Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Pebble gold mine faces long, difficult journeyMining in Alaska isn't as easy as it used to be. Old mines of Alaska lore like the fabled Kennecott copper mine near McCarthy did not face a maze of federal and state regulation. There was no Environmental Protection Agency back in the early 1900s, when Kennecott Minerals Co. mined and milled some 4 million tons of copper ore worth more than $4.5 billion in 2011 dollars. There were no state agencies to please. No permits to apply for. No Department of Natural Resources or Department of Environmental Conservation. No state, in fact. Pre-statehood gold mining didn't involve Alaska Native corporations with massive landholdings, across which access rights would need to be negotiated. When it comes to getting a big mining project going in Alaska, things are infinitely more complicated in the early 21st century. Just ask the folks at Pebble Partnership. A mining partnership between London-based Anglo American and Canada-based Northern Dynasty Minerals, the Pebble project is focused on trillions of dollars of gold, copper and molybdenum underneath the wetlands of Southwest Alaska. Near the state's largest commercial salmon and Pacific herring fisheries and a few small villages, as the many pro- and anti-Pebble Mine ads are quick to remind Alaskans. Pebble Mine faces a great deal of uncertainty -- years of environmental hurdles and potential litigation to overcome, more "what ifs" than milestones. Despite seven years of planning, preparing and studying, Pebble hasn't yet applied for any permits from state or federal government. Geologists working on Pebble aren't even sure what kind of mine they're going to end up digging out near the headwaters of Bristol Bay. Meantime, financing troubles loom over the project. In the last several months, Northern Dynasty, which launched the project initially, has begun attempting to sell-off its 50 percent, half-billion-dollar stake in the project. Stepping back and looking at the political, legal and financial problems plaguing Pebble, it becomes eerily similar to another big Alaska pipedream, one afflicted with more doubts than sure bets. Could Pebble become another Alaska natural resource bust? What's at stake for mine companies and the environment?Acquiring the permits necessary to get a rock mine going in Alaska can take more than a decade, depending on how the stars align for the project. And the proposed Pebble Mine may face an even longer timeline. Pebble's deposit sits under a mile-and-a-half-wide swath of swampy, spongy tundra about 20 miles from the small village of Iliamna, on the shores of the 1,000-square-mile Lake Iliamna, the largest lake in Alaska and the eighth-largest in North America. The Pebble Partnership has been working on the "big picture" development and exploration of the proposed mine since 2004, and project managers admit they haven't even gotten through the conceptual phase of the project. Still, the mine's potential keeps everybody at it. Pebble prospectors believe they've discovered the world's largest undeveloped gold deposit. On a recent, Pebble-sponsored tour of the deposit, geologists and environmental managers agreed that Pebble holds more than 100 million ounces of gold and more than 80 billion pounds of recoverable copper waiting in the ground. Given what gold is worth today -- $1,830 per ounce, or $3 per tiny grain -- that translates into a potentially huge fortune. If you can get it out of the ground, that is. 1. Why does Pebble Partnership insist that they haven't been in the permitting process yet, when it's clear that they have extensive and varied permits already issued? 2. On what basis were these permits issued, if there was no plan presented for review? State of Alaska permits issued Department of Natural Resources (ADNR): Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) All the hype is getting old. You have the environmentalists on one side that will say or do anything to any development activities out. You have the commercial fisherman, especially those that become rich off the resources of rural Alaska trying to proect their interests. These include all the rich and powerful that live outside the state. Everyone gets to voice their opinion. This should be left to the people of the region. Born and raised in Alaska, have lived in remote areas all my life. Have watched politicians and environmentalists make decisions from afar that caused unemployment, starvation, and other social ills. They do not even live there. If this activity is going to occur in Bristol Bay, then the people of Bristol Bay should decided if it is good for their land and people, not the media, politicians, or environmentalists, none of which live there. This is no different than all the federal decision making in Washington that impacts our state. I enjoyed reading this pessimistic article on Pebble. Dr.GeoJeff - you have a pompous attitude, claiming to know exactly how a large metal sulfide mine will absolutely destroy an ecosystem. This fear is why government agencies, independent groups, but mostly, the Pebble Partnership team, are studying EVERYTHING. If you would like to criticize the science, then I would be grateful to hear a good critique, but sloganeering to get your scientific point across is just bad practice. I don't think very few people are actually interested in the nuts and bolts of this project, because they are so complicated and intensely difficult to predict or engineer. I believe nearly all the data is available on their website, but I never read editorials or commentators actually challenging this current work, with boots on the ground, by the "small army of engineers, scientists, etc." I have three suggestions for Pebble with regards to the environment and mining, or "sustainable development": 1. Explain in more detail to the public the policy of "no net loss" fisheries management and provide case studies for similar projects. We all know that a mine destroys fish habitat, even if it's only marginal/temporal habitat for juveniles and such. Fort Knox has done well, but had the benefit of an already destroyed habitat by historic placer mining. 2. Create targets and goals out of the 5 standards John Shivley set up - this may give more credence to your efforts to develop a mine responsibly. 3. Avoid simplistic statements from leaders, such as Cynthia Carrol's "we will not develop a mine where people don't want one" statement. Environmental groups target those for easy fodder. It didn't take long for surveys to show that a majority of people in Bristol Bay oppose the project, and now Pebble has to defend the charge of forcing a conflict within an indigenous peoples group. Sustainable Development is mostly about rhetorical wordplay for power and money. I think the team is dedicated to the essence of socially and environmetnally responsible resource development, and I hope the best for persons on all sides. I purposefully kept the concepts simple as that was the request from the OP but if I had written a technical treatise you would have accused me of being to far above their heads with technical jargon. Additionally, you cannot study "everything" and come to a clear conclusion in a reasonable time frame. You call me pompous then proceed to give "advice" to the Pebble Partnership and shill for the project. At least we all see where you stand. I dunno Ken, whadda you think. Shud we call it a rock mine, a pit mine, a copper mine or a gold mine? Oh jeeze henri i dunno, just don't call it a big fuggin hole, them laskants'll be on to us in no time. Interesting tactic - call the proposed Pebble Mine a gold mine. Concentrate the conversation on the current price of gold. I always thought that misdirection was the primary tool of the magician, not the journalist. The price of gold is tied to fear. It rises and falls based almost entirely on what the perception of the economy is. The economy gets better and the price of gold falls. The better the economy gets, the further it falls. But, we know that, right? The developers of this project know this, too. They aren't in this for the short term. They have no desire to try to build a sustainable business plan based on the cycle of gold prices. They're looking to build a lasting, stable, reliable profit source from something that doesn't swing in price in schizophrenic cycles. Copper, simply put, is that something. If it helps you to sleep at night by thinking that the developers of the Pebble Project are simply greedy capitalist pigs out to rape mother earth of her gold, then by all means go ahead, think that, but don't get all tense when you wake up some morning to find Anglo out there digging up the copper. Stop the magical thinking. There's not enough gold in Alaska to compensate for the eventual loss of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery if this project is allowed to go forward. The leaching from the lined holding ponds, in an active earthquake zone, will poison the salmon streams. Look at what Rio Tinto and Anglo America have done around the world. Once they get their claws into the local and state government officials, "strict environmental laws" will mean nothing but words on paper. There will be no incentives to enforce the laws and regulations as these mammoth international corporations put pressure to bear not to enforce our laws. For the few paychecks it will pay out and all the profits, that will flow outside Alaska, it is just not worth trading a sustainable fishery for an unsustainable mining operation of this size, in this place, just to enrich those that are already obscenely rich. NO PEBBLE MINE!!! Let's say the developers of Pebble actually wanted to destroy the Bristol Bay sockeye fishery. Could you tell me in simple terms how they would do that? I thought the fishery comprised 8 rivers systems in a prety big area. I don't understand how your claim is true even if the intention was to destroy the salmon fishery. You're right. It's a very large area. Water can't be controlled. "post-mining groundwater migration", "downgradient seepage". Nushagak is the next major watershed. Mulchatna is there. Koktuli is next to it, up the Stuyahok. First, everything's disturbed and the upper reaches closed off because the mine is IN it. The pit is dug down through the water table. They drill wells around the perimeter to pump out the water table while they're mining, creating a depression in the water table. Then they close the mine. They pump water here and there again. They cover tailings. They start the process of filling up the pit. In the meantime, they've dewatered. They've pumped out creek beds. Small impacts that change the water. The "downgradient" and "seepage" - where ever it is - moves water all over the place. Some fast; some over the period of years. Think about the plumbing in your house. Somehow, under the kitchen sink is always moist. And something got dripped on. But you can't find a real leak, or a gasket that obviously is letting water through. No, it probably won't contaminate Togiak or Ugashik. Maybe not the Wood. But they're not sure. That's really at the core of the issue. We KNOW that it WILL impact salmon habitat and water. That's not even in question. Over here, but not over there. Maybe. Unless... Regardless, the impact is to the _industry_, as opposed to the one creek or another. If there is just one contaminated fish out of the Kvichak, the whole fishery is affected. Count on it. That's historic. In simplest terms, when the ground is torn up, it allows mineral ions that were bound in rock to move freely through the ground in the subsurface water, in this case copper. The Pebble project is at the head waters of the largest of the five Bristol Bay districts, (Naknek/Kvichak River drainage). These free ions, even in the parts per billion concentration will flow through the ground water and into the riverine and oceanic systems. Why is this important, because copper is toxic to salmon and because salmon use "smell" to find their home stream and copper, even in the smallest amounts, masks that "smell". If the salmon cannot find their way to their home stream, they will not reproduce and hence no second generation. This is, in simplest terms just one mineral and in copper/gold mining there are half a dozen other concerns (acidification) associated with mining that are not inherently compatible with salmon. Additionally, there will be an impound basin to hold (forever) any discharge waters that are toxic, this impound basin will be an earthen dam that is lined, in one of the most seismically active zones in the world, to hold back billions of tons of toxic sludge and water. Can we trust an international conglomerate to keep their promise to maintain this lake of toxic water, indefinitely? Their record around the world does not suggest they will honor their commitments to the people in their host countries. Thank you for asking about how mining would end one of the worlds largest, non-declining stocks of fish. At the end of the day, the gold and copper will eventually run out but do you want to trade Alaskan salmon for the paychecks (royalty payments to the state are nothing like oil, so the benefit to the state and hence the people are smaller)? Please educate yourself about the effects of mining on the environment and in particular this project. The science is out there, you just need to take the time and make an educated decision. I am not a fan of mining, well, because it's mining. However, when opponents of Pebble say it will end the sockeye run in Bristol Bay, I don't understand. Maybe it could decimate part of the run. But the entire fishery? I don't understand how that is possible even if it was the objective. Not that destroying part of the run is acceptable. It isn't. It is necessary however to separate BS from truth if a responsible decision is to be made. So let me try again, how does the disaster you describe in the Naknek/Kvichak wipe out the Togiak and Ugashik? In Alaska there is a process that is by any standard in the world, extremely rigorous. It should be rigorous. Resource development firms are not our friends. Either is Alaska Airlines. Corporations exist to make money. But just because a corporation is good or bad in Nigeria or Russia doesn't mean that it will be good or bad in Alaska. No different than Alaska Airlines. Just because they have low margins/prices in other markets doesn't mean they won't get what they can here. A mine that possesses tremendous value might be able to be developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. Might. However, there are many people who don't want any resource development whatsoever in Alaska. There are effective strategies for killing any project. Sen Begich put it well, it’s called Whac-A-Mole. I am interested in some additional resource development in Alaska, because, well, unfortunately I have to eat. Anyway, I and am interested in truth before making a decision. Eriv, One aspect of the distance factor of these types of ions is that once they get into the oceanic system they will follow the current and *possibly* have an effect as all the salmon follow the coast. Worst case, if the earthen dam breaks or leaks significantly then all bets are off as it will pollute the entire bay and make no mistake with the huge amounts and concentrations, it will kill all the runs as the pollution will be carried by the currents. Dr. Ricki Ott (fisher woman out of Cordova)is probably the best source of information on this topic of sedimentary toxicology. It will definitely have a devastating impact on the largest watershed, the salmon, and the industry. You are also correct that just because a corporation's behavior is "bad" in another country does not guarantee they will act in the same manner in Alaska. It does establish they will act selfishly if given the chance and can position themselves to do so. These large international corporations have played this game many times and know how to get what they want. Additionally, given their record in other countries, this is also about a degree of trust. With so much riding on the health of the environment, do you really want to take that gamble? Reminds me of the parable of the frog and the scorpion. It's in their nature to act as they do, you said it yourself, they are profit seeking at all cost and to expect the scorpion to act any differently is just foolhardy. Regulations look good on paper but personally, I don't trust our delegated officials to handle enforcement efficiently and diligently, we all have seen how power corrupts. The Exxon Valdez is a good example of regulations on paper but lax enforcement. Look into what happens when an international corporation decides to close up shop and move back to their home. The host country is left having to litigate in the International Courts and it takes years to get any sort of relief to honor their contractual obligations. I am not against development, I have worked for Alyeska Pipeline but am against this project with these corporations. The gain for Alaska is just too small for the amount of risk involved. My parents grew up in Western Montana and I have seen the worst of copper development. Arsenic in the soil so toxic, nothing grows, lakes so acidic birds die if they land in it, etc. Yes, this was the standard long ago but going on 100 years later, the economy of Montana ranks near the bottom and they are left with no jobs and many super fund sites. The water is contaminated still to this day and this in a semi-arid region, think of the water contamination on the Alaska Peninsula where it is quite wet. Anaconda still has the smelter stack standing because they are afraid to disturb all the arsenic that resides in the bricks. The money dried up as soon as the work stopped and all that was left was a toxic dump. Sorry but this project is just too large and in a geographic location that begs disaster with too little to gain for Alaskans. You clearly show the conundrum of a resource-rich state like Alaska faces, and the difficult choices between environment and development, science and society forced upon us. I would enjoy reading any technical argument, email me at dylan.e.mcfarlane@gmail.com I wrote a dissertation about this project, and in my presentation told the audience I was against the project. I've changed my mind over a couple years, but I'm still not convinced either by the project design. However, I think the team working is good and they are paying a lot of people a lot of money - and as an employee of our oil industry, you can't complain about that can you? You argue both sides of the case. As a scientist, you state that the metal ions will "possibly" affect salmon, but then a few sentences later you state that Pebble will "definitely have a devastating impact". Now which is it? Your emotion or your insight? It's also clear that selfish interests are a positive thing, because you demonstrate your own working for the oil industry, suggest selfish Alaskan political economy, but then lambaste Anglo America for looking after their shareholders interest of a positive cash flow project. Everyone can point to historic mines that are environmental polluters today, but you don't compare the Pebble project with any large-scale producing mines in Alaska. Do you think Red Dog, the largest zinc producer in the world in a beautiful wilderness area nearer to villages and subsistence lifestyles than urban towns - do you think that is a bad mine? Is Fort Knox, Kensington, Greens Creek, Usibelli, Pogo destroying our renewable resource industries??? I don't think so, but then again I work in the industry (placer geology) so my arguments must be misguided and wrong. I am proud that Alaska hosts one of the worlds largest deposits of copper and gold. I think our environment has proven extremely resilient and that overall, our record of conservation versus development has been balanced and managed prudently. I think that if rural Native people in Bristol Bay benefit more than Alaskan taxpayers, that's good enough to have my vote - the Pebble mine should be theirs and I hope they can beet the 50% local workforce achieved at Red Dog. Dylan McFarlane No, very good points. Rational discourse in a civil tone. I appreciate it. 1. The mines you've mentioned are very different than this one. Much much smaller scale. Substantially higher grade ore. Which means less broad activity and exponentially less waste material than the Pebble Mine. 2. The mine will go IN the watershed, at the top of major rivers and creeks. (There isn't a plan...but there is.) The mine WILL impact the rivers and the salmon, no matter how well done. The deposit is situated on a drainage divide: Upper Talarik River (east and south), North Fork and South Fork Koktuli (west and southwest). Open pit and underground mine at the headwaters of the South Fork Koktuli Watershed and the Upper Talarik Watershed. The mine waste (tailings and waste rock) would be stored in two Tailings Storage Facilities located in the South Fork Koktuli Watershed and the North Fork Koktuli Watershed. 3. In 2006, Northern Dynasty submitted applications for two tailings storage facilities at Pebble. Permits _have_ been issued. One is for dam construction. Total resource of 8.2 billion tons (2007), of which over 99% would be waste that will remain on site. The resource estimate does not include potentially acid-generating waste rock, which would also have to be placed behind the tailings dams. The proposed capacity of both Tailings Storage Facilities is 2.5 billion tons. They are short a few billion tons worth of mine waste storage space. The dams are meant to be there forever. The tailings material behind the dams will never go away. The pit will be there forever and is expected to fill with water over the long-term. Uncontrollable variables: "post-mining groundwater migration", "downgradient seepage". It is impossible to stop the flow of water through waste material in a tailings pond. The tailings ponds will be built over glacial moraine material, which could provide a flow path from the tailings pond and under the dam, impacting water outside the mine site. 4. Several hundred miles of pipeline to transport slurry to Iniskin Bay in Cook Inlet for loading on ships, and return contaminated water from dewatering process back to the mine. Every inch is a potential serious contamination point. 5. Water consumption - 35 billion gallons of water per year. 114 cubic feet per second-cubed (cfs3). 855 gallons per second. And they've already had water use violations. Part of the problem was not properly and honestly reporting their own mistakes. That's a big fat 'uh-oh'. http://tiny.cc/qhq2j |
Comments