The draft report by the EPA on potential mining impacts on Bristol Bay by the Pebble Mine or any of the other seven potential mines in that part of Alaska is published. Here is a link to one report thereon—there are hundreds of news items, so maybe look for others as well if the topic interests you.
We can expect much comment and vacuous writing on the EPA report–why this is one to begin with. In essence, the EPA finds that there is a real probability of failure of the tailings impoundment and a real possibility of contamination of fish habitat by a mine above Bristol Bay. “Could wipe things out for decades,” they say.
This finding is so obvious that you blush to think that it took a big government agency months to come to so simple and obvious a conclusion.
The highly politicised nature of the Pebble Mine and mining development in general in the area makes any statement dangerous. In saying anything, you risk swift attack by the powers that stand to benefit from the mine. Even my past postings on this blog on the Pebble Mine have brought me stern lectures from friends and bosses—Anglo is a client, they say. Maybe we should offer to help them, not comment on their mine?
I retreat into dumb silence and the shield of blogging. Anglo knows what I write; they know who I work for; they probably even know me. It is their choice. But recall that Anglo in the old days in South Africa stood for freedom–at least opposition to the Apartheid regime of the day. I take that to mean that Anglo still supports freedom of opinion. And freedom to choose whom to hear.
Those who oppose Pebble Mine will laud the EPA report and back up their beliefs with the authority of the EPA. Those who support the mine, will attack the EPA as a bunch of hopeless innocents beholden to Obama. One potential peer reviewer of the EPA report has already told me he will attack the report for generalization: they did not evaluate the Pebble Mine; they simply looked at averages and statistics. That is not science, he will say. That is opinion based on prejudice, he will say.
He who shouts loudest may win. She who coins the best sound bite, will win. Those who can write the most eloquent letter, may win. And those with power behind the curtain will prevail. Oh where is Hamlet to pierce the curtain to Polonius when we need him?
The real issues in my mind are these: Do we need yet another gold mine? Do we need a gold mine in every state and county? Surely there are some places we just should not mine? Surely at least once, we should put food ahead of gold?
I oppose the mine for the very simple reason that I know we cannot build waste rock dumps and tailings impoundments to last forever and never be subject to the inevitable forces of geomorphology. Or if we can, as we did on the UMTRA Project, the cost is more than a commercial miner will pay.
I repeat what I have written before: (a) prove there is no need for perpetual water treatment; (b) prove that you can walk away at the end of mining and not do long-term surveillance & maintenance; (c) show how the waste facilities will perform in the next 1,000 and 10,000 years; (d) prove that there is zero probability of failure and zero probability of fish impact.
Unless you can satisfy me, you should not be allowed to mine.
Now I know I shall be excoriated for such arrogance & pride. I shall get nasty comments. I shall receive supportive private emails. My bosses and consulting colleagues will sit me down and politely admonish me. It will all be a small and private replay of the bigger fight. For billions and big egos are at stake.
Join in the fray. It is a worthy fight. At least as worthy as the fight that Anglo fought against Apartheid.
well people need to realise this stuff is complicated and it is society’s problem not mining’s! we had a great panel discussion at CIM on mined materials management with great speakers; one of whom in particular grapples with the longterm closure design and has interesting and questioning views – see his article in the latest CIM magazine; some of us got to wondering if at next year’s conference we can run a kind of mock trial or engagement simulation of the issue for a project like Pebble; this would attempt to replicate some of the stakeholder conversations and attempts to use tools like multiple accounts analysis in a public engagement setting; could be interesting
“I repeat what I have written before: (a) prove there is no need for perpetual water treatment; (b) prove that you can walk away at the end of mining and not do long-term surveillance & maintenance; (c) show how the waste facilities will perform in the next 1,000 and 10,000 years; (d) prove that there is zero probability of failure and zero probability of fish impact.”
So I guess,based on these criteria, the worlds entire mining industry should shutdown. (a) Perpetual water treatment is not a big deal, post a bond. (b) see (a) above. (c) again no big deal, (d) no big deal. I worked at Geco in northern Ontario before any of these criteria were in place. A simple water treatment plant was built when the mine closed and everyone lives happily ever after. Same goes for the Elliot Lake uranium mines.
Your zero is silly. Prove to me that the next time you get behind the wheel of a car,there is zero probability you are about to die.
Very interesting your site. Appreciate the publication of the activity that unites us as the defense of our interests.
Hugs.
Juan Pablo Márquez
http://www.mineriaenargentina.com
You question whether a gold mine is needed everywhere. So let’s ask whether a diamond mine is needed everywhere simply to put glitter on a woman’s finger. Probably not one could argue, but I see you do consulting work for Ekati so I guess a diamond mine in the pristene north is really OK. So maybe the argument can be simplified down to whether a person can get some personal economic benefit from the venture (diamonds -yes, Pebble – no). Stand by your morals and refuse to support the glitterati, stop consulting to the diamonds industry. There is no proof their tailings will still be stable 1000 years from now.
Perpetual water treatment is a big deal at the headwaters to the largest sockeye fishery on the planet. A place where Pebble’s own science shows a complex hydrologic system with significant ground to surface water exchange, where the fishery and spawning habitat depend upon that groundwater upwelling. Bonds would hardly suffice to cover the costs long term of treatment in perpetuity in a place like Bristol Bay and a mine like Pebble.
Again those opposed to Pebble are not necessarily opposed to mining, just this mine in this location. A location that has a robust fishing industry that already provides and sustains upwards of 14000 jobs, supporting an economy valued at nearly $500 million a year – an economy than if protected will continue longer than the life of the mine. Some places are not worth the risk of getting behind the wheel of mining and Bristol Bay is one of those places.
But there I go, trying to shout louder than the other guy! Thanks for your continued commentary on this Jack.
“The real issues in my mind are these: Do we need yet another gold mine? Do we need a gold mine in every state and county? Surely there are some places we just should not mine? Surely at least once, we should put food ahead of gold?”
Well stated…Pebble is simply incompatible with the existing resources of the area in question. Not a broad brush indictment of mining as a whole, but this mine in this place. The risks are real, and they’re too high.
I read the replies above and I wonder – How many of you are Alaskans?
All industrial projects, mines, indeed- all human activity has some negative impact on our environment. Whether we need another mine, if it will damage the fisheries in a drastic (and who decides what is acceptable?) way, if the jobs it produces will outweight the jobs it may destroy – all of these are debatable to some degree.
I am not an Alaskan but I know a bunch. I would be PO’ed to have an ALASKAN down here telling me we couldn’t farm corn in Indiana because of farm runoff or we couldn’t have a factory somewhere else. I would likely agrees with them, but how is it their business? Let the people who live in the State have their say. The rest of us, as much as we may love Alaska and feel like it should be “our last frontier”, are just tourists.
While I oppose the Pebble Mine in conscience, it is up to the people of that state to decide.
Choose criteria that preclude most mining activities and you reach the conclusion that you want. Why don’t you justify your criteria before going further, otherwise you are engaging in a bootstrap argument.
Thanks DanO. I agree with you, and Jack, and several other posters here. Alaskans saved Bristol Bay sixty years ago when fish traps were decimating salmon populations because of foreign greed and incompetent management from Washington D.C. If Alaskans hadn’t stepped up then to become a state and manage our natural resources, there would be no Bristol Bay to brag about today.
Pebble is a massive ore deposit. It will be mined today, in two decades, or in two centuries. That is just resource economics. Other deposits will be exploited, depleted, and Pebble will look more attractive. There are very real and very serious risks involved. I trust the scientists and managers; and maybe I will be called an idiot for doing so – fair enough.
Alaska only manages 28% of its land. In comparison, the Federal Government manages 60% and Native Corporations 11%. The pebble deposit is located on those lands owned and managed by Alaska, AND designated for mineral exploration and development. If the Feds via EPA shutdown Pebble now, it would be unprecedented, and another signal that Alaska is an unfriendly district for Development. The Sierra Club, WWF, and others would love this!
I guess a new exploration model of the world is needed, where only certain types of deposits are amenable with certain demographics and environments. Or the BBNC could be bought off?
Jack, to paraphrase a popular SNL comment by Dan Akroyd, “Jack, you ignorant #$%@!” What the hell are you thinking? You know that mining is not the rape and pillage industry of years past yet you succumb to that sort of thinking. If the fate of this mine is decided based on the public opinion of the loudest voice instead of the science being developed then you will be complicit and have done “your” industry a great dis-service. The analysis of the project needs to be completed and a rational decision made, you know that. Yet, you have decided to come out against the development based on a statement that we “…do not need a gold mine in every state and county.” How can you even say that when you know how rare metal deposits of economic value are? So disappointed in your comments.
Funny thing is when I read some of Richard Schodde’s stuff on copper’s future ( a paper from 2010 or thereabouts – see the link below) for an Australian Copper Conference (it’s on the net somewhere), Pebble is listed as a Copper property, admittedly one with gold to help things along. Now if he’s right, by 2030 the world is going to be woefully short of copper to meet projected growth driven by rising urbanization. By most accounts it is driven by folks in Asia and elsewhere who will move to cities for a better richer life than that found in the typical dirt poor village.
So here’s my questions for to you, Jack. Why the focus on gold? Do we ignore the copper because it’s easier to oppose the project since copper is the nerve system in any modern electricity using society and therefore harder to fight? Do we conviently ignore the fact that any renewable energy system is going to use copper and instead focus on the gold? Have we in the “West” decided that folks in these “developing” countries get to eat the costs/impacts of meeting these demands, or do we put in our fair share of product in order to meet the world’s needs.
Sounds to me like we have a lot of folks (including those in EPA and the NGOs) who want us to continue our practice of creating more landscape zoos to service the wealthy “western” folks who make donations and send money for “public service” campaigns.
http://www.minexconsulting.com/publications.html
So Jack,
Based upon some of the responses here, it looks like you have no other choice than to depopulate Vancouver and everything upstream in order to save the annual salmon run up the Fraser. I trust you will get on top of this pronto.
I live in Alaska, and have lived here for my entire life. Fifty eight years for anyone who is interested. I don’t hunt anymore, rarely fish and pretty much stay inside all winter. I know I need to get out. The long cold winters seem to get longer and colder lately. My wife wants to move. We tried it a couple times in the last few years. Two years ago, as a trial run, we even rented a nice little place by one of those botique forests out west. I think the people in the lower 48 call them wilderness areas. Regardless, it was no good for me. I just can’t fit in down there. Not being close to a real wilderness is too hard on my spirit.
I use to be a surveyor. Over the course of several years in the trade, I got a chance to see pretty much all of Alaska. In his log book, Capt. James Cook said something to the effect that all together Alaska is a miserable place. If he would have gotten his butt off the boat and traveled a bit more inland, I suspect he would have come up with a different description. At the very least, he would have made note of the mosquitoes. Lol.
Just in my lifetime, the development in Alaska has been a terrible thing to behold. It must be really hard on the old timers. The guys still around who were here before they put the Alaska highway in during WW2. And the Indians……. good grief I feel incredibly bad for them. That a few of them drink alcohol isn’t surprising. What is surprising, is that there are any that don’t. Talk about a soul rending apoclypse. I wonder if my people, back in the day shredded their skin and drank themselves senseless on mead when the Romans first showed up and introduced them to the growth model?
As for the Pebble mine project: First of all, I know you can’t stop progress. I don’t even think about it all that much anymore. But, in this particurlar case, I can’t see how anyone could think it is a good idea to put one of the worlds largest open pit mines, with the attendant toxic slag lake, at the head waters of the most productive wild salmon fishery in the world.
On the other hand I suspect a few people stand to make some major bucks on this mine. I’m talking about the kind of bucks that will allow them to have two private jets in the hangar instead of just one. So I suspect those people think its a really great idea. And since they already have a little money, I bet they will use some of that money to pay other people to tell me what a wonderful idea it is. And I bet they are going to hire even more people to tell me how much they love the environment and how they would never do anything to hurt the environment. Yup, and my legislators are going to talk about how Alaska is poised for destiny; and oh by the way…….if we don’t keep the economy going, by supporting this noble project, my house value may drop and my taxes may rise. But you know, I still think Pebble is a bad idea.
Hey Boomer, I salute your perseverance at staying in AK, you are very fortunate indeed to have lived there your whole life. However, if ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy. Wait until the real study has come out and the mine proposal has been made BEFORE you make up your mind. Also, please keep in mind the following statements from Sean Magee of Northern Dynasty,
“We felt that if the EPA could apply its experience and good objective science, then the Watershed Assessment would surely present a more realistic view of the potential effects of mine development in southwest Alaska. We believed it would more realistically frame the issues of risk and reward, and correct the popular myth that a modern mine occupying less than one-twentieth of 1% of the land base, within a 400 square mile area that produces just one half of 1% of Bristol Bay sockeye salmon, could somehow wipe out an entire fishery.”
Just think about what he is saying here, the mine is occupying 1/20th of 1% of the land base that produces 1/2 of 1% of the salmon within the Bristol Bay fishery. Yet the environmental extremists have convinced people like you the mine is going to dig up southwest Alaska and pour it into Bristol Bay, killing all the salmon. Use some of the common sense you developed as a surveyor to see through the enviro smoke and mirrors.
Hey Pete, I think I’ll stick with what I already said. Oh by the way, did you hear about “Little Boy” you know, the bomb that we exploded over Hiroshima back in 1945? Did you know Little Boy only occupied 1/100000 of the air space over the city right before it exploded? Now just think about that Pete…….1/100000. If you don’t believe me just ask Sean Magee of Northern Dynasty. Northern Dynasty, what a joke that outfit is. Give me a break.
You may not like the analogy but it’s much more accurate then fellas like you could or would ever admit. I won’t insult you by telling you to develop or use some common sense. This isn’t about common sense. It’s about ethics. I know where your ethics are. If you want them back, do the right thing: Send the check back to the Pebble mine folks. Pete my boy, there are better and more honest ways to make a living. Why don’t you choose one that doesn’t involve the destruction of what’s left of the natural world? If you do you will sleep better and your kids will actually be proud of you.