Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pebble Mine debate unleashes lies, hype and hyperboleThe time has come to call bull on much of the coverage of the proposed Pebble Mine. A story by Robert Glenn Ketchum, a fairly well-known photographer, posted this week on Huffington Post was the last straw. "Bristol Bay, Alaska Under Threat From Copper And Gold Mine,'' it proclaims, as have so many similar stories. Is this true? Maybe yes. Maybe no. A mine gone bad in the headwaters of the Kvichak River certainly could threaten the Iliamna Lake area. The impacts might even reach 60 miles downstream to the Bay. Beyond that, somebody is starting to stretch things. An old cliché applies here: "The solution to pollution is dilution.'' At some point, any mine pollution – and God forbid there should be any -- slides into the background of environmental noise. There are already chemicals in the water. There will always be. And there is a lot of water involved. Iliamna Lake itself is 77 miles long, 22 miles wide and about 1,000 feet deep. It's more like an inland sea. Could it be threatened by Pebble? Sure. Mining has a notoriously bad global history. There have been more dirty mines than clean ones. A clean mine, in fact, is rare. It is something you're most likely to see in the United States because -- let's face reality -- comparatively few other countries care as much about the environment as we do. That alone ought to make any open-minded person think long and hard about Pebble. If there is going to be mining -- and there always will be – should it take place where a lot of interested people are watching or where no one cares what happens to the environment? I don't know the answer. I also don't know whether Pebble can be mined in an environmentally sensitive manner. I do know the idea of a mine near Frying Pan Lake west of Newhalen is unsettling. After all, the area is an old caribou hunting ground of mine from when the region's Mulchatna caribou herd was thriving. Even more unsettling, though, is the disinformation spewed by mine opponents, because nothing corrupts a legitimate discussion of public policy more than the drum beat of falsehoods intended to stampede the masses. This is a bad way to conduct the business of politics and science. And yet it seems to be something Pebble opponents cannot resist. "This environment is water-saturated,'' Ketchum writes. "It is so aqueous that except when frozen, overland travel is extremely difficult. Thousands of lakes and ponds dot the landscape, interwoven with hundreds of streams, all connected by swampy tundra meadows and bogs." Those sentences makes wonder if Ketchum has ever been on the ground in the area. I have. I have hiked in and around the Pebble site. I have hiked to the west of it in the Mulchatna River drainage, and to the east around Lake Clark. Yes, there are boggy spots in all these areas, but the area isn't much different from the rest of Alaska. On second thought, it is. Hiking a lot of this country is easier than in other Alaska spots. I've been in a few places where "overland travel is extremely difficult.'' Much of the area around Lake Iliamna just doesn't rise to that bar. Not even close. But that's just one small point. So much of what Ketchum writes is such crap it's hard to tell where to begin debunking it: • "...This well-managed renewable resource employs thousands of people and represents the last major American fishery in North America that has not been tainted by industrial accident." So all the other major Alaskan fisheries have been tainted by industrial accident? Cook Inlet? Kodiak? Southeast Alaska? Even, heaven forbid, the famous Copper River? Someone best warn those Americans paying astronomical prices for Copper River salmon. I agree with the comment below. It's refreshing to see an article about Pebble with a balanced perspective. Are people beginning to realize that the anti-Pebble hysteria is just a trumped up NIMBY argument by Alaska's wealthiest financier? Craig,this is one of the most lucid and reasonable articles on the Pebble project that I have read to date. Thank you for trying to add a note of calm and reason to the hysteria that has permeated the conversation so far. Although based on most of the other comments, I'm not sure you made much headway. ~~~ THE PEBBLE PRIZE ~~~ I propose: If any mining-engineering company can accomplish the task of cleaning up the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, then they are considered to be skilled enough to operate the Pebble Mining Project... CLEAN UP FUKUSHIMA FIRST !! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster Dr. Helen Caldicott.... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fukushima+explosion&aq=f http://www.fairewinds.com/ http://enenews.com/ http://cerea.enpc.fr/en/fukushima.html http://www.rense.com/general94/secbb.htm http://www.elenafilatova.com/ Chernobyl had 180 tons of uranium fuel-rods in the damaged reactor.. Most of us can agree that Alaska (and the rest of the country) needs to look to alternate energy sources, with oil running low. Wind and hydro are comparitively clean options. But where do we get the thousands of tons of copper and other materials (including gold)for the wiring, towers, computers and other equipment to create and transfer this new energy? Do we get it from a carefully monitored mine in a country that values the environment? Or from some third-world country that employs underage workers with poverty-level wages and a blatant disregard for pollution? Unless I'm willing to go completely off the grid, I need to take responsibility for my energy use and admit that every kilowatt affects the world in some way. With all its faults, I think the US can do a better job producing those raw materials than a mine in, say, China or Indonesia. Oil isn't running low, that's mythology. There's probably 50 billion barrels of oil in Alaska the communist liberals will never let us extract if they get their way. Btw, the left never looks that far ahead. They probably don't realize that we're still going to use copper and gold and that its coming from somewhere else with little, if any, environmental standards. Largest earthen damn in the world to hold back millions/billions of gallons of toxic waste in an earthquake prone area. What could go wrong? What could go right? A hundred, maybe even two hundred, good paying local jobs for a couple of generations? Time, in that time, and money to build a sound, workable infrastructure for our children's children to use and enjoy? Incentives to achieve greater educational attainment in order to land one of the better jobs at the mine? A tie in to the state electrical grid to reduce the cost and pollution of diesel electrical generation? A road, a ferry, maybe a railroad through the region to reduce the costs of travel and transportation? More local services and facilities and a reduced dependence on government charity programs? Greater regional political clout in Juneau? There are always risks that things can go wrong. Potential risks can be taken into account and planned for. There is, and always will be, sufficient scrutiny of this project to minimize any risk a human can design. Its time stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. Calm down Craig...no, wait, don't calm down. Just how did you write this excellent piece? Or, was it ghostwritten for you? But, of course, the opposition will bring out the semantics further still. No matter, you set a nice course for a necessary future. And of course there will be some pollution. but it can be watched over. Ever get around a local village with it's old motors from whatever sinking into the tundra. They'll be there 5000 years from now for archaeologists. No one can get rid of them. It's like the dead zone on Everest. The bodies are left there. The mine will be cleaner that that...there is progress. And if this doesn't work...50 years down the road the Federal Gov will do it as a necessary strategic asset. Craig, equally bad as the misinformation being spread is the behavior of some of the anti-Pebble folk, as well. All you have to do is look at the comments here to see what I mean...the references to your (lack of) logic, that you're now on Pebble's "books"...etc, etc. I've written off more than one friendship because of this asinine behavior. They rise to the same level of zealotry as the Followers of Palin. I get that they're opposed to the mine. They have some good arguments...but if they can't fathom that not everyone will see it exactly as they see it, then they have no credibility. Boy, someone woke up cranky. One child yelling at another. Both Medred and Ketchum failed to add any wisdom to the debate. I'm not sure who has the answers but let us at least ask some intelligent questions. Have we seen any examples in the world of a large-scale mine not drastically harming the watershed? Though perhaps technically possible why do we not see more environmentally friendly mines? Given the large amount of money already invested by the Pebble Partnership and the fact that that partnership includes foreign corporations, is there any way to stop the Pebble mine from proceeding considering what we know about the World Trade Organization and free trade laws? Starting with the last question because it should be the first question, asked long ago. We can't stop the mine. It would impede free trade. It would prevent the Partnership from the profits that free trade laws currently guarantee it. The only way to prevent the mine at this point is either revolution (GOOD LUCK OOCCUPIERS!!) or we pay the Partnership their estimated profits over the lifetime of the mine. Our trade laws are set up to ensure that nothing stands in the way of those profits. Unfortunately that means that we can't require clean mining - it too would impede the profit making ability of the Partnership. Superficial hoops for the Partnership to jump through are all we can require as far as environmental laws go. Lets hope dilution with water works because diluting our environmental laws with free trade policies has taken away most of our options. One missing fact is just how many of those currently living in the Pebble Mine projected area work for the outfit? With less than 2000 people and discounting the elderly, infirm, under 18, evil government workers, and those not willing to be poisoned, how many "jobs" will be created for local residents? Maybe we can ask the Save Our Salmon folks to put up a bond sufficient to replace the lost income to the region if Pebble doesn't go in . . I share the concern over mining the area, but I also share the concern of providing real, full-time/year-'round jobs in an area where the greatest source of income is government/PFD related. I think that the mine developers should have to post a bond equal to the amount that we, the People of Alaska, believe is the liability of restoration for an accident/incident/closure of the mine. Likewise, I believe the opponents of the mine should have to pay the wages of the lost job opportunities for the estimated life of the mine . . . . It is great to see that Paul Jenkins will have someone to pass the torch to. Nothing to do with your opinions Craig; just your delivery and logic (or lack there of)... Wow, what a piece of crap writing Craig. Are you on Pebbles books now? Agreed the renewable resources coalition/foundation ad campaign is very hocus pocus and meant to scare. "I won't even get into Ketchum's rambling about "toxic waste'' ..." Your credibility talking about ground-truthing at the site is at the very least questionable. Your perpetual opinion pieces continue to degrade your credibility as a journalist. Perhaps objective journalism isn't your goal? Appeasing advertisers may be just your niche. Just because you've shot a few Caribou on top of Pebble doesn't make a you an authority on the issue. Maybe you mixed up New Halen and Non Dalton? Get some facts, try writing about them and leave your personal childhood baggage out of print. Knock knock knock... Hello? Are you there Craig? Hype, hyperbole...? Ah, Craig, incase you didn't notice, the reason Pebble Partnership is in existance is for hype and hyperbole tactics. It is thier sole purpose. It is thier job. The folks who fund Pebble Partnership get a big mining tax write off and those gettin the salary fill the information hole with hype. We can't help it if folks outside write basically crap. But hey, Shively get paid to do it and he technically lives here. Now about that pesky issue which might of started all this hype: Will we have another Rock Creek mine, would Pebble start then stop and who fills in the whole? Nome is at that point, let us see where the Rock Creek project goes. Jesus Craig, Is mis-representing facts, stretching the truth and sensationalizing something that is yours alone? Pot calling the kettle black. I thought anwr was the last pristine wilderness but apparently the location of the proposed Pebble project is even more pristine. That's because it will impact the viewshed of a rich guy's catch and release gig. The story to stop Pebble is at least as interesting as the proposed mine. Good chance that some day it will be a musical. Craig, the hype, hyperbole and lies can't be stopped. The issue of the Pebble Project is much more about the potential for change and the fear and uncertainty that change brings than about truth or open, honest discourse leading to rational decisions. That's why any moderate voice is met with a chorus of cat calls crying "Pebble shill", and emotionally charged ads touting "the truth" show up during the evening news hour, and you have to be careful who you do business with lest you offend someone with a non-profit organization to speak for them. I'm guessing that by sometime Monday afternoon you'll be thinking that attempting to be objective, honest and fair in the discussion of this issue is much like teaching a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Good luck, but be careful. Hi Craig, Could you please report instead of give opinion? Maybe I do not understand You are a great reporter. Once you turn into Alaska Man it just goes blank. Thank you. John Muir. While all that you say may be true, no proponent of the mine has ever addressed the issue of who we hold accountable if, after all, the mine (after it's constructed and operated for ? years) can't be done safely? And how do we hold them accountable? Did you walk to Bristol Bay, too? |
Comments