Alaska ballot initiative surrounds Pebble Mine
Published Sunday, August 3, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Groups for and against the Clean Water Initiative say the stakes are high, and are spending millions to get voters to take a side.
Driven by an unlikely coalition of environmentalists, fishermen and business interests, the initiative is designed to halt the proposed Pebble Mine dead in its tracks by extending protection to water, people and salmon from pollutants. But opponents centered around the hard-rock mining industry say the initiative reaches far past shutting down Pebble and holds the potential for destroying an industry that supports communities.
Both maintain the initiative could dramatically affect the state’s economy and cut jobs important to thousands.
In the middle are state officials who say the initiative wouldn’t change the way they already do business — and at least one attorney is offering a legal opinion that the initiative language lacks enough details that a final interpretation will probably be a matter for the courts.
Anglo American and Northern Dynasty Mines formed the Pebble Ltd. Partnership to develop gold, copper and molybdenum resources in Southwest Alaska. Molybdenum is an alloy used in the manufacture of steel and other materials. The work being done now is providing data to support a mine development plan. John Shively, CEO, estimated the project could submit permit applications in late 2009 or early 2010.
Work underway now includes drilling to better define the project, environmental studies and development of engineering plans, Shively said.
He was not sure what impact the initiative could have on the Pebble project.
“To be perfectly frank, I don’t know how it affects Pebble,” Shively said. “What the proponents say is it will stop Pebble, but they have never explained to me or anyone else how it does that. On the other hand, they also say it only stops Pebble. I don’t understand how it can only stop one (mine).”
The question to go before voters on the Aug. 26 primary election ballot is whether to impose two water quality standards on new, large-scale metallic mineral mines.
The first standard would ban the release of toxic pollutants into water that would adversely affect human health or the salmon life cycle. The second prohibits storage of mining wastes and tailings that could release pollutants that could affect water used by people and salmon.
The rules would apply to large mines with activities spanning 640 acres or more. The initiative defines toxic pollutants as any that could cause death or disease in humans or fish.
Few seem to agree on what the initiative would do if it meets with voter approval.
Even opinions from those outside the fray vary on the potential implications.
Alaskans for Clean Water says the measure would compel state regulators to draft new permitting rules that would ensure pollutants aren’t discharged into water.
Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown agrees with that, but adds that the new rules aren’t spelled out in the initiative text and could be so restrictive as to block permitting of new mines and deny expansions at existing mines.
Ed Fogels is director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. He said the initiative wouldn’t change the standards in place now for permitting mines.
And an attorney representing state legislators wrote that the initiative language is vague enough that a final interpretation by the courts will probably be needed.
Rallying for clean water
Alaskans for Clean Water president Art Hackney said the initiative is not intended to harm mining in general — only a large hard-rock minerals mine proposed near Bristol Bay.
That area is the last great salmon fishery on earth, said Bruce Switzer, senior technical adviser for Alaskans for Clean Water.
The ballot measure is designed to protect salmon-spawning streams and, in turn, to block the Pebble mine, he added.
He charged that the Pebble proposal would physically destroy salmon habitat and that the mine would be impossible to operate without discharging waste. Further, he said, federal regulations define what discharge levels are toxic — and that the initiative would counter allowances for mixing zones, or places where toxins mix in with water and become diluted before being measured. He said other mines would not be affected by the initiative because no other mines are proposed “smack in the middle of salmon-spawning waters.”
Alaskans for Clean Water contends that runoff, tailings or a spill could carry acid drainage and toxic pollutants into waters that supports salmon and other aquatic life, with the potential to ruin a significant fishing economy that supports numerous villages and individuals in the surrounding rural area.
Hackney said the initiative’s intent is clearly to stop the Pebble mine, and that will weigh heavily if a judge has to consider what the initiative should mean. Even informational and ad materials produced by Alaskans for Clean Water are clear that the initiative is meant to kill the Pebble project and not to shut down Alaska mining, he said.
The fishing industry also is concerned about and sometimes passionately opposed to Pebble. Some organizations are eyeing the initiative as a tool to kill the mine proposal.
Statewide trade association United Fishermen of Alaska represents an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 fishermen. Executive Director Mark Vinsel said the association’s board of directors last met in February, when the initiative language hadn’t been finalized. The board hasn’t formalized a position on the ballot initiative, he said, but does oppose the Pebble mine.
The Alaska Independent Fishermen’s Marketing Association’s 250 members are all permit holders in the Bristol Bay salmon fishery, president David Harsila said.
“The board has taken a pretty strong stance, in particular against the Pebble mine project,” Harsila said. “We feel that this may be one way to get clarification and slow down the process.”
His group’s membership is concerned about how water used at the proposed mine could affect habitats, about pollution and discharge, and, in turn, about their livelihoods, he said.
Standing up for mining
Opposing the initiative is Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown. Campaign director Willis Lyford said the initiative is both deceptive and defective.
Supporters claim the initiative is designed to block Pebble and will not affect other mines, he said. But, the measure will likely block any new, large, metals mines and may hurt existing mines if new permits are needed to do expand.
“They say it’s about one mine,” Lyford said. “But anyone who reads it knows it isn’t about Pebble mine. It’s about the entire mining industry.”
The initiative also proposes protections that are already in place under state and federal law, and denies the public an opportunity to be part of the process developing new standards, he said.
“The voters don’t get to know that before they vote,” he protested. “There is so much uncertainty. There is a lack of definition. You never know what comes out of that. We have the strong belief there will be new rules.”
Without understanding what new standards and rules may be implemented, the industry is worried that the initiative could shut down large-scale mineral mines. A coalition of companies involved in large-scale hard-rock mining in Alaska, the Council of Alaska Producers, is actively opposed to the initiative. Council Executive Director Lorna Shaw said the initiative lays out few precise details, which could mean state regulators will have to adopt new permitting criteria that could be unmeetable by any mine.
Shaw added that no single process can adequately cover all mines, which operate with different technologies in varied terrain.
“You can’t just apply a formula,” she said. “That all has to go into the permitting and planning process.”
Shaw and others speaking on behalf of Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown say that many people have valid concerns about Pebble, but that a sweeping initiative that could irreparably damage an entire industry is not the way to fight a single project.
The industry also is worried that a clause allowing continued operations at existing mines is not as comprehensive as it might appear. The initiative exempts fully permitted mine operations. The addition of new facilities or expansions into already leased mine areas require new permits, Shaw said — permits which she suspects will fall under the initiative.
Shaw said the initiative is frustrating. Most new laws involve pages of particulars and public hearings.
“Instead, we’ve got whatever these three guys wrote — and you get to say yes or no to it,” she said.
Others weigh in
Caught in the middle are state government departments that issue permits designed, in part, to keep water clean and aquatic life safe.
Ed Fogels is the director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. He said the DNR staff has analyzed how the initiative might affect the permitting process, and has decided it probably won’t.
“It shouldn’t change the way we do business,” he said. “We have existing protection clearly in state statute that accomplish exactly what this ballot measure wants us to accomplish.”
State law already requires that DNR limit the amount of pollutants discharged by mining and other activities, he said. Pollutant discharge is limited to amounts small enough to avoid adverse effects on people and fish.
“We just want to point out to people that there are existing laws and regulations that already do what the ballot measure wants us to do,” he said. “We don’t need the ballot measure to protect salmon and fish. It wouldn’t change anything — we would continue to permit like we did before.”
Fogels said DNR’s view is that the initiative is vaguely written, and that if the intent is to ensure no negative effects to humans and aquatic life, state law already requires that. The one effect he foresees is the potential for lawyers to get involved in individual mining permits to sort out definitions that may be vague in the initiative language.
“Undoubtedly, this will lead to litigation,” he said. “In our minds, it is clearly not just an anti-Pebble initiative.”
Among key uncertainties are whether small mines adjacent to historic disturbances will qualify as a large mine under the 640-acre rule, what levels of discharge will be allowed and whether the measure applies to permitting of new facilities or expansions at existing mines, Fogels said.
Lynn Kent, director of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Division of Water, concurred.
“I don’t think it would drive us to be changing our standards,” she said.
Water quality and discharge rules in place now protect water, people and aquatic life, including salmon, she said.
The division works with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to permit and monitor projects, including mines, that discharge. The standards are adopted from the EPA and in some cases are more stringent than the federal rules, Kent said. The standards are subject to review every three years.
Most permittees monitor their own discharge and self-report to the state and EPA, Kent said. However, the federal agency has a goal to independently inspect each major discharger annually, and each minor discharger at least once during the five-year permit life. The state is a partner in those inspections.
Meanwhile, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer, asked for legal clarification of what effect the initiative could have on Alaska’s statutes and regulations.
State legislative services attorney Alpheus Bullard’s analysis is that the initiative could change how existing state rules are applied to large-scale mining operations. That will depend in large part, he said, on how the initiative’s language is interpreted. He expects that the ballot summary and other materials before voters will guide how the initiative is understood — and, therefore, how a court would interpret the initiative.
In a followup memo dated July 2, Bullard wrote that, “Depending on its possible interpretation, 07WTR3 (the clean water initiative) either affirms or strengthens existing Alaska water quality regulations for large mining operations.”
Vying for voters
As the Aug. 26 primary draws near, both sides are spending major money to reach voters whose behavior may stray from the expected.
Dr. Jerry McBeath, a political science professor at University of Alaska Fairbanks, said the unusual coalition formed to protect Bristol Bay colors election day speculation with some uncertainty.
Alaskans for Clean Water is supported by environmentalists, Native organizations, business owners and sports fishermen groups not normally grouped together under a single political umbrella. McBeath said it’s hard to predict what voter numbers such a broad coalition might attract to the polls.
“It is not partisan,” McBeath explained. “It’s a highly complex issue. There are no standards, or guidelines, or valued opinions that people can take advantage of when making up their minds. I don’t think there is anything, anywhere, that is completely unbiased.”
Because the initiative sides aren’t clearly drawn along political lines, McBeath anticipates multi-million dollar media campaigns to light fires under voters.
He said both sides will probably sign on celebrity political figures to their causes. Both sides already have teams on speaking tours before professional and business groups, civic clubs and other gatherings.
“People will need to read the initiative language themselves,” McBeath said. “You’ve got to look at it in terms of your interest.”
That, after all, is how the political process works.
Voters who make their living in mining or associated industries will probably vote against the initiative, he said. Others who hold the environment above all other causes will probably vote for the initiative.
“Most people are probably in between,” McBeath surmised. “They’re going to have to do a balancing act ... and make a judgment call.”
Contact staff writer Rena Delbridge at 459-7518.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
How valuable are Alaska mineral mines to global production? And how much in the way of tax revenue and jobs do they contribute to Alaska? If it's on the smaller side, that would probably influence the way I vote on this.
So "JoeB..." worries about lawsuits if the initiiative passes? Let's consider how many lawsuits the Exxon Valdez Spill generated, how many families that had been fishing PWS for generations found their livelihoods totally ruined, had to wait almost 20 years for a pittance of a settlement. Then, let's consider that throughout the world there has never been a project the magnitude of Pebble that has failed to pollute the surrounding environment and Pebble is right in the main watershed of some of the richest salmon-producing waters of the world.
Tell ya what...since the people backing Pebble are so certain it's risk-free there's a simple solution: they will sign a legal document providing in the event of significant pollution, damage to the fisheries, etc, it will be their personal assets that will be seized to pay punitive and clean-up damages. If they are reticent to sign such a document, as I am sure they would be, it would speak volumes of just how "safe" this project really is...or isn't.
I have helped negotiate enough contracts to understand the importance of vague language to make the end around work with "well this is how we interpret the language" It is not any different then uncle Ted telling us he paid every invoice he received. With this vague language the enviro zealots will be jumping all over the future of this industry vote no.
If this passes we kill Pebble now. If it doesn't pass there will be multiple lawsuits as each phase of or permit for this fiasco of a project is fought. You don't think current laws and regs are vague? Read them.
Then also learn as much as you can about the project and the miles long 700' tall dam. In Pebble East this foreign company plans to mine by carving tunnels and then letting the surface collapse. Read up on it before you vote (Fish Ak Mag has a good story). And remember this is in the heart of the last great salmon fishery on the planet.
Finally as I've said before the AkDNR (the project is entirely on state land) is not capable of managing or permitting this project, please learn more about how they currently issue permits before you vote. Vote yes and kill Pebble now.
If you even have one lawyer involved it's over, my vote is NO!
This seems to be the problem. Explain "significant pollution". What threshold must be past?
And as far as the Exxon/Valdez issue, no one should have waited 20 years. If you were put out of work, you pick yourself up and move to where the jobs are. Nothing is guaranteed in life. America, we are now the country of whiners.
If a train and road system had been built in this State, rather than big government jobs; Alaska would have been a mining State. The mineral resources in this State make oil look like small pickings. Just never got developed. Start reading the mining laws and you will see what nonsense this is. Did everyone forget Uncle Ted's buddy who stands to loose his lodge business started this nonsense.
Does anybody know where I can find documentation regarding who is funding Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown?
Who is paying for those shiny fliers in the mail, the TV commercials, ads here on DNM website, and the "documentaries" (Faces of Alaska Mining)?
Lorna Shaw, can you provide a link for this kind of documentation? I dare you to provide something honest and straightforward.
The article says "The initiative defines toxic pollutants as any that could cause death or disease in humans or fish." However, those pollutants are all defined in Federal Law, under CFR 49. This innitiative won't over-ride the cradle to grave laws that are already on the books which all industries have to follow within the United States. As for defining pollutants, the innitiative only lists them for clarity. I don't see any benefit for Alaskans in adding more red tape to the mining industry. If the state wants to establish a system and beurocracy to monitor the water coming from the mines and enforce the current laws, then do that. The Public Safety Commission probably has a responsibility to ensure the public is not exposed to pollutants and could use state resources to ensure that we are safe. The ADF&G should be monitoring effects to the Fish. The innitiative doesn't meet with requirements to fully disclose cost of immplementation, because no one can tell us what it will cost or what it does exactly.
I will vote no for more laws unless they can benefit Alaskans.
What is considered "significant pollution" may depend upon your perspective. Maybe you don't care that the Bristol Bay salmon fishery may be destroyed. Then we can join California, Oregon, and Washington where in many areas only American Indians are allowed to fish for salmon. I can't wait to hear the yelling and complaining when that happens - all the white Alaskans crying, "but we've been fishing here for 100 years!" Bristol Bay provides jobs and opportunities for thousands of Alaskans rather than riches for some huge non-Alaskan multinational company. Mining provides very little to anyone but a few Alaskans, almost nothing to the state, but a heck of a lot of riches to foreign corporations. Look at the oil industry - most of the workers come from outside, the wealth goes to outside companies, but at least the state skims its share off the top.
I, personally, don't like the idea of drinking one drop of arsenic. I guess you can define what you think is "significant pollution" by deciding how much arsenic you are willing to drink. The salmon are already reeling from increased temperature and acidity in the oceans. We should protect them from poisoning due to mining. Vote yes on 4.
The problem with the initiative is it's not about bristol bay, it's about all mining in alaska. It bans anything in the future, ever.
If it were actually about bristol bay, I think it would honestly be a shoo-in.
As it stands, it's a con-job.
Bottom line, no one on either side can tell me what is going to happen other than more state money will be spent if it passes. How much is anyone's guess. How it affects the entire mining industry in Alaska is also anyones guess. I have learned that anyone using fear as a tactic is probably not telling the truth. I will vote NO. Let the fear mongers find another cause to earn a living promoting.
Proposition 4 does nothing but to add more red tape. It does not give specific numbers in parts per million of pollutants. It means that the AK's mining/environmental laws would have to be rewritten, and only after all parties (lawyers) decide what the meaning of "clean" is. I will certainly vote NO for this one.
The reason why such a Proposition exists is because the AK Constitution allows for anybody or any group from the lower-48 (or from Alaska) to collect enough signatures from residents of AK to create ballot measures. Anybody, including environmental and animal rights groups, can legally have ballot measures approved after collecting the number of signatures required. This will continue until Alaskans decided to close the loophole in the Constitution.
Will Alaska become Balkanized too ???
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...
------------------
One of my hobbies is recreational mining...
...but when the hogs get into the trough with all four feet then you need to call the veterinarian to treat them all for hoof&mouth disease.
I know how to operate the Pebble Mine for a stellar-profit without building roads, or killing fish...
but I would only do this for Alaskans, not for a global-conglomerate.
Please understand that I agree 100% about Alaska residents collecting signatures to bring ballot measures forward. What I don't agree with is allowing groups or persons from outside Alaska to change out laws.
Can someone explain to me why in the hell we need MORE gold taken out of the ground? We now have huge depositories of the stuff around the globe. It is basically an almost useless shiny metal that has very limited use in industry. That we are we going to risk trading one of the worlds best fishing grounds for yet more useless gold is senseless. With this sort of lunacy it is no wonder mankind is on the verge of annihilation. Vote YES on 4 to help hang onto one of the last unpolluted fishing industries left on the planet.
You can support mining in Alaska without supporting the non-U.S. mining companies that operate the large mines in the state. It's difficult, but possible.
albearable, among other things, profit is why in the hell they need more gold taken out of the ground. Please don't think for one second that the large mining companies put people before profit.
Does anybody know if there is a location online of the exact wording of the initiative, and the existing pertinent regulations?
Art Hackney says """other mines would not be affected by the initiative because no other mines are proposed “smack in the middle of salmon-spawning waters.”""
BOLLACKS!!!
Are you saying Mr. Hackney; that the Kuskokwim and Yukon/Tanana drainages and their tributaries are not "salmon-spawning waters"??? IF the Pebble prospect is the only mine proposal in "salmon-spawning waters" then what disqualifies the Yukon/Kuskokwim and all other drainages that we all know really do happen to carry salmon(as well as having people living along their banks) from your initiative???
Nothing but eco-lies and subterfuge.
just as we have learned to curb our oil consumption and adapt to the time, so should the mining industry.
There was a time when the EPA shut down lots of plants and factory's that put out too much pollution. Many of those businesses simply bit the bullet and upgraded their emissions. Car manufacturers had to spend bucks to develop and implement ways to reduce automobile emissions.
This is no different. If pollutants are used and released, then it's way past time for the industry to find better ways. Unfortunately, they wont unless we force them to.
The right way to do things, is rarely the easiest. Learn from other communities that have had their lands, waters and wildlife destroyed from these types of loosely regulated mines. Even if you don't live in theses areas. Even if you don't like fish. We all need to ban together and help our neighbors that do. We all need to look past the money being generated, and do the right thing.
I'll be voting yes on 4.
akbearable...
Alaska should just plain quit being a SUCKER for acting as a "resource extraction colony" for global-conglomerates.
Juneau just forked over 90% of the NGL's [propane, ethane,etc.] to Canada as if they didn't understand the difference between CH4 and C3H8.. the idiots just gave away the best option for Alaska's energy future and devalued 50,000 square miles of Alaska by denying it a clean-easy source of heat,power,fuel.
Pebble is loaded with copper [arsenic and mercury too]..
..and Juneau will hand Angle-AmerryCon the gold for free to crater the copper deposit with the worlds biggest open-pit mine. The gold will be used to pay the lawyers, and the copper will be used to make shell casings for perpetual war, and the molybdenum will be used to lubricate all of the locks in the North American Gulag.
trillions, trillions, trillions... chirp the greedy legions of opportunistic parasites, swarming over Alaska like a plague of Locusts.
>akbearable...
Alaska should just plain quit being a SUCKER for acting as a "resource extraction colony" for global-conglomerates.
I agree with you totally DT. Alaska needs to look out for itself or else keep being the prostitute to the Multi Nationals. Not saying that we should shut down all progress, but just stop placing large corporations in complete control all for a few jobs. I think all this boils down to what you said about AK being a resource extraction colony. Where are the "value added" products coming from AK. That is where the real money is for the people living here. Mining companies are like their oil cousins. They will say anything, promise the moon if we just let them take the resource (tax free of course, think of the JOBS man!) and then when their promise falls apart it is like Exxon, all you get are lawyers and the Supreme court. The opponents of 4 say that it will cause needless red tape. Needless for whom?
RAY
Who owns Pebble Mine, is it an Alaskan company? The three to four million spent to kill the clean water initiative did not come from your average Alaskan. When you say that outsiders are trying to change our laws, remember the signatures to get the ballot initiative on the ballot were Alaskans.
Dave Stone
Don't lose sight of what this is about...
-RIGHTS-
It's NOT a choice between mining and fishing, it's about whether we will continue to have the choice to use the existing and ever evolving regulatory process to manage resource extraction in Alaska or simply not have a choice. Voting yes is like giving up your drivers license because your car doesn't work. In other words, if there are problems with the way mining is regulated from an environmental standpoint, improve/fix the system, don't throw away the right to open up new mining projects.
-ENVIRONMENT-
US fisheries are suffering due to many causes including agricultural runoff (fertilizer), urban runoff (oil, chemicals, human waste), climate change (maybe?), and most of all poor management (i.e. over-fishing) by the fishing industry itself. Nowhere that I know of in the US is a fishery significantly impacted by recent mining. Yes, historic mining prior to today's regulatory oversight had a lasting detrimental environmental impact. Working for what we actually know... have the largest mines in Alaska destroyed local fisheries? Fort Knox? Red Dog? Pogo? No, in fact, the fisheries in some of these areas have improved since recent mining began.
-NOT IN MY BACKYARD-
Mining creates real jobs, a product the world needs (unlike cruises) and tremendous income for local communities. In the event this economic downturn continues, watch the tourism industry suffer. What industry is likely to run strong? mining. Or... block mining in Alaska, companies will take it to another, more friendly and competitive-natured country. Alaska will have actually voted its jobs overseas! This is like Flint, Michigan voting to send car manufacturing to Mexico... crazy. Oh, and for the environmentalists, the 'environment' is actually bigger than where you take your dog for a walk... it includes the whole planet. Really, look it up. So, why not have natural resource industry here in the US where environmental responsibility and ethics are much stronger than most places?
-FOREIGN COMPANIES-
Does it really matter who operates a project (mining, real estate, fishing, or other)? I don't count myself among the elite / filthy rich. I'm interested in decent paying work that I can be proud to be a part of. Foreign stockholders making money off of Alaska mining doesn't bother me any more/less than the whole state having to vote on whether one super wealthy man gets to keep the view from his Alaska ranch. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is a fishing vs. mining debate... it's about what can money really buy you. The alaskan people, environmental orgs, and everyone involved in this are just pawns in another mans game.
Akbearable - what uses for gold you ask?
Why, take a look-
http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of...
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/AS...
MrGreen, I am aware of the uses for gold, but my point was how much gold do we need. We have mined so much gold over the years and the vast majority is basically stockpiled and used by speculators who want to make money. Nothing wrong with that but how much gold is really needed for jewlery? For electronics? In medicine? The truth is the world is awash with the stuff for these purposes. Corn, you can eat that, or make fuel. Oil you can burn. Trees can be used for housing and paper. The only reason we are willing to rip open the earth in this day and age for gold is the ancient idea that it is precious. That may still be true for some, but you can't burn it, eat it, build a house with it, or put it in your gas tank. The basic reasons for extracting almost any other mineral is lacking with gold because of the already existing huge stockpiles around the world. Once a salmon spawning area is wiped out it will be very difficult to get that back. If we never brought another ounce of gold to the stockpile we would have generations of supply for any medical or electronic needs. So I ask again, why do we need more gold?
For the full int. and other info go to the Alaska Division of elections for where the funds come go to A.P.O.C.
As for all the jobs that a mega mine would produce I question how many of those jobs would go to Alaskans already here. I have seen it all too many times in the past. When Ft Knox was being maned up it was said that you stood a far better chance getting a job there if you were applying from outside of Alaska. It all has to do with what the economy in the lower 48 states is like. Right now it would be easy for a mining company to hire very qualified people at less pay stateside then to hire Alaskans. If the economy outside is good then maybe it would be cheaper to hire in state. The thing is unless there is a native organization involved such as Red Dog, or a union PLA agreement there isn't so much incentive for a multi national company to hire locally. These are sad but true facts repeated all the time here in this state. Of course after a month anybody is a resident so they can always boast how many Alaskan jobs they produced.
Anchorage, as in all that is Alaskan will decide this and every initiative that will impact this State. Our lives are not controlled by outside forces, just what ever Anchorage residents decide they are for or against. The rest of Alaska just doesn't have the votes.
AKbearable - well, then I guess you better get out there and tell people they don't need gold anymore. I'd be hard-pressed to think people would give up their electronic gizmos because you care about some fish. Just being realistic.
And is this based on "fact"? -
you say -
"Once a salmon spawning area is wiped out it will be very difficult to get that back."
Will Pebble indeed "wipe out" the fish? Where is this "evidence"? To me, if a "big corporation" wantonly destroys nature these days, what with all the rampant "environmentalism" we seem to have in the media in this country, they would only be shooting themselves in the foot. The environmentalists would be all over them like a fly on, well, you know what.
Again, where is the "proof" they will "wipe out" the fish?
And it is true that Uncle Ted's buddy with a lodge out there started all this? Just tryin to learn more.
>>To me, if a "big corporation" wantonly destroys nature these days, what with all the rampant "environmentalism" we seem to have in the media in this country, they would only be shooting themselves in the foot. The environmentalists would be all over them like a fly on, well, you know what.
Mr. Green, ever hear of Exxon? They didn't seem to shoot themselves in the foot with their big mess. Seems the "rampant environmentalism" couldn't even scratch their record profits! If you think the big corporations care about anything but their own bottom line then you are living in someplace other then the good old USA.
Ever hear of Joe Hazelwood, Akbearable? He was a drunk, incompetent sea captain who allowed his ship to run aground on Bligh Reef. He probably should've been hanged in the middle of downtown Cordova for what he did, but unfortunately, laws in the "good old USA" prevent the death penalty for incompetence.
Now how about the Stillwater Mine in Montana, Akbearable. Ever hear of that? It's a 3000 foot deep platinum/palladium sulfide mine that physically straddles blue-ribbon trout streams (Stillwater and Boulder Rivers), employs 1500 people with living wage jobs and since the mine was established in 1983, has not killed one single fish. Would you like to see this mine shut down too? What would make you so certain this mine and it's employees do not care for the fragile environment they have been operating in for the last 25 years??
I'm still waiting to hear from Lorna Shaw...
I've dug up the answer to my question by now, but I'd love to hear how she spins it.
Akbearable- oh, they didn't?
The End Result
Exxon paid the price for its actions in several different ways. The cleanup effort cost the company $2.5 billion alone, and Exxon was forced to pay out $1.1 billion in various settlements. A 1994 federal jury also fined Exxon an additional $5 billion for its "recklessness," which Exxon later appealed. In addition to the upfront costs of the disaster, Exxon's image was permanently tarnished. Angered customers cut up their Exxon credit cards and mailed them to Rawl, while others boycotted Exxon products. According to a study by Porter/Novelli several years after the accident, 54 percent of the people surveyed said they were still less likely to buy Exxon products.
from -
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring01...
If the spill never happened, then I'm sure Exxon would be profiting MUCH more than they are today. Which was $11 billion this quarter split between 1000's of shareholders - mainly the
Rockefellers. As a business move, it's never a good idea to just "waste" your profits away. It's not like they WANTED to spill that oil. Get real.
About the "Exxon oil spill"...
I call it the Alyeska Oil Spill.
Why?
Hazelwood was quickly found to be the needed scapegoat to divert attention from the underlying Real-Cause of why it caused such a big horrible mess.
[I've spelled this out many times before here in DNM]
Alyeska has for 30years been smuggling too many NGL's mixed with the oil. TAPS was originally designed to be heated to 150F to pipe thick viscous crude to Valdez, and when this thick crude was to sit in the bottom of a supertanker fitted with steam heating coils the chilly water temps of Prince William Sound would solidify the crude into a consistency of soft roofing tar.
More recently when the silly-shooter put a bullethole into the pipeline he showed the world just what a gassy soupy runny mess is still being shipped in TAPS. This is NOT the product TAPS was originally designed and approved to handle.
This is still a HUGE UNRESOLVED SCAM/SCANDAL.
..and if you think the recent Supreme Court ruling solved the problem then you should try some stronger drugs to distance yourself even further from reality.
The proposed mine plan at Pebble hopes to haul billions of tons of water soluble toxic ores by truck to a deepwater shipping port built within swimming distance to Mt.Augustine volcano. Although similar in design and bigger in scope to RedDog zinc at Kivalina, the climate and geo-hazards are much less favorable, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods to name a few. RedDog already has caused toxic levels of lead contamination for several miles downwind from the mine-haul-road. Stirring up the Pebble porphyry up-slope from Lake Iliamna is just as stupid as wanting to move the moon much closer to the earth to make moon-mining easier for a multi-national conglomerate that is all about PROFIT, but will turn into a butterfly when it's time to be responsible for the incipient ASARCO-redux disaster.
Just one road accident with a mine-truck on the north shore of Illiamna will cause billions in damage to the ecosystem, but after the 10th truck accident it will be easier to spin to the public, just like the state allowing draggers to ruin the bottom of Shelikof Strait, after all how many voters will ever see the bottom of Shelikof Strait? All state governments in USA are dominated by prostitutes.
Truth be known, Juneau is just as guilty as Exxon/Alyeska for allowing the cutcorner cheating with TAPS shipping a dangerous product not originally designed to be shipped in the pipe or at sea.
And because of this level of unaddressed malfeasance and criminal incompetence, Juneau should be barred from doing further business until proper corrective measures are taken.
Will this ever happen?.. not in AMERICA as we know it today.
>The End Result
Exxon paid the price for its actions in several different ways. The cleanup effort cost the company $2.5 billion alone,
The cleanup was a sham. I was there and never was there a government job anywhere that wasted more money then Exxon on the cleanup.
>As a business move, it's never a good idea to just "waste" your profits away. It's not like they WANTED to spill that oil. Get real.
Well of course they didn't want to spill the oil. But this was an accident that would/could never happen according to the big oil companies testimony before TAPS was built. The fact that they did and that they didn't have a plan to implement immediately, or have double hulls like they were supposed to have and then used the court system to skate on paying what a jury had awarded the victoms. My point is big corporations don't have heart, don't do what is morally right, but what is in their own economic best interests. Corporations make their promises that no harm will come to the environment so long as you don't pass any regulation and we are just supposed to take their word on that. Sorry, I don't believe them. They will say and do just about anything to get the resource with as little royalty paid or regulation passed. Then they cut corners like BP did on the slope and when something goes wrong they have the corporation friendly supreme court that will get any judgment thrown out or greatly reduced. Mineral extraction corporations are in it to make money, period. Cut corners they certainly will if government doesn't hold them to the fire.
Lets not forget that oil is Alaska's primary source of revenue. Oil is what keeps the Alaska's economy going, and because of oil we have a Permanent Fund Dividend. That said, Alaska lawmakers in Juneau, and our representatives in Congress, should have fought with the Federal Government to have Alaska taking a larger portion of the money generated from the sale of oil.
Now, as most of you already know, it's a matter of time before oil extraction in Alaska comes to an end, unless more drilling is allowed. What do you think will be the next source of revenue for the State of Alaska once the price of oil, couple of oil extraction in Alaska drops? I understand that fishing is a big deal in Bristol Bay, specially for commercial fleets based in places other than Alaska. I also understand that the Bristol Bay's economy is depressed. Mining could be the second money maker for Alaska other than oil. If you don't believe me, search the Fairbanks North Star Borough's property taxes for the mines around Fairbanks, and see how much property tax they pay.
Proposition number 4 is just a lawyer's dream, since it does not site specifics relating to pollutant discharge. Take a look a Alaska's mining laws relating to the make-up water and discharge, and you will understand why it's told of being one of the most strict laws in the nation.
All States and Nations are like Perpetually Sinking Ships...
The lust for revenue has already wrecked Alaska.
Alaska used to be a place where the hale & hearty could go to seek solitude and peace of mind far away from the maddening neurotic/psychotic crush of "the civilized world".
If a lawyer had a hand in writing Prop4 then it's probably designed to serve the lawyers first. I'm a recreational miner and enjoy studying geology,mining and environmental technology. I have very little faith in the ability of the current system of government to provide the leadership for solving more problems than it creates. Upholding the institutions of government is like hanging up flypaper in an old messy barn, you've caught a dozen filthy flies even before you push the thumbtack into the ceiling. Worldwide the culture of LAWYERS is infested with the Cult of Organized Crime. I'm not such an anarchist to declare Rule of Law is a bad idea, on the contrary I assert Rule of Law is humanity's only hope to combine good science with good ethics. But it's Human Nature to error in completion of any task, and this imperfection is the scratch in the paint on the bottom of the Ship of State that allows the corrosive-corruption to rust a hole in the bottom of the Sinking Ship. Every person in the crew of this administration has a personality that is charted on a bell-curve. The ethics-committee and Law-enfarcement is equipped to go only a short distance to correct only the most blatant corruption. The rest is up to the personal conscience of the players on stage. The players always get played by anybody who picks up a newspaper...
and so goes the same old dance, century after century.
The megaproject architecture we build is only as sound as the strength of the culture controlling it.
[digressing verbosity, whee!]
I was thinking about the cynicism of the old Flemish masters of art..
Pieter Bruegel the elder,et al. and Hieronymous Bosch.. their depictions of humans in action are just as poignant/illustrative today as they were 500years ago.
Humanity is still very very brain damaged..
..just look at the goofballs who become Executive Administrators.
If they aren't already goofy when they get the job, they'll be goofy or frustrated by failure when they're gone.
If Pebble isn't tackled as if it's the world's biggest environmental clean-up of toxic metals, then it's doomed. Anglo-American will have to pay me very handsomely to get me to show them how this is done. It's time for all big corporations to reckon with grouchy old grumps like me, or face mass extinction as a failed species of problematic life on a planetary mudball in the vast cosmos.
The Constitution of the State of Alaska
Article 8 - Natural Resources
Paragraph 16. Protection of Rights
No person shall be involuntarily divested of his right to the use of waters, his interests in lands, or improvements affecting either, except for a superior use or public purpose and then only with just compensation and by operation of law.
Yes on 4 = Lawsuit = $500 billion = Current Value of Pebble.
Vote yes and the only toxic wave that's going to hit Alaska will be an unstoppable tide of lawyers. And, the result will be? There will not be anything left of Alaska to care about.
I care about 'all' of Alaska and I'm voting NO.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.