Here, the city bought a piece of land for a landfill, and the seller kept the mineral rights. Apparently sand is a mineral, and the city has to pay for the sand off their own property to bury the trash. It is laughable, sad as it is!

State owns all wildlife on private lands, but has no responsibility for damage to crops. Know what a herd of elk does to a pivot of soybeans? (Too bad, not our problem.)

We could hold a peaceful demonstration on the freeway.....hold our breath and use an umbrella to keep sunshine off.
Black umbrellas matter!

Aren't we already when you look at ozone and global warming inspired regulations and taxes?

Osky

Black Umbrellas Matter! BUM

I have mixed feeling on this particular issue.
I commercial salmon fish on Bristol Bay and I've hunted in the area of the proposed mine; I'm also involved in the mineral exploration business.

I really would prefer that there not be a mine in this area mainly due to the influx of people that will result, but that's kind of selfish on my part, the locals in southwest Alaska really need the jobs a mine like the Pebble would create; welfare and other government handouts don't count for much in my opinion.

The potential for pollution that might effect the salmon runs will be addressed in the permitting process. Under the Obama administration Northern Dynasty, the Pebble operator wasn't even allowed to apply for the permits. let's let the permitting and evaluation process work it's way through. I really have my doubts that the evaluation process will show that a mine will be economical anyway. But to be fair we have to let them continue with the process.

The main opponent of the project, Bob Gillam (net worth $700 million), a Republican by the way, has a private lodge in the area. He has used the same scare tactics, lies, and misleading propaganda methods that anti-trappers use in order to convince the general public that trapping is bad. It is really galls me to see trappers, hunters, and fishermen fall into using the same tactics that they abhor.

The thing that worries me the most is potential for a seismic catastrophe.

Without the Pogo and Fort Knox mines here in the Interior there would be a lot more unemployed. They both have injected
millions into the economy for many years now. After all GOLD and OIL is what Alaska lives on.

Is Pebble Mine in an isolated area, or in a somewhat populated area? One can imagine
the legal posturing taking place since this began.

Isolated

^^^^^^^^
White17
The main problem a major seismic event might create is a tailing impoundment failure. In the past some tailing dam failures have been catastrophic. Of course those are the incidents that opponents of the Pebble project always point to. However, many new technologies have been developed for treating tailings that greatly reduce or completely eliminate the possibility of a tailing impoundment failure. That being said, is why we have these evaluation processes.

In the past a tailing dam was built across a valley and the tailings (a slurry of finely ground rock and water) were merely piped into the impoundment. Of course it's easy to see what happens where a tailing dam like this is breached. Recent developments with de-watering tailings, at times with the addition of a binding agents, have made it possible to create stable tailings disposal.

Another concern is that remnant sulfides in the tailings such as iron pyrite will oxidize over time, this could create acidic runoff. If test show this might occur, it might be possible to mitigate for this by the addition of lime (portland cement) to the tailings. The basic Ph of the lime can neutralize the acid potential of the sulfides as well as provide a binding agent. These new techniques do create additional costs though, and will effect the economics of a mine ever being feasible.

Right mark. It is the potential for tailing impoundment failure that concerns me.


Where I live, at the confluence of two rivers, one of them is a biological desert except for beaver. It is the consequence of a gold mine in the headwaters of that watershed. The runoff of mercury in the old days. Technology has changed a lot since then but I can't imagine designing an impoundment that will deal adequately with 8-9 magnitude quake in the area. It wouldn't take a complete failure. Just a leak could devastate BB fisheries

^^^^^^
I guess the point I was trying to make is if the tailings are turned into a somewhat solid mass, and are not able to be mobilized, then there shouldn't be a problem in the future.

Tailings are basically just silt; the concern is; what else is in those tailings that might become mobile, things such as potential for acid, chemicals used in the milling process, etc,. The industry realizes these issues and new technologies have been and are being developed to address these concerns. The anti mining people aren't going to inform the public of these developments though, similar to how the anti trapping folks operate.

Would there be some loss of wildlife habitat? Undoubtedly, but almost any economic development has some negative consequences. I just want an objective process be able to proceed.

I've been through the Fort Knox mine. What an amazing operation. If you haven't taken the tour it is well worth it !

If Alaska govt runs anything like D.C. some state politicians will become suddenly wealthy and the mine will be allowed to proceed.

IMO Its worse here!

It is sad to hear from you that AK's regulations on small mining claims are complicated enough to be a disincentive. My impression has been that these small gold operations were still going on in Alaska, and that they are still obtainable for the hard working man, woman or family.
As for regulatory complexity, with mining it is needed. And I work in the quarry business. Mining is one of the most complex land uses, if not the most complex. Instead of a one-dimensional surface impact, like with home building, it is a three-dimensional impact, including subsurface water and potential oil and gas (here in PA our oil and gas fields start just 100 feet down in some places around Titusville). When it comes to the potential and likely impacts on land, water, air, and wildlife resources from a mine this size, the regulations and bonding had better be up to the task, because the cost will be astronomical. All I am saying, and I know plenty of other trappers are with me here, is the miners have to shoulder all of the costs. They cannot push off the costs of their mine onto Alaskans and American taxpayers, as has been done most of the time elsewhere. That is fair to expect them to ante up, and not cut and run.

Unfortunately most of the applicable reg process is under federal jurisdiction. Don’tcha know the Feds own 60% of AK?

I always love reading the posts by the east coast reality show Alaska experts before the Alaskans wake up 4 hours later .

The reality of what Pete said is true. Universal regulations which increase operating costs hurt small operations the most. Large corps who sell on the world market simply absorb the cost through scale and increase the price of their gold, because they have the leverage to do it within reason. Small miners only make what they can get, and the cost of environmental compliance has driven many out of business.

I agree with White that the large-scale open pit operation that was first proposed is a bad idea. But I agree with Waggler that there are ways to mine the resource safely. The problem with Pebble is that the mineral concentration is so low that the “rule of scale” is probably the only way to make a profit. At least that’s what they’re saying. The other serious issue is that if additional regulations are made for Pebble (such as cementious solid tailings), the environmentalists will try to make those new rules apply to ALL mines, putting more Mom-and-Pop operations out of business. Remember, the true goal of environmentalists is NO development.

Strange. Looks like marten, wolf, and lynx in those AK traps. Haven't seen much gold and oil leaping up out of the ground into traps. And most Alaskans I have met, well, all, eat food, drink water, and breathe air. Gold and oil? Maybe a means to eating food, but pretty yuck tasting otherwise. Any economic activity that destroys what you have isn't worth calling economic activity. It is self-destruction. I farm, log, and consult to the mining industry, and you can imagine we get criticized for the honey spreader, and for cutting trees, etc. But none of these have the enormous and lasting impacts of something like the Pebble Mine. So long as the owners there are fully bonded, then OK, let them move forward. But if they are not fully bonded, and they are making lots of promises promises, then forget it. Pebble Mine would just be anther cut-and-run resource scam that America has seen repeated for two hundred years.

PA, you might find this interesting. Bonding for the full cost of reclamation is already an Alaska law. Pebble mine, being under federal regs, hasn’t even gotten to the issue of State bonding yet. Of course on a project so humongous, the size of the bond will be a point of contention itself.

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/aml/nlm...ctsinalaska.pdf