from it, but with a little research one can easily determine that this area is entirely too sensitive to allow this project to move forward. Even with a "Bond" in place to cover clean up, what will replace the revenue currently generated annually from the salmon fishery?

August 28, 2008 - 8:28pm | njalo99

No one said it was going to be easy, but for the claim of the containment... well I hardly think that would be the case, Mine's have gone for years without any leaks..... not sure about a guarantee....but this is a new project btw...final plan still not heard from yet. Who knows they might just want to mine and ship everything off, the waste rock and ore and let someone else deal with it.....but then we'd just be left with a big hole???? bad idea. What I wanted was for the process to work, Alaska has the regs in place and the infrastructure to deal with a mine this size...... let's hear it out and make our decision after all the facts have been laid out.....
nuff said

August 30, 2008 - 12:40am | PuckFebble

A few things to note..

Firstly, they will not be shipping off any waste from the site. Pebble said so at a community meeting in Dillingham last late winter. When asked why they couldnt just take the waste with them. The reply from Sean McGee was that it would be economically unfeasible.

Njalo, I somewhat understand your thoughts on the process, but there have been some pretty big failures through the permitting process. The folks who are going to be directly impacted by this development have expressed that the process is not stringent enough for Pebble.

This would include inadequate reclamation bonds, minimal enforcement of current laws, and the fact that all the laws in the world, and actions by people with the best of intentions can lead to absolute disaster. It is a gamble most of us are not willing to take, considering the methods of mining, the location, and the entities involved. Change a few of those parameters and a compromise could be met.

August 27, 2008 - 11:33pm | Sockeyemark

I hear thunder, maybe just maybe?????

if they can do it without harm to fish, water or way of life have at it. This is one of those areas your just going to have to accept as off limits pretty much.
Acceptance is the answer to most of our problems. If the salmon somehow disappear, then you can start digging.

August 27, 2008 - 12:07pm | rfn

It's wrong to blame the courts.

The courts made no specific ruling in this case. It's simply a fact that a law targeted at one entity alone is unconstitutional. Not just Alaska's constitution that of the United States of America. If that was "the best" the authors could do...good luck. As to "no move to ban commercial fishing", I append only one word: "YET".

In order to preserve the view from one lodge the work had to be vague. Unfortunately so vague and grammatical that all it created was the potential for chaos. The people saw through it and turned it down. What's amazing is that the margin was not far greater.

Now the process can work. If Pebble can't happen safely it won't happen. But I'm sure it's not over. Brace...brace...brace!

August 27, 2008 - 9:29am | jokeener

Your premise

is the problem. It's the same as someone saying "I have no problem with large-scale commercial salmon harvesting someplace else (Wiseman?), just not here." As a fisherman, you have to go where the salmon are most numerous and concentrated. As a miner, you have to go where the minerals are most concentrated and in sufficient amount.

Bristol Bay is blessed with the best of both worlds. The future is very bright for the region, indeed.

Your cup is full.

August 27, 2008 - 1:57pm | demorgan33

There is a key difference

That difference is that salmon are harvested without risking other resources. We don't permanently scar the area and erase creeks and lakes to catch fish. There will never be a direct comparison between the two industries disputing this area. Salmon have been spawning in this area for thousands of years, I don't believe a mine could have that kind of staying power.

As far as the bright future of this region, everyone seems to have forgotten the large influx of money that will be headed to the Bristol Bay Borough from the off-shore oil leases that are preparing to produce. The Bristol Bay region has no need for this mine at this time.

August 27, 2008 - 5:11pm | jokeener

Reconciliation?

You still have not reconciled your greater need for minerals. Where do you expect to get the copper and molybdenum that you and your progeny will need in the future? Much of your zinc comes from Red Dog - someone else's backyard.

August 27, 2008 - 5:35pm | demorgan33

Anywhere but here

If you can find a similar situation to the conflict that is called Pebble, please let us know.

I fully understand the need for minerals in our world, but you can't justify risking a renewable resource for a short-term supply of them. This doesn't make any long term sense.

August 27, 2008 - 11:03pm | njalo99

duh

even IF the worst of the worst DID happen....it would affect 2 river's feeding Bristol Bay....clearly not the Head waters...but now we are just splitting hairs HUH???

August 28, 2008 - 6:03am | Sockeyemark

Knock Knock,,Who's there? Not njalo99

is any one home inside there? Not in the real world....

August 28, 2008 - 2:20am | PuckFebble

Reality check...

The Kvichak and Nushagak are the two most important rivers in the region and yes Pebble lies where a portion of the headwaters of both watersheds.
A tailings dam failure would destroy the communities downstream. The Nushagak is the most poppulated river in the region for humans, with the biggest king run in the world most years. With the Kvichak often times having the largest sockeye runs.

August 28, 2008 - 5:16am | Sockeyemark

Key word for njlo99 is "Reality" , clearly he's NOT in it

splitting hairs on the Nushagak and Kvichak systems?? What planet is he from....these two systems alone can produce what the rest of the bay rivers combined can on some years.
Geeze, most of the people on this blog haven't a clue what Bristol Bay can due in terms of salmon production. They do seem to know their stuff about mining, but lack knowledge when it comes to Bristol Bay rivers and salmon. Ms Pam and Ms Red do alright, but joker,rfn,nj and even Mr. Jensen could use a little Bristol Bay 101 class.
Large scale Mining in the Bristol bay watershed should have a 99 year moratorium put on it, until the worlds demands outweigh the risk of food production.

August 28, 2008 - 8:43pm | njalo99

hmmmm

REALITY....is that where you want to go Mark??? Whether it's Fort Knoxx, Pogo, Donlin Creek, Greens Creek, Dorothy Lake, I go where the money is..... as a miner the whole job market is open.... metal prices being what they are.... and I will develope or help develope Pebble....gotta think about my retirement y'know......
That's my reality....bills paid, college's paid, new truck PAID!!!!.... new boat.....PAID in Full!!! You might want to wallow in the futility of taking on a whole industry, my advice is to cut bait and find another hobby.....but obviously you Won't take my advice, I am just a lowly miner.... your obviously more educated than lil ole me....cause I haven't a clue....... Whatever gets you threw the day there big guy...... I have My job you have Yours.......not a big deal until you start trying to regulate me and mine....... better luck next time :-)

August 27, 2008 - 2:52pm | Sockeyemark

Good point

If it can't be done without harming habitat or wildlife, then it CAN'T BE DONE.....thanks to our current strict water rules....

August 27, 2008 - 5:13pm | jokeener

Harm

How is killing 27,000,000 fish last year not harming the wildlife?

August 27, 2008 - 5:21pm | Sockeyemark

They die anyway, would have thought a smart fellow like you

would have known that, unless your thinking of the East coast brand of salmon.
One ridiculous statement deserves another!!!

August 27, 2008 - 7:04pm | jokeener

We all die; but you kill the fish before they can reproduce.

Your principle would then apply to the residents of Bristol Bay, too; and how we die wouldn't matter to you.

I am curious, however, about these immortal east coast brand of salmon. Tell me more.

August 27, 2008 - 8:00pm | Sockeyemark

Ok, one more ridiculous statement from jokeener

it's called escapement. No one fishes until the escapement goals are met. To ensure future run strength.
Oh bother, Atlantic salmon...spawn then go back out. Once plentiful, now enough for a sports fishery and these are also used in the fish farming industry. Inferior to the pacific sockeye.

August 27, 2008 - 10:46pm | njalo99

huh

I actually know some New Yorkers who Love Atlantic salmon....... not sure why, have tried to sell them on Alaskan salmon but haven't yet........Maybe some people Don't agree with You Sockeye

August 27, 2008 - 10:57pm | Sockeyemark

Your kidding me, someone doesn't agree with me!!!

New Yorkers......case closed. I know people who like McDonalds too....your friends.

August 28, 2008 - 8:19pm | njalo99

.....ummm no

my friends prefer Subway

August 27, 2008 - 1:42pm | Sockeyemark

You can't deny that Pebble would impact salmon producing

rivers and lakes. Producing Pebble one would have to sacrifice some salmon.
Bristol Bay is blessed, we are blessed and again the choice is ours. How much do we sacrifice one for the other?
You can have both....but Bristol Bay will change. In some aspects for the better and some for the worse. None of us like change,,,it's why we are where we are.
All I know for sure is ; I love Bristol Bay the way it is right now and would hate to see it change. I say that with my HAT ON.....

August 28, 2008 - 8:52pm | njalo99

.....

"if" "but' "when" until you KNOW it's going to happen all you are doing is Guessing

9 August 26, 2008 - 1:01pm | Valley411

How low can you go?

A new low from the Yes folks
My phone has been ringing all morning with upset people. Upset that the Yes on 4 people have found an even lower bottom in this battle and hired the homeless/public inebriates to wave political signs on the corners where they usually pan-handle. And most of those hired are Alaska Native. Contemptible. Deceptive. Everything their campaign has been about from the beginning.

August 26, 2008 - 1:30pm | demorgan33

Who should they have hired?

Should they have imported some of the slaves that work for Anglo-American from South Africa?
It is quite curious to hear the pro-prbble crowd complaining of native Alaskan hirings.

August 26, 2008 - 2:46pm | ebluemink

Warning on slavery comment

I'm not going to delete this from the blog, but it is offensive, and I will delete it if it comes up again.

Anglo American pays wages at its South African mines and I'm sure its employees would be highly offended at being called slaves.

Unlike in Alaska, at least a certain portion of AA's miners are unionized, as demonstrated by the fact that they went on strike recently.

August 26, 2008 - 5:45pm | jokeener

Awesome, ebluemink

Thanks. The "slave" accusation is highly insulting to the miners of South Africa, who are frequently quite well educated with engineering or science degrees.

August 26, 2008 - 6:32pm | demorgan33

Sometimes the truth is sad

Here is a quote from the June 25, 2008 from the British Times.

"African mineral riches

— Anglo American was founded by Sir Ernest Oppenheimer in South Africa in 1917. Oppenheimer had already taken over De Beers, the diamond corporation, from Cecil Rhodes, who founded the country that became Zimbabwe

— Anglo still owns 45 per cent of De Beers and is the fourth-largest mining company in the world

— The company’s headquarters are just off Pall Mall, Central London and is listed on the FTSE 100. It employs 162,000 people worldwide

— It is being sued over working conditions in South Africa during the apartheid era. Miners claim that they were treated as slave labour, The company denies wrongdoing "

As long as the company denies it, it must not be true? Do a little research on De Beers, and Zimbabwe and then form an opinion of the depth of Anglo Americans character.

August 27, 2008 - 2:18am | jokeener

Cecil Rhodes

is reputed in Zimbabwe to be a pedophile. Therefore, do we impugn the entire Rhodes' Scholarship movement as wrong and evil?

8 August 25, 2008 - 10:52pm | Alaskalilac

Here we go, get out and vote NO!

Hey Sockeye Mark - The operative word here is intended: vote on a ballot measure intended to strengthen protections for those headwaters…. 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.
This initiative arbitrarily overrides science-based processes and standards established through proper legislation and reflected in extensive laws governing permitting and mining that are in place today and replaces it with nothing. No clear standars, just vague thou shalt nots. Therefore if it should pass, which I doubt, it will be tied up in courts for years. Yes on fish. Yes on clean water. No on big bucks like Gillam and his hired thugs and Outside secretive money bundling groups controlling our resource development.
I wonder how many bloggers will be out of work tomorrow?

August 25, 2008 - 11:30pm | PuckFebble

laughable...

These kind of statements always make me chuckle.

"No on big bucks like Gillam and his hired thugs and Outside secretive money bundling groups controlling our resource development."

Comparing the sources of money and it being from Bob Gillam, outside money and bundling groups. The AAMS money is coming from South Africa and Zimbabwe. Its coming from among the worst examples of mining firms and has been for 90 years. Anglo American has shown through thier actions and practices to be horrible stewards of the enviroment, thier human rights actions are flat out embarrassing, and these are the people you want controlling our resources?

August 26, 2008 - 11:39am | CingRed

Human rights...

Can you tell me what the most dangerous profession in the nation is? Maybe explain what, if any, safety procedures and protocols this profession isputting in place to prevent deaths or workplace injuries?

August 26, 2008 - 12:52pm | demorgan33

Try to stay on topic

I can tell you one thing, the most dangerous job in America isn't salmon fishing in Bristol Bay. Remember, Bristol Bay is what is at risk here. Let's not lose sight of the dispute.

August 26, 2008 - 3:32pm | CingRed

Just giving a little prospective...

if PF is so concerned about Human Rights maybe he should look no further than his own backyard.

August 26, 2008 - 12:15am | Sockeyemark

Hysteria from the Sky is Falling Crowd

Their money, our money, his money, my money......it's about clean water for ALL. Yes on 4 and keep it simple.

August 26, 2008 - 5:52am | Victor67

Yes on fish, Yes on mining, NO ON 4

It has nothing to do with "clean water".
No on 4

7 August 25, 2008 - 8:56pm | Sockeyemark

Here we go, Now go out and VOTE YES

Alaska Gets to Choose
Most of the big salmon fisheries in Europe, the Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest are gone, victims of commercial development, overfishing and pollution. Now one of the greatest remaining runs is at risk from a giant gold and copper mine that would dominate the headwaters of Alaska’s Bristol Bay, an extraordinarily rich fishery that produces about half of the wild salmon sold in North America.

On Tuesday, Alaskans will vote on an initiative intended to strengthen protections for those headwaters — the intricate system of lakes, streams and rivers where the salmon spawn and live. It deserves their overwhelming approval.

The initiative will not, as opponents have claimed, block all mines in Alaska, or even this one, known as the Pebble Mine. It simply states that any new mine cannot put toxic wastes in salmon-bearing streams. This, in turn, will require mining companies to be meticulously careful when designing and operating a mine. Given the industry’s history of environmental misrule, that can only be a good thing.

This has been a typical Alaskan struggle over natural resources, but more local than most. The debates over logging in the Tongass National Forest or drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have involved federal lands, engaging Congress and the White House. This fight largely involves state lands, but that has not made it any less fierce. Each side has spent millions to advertise their competing economic claims.

The pro-mining forces — including many legislators and a consortium of Canadian and British companies — claim that the mine could yield more than $300 billion in metals and hundreds of jobs for struggling rural Alaska. The pro-salmon forces say the mine could kill a fishing industry worth at least $300 million a year — and that while metals are finite, the salmon are a renewable resource. But they will only be renewable if the waters they inhabit are kept free of toxins.

This country has failed to protect the salmon, and the salmon industry, in New England and in California, Oregon and Washington. Alaskans now have a chance to save one of the last healthy wild salmon populations left. We hope they vote yes for the initiative.

6 August 25, 2008 - 7:14am | Victor67

New opinion...www.dnr.state.ak.us/opmp/mining/mining_initiatives

The New opinion by DNR/DEC is "Unbiased" information.

In addition, 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.

This initiative arbitrarily overrides science-based processes and standards established through proper legislation and reflected in extensive laws governing permitting and mining that are in place today. The ADF&G plays a major role in the permitting process as do EPA and DEC.

Every potential mining proposal should have the right to be heard based on it’s own merit and not defeated by overreaching blanket prohibitions created out of fear and the greed of self serving lodge owners before the proposal can even be heard.
Let the Environmental Impact Statement do the job for which it was intended.

Whether one is for or against the Pebble mine being developed is not the only issue. The method of using this initiative to stop the project is inappropriate. The Pebble prospect should also be heard based on it’s own merit as an individual project.

The Pebble is only the tip of the iceberg and this initiative has too many far reaching impacts on the entire mining industry to be considered as proper legislation.

The underhanded fear mongering by the proponents of the misnamed "clean water initiative" is dishonest and abhorrent. This tactic should be rejected by all honest people everywhere.

Thank you for your time,

No on 4

5 August 24, 2008 - 5:17pm | Sockeyemark

Here You Are

Ballot Measure 4 says no new, large-scale metal mines will be permitted to pollute streams or to dispose of mining wastes in a way that could harm humans or salmon spawning.

If voters approve it, Ballot Measure 4 will send a strong message to the Legislature and state government that Alaskans wants to keep salmon streams unpolluted.

We want mining in the state to continue and grow, but we want it done in an environmentally sound manner.

The initiative as written is not a work of art. It is vague in parts and that vagueness has lawyers quibbling about exactly what it means. Some wording in the measure will need to be cleaned up.

But even with its flaws, we urge voters in Tuesday's state election to approve it.

The Legislature is allowed to clarify the initiative with amendments right away, and make sure the new law works exactly as intended.

For example, the paragraph that exempts existing mines with all their permits from the new rules is giving heartburn to NANA Corp., a partner in the Red Dog Mine in Northwest Alaska .

Red Dog is proposing to open a new pit. Is that covered by the exemption?

NANA and Red Dog are worried that it's not. Initiative backers say even if the grandfather rights didn't apply, Red Dog is not on a salmon spawning stream, and so its operations won't be covered.

But even so, the Legislature can tidy up the grandfather clause and remove any doubt that the initiative exempts existing mines.

Though the initiative would apply to all new mines that take up more than one square mile, its main target is clearly the Pebble mine prospect. Pebble is a huge copper and gold deposit in the Bristol Bay region. Bristol Bay is also the world's most productive sockeye salmon fishery.

Pebble, still just a proposal, seems on the face of it like an ill-conceived project. There is a high risk of pollution in the state's biggest salmon watershed. The mine, while not yet designed, is expected to produce billions of tons of tailings. The initiative wouldn't necessarily stop Pebble, but would require the mine to use much more protective measures that reduce the risk to Bristol Bay fisheries.

Both opponents and supporters of the initiative have made exaggerated claims. One side claims it will shut down mining throughout Alaska . The other side invokes former Gov. Frank Murkowski as a bogeyman who opened the way for mines to dump toxic wastes in salmon spawning areas. In fact, Murkowski failed to make any big rollback in pollution rules.

Put aside the exaggerations.

The truth is that the heart of the initiative is in the right place -- protecting Alaska 's salmon fisheries against pollution from new mines.

The legal language in the measure needs fine-tuning. We know that. Voters should approve it, and hand the new law over to the Legislature to clean up the rough edges.

BOTTOM LINE: Yes to Ballot Measure 4, to keep big new mines from dirtying salmon streams.

August 25, 2008 - 7:33am | Victor67

There you go again.

BS on top of more BS = a huge bunch of BS!

August 25, 2008 - 2:28pm | Sockeyemark

That took a lot of thought

no wonder your not a very good fisherman

August 26, 2008 - 5:43am | Victor67

No on 4

It took no thought at all. It is obvious! You have concluded that I am not a very good fisherman based on what? Your typical reasoning no doubt.

No on 4

August 26, 2008 - 1:42pm | Sockeyemark